receiver + amp still better than pre/pro + amp?

[CPALIU]

Why would using a pre/pro + amp still deliver "better" sound quality than a receiver + amp? If a amp was connected to a receiver, wouldn't the onboard amp on the receiver basically be disabled? if this is the case why is it still better to use a dedicated pre/pro than a receiver?

[htsteve]

Quality of Pre-Amp

CPALIU,

The short answer is that a dedicated pre-amp generally is much more capable than a receivers pre-amp. Recall that a receiver is generally made up of three things: pre-amp, amp and tuner. A dedicated pre-amp is just a pre-amp (almost all of the time). You can buy a $600-$1000 receiver that has a fairly good pre-amp section. Most HT pre-amps begin at $1000 and go up. The quality of part, processors, power supplies, etc. in an HT pre-amp are simply better than most receivers. Also, pre-amp's often are more configurable than receivers (i.e. bass management, individual speaker configuration, settings by input, etc.). In my opinion, you need to spend $2500 and often more to get a receiver that has a pre-amp section close in performance to a dedicated pre-amp. At those dollars, you can get quality separates.

As to using a reciever and an outboard amp, that is almost always better than just the receiver alone. I don't know if the receiver amps are 'disabled'. I think they are simply not used. Some recievers allow you to use an outboard amp and then assign some 2 amp channels to a second zone. The Rotel RSX-1057 does this.

Also, by going to separates, you spend more now but potentially less later. Let's say Dolby Digital HD is out and you ant that capability. If you buy another receiver with DD-HD (for the pre-amp section), you are also rebuying the amp and tuner with it. If you have these pieces individually, you only buy what you need. In theory, it saves money in the long run.

Hope this helps.