AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Aferall, aren't they just recievers without built-in amplifiers?


Forgive me if this is a silly question, but for the life of me I can't figure out why A/V processors cost thousands and thousands of dollars when they appear to have the same functionality as a mid-range reciever minus the amplification.


It seems to me that if I took my Onkyo TXS-R701 reciever took out the speaker amplifiers I'd have a unit that only cost a couple hundred bucks and had all the functionality of many of the expensive pre/pro units out there. The next question of course is why companies like Onkoy don't produce such a unit and sell it for a couple hundred less than the fully-amplified reciever.


Why are there no "low end" pre/pros out there? Are consumers just being fooled into thinking they're something more than they really are? Are the processors in the units that are out there really that much better than a mid to high end reciever?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
591 Posts
It's a matter of investment in the programming. The processors are DSPs that require software. With any software it requires the whole writing, testing, debugging, tech support, etc... That's a fair amount of things to deal with, since we all know that software is never completely free of bugs. If you are a big company like Sony or Pioneer, you probably have the staff to do this. The smaller companies do not, so they have to include that in the cost of the product. General home amplifiers are pretty cheap to build, especially overseas, but if you have a processor you also have to pay licensing fees to Dolby, DTS, and THX, etc... Again, for a small company that becomes a large chunk of cost. The higher end units may typically be the ones to add the latest features also.


If someone really wants a cheap unit, it's not a huge deal to add the amp (cost-wise) and make a full featured product. Also, the companies that make the receivers don't usually have a stand alone amp, so they wouldn't have a good reason to make a real cheap processor if they have no amp to sell with it.


I'm sure someone could do it, but then there'd be less reason for people to upgrade their whole receiver. That's also another reason why some people use their computers for this purpose.


It's a good question, but it's a more complicated product to deal with compared with an amp so I don't know if people would want to bother with a low margin product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
Good question.


For instance, take a Harmon Kardon AVR 635, with the Aureus Room EQ and nice decoding features likely shared with their Lexicon brethren for about a grand. Use the pre-amp outs and you have Lexi quality (?) surround processor with a cool feature (Room EQ) not found on stuff like the MC-8.


Or even the HK AVR 7300, which adds video switching with up-conversion via Faroudja DCDi , has serial interfaces for automation integration, and tons of other 'high-end' features. Use this as a pre-amp for thousands less than an MC-8 and get some 'free' amps for the surrounds :)


Not that I believe either of the above equals the sonic clarity of an MC-8 or MC-12, or even can match all the features. It's just that I'm beginning to perceive it's not *that* big a difference anymore.

Has anyone done side-by-side comparos of this class of gear?


Personally, I still believe small guys like Meridian provide the absolute best software, as they write every line of decoder code and I'm willing to fund their R&D by paying the bucks they demand (I run a 568 pre). I also get modes like Trifield, not available anywhere else.


But at other levels of the food chain, where vendors use off-the-shelf chips, well, the high-end receiver with pre-amp outs looks like a good alternative.

Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,782 Posts
Quote:
Why are there no "low end" pre/pros out there? Are consumers just being fooled into thinking they're something more than they really are? Are the processors in the units that are out there really that much better than a mid to high end reciever?
they have much better quality of construction as well as a much higher quality pre-amp section then what is found on a typical receiver (QUALITY OF DESIGN AND MATERIALS).

The differance is significant in sound quality, this low-level signal should be PURE as possible because it is the FOUNDATION of what the amplifier amplifies.

While the quality of processors has much to do with overall sound, so to does everything else in the signal path. Stand-alone Pre-amps are made for the discerning music enthusiast (and has corresponding quality), while the pre-out section of a receiver will only be used by about 5% of the people buying that unit and they are not as familiar with seperates sound and will be duely impressed with the gains in headroom, dynamic range ,etc brought about by the new amps. These people are also more apt to be HT enthusiasts and the clarity differance may be negligible to them anyway, especcially if they have little comparitive experiance between pre-amps and receivers posing as pre-amps.

