We even buy a Pre/Pro?

There is no reason you can't use a receiver. In fact, many people prefer this route.

So you have never heard of the Marantz AV7005...lol??? $1600?? Audio Advisor website. It sounds like it is exactly what you want.

It has all of that plus it has 9 balanced outputs so you can run noise-free connections up to 100 feet to your power amplifiers anywhere. The balanced outputs are the only way to go as far as I am concerned. 5 HDMI inputs and 2 outputs.

I also hate receivers, because they cut so many corners and skimp on power supplies which can't really supply their amplifiers with enough current.

I want separate power amplifiers, and as close as possible to each speaker. Or one could use Dynaudio powered speakers.

The AV7005 is the one I like.

There is a whole site about it here on AVS.

I don't know how many power amplifiers you have or need; if you need more, you may want to look at the Emotiva XPA-5 and XPA-3.

Enough current to do what?

The amplifier section of the receiver and it's power supply should not matter if only using a receiver for a pre pro.

Speaking of pre/pro's, why the hell are they all so damn expensive?

I am talking about the fact that over 90% of the receivers on the market do not have the current capability to drive all 7 speakers to high power levels simultaneously without running out of current and producing massive distortion or speaker-damaging "honking" when the amplifiers and power supply break into oscillation.

A typical 100 watt per channel receiver will typically have a power supply that can only put out about 400 watts. That is why the ratings will give power specs with only "2 channels driven". On top of that they will say that you should not use speakers below 6 ohms, because if you put 4 ohm speakers on all channels it would make a current overload even more likely.

Then, to add insult to injury, and to try and fool the gullible, they may even say some where that it is a "700-watt" receiver, which is an absurdity and a complete lie.

The only manufacturer that I know of that actually puts out the claim that all amplifier channels can be driven to full power simultaneously is Cambridge Audio (for the 650R). I am sure that there is another one out there somewhere, but I don't know of it yet.

Because if it wasn't expensive it probably wouldn't sound good. Think about who they are marketing them too. The same people who will spend thousands of dollars on high end cable.

Simple..
AVRs are 96% of the market, components are 4%, end-result is unit production quantities for Pre-Amp controllers are very small..
Increasing significantly its build costs, also the brands typically work on higher GP markups for components versus AVRs..

Just my $0.02...

It's just that amps are pricy. That's a broad statement, but it's true, adding an amp adds cost. So why is that taking away the amp raises the price? Pre/pro's have no amps. Basically the majority, if not all pre/pro's, seem to have the exact same features more or less, as their AVR counterparts. So why is that they can take a certain AVR and sell it for around a grand let's say, but then take a pre/pro that looks more or less the same, minus the amp, but then sell it for like $500 more than the AVR that has an amp?

That makes sense. That's a good point. So why don't they just take that same AVR, but leave out the amp?????

And just sell the damn thing without the amp. Then pass on the savings to the consumer. Hell, even just mark down the price a little bit without the amp in it.

Yeah, but for the average listener isnt just about any solid AVR going to be able to drive moderately efficient speakers to pretty loud levels.

Where is the cutoff. I mean what is your definition of a "high power level" and what would be an example of a setup that showed something like this happening. If we are talking extremely loud in a huge room with speakers that are difficult to drive, sure, I can see an issue. Are you sure for normal listening however that AVR's cant get the job done?

Like I said, part of it is perception. In this crazy hobby, if something is more expensive, it must be better than something less expensive. That is what we learn at an early age. Unfortunately some people never grow out of that.

That is why AVS exists. To dispel the myths and fallacies in this hobby. Some people just cant stand to have their golden ears discredited, their egos bruised, or their expensive purchases shown to be nothing more than smoke a mirrors, not in every case, but you get the drift.

The Marantz AV7005 is only $1599, and has high-quality audio circuits and a ton of features. If you added 7 high-quality audio amplifiers to it that would add another $2100 to it, and you would have a $3700 receiver.

That is what a receiver would cost if it wasn't a mickey-mouse piece of crap with crappy-sounding amplifiers and power supplies that were totally inadequate.

The fact that you can buy these receivers with 5 channels or 7 that actually function and have quite a few features for under $1000 is a miracle of engineering know-how and massive corner-cutting, plus mass production and Chinese slave-like labor conditions.

The AV7005 does not have the mass production numbers like a cheap receiver, so it's design costs have to recovered from a relatively small production run. High design costs and limited production equals high prices. Ask Ferrari.

Very well said. The point I'm trying to get at is that all pre/pro's are at least $1500.00.

New AVR's come out every year, some in the $100-200 range with lots of features that most people would be fine with. Why can't they do the same and offer a brand new pre/pro for under a grand?

I guess the reasoning why they won't do that is a combination of the point that Bruins29 made, about the perception behind it. And also what M Code had said as well about there being such a small market for pre/pro's.

I still dont get all this hate towards AVRs. If we are talking extreme situations sure but I dont see why a $700 amp couldnt be describable from a $20000 one in a DBT. Again unless we are talking about really high volumes or specific speakers.

