Not trying to. It just seems that way because I post a lot when I'm here.



Not attacking you. You and curegeorg made some very valid points about the new receivers tending to have more of the new features included, with the receivers being upgraded more frequently and all. What was upsetting was that you felt so strongly about statements like that above in saying that the receiver absolutely had to be better than the receiver. I said numerous times that the Pioneer selected would do a god job and may end up being the best choice. It was the automatic assumption that the receiver is better that got annoying. It is a little troubling trying to figure out how things like the USB and I-Link make the sound so much more superior when they are really just convienent ways to transfer information.

Have you purchased it? Did you check on what loads it can play down to? I bought a Marantz SR6200 a few years ago and found out later it could play down to 4 ohms just fine. Maybe you'll be lucky too and can save a few bucks (ok more than a few ).

I'm not saying a single thing to curegeorg his decision even though he also purchased a receiver to use as a pre-pro. FYI, it probably got to a few people when you said you had the receiver, but didn't. A friend of mine has a bad habit of that. He's a decent guy, but he literally drives people up the wall when he does that.

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

Hold on guys…………WOW. I did not mean for my “opinion” to sound like I was attacking anyone and if it sounded that way I’m sorry I believe your reasons for wanting those features are just, and may be what your specific needs call for. I spent the better part of a year listening to different amps, pre/pros, and receivers with and without separate amps and just found the soundstage and overall build quality to be better with a dedicated pre/pro than anything else I made the poor salesman unhook and rehook to do my comparisons. (I hope he never finds out that I bought online after putting him through all that ) We just want different things. I wanted the cleanest sound my meager $$$’s could buy and I did not need the features you mentioned above. The 950 fit my bill to a tee. If a Reciever is more to your taste and “fits your bill” then by all means that is what you should get and that Pioneer is a fine choice. You did mention not finding any pre/pros in the $1500 range so I have to ask. Have you heard the new Sherwood Newcastle P965? I went down to my local dealer last week and I have to say that Sherwood is one nice sounding piece of gear and worth a listen. Hope this clears things up a bit and sorry if I offended any one.

Lasher

Forgive me, everyone.

No, I did not listen to the Newcastle but did consider it. Like many things (Outlaw included, since we're digressing on their forum, I should include them!), I have to purchase via word of mouth. Many of the companies talked about on various Internet forums cannot be listened to locally, so research is my best bet. I bought my ACI speakers that way, and don't regret it at all.

My main selling point, besides apparent sound quality, was the MCACC. I have a very difficult room to EQ and I've heard nothing but miracles about Pioneer's autocalibration mechanism. Everybody knows that a properly calibrated system can mean the difference from bad, to good, to great sound (components aside.) Yah, I need that. I spent hours with my old B&K Ref 30 and never did get it right.

Robert

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

yes i checked out that sherwood (did not demo), but for two reasons i didnt get it. one it is made by sherwood, two it costs $500 more.

Getting a feature-rich receiver supplemented with an outboard amp seems like a perfectly logical route to me. If you hadn't already bought the Pioneer, I might also suggest Denon's 3805 - same price range, also has excellent DACs and an auto-callibration feature (the Pioneer includes the mic, Denon doesn't). Pioneer has a THX DSP mode, the Denon has video upconversion.

I don't know the Pioneer's amp section well, but judging by weight alone I'd guess the 7100 has a more robust power section. I reviewed the 7100 for Secrets (http://128.121.62.219/volume_10_2/outlaw-audio-7100-power-amplifier-6-2003.html); it's built like a tank.

-avi

http://www.hometheaterwatch.com

I have to chime in here, this is an interesting conversation, I have used many different higher end receivers, and in my opinion, integrated receivers are not in the same league as seperates as far as sound quality. I guess some people may desire the latest "features" however to me, i could give a flip about features, as long as i have the basics (dd, dts es, 5.1,6.1,7.1, etc) it's sound quality that is most important. And to me, excellent sound is never "outdated".

Has anyone asked if you really need IEEE 1394 and USB at this point? It could be argued that you are paying money for something that may not be needed. Sure, the 1394 is a great idea, sending multichannel audio digitally to the receiver/prepro is a convenience (less wires) but may not offer an increase in performance. My Denon 5900 has better DAC's than most pre/pros or receivers, so why wouldn't I just use the Denon? The Denon has a 1394 output (one of the very few) but why would I want to send digital information to inferior DAC's in most Pre/Pro/Receivers. See the point? Plus, I believe you cannot send multichannel SACD via 1394, so you gonna need analog outs to take advantage of this format. The auto calibration feature is a nice idea since most of us have problems with our rooms. But this is still DSP, and for the purists out there, one more thing in the signal path. Perhaps the same results could be achieved by concentrating on speaker placement or minimizing room interactions. I also have a problem with buying a receiver and them buying an amp. Seems overly redundant because now I have half of my receiver that is completely useless (the amp section). This probably comprises a big chunk of the cost of the receiver....why buy it if you are not going to use it. Seems like a waste.

[This message has been edited by harp795 (edited June 03, 2004).]

The amp section and not using it has been beaten to death in this thread. PLEASE don't bring it up again. I too am wondering about the usability of the other connections. What kind of device would I use firewire from? I already have optical outs on my computer. I just don't see a great big advantage to them at this time.

not every pre/pro has dd, dts es, 5.1-7.1. do you know what dsp stands for? its an acronym... parametric eqing is not the same thing as a dsp or even what a dsp does.

someone would buy a receiver to use with an amp if it was less expensive and equal to a pre/pro that they also liked.

to say seperate processor is better is ironic considering a receiver has the same processing capabilities, albeit also packaged with amps. seperates yield (mainly) higher quality amps, you can get this by turning your receiver into a pre/pro. plus you just saved yourself some $$$ to go see a shrink who can try to convince you that just because it is more expensive or "high end" or "audiophilish" or better because of its classification, and your life will be much better.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.