I think that there is nothing wrong with using a reciver as a pre-amp. so no flames please, but there is often a large "quality of sound" advantage in using a pre-amp whose pre-out section was designed to be used by discerning customers rather than using a pre-out section that was design to be a "yeah we got it ,even though few will ever use it" afterthought that was added as a gee-gaw feature by manufacturers...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by JonFo


Personally, I still believe small guys like Meridian provide the absolute best software, as they write every line of decoder code and I'm willing to fund their R&D by paying the bucks they demand (I run a 568 pre). I also get modes like Trifield, not available anywhere else.
Lexicon products also have proprietary code... Logic7... and the MC12 does now have Room Correction as well...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
The original question...why doesn't someone come out with a "lower priced" pre-pro....I suppose it's more a question of what your definition of "lower price" is.


The "hot bed" of the market right now is $1,500-$3,000 for pre-pros. On the lower end, you have the Sherwood Newcastle P965. By all accounts, it's a nice piece. From that point on up, you have a bunch of others like B&K, Sunfire, Anthem, Aragon, Parasound, etc.


As it was when two-channel systems reigned, only those who wanted better-best performance go the separates route. For the mainstream, however, the "all-in-on" solutions were the path of least resistance and is where the volume is....that means AVRs.


AVRs have really stepped up in recent years since they've been the first to bring "higher end" features to the AVR market. Things like AutoEQ, DVI/HDMI switching, latest decoding chip sets, firewire, etc seem to hit the AVR market first than the separates market. I think this is mainly because the "big" companies (Harmon, Pioneer, Yamaha, etc) have the big engineering teams to do the software. Smaller players (like most separates companies) don't have the engineering bandwidth to be the first ones out with the latest features.....just my opinion.


Interestingly, with the internet only companies, there is a move to bring separates to the "masses". Outlaw has a pre-pro that's been out for a while that more or less broke the price barrier. Most recently, AV123 is promising a $700 pre-pro with their Emotiva Ultra Light line with up-to-date chip sets, DACs, etc.


I'm really quite interested in these since they hit the "sweet spot" of the market. It will be interesting to see how these new "lower cost" pre-pros compare to buying a full featured AVR and combining it with an outboard amp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,828 Posts
Why are they more expensive?


Um, because they're better?


In addition to the worthy reasons already listed, consider too, they usually come with much longer warranties than receivers (and which receiver has a 10-year warranty?) .... plus they are usually upgradable, whereas receivers usually are not. Those upgrades are often offered at near-cost.


Good gear is an investment. When you choose wisely and invest in high quality gear, there is little reason to upgrade .... The latest surround format is not very enticing. You know that you cannot improve your sound quality without practically doubling your investment, and while this isn't very helpful to stimulating our economy, it is VERY helpful to ones' own savings accounts. :)


Good stuff costs money. Ya get what you pay for. There is always a large grain of truth in platitudes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
Quote:
I think that there is nothing wrong with using a reciver as a pre-amp. so no flames please, but there is often a large "quality of sound" advantage in using a pre-amp whose pre-out section was designed to be used by discerning customers rather than using a pre-out section that was design to be a "yeah we got it ,even though few will ever use it" afterthought that was added as a gee-gaw feature by manufacturers...
I disagree. IMO there's a fallacy when people refers to "special" hearing abilities. It has been demonstrated by some tests that there's no real difference in hearing abilities of "trained people" compared to usual people (particularly when evaluating speakers).


AFAIK, the only case where trained ears are necessary is when surround technology is being tested.


It seems thar the real difference in "hearing abilities" applies precisely in software development (Logic 7 technology quickly comes to my mind). Thats why Lexicons are so expensive, even the models that use the "not so good or not so advanced" Cirrus processors ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
"Why are they more expensive?


Um, because they're better?"


(PBF) Not necessarily. They are more expensive because they sell fewer of them . Development costs are a bigger part of the price then say, mass market receivers. In addition, those 1/2" front panels and machined knobs are probably the most expensive parts on the high end gear. They certainly aren't developing their own converters and processors.


