Thinking about changing to a preamp

[little wing]

Hello folks,

I have a Yamaha 2500 that I am using as a pre-amp. I have a chance to purchase a used Anthem AVM30 at a good price. My question is: does anyone have any experience with these two pieces of equipment? Do you think there would be a noticable difference in sound quality going from a reciever to a true pre-amp. The Anthem does not have HDMI switching, but I don't need that. I am basically looking for better sound quality. Thanks for any input.

 

[Nomo]

Depends on how good the price is on the Anthem.
Like it or not, a receiver can be as good or better a pre-pro as a dedicated pre-amp. Even a $500 one, depending on your needs.
Something to keep in mind is the fact you are paying a premium for a pre-amp simply because the lack of mass production present with a receiver such as Yamaha, Denon or Onkyo to name a few.
That Anthem is a great looking unit. Will you hear a difference? Probably not.
What do you feel is lacking in the 2500?

 

[allargon]

Up to you...I've read the opinions of quite a few high end people on AVS that don't like Anthems. I don't have the budget to play in that space. So, I have zero first hand information to offer. Obviously, you would be better off A/B ing the Anthem against your Yamaha. I bet you could cajole a local Anthem dealing into an audition.

Out of curiosity, what are you using for an external AMP?

If you are looking for a pre-pro with HDMI (which you say you don't need), have you considered the Integras?

 

[little wing]

Nomo - The price on the Anthem would be about $800. I think you are right about paying a premium on a dedicated pre-pro. Honestly I don't think the Yamaha is lacking anything. I think it has worked great as a Pre-Amp. Very quiet, nice features, plenty of surround options. And the "Straight" mode makes two channel sound very nice. It's been rock solid. Just kinda have the upgrade bug. And wondered if it would make a Big difference. And the Anthem is a great looking piece.

 

[little wing]

Allaragon- I'll have to check out the posts you speak of. An A/B comparison would be best. I am using an old amp. The Harman Kardon PA5800. Believe it or not, the amps in that thing sound much better than the amps in the Yamaha (IMO) The HK sounds warmer and fuller to my ears.

 

[Nomo]

Not knowing much about Anthem beyond the little bit of Googling I did; $800
sounds like a good price, provided you don't foresee Blu-ray via HDMI in your future.
If HDMI is a possibility you could easily pick up a one year old receiver for that money.

 

[zumbo]

I had the upgrade bug.

I had a Yamaha 1400 as a pre-pro. I loved it.

I looked at dedicated pre-pros.

I wanted current HDMI.

I decided to use the new Yamaha Z7 in pre-amp mode.

It's fantastic.

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.html?CNTID=5016802&CTID=5000300

 

[darkvisions]

I traded in my B&K Receiver for an Anthem AVM-30 and PVA-5. I love the AVM-30. I don't care about HDMI switching and it was perfect for me. I have all my HDMI sources plugged directly into my TV.

The sound quality is awesome in my setup and I have no plans on changing the AVM-30 for some time. I was interested in the new HD codecs but I mostly listen to two channel music in all its forms. CD, SACD, DVD-Audio, Concert DVD's. In my small living room with my setup I don't think the new HD codecs will be that much of a change, I could be wrong but I just love the way my system sounds now even with DD5.1 or DTS for movies.

I watched the Dark Knight Blu-Ray onSaturday and the sound was amazing without the HD sound so I am happy

I have since upgraded the PVA-5 to an Emotiva XPA-2 and XPA-3 combo and my system really rocks now and I am sure it will be better once I get my two XPA-1's to run my mains.

The Anthem pairs up well with these amps and it also has a direct mode for two channel listening too.

Just my opinion...

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think electronic components are a lot more simpler to predict, unlike speakers. The measured specifications of these electronics don't lie.

Take a look at these receivers vs dedicated pre-pros:

View attachment 6714

You can easily see that these receivers are at least as good as those dedicated pre-pros, if not better.

 

[3db]

I think electronic components are a lot more simpler to predict, unlike speakers. The measured specifications of these electronics don't lie.

Take a look at these receivers vs dedicated pre-pros:

View attachment 6714

You can easily see that these receivers are at least as good as those dedicated pre-pros, if not better.

Your documument doesn't open

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Your documument doesn't open

Hmm. Okay, try this one:

View attachment 6715

 

[3db]

Thanks. That worked.

Very impressive numbers but once you get down to that low a noise level, it becomes irrevalent as its just not possible to hear that small a difference.

For the average guy, I think an AVR is a way to go for a good pre/pro althought I hate seeing the amp section of an AVR go unused.

There are times however where an AVR won't cut it as a pre/pro. If you have long runs between pre/pro and an amplifier, particularily in a nosiy environment, pre/pros eqwuipped with balanced outputs give you improved noise immunity.

Specs don't tell the whole story. It really is application specific.

Taking another look, the Yamaha RX-Z11 costs as much as most of the pre-amps listed. Bad example.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Thanks. That worked.

Very impressive numbers but once you get down to that low a noise level, it becomes irrevalent as its just not possible to hear that small a difference.

For the average guy, I think an AVR is a way to go for a good pre/pro althought I hate seeing the amp section of an AVR go unused.

