Why would you prefer a Receiver with pre-outs over a separates Pre-amp/processor?

Gunther16

Not knocking any preferences one way or the other but would like to hear some opinions on this subject. Been reading on the forum about the best AVR to have with pre-outs. What good is having a Receiver if all you going to do is bypass the build in amplifier using the pre-outs? In that case why not just get a separate Pre-amp/processor? The only advantage I can see is that you get a tuner but may be wrong on that also as the B&K series had a build in tuner.
Can anyone give me a logical explanation?

mikeyb128

Some people use a 3 channel amp for mains then use the receiver to run the surrounds. I ran a receiver for years as a preamp, and in my opinion a dedicated pre beats the pants off receivers as a pre any day.

Gunther16

That's a waste in my opinion. you are missing out on the best that's out there. A good place to start but why not start at the best you can? But your explanation makes sense in a way. A long time ago I used the AVR way but once I got into separates I never looked back! Regretted wasting my dollars on it though.

mikeyb128

Gunther16 wrote: »

That's a waste in my opinion. you are missing out on the best that's out there. A good place to start but why not start at the best you can? But your explanation makes sense in a way.

The cost ratio from a receiver with preouts to a dedicated pre for the most part is twice the cost. I believe a lot of people also do it due to budget.

Gunther16

Agreed. but my first separates (Adcom) was only marginally more expensive and I'm still using two of the original Adcom components.

Nightfall

I run my center and rear channels off my AVR. If I went the other route I'd need another 3 channel amp. I don't really care if a stand alone HT preamp would sound better, it's just HT. I run 2 channel music on an almost separate system.

Gunther16

Not much of an explanation Nightfall. Why do you use it that way? Obviously you are using a separate amp for the mains so it must make a difference.

voltz

my setup is just like Josh's. I use to use a Adcom 5503 200x3 wpc but I giving it to a friend with my RTIA7's....I now use a 2 channel Amplifier 150x2 wpc to power the front 2 and my AVR powers my center and rears...because like Josh I do not really care as much about my HT setup and my 2 channel setup is a totally different system (no AVR)

the reason for a AVR with preouts is for tough to drive speakers like the RTIa7's were...a AVR (jack of all trades) trying to power all 5 speakers drops down to like 50-60 wpc and the front speakers normally need more power then hence a separate amp to power the front two correctly and the AVR can handle the rest...

footwedge

Gunther16 wrote: »

Not much of an explanation Nightfall. Why do you use it that way? Obviously you are using a separate amp for the mains so it must make a difference.

Because two sound channel is more important to nightfall and I agree?

mikeyb128

I think nightfall meant he concentrates more on his 2 channel system than the theater. I am in the same boat, 2 separate systems, but I concentrate my efforts on the 2 channel system, I built a good theater a while ago over many years. Been center channel-less for several Months. I will eventually get to it

Edit: Oops sorry. Basically just repeated what Voltz said.

Gunther16

Ok I can understand that reasoning. Good explanations! Keep em coming

cfrizz

The way I see it is if you have an all in one system HT/Music you might be better served with separates. Providing that you plan on keeping your gear for years as I do.

I am more into audio than video, but I don't have room for another system. So I looked for the best used separates that I could get that would do justice to music as well as HT.

I don't have hdmi on my Sunfire prepro, but I worked around it with the digital audio connectors when I finally got a hdmi Sony TV so that I have great sound.

You pay considerable more money for separates, and they don't update that often it usually takes years and the changes in technology have to be considerable for the companies to update their offerings.

So if you have to have the latest and greatest, then your best bet is to get a receiver with all the bells and whistles that you want it to have and add an amp to it. The amp can stay through all your updated receivers so that you will continue to get excellent sound, and you spend less money on the receiver as opposed to a prepro. However, those receivers will also add up to thousands of dollars over the years.

Gunther16

All the pre-amps I'm familiar with have a straight stereo mode and perform superb in that department. I do not use or need any of the video functions(they are available) and use only the audio portion for both Stereo and HT. I can see the point of bells and whistles but this again is a waste in my opinion. Over years of replacing the AVR there is more money spent than on separates. Good point on the bells and whistles though and interesting point of view.

tonyb

Most don't bypass ALL the channels in a receiver by adding an amp, though some might. The cost of a pre-pro is also a tad bit more so that's also a concern for some.

Plus, it's called baby steps for some. A lot are just branching out beyond entry level AVR's and their weak power supplies, looking at driving bigger speakers, dipping their toes into better audio one step at a time.

Everyone has different needs, and wallets, so which ever floats their boat I say go with it.

Gunther16

Baby steps, needs, wallets are all good explanations. Been there, done that too. Regret it too. Should have read more, listened more, saved more and curbed my immediate wants more. Don't have those issues anymore!

tonyb

Yeah well, some still do....and they are just doing what they can. Everything always looks clearer in the rearview mirror....no ?

cfrizz

Gunther16 wrote: »

Baby steps, needs, wallets are all good explanations. Been there, done that too. Regret it too. Should have read more, listened more, saved more and curbed my immediate wants more. Don't have those issues anymore!

