Stereo Pre Amps for M-2200

Last year I replaced a malfunctioning 17 year old 250 wpc GFA 585 stereo amp with the 2200's
My system never sounded better.Now my Adcom GFP 565 pre amp is 17 years old and I am considering a replacement with an under $1k pre amp. Something like NAD, Adcom 715, Vincent, or Parasound.Any ideas? Any ideas as to whether age and use necessarily have degraded the sound of the old pre amp. It still sounds pretty good , but you can get used to degraded sound without realzing it.
TRW

Take a look at the new 997 as a pre-pro. The 990 would also be a great choice. They are both full featured and have many bells and whistles. If you are a vinyl fan, the 990 has a phono stage also.

The 990 would be a good candidate for the under-$1,000 price range if you want some surround capability, but it is a surround unit. Would you want something with a digital input (like the 990), or would you want a purely analog pre-amp (like the RR2150 receiver)?

Based on my own listening, I don't think the age of a preamp degrades the sound at all.
I've got a Sherwood s-7100A that'sprobably older than most of the forum members that still sound as good to me as it ever did and I don't think I've just gotten used to it as it's not in my primary system.
Vintage gear has a lot of fans.

The beauty of the 990 is that it can go analog or digital for audio and if you want to go HT later you can with no issues. I have a 35 years old Yamaha integrated amp which still rocks in 2 channel. It is built like a tank and sounds fantastic. A few years ago I had a guy go through it and clean all the switches and its like brand new.

I think the upshot of all of this is that a lot of features have been added, but for a 2.0 system, a 30 or 40 year old preamp is about as good as anything currently offered.
That's really kind of sad when you think about it.

For a purely analog system, we are dealing with principles that have been well understood for decades - it's only when you get into concepts such as surround processing, D/A conversion, or video that you see really significant changes in available technology. At the same time, the market for products that omit all those newer technologies has changed significantly. The RR2150 is comparatively cheap for the modern analog two-channel marketplace, and the fact that the 990 can compare well with purpose-built analog products speaks pretty darn highly of a product that exists to be the focal point for a modern home theater.

i seem to remember so one requesting an Outlaw 2 channel preamp. this proves there is a market. and if one was on the market it might just stir even more interest.

long live STEREO!

As far as straight 2 channel stereo goes, the old amps are still state of the art. What was high quality 35 years ago still is high quality. I have used my iPod with my Yamaha CA-800 and it sounds great through 4 large Advents with no sub involved. Although a lot of fans love 2 ch stereo, they don;t necessarily want to spend big $$$ for equipment which is very narrowly focused.

well im more thinking the entire frontend in stereo, including a quality DAC which is an evolving beast and not something older pre's have, and more sub crossover control also, w/ a phono stage to complete a good 2 channel pre. seems silly to a 2 channel person to pay for all the SS processing when your not using it. that money could go toward all of the above mentioned. i did it because i had the chance to listen to someone elses 970 and got a taste for its sound in 2 channel fashion, and i realize aside from all the crap i didnt need it did the trick, & it fit my current budget so i jumped.

im a bit annoyed that my 970 keep switching to PL II when i never use it...

and their certainly is a market for it. at the Outlaw price point they would make a serious dent too.

HT might be the curret fad but lots of audiophile with mortal budgets loom quietly.

isnt that the point here? Outlaw offers a high quality product at a mid-range price point, something the 2 channel world needs. i mean if the HT products Outlaw is selling was in the next price range i think they might find the competition damn steep, and might not even be in buisness. In the current economic state of afairs diversity is a wise buisness plan.

Considering that it takes a lot of up front $$$ to design, build and stock the different versions of what we as "audiophiles" can dream up, and the Outlaws are holding their head above water as it is. A seven channel amp with good power will easily do stereo as well as HT. I have a 5 ch system and use the extra 2 channels of my 7125 for stereo output through my 990 with a phono source. Sounds great and I don't need another piece of gear. How much would we consider to be too expensive for a good two channel amp such as the "2125" or the "2500"?

again, you keep referring to this as a HT that is also used occasionally as a 2 channel music setup also. your point of veiw is 180 degrees out from mine. i have 2 speakers in my music room thats all, just like all other music based audiophiles. sure if you have a 7 channel amp and HT pre/pro its only sensible to not add gear.

now if you did infact only have 2 speakers setup for music only you would realize how annoying it is when the preamp switches to PL IIz on its own, or how much more streamlined the preamp could be to my needs as, yes i know im all alone on this alien idea of mine, a 2 channel stereo audiophile. if expanding Outlaws product base and bringing more people into the fold loving what they have done for sound on a new(simpler) platform is wrong then so be it, but i dont believe it. it would have to be somewhat easy given the complexity of a HT pre/pro to make 2 channel pre that would require so much less architecture in comparsion.

i guess its all in where your passions lay.