"Good gear is an investment"


(PBF) Not really. The value nearly always goes down and is superceded by cheaper equipment. The real value is mostly in proprietary features like Logic 7. If that is more important to the buyer than ProLogic IIx, than he/she will pay the premium. How many pre-amps have up-conversion to DVI or HDMI let alone switching? Anything you buy now will be obsolete when these features becomes available. Then what about improved D/A converters, new protocols, etc.


"ood stuff costs money. Ya get what you pay for. "


(PBF) Not according to the law of diminshing returns. If something like full featured Logic 7 processing or cosmetics are most important to you, than perhaps. Sometimes you need the swithcing capability that may noy be on the lower cost units. But what does a Krell or Theta offer that the Sherwood doesn't at half the price or less. You would be very hard pressed to hear or see a difference.


Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
950 Posts
Speaking of inexpensive pre-pros- I have an opportunity to purchase an Adcom GTP-860 pre-pro for under $1000. The unit appears to be very well made, but it lacks bass management for the analog 5.1 inputs & has a fixed subwoofer crossover at 80hz. I have full range speakers all around, so is this something I should be concerned about? Has anyone had any experience with Adcom products?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,828 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by paulbf1

[B...They are more expensive because they sell fewer of them .... [/b]
Hmmm. I get it. So Kias ARE just as good as BMWs. Thanks for helping me understand.


Quote:
Originally posted by paulbf1

[B...Development costs are a bigger part of the price then say, mass market receivers. ... [/b]
What do you think "development" is? It is the process of applying knowledge and experience, of component selection and testing, of programming, of fine-tuning performance, endlessly until the product performs to the designer's satisfaction. This "performance" is almost without fail, superior to mass market offerings.

Quote:
Originally posted by paulbf1
"... They certainly aren't developing their own converters and processors...
But they sure as heck ARE putting proprietary code INTO them. The mass market retailers often incorporate chips with all the desired code built-in. The small pre-pro designers often completely write the code from scratch. I can assure you, anyone could hear the difference between ProLogic as my preamp does it, and as any mass market receiver does it.

Quote:
Originally posted by paulbf1
...The value nearly always goes down and is superceded by cheaper equipment. The real value is mostly in proprietary features like Logic 7. If that is more important to the buyer than ProLogic IIx, than he/she will pay the premium. How many pre-amps have up-conversion to DVI or HDMI let alone switching? Anything you buy now will be obsolete when these features becomes available. Then what about improved D/A converters, new protocols, etc....
This whole paragraph is a silly mess. If your goal is to have the latest and greatest acronyms in your gear, then you are right. I outgrew that scene long ago. My interest is premium sound reproduction, the best I can create in my environment. I speak of investment not as something you will later sell at a higher cost but rather as a piece of equipment that will continue to perform BEYOND the capabilities of mass market stuff for design generations.


You probably have not managed to select components of sufficient quality to understand this. I have ProLogic and DTS decoding in my preamp. I have no desire to "upgrade." There are but a handful of preamps on the market that can improve my sound quality. I do not plan to add speakers, which is unlikely to improve my sound quality.


Conversion to DVI/HDMI? WTF cares? I am talking about sound reproduction. If you understood the philosophy of discrete components, then you would realize, that the point is to select the best individual component to perform a particular function. I have no interest in a swiss-army-knife preamp. If I want DVI/HDMI switching, I'll buy a DVI/HDMI switch. THAT is the point of discrete components.