It is usually a hard learned and expensive lesson!

tonyb

cfrizz wrote: »

Gunther16 wrote: »

Baby steps, needs, wallets are all good explanations. Been there, done that too. Regret it too. Should have read more, listened more, saved more and curbed my immediate wants more. Don't have those issues anymore!

It is usually a hard learned and expensive lesson!

Amen my sister from another mother. That's why we are here, to help people not make the same stupid mistakes we did on our journeys. In all honesty though, you have to let them make some mistakes so they can have their own AH-HA moment. We just try and keep those mistakes to the lowest monetary value as possible.

Nightfall

Sister from another mister.

Gunther16

Amen

FTGV

I recently picked up a little Marantz AVR to replace an ancient Technics processor.I'm more of a 2 ch guy but I wanted to add HDMI switching and the newer audio codec's to the mix.The fact that it will also power my surrounds allowed me to remove an amp from my rack.The pre outs feed the front stereo pair of active speakers.While it will not best a good pre/pro it does everything I need it to and sounds reasonably good doing it.

Gunther16

Great explanation, Its suits the individuals needs, wants and ears. A lot of good explanations. This thread was never about which is better but more about preferences and why. Thanks for all the feedback

Dennis Gardner

I think that Cathy has it right. If you have to stay with one system, and like 2 ch music, find a way to either get a pre/pro into the mix or an AVR with a tube preamp setup with HT bypass for the best two channel sound. I have done the latter with quite a bit of success. Mixing a tube preamp into it stepped it up so that I didn't require a second 2 ch. rig when $$ dictated. My Tivo and BR/DVD are the only switched HDMI signals, and my Squeezebox, turntable and CD/SACD player go into the 2 ch. preamp.

FTGV

My system is configured similarly since 2 ch sound quality has priority.The AVR handles the HDMI from the Tv,BR,Android box and SAT receiver.The pre outs feed one of the aux inputs of a minimalist MOSFET preamp.The phono preamp and DAC are connected directly to the preamp so are not in the AVR 's signal path.

Nightfall

FTGV wrote: »

My system is configured similarly since 2 ch sound quality has priority.The AVR handles the HDMI from the Tv,BR,Android box and SAT receiver.The pre outs feed one of the aux inputs of a minimalist MOSFET preamp.The phono preamp and DAC are connected directly to the preamp so are not in the AVR 's signal path.

That's how I do it too. AVR preouts to a regular line level input on my tube preamp. HT bypass isn't required, you can do it with any preamp, it's just more of a hassle and I have to have the tubes running even for HT. When I want HT/video games I have an exact spot that the tube preamp volume dial has to be set to.

I'm sure HT sound quality isn't what it could be, being that it's going through two preamps. Again, though, it's just HT. It sounds good enough to me.

rpf65

Could be your thinking like a 2 channel guy. Higher end AVR's are geared toward HT people.

The biggest concern to 2 channel people is the absolute best sound they can achieve. Not very many vidio people will drop a couple of thousand on a pair of speaker cables. They're just not as concerned with that last 1 or 2 percent.

Thats the difference between an avr and a pre/pro the last few percent. To a lot of HT people that last few percent just isn't worth the additional cost.

Doesn't really matter how many channels the have a separate amp for. The sound just isn't as critical.

tonyb

I can agree with some of that ^^^, put a good pre/pro is a heck of a lot more than 1-2% better than an AVR.

In audio, everything is cumulative. A little bit better here, a little more there, and it adds up to a big improvement.

voltz

When I finally bought some nice speakers( RtiA7's) I had a Denon 1911 without pre-outs and it was under powered. So I when I got a chance later to upgraded my AVR to a NAD T-750 and use a adcom 5503 to power them I got better sound,,,

then I thought what if I got a preamp and tried pure 2 channel sound? hence i got a Vincent preamp on the cheap and loved it..later added the Vincent Amplifier...But its was These %$#@ Polkies that taught me what good music could sound like and they pushed me right down the Rabbit hole.

smglbrth

I think if I had to choose between my HT and 2 channel because of space concerns/different arrangements "house-wise" I'd kick HT right out the door and stick with 2 channel for everything, period...

mikeyb128

smglbrth wrote: »

I think if I had to choose between my HT and 2 channel because of space concerns/different arrangements "house-wise" I'd kick HT right out the door and stick with 2 channel for everything, period...

Agree 100%, love the theater but it's huge and would be the first to go.

Gunther16

I personally prefer well powered 2 channel and its more often than not in use, however when I feel like going to the movies or a concert the HT kicks in and I'm always awed by the performance. Its the best of both worlds.