Huh, Is this correct? Processor is far more important than Amplifier?

KayMan2

Hi there,
One of the gurus at local boutique audio store shared this info with me today: (not his exact words, I am paraphrasing for the post)

"A Processor converts a digital signal like DTS/Dolby and outputs an analog signal for the Power Amp. Essentially, a 1mV signal is amplified to deliver 1 volt at the amplifier pre-out port (1000 times amplification). Amplifier takes this input, boosts it 20-100 times to drive the speakers. Since the most critical amplification is performed by Processor (1000x), quality of Processor is far more important in the setup than the Amp's quality.".

Is this correct? I would love to hear what the experts on the forum think about this.

Thank you!

tonyb

Yes and no, quality of everything matters, an amp by theory anyway, is suppose to just amplify the signal it receives. But we all know that there is some coloration to sound in that process be it possitive or negative. Quality of processors isn't really going to matter as much in the low to mid line processors, once you start getting into higher end stuff then it becomes more noticeable. Of coarse there are exceptions to all this and if you can hear the difference in processors and amps depends on everything else in the chain. I for one contribute a better pre/pro's sound to the better analog output stages rather than a processing chip alone. Just my .02, everything along the way of the signal path contributes or takes away from the end sound you hear.

specd_out

tonyb wrote: »

Yes and no, quality of everything matters, an amp by theory anyway, is suppose to just amplify the signal it receives. But we all know that there is some coloration to sound in that process be it possitive or negative. Quality of processors isn't really going to matter as much in the low to mid line processors, once you start getting into higher end stuff then it becomes more noticeable. Of coarse there are exceptions to all this and if you can hear the difference in processors and amps depends on everything else in the chain. I for one contribute a better pre/pro's sound to the better analog output stages rather than a processing chip alone. Just my .02, everything along the way of the signal path contributes or takes away from the end sound you hear.

QFT.

You pretty much said exactly what I was going to

tonyb

Being an audio forum, go figure, we have covered the differences between a Receiver and seperates more times than you can shake a stick at. I always like to explain it like this.

Take your average receiver, put it on a table. Then take all the componants as seperates, a processor, a 5 or 7 channel amp, a tuner, a dac, and stack those next to it. Then think of the compromises that had to be made to get all that in that little box we call an AVR. It creates a very good visual. The main thing for me is power supply, power supply, power supply. Seperates have all their own while a receiver needs to share one with everything. That, plus the better analog output stages in seperates are far better than anything a receiver has to offer.

With that said, can a receiver sound as good as seperates ? Yes, imho anyway, but, and thats a big but, not untill you start hitting the 2- 3 g's on up catagory. B&K 's receivers come to mind along with flagship receivers from Denon, Pioneer, Onkyo, Anthem, Arcam. I'm sure I left a few out but there is a reason why a 3 g receiver costs what it does. Even still, expensive receivers don't always hit the mark of seperates too. I see alot of people using a 700 buck AVR, then adding amps and dacs and basically just using the processor in the receiver. Thats cool too, but in that scenario, a dedicated pre/pro would offer up some significant SQ improvements.

PrazVT

You're sure it would be significant? I'm seriously asking.

Something like a Parasound 2100 pre w/ HT bypass vs my Pio SC 57 as a pre in pure direct mode?

WilliamM2

I don't know where the dealer got the 1mv to 1v idea, most source components will put out 2 volts, so the pre-pro is quite often attenuating the signal, not amplifying it. And you certainly won't be continuously sending 1v to the amplifier, unless you want to go deaf.

That said, the processor is important, and with modern room correction has the potential to make a much larger difference to the sound than the amp. But you still need both.

pearsall001

In my book the pre trumps the amp when it comes to delivering the goods. Both are important but the amp simply has to amplify the signal where the pre has a whole lot more going on. Also in my book the top tier or flagship AVR's of companies like NAD, Rotel, Arcam, Anthem, Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo can hang with any seperate pre on delivering the goods for 2 channel listening.

F1nut

Also in my book the top tier or flagship AVR's of companies like NAD, Rotel, Arcam, Anthem, Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo can hang with any seperate pre on delivering the goods for 2 channel listening.

Phil, you've lost your mind.

pearsall001

F1nut wrote: »

Phil, you've lost your mind.

Jesse, I can't believe it took you this long to respond! And no I haven't lost my mind...I'm actually using my mind & I stand by my findings. So there!!! Not a lick of difference to be heard.

