Power Cords realy help!

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote:

If you don't think cables sound different, you should buy cheap gear?

Who said they couldn't hear any difference between different equipment? The discussion was on cables, power cables no less.

You left out the part of the quote where I mentioned cables. It's called a general statement and it applies, re-read all of the posts if you need proof, you're splitting hairs. We all know this thread has moved beyond a simple power cord in it's scope.

For those of you who, don’t, can’t, won’t hear a difference in equipment and associated cables after trying many many times with many types of gear.

heiney9

PolkThug wrote:

Wow, that's great advice. I'm going to go buy the cheapest gear I can since I haven't heard a difference in power cords.

Yep, you're right it's advice and you can choose to take it or leave it. Again you and WilliamM2 are splitting hairs and being a bit too literal. But then you are P-Thuggy and you seem to cause chaos everywhere you go .

bikezappa

heiney9 wrote:

Each side is trying to convince the other what they believe is the truth.

It's shouldn't be about sides. It should be about getting some data.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I'm not trying to change you or say you are making this up. Can we all get this straight.

I'm trying to understand an electrical circuit, power cords, that people say improves the sound. This makes no sense to me based on my electrical engineering courses, my common sense and my practical experience. I just ask for clarification, has anyone proven with DB tests or any other test that they can hear this difference. If so, please show me the tests, that's all.

I have been fooled many times in my life with Hi Fi stuff. I'm to old to throw out my past experiences. I have tried different power cords and can hear no differences. Maybe I'm deaf and not a critical listener, I hope not.

I ask these questions not to piss on anyone but just because I am curious about this issue. It doesn't make sense and I like to make sense if possible so I look for some data that shows people can hear these differnces. Show me some data.

I'm going to go listen to some music with some single malt scotch now.

Ta Ta

heiney9

bikezappa wrote:

I'm going to go listen to some music with some single malt scotch now.

Ta Ta

Now you're talking!!!!

dragon1952

johnADA wrote:

OK, I'm getting the popcorn out, drinks etc for the next round.

If within direct mode, actually called pure audio, when the signal bypasses the internal DAC's or any sound processing at all, which the direct mode isnt a straight through bypass and goes straight to amplification, whats the big deal???

And amps job is to amplify the signal and not alter it. Altering it is a form of processing in which is changes the outcome.

So basically in this mode it "should" ( gave you a loop hole) act as a amplifier only.Why wouldnt a cord work? I picked this type receiver based upon it being more than capable of both worlds.

Well as long as you're using the analog connects to the receiver you're bypassing the receiver's internal DACs anyway. What you're bypassing is the reciever's built-in DSP circuitry, i.e. where you can adjust the listening modes, tone, etc. I believe. BTW, I was able to discern differences in interconnects on that receiver....but not the power cord or speaker wire types. It's been a long time since I had mine but I do know from researching it at the time that the signal in the 'pure' mode is definitely not just being amplified and sent directly to the speakers. It is being processed to some extent by the receiver's pre-amp section. And as adequate of a job that the amplification may do on HT, it isn't the optimal amplification for 2-channel. It may sound really good on some things but you know there's got to be much better. All of those A/V combinations I tried sounded great on some things but just really nagged at me on others. Just to give you an idea of my audio path, I always thought pretty much the same as you all during my quest for acceptable 2-channel performance....that I was getting the best of both... and I never once initially thought I didn't have equipment that shouldn't deliver in both categories. But I would always end up dissatisfied with the music side of it. I started out with Yamaha, tried Denon, Harmon Kardon then the Integra. Then I figured maybe it was the speakers. I tried Polk, Klipsch, Paradigm and then Vandersteen. I tried different CD players. I went from Harmon Kardon to a Sherwood Newcastle to NAD to Music Hall to Jolida. As for amps and preamps I went from the Integra to separates and integrated's...NAD, Musical Fidelity, Conrad Johnson, Dodd Audio to my current Ming Da tube integrated. Each step was a little closer to what I was looking for. My quest ended with the tube integrated plus the Jolida CDP and the Vandersteen 2CE signatures. I had to downgrade speakers when I recently moved and just went to an older model Klipsch temporarily, the KG4. I have actually found that these are quite adequate and may keep them. It makes me want to believe that if you match any decent speaker with a quality source and pre-amp/amp that you're pretty close to where you want to be. I'm no audio snob for sure....my modest 2-channel system has set me back less than 2 grand, but I guarantee you that if you ever replace that Integra with some quality 2-channel separates and put a little more into speakers you're going to look back and be very surprised. Most of us here have followed the same path and arrived at similar ends and conclusions and along the way we've read all the things you've read , believe me, and we probably felt the same way you do. I'm not bashing your equipment and it may be perfectly adequate for you for a long time...just letting you know that if you ever decide to venture forth into dedicated 2-channel you'll be pleasantly surprised at what you'll find....and maybe you'll even try a power cord upgrade again. I know you'll think I'm being condscending but I'm really not being that way.

