Is a pre-amp a worthy upgrade?

[pearsall001]

Hi guys, just kickin the idea around. I presently have a NAD T773 receiver that I am very happy with for both HT and also used as a pre-amp for 2 channel music. Our tax money just came & after giving the wife her play money I have approx $1500 to play with. How would a separate pre-amp benefit me? I know that separates generally are the way to go but I need some convincing. I'm open to your suggestions on the matter. Tubes, SS, hybrid, what are the benefits & differences between them? Should I go for it or spend the money on something else? What brands do you recommend?
Thanks

[bleeding ears]

If wanting an upgrade and you dont already have a seperate amplifier, that may be the first thing to get.

Every receiver I have heard benefits from an upgrade in power, even expensive receivers, $4000 +

I would firstly try the nad receiver as a preamp and get better amplification.(If you dont already have it) Especially for the front speakers.

Later you could upgrade the preamp and when that time comes, if it is music you want, get a 2 channel preamp.

If you want improvements in both music and ht then you need to start thinking about a ht processor with good 2 channel ability, but you will need a seperate amp as well.

How good an amplifier or processor/preamp you need will also depend on what speakers you are using and whether you are going to upgrade them as well and of course how much you want to spend.

Either way you need good amplification for good sound.

Pete

[pearsall001]

bleeding ears,
thanks for the reply. I do have a 2 channel amp - Van Alstine OmegaStar 440EX (220X2). My speakers are also keepers for years to come - AAD 2001 monitors. Just asking if a separate pre-amp would add something that maybe the NAD can't deliver? As it stands now I am very happy w/ the NAD as a pre-amp for 2 channel. Just have some money burning a hole in my pocket & looking for suggestions. There is always room for improvement!!!

[GregLett]

I was able to greatly improve my 2ch buy going to a tube preamp.
Even if you don't go with tubes a good pre will give you great improvement.

[alpina]

am very interested in this thread though my interest is slightly different.

i definitely see the benefit of a seperate amp but am now wondering if there is a significant benefit between a good preamp vs a good prepro?

also, iwonder in todays age, how many inputs would really get used in a good 2 channel preamp when integrated into a HT setup - just cd?

cheers,

julie

[GregLett]

I use three connections, CD, DVD and dish connections. I only use two speakers
for music or movies, and I don't miss the extra speakers.

[soundhound]

Is a pre-amp a worthy upgrade?
Absolutely.

[alebonau]

For most AVRs/receivers to do 2ch the pre-amp stage is often infact the most lacking aspect. If looking at improvements in soundstage width and depth, if looking for clarity, accuracy and delicate details then a 2ch pre is well worth considering.

But it is but one link in the chain, A good source, power amp and speakers are also necessary ingredients and improvments there might be needed for the full benefit to be realised to improve 2ch performance.

Also 2ch pre's can be expensive plus will need a ht-input/bypass for fuss free integration into a HT setup. Also a power amp of some sort will be needed as well.

If owning an avr and wanting to improve on the 2ch side on another easy option is to add a 2ch integrated to the system - gives a pre and pwr upgrade over the avr in one hit. There are a few 2ch integrated amps eg the musical fidelity a3.5, arcam a90 and upwards etc that have a ht-input/bypass as well to allow easy integration into a ht setup.

[greenjudas]

I started with a Marantz a/v receiver which was rated at 70w p/c and supposedly very decent in its class for 2 ch.I then added a 120 x 5 power amp and used Marantz as pre/pro. .Improvent,yes but still lacking.Then decided to get Rotel 1066 pre/pro and this really improved things.But so it should as the processor is worth 1.5 to 2 times the receiver.

[SteveCallas]

Well I'll deviate from the norm. Myself and a few others just had a blind listening test comparing the sound quality as a result of digital to analog conversion and analog prestage in different units, please see here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=680019&page=1&pp=30

With a preamp, your cd player's DACs are being used - we didn't test any hi end cd players, but after this test, I'm convinced the results would have been the same. I have found that when it comes to pure sound quality, price is often the worst criteria to base your decision on.

[GregLett]

I have found that when it comes to pure sound quality, price is often the worst criteria to base your decision on.

I couldn't agree more!

[jazznsoccer]

NAD makes petty good gear and the DACs in the 773 are not at all bad. It depends upon your CD source and whether you're using the pre-pro DACs or CD DACs. On my setup, Denon 3910 & Arcan AV-8, I can make the choice.

If you're happy with your speakers, my guess is that you'd get better result results by investing the $$ in outboard amplification or room treatment.

[twitch54]

if you enjoy two channel listening at all, then buy all means a good pre-amp (with processor out for HT use) is a worthy addition. FWIW Audio Research has just recently released two new pre-amps, so with that being said your budget could easily buy you a great used SP-16L with money left over for cabling or whatever.

it's a tubed(12AX-7's) pre that would easily surpass your NAD.

good Luck, have fun !!