There are times however where an AVR won't cut it as a pre/pro. If you have long runs between pre/pro and an amplifier, particularily in a nosiy environment, pre/pros eqwuipped with balanced outputs give you improved noise immunity.

Specs don't tell the whole story. It really is application specific.

Taking another look, the Yamaha RX-Z11 costs as much as most of the pre-amps listed. Bad example.

Well, if I had the flagship Yamaha or Pioneer, I would not be using an external amp anyway.

Bottom line is, double-blinded studies are a lot more convincing than any of our subjective opinions. And double-blinded studies have proven that people really can't tell the difference between receivers vs. preamps and amps unless they are using Equalizers, DSPs, or Tone Controls or unless they are under-powered (clipping) for their applications.

Those numbers just show us that there is little to complain about in terms of specs on any of these electronics.

And how many people have their amps and pre-pros separated across the room?

 

[3db]

Well, if I had the flagship Yamaha or Pioneer, I would not be using an external amp anyway.

I agree. That would be a total waste of money and power mhhuuaaaa!!!

Bottom line is, double-blinded studies are a lot more convincing than any of our subjective opinions. And double-blinded studies have proven that people really can't tell the difference between receivers vs. preamps and amps unless they are using Equalizers, DSPs, or Tone Controls or unless they are under-powered (clipping) for their applications.

Those numbers just show us that there is little to complain about in terms of specs on any of these electronics.

I agree but you've always stated in these posts that they are superior to pre/pros which they are not again depending on whats wanted and the operating environment they are in.

And how many people have their amps and pre-pros separated across the room?

You would be surprised.

 

[WmAx]

Some time back, I bought a Yamaha RX-V2600 specifically to use as a stereo pre-amp. It's a perfect transparent device in this use, and I am fanatical about actual sound quality. I used to use audiophile pre-amps and such; it's pointless unless you are trying to achieve some kind of specific cosmetic look.

Now, the RX-V2600 does have a different and improved pre-amp section as compared to the RX-V2500. But the RX-V2500 should still be transparent. The differences are mostly measured improvements - not audible ones. One difference is the RX-V2600 has a much higher voltage output from the pre-outs before clipping. But this is of no concern, IMO, unless you use an outboard amp that has very low voltage input sensitivity.

-Chris

 

[3db]

Some time back, I bought a Yamaha RX-V2600 specifically to use as a stereo pre-amp. It's a perfect transparent device in this use, and I am fanatical about actual sound quality. I used to use audiophile pre-amps and such; it's pointless unless you are trying to achieve some kind of specific cosmetic look.

-Chris

I guess balanced inputs in a noisy environement is just cosmetics

 

[WmAx]

I guess balanced inputs in a noisy environement is just cosmetics

Seriously, how many people run their amps 20' or more from the pre-amp?

And even if you did, you could easily use a short interconnect from the unbalanced output and feed to say an ART CleanBOX, and feed the CleanBox balanced outputs to those remote located amplifiers. I have never needed, or come across any other domestic situation where balanced lines were needed. I do use balanced lines from my DCX units to amps, but that is just because they happen to be balanced devices and it's easiest to simply use XLR cables to connect them. But the sources feeding the DCX units are not balanced.

-Chris

 

[3db]

Seriously, how many people run their amps 20' or more from the pre-amp?

And even if you did, you could easily use a short interconnect from the unbalanced output and feed to say an ART CleanBOX, and feed the CleanBox balanced outputs to those remote located amplifiers.

-Chris

I'm not arguing the quality of sound. I'm arguing about their intended use and flexability. Just because you never needed them??? Are you the whole audio industry? Thats pretty narrow minded in my books

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I agree but you've always stated in these posts that they are superior to pre/pros which they are not again depending on whats wanted and the operating environment they are in.

I meant only in measured specs.

Of course, we can't hear the difference.

But before I ever compared the specs, I had always thought that pre-pros had much better measured specs than receivers. I think most people think the same way.

I mean how can receivers, measured by the same source Home Theater Magazine, have better THD, Frequency Response, Crosstalk, and SNR than those dedicated pre-pros and preamps?

To be fair, the one area that kind of separates the pre-pros from the receivers is SNR. For example, the $2,400 Adcome GTP-880 has a SNR of -131 dB, whereas the $7,000 Pioneer SC-09TX receiver has a SNR of -106 dB.

But again, we can't hear the difference between -106 dB and -131 dB.

So with the exception of SNR, none of these pre-pros had better specs than the Yamaha Z11.

None of the pre-pros had better THD than these receivers. Why is that?

Again, this is all academic and spec-talk just for fun.

 

[zumbo]

Taking another look, the Yamaha RX-Z11 costs as much as most of the pre-amps listed. Bad example.

I would imagine the list is pre-Z7. The Z7 is half the Z11.

The Z7 can be(not act as) a dedicated pre-pro, just as the Z11.

Gene will have the review for the Z7 soon, and I expect it to mirror the Z11 in the dedicated pre-pro department.

Another advantage is that multiple zones can be assigned the unused internal amp power. Try that with a dedicated pre-pro.