Again, you keep assuming because I have a digital setup HT that I don't appreciate 2 channel sound. I am simply pointing out that Outlaw makes plenty of gear to meet your needs if you look outside of only two channel gear. Complaining that Outlaw doesn't make a two channel machine is a little short of the mark since the 2150 does exist and they also make single channel amps so we can use two for stereo if we want. The 2150 has the ability to output its preamp section into the 2200s to power whatever speakers you may have. Remember you are in the Outalw forum and you asked for help a sub $1K pre-amp. So naturally we tend to respond with Outlaw equipment. I am sure AVS can help with the other gear.

For the record, I do have 2 speakers set up for 2 channel sound in both homes that I own. Those same speakers are able to be part of my 7 channel system when I want, with just the flip of my remote. If your 970 switches by itself into PL IIx it is either setup wrong or it is defective. Is it possible it is sensing source material which has more than 2 channels and switching based on that info? Gonk probably has better insight as to the details of the 970.

You simply need to tell it to go to Stereo for that input in the Set-up menu...

I think we've talked about processing mode memory some in the past, but this comment got me curious. You have the Model 970 set up with only two speakers (no center or surround that you use sometimes), correct? If so, you should have the center and surrounds all disabled in the 970's speaker setup menu, in which case Pro Logic II shouldn't even be an option. Even if it did somehow allow you to select it, there would be no speakers available for the signal to be expanded to. Is there any chance that the center or surrounds are still enabled in the menu?

yes, i have all other speaker options on the "none" selection other than the mains + sub. and i also have the stereo selected in the setup menu as well.

and im not complaining, im simple making the case that i do this far love all ive seen(heard) from Outlaw and think a 2 channel preamp would be a great addition to their product line. as pointed out the mono blocks are perfect for a stereo setup, but they dont offer the pre to complete it. im somewhat of a purist, i do have a HT in a different room already, my music is listen to on a setup more constructed to just music, minus a stero pre.

im not trying to piss anyone off.

a friend of mine had both mono blocks in a 2 channel rig plus a 5.1 setup with a 950 and a 5 channel outlaw amp. his systems sold me on the outlaw sound, and now im just wishing i could expand on it, thats all. not complaining just wishful thinking put to conversation.

i appreciate everyones input and opinion.

This is a friendly discussion group and we count you as a friend. Have you looked at the 2150. It has the capability to bypass its internal amp and put its stereo output through the 2200s. The manual also says you can use wye connectors on the pre-outs to feed the 2200s and still use the 2150s internal 100w amp. Sounds like pretty neat 3 or 4 channel amp.It also provides a sub out which may or may not be part of your stereo needs. It is a straight stereo receiver in its originasl form which also has digital inputs.

Good.
No problem - it's a worthwhile debate and a fun idea, even if nothing more comes of it than our discussion here.

After reading this and other 2 channel purist posts, I remain curious to know if anyone prefers 5 or 7 channel stereo? I have a 990 and personally prefer 7 channel stereo and the envoloping feeling of the sound. When I curiosity hits and I do A/B testing between bypass and stereo, on the one hand, and 5 or 7 channel, on the other hand, I always prefer to be envoloped by the 5 and 7 channel sound. What about envelopment do the 2 channel purists not like? And if they simply do not like to be envoloped and just want to hear the sound in 2 channel "as it was intended", then what do they think of (and how do they make it through) live performances? Every concert I have been to does not just have 2 speakers placed one on each side of the band/performer; rather there are numerous speakers spread throughout and around the hall or arena which fully envelop the audience in sound--which I am assuming is stereo but spread throughout the hall/arena. In any event, I love that enveloping experience in terms of music fidelity as well as "performance". Do 2 channel purists cringe during a live performance? Am I perhaps missing something or comparing apples and oranges? Again, I am just curious and would appreciate hearing some of the Outlaws' thoughts, even though it will not change my preference for 5 and 7 channel stereo.

