Very nice post Cbraver.
Having a lower powered receiver that has all the bells & whistles you want combined with a powerful amp is having the best of both worlds if you don't want the full expense of a prepro/amp combo.
Thanks. I agree, using a receiver's pre-outs works great if someone likes a receiver better than any of the pre-amp options out there. Or if it fits within their budget better, has better processing in their price range, etc, the list could go on forever. There are some affordable pre-amps now too though.
There was a huge improvement when I added a 205wpc Parasound & Outlaw monoblock amps to my receiver, and when I got the Sunfire that's in my signature my surround speakers came to life as well.
I didn't notice as big of an improvement when I added my pre/pro, but there was some added clarity & I wanted matching equipment so I got the prepro.
To date, the most effective change I made to my system was adding a powerful amplifier to the mix that has convinced me that I will never go back to just having a receiver power my speakers.
I think people tend to be a little disappointed when they try different receivers. Good receivers sound pretty much the same. To me, at least. Then you get this itch to try a big amplifier one day and are surprised at the difference. And with some speakers, it really catches you off guard.
The big thing with the consumer amplifiers and receivers is cooling. For high style, WAF, and the fact that most are put in same room equipment stands, they have to stick with conduction cooling. Heat dissapation gets more and more complicated as amplifier power goes up, and I think that is one of the factors in the high cost of the larger consumer amplifiers and a big limiting factor in designing high powered receivers and amplifiers that will last. I hear talk about the Onkyo's getting hot on here, well, that's why. Onkyo wants to give you power, but they have to cool it cost effectively and without fans. If they could cost effectively design their receivers to be higher power without having to fan cool them, then seperates would be less attractive. With seperates, there is more volume for cooling and it opens some doors for more power at a given cost. This is of course ignoring pro-amp options, which are ugly and fan cooled, and probably have the lowest WAF of anything other than subwoofers that look like hotwater heaters/scratching posts... and therefore largely not practical unless you put your equipment in a closet or room with sufficient cooling (which is what I plan on doing one day, a 7.1 system using all pro-amps with everything inside a clear door closet). So, designers have limitations.
Speaker manufacturers know this, and their speakers that will work with the typical 100-140wpc, but they are limited by the power. In consumer audio, dealers will tell their customers to be around what the IEC of the speaker is. If the IEC is 150, then a 130wpc is fine. The real rule of thumb is about twice that, sometimes more, to give room for peaks that loudspeakers are designed to handle. So, that speaker with an IEC of 200... would be properly powered at 400... the amp would last longer, the speakers would be less likely to blow at high volumes (control, clipping), and obviously volume would be easier to achieve.
I guess my point is that the big pictures makes more difference than the small at this point. A lot of speakers have more in them than affordable amplifier technology can provide. There are a ton of great amps out there, which have great SNR, little crosstalk, great freq response and all that jazz ... and the difference are relatively negligible by the time the music hits your ears. Power on the other hand, seems to make a big difference. There are lots of options out there, and the route to take is dependant on too much to say anything along the lines of "receivers are fine, no need for seperates" or vice versa. Application is everything.
