Receiver with preouts vs pre/pro

I guess I didn't word my initial question well.

I have a good multichannel amplifier, and an older preamp/processor (Sherbourn PT-7000). In the next couple of months I plan to get a flat-panel HDTV and at least a good upconverting DVD player. My current DVD player is an entry-level 2002 Toshiba.

Of course, the Sherbourn isn't up to the task of handling HDMI inputs from the cable box and DVD player, and will not be able to handle the newer HD formats, since those require inputs via HDMI. That's why I'm just wondering what to do from that point. The newer entry to mid-level receivers have a lot of the bells and whistles from a processor standpoint, and since I already have an external amp I can completely bypass the compromises in the receiver's power amp unit. Or I can get a dedicated preamp/processor (but the prices on those start a little higher).

So my question is not receiver vs preamp/processor + external amp, but rather receiver + external amp vs preamp/processor + external amp. Is there a significant difference in sound quality at that price point ($500-ish)?

Michael

I'll relay my experience regarding this. I have a Rotel 1066 pre/pro. My amps for my 5.1 system have varied,but the example I'll use involved a Krell KAV 3250. I used this amp to power my fronts and center. I have an Aragon 8008 powering my rears. My speakers are Martin Logan Ascents/Cinema/Depth(sub)and PSB Stratus Silvers for the rears. The Krell was exceptional in this setup-unlimited power-dynamic to a fault. One day I was bored an took the Krell 3250 upstairs and hooked it up to the pre outs of an expensive Marantz 5.1 reciever. I used quality Kimber interconnect for my connections. I played cd's/dvd's-listened to HD/sattelite and I couldn't even tell the Krell was powering the system. It didn't sound much different from the internal amps in the Marantz. It is my opinion you will improve your situation dramatically by adding a pre/pro. I can highly recommend the Rotel 1066. Used it goes for around 700 bucks-maybe cheaper. It has 7.1 capabilities and can accomodate 2 subs. It also has all of your analogue multi inputs for SACD and DVD Audio. I also think its fantastic as a 2 channel pre/amp.

Someone else had a similar concern recently, and this was how I answered it based on my personal experience. Whether to take this route (or not) depends on one's objectives. If you want good value and maximum flexibility, then the receiver might be the way to go; if ultimate sound quality is your goal that might lead to other alternatives.

... the knock on AVRs is the possible lack of transparency. While that may be concern, IMHO it is offset by the utter versatility to obtained from the AVR. I use a Denon AVR 3805 as the term implies ... as a 'preamp/processor' to the fullest. It performs great preamp duty as front end for 2-channel listening. In "Pure Direct" mode, all Digital Signal Processing (DSP), video circuits, etc are shut off. So the signal delivery is about as pure as one can get from an AVR. I run the Denon's front L/R pre-out through a Musical Fidelity Tube Buffer/Outboard power supply to Channel Island D-200 monoblocks ... musically very satisfying indeed.

The other thing the Denon does, and this is the added bonus, is play multi-channel direct by taking "External Direct" from my Tube Research Lab modified Sony ES2000 CDP in 5.1 mode. It requires 6 extra interconnects; and it's worth it. Great results with multi-channel SACD source material. You also have the choice of going direct 2-channel from CDP to 5.1 surround using the 3805's DSP function. Or, the DSP can process a straight digital signal from my Oppo 970HD DVD player in HT mode for movies.

Finally, this particular AVR has the Auto Room Equalization feature ... and a few others have this option as well. My previous AVR, the Denon 3803 did not include this capability. Have you ever spent the greater part of a Saturday with SPL Meter in hand, calibration CD playing over and over ... trying to get it just right? The Auto EQ eliminates all that. Once it's set, switching between processed sound - music, movies, TV - and 2-channel listening is very easy. Just my 2 cents.
Strateahed

Michael, Pre/Pro definately in regards to your reiterated statemen/question. If you think about the cost of a receiver (pre/pro + amplifier combined, which is what the AVR is) vs. a pre/pro for the same price, the pre/pro is putting all of the cost/money into one thing, not trying to do everything at the same budget.

Personally, I think there are great deals on used pre/pros. Secondly, I am totally confused by the HD Audio only being able to be conveyed by the HDMI cable as everything I have read about the HDMI cable clearly states it is not capable of carrying both an HD video signal and even a full resolution audio signal (much less an HD one?).

But, I am a strong believer that the video signal, via HDMI or any other method should not go through the pre/pro or AVR - what good can they be doing the signal? Most current TVs have 2 HDMI inputs anyway for two sources.

I would take the HDMI direct and the audio into the pre/pro via a digital cable. If you have a very, very high end DVD player with spectacular DACs, then it may be better using those DACs and onboard processing and taking the analog 5.1 or 7.1 signal to the AVR or Pre/pro.

If I were you, I wouldn't change what you have. I seriously question that spending $500 is going to give you any improvement in sound quality! I can also tell you from experience that the Totem Arro speakers on an AVR (from Denon 38XX and B&K 507 S2, of which I have owned both)versus a dedicate amp makes a huge difference.

Well I'm no rhodes scholar; (If my post was unclear.) BTW the best 3 years of my life was the time I spent in the second grade.
I own the Onkyo 875 and with the new audio codecs it sounds better than my previous 3k receiver; and this 875 was under a thou. I will lose 2k on the older model,at best. If I threw away the 875, I will only lose 1k.---THIS is what I was referring to.--- I, like many, use outboard amps and do 2ch on a much grander scale.