Actually, once you buy the AV7005, you will use mostly balanced cables, which are dirt cheap to buy or make; that is one of the major reasons to use it. All balanced cables are totally immune from the problems that plague unbalanced cables and give the snake-oil boys the opening they need to take advantage of the problems that DO exist there.

A quality XLR connector costs less than $4, and AES/ABU broadcast-standard cable costs around one dollar per foot, which results in cheap balanced cabling. Perfect performance every time, with every cable.

Only fools spend large amounts of money on the cable "snake-oil" nonsense. When it comes to unbalanced cables, there are issues due to the inferior electrical nature of unbalanced cables and the way that they interface with the circuits at either end that cause some cables to sound better in some instances some of the time, but that is a very long story. You probably don't have the EE degree needed to comprehend what actually causes all of that to happen.

The fundamental reason that it happens at all is because the unbalanced cable is a disaster from an engineering standpoint. In recording studios, in industrial instrumentation, and in auditoriums and concert halls all over the world, there are NO unbalanced cables in use; never! The only reason they continue to exist in the consumer audio world is because manufacturers of cheap audio equipment have to compete, so they cheap out.

Another Issue, of course, is that if ALL of the connectors on the back of a receiver or AV pre/pro were XLR connectors, it would be so big it would need its own room...lol. That is a problem that will only be solved when the audio industry settles on a smaller standard connector for balanced 3-wire circuits. That ain't gonna happen soon.

All this crap about super-pure copper and silver wire for cables is strictly snake oil and those of us who have been audio hobbyists for many years and have some technical knowledge do not get sucked in by the smoke and mirrors of the snake-oil vendors who want to sell some super-expensive nonsense solution.

Some unbalanced cables DO sound better in SOME cases than others, and that can be demonstrated, but the things that have to be done to minimize the actual problems that are causing that are not super-expensive to fix; you just need some technical know-how and how to approach the problems.

Most audiophiles are not gullible or stupid, so don't be so quick to label everyone with the failings of a few who are sucked in by the snake-oil vendors.

I would not dismiss under $1k receivers so easily. S&V Mag a couple years back found Onkyo receivers to have measurably better preamp sections than expensive pre/pro. Some avrs do well on the bench as well such as HK and Onkyo.

I don't agree with this at all.

My counter view is that receivers are well designed and economical and use well understood circuits to produce accurate sound.

Yes, their amps usually cannot compare to a $1000 external amp. Obviously.

However, you can buy more expensive receivers with good amp sections that sound great.

I feel you are out of touch with modern gear. Or you simply can't believe you can make good audio gear at prices most of us can afford.

By the way, I have heard high end audio gear and IMO, the difference is likely the speakers (or their custom sound listening rooms.)

As we posted previously, the market demand is quite small for separate HT AV components compared to AVRs. However for a seller to be capable of handling components he will require additional knowledge/expertise, demo facilities and inventory..

Keep in mind..
What has happened to our brick & mortar HT specialists here in the USA over the last few years ago, they are gone..
Previously..
People would go to the specialist for the demo, ask lengthy multiple questions, then go home and order the product on-line @ a lower cost... The market itself has forced the changes in the CE distribution channels.

Perhaps an audio brand such as Outlaw whose primary channels are on-line they can succeed with selling AV components @ moderate pricing, but for other the surviving audio component brands they have moved up to the higher end esoteric components at least in North America...
Additionally, the wealthy affluent market segment have the extra $ so they can pay a CEDIA installer to choose & install his expensive HT AV components.

In other international markets such as Europe, Australia or Asia, they still have established HT specialist distribution channels so certain HT component products are still marketed there accordingly..

Just my $0.02...

Out of touch...that is a cheap shot, and so wrong it hurts!

I just wish I could get you in my living room, you unbeliever...lol.

99% of the listening rooms I have been in at dealers are bad, worse, and awful! I guarantee you that if you ever hear a system that has the right stuff, in a good room, your jaw will drop. It's clear that you never have.

I was a college professor for many years, and I never had the kind of income that made big expenditures for audio gear easy. For that reason I always did extensive at-home listening as a must before I even considered a major outlay for a new upgrade.

After listening to many many things over 30 years, I pretty much have arrived at audio nirvana, but it was not done lightly or easily or cheaply. My cheap-as-possible system has ended up with about $30,000 worth of equipment in it somehow.... (but hey, that's only a thousand bucks a year, right?)

Of course, that does not take into consideration that I designed the house that's it's in in 1994 with a clean sheet of paper and made the acoustics of the listening room a major consideration of the design...including 8 dedicated 20 amp circuits just for my living room. Do I have to count that?

But sometimes, prices do not correlate with sound quality. I have an Ayre C5xe/mp SACD/CD player that cost $6000. It sounds so good that when it came out a few years ago, Stereophile did something they had never done before; they created a new rating category for it: A+ . They never found the need to do that for some earlier designs that cost between 10 and 20 thousand dollars.

A year later, Sony came out with the SCD-XA5400ES, which shocked a lot of people by being 98% as good, and they also put it in the A+ list. It only cost $1500. Those are STILL the only two I have ever heard that sound that lifelike and wonderful. The others just don't cut it.

