Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125

    $250 “pro” amps versus $2,500 “audiophile” amps?

    I’m trying to decide what to get for receiver/pre/amp/etc. to build my stereo system around. I’ve been reading a lot of info over at avsforum.com where people have been using regular AV receivers as pres and then adding these “professional” amplifiers. Like the Crown XLS 402 at a mere $250 for something like 270 Watts for 2 channels. The folks there say adding these pro amps improve the sound incredibly. Quite a lot of really glowing testimonials. More power, makes sense. The idea of getting a cheap ($500) AV receiver as a pre and then adding cheap amps ($250) as needed is appealing. But how does it sound versus a fancier real amp setup?

    I am wondering how a $250 pro amp might compare to, say, an audiophile/stereo/regular amp costing about 10 times as much (e.g., Aragon, Bryston, etc.). I have not been able to find anyone who has done a real test comparing the two types. Maybe I’d expect the more expensive amps to sound a little better, but by a lot or a little, or not really much at all?

    Heck, I’m almost tempted to just buy a $250 amp and bring it around to some stereo shops to do some comparisons. If it’s junk, I’m not out much and could use it for my rear surround speakers that don’t get used much. (I’m mostly into 2 channel music.)

    Any thoughts out there on the different types of amps? Thanks.

  2. #2
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Bryston is a pro amp maker -- I've heard Crown and IMO they're dreadful sounding amplifiers. Adding more power usually means adding more negative feedback which usually means worse sound. and almost no speaker needs more than 50 quality watts. The reason some seem to is that receivers have such bad power supplies that adding a 150 watt power amp can often sound much much better -- but then so would adding a GOOD 30watt power amp I'm willing.

    And I can show anyone what my 10 watt amp can do with high efficiency deep bass speakers.

    The crowns may improve the receiver mind you -- if it's music you want I would tend to avoid receivers completely because you're still stuck with the preamp section of the receiver. I have a well-reviewed Marantz receiver of 80 watts or so and it's really neat does lotsa stuff -- but compared to my integrated tube the marantz is unlistenable dreck to me. And this was arguably one of the better sounding ones.

    My advice is to ignore me and others and try it out -- if you like it buy it and be happy. Many people go through many many audio upgrades over the years and I suppose for some they have to be there and do that before they can move on to something better.

  3. #3
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by JonW
    I am wondering how a $250 pro amp might compare to, say, an audiophile/stereo/regular amp costing about 10 times as much (e.g., Aragon, Bryston, etc.).
    They both amplify.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonW
    I have not been able to find anyone who has done a real test comparing the two types.
    Similarly, you won't find a pickup truck vs. sports car comparison. I have owned both.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonW
    Maybe I�d expect the more expensive amps to sound a little better, but by a lot or a little, or not really much at all?
    That depends entirely on your listening acuity, software and system.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonW
    Heck, I�m almost tempted to just buy a $250 amp and bring it around to some stereo shops to do some comparisons. If it�s junk, I�m not out much and could use it for my rear surround speakers that don�t get used much. (I�m mostly into 2 channel music.)
    Pro amps are certainly not junk. In fact, the good ones like Crown are bulletproof. The best way to appreciate better would be to follow this path.

    There are quite a few mid-priced power amps from companies like Parasound and Adcom, especially on the used market, that can be had for little more than the bottom-of-the-line pro amps that sound better on musical content, IMHO.

    rw

  4. #4
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Pro amps are certainly not junk. In fact, the good ones like Crown are bulletproof. The best way to appreciate better would be to follow this path.

    There are quite a few mid-priced power amps from companies like Parasound and Adcom, especially on the used market, that can be had for little more than the bottom-of-the-line pro amps that sound better on musical content, IMHO.

    rw
    I'm happy to buy a used amp, even if it's more expensive than the new pro amps. I'd just like to find out the way to get the best sound without breaking the bank. At what point is there a real difference in sound when adding an amp... and at what point is the amp adding expense without much improvement in sound? No easy answer, I know.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Bryston is a pro amp maker -- I've heard Crown and IMO they're dreadful sounding amplifiers. Adding more power usually means adding more negative feedback which usually means worse sound. and almost no speaker needs more than 50 quality watts. The reason some seem to is that receivers have such bad power supplies that adding a 150 watt power amp can often sound much much better -- but then so would adding a GOOD 30watt power amp I'm willing.

    And I can show anyone what my 10 watt amp can do with high efficiency deep bass speakers.

