AVR vs. seperate pre-pro and power supply

univera

In terms of using a good mid-fi AVR as a pre-pro only and adding an additional multi-channel amp, would the main reason be to seperate the power supply from the pre-pro to clean up the signal or simply to add more, raw power. Let's assume that the AVR's power is sufficient for the room in question.

It seems today's AVR's that are worth their salt do a great job with everything and in many ways are built as much like seperates as possible. Every attempt is made to seperate the power supply from the rest of the unit.

With that in mind, is there that much difference in a seperate mid-fi pre-pro with a seperate power supply? Or, would using the pre-pro off a well regarded piece like my T-773 and externally amplifing give me just about the same benefit? I would tend to think that since my AVR is well built, taking the built in power supply out of the equation would make the pre-pro essentially a "seperate."

Again, this all relates back to my original question of what the main objective in adding external power would be and what one should expect.

jdhdiggs

Both...

Your AVR may be powerful enough to fill the room, but it will struggle to get there. Having a dedicated circuit and more power cleans up the power and delivers more power than the AVR.

This is a poor rule of thumb, but look at how much amplifiers weigh versus AVR's and you may have your answer.

Grimster74

Outlaw 7700 amplifier (93lbs.), Outlaw 990 pre/pro (28lbs.), just an example.

univera

I hear you on the weight. I understand perfectly well the concept of seperates. I was really curious about the pre-pro part itself and whether it stood up to seperates. I am just questioning whether it even makes sense to have an AVR if you only end up using the pre-pro section. I don't really care about having a tuner but its nice to have. I am actually waiting for the 773 to arrive today. This AVR, by the way, isn't exactly light. Point taken, however.

My older 770 has less power, was quite engaging and sounded pretty clean. Since I don't plan on using the piece for my 2 channel setup (my main focus and candidate for seperates) this is probably all I need. A very good home theater sound for a moderate price. I don't think it will struggle in my room. It's not even 20 feet from front to back wall. Maybe 25 feet across, if that. With that said, I would consider a seperate pre-pro and 5 channel amp if I could attain a setup for $1,000. I was really sold on this piece because it is very musical, reasonably priced, and doesn't sacrifice music performance at the expense of HT.

I am going to have a dedicated circuit installed. I will have to get more info on that in a week or two.

danger boy

Grimster74 just went with sepearates.. what did you notice? was it an improvement going with seperates?


I myself went with seperates a few months back from an AVR. it was an improvement. I will probably never go back to a AVR in my home theater.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Most people have an AVR in the mix because they upgrade in steps or phases, and an AVR gives you that ability.

Let's say I only have $1000 for pre/pro to start with. I can buy a nice receiver like a Denon 3806, or one of the models from NAD, Rotel, Outlaw, etc. I can use the receiver to power all my speakers.

Then in a few months when i get some more money together, I can grab a 2 channel amp for the fronts, then maybe another in a few more months for the rest of the speakers...and then maybe finally upgrade the pre.

I know your question is about the difference in sound, but that's subjective. What I can say is you see a much greater improvement by adding separate amplification than you do when upgrading your processor, especially if you have a decent receiver to begin with.

if you've upgraded a system before by adding an amp, you probably noticed an immediate, huge improvement in sound. Don't expect that by upgrading your pre unless you're talking about going to a 2 channel pre.

cfrizz

Grim hurry up with that comparison!!!:D

Al, where did the biggest improvement come from though? The amp or the prepro?

I know definately heard a huge increase in clarity, bass, vocals & instruments going from my 110 wpc Denon receiver & my 200wpc Parasound. I have heard a more subtle difference between my 200wpc Parasound and my new (to me) 405wpc Sunfire.

But I really need to find out if it will be worth the extra money to get a separate prepro. Denon is no slouch in that department, it is always the power that takes a back seat.

Holydoc

cfrizz wrote:

But I really need to find out if it will be worth the extra money to get a separate prepro. Denon is no slouch in that department, it is always the power that takes a back seat.

Cathy,

This all depends on what your weakest link in your system is. When I compared the ARCAM preamp (claimed to be one of the best at reproduction of sound) to my Onkyo receiver, the difference was so subtle at times that it did not make a difference. This told me that the speakers, transport, or interconnects would be more worth investing in rather than the preamp.

If my speakers, transport, and interconnects were top-notch I probably would of heard a big difference in the preamp to the receiver. However with my current set-up, my money would be better spent on one of the other items to get the bigger bang for the buck.

So to make a long story short, you are going to have to experiment and see. Find the weak links and attack them first. That way you always get that feeling of satisfaction every time you upgrade. You are not worried about whether you are convincing yourself that something sounds better. You will KNOW something sounds better.

Dennis Gardner

Mid-fi AVR as a pre-pro to Hi-fi pre-pro is the point of diminishing return unless you have a large room to fill and are willing to take room treatment seriously.

Today's mid-fi AVRs features make them more flexible than a dedicated pre-pro so they may actually have controls to balance your sound better. What I mean by this is that the Hi end pre-pro will sound better in perfect conditions, but if alot of processing is required to overcome room conditions, the AVR may have the controls to win out.

mantis

Holydoc wrote:

Cathy,

This all depends on what your weakest link in your system is. When I compared the ARCAM preamp (claimed to be one of the best at reproduction of sound) to my Onkyo receiver, the difference was so subtle at times that it did not make a difference. This told me that the speakers, transport, or interconnects would be more worth investing in rather than the preamp.

If my speakers, transport, and interconnects were top-notch I probably would of heard a big difference in the preamp to the receiver. However with my current set-up, my money would be better spent on one of the other items to get the bigger bang for the buck.

So to make a long story short, you are going to have to experiment and see. Find the weak links and attack them first. That way you always get that feeling of satisfaction every time you upgrade. You are not worried about whether you are convincing yourself that something sounds better. You will KNOW something sounds better.

Balance is key. Every upgrade you do needs balance. Everything you do needs balance. Putting a great preamp in a not in it's same level system isn't going to give you the benefits as you found out here.

Good post man,

Dan

univera

Polkmaniac wrote:

Most people have an AVR in the mix because they upgrade in steps or phases, and an AVR gives you that ability.

Let's say I only have $1000 for pre/pro to start with. I can buy a nice receiver like a Denon 3806, or one of the models from NAD, Rotel, Outlaw, etc. I can use the receiver to power all my speakers.

Then in a few months when i get some more money together, I can grab a 2 channel amp for the fronts, then maybe another in a few more months for the rest of the speakers...and then maybe finally upgrade the pre.

I know your question is about the difference in sound, but that's subjective. What I can say is you see a much greater improvement by adding separate amplification than you do when upgrading your processor, especially if you have a decent receiver to begin with.

if you've upgraded a system before by adding an amp, you probably noticed an immediate, huge improvement in sound. Don't expect that by upgrading your pre unless you're talking about going to a 2 channel pre.

This is really about what I was trying to get an opinion, and reinforces what I already believed. Simply, that the pre-pro in the mid-fi AVR was really very, very good and that power source upgrades/seperate power supplies would make the biggest difference as far as home theater is concerned.

In fact, I should have been more specific in that I was really inquiring about the pro/HT component more so than the pre-amp/2 channel needs. It would seem obvious that a seperate pre-amp for high end two channel would be the way to go, although I am sure that two channel would show marked improvement.

I agree as well that the AVR gives one a place to start without a huge investment and to upgrade down the line. Great info from all.