The SEPARATES vs. AVR Thread

[sterling shoote]

I see the appeal going with the flagship Marantz 8000 Pre-pro series, especially for $2500 when Retail is $4K. But regarding sound quality, is there a difference at the end of the day?

So what if one DAC has a SNR of 130dB vs 125dB or THD of 0.0001% vs 0.0005% at the end of the day?

Unless the reason is more than just SQ, right?

I’m not giving up my Denon AVP-A1HDCI Pre-Pro any time soon.

I like the way you think. I'm still using an 18 year old pre/pro from Sony. It's the last pre/pro they manufactured. It's only 5.1 and has no HDMI inputs, just optical and IEC 958 S/PDIF; but, I like it so much I see no need to replace it. If I do eventually replace I will seek a pre/pro which is soldered with whiskerless solder if I can find one, otherwise I might get a very inexpensive AVR since without whiskerless solder the life of the electronics device will only be about 10 years.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I like the way you think. I'm still using an 18 year old pre/pro from Sony. It's the last pre/pro they manufactured. It's only 5.1 and has no HDMI inputs, just optical and IEC 958 S/PDIF; but, I like it so much I see no need to replace it. If I do eventually replace I will seek a pre/pro which is soldered with whiskerless solder if I can find one, otherwise I might get a very inexpensive AVR since without whiskerless solder the life of the electronics device will only be about 10 years.

Yeah, it's too bad SONY doesn't make Pre-pros anymore.

But once you have a flagship pre-pro that you absolutely love and it continues to serve you well, I see no reason to replace it.

I really do hope my Denon Pre-pro lasts another 30 years.

I don't know anything about soldering. But do you think that most of these Pre-pros today (like the Marantz, Rotel, etc.) have "whiskerless solder"? And if they don't, then these $4K Pre-pros probably won't last longer than about 10 years either?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

in the multi channel realm perhaps but for those us in a two channel world for music, not at all. A great pre-amp will remain a great pre-amp.

Analog 2Ch Preamps will never become "obsolete" for sure.

But I think that even with MCH Pre-pros these days, the A/V Tech is advanced enough that I don't think they will become obsolete any time soon.

For most people (TV size and distance), I think 1080p is about as good as it gets (of course, not all 1080p are created equal).

And for Discrete MCH, I think DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD Lossless audio is as good as it gets. They can add a million surround speakers all they want. But the salient speakers will still be the front 3 speakers and subwoofers.

Unless they completely do away with HDMI, I don't see these Pre-pros with HDMI, 1080p, DTS-HD MA, and Dolby TrueHD becoming obsolete any time soon.

I think most everything else is just gimmick to sell.

 

[Irvrobinson]

If I do eventually replace I will seek a pre/pro which is soldered with whiskerless solder if I can find one, otherwise I might get a very inexpensive AVR since without whiskerless solder the life of the electronics device will only be about 10 years.

You're exaggerating this problem. First of all, SnPb solder is not "whiskerless", it simply reduces the incidence of solder whiskers. Second, your statement implies a 100% failure rate for electronics after 10 years, which is simply not the case. Capacitor failure is a bigger problem in consumer electronics than solder whiskers.

 

[PENG]

What was wrong with the 7000 series?

- Rich

My guess is, nothing in terms of audible sound quality, other than they tend to have inferior components relative to the 8000 series. If they would save a few cents to use the AK4458 instead the AK4490 in the 8000 series and the top Denon AVR models, you can expect they might have taken the same approach to other components. The DAC choice to me is just a tell tale thing, but I know few people would take notice of such little difference and read into it further. It is not just a one off thing either, in the older models, such as my AV8801 vs AV7701/02 and the Denon AVR-4520, you will find the same kind of difference.

That's why imo, the top D AVR models are better deals than the 2nd from the top M AVP/Amp combo. If you look at available bench test results, the top D AVR amps also showed better results than the Marantz MM7000 and even the MM8000 series amps.

I am not recommending the 8000 series either, and would only consider one of the previous year model at deep discounts if it comes with the full 3 year manufacturer warranty.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

In other news, I still have 20 year old banana plugs from monster cable the mortal enemy of AH, but they just fit so perfect on my Yamahas so I won’t replace them.

Well, I think if you can get Monster Cable, Kimber Kable, Audioquest, etc. for a good price, then I don't think they are anybody's mortal enemy.

I've used Kimber Kable every since I got into this hobby. I like them because they look really cool.

I think the message is not to spend $1K on speakers and $2K on cables.

But if you have the money and you spend $20K on speakers and electronics and you want to spend $500 on cables, that's cool too.

The concept of an avr with an amp being a better value over a marketed pre pro has been one of the core values on AH for as long as I remember. But nobody ever said when money is no object that having the best isn’t a wonderful thing....

