Pardon my ignorance w/r/t pre-amps v. pre-pros

[Biggiesized]

Looking over a product like Emotiva's RSP-2 and having read the review (for the identical RSP-1), what is the motivation for purchasing such a product over a similarly priced pre-pro like the "soon-to-launch" UMC-1?

Why have a product that operates solely in the analog domain, with stereo inputs and outputs only, when you can have a pre-pro that not only has just as many stereo inputs but also several digital inputs with digital EQ and filter settings?

Is there something inherently better that a product like the RSP-2 can do that something like the UMC-1 cannot?

I'm not singling out Emotiva here; they happened to have two exemplary products.

 

[Biggiesized]

Really? No one can help?

 

[mr-ben]

A preamp will have better sound quality compared to a pre-processor, when listening to 2-channel analog sources. Whether or not you can hear the difference, or care, that's another question. There are some very expensive preamps out there - the RSP-2 is near the very bottom in the price department.

 

[Biggiesized]

Don't most pre-pros have an analog pass-through mode? Why wouldn't they sound the same if they are configured identically (no A->D->A conversion)?

 

[mr-ben]

Don't most pre-pros have an analog pass-through mode? Why wouldn't they sound the same if they are configured identically (no A->D->A conversion)?

Yes, a lot of pre-processors, and receivers, have a "direct" or similar mode which prevents the A->D->A conversion. This helps a lot, but it's still not equivalent.

There is very little inside a preamp, and so the components are generally of much higher quality. The volume control, opamps, power supply, etc are all going to do a better job because of this. Also, there aren't any other parts inside the box to generate electrical noise that interferes with the sound quality. You're right to be skeptical.... the only way to convince someone is to listen to a good preamp in person.

 

[Mike19]

I read an article just this morning in the current issue of Hi-Fi+ magazine about darTzeel products. This is a very high-end high priced Euro company that makes, arguably, the best analog/stereo preamp on the market. DTZ states that their secret is the shortest signal paths in the business. This is something that cannot be achieved even with the best digital multi-channel pre/pro.

Another thing, most high-end preamps have balanced ins/outs. I have yet to see a pre/pro with balanced connections (maybe Krell has one).

Mike

 

[zeuiax]

I read an article just this morning in the current issue of Hi-Fi+ magazine about darTzeel products. This is a very high-end high priced Euro company that makes, arguably, the best analog/stereo preamp on the market. DTZ states that their secret is the shortest signal paths in the business. This is something that cannot be achieved even with the best digital multi-channel pre/pro.

Another thing, most high-end preamps have balanced ins/outs. I have yet to see a pre/pro with balanced connections (maybe Krell has one).

Mike

Onkyo PR-SC885 has it.

 

[mr-ben]

Several preamps have balanced connections, several don't. Same with pre-processors. The Ayre KX-R has been recently lauded by Stereophile as one of the very best. You can read their review online, and it gives you an idea of what goes into a top end preamp.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

First, I've used both separates (stereo analog preamps & amps & pre-pros) & receivers.

It is a total myth that most stereo analog preamps sound better than pre-pros & receivers for 2Ch analog music.

On paper (specs), most of the stereo analog preamps don't even measure as well as a lot of preamps and receivers!

Now if you have a "golden" ear and you can hear the difference, than that's a different story.

My thinking is that if two electronic components measure the same, then they are the same in sound quality regardless of the type of gear (analog preamp vs pre-pro).

I think the biggest difference is in the quality of the parts - one may last you 50 years while one may only last you 5 years.

 

[Biggiesized]

Now that is something I can agree with, AcuDefTechGuy.

 

[WmAx]

The Yamaha RX-V2600 was measured and compared to an Emotiva dedicated pre-amp by Gene a while back, and the RX-V2600 measured better. In fact, the 2600 measured superbly, in the absolute sense. A fantastically designed/engineered product. I believe all of the units from the 2600 on up to the current 2800 use pretty much identical pre-amp and amp sections with only the processing sections differing to support the latest digital video/audio features. The RX-V2500 previous to the RX-V2600 did not measure as well, btw. Yamaha made a major re-design when they transitioned to the RX-V2600. However, Gene did note in the RX-V2700 review that the RX-V2600 had much higher input and output voltage abilities for the pre-amp inputs/outputs.

I bought a RX-V2600 for my dedicated 2 channel system to use as only a pre-amp after that, and so far as I can tell, it is totally transparent. The measurements I made of the unit verify that there is no measurable aspect that would lead one to suspect it has any audible coloration whatsoever. I got so much more for my money with the 2600, and it has a handsome thick metal face plate to boot. I used to use dedicated high quality 2 channel pre-amps, but I gave up that ghost a while back.

-Chris

 

[Seth=L]

The Yamaha RX-V2600 was measured and compared to an Emotiva dedicated pre-amp by Gene a while back, and the RX-V2600 measured better. In fact, the 2600 measured superbly, in the absolute sense. A fantastically designed/engineered product. I believe all of the units from the 2600 on up to the current 2800 use pretty much identical pre-amp and amp sections with only the processing sections differing to support the latest digital video/audio features. The RX-V2500 previous to the RX-V2600 did not measure as well, btw. Yamaha made a major re-design when they transitioned to the RX-V2600. However, Gene did note in the RX-V2700 review that the RX-V2600 had much higher input and output voltage abilities for the pre-amp inputs/outputs.

