Why use a receiver with an amp?

[nachomama]

I'm looking at upgrading my receiver and have been researching whether I want to switch to a pre-amp / amp set-up. Reading through old forum posts, I've come across several instances of people using a receiver with an amp. To me this just doesn't make much sense. Can someone provide some insight as to why you would want to do this?

Thanks!

[mbanole03]

I used my receiver as a preamp for a while, then when I got a preamp used it for the tuner only.

Chuck

[chaosrv]

There are a few reasons, really.

First, like me, they owned the receiver first and upgraded the system by purchasing an amp but still using the receiver to do the switching/processing etc...

Second, you tend to find more features/bells & whistles in receivers than you do in most pre/pros. While the implementation may not always be as good as separate pieces of equipment (though in some higher-end models, the implementation can be very good indeed) the overall footprint and convenience factor is a draw for a lot of people.

For example, I don't need internet radio or netflix, network audio streaming or whatever as I have an HTPC and an XDA-2. Other people may not have these things and thus need/want them in an all-in-one box. I don't really need bluetooth either. Again, my htpc already has it and can almost certainly do it better and while I do have a pair of bluetooth headphones from sennheiser I use while commuting to/from work, when i want to do some serious listening at home I use a "real" pair of headphones.

Basically, features/convenience vs quality.

[Porscheguy]

Because there is no XMC-1 yet.. That is the only reason in my world..

[chaosrv]

Mar 27, 2013 12:52:04 GMT -5 Porscheguy said:

Because there is no XMC-1 yet.. That is the only reason in my world..

Right there with ya, buddy. The antici...pation of the XMC-1 is the only reason I haven't tossed my denon avr yet for something else.

[gearhead2003]

For many its sound quality and pure power. When you break it down in to separate components you get a lot less distortion and interference caused by all the processing etc. Secondly it comes down to just raw power. In a receiver you get all channels feeding off one power supply. When a huge load hits the power supply, capacitors are used to instantly meet that demand. With separate components you divide that load among many instead of one in a receiver.

[nachomama]

Thanks everyone! This is starting to make sense.

It sounds like I need to look at my existing equipment and determine which bells and whistles I do need to have in either a receiver or preamp. Are there certain features you typically won't find in a preamp - like room calibration?

Porscheguy - Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to check out the specs on the XMC-1.

[jdskycaster]

The OP is asking for reasons why to use an AVR as a pre-pro so the internal amplifiers are a moot point. That is unless you believe that they create noise even when idling.

I use an AVR primarily because of Audyssey. My usage is 90% HT and in my treated room it does a great job. I also use the Dynamic Volume feature quite a bit. I had an opportunity to A/B directly with the UMC-1 and it was an easy decision to keep the AVR for now. I have had a separate pre-pro in my HT and hope to someday replace my current AVR with a separate once I can find something that bests it in price/performance. Bring it on Emo!

[Bonzo]

Mar 27, 2013 12:46:33 GMT -5 chaosrv said:

There are a few reasons, really.

First, like me, they owned the receiver first and upgraded the system by purchasing an amp but still using the receiver to do the switching/processing etc...

Second, you tend to find more features/bells & whistles in receivers than you do in most pre/pros. While the implementation may not always be as good as separate pieces of equipment (though in some higher-end models, the implementation can be very good indeed) the overall footprint and convenience factor is a draw for a lot of people.

For example, I don't need internet radio or netflix, network audio streaming or whatever as I have an HTPC and an XDA-2. Other people may not have these things and thus need/want them in an all-in-one box. I don't really need bluetooth either. Again, my htpc already has it and can almost certainly do it better and while I do have a pair of bluetooth headphones from sennheiser I use while commuting to/from work, when i want to do some serious listening at home I use a "real" pair of headphones.

Basically, features/convenience vs quality.

Agree 100%! Although you left off a couple things.

Outside of the world of Emotiva, price is a huge thing. There are many receivers to choose from for a lot less money than most pre-amps.

For features, you not only get more, but you get the latest greatest. Pre-amps typically lag behind and have "last years" new stuff, while receivers are on the cutting edge.

