I haven't looked at that particular receiver. You have to be careful with reading specs. And you really should be careful making blanket statements like you did before. That particular receiver could very well be better a number of preamps out there, but the way you said it, receivers are automatically better because of what they are, which is not correct.

The suggestion with the preamp is that it may be possible to find something that does the exact same thing (or more) for equal or less money. Or could do noticeably better for not much more. Anyway, the point is that you will still have to pay for the amp section of that receiver, a rather pricey section that you will never use. That's all we're saying. Have you looked at other preamps at least? You could possibly find an even better value.

[This message has been edited by JT Clark (edited May 10, 2004).]

Whoops.

[This message has been edited by JT Clark (edited May 10, 2004).]

JT, I appreciate your response, but in no way can I find a decent preamp less than a receiver, even with an amplifier I won't use! Like I said, economies of scale.

What preamps are there under $1000 worth anything? $1500? Don't say the Outlaw 950! It's DAC's are definitely worse.

Most manufacturer's preamps are a generation or more behind their respective receivers.

-Robert

[This message has been edited by valnar (edited May 10, 2004).]

Hey, it's your purchase. Go knock yourself out.

I think a lot of people are going the reciever as pre/pro path because 1. It is cheaper and 2. Receivers have the latest features ( although most of them seem like gimmicks and don’t offer enough reason for the upgrade IMHO) Now as far a sound quality is concerned it takes a lot more than the latest DAC’s to make a quality sounding piece. If the pre/pro section of most receivers was as good as a dedicated pre/pro than why aren’t companies like Denon and Yamaha or Pioneer offering these as a pre/pro option? It would seem if they sold them without the amp section they could manufacture them cheaper and sell them for more just because it is a pre/pro. The only reason IMHO that I believe they do not is because they would then have to be tested and compared side by side to true pre/pro options and there sound quality would prove lacking. Please don’t take this wrong, there are some fine receivers out there but they are not in the same league as separates. Just my .02

Lasher

That's kind of what I'm getting at. Just because it has a feature doesn't mean it's been done incredibly well. How does it actually sound? I tend to see products with lots of features as kind of gimmicky. There is a tendancy for them to not sound quite as good, but that in no way means they sound "bad".

EDIT: If that Pioneer can do just as good of a job of a Pre/Pro and cost less, then hey go for it. Just be wary of making those blanket statements about Pre/Pros not having "features" and what not.

Oh, and I'd contact Pioneer to see what they have to say about using the receiver on lower ohm speakers. You might find a surprise.

[This message has been edited by JT Clark (edited May 11, 2004).]

i just got the denon 3805 to use as a pre/pro. i couldnt find anything in its price range with its features as just a processor. unfortunately, receivers are updated at a faster pace than pre/pros, so you can get a receiver with newer features that you may want. its odd how seperates are touted as "better" always when most of what you see is dated. granted some offer upgradeability, but they dont all! i would have purchased a pre/pro instead of my receiver if i could have found one that fit my needs, because i feel that usually seperates will give you better audio performance. however, i am not ONLY interested in straight audio and i must say that the denon 3805 is superb at audio anyway.
dont jump on the poor guy for getting the features he wants from a new receiver and supplementing its lack of power by getting seperate amps.

So you are saying that pre/pros have inflated prices just because they are typically considered "better"? the reason manufacturers like denon, pioneer, etc. are not doing so, is because a lot of people have receivers, if you want to use their product differently then you still have to pay for the amps you aren't using. so they would rather sell more quantity at a lower price (but higher than it would be if they offered a pre/pro) than less quantity at a higher price. if i could get the same performance out of a receiver for $1000, i would never pay $1500 just to say i got a pre/pro. you are foolish to think that just because it lacks amplification it is inferior. technology is driving audio right now, so if your product lacks newer tech. and is not upgradeable then it is obsolete. what purchases boil down to is what you want, if x product has more that you want that y product and price is irrelevant then you will be buying x everytime. unfortunately the outlaw 950, and other moderately price pre/pros lacked what i liked about the denon 3805 and lack what he likes about the pioneer.
i agree that specs don't mean much as far as sound quality goes, but that doesn't imply that a product with great specs will sound like crap.

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited May 11, 2004).]

valnar, you should be more concise in your comments. what works for you, is not right for everyone. and picking one feature of one product does not make it better than another. and rest assured that DACs are not the entire component that comprises sound quality. if you are so obsessed with DACs then why did you buy pioneer, the denon 5803 offers top DACs in differential config (16 total) and the 3805 has the same config but slightly less expensive DACs. you get two DACs per channel normally and even more in direct audio (or whatever its called). i must say that direct audio, sounds way better than anything else when listening to cds on my denon.

I bought it for the DAC's, MCACC, I-link, USB input, build quality and the unequivocal praise of everybody on the AVS forum who owns one. I don't know why I'm being attacked here. Receivers sound far better than many preamps these days. This did not used to be the case.

I bough the Pioneer receiver for the same reason I surmise you bought the Denon - They don't make a seperate. But that hardly means the preamp portion of a receiver is inferior to a seperate preamp. I'm actually surprised this arguement came up on the "Outlaw" forum of all places! I figure anyone who posts here must know that higher cost does not equate performance, hence the reason for Outlaw's existence.

-Robert


[This message has been edited by valnar (edited May 11, 2004).]