    The crowns may improve the receiver mind you -- if it's music you want I would tend to avoid receivers completely because you're still stuck with the preamp section of the receiver. I have a well-reviewed Marantz receiver of 80 watts or so and it's really neat does lotsa stuff -- but compared to my integrated tube the marantz is unlistenable dreck to me. And this was arguably one of the better sounding ones.

    My advice is to ignore me and others and try it out -- if you like it buy it and be happy. Many people go through many many audio upgrades over the years and I suppose for some they have to be there and do that before they can move on to something better.
    Thanks. I'm trying to figure out which way to go- fancy pre + fancy amps versus AV receiver as pre + pro amps. The latter option being much cheaper. It would be nice if I could actually hear the two options side by side. Or least hear from someone who has done that. But such comparisons seem to be scarce. All of what you said seems tomake sense.

    I do want to watch the occassional movie. So it's appealing to me to buy a cheap AV receiver. Then just add amps to the main speakers for 2 channel listening, even if it's a fancy amp. Then the receiver is essentially disposable- I can ditch it in a few years if the technology changes, but keep the amp. My impression from reading is that, say, a $400 Denon will sound no different than a $1,000 Denon when used as a pre.

  6. #6
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Quote Originally Posted by JonW
    My impression from reading is that, say, a $400 Denon will sound no different than a $1,000 Denon when used as a pre.
    Not necessarily. If you plan on using any of the AVR's DAC's, DSP's, or auto eq, Denon does improve their chipsets and only offers auto eq as you climb the ladder. If you plan on using your source as a transport, this could be worth the extra coin. Or not.

    Hope this helps.

  7. #7
    The Collector
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Springfield, MA
    Posts
    331
    There are times when a pro amp will run with almost any hifi amp out there, take the Crown K1 and K2 for example. They have been reviewed many times by both pro and home magazines and the reveiws are the same. It is just an extremely high quality amplifier. Along with companies like Stewart, and AB. Also the older Yamaha pro amps are better in a home situation than they are on the road. I've seen K2's running on some of the finest speakers made, I've seen studios using them on Westlake monitors instead of a Bryston or Pass Labs. Its got a the sonic quality and a ton of power to spare

  8. #8
    None sam9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    82
    The noise and distortion of "pro" amps vary all over the place depending on the intended use. PA amps are not meant for hi fidelity in the first place. On the otherhand, you can pretty much bet that the ones in top recording studios are expected to be in the same category as the best home listening amps.

    One think you should definately think about is the fan. Can you deal with this?

    Biggest plus is watts for the price. If you have low sensitivity, low efficiency, low impedance speakers, clipping is probably your biggest concern. The only real answer for this is more watts.

    Biggest minus is the snears from people who can't accept the idea of a high power amp that sells for less than three figures.

    Smaller plus is balanced inputs. Even if you have to cut off the XLR plug at one end and solder on an RCA shielding is generally better than your standard unbalanced RCA connection. If you can go balanced end to end, cables become a non-issue.

    Smaller minus is rthat that the cosmetics are sometimes a bit garrish -- sometimes seriously garrish - like something from a bad sci-fi set.
    http://www.drachen-audio.com

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by JonW
    My impression from reading is that, say, a $400 Denon will sound no different than a $1,000 Denon when used as a pre.
    I can't say for sure if this is true based on the Denon, but my experience is that the preamp tends to have more of a sonic signature than the amp, particularly if they are solid state units. Finding a good transparent pre has proven to be a more difficult undertaking for me than finding the same qualities in an amplifier. Just my experience.

  10. #10
    Forum Regular 46minaudio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by JonW
    Thanks. I'm trying to figure out which way to go- fancy pre + fancy amps versus AV receiver as pre + pro amps. The latter option being much cheaper. It would be nice if I could actually hear the two options side by side. Or least hear from someone who has done that. But such comparisons seem to be scarce. All of what you said seems tomake sense.

    I do want to watch the occassional movie. So it's appealing to me to buy a cheap AV receiver. Then just add amps to the main speakers for 2 channel listening, even if it's a fancy amp. Then the receiver is essentially disposable- I can ditch it in a few years if the technology changes, but keep the amp. My impression from reading is that, say, a $400 Denon will sound no different than a $1,000 Denon when used as a pre.
    JonW here is a good read.
    http://forums.audioholics.com/forums...ad.php?t=11509
    Here is another, very long though.
    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=418666

  11. #11
    None sam9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    82
    I used a Pioneer AVR with multichannel analog inputs for SACD, preouts. Then I added external amplifiers. The pioneer does the digital processing, routs the SACD analog inputs. I also has a bypass mode where L & R bypass all thr DSP and it just acts like a 2-channel preamp. Not a pretty arrangement but it works quite well and it fit my budget.

