# Reciever vs pre/pro



## jdick2 (Feb 16, 2010)

A little background to help answer this question. I have Paradigm 100s, cc570 and 20s. I use a Marantz mm 9000 for the fronts and Marantz MA500 for each of the surrounds, one of the 9000 channels is gone. I use a yamaha 2600, PS3, Denon 2200 for DVDA, Toshiba hd a35 and a 360, a future purchase is an Oppo 83.

Now my question, should I buy another reciever or a pre/pro to connect everything. I need enough HDMI for all my gear, at least 5.1 analog ins and outs. I don't really want to spend more than a 1000 on either. So please give your opinion on what I should by and why you feel that way.

Thanks

John


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
You could purchase something like Onkyo's TX-SR706 for 429 from Accessories4less and apply the remainder towards buying a used 2 channel amplifier. As a former owner of Studio 100's, I will say they really do come into their own with lots of power.

You could also go with something like the TX-NR1007 which is a current model that has a more powerful amplifier section and 9.2 native. You could then apply the MA-500's to the Studio 100's in a biamp configuration. The amplifiers in the NR1000 should be plenty for your other Speakers. The TX-NR1000 is available for around 1000 Dollars from Accessories4less which is an amazing deal.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Gone are the days where pre pro's offered better processing sound quality. Jacks suggestion is a great start and would compete with most pre-pro setups of today costing many hundreds more.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
I suppose if wanting to keep it under a hard thousand dollar cap and still get a SSP and not AVR, you could get Emotiva UMC-1 for 699. However, this would only leave 300 Dollars to find a 2 channel amplifier. Not impossible, but certainly not easy.

Using a AVR as an SSP will most definitely give you the most value. Moreover the NR1007 offers many more features than the UMC-1 and solves the amplification issue. The TX-SR706 would be the most cost effective way to do this. The situation would be totally different if 1 of your amplifier channels was not out.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> Gone are the days where pre pro's offered better processing sound quality. Jacks suggestion is a great start and would compete with most pre-pro setups of today costing many hundreds more.


Lets not pretend that a all in one unit can still compete with a seperate Processor and amp, its a question of value and limited budget.................the days of seperates performing better are by no means gone but its expensive. If you have the funds seoerates are still better, recievers can ge great if budget is a factor.........they caught up but have not taken the lead as you suggest.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I would be willing to bet that you would not be able to tell a difference between my Onkyo 805 and a pre pro setup costing three times as much.


----------



## selden (Nov 15, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> I would be willing to bet that you would not be able to tell a difference between my Onkyo 805 and a pre pro setup costing three times as much.


What you hear is only part of the reason for using separates. 

Some technical reasons include better cooling (due to having less circuitry and fewer internal obstructions to air flow) which can lead to better reliability, 

And one must not forget the emotional reasons.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
I agree that with an SSP not having an amplifier section that they usually run cooler and conserve less energy. Even if none of the channels of an AVR are used and strictly used as an SSP, the amplifiers are still active. Years ago, the Denon AVR-4800 offered the option of turning off all the amplifiers for this occasion. Unfortunately, no AVR's that I know of offer this currently.

Discounting the added heat and consumption, I too think that the difference between an SSP and an AVR used as an SSP is slight at best. A corollary to this is that it really is nice, in the event of amplifier failure, to have backup amplifiers from the AVR.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> I would be willing to bet that you would not be able to tell a difference between my Onkyo 805 and a pre pro setup costing three times as much.


I would take that bet............and your money:neener:


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Think what you want but the facts speak for themselves.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
What can be said is that many of us here, including the Owner of the site, use AVR's as SSP's. In truth, when I purchased my TX-SR875, had the waiting list not been insane I would have purchased the Integra DTC-9.8 SSP at the time. All I can say is I did not want to wait Months even when I have enough Amplifiers, that in the case of failure of my 5 channel amplifier, I own enough Amplifiers to have zero service interruption. While the 9.8 measures slightly better, it was not enough of a difference to justify the wait or the desire to change.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> Think what you want but the facts speak for themselves.


What fact is that? So far you have only told me the world as you see it, if you think you can claim any Processor amp combo at 3x the price would be impossible to distinguish from your Onkyo then by all means live under that assumption but I am promising you I can proove you wrong.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I'm not saying just my 805, there are many receivers in the $600 and up range that have top of the line DACs and would preform just as well as a high end pre pro and also offer alot more features like auto room correction and 7.1 pre outs.
Ten years ago this was not possible but with cost of parts being low and high sales volume receivers have become as well built as anything else.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
Differentiating between SSP's and AVR's when used as a preamp is not an easy task. With the high quality DAC's in upper level AVR's, the distances are closing. Add in that SSP's and upper level AVR's use Audyssey MultEQ XT and Trinnov Room EQ and the ability to differentiate becomes that much harder.