Since the goal of my system is optimum sound reproduction, addition of some silly new bell/whistle certainly does NOT obsolete anything. Introduction of a unit that significantly IMRPROVES sound quality over what I own ... even THAT does not obsolete what I own. But it does make it tempting to explore that new thing ... and it is the ONLY thing that makes it tempting.
Quote:
Originally posted by paulbf1
"....But what does a Krell or Theta offer that the Sherwood doesn't at half the price or less. ...
If you have to ask that, then it's pretty obvious you have never listened to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,174 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by AcuraCL
The mass market retailers often incorporate chips with all the desired code built-in. The small pre-pro designers often completely write the code from scratch. I can assure you, anyone could hear the difference between ProLogic as my preamp does it, and as any mass market receiver does it.
That's an interesting claim. Since Pro Logic is a licensed product from Dolby Labs, how is the Pro Logic decoding in your preamp different than the Pro Logic decoding in the cheapest CostCo HTIB? Is your preamp doing something beyond the Dolby spec for Pro Logic decoding? If not, then why would any manufacturer "completely write the code from scratch" instead of using readily available code?


Best,

Sanjay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,828 Posts
I expressed myself badly. Historically many (most) receivers have prologic decoding in the analog domain ... and there are mass market chips available that can be purchased and plunked into the unit.


My preamp does all signal processing, including prologic, in the digital domain, in DSP. This may be more common today, but back in the day ... it was confined to a very few preamps. While the specs for prologic decoding are the same for all, the code (I believe) is not necessarily the same, and the differing quality of various components is without question.


You are correct to correct me, as I spoke too quickly without completely forming that particular thought.


Now, as to why someone would not use "readily available" code ... innovation ... improvement. Some designers might think they can do it better ... if they do it better, they have a marketable product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
quote:Originally posted by paulbf1

[B...They are more expensive because they sell fewer of them .... [/b]



Hmmm. I get it. So Kias ARE just as good as BMWs. Thanks for helping me understand.


(PBF) This is a strawman argument. I can tell you scpecifically why BMWs are better than Kias. Can you give specifics (not anecdotal like "it sounds better") why a $10K pre-pro/amp is better than a Pioneer Elite receiver of comparable power?


quote:Originally posted by paulbf1

[B...Development costs are a bigger part of the price then say, mass market receivers. ... [/b]


What do you think "development" is?


(PBF) I know what development is, since I do this professionally and have a number of my designs in production.


It is the process of applying knowledge and experience, of component selection and testing, of programming, of fine-tuning performance, endlessly until the product performs to the designer's satisfaction. This "performance" is almost without fail, superior to mass market offerings.


(PBF) Gee, I didn't know that. I always thought development was having a whole bunch of engineers, techs, support people, rent ,etc. , all of which costs money which must be recouped if you want to stay in business. And then after you've completed the design, redoing it because marketing says we need new features because that's what consumers now want.


quote:Originally posted by paulbf1

"... They certainly aren't developing their own converters and processors...


But they sure as heck ARE putting proprietary code INTO them. The mass market retailers often incorporate chips with all the desired code built-in. The small pre-pro designers often completely write the code from scratch.


(PBF) So you're saying that they have their own flavors of Dolby Digital or DTS? They buy the license and put it into the specific processors like everyone else. They may have unique artifical sound fields, and if that's important, more power to you.


I can assure you, anyone could hear the difference between ProLogic as my preamp does it, and as any mass market receiver does it.


(PBF) And you've done blind listening tests with every mass market receiver? I didn't state "any mass market receiver". I did say "law of diminishing returns".


quote:Originally posted by paulbf1

...The value nearly always goes down and is superceded by cheaper equipment. The real value is mostly in proprietary features like Logic 7. If that is more important to the buyer than ProLogic IIx, than he/she will pay the premium. How many pre-amps have up-conversion to DVI or HDMI let alone switching? Anything you buy now will be obsolete when these features becomes available. Then what about improved D/A converters, new protocols, etc....


This whole paragraph is a silly mess. If your goal is to have the latest and greatest acronyms in your gear, then you are right. I outgrew that scene long ago. My interest is premium sound reproduction, the best I can create in my environment. I speak of investment not as something you will later sell at a higher cost but rather as a piece of equipment that will continue to perform BEYOND the capabilities of mass market stuff for design generations.


(PBF) Then let me simplify it for you. Every thing you have today will be superceded in the near furture. And how do know that they outperform all mass market stuff? This is why we have a saying in the business "that there is no bigger sucker than an audiophile and valid credit card".