I bought a RX-V2600 for my dedicated 2 channel system to use as only a pre-amp after that, and so far as I can tell, it is totally transparent. The measurements I made of the unit verify that there is no measurable aspect that would lead one to suspect it has any audible coloration whatsoever. I got so much more for my money with the 2600, and it has a handsome thick metal face plate to boot. I used to use dedicated high quality 2 channel pre-amps, but I gave up that ghost a while back.

-Chris

I give you props Chris, because your wisdom usually falls on deaf ears.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Now that is something I can agree with, AcuDefTechGuy.

Yeah, a lot of people (myself included) are guilty of believing that just because something is labeled an "analog preamp" or "class-A analog preamp" that it will magically sound better than a pre-pro or receiver for that "analog 2Ch", even though the pre-pro or receiver has the same or even BETTER measured specs (SNR, THD, FR, Crosstalk, etc.).

Well, okay, a $20K Mark Levinson or Krell stereo preamp or that $4K Parasound JC2 stereo preamp may have better MEASURED specs than almost any pre-pro out there.

But compare them to that $7,500 Denon AVP-A1HDCI pre-pro, and it's a totally different ball game.

But most analog stereo preamps do not have better Measured specs, especially when you compare a $1K preamp vs a $1K pre-pro, or a $2K preamp vs a $2K pre-pro.

And I just love it when people say, "Well, specs aren't everything. Even though the pre-pro or receiver may have better MEASURED specs, the analog preamp still sounds better."

For a while, I was so sure that Analog stereo preamps and Analog sound was better than anything "digital".

I even used THREE class-A analog preamps for multichannel music and movies! But after hours of comparison, I later found out that Bitstream sounded Better to my ears than Analog pre-outs for some reasons.

 

[mr-ben]

The Yamaha RX-V2600 was measured and compared to an Emotiva dedicated pre-amp by Gene a while back, and the RX-V2600 measured better.

Can you provide a link to this?

 

[WmAx]

Can you provide a link to this?

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=165175&postcount=10

-Chris

 

[mr-ben]

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=165175&postcount=10

-Chris

Thank you. I don't mean to be nitpicky, but Gene is comparing pre-processors to receivers, not preamps to receivers. I do agree with his position that a receiver can sound as good as a pre-processor. A more recent article talks about receiver quality dropping though (the "More Gain Is Better" section of this article: http://www.audioholics.com/education/amplifier-technology/trading). I use a receiver instead of a pre-processor myself, however, it's not as good as my preamp. Yes, I've done blind level-matched tests to compare them. Yes, it's a small and barely noticeable difference.

I don't intend to make any generalities here - there are good and bad receivers, pre-processors, and preamps, and I'm sure that any of the three types can sound better than any of the others. Each model needs to be compared on its own, and general statements that one type is better than another is as invalid as saying that they're all the same.

Now, that said, I'm going to go back and make a general statement that a preamp will sound better than a pre-processor or receiver. Again, it's not definitive, but since there is no other design goal for a preamp other than sound quality, it must be a pretty good assumption that the average preamp will sound better than the average receiver or pre-processor.

 

[PENG]

Yeah, a lot of people (myself included) are guilty of believing that just because something is labeled an "analog preamp" or "class-A analog preamp" that it will magically sound better than a pre-pro or receiver for that "analog 2Ch", even though the pre-pro or receiver has the same or even BETTER measured specs (SNR, THD, FR, Crosstalk, etc.).

There are also no shortage of people who would automatically tell people the more expensive units sound better even if they are still just a receiver, e.g. B&K, ARCAM, NAD. They may not even have heard the units themselves. The funny thing is, in some cases those units are more expensive in the US or Canada only. For example, NAD in the U.K. or Australia don't necessary cost more than Yamaha and Denon.

By the way, don't forget most receivers in the 1.2 to 2.5K range offer the pure analog path that bypass all the digital stuff.

 

[WmAx]

Thank you. I don't mean to be nitpicky, but Gene is comparing pre-processors to receivers, not preamps to receivers.

These are simply pre-amps with some video switching/decoding abilities. There is no fundamental difference.

The RX-V2600's pre-amp is measurably superb.

-Chris

 

[Biggiesized]

What happened to the RX-V2XXX line from Yamaha?

 

[mr-ben]

These are simply pre-amps with some video switching/decoding abilities. There is no fundamental difference.

The RX-V2600's pre-amp is measurably superb.

-Chris

Sure there's a difference - there are a lot more features, components, and design effort that goes into a pre-processor compared to a preamp. That adds significantly to the cost. Receivers add even more. Either the price difference between an equivalent preamp and a receiver or pre-processor must be really big, or there are compromises in component quality to meet a price point (or, in many but not all cases, the difference is in markup).