Top rated mid range AVR vs separate prepro

[PENG]

Denon AVR-4311:
http://hcc.techradar.com/files/hcc_content/HCC193denonlo.pdf
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/denon-avr-4311ci-fl

Yamaha RX-A3000
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/rx-a3000

Onkyo:
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/onkyo-tx-nr5008

Marantz SR-7005
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/marantz-sr7005-receiver

The above AVRs are all top picks or highly rated by Audioholics, HTM, or HCC. Aside from the lack of XLR I/Os, they all seem to be good alternatives to mid range separate propros typically available from Marantz, Onkyo and Integra. With the exception of the Marantz, everyone of them can power the surround channels in most average sized HT rooms so you only need to add a 3 channel power amp. What are the main pros and cons in choosing between such highly capable AVR+amp vs prepro+amp?

Jostenmeat, if you can believe what the British review says about the 4311 what are you waiting for?

 

[Pyrrho]

For most speakers, in most rooms, at sane volumes, those receivers can power all of the channels, and save a person a good deal of money. It is also easier to set up, with fewer connections between pieces of gear, and requires the least shelf space.

The advantage to going with an additional power amp is that if the amplifier is more capable than whatever is built into the receiver, it gives one more options regarding speakers. Of course, one should pick the speakers first, as one may not need extra power or low impedance capability, and so it can be a total waste of money to buy a separate power amp.

As for the advantage to going with a separate preamp/processor, typically that costs more, and gives one older technology, just so one can have bragging rights with a certain class of stupid audiophiles who imagine that putting everything in separate boxes magically makes everything better. Otherwise, it is typically a waste of money.

Of course, if one has special needs for a specific feature or other, that can dictate what one should buy that may be different from what most people should buy.

 

[InTheIndustry]

For most speakers, in most rooms, at sane volumes, those receivers can power all of the channels, and save a person a good deal of money. It is also easier to set up, with fewer connections between pieces of gear, and requires the least shelf space.

The advantage to going with an additional power amp is that if the amplifier is more capable than whatever is built into the receiver, it gives one more options regarding speakers. Of course, one should pick the speakers first, as one may not need extra power or low impedance capability, and so it can be a total waste of money to buy a separate power amp.

As for the advantage to going with a separate preamp/processor, typically that costs more, and gives one older technology, just so one can have bragging rights with a certain class of stupid audiophiles who imagine that putting everything in separate boxes magically makes everything better. Otherwise, it is typically a waste of money.

Of course, if one has special needs for a specific feature or other, that can dictate what one should buy that may be different from what most people should buy.

Wow... I just took a few minutes and typed a pretty long rebuttal to your post... good thing I reread it and realized you were talking about esoteric preamps and not separats in general!

Yes, preamps for home theater are becoming, for the most part, dinosaurs. As digital technology has evolved only the largest manufacturers have been able to afford to continuously change their hardware and firmware specs. So much so that small quality driven manufacturers are going out of business in droves. Thanks HDMI! . This, along with today's manufacturers ability to minimize many of the vibration problems found in stereo rigs of yesteryear, the major benefits of separating stages is becoming less and less relevant.... generally speaking, of course

A receiver, like the Denon 4311 is an excellent piece to use for the brains of a system. To put my money where my mouth is, the speaker system (not including subwoofers) in our reference theater retails at $20,000. This system performs so far above its price point, I cannot imagine anything finer for our 6500 cubic foot room. There is no preamp more sensible than the 4311CI available today that I could purchase to improve performance. If there were, I would call the manufacturer, become a dealer, and use it instead. THAT's how good the Denon piece is. I also like the Pioneer Elite models for use as a preamp in a lot of configs, but the Denon has a few features more that I value over the Elite, such as Audyssey XT32.

One word of caution to those reading... The preamp outputs of receivers varry in quality/strength from brand to brand & even model to model as there is NO standard output level. Please give consideration to this when selecting components. Parasound's New Classic 5250v.2, which we use to power our system, has adjustable gains for each channel to compensate for this cost cutting move the receiver manufacturers sometimes sneak in there.

 

[FirstReflection]

Well thankfully, if you DO happen to really, really want XLR connections for some reason, Onkyo/Integra and Marantz are offering separate pre/pros now that are essentially just their top line receiver without built-in amps and a very slightly lower price tag! I don't think the small drop in price is anywhere equal to the savings in cost of not having any amps built in, but it's still a lot better than when pre/pros used to cost more than their receiver cousin

That said, there really isn't anything that the Onkyo PR-SC5508/Integra DHC-80.2 or Marantz AV7005 offer that their counterpart Onkyo TX-NR5008/Integra DTR-80.2 or Marantz SR7005 do not. The processing is identical. The only differences are the built-in amps in the receivers and the XLR connections.

In my book, for almost everyone using these types of receivers/pre-pros, it makes more sense to just pay the extra $100 or so and get the receiver version. For the vast majority of people, these flagship receivers will flawlessly power their speakers. And for the handful of people with extremely low impedance or low efficiency speakers, or just massive rooms, there is still the entirely viable option to use the RCA pre-outs and add separate amps.