Oh, another thing........I bought an early 70's Marantz receiver and Advent bookshelfs off of Ebay a while back for a bedroom system and that system absolutely kills any A/V receiver system I've ever owned for music reproduction.

johnADA

OK, were getting away from the main topic, but hell this is getting more interesting by the minute.

A pre-amp is for signal processing, correct??

Signal processing, which includes tone control, balance, bass management, video processing amongst other things.

Now according to what I found researching Marantz and Integra lineups that have this pure audio and not just a direct mode shut all features of this sort down. I have none of whats listed above when in pure audio. According to what information that is available pure audio is exactly as stated, pure audio untouched from the source.

So in my case from my understanding of this according to what I have read both net wise, instruction manual, Hi-Fi stores its this.

AMC through its Burr Brown DAC's to the Integra Amp section, unmolested in any nature, to my mains. Same as it would be if I had separates that consisted of a CD player, amp and mains..

If a moderator would like, move this newly forming topic to its own post.

dragon1952

OK.....believe what you want. Maybe I'll try and dig up some info. Regardless , it's not just the pre-amp section that the deciding factor anyway. I could also dig up some rather disturbing test results on A/V receiver amplifier sections but I really didn't want to get into equipment knocking. The bottom line is, as far as 2-channel music reproduction A/V receivers in general are pretty average, though possibly perfectly adequate for the masses. There just aren't that many people that are that hung up on it to want to pursue it any further. You'll just have to learn through experience, if that's the road you take... .and then you can look back.

johnADA

dragon1952 wrote:

OK.....believe what you want. Maybe I'll try and dig up some info. Regardless , it's not just the pre-amp section that the deciding factor anyway. I could also dig up some rather disturbing test results on A/V receiver amplifier sections but I really didn't want to get into equipment knocking. The bottom line is, as far as 2-channel music reproduction A/V receivers in general are pretty average, though possibly perfectly adequate for the masses. There just aren't that many people that are that hung up on it to want to pursue it any further. You'll just have to learn through experience, if that's the road you take... .and then you can look back.

Dragon, I assume your thinking I'm taking this as a dig, I'm not.

If the case be true that my receiver is somehow acting against the pure audio ideal, I'd like to know about it. How, why etc!!!

I bought it based upon this premise and would be REAL pissed if something was hidden from me. Onkyo would be taking this outta their backside!!!

Nothing I've ever found, net-forum and the rest has made me think otherwise. I've never even heard, found posts associated with what your saying. By all means dig it up, I DO FIND it relevant to my achieving Nirvana so to speak with the completion of a new room.

dragon1952

Your receiver is not acting against any ideal, it does the same thing they all do. The 'direct' or 'pure' modes bypass the DSP section and tone controls but the signal still has to be 'processed' by the preamp section before being sent to the amplifier section. Yes it will provide a purer signal to the preamp but you're still dealing with a built-in-one box that does not 'specialize' in any one aspect, hence one of the reasons it will pale in comparison to quality separate components. The A/V receivers are a great way to go for many people and most of us have them but I'm sure you wouldn't argue that there's no way an all-in-one box with a $1200 price tag dedicated to not only multi-channels of audio, plus video and signal processing as well and containing a million wires and transformers and electronic devices can equal even an similarly priced quality separate system dedicated to only 2-channel audio reproduction. And I just don't think it would be the piece to potentially be improved by tweaks such as power cords, which would give a subtle improvement at best to any system. Most of us eventually got discouraged and made separate 2-channel systems in another room, an option not available to many, or scrapped the whole HT thing altogether. It's nearly impossible to get the best of both in one room unless you're just not that anal about your music in the first place, and most people aren't so I think you should just enjoy your great system and not worry about what's important to other people.

