Confuse

[ex_2009]

Dear Forum members

I need input on this issue.
Let just said that all the eq is the same, which scenario is better for Music / HT

1. Using a receiver as a Pre/pro with separate AMP
2. Having a designated Pre/Pro with separate AMP

the things here is which one is sound better? My friend suggest me that having a designated Pre/Pro will make sound better

tks

 

[KEW]

Since your question is very general, I will respond in general terms.

For the same money, you will generally get more up to date features out of an AV receiver than out of a dedicated AV pre/pro.

However, there are exceptions. I believe Marantz offers a pre/pro which is about $100 less than the equivalent receiver. However, that is an anomaly in the audio industry.

If you isolate a budget range, you might get a more specific response.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Dear Forum members

I need input on this issue.
Let just said that all the eq is the same, which scenario is better for Music / HT

1. Using a receiver as a Pre/pro with separate AMP
2. Having a designated Pre/Pro with separate AMP

the things here is which one is sound better? My friend suggest me that having a designated Pre/Pro will make sound better

tks

The speaker is in the driver's seat. Easy load and good sensitivity, receivers are just fine. Difficult to very difficult loads and poor sensitivity, larger room, high spl demands will dictate most likely an external amp.
Well designed modern components are hard to differentiate sound wise.

 

[Pyrrho]

Dear Forum members

I need input on this issue.
Let just said that all the eq is the same, which scenario is better for Music / HT

1. Using a receiver as a Pre/pro with separate AMP
2. Having a designated Pre/Pro with separate AMP

the things here is which one is sound better? My friend suggest me that having a designated Pre/Pro will make sound better

tks

Your friend is wrong. Absolutely wrong and does not know what the hell he is talking about. Which will sound better is not going to be determined by whether it is a receiver or a separate preamp/processor.

The difference between a receiver and a separate preamp/processor is that a receiver also contains within its case a tuner and some power amps (for any that are not old mono receivers, it is plural). How much stuff is in the box is a separate question from the quality of the stuff in the box.

Thus, either one could be better, depending upon which models we are talking about. It is just stupid audiophools who judge these matters by counting the number of boxes things are in. It is positively moronic to judge quality by counting boxes, but there are audiophools who are so stupid they believe all sorts of dumbass stories.

Now, if you want stupid audiophools to admire your gear, you should get it in as many boxes as you possibly can have, as they are morons who count boxes to decide such things. You will also want to waste money on magic wires and other nonsense, if the object is to impress fools.

But if you want good sound, do not decide based on whether it is a preamp/processor or a receiver that you are using as a preamp/processor.

 

[MDS]

A pre/pro regardless of whether it is an AV receiver acting as such or a dedicated box, really just has to decode sound formats and convert digital to analog to send out the pre-outs. Some will argue that a dedicated pre/pro will have better DACS and that is about the only thing that could render a difference between the two but in this day and age all DACs do the job quite well and for the most part will be indistinguishable from another.

As KEW said, receivers often have far more current features at a lower price point. One added benefit would be that you can use the amps in the receiver to drive other channels that you are not driving with an external amp.