7100 vs Pioneer Elite receiver's amp section?

I'm interested in purchasing the 7100 not because of more power (my Pioneer Elite VSX-55TXi is also 100 watts), but because I may purchase some 4 or 6 ohm speakers in the future. I do not listen at loud levels, even when watching movies. I typically don't go above -20 or -15Db from reference.

So I assume this would be the amplifier for me?

Robert

Are you planning on getting low impedance speakers for all channels or just your mains? If you're just thinking of changing the mains, you may want to go with the power increase of 2 M-200 monoblocks. That way you get plenty of nice, clean power for the channels that need it. It would also probably take some stress off your receiver. Just a thought...

it would kill the pioneer elite

Thanks. I decided to wait a bit until I get the receiver, before making any amp decision!

Robert

That made it sound like you already HAD it, either way, any outlaw amp will be superior to your recievers. there are more factors to amp quality than rms output, all which tilt in favor of the outlaws. really for that matter, most other seperate power amps.

If you are looking to change out the amp section for a receiver that you do not yet have, why not consider getting the 7100 and the 950? I believe that the 950 would actually be less expensive than the Pioneer VSX-55TXi. And if you bought the 950/7100 combo you could save a $100 off of the cost of these separately, which would definitely put the 950 below the cost of the VSX-55TXi. Just a thought.

Jeff

I was thinking the same thing. Why bother purchasing a receiver when you're just going to get an amp at the same time? I'd go for a Pre/Pro instead.

"I was thinking the same thing. Why bother purchasing a receiver when you're just going to get an amp at the same time? I'd go for a Pre/Pro instead. "

Mainly because the receivers are better and more advanced in many ways than preamp/processors. It's the amps in the receivers that give them a bad name, not the functionality.

I'm torn between an Outlaw and an ATI now, with ATI leading because I can buy small and add modules.....

Robert

better and more advanced in many ways? Could you elaborate? I realise that Preamps do not have godlike status next to a receiver, but what you're saying seems to have them switch place.

Look at the specs (especially the MCACC) of the Pioneer VSX-55TXi and the DAC's in them. USB, I-link, etc. Lots of good stuff. I could have upgraded my B&K Reference 30 to a 50 (actually, 31) specifications, and it would have barely equalled the Pioneer. Same DAC's in both, but economy of scale makes the Pioneer much cheaper for better functionality. It's only the amp which is substandard to any separate.

My old B&K did have some other nicities, like a second zone and better bass management, but I don't use either one, and I cross over at 80hz.

In any case, I've decided to wait until later this week when I can pick it up. If I can hobble along with my current speakers, I'll save up for the last amp I should need to buy. (Outlaw, or ATI1800/2000).

Robert


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

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

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).]

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.

If a signal is processed or altered in the digital domain, then it is considered digital signal processing. All of the room correction systems I know of occur in the digital domain. This can sometimes mean that the signal needs to be converted from analog to digital and then back to analog. On the Pioneer website it mentions the 55txi will adjust delays, reverb etc..this is certainly a digital effect. Thus DSP.

Did you audition the 950 or any other pre/pro with your system?






[This message has been edited by harp795 (edited June 04, 2004).]

How do I turn off notifications for this topic? I've been done with the discussion for awhile.

Robert

multichannel audio and analog connected equipment is the only place that you wont get digital signal processing (if you want to not get it...). so if you think processing in the digital domain is so bad, then quit watching anything connected digitally. i for one have no analog connections to my receiver (that is a pre/pro) so i am only getting digital to analog conversion once. i guess some people use more analog than that, but it is becoming more obsolete as the days pass. even multichannel audio (where there is a benefit from connecting analog) is likely to be replaced by a digital connection. once that happens the d.s. processor in your processor will be the center of any decoding/steering/etc. hence the need for it in the first place and the development of digital transmission cables.

i hope you only listen to stereo coming from analog inputs, because if not the nasty little thing called dsp is mutilating your signal. or perhaps it is making it what is so great about surround sound...