TN_Polk_Lover

johnADA wrote:

Who ever said including myself, that I never tried anything?
Am I bitter, partly so,confused, disgusted and so fourth, most definitely yes.

I started out 2 years ago with absolutely no equipment. I had the best money could buy 30 years ago, within the range I allowed. Having kids and so fourth took away time, money and so fourth from a hobby I began to miss and the lids poked, prodded and killed everything I owned. . . .

John,

Thank you so much for this post. I was really worried about you. You came across as so bitter that I thought "This guy is really wacko. He is really a lunatic!" But now I understand you a lot better and have a lot more respect for you after sharing how you built your system (or I should say, rebuilt your system).

I don't have all the money in the world to spend on any little thing that MIGHT improve my system. So, I'm going to concentrate first on the things that will make a big difference such as your speakers, a more powerful amp to drive the speakers, a better source (CD player / DVD Player / Turntable, etc). Other tweaks, I will approach cautiously. But, if others say they hear a real difference in some of the "accessories" like interconnects and upgraded power cords, who am I to judge them? Then, if I compare them and don't hear a difference, I'm still not going to doubt the other person. Maybe their ear / brain combination is better at sound than mine, or they have trained themselves to hear smaller differences.

I think that the most expensive interconnect cables that I have are 2 that I ordered from Audio Advisor. The Audioquest "Sidewinder" series covered in a red and black fabric. The 1 meter was $60 and the 1/2 meter was $50.00. That's about as much as I would be willing to spend on better interconnects. Heck, the CD Player / DVD Player that I have the 1/2 meter one connected to probably only cost about $80 at Sam's Club! At the time I bought these, I had inherited a significant (for me!) amount of change from my mother who passed away. So it was kind of a "splurge" purchase that I might not have otherwise made.

Now, do those cables sound any better than stock "el-cheapo" interconnects? I really don't know because I have not tried switching them out and doing a direct comparison. One day, after I'm finished setting everything up, and finish repainting my listening room, etc. I might do some listening tests.

But do those Audioquests look much better than the stock cables, and even better that some of the "middle of the road" Monster Cable interconnects that I have? Yes. Will anyone else every see them? Probably not, unless I take a picture of my system and post it here. Did I buy them for "snob appeal". No, I bought them because I wanted them and it doesn't matter if anyone else in the world is impressed with how "pretty" they are or not.

Are they constructed better than the cheap stock cables? Yes, 1000 times yes. Stock cables are sometimes so loose when you connect them that they will fall off easily. (Not all of them, mind you, but some I've had are very loose).

So, even if they don't sound better, I'm still happy with them and glad I bought them because I like them.

My main speakers (Polk RTi 70's - floorstanders, now discontinued) originally retailed for $800 a pair. I happened to be in Circuit City one day and they had the floor demo models on clearance for $400. I went ahead and snapped them up. My center channel is a CSi30 which was $300 retail, but Electronics Express had them on clearance for $150. I bought one. (Polk was coming out with the new RTi line and everyone was clearing inventory of the old ones) My surrounds, I bought off ebay for about $250, for what was retail of about $500. I bought all of these, one at a time, as money permitted, or when I happened upon a good deal, way before I had a surround sound receiver. I finally bought a Denon 3806 past Nov. from Tweeter.com. It was original retail of, I think $1200 or $1300. Tweeter had them for $879.

The reason I'm sharing this is because not everyone on this forum has loads of money to spend on just anything they want. Those that God has blessed with alot of income, I'm proud for them and proud for them for the really nice equipment they may have. So, I don't think this place is full of "snobs". I have hung around here since 2003 and most people here share one common thing -- a deep love for music. Heck -- one of the most frequent posters here --"Sid the Kid" (Trey) was about 15 years old at the time and cut grass in the summertime to feed his "addiction" as you call it. He certainly couldn't be called a "snob". I'm sure some might have called him other names! (just kidding, Trey) ("Brat" comes to mind?)