Gene may be replacing his flagship Denon AVP-A1HDCI Pre-pro (the same one I plan on using forever if possible) with another flagship Pre-pro. But I don't think he's willing to replace it with an AVR.

Maybe the real question is, if Pre-pros do really sound better than AVR (used only as a pre-pro), how significant is the difference in reality (like in a blind test). And is this difference "worth" the money?

If these $4-7K Pre-pros don't have "whiskerless solder" and they only last 10 years or less, is it still worth the money?

Of course, "worth" is different for everyone.

 

[PENG]

Analog 2Ch Preamps will never become "obsolete" for sure.

But I think that even with MCH Pre-pros these days, the A/V Tech is advanced enough that I don't think they will become obsolete any time soon.

For most people (TV size and distance), I think 1080p is about as good as it gets (of course, not all 1080p are created equal).

And for Discrete MCH, I think DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD Lossless audio is as good as it gets. They can add a million surround speakers all they want. But the salient speakers will still be the front 3 speakers and subwoofers.

Unless they completely do away with HDMI, I don't see these Pre-pros with HDMI, 1080p, DTS-HD MA, and Dolby TrueHD becoming obsolete any time soon.

I think most everything else is just gimmick to sell.

I agree, once you get the lossless format, the "sound quality" aspects that most people can benefit from, are basically covered. After that you can chase the "effect aspects" with money, time, and space that may have no value to a lot of people.

One thing that I know you don't believe in or care about is REQ. To me, if someone comes up with a system that is more effective, flexible and easy to use (like turning on/off, making selections by just cycling a button etc.), it would be worthwhile to trade in whatever one has.

Such REQ system should include, but not limited to the following:

0. NO Down sampling, or at least make it optional to down sampling to 48 kHz only if processing power needs to be freed up for enabling certain other optional non essential features.
1. User selection of the upper frequency limit where EQ would have no effects.
2. Ability to store alternative EQ data set for the "main seat" positions, not just position "1".
3. User can select any of the data set in 2. depending on his/her seat position.
4. In addition to 2. and 3. above, system will provide a default position that the system determines to have the best overall effect.
5. Fully editable, within reasons..
6. Provide user selectable limits with hard stop/final limit set by the factory, for boosts, to avoid damages.
7. High resolution displays that show the before/after effects (a must), better still (a tall order), can generate REW like kind of graphs (even if that requires the use of a PC).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

That's why imo, the top D AVR models are better deals than the 2nd from the top M AVP/Amp combo. If you look at available bench test results, the top D AVR amps also showed better results than the Marantz MM7000 and even the MM8000 series amps.

So higher-end AVR have better higher-end parts (DAC and others) than lower-end Pre-pro?

I absolutely agree.

I should have included in the poll "Higher-end AVRs sound better than Lower-end Pre-pros".

But somehow I think the majority of audiophiles still think a $2K Marantz Pre-pro sounds better than a $6K AVR.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I agree, once you get the lossless format, the "sound quality" aspects that most people can benefit from, are basically covered. After that you can chase the "effect aspects" with money, time, and space that may have no value to a lot of people.

One thing that I know you don't believe in or care about is REQ. To me, if someone comes up with a system that is more effective, flexible and easy to use (like turning on/off, making selections by just cycling a button etc.), it would be worthwhile to trade in whatever one has.

It's impossible to agree on everything because we all have different experiences.

And we all have different experiences because we all have different electronics, speakers, and rooms.

I feel like I've heard enough of different types of REQs to conclude that they don't seem to significantly improve the overall sound quality for me. And it's not just my rooms. I've heard them at friends' and relatives' houses and dealers.

The good REQs seem to not "harm" anything, but if they don't significantly improve anything, then I just don't see the point.

I may be surprised one of these days.

For the longest time, I absolutely didn't care for ANY kind of EQ until I finally tried Audyssey Dynamic EQ. So you never know.

 

[sterling shoote]

You're exaggerating this problem. First of all, SnPb solder is not "whiskerless", it simply reduces the incidence of solder whiskers. Second, your statement implies a 100% failure rate for electronics after 10 years, which is simply not the case. Capacitor failure is a bigger problem in consumer electronics than solder whiskers.

The recycle code stamped onto the latest lens I have from Nikon indicates a 10 year life, which is all about solder. I don't think I'm exaggerating, just stating the facts as I understand them. But, I sure appreciate your expertise on this subject, as it implies I have nothing to worry about, that's to say, I should just buy my electronics without any thought about the leadfree solder used these days becoming a concern down the road. Thanks.

 

[RichB]

Such REQ system should include, but not limited to the following:

1. User selection of the upper frequency limit where EQ would have no effects.

This is critical and the new Audyssey and Dirac Pro allow this.
However, I have found that this is not as easy as it sounds. By definition, all frequencies must be processed to maintain the timing. For some reason, even with the cutoff set to 30Hz there is a change in the sound between Dirac enabled and not enabled on the XMC-1. PEQ does not have this same effect.