Face

pearsall001 wrote: »

In my book the pre trumps the amp when it comes to delivering the goods. Both are important but the amp simply has to amplify the signal where the pre has a whole lot more going on.

I agree.

pearsall001 wrote: »

Also in my book the top tier or flagship AVR's of companies like NAD, Rotel, Arcam, Anthem, Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo can hang with any seperate pre on delivering the goods for 2 channel listening.

Phil, I do not agree either...and I've owned TOTL units from Marantz and Onkyo. The only prepro I owned which came close was a McIntosh MX-119, but I still wasn't a big fan of it's internal DAC.

Serendipity

From my experience, going from a mid-range Onkyo to a flagship Denon AVR, the Denon shows much more of the original recording. That means, any imperfections in the recording (such as dynamic range compression, see the Adele thread) show up more apparently than with a basic AVR. With a good recording, such as well-recorded folk music, the Denon sounds better.

That being said, the separates rigs I've heard show even more of the original recording so a good recording sounds GREAT but a poor recording (Justin Beiber/Lady GaGa/LMFAO) may not sound as good.

YMMV.

tonyb

Serendipity wrote: »

That being said, the separates rigs I've heard show even more of the original recording so a good recording sounds GREAT but a poor recording (Justin Beiber/Lady GaGa/LMFAO) may not sound as good.

YMMV.

True, but thats the ticket, the better and more revealing your gear becomes, the more important the quality of the recording is. Otherwise we could all just use a Bose system that makes everything sound the same and forget about anything else.

tonyb

PrazVT wrote: »

You're sure it would be significant? I'm seriously asking.

Something like a Parasound 2100 pre w/ HT bypass vs my Pio SC 57 as a pre in pure direct mode?

Haven't had an ear on the Parasound 2100, but I could pretty much say for sure an Anthem D2 would wipe the floor with any receivers processor.

Serendipity

tonyb wrote: »

True, but thats the ticket, the better and more revealing your gear becomes, the more important the quality of the recording is. Otherwise we could all just use a Bose system that makes everything sound the same and forget about anything else.

I agree, that's why I still haven't purchased the Bose 901's yet. Although I did like the "sameness" in the sound, it's just different from my DefTechs, not really sure how to explain it. Lots of times in the Bose store the salesman would demo a modern track (anything from Shania Twain to OutKast), and I'm like "wow, these are really listenable and remove the digital fatigue I usually get".

However, I have come to the conclusion that I simply have a more revealing system and fully admit that my system doesn't sound good on certain recordings.

I like to listen to all speakers with an open mind and IMO, if you are running super-detailed speakers (like FocalJMLab Grand Utopia with Be tweeters) and have very detailed, revealing gear, many pop hits which are usually over-compressed are hard to listen to.

Certain gear (such as pin-point accurate DACs, Parasound pre/pros, and amps such as the Bryston 4B-SST seem very revealing to me and therefore, I have a hard time listening to on certain source material).

But for the majority of what I listen to, it's not much of a problem. Again, YMMV.

heiney9

F1nut wrote: »

Phil, you've lost your mind.

Yes, he has.

heiney9

Your rig is only as good as the weakest link.

H9

tonyb

I hear ya, I can't stand that sterile harsh high frequencies on alot of todays recordings. A system thats overly detailed can sound less musical. Tubes sound the most musical to my ears and do a nice job with the higher frequencies to add some air and texture, take away that harshness. I would encourage anyone who is sensitive to higher frequencies to add some tube goodness to your system.

Face

Here's something you can give a try Alex: http://doddaudio.com/diy.aspx Either use a battery or regulated 4.5a PS, plus you can roll different caps through there till you find the sound you like.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

Phil, you've lost your mind.

LOL !!

I certainly won't speak for Phil, but seeing we all have know him for awhile now, I think it's safe to say that Phil has stopped chasing those last few upticks of SQ and started to just enjoy the music. Can't rag on the guy for that Jess.

shack

tonyb wrote:

I think it's safe to say that Phil has stopped chasing those last few upticks of SQ and started to just enjoy the music.

This is exactly where I am. As I sit here looking at my system (while listening) my NEWEST piece of gear is 4 years old. None of it would be considered anything better than Mid-Fi by many here (NAD, Cambridge Audio, Goldring, Sony SACD and Polk). I am perfectly happy with it and have no desire to upgrade anything (well...maybe the TT at some point). Latey all my audio $ are spent on new music and even that has slowed considerably as my CD, SACD and LP collection is to the point I still have new music I have yet to open and there is some old stuff that needs to be revisited.

heiney9

tonyb wrote: »

LOL !!

