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

Gunther16

As far as cost of quality Pre/pro vs AVR there are a lot of preowned high end Pre/Pros that come up for sale at less than a new AVR. In my case the only "new" items that I purchased were my Polk speakers and the Krell KAV3250 everything else was pre-owned and is more than outstanding. Of course there is always the apprehension to buying pre-owned but I have been very impressed by the quality of my pre-owned equipment.

tonyb

Yep, the higher end pre/pro's used are good deals....except most won't have the most current software for newer HT surround codecs or other bells and whistles some may want in a newer receiver.

Yeah, in some cases there are work arounds, but most simply don't want to apply that much time and effort into it. Personally, I'm a big proponent of using higher end pre/pro's for 2 channel that are a bit outdated in the HT area. You get better sound than a receiver, better build quality, better dacs built in, and connections up the wazoo.

At the rate new stuff loses value, I'd doubt I would ever buy new again. Technology changes so fast you lose coin like driving a new car off the lot.

gp4jesus

tonyb wrote: »

Yep, the higher end pre/pro's used are good deals....except most won't have the most current software for newer HT surround codecs or other bells and whistles some may want in a newer receiver.

At the rate new stuff loses value, I'd doubt I would ever buy new again. Technology changes so fast you lose coin like driving a new car off the lot.

$588, shipped, last year for a NEW Outlaw 975 pre/pro seemed pretty reasonable. My only beef: it doesn't crank my system like the outdated Rotel it replaced.

Dennis Gardner

Pre/pros are as a rule the last to adopt the latest processing and features. Cutting edge is actually offered in the receiver line first.

This is a generality, and isn't quite as bad now that HT has settled down somewhat, but 10 years ago, receivers were sometimes 2 years ahead of pre/pros in features.

txcoastal1

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

Pre/pros are as a rule the last to adopt the latest processing and features. Cutting edge is actually offered in the receiver line first.

This is a generality, and isn't quite as bad now that HT has settled down somewhat, but 10 years ago, receivers were sometimes 2 years ahead of pre/pros in features.

Vice versus with Marantz this go around
Prepro first with DTSX firmware upgrades. Pioneer is actually lagging in development this go around

Was at CEDIA last September most manufacturers are going from top to bottom.
Housing market killed HT for the standard consumer

Toolfan66

I'm totally happy using a receiver (Pioneer) with a 3 channel amp in my HT, I see no reason to dump more money into it. With the RTiA line, and SVS subs my basement thumps pretty hard, better than a movie theater...

And if I ever had to have one system, I would either upgrade my RTiA line, and get a two channel preamp with HT bypass, or I would just go to a full time 2 channel set up...

gp4jesus

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

Pre/pros are as a rule the last to adopt the latest processing and features. Cutting edge is actually offered in the receiver line first.

This is a generality, and isn't quite as bad now that HT has settled down somewhat, but 10 years ago, receivers were sometimes 2 years ahead of pre/pros in features.

Yup. At least the above is true for Rotel. For that that matter they're latest pre/pro at $3500(!!) doesn't decode Atmos. Further their attempts at HDMI friendliness/QC* w/ their 10 & older 15* series everything is documented as it or miss.

Rather than gamble* on used/affordable* ** I'm happy w/ my Outlaw** with, surprisingly, easier-on-ears SQ.
** le$$ new than Rotel used

Tony