I guess I can't spell "envelop" too well! Sorry for that and other typos!

I blame my preference for stereo on my upbringing.

^^is that really you? great pic!

no i love live music above all.

but in this application though, IMO if im listening to a 2 channel source, which most music is, then only 2 channels is an true and accurate reproduction. of course if your listening to a SACD or a DVD-A which is a 4.0, 4.1, 5.1 ect. mix then yes multi-channel listening is good. unfortunately most of my favorite music is not, its a simple stereo recording that is best played in my mind on a stereo. i do listen to 7 channel stereo in my living room while im cooking or whatever because its a better "party" sound as i move about. but dont find it appealing to sit in a fixed position (sweet spot)and do any critical listening. even when listening to SACDs that are mixed to 5.1 i find certain types of music a let down considering the extra 3 speakers and gear required to play it, it just leaves me wanting. while i do admit some orchestral stuff does seem to nail the desired effect taking me in the center of all the instruments. its all subjective of course, if we all liked the same thing life would be pretty boring. not to mention there would only be one HiFi company selling gear!

and honestly if you havent done any critical listening to a stereo that felt enveloping to you, well you havent heard a good one yet. just my 2 cents. swing by ill give you a taste. ;^)

and back to the original question of live concerts. im not sure i agree that speakers are placed all around, generally you have a left and right stack. occasionally in a wide array you do find a center fill, but more importantly in live music you have stage sound which make a huge difference. this being the lead guitar players amp, bass players rig, and a drum kit ect.. which all create room sound. they are then evened out by the sound engineer using the PA to give the room a full balance. in this situation the sum total is enveloping if done right, and i love it. to me live is the proof of a musicians chops, anyone can sound good with enough production value in a studio, look at britney spears. but live on stage you cant hide, put out or get out. regardless, that is situational, a live recording is another thing all together be it a 2 channel audience tape or a multi-track mix they sound best as they were recorded, either 2 channel or a surround mix so thats how in my mind they should be listened too.

FWIW check out some of my recordings of live concerts for an example of what im talking about.
my recordings: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/J.Mimna
and some photos too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimna/collections/72157613267633153/

For me I enjoy music in stereo best but I do occasionally listen to multi-channel DVD-A and SACD. It has been noted before that the quality of multi-channel recordings is highly variable and in my experience some are annoying. Though I don't own any live SACD/DVD-A discs I think the surrounds would be a great place for crowd noise/applause to reproduce the experience of being there but not instruments. I sometimes use 5 channel stereo for background music when I'm busy doing other things as it fills the room better. IMHO, overall stereo does the best at reproducing a live event with the sound coming from in front of you.

I'm in the process of putting together a separate stereo setup and the RR2150 is on my short list of electronics given all its features. Outlaw has hit a sweet spot with the RR2150 with bass management, the USB input and a phono input. FYI other manufacturers are in this modernized 2 channel arena. The Parasound 2100 stereo preamp comes to mind.

Finally, yes, that's me. The picture was taken on Midway Island in about 1961 and I believe that is my father's first stereo receiver. When it came to the stereo/home theater hobby the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

all that being said, for a great 5.1 mix give Frank Zappa's Halloween dvd a listen and also a killer 4.0 release of his QuAUDIOPHILIAc, both are in 24/96 DTS and are stunning to listen to even to the none frank fan.

just had to throw that out there to contradict myself.

Although I sometimes like 5.1 stereo I normally prefer 2.2 upsample. I have A/B'd it against straight stereo and bypass and much prefer 2.2 noise.

2.2 meaning 2 mains and 2 subs? what are you upsampling with, and to what rate?

i do wish the outlaw had some indicator of what bit and sample rate it was outputting, but i know you cant have it all. it would be nice as my playback varies wildly. my primary source is a computer and music server it draws from so things change rates quickly as i listen. i only play lossless files, no mp3's, but i do seek out hi resolution stuff like the new Neil Young Archives Box Set release. its all 24/96.