All that matter is that the individual is happy with their system. If using a dedicated SSP brings sonic bliss, then nothing makes me happier.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

Still dont agree, you can take the DAC the "room correction" (some are hardly that) the preouts and anything else you want but I can assure you what really many times makes a difference is the amp, that small little section tucked away in a reciver often just cant compete with a seperate amp dedicated to best sound, and the recievers 40lbs worth of goodies stuffed into a box many times wont compete with a Processor and its focused electronics that perform better, add the seperate amp to that processor where its also a dedicated unit and it shouldnt be so hard to see why these will likely perform better.
I still will take that bet no matter how convinced you are....................cheers


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello, 
Wait a second, we are talking about using the AVR strictly as an SSP. Not saying that separates sound the same as an AVR. Am saying that when an AVR is used as an SSP by using outboard amplification for all channels, the differences are not that great. Again when the AVR is used with outboard amplification for all channels.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

Ok even so take a Rotel or a NAD and if they dont offer room correction then defeat it on AVR and I still think there would be a sonic difference. My experience tells me I bet I can hear it, yours says you cant so we just see things differenty. Who really cares anyway? Its not like my view or opinions are a threat to how you enjoy what you have.


----------



## victor tubeman (Feb 3, 2010)

Hi John,
I would recommend staying with an AVR in your budget range ($1000) for simplicity and ok sound quality.
With regard to AVR,s and SSP,I have used AVR as a SSP with pre outs to power amps,and then various SSP only with 4 power amps for improved sound quality.AVR,s even when only used as a SSP may improve depending on amps and speakers but digital noise,from avr itself and other video components will effect sound quality.Volume control is the next problem,(in the analog domain) even the Theta Casablanca III,best sounding SSP cannot match a dedicated 2 channel pre amp.(yes still no HDMI).Seperating audio and video components on different circuits will help audio and video too.
(cable boxes the worst).
The advantages of eg,the denon ssp,is that problems with HDMI etc will be fixed promply,the hi end SSP take time and may not fix it in good time?
In my own system no ssp sounded very good,but to my suprise at the time,analog out to dedicated
2 chan and 6 chan pre even with cheap player improved sound over the Theta by a good margin.(I,m upgrading to top marantz bluray player later) This and some very expensive tube monoblocks of course help(big time)
Regards Victor.


----------



## greglett (Dec 10, 2006)

The one thing I don't see here concerning the AVR vs SSP discussion is speaker matching.
If you have speakers that need lots of power the AVR might not have
Enough pounch to give you the SQ you would want.
However if the speakers are properly matched to the AVR
Your system can sound top notch.
I have heard many 2 channel systems with very expensive
Seperates get blown away by integrated amps all because
The components don't match well.
I find in my HT setup using an AVR I like the sound much more 
When I use book shelves as my LR for example. I found the
System to have much more punch.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

chadnliz said:


> Ok even so take a Rotel or a NAD and if they dont offer room correction then defeat it on AVR and I still think there would be a sonic difference. My experience tells me I bet I can hear it, yours says you cant so we just see things differenty. Who really cares anyway? Its not like my view or opinions are a threat to how you enjoy what you have.


Hello,
Chad, I just wanted to be clear that I was speaking of using outboard amplification and having the AVR only act as an SSP. As I have said, had the wait for the DTC-9.8 not been excessive, I would have purchased one. 

I do find that if you have outboard amplification for all channels it is advantageous to use a SSP over an AVR. I just do not find the differences to be huge.

If your remarks are written for me, I certainly feel no threat about my beliefs being challenged. I just wanted to make sure the debate was properly framed. That is not that an AVR can compete well with separates, but an AVR with outboard amplification for all channels can. Certainly not feeling this to be a threat. Just a discussion.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I do think that some of this misconception that a pre pro is "better" than a receiver being used as a processor only and using outboard amplification is the old "if you pay more for it it must be better". A perfect example of this is Lexicon or Bose, lots of people buy there equipment but are they better? in some cases but most of the time not particularly with Bose. Another good example is the new Denon BluRay player its at least 4 times as much as the Oppo BD83 and is just the Oppo with a different faceplate.
The stigma that comes with owning a pre pro can get in the way of the reality that audibley their is little to no difference if comparing to a receiver with pre outs costing $1000 and running external amps.


