Whats more importnat to upgrade Amp or pre-amp?

[Rich]

Rich,

I am not sure I agree with you. I am not sure if the purpose is to tell differences between sources, but to get good sound.

David, I agree with your logic . . . if the purpose is to get good sound on a budget by spending wisely and incrementally. But the question posed by the original poster was: which should be upgraded first, the amp or the preamp, with the understanding that the other component would be upgraded within six months. The source wasn't even a consideration until Sunday piped in with his response.

I simply believe that if you are going to upgrade the amp and the preamp, it makes sense to upgrade the amp first because, as you said, to get decent sound one needs a decent amp. And with a decent amp, I think you are in a better position to judge differences between preamps, and later, sources. Once the amp is upgraded, again it makes sense to me to upgrade the preamp next, and then the source.

This argument is based on the idea that you will buy components based on auditioning them in your own system. To me it makes no sense to buy components based on listening to them in the showroom because there are too many variables you can't account for that make it difficult to judge the components.

Trying to judge between various preamps or various sources when you have inadequate amps driving your speakers just doesn't work in my opinion.

 

[Rich]

We are all looking for perfection here - just based on what I have heard - you seem to get more bang going speaker - back on up the line...

Totally agree with you Timm.

 

[Bernard]

Perhaps the thread title is the wrong question to ask, as it really cannot be answered so generally. The question that should be asked is: "I have source A, preamp B, and amp C. What should I upgrade first ?" This is specially true because of compatibility.

BTW I used to firmly believe in "Garbage In/Garbage Out" (the old Linn ad line), until I read Rich's convincing arguments. Now I'm not so convinced, BUT, I still think it cannot be answered generally.

 

[VanDaRo]

Perhaps the thread title is the wrong question to ask, as it really cannot be answered so generally. The question that should be asked is: "I have source A, preamp B, and amp C. What should I upgrade first ?" This is specially true because of compatibility.

BTW I used to firmly believe in "Garbage In/Garbage Out" (the old Linn ad line), until I read Rich's convincing arguments. Now I'm not so convinced, BUT, I still think it cannot be answered generally.

Well said. Well said, indeed.

~VDR

 

[timm]

Perhaps the thread title is the wrong question to ask, as it really cannot be answered so generally. The question that should be asked is: "I have source A, preamp B, and amp C. What should I upgrade first ?" This is specially true because of compatibility.

BTW I used to firmly believe in "Garbage In/Garbage Out" (the old Linn ad line), until I read Rich's convincing arguments. Now I'm not so convinced, BUT, I still think it cannot be answered generally.

So, when Wilson sets up their google bucks speakers with an ipod - and it sounds freaking incredible at an audio show - that is garbage in.......and what comes out???? not garbage...

 

[Bernard]

So, when Wilson sets up their google bucks speakers with an ipod - and it sounds freaking incredible at an audio show - that is garbage in.......and what comes out???? not garbage...

Yes, but replace that ipod with something like an ARC Ref CD7, and you might well change your mind about what you initially called "freaking incredible".

 

[Rich]

Yes, but replace that ipod with something like an ARC Ref CD7, and you might well change your mind about what you initially called "freaking incredible".

Hee Hee. Yeah, but run that ARC Ref CD7 into a cheap yamaha integrated pushing those big Wilsons and what do you get? Garbage!

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[amey01]

Yes, but replace that ipod with something like an ARC Ref CD7, and you might well change your mind about what you initially called "freaking incredible".

It is psychological expectation. If you see an ARC REF7, then you're going to be expecting amazing "freakin' incredible" sound and you're not going to be that impressed.

See and iPod and you're going to be expecting garbage, so when you hear that it is not that bad, you're freakin' impressed.

Also, Wilson are selling speakers, not sources. Freakin' expensive speakers. They want to show you that if you spend megabux on speakers then you'll get incredible sound, regardless of our source.

 

[timm]

It is psychological expectation. If you see an ARC REF7, then you're going to be expecting amazing "freakin' incredible" sound and you're not going to be that impressed.

See and iPod and you're going to be expecting garbage, so when you hear that it is not that bad, you're freakin' impressed.

Also, Wilson are selling speakers, not sources. Freakin' expensive speakers. They want to show you that if you spend megabux on speakers then you'll get incredible sound, regardless of our source.

Exactly... and that was the point of the whole demo. I don't think anyone knew it was an ipod - the source was hidden - and comparisons were made to other speakers with high end sources. Point being... If you have 20-40K to spend - spend it on your speakers....