    I use a multi-format disc player (CD, SACD, 5.1, DTS, DVD, etc) that has analog and digital outputs active at the same time. In the case of standard CDs, I have connected it in a way that I can use the Pioneer in either analog only mode or use the digital inputs and run them through Dolby Pro II for ambiance recovery (fancy name for fake surround).
    http://www.drachen-audio.com

  12. #12
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by JonW
    Thanks. I'm trying to figure out which way to go- fancy pre + fancy amps versus AV receiver as pre + pro amps. The latter option being much cheaper. It would be nice if I could actually hear the two options side by side. Or least hear from someone who has done that. But such comparisons seem to be scarce. All of what you said seems tomake sense.

    I do want to watch the occassional movie. So it's appealing to me to buy a cheap AV receiver. Then just add amps to the main speakers for 2 channel listening, even if it's a fancy amp. Then the receiver is essentially disposable- I can ditch it in a few years if the technology changes, but keep the amp. My impression from reading is that, say, a $400 Denon will sound no different than a $1,000 Denon when used as a pre.
    This is why i bought the marantz -- for movies -- but then i'd have to buy surround speakers etc. At the end of the day despite having over 200 DVD's I decided i could live without the surround sound. I'm far too picky on speakers and I'm unwilling to trade quality two channel sound in for a bunch of mdf or plastic surround loudspeakers and a supposed sub-woofer. (which are more like woofer in a box)

    I'd rather have an excellent two channel rig and then maybe a cheap surround rig -- problem is I prefer watching movies on my two channel rather than watching it on 5 lousy speakers. I lose PART not all of the surround mix but I gain better vocal reproduction and better sounding score from the film's soundtrack.

    I had the top of the line AC3 Pioneer Elite receiver and adding Brystons made a very big improvement. So adding power amps == perhaps a used Rotel would probably help out. One of the resons i bought the marantz was the pre-outs.

  13. #13
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    This is why i bought the marantz -- for movies -- but then i'd have to buy surround speakers etc. At the end of the day despite having over 200 DVD's I decided i could live without the surround sound. I'm far too picky on speakers and I'm unwilling to trade quality two channel sound in for a bunch of mdf or plastic surround loudspeakers and a supposed sub-woofer. (which are more like woofer in a box)
    Nobody has to trade quality to go from two channel to multichannel. That is just really foolishness. Quality doesn't have to cost mega-bucks. If you know what you are looking/listening for, then trading up can be quite cost effective. Remember, the same kind of care you put into your two channel rig can be put into a multichannel rig. You do not have to compromise one to acheive another.

    Most good quality subwoofer acheive SUB bass performance. You can find quality performance for about 1G these days or less. Good SUB bass performance is not only found in Thiel or Wilson only.

    I'd rather have an excellent two channel rig and then maybe a cheap surround rig -- problem is I prefer watching movies on my two channel rather than watching it on 5 lousy speakers. I lose PART not all of the surround mix but I gain better vocal reproduction and better sounding score from the film's soundtrack.
    Considering that music is found all through movie soundtracks, it would be a terrible compromise to have a CHEAP 5 channel rig. You cannot accurately listen to sound designed for 5.1 channels through a 2 channel rig. There are tremendous losses not only in spatiality, but in dialog clarity. Alot of special effects are placed solely in the surrounds, and without surround speakers to reproduce it, you can lose some audio cues that assist in the story telling process. It is widely known that mono signals coming from two speakers suffer cancellation and boosting at different frequencies. That is why dialog should come from a "hard" center speaker, and opposed to a "phantom" center. Phantom signals are only supported from one point, move a foot or two in any direction, and the dialog follows you. Dialog should stayed locked in the center where the screen is. Listening test conducted by THX clearly shows that listeners found dialog from a dedicated center speaker was easier, and more clearly audible than with a phantom center.

