Valnar - I apologize if you feel that you've been attacked. There are a number of people here who feel that pre/pro designs are more likely to offer superior sound quality than comparable receivers; this opinion is typically based on the opportunity (one might even say necessity) of a pre/pro designer placing a greater focus on the circuit design and overall performance, in addition to the removal of the amp's high power components. Obviously, there are no absolute rules of thumb along this line - pre/pros can have design flaws or incorporate compromises just as easily as a receiver, but at the same time I suspect the suggestion that "Receivers sound far better than many preamps these days" is an equally dubious generalization. Receivers have for a long time tended to be the first to incorporate new features, but features alone do not make for great sound. Most of the manufacturers with the largest R&D resources (Sony, Pioneer, etc...) have shorter product cycles (new models every year), allowing them to get new features like IEEE-1394, USB, and other new developments to market sooner than the typical pre/pro makers (Anthem, Rotel, Adcom, Outlaw) that are smaller and can't afford to maintain multiple design teams working simultaneously to design products for this spring, next spring, and the following spring. So why don't Pioneer and Sony make pre/pros? Sony used to, and their 9000ES pre/pro had a very loyal following, but the main market for those companies is the consumer who doesn't want separates and therefore their focus is on receivers.

Personally, one of the things I like most about going the separates route is the ability to upgrade your front end down the road while retaining a good, high quality amp - whether that front end is a pure pre/pro or a receiver being used in that role.

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links