yes, i did demo a couple of pre/pros (not the 950 since they are online only and you have to pay for return shipping and is more outdated than i desired). however the minimal (if any) gains sonically, were far outweighed by the heftier price tag associated with pre/pros that were current on their processing and included some features that i liked. i dont mind the price of something, it is the value that i am looking for. a product being $10k could be better than one costing $1k, but it is not likely that is 10x better, or even 2x better, so it would not merit the price increase. however if there was a product being $2000 that was 2x as good as one costing $1000, then it would warrant a look. unfortunately prices are not structured like that in audio, you pay way more money for slightly better sound (and same features) or at least the perception that you are getting better sound.

i think there are better ways to enhance my (and your) system than wasting money just by going pre/pro. as we all should know the most important pard of sound reproduction is the reproducer, i.e. the speaker. the speaker is where all the signal gets changed in audible tones, and if you want to make a dramatic improvement it is the speakers that will make the most. yes, changing from a tape deck to a cd would be a big change, but some assumption of even the lowest end (albeit current) gear would see the greatest effectual difference by changing speakers.

my point is that pre/pros are overpriced for what you are getting, their cost vs benefits do not approach the point where one would want to get one solely on the fact that is a pre/pro.

BEING A PRE/PRO IN NO WAY MEANS THAT YOU ARE SUPERIOR TO A RECEIVER. SOME ARE BETTER AND SOME ARE NOT. RIGHT NOW A LOT OF THE MORE VALUE MINDED COMPANIES ARE OFFERING DATED PRE/PROS (AS IS THE TREND WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY WANT VALUE FROM THEIR GEAR IN THE FIRST PLACE), BUT IN THE FUTURE A PRE/PRO AT THE PRICE WHERE I GOT MY RECEIVER COULD BE AS GOOD AS IT; RIGHT NOW THERE IS NOT ONE.

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

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

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited June 04, 2004).]

You should just get a Sony then, Sony is typically packed with the latest features at a low price, and if it sounds the same to you as a higher end pre/pro, then you win !!!!

IF sony did sound as good, then you are right. sony does not, so the purchase would be a waste. i should say that no sony i have ever heard was good, but i dont auditon ever because they are always inferior. if that changes then id give them a shot though.

dont get me wrong, i am not saying that every receiver processes as well as every pre/pro. however, some receivers process better than pre/pros and sound as good.

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

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

Well that is interesting considering that on May 21 2004 you posted "I was going to go with Anthem AV20 before I read about the Outlaw stuff which seems very competitive. Also looked at Rotel very closely. The Outlaw combo just seems like the best value and that is important to me." Even though this was AFTER you posted you had purchased a Denon Receiver. Secondly, and most importantly, how can you draw any conclusions about sound quality between receivers and pre/pro's if you have not spent any significant time with a pre/pro in your system Seems to me you lack the hands on knowledge to adequately make a comparison between the two.

As far as the digital connections becoming obselete, again you don't have any experience in running a properly calibrated and setup system with analog connections, so you can't really comment. The only reason why a digital connection would be better than analog is if the DAC's in the pre/pro/receiver are superior that those in the player and for convenience (less wires). Plus, the jury is still out on what connection is going to be fully implemented, so you may be buying something you do not need.

I'd be interested in you elaborating more on how you can improve MY system more than by improving my pre/pro. Have you ever heard my system? So you are saying that I should upgrade the NHT speakers I have? I happen to like my speakers, so I'll keep them the same thanks!



Once again, you make statements about a topic in which you have no experience. How do you know the new Sony receivers sound badly? You didn't listen to their new receivers so you can't really accurately comment on their sound.

the outlaw is one of the best values in a pre/pro and amp setup. i dont have a pre/pro, i have a receiver that is doing the processing and IT is the best value that i could find at the time of my purchase because it had features that the 950 did not.

you shouldnt assume that i do not have experience with pre/pros in my system, because i have used them in the past and i have used receivers solely in the past and i have used receivers as pre/pros. so my observations are just as merited as you THINK yours are.