2. Ability to store alternative EQ data set for the "main seat" positions, not just position "1".
3. User can select any of the data set in 2. depending on his/her seat position.
4. In addition to 2. and 3. above, system will provide a default position that the system determines to have the best overall effect.

I think we will see more speaker presets in processors moving forward but likely limited to high-end products and may have more to do with Atmos speaker mapping and support for additional speakers, Wide's, for example.

5. Fully editable, within reasons..

The curves and "curtains" are editable in Dirac but little else.

6. Provide user selectable limits with hard stop/final limit set by the factory, for boosts, to avoid damages.

I believe this is built in to most systems but since they do not know the application, there is no guarantee.

7. High resolution displays that show the before/after effects (a must), better still (a tall order), can generate REW like kind of graphs (even if that requires the use of a PC).

To me this is a must.

With the current state of REQ, REW and PEQ is the best way to tame room modes without introducing other side effects. IMO, REQ is a cost benefit choice. Each system and listener can make their own choices. PEQ is a better tool used with a good mic and also REW.

Concerning REQ, Toole discusses this at 36:00 minutes:

- Rich

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You're exaggerating this problem. First of all, SnPb solder is not "whiskerless", it simply reduces the incidence of solder whiskers. Second, your statement implies a 100% failure rate for electronics after 10 years, which is simply not the case. Capacitor failure is a bigger problem in consumer electronics than solder whiskers.

You feel these new $4K Pre-pros will last much longer than 10 years?

Bryston offers a 20YR warranty on their analog amps and preamps, but only a 5YR warranty on their $10K pre-pro.

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=BYSP3

Hmm, it seems the $10K Bryston Pre-pro actually has the dirty DSP's and Dolby Volume to compress the sound levels for late night watching. Gross.

What's up with that?

The $800 Denon DN-700AVP Pre-pro doesn't even have any DSP or Dolby Volume. Does that mean it's more "pure" ?

 

[Irvrobinson]

The recycle code stamped onto the latest lens I have from Nikon indicates a 10 year life, which is all about solder. I don't think I'm exaggerating, just stating the facts as I understand them. But, I sure appreciate your expertise on this subject, as it implies I have nothing to worry about, that's to say, I should just buy my electronics without any thought about the leadfree solder used these days becoming a concern down the road. Thanks.

By my definition of expertise, I'm not an expert on soldering strategies and materials. Nonetheless, I have worked in the computer systems engineering field for decades, including hardware, and lead-free circuits have been a concern for years. My point isn't that solder whiskers aren't a factor, but it is only one of many factors which determine an electronic product's lifetime, and I haven't seen evidence that they're a primary failure mode. Mechanical problems (like from potentiometers and switches), environmental aging from heat and contamination, component aging (like capacitors), and assembly quality are all factors too, and probably greater risks than solder whiskers at the voltage levels which consumer electronics operate.

Electronic longevity has multiple factors, and solder whiskers are just one of the bunch, and probably not in the top three.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You feel these new $4K Pre-pros will last much longer than 10 years?

Bryston offers a 20YR warranty on their analog amps and preamps, but only a 5YR warranty on their $10K pre-pro.

As I mentioned in a previous post, a pre-pro has a lot more complexity than an amp, so the chance of failure sooner is higher. Also, the difficulty of getting replacement ASICs for pre-pros over 20 years might make a warranty that long difficult to support.

I think a lot of pre-pros will last longer than 10 years.

 

[PENG]

With the current state of REQ, REW and PEQ is the best way to tame room modes without introducing other side effects. IMO, REQ is a cost benefit choice. Each system and listener can make their own choices. PEQ is a better tool used with a good mic and also REW.

Concerning REQ, Toole discusses this at 36:00 minutes:

- Rich

I read that review many times and I always, and still have trouble with his claim that people are not measuring what we are hearing, without really explaining what the heck he's talking about. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have trouble using measurements apparently using similar tools and methods in his studies. It will be nice to put him, and the other PhDs such as those from Dirac, Anthem, Audyssey, Trinnov, Roomperfect, and REW's John M (probably not a PhD) in the same room for a good discussion/debate. By the way, he seems to emphasize a lot about the importance of flat response, so I highly doubt he would put a lot of weight in the separates preamp/amp vs AVR thing.

 

[RichB]

I read that review many times and I always, and still have trouble with his claim that people are not measuring what we are hearing, without really explaining what the heck he's talking about.