Some men spend all their extra money on a nice bass boat and the biggest SUV they can buy to tow it. Me, I just want a good sound system, and to finish putting my daughter through college!

Wow, I don't know why I'm rambling on like this. I guess that I was so pleased that you finally posted a real honest post that wasn't full of obvious bitterness. I gotta go, I'm staying a little late at work writing this and I need to get home. But, I'd like to continue later on this whole subject of the "double blind test" and why such tests are really not that good of an indicator when it comes to audio.

PolkThug

heiney9 wrote:

Yep, you're right it's advice and you can choose to take it or leave it. Again you and WilliamM2 are splitting hairs and being a bit too literal. But then you are P-Thuggy and you seem to cause chaos everywhere you go .

Thats not fair, I edited my post before you posted.

Don't need me for chaos, this forum rocks at: jumping to conclusions, making assumptions, soapboxing, polarizing viewpoints, splitting hairs, semantics enforcement and asshatting.

What this forum could use is more Spelling ****. The spelling around here can get horrendous.

F1nut

A pre-amp is for signal processing, correct??

No, it's for gain and source selection.

johnADA

F1nut wrote:

No, it's for gain and source selection.

Splitting hairs in definition!!

DarqueKnight

If you take a look at better preamps, the ones that are known as "purest" designs, you will find that they have no tone controls or other devices that alter or "process" the signal. All they do is select a signal source, amplify it, and send it to a power amplifier.

While there are preamps that do process the signal in some way, some people feel that these are not really "preamps", but are more correctly referred to as "signal processors".

F1nut

johnADA wrote:

Splitting hairs in definition!!

Not at all, see the excellent previous post.

hearingimpared

F1nut wrote:

Not at all, see the excellent previous post.

My two channel rig preamp has, three inputs, a phono, aux and tape loop, it has an attenuator (volume control) and a balance control. It is over 20 years old and is still one of the best sounding preamps to this day. That is it. That is my idea of a preamp.

My AVR is a NAD T 773 that is a processor. It has every light, bell, and whistle that you could possibly want in a multichannel rig. I would never consider using it to play music. That is not what it is for . . . it is for home theater. . .and just movies as far as I am concerned.

So a preamp is as described in the two threads above. . . I don't think that is the definition of splitting hairs that is just a preference.

johnADA

Well gain and selection wasnt the only answer, they can do more to processing a signal than just that, it all depends on which you choose.So it was splitting hairs in definition, which is similar to what starts alot of these debates we just calmed down. Lack of information, or siding with what someone believes.

tonyb

Well John,gain and selection are the right answers.Maybe your thinking of
the different sound character between preamps.This is not a signal processing
but more related to build quality,power supply,tubes,etc.Splitting hairs this is not.Dragon pretty much nailed it down for you.

BTW-Glad to see after 30 years,you are still interested in music.Alot has changed since then
and for the better as of late.Get your read on,catch up,but don't get too involved in the micro
detailes or you can drive yourself wacky.

johnADA

DarqueKnight wrote:

If you take a look at better preamps, the ones that are known as "purest" designs, you will find that they have no tone controls or other devices that alter or "process" the signal. All they do is select a signal source, amplify it, and send it to a power amplifier.

While there are preamps that do process the signal in some way, some people feel that these are not really "preamps", but are more correctly referred to as "signal processors".

Look it, I said a preamp was a signal processor and FI nut says its for gain and selections

Selectional implies just that. It takes a signal with NO alterations to it and sends that signal NO alterations to whatever.

According to those terms it meets the aboves PUREST definition.

It you can add gain of any sort, you have changed the original signal in some way, thats signal processing in which he states SOME people feel they are not pre-amps.

Thats splitting hairs.