Performance wise, when doing upgrades, the switching portion of a system is typically in the bottom of the importance list. I'm not saying it can't make a difference, but when compared to the source itself, the source component, the speakers, and the room you are in, it's minor.

Also performance wise, if you want the best DAC's, all you really need to do is get something like an Oppo 105. If you do that, there isn't much need for a receiver's DAC anyway, especially not for Blu-ray, DVD or CD's.

Add all this up and you get more flexibility. If you have the means, you could swap out to a new receiver every year for say $1500. To do that with say an Integra, that's going to cost you double. You could get a top of the line receiver for $3000 every year, but a top of the line Anthem pre-amp is going to cost you more than double that (what do they cost now, $6000 - $8000 I'm guessing?)

How about a list.

Receiver As Pre-Pro (Pros)
- latest greatest features
- more features
- higher flexibility
- less cost
- overall better "cost to performance ratio"

Receiver As Pre-Pro (Cons)
- lesser build quality
- slightly less performance

The pre-pro separate list would be almost an exact flip flop.

[guitarforlife]

I myself would never use a AVR for a pre amp for a high quality stereo system. Just me.

It is a good way to upgrade a little at a time with a budget however.
I'm sorry But I can't buy into a receiver has all the bells and whistles and is better then a hi quality Pre amp.

Like porscheguy said Not in my world.

I do own old vintage receivers but they are what they are. A receiver.
Not a pre amp.

If you want the best out of your amp(s) go with a Pre amp.
I don't do HT so I'm talking two Chanel stereo.

[1960broookwood]

Economy of scale--development cost can be spread over an entire product line.

[Gary Cook]

Mar 27, 2013 18:23:35 GMT -5 1960broookwood said:

Economy of scale--development cost can be spread over an entire product line.

My experience has been that the number of profit margins in the supply chain far outway any economy of scale.

Cheers
Gary

[chaosrv]

Mar 27, 2013 15:38:36 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Mar 27, 2013 12:46:33 GMT -5 chaosrv said:

There are a few reasons, really.

First, like me, they owned the receiver first and upgraded the system by purchasing an amp but still using the receiver to do the switching/processing etc...

Second, you tend to find more features/bells & whistles in receivers than you do in most pre/pros. While the implementation may not always be as good as separate pieces of equipment (though in some higher-end models, the implementation can be very good indeed) the overall footprint and convenience factor is a draw for a lot of people.

For example, I don't need internet radio or netflix, network audio streaming or whatever as I have an HTPC and an XDA-2. Other people may not have these things and thus need/want them in an all-in-one box. I don't really need bluetooth either. Again, my htpc already has it and can almost certainly do it better and while I do have a pair of bluetooth headphones from sennheiser I use while commuting to/from work, when i want to do some serious listening at home I use a "real" pair of headphones.

Basically, features/convenience vs quality.

Agree 100%! Although you left off a couple things.

Outside of the world of Emotiva, price is a huge thing. There are many receivers to choose from for a lot less money than most pre-amps.

For features, you not only get more, but you get the latest greatest. Pre-amps typically lag behind and have "last years" new stuff, while receivers are on the cutting edge.

Performance wise, when doing upgrades, the switching portion of a system is typically in the bottom of the importance list. I'm not saying it can't make a difference, but when compared to the source itself, the source component, the speakers, and the room you are in, it's minor.

Also performance wise, if you want the best DAC's, all you really need to do is get something like an Oppo 105. If you do that, there isn't much need for a receiver's DAC anyway, especially not for Blu-ray, DVD or CD's.

Add all this up and you get more flexibility. If you have the means, you could swap out to a new receiver every year for say $1500. To do that with say an Integra, that's going to cost you double. You could get a top of the line receiver for $3000 every year, but a top of the line Anthem pre-amp is going to cost you more than double that (what do they cost now, $6000 - $8000 I'm guessing?)

How about a list.

Receiver As Pre-Pro (Pros)
- latest greatest features
- more features
- higher flexibility
- less cost
- overall better "cost to performance ratio"

Receiver As Pre-Pro (Cons)
- lesser build quality
- slightly less performance

The pre-pro separate list would be almost an exact flip flop.