You probably have not managed to select components of sufficient quality to understand this. I have ProLogic and DTS decoding in my preamp. I have no desire to "upgrade." There are but a handful of preamps on the market that can improve my sound quality. I do not plan to add speakers, which is unlikely to improve my sound quality.


(PBF) But I'm really happy with my Yorx all-in-one system. Why should I upgrade :^) Considering that people like Floyd Toole at Harman consider the speaker/room to be the most important factor in sound quality it would be better to get better speakers than sink an excessive amount into electronics. Whatever excessive is, is up to you.


Conversion to DVI/HDMI? WTF cares?


(PBF) Well, my wife for one. She's not particularly thrilled at having to push 15 buttons on the remote to watch a DVD.


I am talking about sound reproduction.


If you understood the philosophy of discrete components, then you would realize, that the point is to select the best individual component to perform a particular function.


(PBF) And you pay a big premium for that "point". If you have unlimited funds, that's fine. It not, there's that law of diminishing returns rearing it's ugly head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,370 Posts
Why do AVRs provide better value than separates?..

Very simple, AVRs are sold in higher qtys (000,000s) and separates are sold in significantly lower qtys (00's)..


Also one can debate the sonic merits of one product over another but since the CE business runs on qtys especially for silicon the higher volume units(AVRs) will get better pricing on a higher grade processor. The higher grade processor will provide more performance and features. Regarding the processor types, typically these are available with the primary codes (Dolby, DTS) already on-board in-chip memory or they can be accessed by external memory. Since the higher end separate brands usually have their own proprietary DSP modes, they will use the external memory type DSP, this is where the highest costs originate from.. for the software and debugging development time/expense. However as the silicon business advances (just like the PCs) more powerful processors using a thinner micron size, these will integrate more and more of the features into silicon delivering a higher, performance level at lower costs..


Already there great examples of this integration into AVRs now being shipped into the market by the major CE brands... such as Sony, Matsushita, Yamaha, HK, Denon..


Just my $.02 worth..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,828 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by paulbf1
.... This is a strawman argument. I can tell you scpecifically why BMWs are better than Kias. Can you give specifics (not anecdotal like "it sounds better") why a $10K pre-pro/amp is better than a Pioneer Elite receiver of comparable power?....

Yes, for exactly the same reasons (very similar) that you would name for why the BMW is superior. Most fall into the classification of "superior material." The preamp is superior for the quality of the DSPs used in signal processing, VERY SUPERIOR for the quality of the DAC stage, the power supplies are quieter, there is signal filtering and shielding that never even occurs in mass market gear, and individual components of far tighter tolerance are generally selected and used (mil grade or better).


An Elite might be better than most receivers, and it's interesting how all of a sudden now we're comparing a top-of-the-line mass product to high end components.

Quote:
Originally posted by paulbf1

[B...So you're saying that they have their own flavors of Dolby Digital or DTS? They buy the license and put it into the specific processors like everyone else. They may have unique artifical sound fields, and if that's important, more power to you. .... [/b]

As I replied to Sdurani, I expressed myself badly. DD or prologic is a spec. Equipment makers may choose any number of methods to implement that spec. Some choose analog chips that contain all the processing code right on them. Some write their own code that runs on DSPs. As long as they meet the spec, indeed, the individual lines of code surely will vary. BTW, they don't put "licenses" from Dolby into processors. I'm sure, however, you must have misspoken when you said that (or you have no idea what a license is). It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by paulbf1
.... ...And you've done blind listening tests with every mass market receiver? I didn't state "any mass market receiver". I did say "law of diminishing returns". ...

Wha? This doesn't even make sense. I don't have to listen to every mass market receiver. I've been buying and listening to hi fi equipment long enough to know better. I know when I read a review, or a white paper, what to believe and what to ignore. I know how mass market stuff is made and what's in it.


