I have a sensitive ear...I can tell minute differences in sound. I just traded up my M60's for M80's and could immediately tell the greater detail and overall forwardness as compared to the 60's. In fact two of my classical recordings were being played rather loudly and at some climaxes I thought the tweeter was broken as the music sounded distorted. I was disturbed but then played other pieces, better recorded, and the sound was pristine. These are wonderful speakers and I am happy I made the trade.
I also noticed a distinct difference in the quality of sound when I exchanged receivers. From the Technics (circa 1990's) to the Denon (circa late 1980's). The Denon was distinctly better.
So, I am anxious to maximize the sound emanating from the 80's by investing in separates. I am looking at Parasound, NAD, Rotel, Classe, among others. But there seem to be many who read this forum who do not think there is an audible difference. So this is a debatable point.
I'd like the "die hard" separate folks to chime in and indicate the advantages of separates. Are they easy to set up in 5 or 7 channel surround (my preference for future expansion to HT)? Is there a dedicated subwoofer LFE output?
In your opinion have you noticed a distinct improvement in sound quality vis a vis say a Denon AVR like the 4310 or 4311? Suggestions for a pre/pro & amp @ about $2000 or less would be welcome.
Certainly I would like to hear from those who find little difference between separates and an AVR. I am aware of the greater value of AVR's with more bells and whistles at lower cost. But superior sound from any source is my goal. Thanks everyone....
From my experience, the difference in sound between an AVR, especially the upper end of the line of any manufacturer and a Pre-Pro/amp combination, to me, has been negligible at best. However, having said that, I do own two multi-channel power amps that I have used in conjunction with two AVRs, the most current a Marantz, which gives me a flexibility, especially with perhaps speakers of varying resistance and getting the full bang for my buck in power output that you don't generally achieve with most AVRs, particularly with all channels running.
One of the reasons I have yet to purchase a separate Pre-Pro is the price since it has to be asked, why should one generally pay as much or more for it as opposed to the similar AVR when the Pre-Pro has eliminated the amps? I have resisted considering any of them , until now. Marantz has recently come out with a new Pre-Pro(AV 7005/$1499) that looks particularly appealing and of course, there is Emotiva with their UMC-1 which although it blows everyone else out of the water in price, it still continues to have some issues which hopefully will be eliminated soon as they get ready to introduce their new XMC-1 scheduled for early 2011. Outlaw is apparently trying again with a new unit that is suppose to be introduced in the new year. Based on their history, if they finally get it right, I am sure it will be a good one.
Other than a couple of the mainstream companies like Marantz along with Onkyo/Integra, Pre-Pros have been pretty much restricted to the smaller specialty companies and it seems no easy task to do it right. Parasound, for example, back a few months ago, announced they were cancelling their Pre-Pro program because they just couldn't get it to work reliably. Companies like Classe, are nice, but way out of sight in price. With Rotel and Nad , you are looking over the $2000 mark along with the Onkyo/Integra units, so it just doesn't give you a lot of choice.
So essentially your options are the Marantz, Emotiva(currently UMC-1 and forthcoming XMC-1, both to be $1000 and under) and the forthcoming Outlaw which looks to be priced around the same as the Marantz.
