Which Has The Bigger Impact on SQ...

[Zing]

...the processor or the amplifier?

Let's get the assumptions out of the way first:
*The processors have all the features you could want
*The amps are sufficiently powerful for your speakers

Now, your options are:
A) Cheap, crappy pre/pro and a world class amp
B) Would class pre/pro and a cheap, crappy amp

Which option do you choose and why?

 

[Botch]

Interesting question; I'll make the popcorn.

 

[Towen7]

I'd choose the world class amp but not only because I think it has a bigger impact on sound. I assume it does but I can't say for sure.

 

[Zing]

I'd choose the world class amp but not only because I think it has a bigger impact on sound. I assume it does but I can't say for sure.

Why else?

 

[Towen7]

I'd choose the world class amp but not only because I think it has a bigger impact on sound. I assume it does but I can't say for sure.

Why else?

Because the amp wont be outdated in 2-5 years.

 

[Flint]

Yes... amps last longer and almost never require upgrading before they die from old age. As such, I would rather spend money on a good amp to last a couple of decades than a pre-pro which I will choose to replace in 4 to 10 years.

As for SQ, this is a bit of an impossible question to address. There are VERY few truly poor performing amps (except in cases where the speakers are VERY difficult to drive). That isn't to say amps are all identical, but the differences between a $300 125W amp and a $900 125W amp are very rarely huge. That said, the same is true for pre-pros. The entire category for separates is generally made up of better than average products, so what is a "dirt cheap" pre-pro anyway?

The few "dirt cheap" pre-pros I can remember sounded just fine, but they sometimes didn't work well, were easy use, or sometimes core marketed features where never delivered as promised with firmware updates. As such, if a pre-pro works as it should, they all seem to be pretty damn good. Generally speaker, that goes for amps as well.

So, I think the question isn't one of "dirt cheap" versus "high end". Instead, it is a question of "damn good" versus "no expense spared", where the proverbial point of limited returns plays a HUGE role.

 

[Zing]

I thought the question would be easier to answer with fewer specifics. But what if I asked it this way...

Which would you choose if sound quality was your chief consideration:
A) Anthem Statement processor and Emotiva amp
B) Emotiva processor and Parasound JC-1 amp?

 

[Rope]

Amplifiers amplify signals sent, nothing more, nothing less. Crap in, crap out.

Rope

 

[Barney]

So is Zing planning on an upgrade ?
Or did our Boss already upgraded & didn't tell us yet?

 

[Flint]

If it were me facing that decision, with no other possible options at all, I would go with the high end amp rather than the high end processor. Why? Life expectancy would be my top reason. The amp will very likely last you a lifetime. The preamp may last a lifetime, but it will be replaced due to feature requirements it won't support in 5 to 10 years as technology improves.

I would argue that the time is already ripe to start adding Roku or Amazon Fire TV features to preamp/processors and cut down on the electronics in the equipment rack. In fact, I could see a future where all we have in our racks are preamp/processor/digital streaming sources and amps (perhaps a turntable).

 

[heeman]

My choice was:

Outlaw 975 Pre/Pro

Parasound; Halo A21

I am very happy........

The 975 is a very simple, feature free unit, which is good for my application.

The A21 is just a fine amplifier with plenty of balls to drive the Dynaudio 4 Ohm load. Not worried about head room limitations AT ALL!

Just to add...............

My HT is 95% Blu Ray and 5% DirecTV for audio/video sources.

:music-rockout: :music-rockout:

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I would go for the better power amp, because if it cannot drive the speakers to sufficient volume before clipping or high distortion, nothing else much matters. Its relatively easy to get low level circuitry right in preamp/processors since a good part of it is in the form of off the shelf large scale integrated circuits that the end manufacturer just builds support circuitry around, like power supply, chassis, control circuitry etc.

One does not need to spend excessive money on a power amplifier if the speakers are anywhere near a relatively easy load. Where you need beasts (like the SAE 2 _horsepower_ amp I helped design) is where it will be pared with higher end speakers with brutal impedances which dip down into the 1 ohm territory. Barring that, something like a moderately priced Outlaw or ATI amp will be more than enough for decades. The simple truth is that audio power amp technology has NOT (I repeat NOT!) (I REPEAT MY REPEAT _ NOT!!!) "improved" or changed in any significant way since the 1990s or thereabouts, so if an amplifier manufacturer is trying to sell you an amplifier which he claims "takes advantage of the newest technology", he is a lying piece of shit bastard who should be banished to marketeers hell (there, I said it...). :teasing-tease:

That said, there is progress in the area of control of amplifiers remotely and power control which involves the use of embedded microcontrollers to do the work of older analog methods (using 555 timers, gates etc) in the power supply. Microcontrollers allow for more control options which would be prohibitively expensive to do in analog, such as monitoring for multiple fault events and making intelligent decisions about what to do in the event of a fault, and how to recover from a power outage. An example is the "universal mains voltage" amplifiers I'm doing the controller and programming work on as I write this.

Of course if you don't have any use for these control options, this wouldn't apply to a purchasing decision.

 

[Randy]

I defer to the more informed members of this forum, often...

So I have to agree with the higher dollar amp and cheaper pre/pro. The Legacy Luminance pre/pro (rebadged Proton) I had sounded very good and it was very inexpensive.