Cost-wise, it just makes more sense to allow the receiver to power the surround/height/width speakers while focusing any separate amplification on the front 3 speakers - and that is only if such separate amplification is even necessary!

The one case where I would say the pre-pro versions make more sense is if you are using self-powered speakers all around. For example, some people prefer to use professional studio monitors, and many of those are self-powered and also tend to use XLR connections. There's no reason why you cannot just use a simple RCA-to-XLR converter or cable, but if you are using self-powered speakers for all channels, it does make sense to save even just the $100 or so and opt for the pre-pro version.

Separate amps still make sense for certain situations, but for many people, they just aren't necessary. Especially with flagship receivers that have very capable amps built-in. I would have zero qualms about using a Denon AVR-4311 (or the upcoming 4312) or an Onkyo TX-NR5008 as the pre-amp section as well as the power section for the surround, surround back, and height/width speakers. I would also have zero qualms about using such receivers to power the front 3 channels as well in most situations with most speakers in most rooms. And for the far more rare circumstances where separate amplification does make sense, there is the entirely viable option to use a separate amp and the RCA pre-outs - either just for the front 2 or 3 speakers or for all 5-11 speakers in the setup.

 

[PENG]

Wow... I just took a few minutes and typed a pretty long rebuttal to your post... good thing I reread it and realized you were talking about esoteric preamps and not separats in general!

Thanks, that's why I tried to limit the discussion on "mid range" models. I could have further defined "mid range" as mid price, that is, street price under 2K. Let me also clarify my claim that any of those AVRs except for the Marantz, could easily power the surround speakers in most average sized HT room. By average sized I meant HT room of <3000 cu.ft. I should not have used the word 'average'. I do know many people believe in the need of ACD continuous rated power of the same >200W that the front channels deserve. It is obvious to me that for that group of people, separates are their only choice.

 

[jostenmeat]

Jostenmeat, if you can believe what the British review says about the 4311 what are you waiting for?

Well, you asked, so . . . 1) waiting on disposable income 2) have other more immediate upgrade needs in this particular AV hobby 3) starting to develop other hobbies altogether that might be competing for the funds that I don't yet have.

If I was given the budget for the 4311 and was forced to spend it immediately with a gun to my head, it would be a colorimeter and CMS. For me, this would make for the greatest improvement in my system. However, it's hard to pull the trigger on the CMS portion (about 2/3 of the budget) because PJs tend to come as more accurate OTB, and then they sometimes come with a CMS too. It's just I don't want to spend 4-6k for a significant upgrade.

So then there is the idea to build a new front three speakers for the HT. I could do this for about 1k, and with the sale of a couple speakers, probably more like $700, and for half the price of a 4311 will I probably make a significantly greater improvement to audio.

I would love to throw in a 4311, but, well, you know . . . My refurbed 805 might still have to last me a few years yet . . . I honestly don't know . . .

 

[jostenmeat]

One word of caution to those reading... The preamp outputs of receivers varry in quality/strength from brand to brand & even model to model as there is NO standard output level. Please give consideration to this when selecting components. Parasound's New Classic 5250v.2, which we use to power our system, has adjustable gains for each channel to compensate for this cost cutting move the receiver manufacturers sometimes sneak in there.

I have yet to come across any user anecdotes stating that any particular Denon or Onkyo did not have adequate voltage on the preouts. I cannot say the same for Pioneer or Yamaha, but I don't remember the models. I had bought a Samson SConvert just for good measure to put between my Onkyo and DIY sub, but I used the unit for all of less than a minute. Then I finally sold it here.

 

[PENG]

I would love to throw in a 4311, but, well, you know . . . My refurbed 805 might still have to last me a few years yet . . . I honestly don't know . . .

I keep forgetting you own the most amazing AVR even made at that price point. That thing offers almost unparalleled power output in the 7.1 AVR world regardless of price, Burr Brown DACs, Audyssey MultiEq XT (it is XT right?) and all the latest AV features except 3D. I asked, only because I thought at one time you seemed to be interested in the 4310. Actually I do think it is safe to say that while the 4311 offers a more up to date feature set, it would not give you better audio performance than the 805. Well may be when it drops to the 4310's <1K price point you would be tempted to let the 805 retire.

 

[jostenmeat]

Yes it has XT. Sub-1k price point is definitely getting warmer but still not a sure thing either .

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I've compared many models of AVRs vs. pre-pros, and AVRs measure just as great as pre-pros in their same price class in terms of FR, THD, Crosstalk, & SNR.

 

[PENG]

I've compared many models of AVRs vs. pre-pros, and AVRs measure just as great as pre-pros in their same price class in terms of FR, THD, Crosstalk, & SNR.

That's what I think too, after reading through the specs and reviews on the models I picked for this discussion. There are more models to choose from that offer much the same. Recently I turned to separates without really evaluating the pros and cons. It was a quick decision based on other subjective factors, certainly not based on features or AV performance expectation.