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

I hardly think framing Bose and Lexicon in the same text is appropriate and is a bit of a stretch, yes I own a couple of items from Lexicon but they have always been known for having pioneering technology in surround sound and having well reviewed and well built gear. Up till the recent stumble with the Blu Ray player they were worthy of praise for their products and quality........as well as sound.
Bose on the other hand does nothing close to what Lexicon does and is focused on an entirely different and somewhat audio ignorant public. From the earliest surround Processor Lexicon built to its multi format players (up till this blu Ray unit) they have always offered great sound and even though it comes at a premium it still is a good value.
I am not at all offended by this as I didnt pay for my gear, it was a gift from my father so I dont have a reason to take it personally, I just think Bose and Lexicon are not in same league.


----------



## Matteo (Jul 12, 2006)

There are a lot of opinions out there, but mine is the the only correct one. Just kidding of course. I have had a few different setups and even compared my pre to a denon with a dedicated amp, side by side. I had my family (all non-dorks, unlike me) do a listening test. They had no idea what I was doing while switching from one setup to the other. 
Anyway, the general consensus, was that the didicated pre was better. Now, this wasn't a perfect test and I only tested stereo for ease of changing cables. I was using a Denon that was top of the line 7 years ago (don't remember the model) and an Atlantic Technology, also about 7 years old(clone of Outlaw, Sherbourn) along with an Atlantic Tech A 2000 7x120 amp. The speakers were Klipsch RF 83's for the first day and Atlantic Technologiey 6200 system about a week later. Both times I, and those in the "study", seemed to give a slight edge to the dedicated pre AT. The difference wasn't great, but it seemed to be there. I am not offering this up as a testamony to buying a pre and I know I may hear a lot of nay-sayers telling me the test was flawed. I have no doubt it was in many ways not perfect. 
That being said, I wouldn't have spent an extra $1000 for the difference. Maybe $200, maybe $500. If I had the money, yes, I would buy a pre and a dedicated amp and live with the fact that I was offering my system the best possible chance of sounding wonderful. Every little thing you can do to make a system better might help, might not. I currently use a Sherwood R-972 and the same Atlantic Amp I have had for years and I LOVE my system. I will probably keep my pre for a long time and use it as a stereo processor. Good luck.
Matteo


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Matteo said:


> Anyway, the general consensus, was that the didicated pre was better. Now, this wasn't a perfect test and I only tested stereo for ease of changing cables. I was using a Denon that was top of the line 7 years ago (don't remember the model) and an Atlantic Technology, also about 7 years old(clone of Outlaw, Sherbourn) along with an Atlantic Tech A 2000 7x120 amp.


Yes but that was testing equipment that is over 7 years old. Mid level receivers have come leaps and bounds forward in the last three years. The DACs used in most are now the top of the line and the components used are much better quality.
My Yamaha RX V995 was the top of the line in 1999 and my Onkyo 805 blows the doors off of it for sound quality. The Denons and Yamaha's in the same range are all much better than before.
using a receiver as a pre-pro with external amps is no different than using a dedicated Processor.


----------



## chadnliz (Feb 12, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> Yes but that was testing equipment that is over 7 years old. Mid level receivers have come leaps and bounds forward in the last three years. The DACs used in most are now the top of the line and the components used are much better quality.
> My Yamaha RX V995 was the top of the line in 1999 and my Onkyo 805 blows the doors off of it for sound quality. The Denons and Yamaha's in the same range are all much better than before.
> using a receiver as a pre-pro with external amps is no different than using a dedicated Processor.


Yes but you act like Processors have been froazein in time and have not advanced just like Recievers have.....all things being equal it isnt a stretch to think Processors still offer better sound. No matter how many times you say it I still dont agree that any reciever used a pre will sound as good as a dedicated pre..............I know you believe it but I dont think its true.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

chadnliz said:


> I still dont agree that any reciever used a pre will sound as good as a dedicated pre..............I know you believe it but I dont think its true.


I never said any receiver just ones that are priced in the $700+ range.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

chadnliz said:


> Yes but you act like Processors have been froazein in time and have not advanced just like Recievers have.....all things being equal it isnt a stretch to think Processors still offer better sound. No matter how many times you say it I still dont agree that any reciever used a pre will sound as good as a dedicated pre..............I know you believe it but I dont think its true.


 Simple enough. Start by whipping out an ocilliscope and looking at the differences in the electrical waveform going to the speakers. 

Once you've shown a *difference*, we can come up with some tests to determine which has better fedility.

Lacking an oscilliscope, we can use a calibrated mic and sine-wave. Lots of software for that. I should have mine in the next couple months to do such testing at my house.


----------



## Matteo (Jul 12, 2006)

> Yes but that was testing equipment that is over 7 years old. Mid level receivers have come leaps and bounds forward in the last three years. The DACs used in most are now the top of the line and the components used are much better quality.
> My Yamaha RX V995 was the top of the line in 1999 and my Onkyo 805 blows the doors off of it for sound quality. The Denons and Yamaha's in the same range are all much better than before.
> using a receiver as a pre-pro with external amps is no different than using a dedicated Processor.
> 
> ...