The true fool may indeed be an audiophile. That's why I have never considered myself to be one. I use Radio Shack cables for most of my connections. My Sony mass market DVD player gives me equal sound as a CD player as my California Audio Labs unit, since I bypass DAC. I don't buy into any of the hype or crap. I buy only what extensive research and listening bears out as superior in sound quality and worth the dollars being asked.


Consider this. The upgraditis guys around here who change receivers every 2 -4 years because they think their current model is obsolete ... they are being played by Dolby and Sony and Denon and the others. I can assure you, they part with a greater precent of their incomes in pursuit of the latest dolby acronym, than I ever will. And I am quietly content in the knowledge that after they have sunk thousands into new receiver after new receiver, they will just never have the level of sonic fidelity that I have now. Any improvement they might gain from their latest "upgrade" is negligible.


I have owned a receiver. I have owned separates. There just isn't any comparison.


I have invested nicely into quality speakers too. If you don't have really really good speakers, you will never appreciate the difference between a receiver and discrete components.


And finally ... I have never found a spouse to be a valid factor in improving the way my system sounds. So that just isn't a factor.


If you want to argue "ease of use" ... you REALLY don't get what discrete components are about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
quote:Originally posted by paulbf1

.... This is a strawman argument. I can tell you scpecifically why BMWs are better than Kias. Can you give specifics (not anecdotal like "it sounds better") why a $10K pre-pro/amp is better than a Pioneer Elite receiver of comparable power?....




Yes, for exactly the same reasons (very similar) that you would name for why the BMW is superior. Most fall into the classification of "superior material." The preamp is superior for the quality of the DSPs used in signal processing, VERY SUPERIOR for the quality of the DAC stage, the power supplies are quieter, there is signal filtering and shielding that never even occurs in mass market gear, and individual components of far tighter tolerance are generally selected and used (mil grade or better).


(PBF) This is anecdotal and is not very meaningful. "Superior material" is a marketing line, unless you can show specific performance improvement. Did you measure the supply stiffness and noise? If so, at what point does the the noise become audible? How much voltage droop affects the sound? What is the -60dB THD & noise and differential nonlinearity of the DACs? Mil grade is great if you're going to operate your preamp at -55 C to 125 C temps. Other than that, it's a waste of money. A 5% change in capacitance results in less than 0.5 dB sound variation and that's only in critical filter circuits (e.g. RIAA phono inputs) which are not used that ofter in todays HT processors and there are so few needed that the cost of 1% caps is negligible. The piont here is to separate the important info from the BS and it's not particularly easy for any consumer.


An Elite might be better than most receivers, and it's interesting how all of a sudden now we're comparing a top-of-the-line mass product to high end components.


(PBF) You said mass market. I don't recall top of the line being excluded


quote:Originally posted by paulbf1

[B...So you're saying that they have their own flavors of Dolby Digital or DTS? They buy the license and put it into the specific processors like everyone else. They may have unique artifical sound fields, and if that's important, more power to you. .... [/b]



As I replied to Sdurani, I expressed myself badly. DD or prologic is a spec. Equipment makers may choose any number of methods to implement that spec. Some choose analog chips that contain all the processing code right on them. Some write their own code that runs on DSPs. As long as they meet the spec, indeed, the individual lines of code surely will vary. BTW, they don't put "licenses" from Dolby into processors. I'm sure, however, you must have misspoken when you said that (or you have no idea what a license is). It happens.


(PBF) Companies like Crystal, ADI and Mot all offer the code pre-written (some via 3rd parties) to Dolby and DTS licensees. The only code they have to write is the interface code which is not sound related and the effects like "concert hall" etc.. DSP code is pretty much canned and it's the integration with the DAC's and DAC performance that determines the sound quality.



quote:Originally posted by paulbf1

.... ...And you've done blind listening tests with every mass market receiver? I didn't state "any mass market receiver". I did say "law of diminishing returns". ...




Wha? This doesn't even make sense. I don't have to listen to every mass market receiver. I've been buying and listening to hi fi equipment long enough to know better. I know when I read a review, or a white paper, what to believe and what to ignore. I know how mass market stuff is made and what's in it.


(PBF) There is a cult that's centered around a sub $300 mass market Panasonic SA-XR45 receiver. Nearly every audiophile I know said they couldn't believe how good it sounds, one going so far as to say it sounded better than his $4000 Gryphon receiver (no I don't work for Panasonic and I think a lot of their stuff is crap). Even Newform Research tested if with its esoteric ribbon type speakers and said it was amazing (it's on their website). I would never have believed it, but what most people don't know is TI bought Toccata (TaCT), made an IC chipset of their amplifier technology that was dumped into a cheap receiver. After seeing this, I would be hesitant to dismiss any cheap receiver out of hand.



The true fool may indeed be an audiophile. That's why I have never considered myself to be one. I use Radio Shack cables for most of my connections. My Sony mass market DVD player gives me equal sound as a CD player as my California Audio Labs unit, since I bypass DAC. I don't buy into any of the hype or crap. I buy only what extensive research and listening bears out as superior in sound quality and worth the dollars being asked.


Consider this. The upgraditis guys around here who change receivers every 2 -4 years because they think their current model is obsolete ... they are being played by Dolby and Sony and Denon and the others. I can assure you, they part with a greater precent of their incomes in pursuit of the latest dolby acronym, than I ever will. And I am quietly content in the knowledge that after they have sunk thousands into new receiver after new receiver, they will just never have the level of sonic fidelity that I have now. Any improvement they might gain from their latest "upgrade" is negligible.


I have owned a receiver. I have owned separates. There just isn't any comparison.


I have invested nicely into quality speakers too. If you don't have really really good speakers, you will never appreciate the difference between a receiver and discrete components.


And finally ... I have never found a spouse to be a valid factor in improving the way my system sounds. So that just isn't a factor.


If you want to argue "ease of use" ... you REALLY don't get what discrete components are about.


(PBF) Well, I'm glad to see you're not caught up in the "cult of the cables". I'm going to get outa here but the point I was making was that you can get equivalent of performance out of a well selected "mass market" receiver at a lot less than you can with separates. They just aren't as sexy. (luv those 1/2" front panels :D )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
591 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by sdurani
That's an interesting claim. Since Pro Logic is a licensed product from Dolby Labs, how is the Pro Logic decoding in your preamp different than the Pro Logic decoding in the cheapest CostCo HTIB? Is your preamp doing something beyond the Dolby spec for Pro Logic decoding? If not, then why would any manufacturer "completely write the code from scratch" instead of using readily available code?


Best,

Sanjay
I think it is a matter of cost. I'm not aware of what the costs are, but if you or a third party you hire make the software, then you own the software (although you still have to have some agreement to show the logo, which probably costs some amount of money). If you license software from another party, such as Dolby or a chip maker, then I believe you are always having to pay a fee per unit and you don't own the code.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,782 Posts
Quote:
IMO there's a fallacy when people refers to "special" hearing abilities. It has been demonstrated by some tests that there's no real difference in hearing abilities of "trained people" compared to usual people (particularly when evaluating speakers).
No one said that you had to have "special" hearing to notice a differance, it can be obvious to all people, without hearing disabilities, what the sound quality differances can be.

the very low power pre-out stage can be built with many differant types of component pieces and with differant designs, this will go a long way to determining your final sound.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,370 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by keepinitcool
I think it is a matter of cost. I'm not aware of what the costs are, but if you or a third party you hire make the software, then you own the software (although you still have to have some agreement to show the logo, which probably costs some amount of money). If you license software from another party, such as Dolby or a chip maker, then I believe you are always having to pay a fee per unit and you don't own the code.
Lets clear the air..


An AVR or surround controller brand uses the Dolby and DTS codes supplied by the DSP chip brand, such as Cirrus Logic, TI, Motorola, Fujitsu, Analog Devices. So there actually 3 certifications required by Dolby & DTS for a product to be CERTIFIED; the DSP chip itself, the actual surround software and then the product itself... And the brand pays Dolby or DTS a royalty based upon unit qty shipped..
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top