My original post was about the Integra having a feature that acts as the Purest definition, it just signal directs, doesnt go through a preamp section where the signal is altered in anyway. Why would that be so much different than using a separate system that has a preamp that was a Purest, and not one some call whatever that adds gain, which is also known as a preamp.

reeltrouble1

John, the fellows who have been responding are trying to help you and get you squared away on this topic.

There are so many things about a receiver that just fall short of my particular audio goals, like others I use my receiver for HT only. Its a higher end older (5 yr) Oinker, yes, direct setting is best if that is all you have to use, however, it is not anywhere close to the sound of either of my 2-channel rigs.

You may not want to hear it, I know I did not, but that receiver is at the top of the lo-fi audio level. I would say the whole unit weighs, oh, no more than 35 lbs, our 2=channel audio nuts here (me) have 2 channel amps that can weigh between 80-110 lbs or even more. Why the big difference?

Its a place for you to start, to get your learn on.

RT1

george daniel

^^^^^ what he said^^^^^^ my power cord weighs 5 pounds

johnADA

Reel, I am trying to understand this.

The part thats losing me is all this pre amp stuff. Yes I know there are different types out there from ones that just direct and others.

It was stated to me its because of the preamp section of the receiver I get what I get.
But its appearing to me that isnt the case.
If we look at it as individual parts in the scheme of things, the pure audio part is just a signal director. Receiver is a receiver when asked to be so, when not it doesnt interfere with the signal. The pre-amp section, anything that alters the signal, the same thing.
So based upon those premises there is only one part left in this particular scenario thats the problem. The amp itself, correct???

heiney9

John, there is so much to learn you can't possibly learn and experience it ALL in a short time or just on this forum or just in this thread. I am going to attempt to explain/break things down in the simpliest form, not because I think you are unintelligent, but to try and help you get a grasp.

A receiver is the most complex(not good) component because it's basically being asked to do EVERYTHING all in one compact unit. A receiver by definition will include a tuner to which is both AM and FM with minaturization of tuner components this doesn't take up too much space or energy.

Next we have a combination pre-amplifier section and switching center for both audio and video signals. All receivers have a pre-amplifier section no matter if you use a direct function (like you mention) or not. The pre-amp takes the very low level audio signal from either the inputs or tuner section and increases it to make it possbile for the last section of a receiver which is the amplifier section. The amp section in any typical receiver doesn't have the ability to amplify the low level signal unless it is first boosted by the pre-amplifier section. The reason is simply the nature of electronics and the very low level signal coming from a cdp, dvdp, tape, phono or tuner section. There are seperate amplifers that can take a low level signal and amplify without a pre-amp (passive). But they are very specific designs, cost a lot and you have to have outstanding source equipment ot take advantage of a set-up like that.

That being said there are compromises all over the place in a receiver to achieve the desired design goal which in almost all instances is to pack as many features as possible in the same size package. This results in components like capacitors, resistors, IC chips, transitors, power supplys, relays, switches, diodes, circuit boards, connectors to be of much lesser quality and in some cases quantity than what you get with seperate components. The receivers main limitation is size and price. You could build an awesome receiver that was say 3-5 times the size and weight of current designs and it might cost 3-5 times the price; that might rival seperates. Not practical or convenient or desirable.

Add up all these compromises through out the whole receiver and you can see (I hope) why you won't get the best possible sound from a receiver regardless if you are running in direct or not. Direct just bypasses the tone controls, and switching banks. You are still using the pre-amp section of the receiver. By bypassing the above the signal has a bit shorter run and can't pickup noise associated with running thru switches and potentiometers, etc. Less components in the signal path is SUPPOSED to mean a cleaner signal. In a receiver because of all the other compromises in design there is rarely the intended result.

Now understanding this is about 1/1,000,000,000th of what it takes to get to where some of us are as far as understanding not only what we are looking for in an audio system, but understanding how to get there.

Like I said before you seem to be looking for a straight, short, logical answer. If you really have no concepts of electronics and the relation to audio you will continue to be frustrated. It takes atleast a baisc understanding of concepts. If not then get you hands on as much gear as possible and find out the differences and your personal likes and dislikes. I've been in this hobby for 25+ years and I still learn new things. It's not easy, there are so many factors involved and again it's part of the journey.

mlhm5

Power cords claims cannot be proven, however all the claims of this device are factual, are easily proven and every recording studio in the world has them but those same studios do not buy expensive power cords.