I disagree with the latest and greatest comment. latest, yes. More? yes. Greatest? Not always. Implementation is a big factor and so is usefulness. Do we need 4k upscaling on a $800 receiver when displays are still $10k or more? Not likely. Will there be better scaling around by the time displays are more common and affordable? Very probably. Will you have upgraded the AVR before that happens? Almost certainly. AVR manufacturers shovel as many "features" as they can into their boxes regardless if they are needed or done well. Yet people become convinced they are "deal breakers" even though many of those features are never used.

Look at the higher-end AVR's - even from the same manufacturers - they don't get upgraded every year. They put in the features people need, the quality expected of their price and they stay on the sales floor for a few years.

Cramming every feature is mainly for perceived value, not actual value or performance.

Additionally being "cutting edge" may also end up meaning "beta testing." I'll gladly take last year's features that have had time to mature.

Then there is the cost of ownership. A lower end AVR may be less expensive than a pre/pro but since new models come out every year the resale value is considerably less whereas pre/pros tend to retain a higher percentage of their value even after a new model is released. You are also more likely to upgrade an AVR more often than a pre/pro.

[KeithL]

If price is your only concern, you can get a receiver with the latest features for about $200 (and really crummy amps).

As for 4k upsampling; why bother at all? Since there isn't any 4k content even on the horizon, the only place you're going to get it is by upsampling. My bet is that ANY 4k monitor that comes out anytime soon will have upsampling built in and, since the parameters can and will be optimized specifically for that particular screen, it is pretty unlikely that anything else will do a better job of it. The guys selling the 4k monitor have a really good incentive to do a good job upsampling so they have something that looks good to play.

Good point about the resale value of a receiver - they drop pretty quickly.... so, if you buy one, buy cheap and assume it will depreciate to zero pretty quickly. Or, buy a good one that does everything you need and keep it a while ... And forget all the hype about expensive pre/pros being "upgradable to new surround formats"; it never seems to happen (usually because those new formats require more processing power, which just isn't there). If you find a $10k+ pre/pro from ten years ago that supports TrueHD with a firmware update - let me know.

As for DACs - and Oppos - there is something there that should be clarified. Yes, the Oppo 105 has pretty good DACs in it; BUT, in order to use those DACs you will be using the analog multichannel outputs. This means there are TWO very important things to remember:

1) If you use the DACs in your Oppo, then the Oppo is doing the decoding. If they come out with some new surround format next year, updating your receiver or pre/pro won't help, because the Oppo is doing all the encoding. You can only use the Oppo's DACs to play things that the Oppo can decode. To use your new whatever to decode those new formats, you'll have to STOP using the DACs in the Oppo.

2) In order to get any benefit from those DACs, you MUST have a receiver or pre/pro with a REAL DIRECT MODE. Many cheaper units, and a few not so cheap ones, have a so-called "direct mode" which actually still digitizes the analog inputs, passes them through the processor, and then sends them through the unit's DACs (it's "direct" because it bypasses SOME processing). If you want to hear any benefit from the DACs in the Oppo, you need a receiver or pre/pro with a REAL direct mode that bypasses all the digital processing for its analog inputs (ours all do).

Mar 28, 2013 8:24:59 GMT -5 chaosrv said:

Mar 27, 2013 15:38:36 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Agree 100%! Although you left off a couple things.

Outside of the world of Emotiva, price is a huge thing. There are many receivers to choose from for a lot less money than most pre-amps.

For features, you not only get more, but you get the latest greatest. Pre-amps typically lag behind and have "last years" new stuff, while receivers are on the cutting edge.

Performance wise, when doing upgrades, the switching portion of a system is typically in the bottom of the importance list. I'm not saying it can't make a difference, but when compared to the source itself, the source component, the speakers, and the room you are in, it's minor.

Also performance wise, if you want the best DAC's, all you really need to do is get something like an Oppo 105. If you do that, there isn't much need for a receiver's DAC anyway, especially not for Blu-ray, DVD or CD's.

