JBP Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I had a couple of questions about how receivers and amplifiers work together and was hoping to get some explanations or opinions. If you have a 7.1 receiver and you add an ampilfier to power the two front channels does that in turn take presuure of the remaining 5 channels allowing the receiver to perform better, free up needed watts? Also, is there any downside to using a Elite or H/K receiver along with a B&W or Sunfire amp or amps? It seems looking at this from a price perspective you can purchase a high quality receiver for far less than a B&W, Sunfire, ect.. preamp. What do the higher priced preamps offer that the receivers do not? Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Driving great amps with a receiver's preamp is not the way to the best quality sound. Using an outboard amp rather than the internal amps relieves load from the power supply. It can then more easily maintain rail voltage ensuring the remaining amps can deliver full power more of the time. The difference in power output should be inaudible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBP Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 Sorry, I meant B&K. Proof that I need as much help as I can get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelerFan Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Receivers are a compromise for convenience sake. Amp, preamp, tuner all crammed together in the same box along with all the power sources for each. My Yamaha integrated amp is a good example. 80 watts for the front 3 channels, it works great for 2 channel. But, when I use it for movies it suffers, the power drops off dramatically, I must turn the power up. The B&K is in a league of it's own in my opinion except maybe for the Sunfire which I have never heard. I've been tempted to pick up the B&K many times, especially since the price dropped. But I'm going to try and stick to my guns and go seperates. It makes no sense to me to use a receiver as just as a preamp. That's just compromising again in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Let me know when you find pre/pro seperates with ALL the features and capability of a new 1k avr pre/pro,for less than 2k -5k.I don't use my avr amps at all,its just a pre/pro,but try to buy seperates with the same features,ouch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 It takes two to three times the money for just the pre/pro. Then the amp is on top of that. Many folks use a receiver as a pre/pro with a separate amp. The receiver will probably go obsolete relatively quickly. It can then be retired to another system that sees less use or sold. There is no doubt that most $3,000 processors sound better than a $1,000 receiver, but the investment will not last for very long in most people's opninion. A top quality solid state amp should last 20 years. Bryston provides a warranty that long that is transferable. For someone new to home thaeter, a receiver is a rational investment. The amp can be added, new or used, when money is available. (Deficit spending is definitley not recommended for this hobby.) The Pioneer Elites are much easier to set up than most separate processors. The sound is very good as well. In your position, speakers would be top priority. They have the biggest impact on sound quality and last the longest. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBP Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 Thanks for the replies. Bill Do you think that one of the Pioneer Elite receivers would provide enough enjoyment with the RF-7's until an amp could be added at a later date? I guess that I am trying to think a couple of steps ahead, I do not want to purchase anything that I will regret a year or two down the road. I understand that speakers should be the number one priority. What would you consider the descending order following them? Are subs something I should put off until I have obtained an amp? How long should I expect to get away with using the receiver? I guess what would be most helpful is knowing what steps you would take in my position. Thanks again for everyones input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBP Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 Thanks for the replies. Bill Do you think that one of the Pioneer Elite receivers would provide enough enjoyment with the RF-7's until an amp could be added at a later date? I guess that I am trying to think a couple of steps ahead, I do not want to purchase anything that I will regret a year or two down the road. I understand that speakers should be the number one priority. What would you consider the descending order following them? Are subs something I should put off until I have obtained an amp? How long should I expect to get away with using the receiver? I guess what would be most helpful is knowing what steps you would take in my position. Thanks again for everyones input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBP Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 Sorry, I do not know how I managed to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 i have a pioneer elite vsx-55txi that i use as a pre/pro.... when i first got it, i tried using it by itself... it sounded very good..... when i connected the outboard amplifiers the sound was noticably better... much more bass at lower levels and even a little cleaner.... i still use the two back channels for speakers in another room.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 ---------------- On 1/1/2004 8:52:30 PM JBP wrote: Do you think that one of the Pioneer Elite receivers would provide enough enjoyment with the RF-7's until an amp could be added at a later date? ---------------- I think a Pioneer Elite reciever would provide plenty of enjoyment with the RF-7s. Yes it is true that adding an amp later will improve the sound, but good quality amps, even used, are not exactly cheap. Starting out with a good quality reciever is often the most logical and rational thing to do, unless you are pretty wealthy to begin with and can afford a good quality set of seperates (pre/pro and amp). The cheapest set of seperates I can find run a little bit over $2,000, whereas you can find a decent reciever, such as the Denon AVR3803 or the Pioneer Elite VSX-47TX for around $1,000, which provides plenty of power and features for most typical HT applications, especially used with efficient speakers such as the