Pre/Pro and Amp opinion

[sokrman14]

Right now I have the Marantz SR7400 receiver but am thinking about getting a few Outlaw M2200 monoblock 200W per channel amps. The marantz puts about I think 105W off the top of my head. Obviously power would be a significant increase, but would it be a large enough benefit to upgrade and just use the marantz as a Pre/Pro and the M2200 as my amps?

 

[jcsprankle]

I don't want to speak for anyone else on this forum, but it seems that this question (separates vs. receiver) sparks a lot of controversy. There are numerous threads about this very subject. Here's one that comes to mind:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20070

And another one:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20527

Many will argue that separates provide better quality while others say that unless you are reaching the maximum that your receiver can provide, an external amp won't do you any good (that is, you won't hear any audible difference).

I'm not an expert but I think that 105 watts is plenty for almost 100% of the sound you are likely to play. Not that I said almost...if you listen to music at ear-bleeding levels or hear any sort of amp clipping, then you will likely see some benefit from getting external amsp, at least for the front three channels. The 2200s are cheap enough that you could get three for right about a grand.

Hope this helps.

 

[sokrman14]

How about factors such as clarity, crispness, detail, etc. Would that get any better with better quality amps? If so, should the outlaw amps be better than the marantz amps?

 

[jcsprankle]

Since I haven't used either one personally, I can't answer your question directly. But, from what I've learned from this forum, on average, your speakers are only demanding between 1-20 watts/channel at any given time. It's the peaks of music and the explosions (for example) in movies that require the extra headroom. As long as the amp in your receiver is of reasonable quality, you shouldn't hear any difference.

However, read those other threads because some people will argue that this isn't true. I think the majority, however, agrees that the cost of adding amps isn't necessarily justified unless there are specific issues (i.e.- clipping) that you are trying to fix.

With that said, if you think the amp in your receiver is "crappy" today, then you can only get better by adding the Outlaws.

 

[Sheep]

Most people use amps because they have very hard to drive loads. What speakers are you driving? How sensitive are they?

Couple things we need to know inorder to help.

SheepStar

 

[mulester7]

Since I haven't used either one personally, I can't answer your question directly. But, as long as the amp in your receiver is of reasonable quality, you shouldn't hear any difference

.....Guys, I'm thinking about getting a box of Cuban cigars which cost more than American cigars....should I just stick with American cigars which cost less?....now, I know some are going to post who have ACTUALLY HAD both Cuban and American cigars and can ACTUALLY SPEAK WITH AUTHORITY on the subject, but those opinions will be OVERLOOKED AND IGNORED as if they were never posted, because there will be "MANY MORE" posts by those who have NEVER TRIED Cuban cigars, but they LOOOOOOOOVE their American cigars, so the American cigars are BOOOOOUND TO BE JUST AS GOOD....so, what do you think, Guys?....huh?.....

.....is it hard to understand why guys who have discovered better sound quality with seperate dedicated components just want to sit on their hands and not post anything?....it's a never ending repetition of posting by those defending their receiver who don't have a clue.....

 

[sokrman14]

Sheep, For now I am power my Quad 12L bookshelf speakers, and soon will power 22L tower speakers. The 12L's are rated at 200W max at 6 ohms and the 22L's are 300W max at 6 ohms. The outlaw Amp I am looking at is rated at 200W at 8Ohms. So I just want to know if this would make a difference in sound quality overall. I dont mind spending the money if it makes a difference, but only if it does. Thanks for the Replies

 

[mtrycrafts]

Sheep, For now I am power my Quad 12L bookshelf speakers, and soon will power 22L tower speakers. The 12L's are rated at 200W max at 6 ohms and the 22L's are 300W max at 6 ohms. The outlaw Amp I am looking at is rated at 200W at 8Ohms. So I just want to know if this would make a difference in sound quality overall. I dont mind spending the money if it makes a difference, but only if it does. Thanks for the Replies

OK, one down How sensitive are they? How many dB spl at 1m at 2.83V?
How far do you sit? How loud do you play? If you value your hearing, then it would be at reasonable levels and you may be fine.

 

[Nick250]

How about factors such as clarity, crispness, detail, etc. Would that get any better with better quality amps? If so, should the outlaw amps be better than the marantz amps?

The factors you mention above are 99% dependent on speaker choice and room acoustics, not the receiver or amp. You first pick your speakers and then select an receiver/amp to drive them based on their sensativity, the size of your room, listening habits etc. Audition as many speakers as you can that are in your budget, this is the first step in the whole HT process IMO.

 

[tomd51]

Learn From Experience...

Sokrman14;
I was in the same boat as you about a year ago and I decided I'd try the same thing using my Denon 3803 as a pre/pro and hook up a Harman Kardon PA2000 amp I had in storage, just for sh!ts and giggles. The Denon's internal amps are rated at 110w/channel, but most will tell you that's not what you're going to get when all 5/6/7 channels are driven simultaneously, but even that's not terribly relevant as no source is going to be driving a full range signal simultaneously to all channels. With this in mind, the HK's amp section is rated at 100w/channel. As the HK's sole duty is providing wattage, I thought it may do a pretty good job, but the only way to know for sure was to give it a shot.

After hooking it up and doing some calibration, I could already tell that the SPL from my mains that I hooked the HK up to already had a stronger signal, about 3dB. Just because it's louder, doesn't mean it's better, though, so I embarked on some listening tests. My testing included some Jazz, Classical, Rock for music as well as some dynamic soundtracks such as the 'Matrix Reloaded', 'Lord Of The Rings-Two Towers' and 'Master and Commander'.

In every single case, the signal was noticeably cleaner when listening from reference level (00) up to approx. -35 above reference level. Any higher than that, the difference in sound quality was negligible. This testing proved, to me at least, that using separate amplifiers, even ones slightly less powerful than the ones on board the 3803 (which are no slouches by any means), will give me a cleaner more powerful signal. This may not be the case w/all amps, but the HK isn't a bad amp nor is it a "world class" amp. With this in mind, I decided I'd grab myself a used Outlaw 755 off Audiogon that's 200w/channel and see how the performance was now. At the time, my speakers were 8 ohms w/a sensitivity level of 88dB. Not terribly power hungry, but not the most sensitive speakers available. Adding the Outlaw brought the listening to another level, volume-wise and clarity-wise. I was able to drive all 5 channels at about -20 above reference with excellent clarity in the signal and power to spare, no noticeable degradation in the quality of the signal.

In retrospect, I think I could have gotten away with a 5 channel, 150/165w amp and gotten the same performance, but these speakers were only rated to 150w, so that may have been the bottleneck at that point. My current mains are rated at 8 ohm and are good to 250w and so far, I haven't heard any breakdown in the signal at reference or even a little higher and believe me, at that volume, I can't leave it there for long.

This has been my experience with mid-level receiver as a pre/pro and decent separate amps, I'm sure with an even better pre/pro and possibly better amps, it could be even better, but I'm honestly not sure how much better it could sound at this point. This was the right choice for me and I'm glad I was able to do it. I would suggest experiencing it for yourself, only you'll know for sure if it's the right choice. Just my 2½ cents... -TD

 

[ZoFo]

I went from a Yamaha 1500 to an Outlaw 970 pre-pro with a 125W 7 channel amp, then to a 990 pre-pro & same 125W Amp, then to my final config which is a 990 and a 7700 200W X 7 Amp. I did notice a big difference when I went to separates and much better 2-channel when I upgraded to the 990 pre/pro but did not notice any difference when I went from 125W to 200W Amp. This did not bother me and I keep the 7 X 200W Amp because I purchased it to be "future-proof" for any speakers I may want to buy in the future. Having a 200W dedicated Amp opens up a whole new world of speakers and will be plenty for any speakers I will ever buy. I justified the additional cost of the 125w vs. the 200w, which was double, by convincing myself that this is the last Amp I will ever have to buy - famous last words!

Was the difference in sound worth the substantial increase in cost going from a Receiver to Separates? It was for me but that is something that you have to decide for yourself. And by the way Mule, Cuban cigars are indeed better than American cigars, but being illegal and therefore forbidden defiantly has something to do with it!

 

[eirepaul]

positive experience with additioinal amps

I had a very similar experience to tomd51. My denon 3805 was very good, but did not give me enough power with all 7, or even 5 channels driven. I listen to a lot of multi-channel music (rock / jazz) and like to listen at concert levels (for maximum impact) in a very large room. My additional amps (Adcom) allow me to do that with a very clean, undistorted signal.

In my case, it was well worth the extra expense (although both my amps were previously used off e-bay and Audiogon so it wasn't that much) and I will not need to upgrade amplification for a long time.

 

[treetownal]

I also went from a yamaha 1500 receiver to an outlaw 990 with their 125w x 7 amp and the notice in sound quality was striking. perhaps its because the 990 is a better processor, perhaps because of the additional power, the combo was certainly more expensive than the receiver, but it was well worth it to me. I've been listening to more multi channel music, more 2 channel music and movie sound effects seem more detailed. very happy with separates, I liked my yamaha receiver but I like my current system a lot better. Definitely worth the money for me.

 

[sokrman14]

Mtrycrafts, The sensitivity is 88dB at 1m, and I sit about 8 feet from the speakers and listen to them at a reasonable volume: loud, but not to the point of screaming to talk to the person next to me. Everybody, thanks for the input. I am leaning towards getting a couple M2200's for the fronts, and in the future I do plan on getting a new Pre-Pro when the money is right and stuff like video switching and formats stable out a little more. Thanks everyone.

 

[mulester7]

I did notice a big difference when I went to separates and much better 2-channel when I upgraded to the 990 pre/pro, but did not notice any difference when I went from 125W to 200W Amp.

And by the way Mule, Cuban cigars are indeed better than American cigars, but being illegal and therefore forbidden defiantly has something to do with it!

.....Zofo, yes, you were already into quality dedicated seperates amplifiers with the 125w, and didn't notice that much difference with the 200w, but, your most noticable recognition of difference came with the dedicated seperate 990 pre/pro....same story with me when I got the McIntosh pre-amp.....Tomd51, EirePaul, and Treetownal, very good and obviously sincere reports.....

.....Zofo, I try to stay as far away from cigars as is humanly possible....you guys who smoke cigars and inhale the smoke, you need to blow an uninhaled puff between you and a room light sometime....take note that the smoke is blue and yellow all at the same time, 'nuff said.....

.....Gentlemen, here is a link posted on another thread by Mike C....it is a very relevant link to this thread....if you read nothing else, notice the Pros and Cons at the bottom, and especially notice the word "compromises"....I offer one quote from the link in advance....

"To an AV system, power is like money in the rest of life—it's hard to have too much"

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/howto/405shopping/

 

[eirepaul]

great article

Mulester7

thanks for that link - it's a great article. I've always respected Wes Phillips. My favorite of the pros for separates is "optimized performance". The con "more complex system setup" is not a con for me at all - that's what makes it a fun hobby. I love going behind my system every once in a while to see if I can do things better.

Attempting to get the maximum performance out of your system for the money you can afford to spend (or less) is the fun part. My goal is always to improve/upgrade with high-performance, reasonable-cost components. It is great fun trying to find them.

 

[tomd51]

Good article, Mule...

I agree w/eirepaul, that's a very good article, Mule. Specifically for those debating the receiver vs/ pre-pro thing. I wish it or another decent write-up would go into the value of using a mid-level receiver as a pre/pro and separate amplification. I'm sure most separates purists (aka snobs) would heavily frown on this approach, but from a price for performance perspective, it's not such a bad idea.

Part of my reasoning on this is if I feel I'd like to upgrade to newer technology or features unavailable in my existing receiver/pre-pro, it can be sold to someone that can use it either in a similar manner that doesn't need/want the latest or as a stand-alone, all-in-one solution. Not so much a security blanket, but it is a little comfort knowing that if I don't have the latest and greatest, I won't be stuck with a formerly expensive piece of electronic doorstop... -TD

 

[jcsprankle]

I would think this would be a preferred route for many people. In my case, for example, I would like to upgrade all parts of the system but it will be a step-by-step process...speakers first, then decent receiver. I can't afford separates in one step but I can afford a mid-fi receiver (like a Denon 3806). Then, after the fact, I can add additional amplification if necessary based on how the system sounds in my room and my comfort level.

In my mind, this is an excellent route. It's not one or the other...it's both!

 

[mulester7]

I wish it or another decent write-up would go into the value of using a mid-level receiver as a pre/pro and separate amplification. I'm sure most separates purists (aka snobs) would heavily frown on this approach, but from a price for performance perspective, it's not such a bad idea.

.....Tom, it's not a bad idea at all, to pre-amp from a receiver to outboard dedicated slave-power....I wish to high heck I could do that and be happy....for that matter, I wish I could fall in love with just a receiver, I'da sure got out cheaper along the path....yeah, I'm a seperates purist, but you just can't help it, if somewhere along the way Pandora's Box got opened and your ears fell in, now there it is....it's like your first dealings with kahoonga....that first time Jane dragged Tarzan off in them bushes, Tarzan come out of them there bushes a different man, Buddy.....

 

[tomd51]

"Baby steps, Bob, Baby steps..."

While you may be a separates purist, you're definitely not a snob, Mule...

I didn't necessarily fall in love w/the 3803 when I first got it, but I was pretty darn fond of it. Jc echoed my sentiments on this, it's nice to be able to do it in stages. Keeps a lot of us out of divorce court, too... -TD

ps
I'm a big fan of the "kahoonga" myself...