Add all this up and you get more flexibility. If you have the means, you could swap out to a new receiver every year for say $1500. To do that with say an Integra, that's going to cost you double. You could get a top of the line receiver for $3000 every year, but a top of the line Anthem pre-amp is going to cost you more than double that (what do they cost now, $6000 - $8000 I'm guessing?)

How about a list.

Receiver As Pre-Pro (Pros)
- latest greatest features
- more features
- higher flexibility
- less cost
- overall better "cost to performance ratio"

Receiver As Pre-Pro (Cons)
- lesser build quality
- slightly less performance

The pre-pro separate list would be almost an exact flip flop.

I disagree with the latest and greatest comment. latest, yes. More? yes. Greatest? Not always. Implementation is a big factor and so is usefulness. Do we need 4k upscaling on a $800 receiver when displays are still $10k or more? Not likely. Will there be better scaling around by the time displays are more common and affordable? Very probably. Will you have upgraded the AVR before that happens? Almost certainly. AVR manufacturers shovel as many "features" as they can into their boxes regardless if they are needed or done well. Yet people become convinced they are "deal breakers" even though many of those features are never used.

Look at the higher-end AVR's - even from the same manufacturers - they don't get upgraded every year. They put in the features people need, the quality expected of their price and they stay on the sales floor for a few years.

Cramming every feature is mainly for perceived value, not actual value or performance.

Additionally being "cutting edge" may also end up meaning "beta testing." I'll gladly take last year's features that have had time to mature.

Then there is the cost of ownership. A lower end AVR may be less expensive than a pre/pro but since new models come out every year the resale value is considerably less whereas pre/pros tend to retain a higher percentage of their value even after a new model is released. You are also more likely to upgrade an AVR more often than a pre/pro.

[Deleted]

Keith's points are spot-on - buy a cheap receiver with true direct pass-thru and let the Oppo do the decoding. None of the cheap receivers have the Sabre DACs, generally accepted as the best-quality consumer level DACs.

I do not foresee the release of any new lossless file formats any time in the near future, DTS-HDMA and Dolby TrueHD already provide everything that one could want. And even if new ones do appear, it's a pretty safe bet that Oppo will quickly supply a firmware update to accommodate them....

-RW-

[emovac]

Because generally, AVR amps are not near as good as separate power amps.

[yves]

Mar 27, 2013 15:38:36 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Also performance wise, if you want the best DAC's, all you really need to do is get something like an Oppo 105.

The Oppo BDP-105 does not necessarily give you best performance. The UMC-200 with its EmoQ 2 is better IMO.

[altpensacola]

Even though the XPA5 powers my theater room, my receiver's amps are still used, A leads to a set of speakers (Klipsch RB35's) in the front room, and B leads to a set of speakers (JBL) in the bedroom.
I can run stereo in 3 rooms because of this set up.
I have almost whole house sound.

[solarrdadd]

quite a while ago, i used a receiver as a pre-amp with a xpa-5. i loved it but begin to think, i'm paying the electric company for the big power amp in the receiver to simply sit there doing nothing as i wasn't using it.

i found a pre-amp that had more features than my receiver did and went with that to mate with my xpa-5 amp. i've been very happy; the power company, not so happy!

also, i really wanted to try seperates and i wanted to give XLR interconnects a try. i'm very happy with everything.

keep in mind, sometimes if you do a lot of ht and music at hi volume and/or you have very inefficient speakers and want to, need to drive them hard or drive them to below 60hz then you are more than likely going to want an amp for the dynamics and peaks in the ht & music arena.

best of luck to you. keep us posted.

oh yeah, welcome to the emotiva lounge nachomama, i'm solarrdadd; now you know hossierdaddy! ;D

[bootman]

Mar 28, 2013 9:54:19 GMT -5 @rlw said:

I do not foresee the release of any new lossless file formats any time in the near future, DTS-HDMA and Dolby TrueHD already provide everything that one could want. And even if new ones do appear, it's a pretty safe bet that Oppo will quickly supply a firmware update to accommodate them....

-RW-

Don't be too sure about that.
The decoding now isn't done in firmware.
It is hard coded on chips that the OEMs pays licencing fees on.
Oppo uses firmware for UI features, java updates and tweeaks to copy protection that some bluray disks may require to play correctly.