One thing I do feel good about separates is that I don't have to think about the unused amplifiers in the AVR.

 

[PENG]

I should have mentioned that I have already made the switch two and half months ago, but even though it is after the fact I still appreciate your opinions and would like to hear more about what other people think are the pros and cons. I doubt anyone could convince me to sell my good looking AV7005 and go back to an AVR such as the wonderfully equipped 4311 though.

 

[InTheIndustry]

Thanks, that's why I tried to limit the discussion on "mid range" models. I could have further defined "mid range" as mid price, that is, street price under 2K. Let me also clarify my claim that any of those AVRs except for the Marantz, could easily power the surround speakers in most average sized HT room. By average sized I meant HT room of <3000 cu.ft. I should not have used the word 'average'. I do know many people believe in the need of ACD continuous rated power of the same >200W that the front channels deserve. It is obvious to me that for that group of people, separates are their only choice.

Why limit yourself ? I'm being 100% serious with this question: Show me a standard 7.1/2 prepro at any price point, from any manufacturer, that offers real world performance advantages over the Denon 4311Ci. The only trick here is that if thhe prepro has some sort of special ormgoofy nitch that it fills we can't count it. I know there are some rooms out there that need mixing delays for 4+ rows of seats and things. Those don't count. I'm talking a meat & potatoes 7 channel main speaker rig.

Alos, we don't need to get into all of the 11+ height channel & width channel stuff in this search as those are what I would consider BS for the near future. They are bogus formats that are quite a few years away from being actually supported by anyone other than the companies pushing their software. I don't use PrologicIIx (or whatever it is now) and I don't want my processor redoing the mixing of content on the fly.

I don't think you can find anything that's 100% definately "better" for multichanel.

Note: Sorry for spelling & grammer mistakes. I am typing a lot from my iPad lately & hate the auto correct function. THANKS!

 

[jostenmeat]

Ormgoofy! Noe wurries!


*Sent from my Ipad using my two big toes.

 

[PENG]

Why limit yourself ? I'm being 100% serious with this question: Show me a standard 7.1/2 prepro at any price point, from any manufacturer, that offers real world performance advantages over the Denon 4311Ci.
I don't think you can find anything that's 100% definately "better" for multichanel.

It is difficult to challenge you on this if you are talking about 'real world' performance. Otherwise on price no object basis there are prepros, such as the Denon AVP-A1HDC1 that do offer superior signal to noise ratio, cross talk/channel separation and DAC etc., things that make their sound and video quality better in terms of accuracy but not necessarily in terms of audible/visible benefits.

 

[lsiberian]

I totally agree with the assessment. Unless you are getting my dream surrounds there is no need to have external power for them. On the fronts you get the benefit of eq correction to fix crossover/room discrepancies in the right setup. Of course AS does this so I see that becoming obsolete eventually.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

That's what I think too, after reading through the specs and reviews on the models I picked for this discussion. There are more models to choose from that offer much the same. Recently I turned to separates without really evaluating the pros and cons. It was a quick decision based on other subjective factors, certainly not based on features or AV performance expectation.

One thing I do feel good about separates is that I don't have to think about the unused amplifiers in the AVR.

That is why we all deserve more than one system.

We all deserve an AVR system, a Pre-pro system, an Active speaker system, a Passive speaker system, etc.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

And if you are into Audyssey to the max, both the Denon AVR-5308 and AVP-A1HD offer the Professional kit @ a premium, right?

 

[InTheIndustry]

And if you are into Audyssey to the max, both the Denon AVR-5308 and AVP-A1HD offer the Professional kit @ a premium, right?

Not sure if end users can buy the kit & liscense to do the Audyssey or not. I believe the 4311Ci has Audyssey XT32 as well.

 

[PENG]

Not sure if end users can buy the kit & liscense to do the Audyssey or not. I believe the 4311Ci has Audyssey XT32 as well.

It has, and I think you can buy the professional kit for all CI models. In the far East region they offer pre-outs for the entry models such as the 2310/2311 but no CI, here in NA they offer CI even for the 231X but no preouts.

Anyway, this thing is so amazing on paper. It is also the first time Denon actually specified 4 ohm capability in their mid range MCH AVR. I really wonder how the 4312 could top the 4311 if they are to keep it at the same price point. There isn't a new feature that they can add right? So may be they can put back some nicer quality components (the look and theoretically speaking) such as better DAC in the 4312, wifi, Advanced AL processing, and good plated connectors, but then it would be in the 481X territory.

Not that it is important but what is still puzzling is whether the 4311 has the Burr Brown 1791A like its predecessors or the AK4358. At launch time Denon's website gave no information on the VP and DAC so people speculated they no longer had the ABT and Burr Brown DAC in it but now the US website (the only one) does mention the 1791A. It could just be an error though. Again, I believe a few dB difference in dynamic range and S/N in the DACs won't make any audible difference as they are not the bottle neck anyway. It is a bit like gold plated terminals/connectors, just nice to have but makes no real world difference.