I certainly won't speak for Phil, but seeing we all have know him for awhile now, I think it's safe to say that Phil has stopped chasing those last few upticks of SQ and started to just enjoy the music. Can't rag on the guy for that Jess.

Totally understand that, but one can't go around spreading 1/2 truths just because one isn't interested in chasing the last upticks of SQ and simply dismiss it. I wasn't so much ragging on him, but it's a pretty silly statement and I've met Phil and I respect his POV, but I simply don't think his statement is remotely true in most instances.

H9

heiney9

shack wrote: »

This is exactly where I am. As I sit here looking at my system (while listening) my NEWEST piece of gear is 4 years old. None of it would be considered anything better than Mid-Fi by many here (NAD, Cambridge Audio, Goldring, Sony SACD and Polk). I am perfectly happy with it and have no desire to upgrade anything (well...maybe the TT at some point). Latey all my audio $ are spent on new music and even that has slowed considerably as my CD, SACD and LP collection is to the point I still have new music I have yet to open and there is some old stuff that needs to be revisited.

Right, you aren't interested in finding that last uptick of SQ at this point, but then you aren't stating where you're at and your rig is as good as something else that IS clearly a better alternative.

H9

shack

heiney9 wrote:

but then you aren't stating where you're at and your rig is as good as something else that IS clearly a better alternative.

I KNOW there is better...I've heard it. I also believe that SOME of the flagship AVRs are getting damn close...and we are talking degrees of improvement vs leaps and bounds improvement (IMO).

inspiredsports

heiney9 wrote: »

Totally understand that, but one can't go around spreading 1/2 truths just because one isn't interested in chasing the last upticks of SQ and simply dismiss it. I wasn't so much ragging on him, but it's a pretty silly statement and I've met Phil and I respect his POV, but I simply don't think his statement is remotely true in most instances.

H9

Exactly! Well said.

pearsall001

Boy! I knew this would set off a firestorm & you guys surely didn't dissapoint! Sorry fellows but I stand by my statement that a "Flagship" AVR from the top companies bows to no seperate prepro for 2 channel listening, plain & simple. Some might find it necessary to balk at an AVR just so they can remain in the "audiophlie" club but not here. I've been thru a few seperate pieces & I've definetely heard many expensive setups & it just solidifies my findings.

Maybe a lot has to do with my room which is pretty much a perfect size for music reproduction. I have spent a lot of coin & I mean a lot on room treatments (a lot of bass traps, corner traps, absorption panels, diffusion panels) which I always felt was the best money spent. And once one's room is in order the payoff is huge. That last 1% that so many seek just isn't an issue...I already have it. Cheers & carry on.

tonyb

I know what your saying too Brock, and while I don't agree either with Phils statement, at some point you have to stop chasing the latest and greatest and just enjoy the tunes. After all, that is what the hobby is about in the end. How we all get there is a matter of preference and prejudices.

Thats one thing a down economy does, forces you to enjoy what you have and not lust after the diminishing returns.

F1nut

pearsall001 wrote: »

Boy! I knew this would set off a firestorm & you guys surely didn't dissapoint! Sorry fellows but I stand by my statement that a "Flagship" AVR from the top companies bows to no seperate prepro for 2 channel listening, plain & simple. Some might find it necessary to balk at an AVR just so they can remain in the "audiophlie" club but not here. I've been thru a few seperate pieces & I've definetely heard many expensive setups & it just solidifies my findings.

I've got a flagship AVR, it's no where close to either of my 2 channel rigs.

Maybe a lot has to do with my room which is pretty much a perfect size for music reproduction. I have spent a lot of coin & I mean a lot on room treatments (a lot of bass traps, corner traps, absorption panels, diffusion panels) which I always felt was the best money spent. And once one's room is in order the payoff is huge. That last 1% that so many seek just isn't an issue...I already have it. Cheers & carry on.

Are you still sitting off on the right side of the room?

tonyb

C'mon Phil, nobody's balking at AVR's to be in the "club" of audiophile snobbery. While I can agree with Shack that the top AVR's are comming real close to seperates, and if money wasn't an issue, seperates would still be the way to go not only SQ wise, but for the available tayloring of the sound that could be done with seperate pieces.