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

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

again, you shouldnt assume my experience on anything. i didnt just jump into the market of audio equipment. i know about analog equipment. i also know where the path is taking us, and if you do not, then perhaps you shouldnt comment on something that YOU DONT KNOW ABOUT unless you need someone to tell you.

one must first narrow down the field of available products by reading reviews, specs, etc. before getting to the short list of products to audition. there are too many audio products to test them all out in your system at home. so it helps to quickly eliminate those that you can expect to suck, if after all they didnt suck, one would have noticed a trend somewhere that would have revealed the new quality of a product that say, Sony, just made. i dont have time or desire to buy every product capable of processing sound and tossing it into my system for evaluation, granted i cant say that the ones i didnt try are absolutely horrible, but by the mere fact that i passed them by in the first place, i know they are not as good.

i systematically evaluate the pros and cons of a product, read what other people are saying, read reviews, read specs, evaluate the manufacturer and their track record, then narrow it down to the selection of several that i could consider ACTUALLY purchasing. the 950 fell off the list of ACTUAL available purchases for many reasons, and for other reasons others did not. i got the 3805 for many reasons, knowing that i could have gotten a better product, even from denon, but weighing other factors like cost and why other products would be better decided that combined in my system the 3805 was the best bang for my buck. i almost bought a 5803, but even having been offered it at only twice the price of the 3805 turned it down because it is not twice as good as the 3805 and shouldnt be twice as much (utilizing seperate amps as i would have and do), plus i would have had to upgrade it, etc.

i have been lucky enough not to experience very many products by Sony; this is directly correlated by the process of which i eliminate them from possible purchases...

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

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

Look, I'm not asking for a pissing match here, I just value people opinions more when I know the opinion is based on first hand experience with a product in which they are commenting. Since you didn't specifically list which pre/pro's you demo'd, it's probably safe to say you MAY have demo'd some items in a store, but not in your house. Or maybe you did, just let us know the products you are using to make your pre/pro arguement. This would help us in the forum better understand your point. I base my opinions on the fact that while my 950 was out, I used a Yamaha RXV-1000 (my bedroom receiver) as a preamp. The difference was night and day, with the 950 being far superior in terms of sound quality. So my experience has been that an equally priced receiver was NOT equal to an equally priced pre/pro in sound quality. If you want to pay extra for connections (1394, USB)that you don't now need or use, be my guest. But by the time you decide you NEED (which will require you to upgrade the DVD player you just puchased) to use the 1394 connection (or Denon link in your case), your Denon receiver will likely be obsolete.

We do agree on something though. Fishing is certainly a why to help find the meaning of life!!


[This message has been edited by harp795 (edited June 04, 2004).]

Harper-"The only reason why a digital connection would be better than analog is if the DAC's in the pre/pro/receiver are superior that those in the player and for convenience (less wires). Plus, the jury is still out on what connection is going to be fully implemented, so you may be buying something you do not need."

Ummmm, perhaps you have forgotten about two things i like to call Dolby Digital and DTS. Seems to me that they are not output in the analog form by any dvd player. Also seems strange that fiber optic and digital coax are so prevelant for digital connections if they are not "fully implemented yet". Surely you know that dvd players output encoded bitstreams of Dolby Digital and DTS via digital coax or fiber optic cables, and seeing as every one of them does it in either of those ways id say that the digital connection is pretty fully implemented.

Digital signal transmission has more advantages than that, but im trying to slow it down and keep it simple to understand for you.

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

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

I think harper's second sentence was directed more at DVD-Audio and SACD.

you never know these days...

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

I'll be more specific. Multichannel digital outs like 1394 and Denon link for multichannel audio (SACD/DVD-Audio). You keep referring to all the features receivers have than pre/pro's so surely this is one of those features.

This is one of those comments that makes people question your rationality. It's an audio forum dude...keep it in perspective.

6 notifications in the last 15 minutes.

Please stop the madness.

Robert

if you would have further scoured my posting records you would have run across my comments about such things as 1394. also you would have found out that i dont do multichannel audio (sacd or dvda), so it is not a feature i desired. again not looking at the whole picture. dont make jokes about fishing (if that was a joke indeed).



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

Unfortunately, by request, this thread must be closed and reopened under a new string. This discussion can be continued in the thread titled: 7100 vs Pioneer Elite receiver's amp section? Part 2

Thanks,

Scott

by saying that i thought i was...

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