Receiver vs Pre/Pro

mystik610

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_642SR7005/Marantz-SR7005.html?search=Marantz+VENDORID642&searchdisplay=Marantz#details-tab

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_642AV7005/Marantz-AV7005.html?search=Marantz+VENDORID642&searchdisplay=Marantz#details-tab

Here's the quick and dirty:

Building out a home theater system. I've got an amp that I plan to use (or upgrade), but am needing a new pre/pro, as my Onkyo 805 is going to be used with a separate system.

What are the advantages of using a pure pre/pro as opposed to using the pre-outs on a receiver (other than saving $100). Are there any real world advantages to using balanced connections vs RCA's?

falconcry72

An advantage to receivers is just that there are more in the market, so there are more choices, and the competition brings cost down. Plus you can use its amps if you ever need to (like if your amp blows up, or you want to try 7.1, 9.1 etc.)

Are there any real world advantages to using balanced connections vs RCA's?

The differences are really specific-piece-of-gear-dependent. A lot people will flat out say "no", and others will flat out say "yes", without knowing the specific piece of gear in question. This is just stupid. I wouldn't pick one piece over another because it's balanced or not, but once you've picked a piece (based on other features), if it does have both types of connections, then it may be that that particular piece implements one type of connection better than the other. For example, my ARC pre has both, but only it's balanced input is in a "direct" path that bypasses some crap. Also, my Audio GD DAC has a significantly better SNR through its balanced outputs, so it was an easy decision for me to go all balanced. My point is that I did not pick these pieces because they had balanced connections. I picked them for other reasons, but once I had them, I evaluated their own differences between connections, and I picked balanced based off how those specific pieces implemented their inputs/outputs.


I'll add that one advantage inherit to balanced connections is that they do better over very long runs. They will often have a better SNR, or noise floor, but not always, and, again, it's really gear dependent.

rtart

I've used both approaches and had good luck with both. AVR's tend to be less money for features, but pre/pros (controllers) may have better connections (XLR) and may have better components inside. I'm using separates now since I finally found an amp with enough guts to make me happy. I also have a controller that is two or three 'revisions' old that does everything I need.

I had separates about ten years ago (the Sony TAE series) and went to an AVR/amp combo when Pio Elite came out with the auto-calibrate feature. Used a VSX-56txi with a stack of carer amps. Went back to separates when Onkyo closed out a bunch of PR-SC885's cheap. Added an Emo XPA-5 and then a UPA-2 when they went on sale, then found an ATI 200 x 7 amp to replace the Emo stuff. Finally found my Sherbourn 7/2100 about a year ago. (I did the math and calculated that an amp that provides real 200wpc+ x 7 needs two separate circuits to provide enough power. The Sherbourn has it.)

In summary, let your ears, budget and feature needs decide. Most modern AVRs will provide great sound when paired with a decent amp.

BTW, I've heard some less-than-stellar reviews from owners of the Marantz gear you linked to. I'd suggest you look into the recent used market, unless you really, really, really need 3D via HDMI v1.4. Anything newer than 3 years old should do nicely - with a lot of scratch left over.

Emotiva has been selling out its UMC-1 for $499 I think, and it has gone through most of its childhood teething pains. Coupled with their new 5 x 125wpc channel amp at $399 you could be set up for around a grand.

heiney9

For strictly HT nothing wrong with using an AVR to control external amps. If you were looking for serious 2 channel music I'd say no to the AVR. There is a current hotly contested thread about the same topic. It has gotten quite juvenile towards the end but maybe some of the posts will help

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?132459-The-reason-why-receivers-cant-work-for-two-channel-music-reproduction

H9

mystik610

Thanks for the feedback guys. Might save myself some coin and pick up an onkyo 709, and spend my budget elsewhere.

brgman

Juvenile? Here?

EndersShadow

mystik610 wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback guys. Might save myself some coin and pick up an onkyo 709, and spend my budget elsewhere.

Thats my plan. I was holding out to see the spec's on the new Onkyo NR818 since it has Audyssey XT32, but it doesnt implement SubEQ as part of it (which works wonders for dual subs) so all I would be getting is more filters on my mains and subs which to me wasnt worth 2x more than the 709.

If your having trouble finding new (which I think are around 550), Accessories4less is an Authorized Reseller of Refurb units. They are very nicely priced and come with a 1 year manufacture warranty as well.

The are also a Authorized Reseller for Marantz and Denon refurbs as well

pearsall001

There's pro's/con's to both scenerios, pretty much like all things audio related. Your best bet is to give both a shot & rely on your ears to be the final judge. Either way you'll be happy with your pick. Nothing is ever cut & dry.

mcnarus

I'd say the first thing you should do is decide what features and capabilities your require/desire. If you can find an AVR that gives you everything on your list, it'll probably be the better value. If not, then pre/pro is the way to go.

polkfarmboy

As an owner of a good pre and avr I think the difference would be the dedicated power supply the pre has. a good room correction system helps as you listen to the room mostly.