However, like Flint mentioned, it had plenty of glitches. It was far from fool proof in operation, but sounded really good.

Obviously I would rather take a midline pre/pro and a midline amp for any given budget. This is a tough question for sure.

 

[Deleted member 133]

The word that comes to mind is "iteration."

I think it's a safe bet that every one of us, for just about any facet of our systems, have iterated to wherever we are now, and hopefully to the solution that we set out to achieve. None of us have likely ever had a stochastic, first of, event that led us to the final solution.

With that in mind, while Zing's OP question is a good one to noodle over, in real world terms, the answer matters not a wit, since we'll almost certainly iterate from there anyhow.

Of course noodling the question might, perhaps just maybe, save us an iterative step, or two, but we'll still iterate.

And my guess is that there is a non-linear relationship of some kind between the number of components in play and the number of iterations to "the" solution.

Heck, taking only "speakers" Heeman is on how many iterations? And we've all bet that he's got at least one more iteration to go (and my money's on two.)

So with two components, an amp and a pre/pro, (and I realize we could be talking about multiple amps depending on the number of desired channels etc.) my bet would be that no matter what components are initially chosen, within a not-very-long period of time they'll likely be either changed or added to. I think that things will stabilize first around the amp, for all of the reasons so aptly enunciated so far, and that no real "final" solution will succumb to the iterative method simply because it will be features, and not SQ, that will drive the need for change.

Now throw speakers, amp and pre/pro into the mix together (for reasons also already pointed out) and all bets are off in terms of likely number of iterations required.

One other word that comes to mind is "disposability." It's harder to part with a $5k pair of speakers than a $1k pair. A $1500 amp might have a longer dwell time than a $500 one. A lot of today's pre/pros are getting close to disposable price points. Blu-ray players (especially if all you want is to extract ones and zeroes and send them to a pre/pro via HDMI) became disposable objects quite a while ago. Disposable items generally require less forethought before purchase since, if you did not think things through properly, you can just dispose of the first purchase and replace it with another.

Jeff

 

[Randy]

The word that comes to mind is "iteration."

I think it's a safe bet that every one of us, for just about any facet of our systems, have iterated to wherever we are now, and hopefully to the solution that we set out to achieve. None of us have likely ever had a stochastic, first of, event that led us to the final solution.

With that in mind, while Zing's OP question is a good one to noodle over, in real world terms, the answer matters not a wit, since we'll almost certainly iterate from there anyhow.

Of course noodling the question might, perhaps just maybe, save us an iterative step, or two, but we'll still iterate.

And my guess is that there is a non-linear relationship of some kind between the number of components in play and the number of iterations to "the" solution.

Heck, taking only "speakers" Heeman is on how many iterations? And we've all bet that he's got at least one more iteration to go (and my money's on two.)

So with two components, an amp and a pre/pro, (and I realize we could be talking about multiple amps depending on the number of desired channels etc.) my bet would be that no matter what components are initially chosen, within a not-very-long period of time they'll likely be either changed or added to. I think that things will stabilize first around the amp, for all of the reasons so aptly enunciated so far, and that no real "final" solution will succumb to the iterative method simply because it will be features, and not SQ, that will drive the need for change.

Now throw speakers, amp and pre/pro into the mix together (for reasons also already pointed out) and all bets are off in terms of likely number of iterations required.

One other word that comes to mind is "disposability." It's harder to part with a $5k pair of speakers than a $1k pair. A $1500 amp might have a longer dwell time than a $500 one. A lot of today's pre/pros are getting close to disposable price points. Blu-ray players (especially if all you want is to extract ones and zeroes and send them to a pre/pro via HDMI) became disposable objects quite a while ago. Disposable items generally require less forethought before purchase since, if you did not think things through properly, you can just dispose of the first purchase and replace it with another.

Jeff

Does anybody have any idea what Jeff just said? He lost me at "iterations" and "stochastic".

 

[Deleted member 133]

Does anybody have any idea what Jeff just said? He lost me at "iterations" and "stochastic".

Sorry Randy. My five year old grandson ghost-wrote that for me. I should have told him who the audience was.

I'll make him do it over until he gets it right. His first attempt was pretty random. He'll probably be better next time.



Jeff

 

[Randy]

Holy Crap, I am looking forward to his rewrite and hoping he uses smaller words this time. SHEESH!!! :scared-eek: :scared-eek: :scared-eek: :teasing-tease: :teasing-tease: :teasing-tease:

 

[Botch]

Does anybody have any idea what Jeff just said? He lost me at "iterations" and "stochastic".

Sorry Randy. My five year old grandson ghost-wrote that for me. I should have told him who the audience was.

I'll make him do it over until he gets it right. His first attempt was pretty random. He'll probably be better next time.



Jeff

Bullsh*t!! That was Molson's! :teasing-tease:

 

[yromj]

Does anybody have any idea what Jeff just said? He lost me at "iterations" and "stochastic".

Sorry Randy. My five year old grandson ghost-wrote that for me. I should have told him who the audience was.

I'll make him do it over until he gets it right. His first attempt was pretty random. He'll probably be better next time.



Jeff

:laughing-rolling:

Yeah, you know make him keep repeating the process and he'll eventually spiral in on the correct way. There should be a word for that...

John

 

[Deleted member 133]

John got it!



Jeff