SQ difference using Receiver as preamp vs. Pre/pro?

skor

Currently I am using an HK DPR 2005 as my pre and a Parasound HCA-2003A to drive my Lsi9's and LSIc. The surrounds are being driven by the Receiver's amps. Would I notice a significant improvement in SQ by upgrading the receiver to a pre/pro? What would you recommend?

NeilGabriel

How does this work? When preouts from receiver are used, do they continue to also function within the receiver? I had thought that once the preouts were run to another amp, they lost connection with the receiver's amp section. I guess this is not true?

skor

NeilGabriel wrote: »

How does this work? When preouts from receiver are used, do they continue to also function within the receiver? I had thought that once the preouts were run to another amp, they lost connection with the receiver's amp section. I guess this is not true?

It's a 7.1 channel receiver, so if I use the pre-outs for LF, RF, and center channels, that leaves the remaining for the internal amps of the receiver...

Mike682

NeilGabriel wrote: »

How does this work? When preouts from receiver are used, do they continue to also function within the receiver? I had thought that once the preouts were run to another amp, they lost connection with the receiver's amp section. I guess this is not true?

You are probably thinking about receivers that had the jumpers connected to its pre-outs when not using an external amp. You had to take them out to connect an external amp..some people lost the jumpers after that..

Mike682

skor wrote: »

Currently I am using an HK DPR 2005 as my pre and a Parasound HCA-2003A to drive my Lsi9's and LSIc. The surrounds are being driven by the Receiver's amps. Would I notice a significant improvement in SQ by upgrading the receiver to a pre/pro? What would you recommend?

Do you mean replacing the reciever with a dedicated pre-amp and seperate processor?

The receiver is pretty much a pre-pro the way you have it now. As for SQ, you may or may not hear a diifference if you add another amp to take on the remaining suround channels. Remember, the surrounds are not as demanding as a front soundstage is..therefore you are less likely to hear a big difference when compared to adding an amp to the fronts..

cfrizz

Well Scor, you would have to get an amp for your rear channels since you would lose the amplification of the receiver for them.

As for would prepro be an improvement, I keep waiting for a few people to answer this question definitively. Then I could make up my mind if I want to get one!:D

Get the Parasound, 1500A for the surrounds & you certainly will notice a difference. Back speakers like power too. Especially if you like multichannel music!

cfrizz

Neil, it is the receivers internal amps that get bypassed when the preamp outputs are being used. The power then becomes available to whatever speakers are being powered by the receiver.

NeilGabriel wrote: »

How does this work? When preouts from receiver are used, do they continue to also function within the receiver? I had thought that once the preouts were run to another amp, they lost connection with the receiver's amp section. I guess this is not true?

Mike682

cfrizz wrote: »

Get the Parasound, 1500A for the surrounds & you certainly will notice a difference. Back speakers like power too. Especially if you like multichannel music!

Good call, I totally forgot about multi ch music...everytime I hear the words rear surrounds I always think of movies.

cfrizz

That's because the "purists" pooh pooh MC music. But when you put in the SACD of Darkside Of The Moon OOOH YEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!

ben62670

Pre pro's aren't made on the scale of receivers. The price / performance is a big one I loved my HK as a pre/receiver. It's a dollar thing to me.

cfrizz

I know prepro's are not on the same scale. However, if I could get one that had all the features I wanted, knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the expenditure of money would give me the same amazing jump in improvement that adding the Parasound 1500A amplifier did to my system, then it would be well worth the money spent.

Especially since I don't upgrade often.

mldennison

there are two reasons that i hold the opinion that a dedicated pre/pro will beat a receiver which is used only as a preamp:
1) size - if a designer has a box of a fixed size and has to fit more stuff into it (the case of a reciever), that is going to cause more work and you are going to pay for that. for that reason, if a receiver and a pre/pro cost the same amount, i would assume that the pre/pro would consist of better parts/design.
2) extra functions - looking again at a receiver and a pre/pro at the same price point, the receiver has the added cost of the amplifier, which in this case you are not using at all. the designer of the pre/pro is free to use more of his budget on higher quality parts because he does not have the expense of the amplifier.

now this is a major generalization, and assumes that what the receiver or pre/pro costs is what it is worth. but at least this is what i think allows you to say that a dedicated pre/pro is better than a receiver when using it just as a preamp.

billbillw

I've looked at many of the lab tests over at Sound and Vision and I think you will find that many of the better receivers (like Denon) have preamp sections that are every bit as good as (if not better than) your typical high end dedicated pre-pros. Typically, the receivers also have more of the newer surround formats and features like active room setup/with parametric equalizers.

wingnut4772

Pre Pros can be upgraded without the expense of upgrading the amp. I have had both pres and receivers in my systems and I have always preferred the pre pros. That may be because they tend to come in at a higher quality price point though as well.

engtaz

HT receivers tend to have more bells and whistles and more Audio and video inputs. I use my Denon 4802 as a preamp.

cfrizz

But what about the sound Darla? Can you say without a doubt that it sounded significantly better than a receiver.

That for me is the most important fact.

wingnut4772 wrote: »

Pre Pros can be upgraded without the expense of upgrading the amp. I have had both pres and receivers in my systems and I have always preferred the pre pros. That may be because they tend to come in at a higher quality price point though as well.

wingnut4772

cfrizz wrote: »

But what about the sound Darla? Can you say without a doubt that it sounded significantly better than a receiver.

That for me is the most important fact.