RF-7s. It is also true that driving an amp using a reciever as a pro/pro is not the best way to good quality sound, but is often the most logical path in upgrading from a reciever to seperates. Most modern recievers, especially the better ones like the Pioneer Elites, Denons and higher end Yamahas have pretty good pre/pro sections that will work quite well until such a time comes when it is necessary to upgrade. In my case, I am using my Denon AVR3802 as a pre/pro to drive my B&K Ref 200.7 amp. I would certainly love to get the B&K Ref 50 pre/pro, but right now, I just simply don't have the $2,200 to get one. My Denon is working perfectly good me for right now and that is what I plan on using until such an appropriate time comes for an upgrade. ---------------- I guess that I am trying to think a couple of steps ahead, I do not want to purchase anything that I will regret a year or two down the road. ---------------- A Pioneer Elite reciever (or similiar class) should provide you with a good setup for a number of years, and as was stated previously, you can always add outboard amps in the future as your needs and desires changes. ---------------- I understand that speakers should be the number one priority. What would you consider the descending order following them? Are subs something I should put off until I have obtained an amp? How long should I expect to get away with using the receiver? I guess what would be most helpful is knowing what steps you would take in my position. ---------------- After the speakers, I would say a good subwoofer, especially if you plan on watching a lot of movies. Then the amplifier, followed by the pre-pro, followed by good source components (DVD player, CD player, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I have the 49TXi; its amp section is the same as the 47TX. Either the 47 or the 55 will do a very good job with the amp section on the 47 holding a small advantage. I run my RF-7s as "small" which causes bass below 80 Hz to be sent to the subwoofer. This reduces the power required from the receiver's amp section. One prior poster claimed very emphatically that it is a waste to do so. My view is that my 650 watt RSW-15 provides more than enough bass and the bass is more accurate due to no bass cancellations taking place. When a subwoofer is used and the mains are set to small, the amp section on the Pioneer receiver has a reduced power requirement. Bass below 80 Hz takes enourmous amounts of power. The power is wasted in my view due to the two RF-7s working against each other which produces "muddy bass." (The mains still play below 80 Hz, but at a greatly reduced amount due to the way crossovers work. The reduced output is there to blend the mains with the sub.) Virtually everyone that is into home theater recommends that you use a subwoofer to reproduce the low frequency effect channel, the .1 channel in 5.1. The place where there is little agreement is whether floorstanders like the RF-7s should be set to small. If you want tight, accurate bass, small is best. If you want more bass, large is best. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksdad Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 steeler, if you tried the avr 507 you would be very pleased, mine beats my previous rotel gear to death, the b&k gear truly is in a league of its own, this unit suffers no degrardation in quality or performance for convienience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelerFan Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 ---------------- On 1/2/2004 6:00:56 AM marksdad wrote: steeler, if you tried the avr 507 you would be very pleased, mine beats my previous rotel gear to death, the b&k gear truly is in a league of its own, this unit suffers no degrardation in quality or performance for convienience ---------------- Yup, I know. When the salesman demoed the RF-7's to me he used the 507. It was sweet. There was an RX-Z1 on the shelf above, I can't for the life of me remember why I didn't make him use that since I had Yamaha. Nervous knowing I was about to spend alot of money I guess. If they (Sound Advice) put the 507 on sale, for less than $3000 I may jump on it. But they advertise the 507 as $1000 off like that's a sale price instead of the new list price. And they STILL are asking $3000 for the Ref 50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabez Scratch Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 This has been a great thread to read through -- thanks! Very informative. MrMcGoo: you wrote that you have the Pioneer Elite 49TX -- I have the 43TX. And you wrote that you set your fronts to small b/c it forces bass below 80Hz to the sub to free up the speakers. A bit of a newb question, but wouldn't the specific crossover control on the receiver take care of that anyways? In other words, isn't it redunant to set the speaker size if you are controlling the crossover through the specific crossover setting on the receiver? More to the point or put another way, do speaker size settings and crossover settings do the same thing? Hope this makes some sense and thx in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Jabez, When you set a speaker to "large" the crossover has no effect on that set of speakers. If the RF-7s are set to large on any receiver, it will get all of the bass on that channel which can go below 20 Hz. When the RF-7s are set to small, then the crossover comes into play. The RF-7s play cleaner when the crossover is set to 80 Hz and speakers are set to small. Not only is less power needed, but the mid rage is clearer due to reduction of cabinet resonances inside of the speaker, less port noise and a cleaner signal from most amps. The RF-7s are still putting out sound below 80 Hz to help blend with the sub. My view is to get a great sub, and avoid 300 watt amps for the RF-7s. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 to me the B&K is easily the best receiver on the market. true, it may not have the most power, but with klipsch that isn't really a big deal, and the 40 watts the Denon has on it will create a barely audible difference. the build quality of B&K components is the level of "audiphile" components rather then your typical best buy or circuit city receiver as well. they have a thick, sturdy metal face plate and the entire case is made of metal. I do not own the receiver, but I do own one of their preamps and I love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.