Ahhhh....never mind...you can't convert a determined heretic from so far away...rofl.

************************************************************ **************

Yes, their amps usually cannot compare to a $1000 external amp. Obviously.

However, you can buy more expensive receivers with good amp sections that sound great.

I feel you are out of touch with modern gear. Or you simply can't believe you can make good audio gear at prices most of us can afford.

By the way, I have heard high end audio gear and IMO, the difference is likely the speakers (or their custom sound listening rooms.)[/quote]

Well, maybe I was harsh. If so I apologize. But dismissing all receivers as junk strikes me as overreacting in one sense and wrong on the other.

Nothing in my experience indicates that all receivers are junk.

You said you had a background in electronics? Wouldn't you say your basic DAC chip has been perfected, that your basic pre amp circuits were long ago well understood and perfected and your basic 3 stage amp design long ago perfected?

And the circuits I see in my amplifier books are not expensive. One component is expensive...the power supply. However, under reasonable listening conditions a receiver's power supply can get the job done, IMO. My Yamaha Z7 sounds just as good without any of the amps I have connected.

I am sure you have your reasons for your beliefs as I have mine. I will try to be less abrasive in future replies.

Here is the reality, I has always used separates and only because I have always had 4 ohm speakers. I had 4 ohm JBL cinema speakers which were 103 DBS in sensitivity. I bought a Denon 2310 and used Audyssey and that AVR is rated at 100 watts per channel. It played those 4 ohm speakers at reference levels and only shut down on one scene during WOTW which is a hard scene. Right now I have an Elite SC-37 and can play reference levels on any scene with my 100 db sensitive speakers! It actually sounds as good as my very powerful separates. The reality is you need to pick the right speakers for your goals!

20% of your total budget went to your disc player? I'm using a used Oppo I paid $100 for .

Some of the reasons why manufacturers do this is to help ease packaging constraints, power supply swtiching noise, pcb cross talk/signal coupling and radiation, reducing PWM and amplifier switching currents which can induce certain forms of noise into preamp circuits.

Nowadays the technology of pcb design and IC packaging has drastically improved such that i feel the differences are so minimal especially to the human ear.

[/quote]

Good post-thanks

And what is usually never discussed in these types of threads is the seperation of HT and Stereo. First, I can't use an AVR with my speakers. They are a fairly difficult 4ohm 85dB. And that is a monitor. It would choke on an AVR. I have owned a number of AVRs over the years and I think they all did okay for HT but I was never satisfied when listening in stereo. One set-up almost brought me to tears in stereo as I couldn't believe I bought this stuff..

I am fairly limited in space so no room for a seperate HT and stereo set-up. Some of you that have not heard some of the different pre/pros, and I know some of them are quite expensive, but there are a few I have auditioned and one I own that smashes anything I have heard in stereo.

I currently have a fairly small room and I have treatments at first reflection points and have done the best I can do there. I had moved my speakers an inch this way and inch that way looking for that incredible image I got at the dealers. Where the vocals are dead center in the room and the instruments seem detached from the speakers. I have a big display in between my speakers and know that doesn't help but we do the best we can.

I stepped up to a different pre/pro because the one I had was an old HDMI 1.0 piece of electronics. I auditioned the piece at the dealer but not in my home but I was thrilled with the analog section as to me it sounded excellent. HT was secondary as long as it could handle the latest decoding and was HDMI 1.4. I got the unit finally and set it up. Nothing in my room changed but the imaging in stereo was incredible and not like anything I had in my room to date. The pre/pro sounded so good and as good as some of the seperate stereo pre/amps I have auditioned in the past.

So all I can say for me it was worth the money. I don't require a blindfold to hear the change in imaging and the great stereo sound I am getting.

I have had AVRs from Yamaha, Onkyo and Pioneer and none came close to stereo reproduction I have with a pre/pro. The Arcam AVR350 I auditioned many years ago was pretty damn good though.

So I know there is different mindsets and questions why is this so expensive etc but you have to break the discussion up between stereo and HT. That's my take on the subject. They are not all built equal.

Rick

Because even if you sell 50 of them each year you can still afford a Hawaiian vacation.

I have never understood how a piece of properly performing audio equipment could dramatically effect the soundstage.

I have heard a few theories on it, but none that totally made sense to me. Glad the poster who mentioned that is happy though.

[/quote]

How do you know they sound better? How did you compare them and to what?

Michael me neither. I would be lying if I said otherwise. But this did occur.

Edit: To add another comment. When I listen to CDs thru my Blu-ray player via HDMI and not thru the analog section of my pre/pro that soundstage is gone. It is only when I am listening to my seperate CDP that is wired into the pre/pro and set-up in by-pass mode that leaves the signal in analog and is not converted to digital that I get the outstanding imaging. So it is not that I am talking DVD vs CDP here but the fact that the analog section of this pre/pro is outstanding. The stage collapses when listening to CDs thru my blu-ray and then going thru the digital domain. When listening to my CDP in analog-outstanding. I do love this pre/pro.

Rick