Isolation Transformer

What does it do? To begin with, it is a surge protector and a power conditioner + it completely decouples the mains power from the power to the connected unit and eliminates ground loops, EMI/RFI noise, interference, & equipment generated odd harmonics ++.

You can buy 250W, 500W and 1000W depending what you plug into it. The 250W is as cheap as $90 + shipping.



Isolation Transformer

500W

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote:

I've been in this hobby for 25+ years and I still learn new things.

That's why it never gets old.:)

johnADA

heiney9 wrote:

All receivers have a pre-amplifier section no matter if you use a direct function (like you mention) or not. The pre-amp takes the very low level audio signal from either the inputs or tuner section and increases it to make it possbile for the last section of a receiver which is the amplifier section. The amp section in any typical receiver doesn't have the ability to amplify the low level signal unless it is first boosted by the pre-amplifier section. The reason is simply the nature of electronics and the very low level signal coming from a cdp, dvdp, tape, phono or tuner section.



Direct just bypasses the tone controls, and switching banks. You are still using the pre-amp section of the receiver. By bypassing the above the signal has a bit shorter run and can't pickup noise associated with running thru switches and potentiometers, etc. Less components in the signal path is SUPPOSED to mean a cleaner signal. In a receiver because of all the other compromises in design there is rarely the intended result.



Like I said before you seem to be looking for a straight, short, logical answer.

That was all I needed and basically is the short sweet answer I was looking for.

I understand how quality components and all the other stuff along those lines will make a difference. I actually understand the electronics side better than you would think.

Like I stated before, what you just said , better than anyone else to this point, I was never informed about and basically lied to about. Before I had picked up this unit on ebay, I looked at the higher shops here around town that have one better equipment, secondly a much more knowledgeable staff. What they told me is against most everything you just said.

These receivers, Marantz and the Integra upper lineups are the only ones to offer a pure audio setup, unlike others that offer a direct setup. The difference between the 2 is the fact pure audio passes directly to the amp section of the receiver unmolested and with these high current amp sections, nothing else is needed. Under the direct mode offerings it goes to a pre-amp first. Thats why the cost is so high, blah, blah, blah.

Thats what they told me all most exactly word for word.

Now if your dead right, I havent finished with this at all, I'M PISSED!!!!!!!!!!!
Why, that isnt what I wanted, yet they told me it was. I could have boughten a much cheaper unit for HT and kept the extra set of speakers to use as fronts, bought better for 2-channel.

Now you know why I pushed for a more informative response???

DarqueKnight

mlhm5 wrote:

Power cords claims cannot be proven, however all the claims of this device are factual, are easily proven and every recording studio in the world has them but those same studios do not buy expensive power cords.

Some Love

I do not think recording studios are the best example to validate the uselessness of premium power cords. I say that because VERY FEW recording studios are interested in producing high fidelity recordings. Many, if not most, recording "engineers" are not appropriately trained in the art, science, and technique of high fidelity recording and reproduction. Many recording studios use tons of compression in the recording process. Many more use mediocre mass market speakers as studio monitors. Why? Because the recording engineer wants to hear what the final mix-down will sound like on speakers that are typical of what most consumers use. Such bad sound.

Some Results

As with some other audio "tweaks" that I have tried, I have had mixed results with power cords. My experience has been that they work on some components and have no effect on others. A lot depends on the quality of the power in your house and the quality of the component's power supply.

For example, I tried Signal Cable's Digital Reference power cords on my CD, SACD, and DVD players, and on my plasma TV's. It made no difference whatsoever over the stock power cords that came with the units.

I next tried the MagicPower cord on all of the units. There was a noticeable improvement in bass impact on the CD, SACD, and DVD players. The DVD player also produced a slightly sharper picture with the MagicPower cord. When I used a MagicPower cord with my 55" plasma HDTV there was no improvement further improvement in the picture from the DVD or HDTV sources. The picture from analog TV channels was noticeably sharper with less noise.