Yes 2 mains and 2 subs. My subs are both connected to the 990 and my mains are Klipsch RF-82s. I have know idea what the upsample rate is but I have never questioned the sound. 5 channel is okay but I lose something when the center and the surrounds come into play, mostly sound stage and placement.

tonight we decorated for Christmas. i have an articulate 4 yr old daughter, so this yr was mind blowing for her so far. the whole time i played music in 5.1 stereo while we did the deed. as we worked i was very happy that no matter where i was i had a pleasant ear full of the "mood" music. but occasionally i would sit down and take it in from DFC, and i found it became dysfunctional and all over the place when i was fix. it reminded me of bad outings seeing talented local music in settings not meant for music. yes i have a serious programming to listen for sound stage and image but the 5 channel stereo seemed to really screw up my audio compass.

but to be honest, as soon as i walked away it was the best sounding option i could choose.

/shrugs

YMMV

Some place I read that the 5 channel stereo is really best for background music like at a party since the processor does minimal change to the extra channels and they all seem to sound the same. I am sure I like the 2.2 better in the living room but the 5 channel work well when I am not in there. I redid my setup manually way back when so that my left front became the center and the left rear became the left speaker and so on all the way around all five channels. This essentially moved the center of the sound stage one sppeaker counter clockwise around my room. I did it because I tend to sit in the right rear corner of my living room. I had to put it back because other people in the room hated it and the stage was too wide for the speakers to make the leap. One of the reasons I waited so long for Trinnov was that it has the capability to store multiple setups as far as direction and distance so that I could make one for watching movies and others for listening to music in various seats around the living room. The 990 has only one way to store the info as far as I know. The PR-SC886 also doesn't do multiple setups unless I missed something in the manual.

cool experiment. i wish my denon stored multiple setups.

i did just grab the 5.1 DTS boxset from the Talking Heads just because all this multi-channel talk has me thinking...and i just happened to find it when we were shopping.

AVFAN wrote:
He is writing about accurate imaging. If, for example the band or orchestra was in front, then this is how the sound-stage IMHO should "appear".
One should be able to "see" the orchestra (i.e sound).

I think that the codecs including the DDs, DTSs etc etc are great for movies. But if the band/orchestra is in front of me that is how I want to hear (see) it. In fact, with proper mic placement and recording techniques we can "SEE" where the various soloists are in a big band recording.

Notwithstand accurate SACD recordings, however, because accurate SACDs would not place the orch sound around you, except how it sounded at the venue. So if SACD surrounds you, then the engineer should have (probably did) record the hall and ambience correctly. Still the orch main sound is in front. Ambience surrounds.
My .02

Has anyone seen a disc which has 5.1 tracks but all in the front stage. I think it would be awesome to have tracks for the various areas of the stage each with its own performer. It would be very convincing.

While not solely a music disc, Dave Matthews/Tim Reynolds at Radio City DVD in Dobly 5.1 is close to what you describe. Reynolds' guitar is the left channel, Matthews' guitar is the right and vocals are in stereo with minor center channel support. The surrounds are just crowd noise. I suppose it is a good example of soundstage and it is pretty convincing. I only have the DVD but I imagine the BluRay would sound (and look) even better.

Xenon man wrote:
Been doin' it for several years. We took 4 ch (recorded on CROWN CX844s analog) converted to digital and assigned them to the 4 channels of a dts disc, using a dts-encoding program. The soundstage was accurate. The imaging was correct.
That is why my 4-ch inline reproduces the correct image....that's the way the band was recorded. Mostly big bands and classical. The sections, the rhythm, the soloist are all sonically where they actually were in real life. This is not a big deal to do. Good machine. Good mics. Some know-how. Lots of time and energy.

Any commercial discs? It sounds like someone has thought this through a little but do they record that way for any given disc.

Xenon Man wrote
YES. Visit This site on 5point1.com for Jazz & Big Band. You'll find others in DVD-A and SACD also.
We only xferred multi-ch to dts, though.

This link Gives all their material. Gerat stuff.


The material put out by that company is fabulous.

my 970 has been having issues locking on to the coax input, im wanting that 2 channel pre 'bout now.

i see emotiva has one now....hint hint. keeping up with the jones's is what these company's do, right?