Peter, the very low noise and distortion numbers which are typically reported in lab tests of modern receivers include the effect of their pre-amplifier sections. These numbers are well below audibility and the pre-amplifier is therefore without audible flaws.

There is no comparison a per/pro to a receiver. A processor is just that, it gives you so much more dynamic range and the head room for the amps. Watching a movie or listening to music is a pleasure. If you love movies or music separates are the way to go. I have a 5.1 Axiom system in my bedroom on a Integra 5.6 it sounds good but it don't compare to my Rotel separates in my theater room.

Oh no, here come the worms again!
I'll get the ball rolling with this...

Maybe your bed ROOM just doesn't sound as good as your theatre ROOM.



I don't understand. I could subscribe to the theory that isolating the power supply and amplification from the processor could result in less distortion or a higher s/n ratio, but I don't get how a processor necessarily provides greater dynamic range or head room.

Ok my mom has Anthem seperates on paradigm sigs, I can take her processor AVM 50 to my rotel amps and it sounds different than the rotel processor. The processor makes the equipment sound different not the amps there just for power. And yes I call it dynamic range in a action flick when the sound sweeps through and you are ducking from flying objects. That is the processor that makes it happen. You can not get the same from a receiver that is all I'm saying. I own both and I would always say if you can swing it go with seperates. The new processors you can always update and I think will last longer then a receiver that tends to run hot even in the open.

Whoa.

Yo momma so cool, she got Anthem separates.

As the person who started this thread, I just gotta say THANKS.

Not only interesting, but very entertaining.

BTW, my mom has a 1992 Acura Integra with a great stock stereo cassette system. It still sounds great.

Charles, when someone gets a "ball rolling" my tendency is to want to pick it up and demolish it so that it can never roll again. Be that as it may, the reference to the Stereo Review amplifier blind listening tests in Mr. Russell's linked article justifies again(after about ten times previously here)linking it here . The results are still unchallenged(i.e., unchallenged by solid evidence to the contrary, not simply by stubborn disagreement)and include the fact that the $12,000 pair of tube amplifiers which were correctly designed so as not to exhibit a flawed "tube sound" were able to match the performance of the $220 Pioneer receiver and were audibly indistinguishable. Also worth noting are the somewhat flowery descriptions of the "sound" of the amplifiers in open listening before the tests(and even of the "believer" in the Futterman/Hafler test after the tests, who was about to learn that his score was 7/16)contrasted to the actual random results.

This is the only way that the incessant mantra "Just trust your ears" can actually be put into effect, but there's about as much enthusiasm for this among most "believers" as a vampire has for sunlight.

John, one of your best posts . Worthy of being made into bronze and hung in my future home theatre room .....although how I would get the link to work I can't imagine.