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

Matteo said:


> So Tonyvdb, let's do a scenario. You have unlimited funds and want the best HT you can buy. Do you purchase a receiver or dedicated processor and amp?


 That depends on what my other criteria are. If money is completely irrellevent, I'd base heavily on "coolness" and interface, because sound quality doesn't vary much. 



> If you say a receiver, I think I will have to say your nose is growing. Do you believe that a 10k dollar processor offers no advantage, strictly on the sound and video basis, over a 2k receiver? I am not being argumentative, it is that I think there is some advantage. Now whether it is worth the price, that is another factor.


 We'd have to look at a lot more (specific units, speakers driven, etc). But speaking generally "yes, I believe that there is no sound quality advantage at any price above a reasonably high-quality AVR powering an appropriate system".

OTOH, if money is no object then there is no AVR with enough amperage to power the system I'd build: and I'd buy seperate pre "because it's cool" and because the unused aps on the AVR would bug me. I'm a little -retentive. 



> A lot of "audiophiles" choose seperates. Maybe they are dumb and are wasting their money, but I have to think they get more satisfaction out of their system, otherwise, they wouldn't do it. All the processor companies would go out of business. I guess time will tell.


 Do you think that $5000 power cords offer an advantage over standard ones? I don't. Those companies are not out of business either.

I'm not trying to put all buyers of seperates in the same class as people with exotic power cables (BTW, assuming I still have unlimited money I don't care about: I will be buying the prettiest power cables: which may cost a lot), but there's not a SQ advantage of a pre over a moderate-to-high-end AVR.



> Maybe the difference is strictly placebo. For some that works. I personally, like to know I have the best quality I can afford. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. I think this is basically the same debate as which is better, an Onkyo or a Denon? Both are good, but people will argue for both. Is there a right or wrong? We will never know, but I do know it takes 1,123 licks to get to the center of a tootsie-pop.


 For me it's all opoprtunity costs. To each their own.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
The differences between a well engineered AVR and an SSP when the AVR is strictly used as an SSP has come pretty close to the point of diminishing returns. Again, many of us here including the Owner of HTS Sonnie have chosen to use an AVR as an SSP.

I do agree that in a mega Dollar installation, most would use an SSP. With outboard amplification being a given, there is not the need for the added heat and power consumption of an AVR. Moreover, things like 12 volt triggers are usually available on flagship AVR's and not all of them. Again, that does not necessarily mean the SSP sounds better. It is just things like triggers are commonly used in megabuck installations and few AVR's have them.

Again, had I not been so impatient, I would have gone with a SSP. It was just that Onkyo's HDMI 1.3 SSP's were about impossible to find at the time I was wanting a 1.3 Controller so I went with the TX-SR875. It offered the same video processing and Audyssey MultEQ XT and almost the same design as the DTC-9.8 and PR-SC885. It really was Audyssey MultEQ XT that I was most impatient for.

2 years later, I still feel no need to upgrade to another AVR/SSP. I am waiting for the upcoming HDMI 1.4 SSP's before making an upgrade. I could not be more happy with my TX-SR875 even though I have never used it for anything more than an SSP. I have never even listened to the amplifiers in the unit
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## jdick2 (Feb 16, 2010)

I want to thank every for such great information. I decided to get a Denon 3310. I got a good deal on it when I bought my Anthem MCA 30 from my guy.

John


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Matt and Chad, I think you need to remember that part of the reason processors cost more is not because they use "better" parts but that they do not sell nearly as many units as receivers do. High sales volume equals lower costs for the consumer. I highly doupt that the processors we are talking about use any better DACs than the receiver I or others have. The chassis may be built a bit heaver on a $2500 processor but who cares given the fact that non of us move them around once they are on or in a rack.
Integra for example makes a fantastic processor but it costs twice as much as the comparable receiver to what I have and doesn't offer any real sound quality improvement and then you still have to buy the amps to drive the speakers.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
The other issue with purchasing SSP's from smaller or boutique High End Companies is the problems with keeping up with the latest technologies. 

Companies like Denon or Onkyo have economy of scale working in their favor in respect to being on the forefront of the newest technologies. Be it Audyssey DSX or Pro Logic IIZ, smaller Companies struggle to keep up. 

It is only just now that many of the smaller Companies are offering HDMI 1.3 SSP's. An example being Emotiva's long delayed UMC-1 finally seeing the light of day.

The problem with this is while the smaller Companies are finally offering 1.3, Denon, Onkyo, etc are preparing their HDMI 1.4 units to hit the market.
Cheers,
JJ


----------