I watched it without subtitles.
The measurements are on and off axis which seems better than only on-axis. The Harman methodology has produced a set of measurement goals and correlated them with trained listener double-blind-tested preferences. The resulting aspects of performance are used in their speaker designs. The presentation is simplified for this video but conceptually straight forward.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have trouble using measurements apparently using similar tools and methods in his studies.

It’s a bunch of weird tools that include anechoic chambers, microphones, stuff that spins speakers, and other medieval torture devices.

It will be nice to put him, and the other PhDs such as those from Dirac, Anthem, Audyssey, Trinnov, Roomperfect, and REW's John M (probably not a PhD) in the same room for a good discussion/debate. By the way, he seems to emphasize a lot about the importance of flat response, so I highly doubt he would put a lot of weight in the separates preamp/amp vs AVR thing.

I believe everything that folks with PhD's say, especially when they are selling me something.
These products are amazing, they can turn a bathroom into a recording studio

A picture of FT's system shows a ML amp. He probably got a good deal

- Rich

 

[PENG]

I watched it without subtitles.
The measurements are on and off axis which seems better than only on-axis. The Harman methodology has produced a set of measurement goals and correlated them with trained listener double-blind-tested preferences. The resulting aspects of performance are used in their speaker designs. The presentation is simplified for this video but conceptually straight forward.



It’s a bunch of weird tools that include anechoic chambers, microphones, stuff that spins speakers, and other medieval torture devices.



I believe everything that folks with PhD's say, especially when they are selling me something.
These products are amazing, they can turn a bathroom into a recording studio

A picture of FT's system shows a ML amp. He probably got a good deal

- Rich

Thank you Rich, but I wasn't questioning their methodology on the DBT he talked about in that video, and I also read about the spinning table, that to me is a great practically ideas.

The only part I have questions about is his "claim" that the REQs built in with AVP/AVRs (presumably he referred not to Harmon's own, that is not yet commercialized) were not measuring what we actually hear, therefore the results would not "fix" even the room related issues (let alone the speaker issues), yet in his listening tests using different speakers, they also seemed to try and correlate the predicted results and the actual results with measurements that basically used the same "weird tools" (mics, perhaps different kinds, or more mics, but still mics, etc.) you talked about. Again, my questions are to do with his critique on REQs and REQs only. I am sure he knows what he's talking about, but for ordinary people like me, it leaves a lot for guess work. My own REW plots and listening experience indicate to me REQ (admittedly I only have experience with Audyssey) can work, and Audyssey does address some of my room related issues.

He also used the word "perfect", yet I have never read any of the REQ founders claiming their REQ software would fix anything perfectly. I believe REQ improvements are incremental, and how much they can do would understandably vary, depending on the specific application and room acoustic characteristics.

 

[RichB]

Thank you Rich, but I wasn't questioning their methodology on the DBT he talked about in that video, and I also read about the spinning table, that to me is a great practically ideas.

The only part I have questions about is his "claim" that the REQs built in with AVP/AVRs (presumably he referred not to Harmon's own, that is not yet commercialized) were not measuring what we actually hear, therefore the results would not "fix" even the room related issues (let alone the speaker issues), yet in his listening tests using different speakers, they also seemed to try and correlate the predicted results and the actual results with measurements that basically used the same "weird tools" (mics, perhaps different kinds, or more mics, but still mics, etc.) you talked about. Again, my questions are to do with his critique on REQs and REQs only. I am sure he knows what he's talking about, but for ordinary people like me, it leaves a lot for guess work. My own REW plots and listening experience indicate to me REQ (admittedly I only have experience with Audyssey) can work, and Audyssey does address some of my room related issues.

He also used the word "perfect", yet I have never read any of the REQ founders claiming their REQ software would fix anything perfectly. I believe REQ improvements are incremental, and how much they can do would understandably vary, depending on the specific application and room acoustic characteristics.

I don't recall the name of the Harman product but it is used with the JBL professional products. They are also working on sound field management which, as I understand it, optimizes the response using all speakers working together.

I see the point that a speaker with uneven off-axis performance cannot be optimized. But Dirac an others have room curves that permits which can be used as supped up tone-controls. REQ can improve the system but I also believe there should after measurements. The results should also be compared with a Pure Direct mode (level matched if possible).

My preference has been to get a great pair of speakers and electronics and if it aint broke...

- Rich

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

By the way, he seems to emphasize a lot about the importance of flat response, so I highly doubt he would put a lot of weight in the separates preamp/amp vs AVR thing.

Exactly what I’m thinking since AVRs have FR that are like +/- 0.1dB 20Hz-20kHz.

 

[sterling shoote]

Someday, preamps and power amps might just not be necessary for multi-channel pleasure, just a smart phone and active speakers. That day is actually here right now. With a couple of JBL Charge speakers and my iPhone I can enjoy pretty much any thing ever recorded at any time and in any place I have the desire to listen. It sounds really good.