    I had the top of the line AC3 Pioneer Elite receiver and adding Brystons made a very big improvement. So adding power amps == perhaps a used Rotel would probably help out. One of the resons i bought the marantz was the pre-outs.
    AC3 is a name no longer used by Dolby. It is now known as Dolby digital. I do agree that adding amps to a receiver can improve sound quality.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by sam9
    The noise and distortion of "pro" amps vary all over the place depending on the intended use. PA amps are not meant for hi fidelity in the first place. On the otherhand, you can pretty much bet that the ones in top recording studios are expected to be in the same category as the best home listening amps.

    One think you should definately think about is the fan. Can you deal with this?

    Biggest plus is watts for the price. If you have low sensitivity, low efficiency, low impedance speakers, clipping is probably your biggest concern. The only real answer for this is more watts.

    Biggest minus is the snears from people who can't accept the idea of a high power amp that sells for less than three figures.

    Smaller plus is balanced inputs. Even if you have to cut off the XLR plug at one end and solder on an RCA shielding is generally better than your standard unbalanced RCA connection. If you can go balanced end to end, cables become a non-issue.

    Smaller minus is rthat that the cosmetics are sometimes a bit garrish -- sometimes seriously garrish - like something from a bad sci-fi set.
    Lots os people have modified the fans to quiet them down. And there are some amps coming out now that don't have a fan (e.g., Behringer A500). But it's a good point.

    I don't care about the asthetics or what other people will think. An audiophile has never set foot in my house so far.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed
    Not necessarily. If you plan on using any of the AVR's DAC's, DSP's, or auto eq, Denon does improve their chipsets and only offers auto eq as you climb the ladder. If you plan on using your source as a transport, this could be worth the extra coin. Or not.

    Hope this helps.
    Yes, that does help. I didn't know that. The auto EQ is also something I may be willing to pay a little more for.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by pelly3s
    There are times when a pro amp will run with almost any hifi amp out there, take the Crown K1 and K2 for example. They have been reviewed many times by both pro and home magazines and the reveiws are the same. It is just an extremely high quality amplifier. Along with companies like Stewart, and AB. Also the older Yamaha pro amps are better in a home situation than they are on the road. I've seen K2's running on some of the finest speakers made, I've seen studios using them on Westlake monitors instead of a Bryston or Pass Labs. Its got a the sonic quality and a ton of power to spare
    Interesting. Thanks.

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by sam9
    I used a Pioneer AVR with multichannel analog inputs for SACD, preouts. Then I added external amplifiers. The pioneer does the digital processing, routs the SACD analog inputs. I also has a bypass mode where L & R bypass all thr DSP and it just acts like a 2-channel preamp. Not a pretty arrangement but it works quite well and it fit my budget.

    I use a multi-format disc player (CD, SACD, 5.1, DTS, DVD, etc) that has analog and digital outputs active at the same time. In the case of standard CDs, I have connected it in a way that I can use the Pioneer in either analog only mode or use the digital inputs and run them through Dolby Pro II for ambiance recovery (fancy name for fake surround).
    Seems like a perfectly reasonable arrangement to me. You sound happy with it.

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by 46minaudio
    Thanks for the link. I've been reading through that second link. It's taking a while. There is also another equally long thread over there called something like "Do all amps sound the same?"

    I can understand if a stero amp will sound better than a pro amp, but is it a subtle difference? Will, say, a pro amp improve the sound by 90% and you'll need a stereo amp to get that last 10% for a total 100% (theoretical) improvement? So maybe get a cheap pro amp for a cheap and large improvement in sound. And the stereo amp for the ultimat ein improvement? Idunno...

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    This is why i bought the marantz -- for movies -- but then i'd have to buy surround speakers etc. At the end of the day despite having over 200 DVD's I decided i could live without the surround sound. I'm far too picky on speakers and I'm unwilling to trade quality two channel sound in for a bunch of mdf or plastic surround loudspeakers and a supposed sub-woofer. (which are more like woofer in a box)

    I'd rather have an excellent two channel rig and then maybe a cheap surround rig -- problem is I prefer watching movies on my two channel rather than watching it on 5 lousy speakers. I lose PART not all of the surround mix but I gain better vocal reproduction and better sounding score from the film's soundtrack.

    I had the top of the line AC3 Pioneer Elite receiver and adding Brystons made a very big improvement. So adding power amps == perhaps a used Rotel would probably help out. One of the resons i bought the marantz was the pre-outs.
    Yeah, this (and finances) are why I only want one system- one system that is really good .

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Nobody has to trade quality to go from two channel to multichannel.
    Yup, that's what I'm hoping. Now I've got to find my good system...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •