seperate vs receiver showdown

[jeffsg4mac]

Since the topic has been brought up, how about a showdown between some home theater receivers being used for strictly for preamps vs some dedicated seperates. Going over sound quality, setup, options, cost. I bet the results would upset some people, namely ones who just bought a seperate and the companies that make them, however, I am not biased I would love to see the verdict.

 

[av_phile]

I really wouldn't be surprised if some mid-to-high end AV receivers used as preamp can best or be at par with separate AV preamps costing as much or more. And I wouldn't realy mind using one. In fact I am eyeing a pre-owned AV receiver to upgrade my older Rotel AV preamp. But i'm a bit reluctant to proceed. I just find receivers of this class bulky and heavy for purely preamp purposes. Plus the fact they consume more electricity and give off more heat even when not using their amps. And if something goes wrong with any of their complex digital processing features, I would hate to take out from the rack and carry to the service shop a 50lb to 70lb monster.

 

[O'Shag]

There are many preamps on the market, both vintage and new that will be superior sonically to even the best receivers out there. Inevitably, when you combine functions in one box, there will to be some compromises.

I own three preamps; Audio Research SP4, Audio Research SP6E (Tube), and Carver C-4000t. I also own the Yamaha RX-Z9, which is at the forefront of Receiver technology.

I love my new Yamaha, and its features are truly astounding. For home theatre requirements, my preamps just don't have the versatility, and are hopelessly outclassed in terms of features and effects. My Yamaha performs admirably for audio, and was my ultimate choice From three formidable contenders that I carefully auditioned.

That said, when it comes to pure 2-channel audio, all three of my preamps are better, with the Audio Research SP6E being in a totally different league altogether.
From my point-of-view the preamp is the component that can really make a very significant difference when it comes to taking a step up to a new level in sonic performance. Of course quality of speakers, power, source are all critical too.

With respect to 2 channel audio, the characteristics that make my preamps sonically superior for 2 channel audio to my beautiful Yamaha are:

- Beautiful deep / wide Soundstage & outstanding Imaging
- Warmth and fullness in the bass, more Detail & Clarity in instruments
and voices. Strings on a different level.
- Body and power to the music - with the SP6E enough to give you goose
bumps with a really well recorded piece of music!

Best,

O'Shag

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Boy we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Where to start, lets see. I have found, over the years that the best pre-amp is a neutral pre-amp and I have a good way to test any pre-amp you might have. It is very simple and I have exposed some high-dollar pre-amps as adding to or coloring the sound with this approach. All you need to do is take your CD or DVD player and directly connect it to your main amp inputs. Then if you have gain controls turn them down a bit. Then listen to some music. This is as good as your amp is going to sound because you have just eliminated everything in the signal path. Now take note of your decibel level with a meter and put the pre-amp back into the loop and listen again at the same level. If you hear anything different then your pre-amp is adding something to the mix and is not neutral. I have heard many very high-dollar ones that could not hold up to lesser priced pre-amps. Some of the most neutral pre-amps I have heard are the NAD and Adcom pre-amps. It is sometimes almost impossible to tell when they were in the loop. One of the worst I heard was a Macintosh. I have an ADCOM GTP-400 that I bought in 92 and it is still good. Try this with some of your high-end pre amps and report back, you might be surprised how close the Yamaha is to neutral.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Well, you know my position on the audibility of competently-designed, modern electronic signal paths (nil). New readers may wish to search for my fulminations on that subject for enlightenment and/or amusement.

Surely the top-of-the line recievers today have nothing to apologize for vs. separates in terms of both audible performance (implicit in my view above), features, or in purely electronic/build quality/engineering terms. The canard about "compromises" from putting everything in one box is just that. If it ever had validity it's been outdated by modern engineering (assuming the designers were competent). So, I'm with Jeff: the only thing such a showdown would reveal is that a good receiver will give every bit as much musical satisfaction as separates.

Still, there are reasons to buy separates, some good and others, well...:

They are necessary if you want to use active crossovers and bi/tri amp your speakers (which is why I'm going for separates). Unless there are receivers out there with both pre-outs and line-in connections to their amp sections.

(Edit, per Gene's point below) If you need extraordinary power for a very large listening room and/or have exotic speakers that present very difficult loads you might need to look at separate amps designed for those specific needs.

The "schlep factor" as pointed out above; a robustly designed receiver is HEAVY!

The ol' flexibility argument: you can separately update/replace/churn amps and preamps.

The "cool factor": The more gleaming metal boxes you have on your rack, the more impressive your system looks. Especially if they have a goodly compliment of knobs, switches, meters and blinking lights. Hey, if you spent all that money it should show!

 

[gene]

Great thread here and I am in full agreement with Jeff and Rip. Receivers have come a long way baby, especially if you don't need gobs of power in your listening room.

 

[Yamahaluver]

Consider the fact that a good receiver like the Z-9 or the Denon flagship delivers close to 170Wx6, combine that with today's efficient speakers and anything more is like asking for deafness.

 

[Audioholics]

Consider the fact that a good receiver like the Z-9 or the Denon flagship delivers close to 170Wx6, combine that with today's efficient speakers and anything more is like asking for deafness.

BTW, we'll be doing a real-world power rating test on the Yamaha RX-Z9 that will come out shortly after the review.