While I respect your statement Phil, I've had an ear on numerous High end receivers, and if judgeing just the processor alone, yeah some are real close. IMHO anyway, still no cigar when compared to higher end processors. I'm not talkin' an Emo processor here. Still haven't heard an avr's processor at any price compete with an Anthem D2, pricey at it may be. Now is that price difference worth the extra squeeks of SQ ? That could be up for debate and I think that is more or less where your comming from. Pre amps is a whole nutha story.

pearsall001

tonyb wrote: »

C'mon Phil, nobody's balking at AVR's to be in the "club" of audiophile snobbery. While I can agree with Shack that the top AVR's are comming real close to seperates, and if money wasn't an issue, seperates would still be the way to go not only SQ wise, but for the available tayloring of the sound that could be done with seperate pieces.

While I respect your statement Phil, I've had an ear on numerous High end receivers, and if judgeing just the processor alone, yeah some are real close. IMHO anyway, still no cigar when compared to higher end processors. I'm not talkin' an Emo processor here. Still haven't heard an avr's processor at any price compete with an Anthem D2, pricey at it may be. Now is that price difference worth the extra squeeks of SQ ? That could be up for debate and I think that is more or less where your comming from. Pre amps is a whole nutha story.

Tony, there's a whole lot & then some of snobbery on this forum. That's what makes it fun around here. And as far at the Anthem D2 processor goes it's one hell of a piece. But don't forget for it to perform it has to have it's ARC program engaged in order to deliver the goods in a digital format. A lot of guys don't like the ARC engaged for two channel. The fact that I dare mention that a top notch AVR can deliver the goods as good as a stand alone pre (not processor) for two channel listening is what's twisting their shorts.

And Jesse my man, throw some MIT cables on your HT rig & you'll know what I'm talking about. And as far as sitting off to the right...that's the beauty of having an exceptional sounding room, It doesn't matter where I sit. If you have to sit in a "sweet spot" then your room needs a whole lot of work.

Serendipity

It really depends on the rest of the system and the source material. For example, I spent a good amount of time with the German Physics Loreley MK II at CES and that was listening to Jazz music on a turntable. Certain tracks were fatiguing to my ears, but that doesn't mean it didn't sound great. It was just hard to listen to for me.

At PolkFest this year, I commented that the rigs all had too much high end "glare" and bass "thump". For example when playing my test CD Sarah Brightman - Naturaleza Muerta on the Carver Amazings, I said that the highs were a little too defined and the bass was a bit pronounced. George Daniel said that the Carvers weren't usually known for heavy bass, but I felt that the sound was still a bit difficult to listen to. Doesn't mean the PolkFest rigs were bad sounding, in fact they could be awesome to many, just that I felt they were too fatiguing.

The point is, like tonyb said "A system that's overly detailed can sound less musical." I admit that my rig is sometimes fatiguing, but when friends come over to listen they are impressed by the sound. My mother says she prefers the sound of the DefTechs over the Bose 901, but every time I demo the 901 I can sit there for 1/2 an hour without a problem. Different strokes for different folks I guess. My gamer friends all prefer the sound of my rig over the 901 also, I guess I am just overly sensitive to high frequencies and I am the only one that gets headaches from listening to tweeters.

I've come to realize that everything matters - simply going from an Onkyo AVR to a TOTL Denon reduced the number of recordings I can listen to. Sure, good recordings sound great, but mass-market stuff sounds terrible, IMO.

Syndil

The most important piece in the chain IMO is the D/A converter, which is usually part of the pre/pro, unless you are using an external DAC. That said, the best configuration I have found for two-channel listening is to eliminate the preamp or AVR from the chain entirely, feeding my CD player's variable outputs directly to a separate amp. I've tried inserting various pieces of gear for convenience since there is no source selection with this type of setup, but after hearing what I could accomplish without a preamp, I could not be satisfied. SQ trumped convenience. So I have a two-channel rig for CD listening and a HT rig for everything else... Which also uses (modest) separates. Of course going this route for your two-channel setup means that you must be very mindful of your equipment selection, as there are absolutely no tone controls. The only control I have over the sound is volume. I may eventually try an external DAC with my Denon DCM-460 CD player, but the reason I bought it in the first place was because of its superb built-in DAC. Still get goose-bumps and grins when I listen to it, so I'm not terribly motivated to go that route.