With my Samsung and Panasonic plasma TV's, I noticed no improvement in the picture (for either digital or analog sources) when using either the Digital Reference or MagicPower cords.

I discussed my results for the Digital Reference cable with Signal Cable's owner, Frank Dai. He said that my results were not typical but he was aware that his cables may or may not offer an improvement to every consumer. This is why he offers a 30 day money back guarantee.;)

TN_Polk_Lover

John,

heiney9's post was very good at trying to explain some of the reasons a receiver can never be quite as good as seperate pre-amp / amp / tuner, etc.

However, don't get too caught up and frustrated if some of this just doesn't make sense to you. Don't forget the main object here should be the enjoyment of music. If the system you currently have sounds good to YOUR ears, you (and your family) enjoy the music, enjoy the movie soundtracks (if used for that purpose), then don't forget to ENJOY it!

I understand full well alot of these things, but I still recently bought a Denon 3806 receiver.Why? because in a single unit it gives me the ability to decode multichannel sound sources (Dolby 5.1 or dts) and provide amplification for up to 7 channels. I did make sure that I bought a receiver with "pre-outs" so that I could drive my front main speakers with a seperate 2 channel amp.

My Denon receiver also has a "stereo direct" and a "pure direct" function. My understanding of this is that in the "stereo direct" mode, some of the circuitry is bypassed, such as any tone, equalization, or DSP (sound effects such as concert hall, jazz club, etc.). In "pure direct" mode, it also turns off the display to eliminate any noise the display might introduce. Is this a good thing that it has these direct modes? Yes. But, will that still be as good or as "pure" as having a seperate high-quality pre-amp connected to a seperate power amp? Most likely not. But -- and this is the big question. Is the higher cost and more space required for the seperate components justified? That is entirely a value judgement that each person must make on his own. And -- also a big factor -- if you can tell the difference or hear the difference. As we have hashed out in this thread arguing about power cords -- it seems some people can hear a significant difference in the receiver vs. seperates setups, others can't.

Now, I understand that there are some who find time to enjoy the music, but still are obsessed with constantly wanting to improve their systems. There is nothing wrong with this. Maybe that is their hobby and it gives them something constructive to do when they aren't at work or doing other things with their families. Some people collect stamps. Some build ships inside of bottles. Some obsess over getting the most performance out of their engines, or they argue about which wax is best to use to wax their cars, etc.
Some here fiddle around with audio equipment and find it challenging to get the very best possible sound from their system.

johnADA

I allready had a all in one that consisted of 4-polk R-15's, a CS-1, cheapo sub and a Onkyo 303 SE I had picked off ebay someone sold as one sale since he was upgrading. Got it fairly cheap, just under $300 and thats decent against alot of all in ones with pubic hairs for speakers. Did I say that, oops.

The people at the mid-high end store were told that and I had said I wanted something very, very good for just music. With this new room which will be done this spring, room isnt and object. I'm custom building a 5 foot wide, full wall height entertainment center to house everything. So this extra unit/s, wouldnt be a problem.

They also knew I wasn't buying that day, it would take time to fund it all. I went in looking for a 2 channel only setup. They talked me into this assuring me of all those fine points mentioned before. Why bother losing space when these 2 and only these 2 units do this stuff. Denon and a HK they carried had what you sated, but they assured me those other 2 are totally different, hence PURE AUDIO, not associated with Direct Mode functions. Got pricing etc and left with the intent to give the unit I had to the kids for the romp room downstairs that had nothing.

On ebay one day I see and older model, one year older to be exact that wasnt listed right. It was Integra 7.4, no receiver or HT within the main title. So it was in home audio, but not within the receiver category. I always start searches wide, look and narrow them down. 7 day listing $250 start price, no reserve from a place called pawn brokers. No bids, last hour I set a max of $400, couldnt go more and prayed, won it at $250. Thought about the pawn brokers name and dam, stolen, swapped, used and beat up went through my mind. It was 99% mint except one 1/8 long scratch.

See where I stand now????

johnADA

For the $1500 they quoted me, I could get a tuner, preamp and a 100 watt RMS amp, right? 2 channel only!