Well yes because they were significantly more expensive than any receiver I had. Other than that I don't know. The theory is that there is less interference and noise because the amp is separate from the case but without actually doing an A/B I could not say. It makes sense though.

cfrizz

So we are right back to the "I paid a lot more therefore..." And theories aren't any real help or proof of anything. Most decent equipment does it's best to minimize noise & interference. So unless you have ears as sharp as a dog's we probably can't hear it any way.

Sometimes all this subjectiveness drives me insane!

skor

ben62670 wrote: »

First impression. I should have saved the money, and spent it else where. It is clean, no problems. Just not a real step up from the HK as a Pre. I am using unbalanced outs.

Here's a real life quote from ben62670 who "upgraded" his HK AVR-235 (using it as a pre/pro w/ an Adcom GFP-500 amp) to an Outlaw 990. I guess this solidifies what I've thought all along (and others have agreed) unless your spending significantly more on a pre/pro don't expect much improvement in SQ; and even then it's subjective...

wingnut4772

cfrizz wrote: »

So we are right back to the "I paid a lot more therefore..." And theories aren't any real help or proof of anything. Most decent equipment does it's best to minimize noise & interference. So unless you have ears as sharp as a dog's we probably can't hear it any way.

Sometimes all this subjectiveness drives me insane!

Cathy, my point was that the pre pros were significantly better because they were in a different league than what I owned as a receiver. I have never owned a top end receiver.I don't think that more expensive means better just because it is more expensive.

VR3

Ah....

Receivers and preamps.

I think one of the better sounding Multi-Channel units I've had in my room was the Pioneer Elite VTX 41 or something like that. Dont remember the exact model numbers. The amp section of this unit sucked big hairy monkey nuts. But the preamp sectioned rivaled that of the NAD unit it replaced for 2 channel. Now I will say that the B&K that replaced the NAD and the Odyssey that replaced the B&K are leaps and bounds beyond what the PE could ever do.

Still a pretty impressive unit for the $$$.

MSALLA

wingnut4772 wrote: »

Cathy, my point was that the pre pros were significantly better because they were in a different league than what I owned as a receiver. I have never owned a top end receiver.I don't think that more expensive means better just because it is more expensive.

So if I read you right, when you switched to a pre/pro, you bought one that was at a higher price point (higher end equipment) then your receiver?

Has anyone had both a pre/proand a receiver around the same price point to compare?

VR3

My B&K (2 Ch) and PE receiver cost the same new - 800 smackers.

B&K easilly took it to the cleaners.

wingnut4772

MSALLA wrote: »

So if I read you right, when you switched to a pre/pro, you bought one that was at a higher price point (higher end equipment) then your receiver?

Yes.

cfrizz

Ahh. Ok I gotcha now Darla.

wingnut4772

cfrizz wrote: »

Ahh. Ok I gotcha now Darla.

Spacedeckman

There is something that you guys are overlooking here. It's called "economies of scale". Many of the companies that make components are very small, and have very low production numbers. On the other hand, a Yamaha, Denon, or h/k receiver, benefits from design and production scales that the little guys couldn't even dream of. The Denon mid-line receivers on up from the XX05 series, and the Yamahas over the past 7 years or so, have had huge improvements to their front ends, and are capable of incredible performance as a pre/pro. Their performance will often equal if not exceed pre/pros that cost significantly more money. Added to that, there will be features that the little companies can't afford to adapt or develop.

I knew of a guy who replaced a loaded Theta Casablanca a few years back with a top line Yamaha receiver. His comment was that the performance differential was minimal(pluses and minuses), but the features and flexibility were in a whole different league. Another guy locally replaced a high end pre/pro with a Denon 480X late model after a lightning strike toasted his expensive pre/pro. Again, comparable performance, more features.

Another advantage, is that you get the "power supply from hell" on a receiver, all dedicated to powering the front end. Gotta love it.

Mark

John K.

Skor, unless your present HK was incompetently designed(certainly not the case)or has been damaged and isn't performing as designed, then there should be no audible difference between using it or a separate prepro. The same standard of audibly flat frequency response with inaudibly low noise and distortion applies and spending a lot more money because of some manufacturer's hype can't change anything.

F1nut

Anti Audio Hifi Insurgent sighting.

If anyone is buying that pant load from K, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Spacedeckman

F1nut wrote: »

Anti Audio Hifi Insurgent sighting.

If anyone is buying that pant load from K, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Hmmm, spawn of Julian Hirsch and Consumer Reports? Everything sounds the same. CDs sound better than vinyl. In his later years, Hirsch wrote a column where he said that all speakers anymore pretty much sound the same, and he admitted that his favorite demo source was FM. Of course, by then he was older than dirt, and his hearing had failed substantially. He was all about the advertising revenue, and not hacking off advertisers to maximize the take. However, his magazine survived.

I hear differences in most things. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes a trade-off. Some view that as heresy, since it all "measures well".

Mark

McLoki

John K. wrote: »

Skor, unless your present HK was incompetently designed(certainly not the case)or has been damaged and isn't performing as designed, then there should be no audible difference between using it or a separate prepro. The same standard of audibly flat frequency response with inaudibly low noise and distortion applies and spending a lot more money because of some manufacturer's hype can't change anything.

I can bring an Onkyo 777 AVR that I used to use to Polkfest. It is an excellent "before" piece because I have never heard anything that did not sound better after it. (especially for DTS)

Like most electronics it measures very well but the sound quality is just not that great. (it was a fine match for my rm6600 speakers I used to run on it though)

If you want to believe that everything sounds the same - fine. You will save alot of time, money and flustration. I would love to believe it myself, but I have decided to believe I just won the lottery. It is just as true and keeps a smile on my face.

Michael