I don't think anyone is arguing the point that if you get a better source - you will have better sound. I think the discussion is about what has the greatest impact. I have given examples of how comparisons with front end gear that varied greatly in price gave differences. But, not anything to write home about. My point is - I think that LARGER differences can be had somewhere else... So, given the original post - 'What do I get next - amp or pre...' and the preceding arguement -' start with the source'. Well, some of us just don't think that is true based on experience, based on demos, and based on the sound quality of mid-fi gear compared to higher end sources.

The orignal poster gave a choice of amp or pre ... I say amp based on differences I have demo'd with amps... Can we have some stories on pre-amp comparisons and jaw dropping differences between one and the other?

 

[SundayNiagara]

Todays imortant questions I am asking to everyone is as follows:

What if all things are equal would you spend your money on the amp or pre-amp if you could upgrade one ofthe 2 first?

Lets just say Tom had a Rotel RMB-1095 amp and a Rotel RSP-1069 or even an RSP-1098. So Tom wants better sound which should he upgrade first? What piece of these 2 will show an actual improvement when running with the new piece?

Lets not talk speaker wire or interconnects or room treatments lets just stay with the amp and pre-amp. Pretend as I do that Tom has top of the line interconnects and speaker wire.

So Tom now wants to change one of the 2 units this month and wont be upgrading the next piece for about 6 months or longer, what will be the best move and why?

Please leave as much feedback as possible.

Thanks again Mike

What is the source component?

 

[SundayNiagara]

And if you have it at the beginning, but destroy it along the way, it still ain't coming out the speakers.

Yes it will, just not as good as with a good amp/pre-amp.

And a good amp/preamp will sound better than a bad one. What's your point? My point isn't whether or not it will sound "better;" it is that a poor amp/preamp setup will not reproduce the signal well enough to show you the subtle differences between high-end sources to determine which one you prefer, but a cheap source will allow you to determine differences between amps and preamps.

Garbage in, Garbage out!

No more than I would use a cheap Yamaha integrated receiver as a verifiable amp/preamp in a high end system! The example is simply to illustrate the point that it is easier to tell differences between amp/preamp combinations with a cheap source than it is to tell the differences between quality sources with a cheap preamp/amp.

Ixnay!

Why? You make a great argument for having a quality, high-end source in your system and I completely agree with that. What you fail to show, however, is any reason why the high end source should be the first item that one purchases. You allude to the fact that it is a huge mistake not to follow your specified order of purchases, but you present no logical reasons why this is so. Sorry, but the whole concept of because I work in the business I know what I am talking about doesn't cut it.

I'm not currently in the business, however I HAVE been an audiophile for almost 30 years and have seen people make the same mistakes again, and again. Garbage in, Garbage out!

That goes without saying. I just prefer to back mine up with logic and reasoning, vs. "having worked in the business . . ."

I have enjoyed high end stereo both ways. My thoughts here are also based on experience. Garbage in, Garbage out!

 

[Rich]

Garbage in, Garbage out!

So that's it? Your entire argument is simply based on a Linn (who makes source components) marketing slogan?

The problem with that silly catch-phrase is two-fold.

First of all, it doesn't really take into account how decent a lot of inexpensive source components are these days. There are plenty of sub-$1,000 CD players, for instance, or I-pod plus DAC combinations, that will perform nearly as well as players costing $3,000 or more on a good high-end system. Look at the number of people on this forum happily using a $300 squeezebox plus outboard DAC and they are more than satisfied.

My Oppo DV980 has pretty darn decent CD playback. My RAM modified Oppo DV970 is better, but not by that much. My Marantz SA11-S1 is subtly better than both of them to my ears, in my high end setup. But you compare the three of them on my Yamaha integrated pushing the Ascents and you can hardly tell any difference between them. They all sound like crap through the Yammy.

Second, the argument ignores the complexity of the actual work that is being done by various components in your system. It is relatively easy to read data off of a cd (or hard drive) and process that data with a DAC chip and send it on its merry way. It is just not that hard to do correctly. (Granted, vinyl is a little more complicated than that to do right, but it still isn't that difficult.)

But when you take that line level signal and amplify it with voltage gain, and then amplify it again with current gain . . . well things get a little more difficult. Which is why amps and preamps tend to cost so much more than source components. There are more electronic components involved and the quality of design and components used is critical to the linearity of the signal sent to the speakers.

 

[amey01]

Enough of the arguing - I'm sure we all know that it's all about synergy.

Garbage in, garbage out - sure. But by the same token, there is no point putting quality in if it's just going to get messed up by garbage amplification.

Balance, balance, balance........Each component has got to be up to task of those around it. If you want something really special, then each component has got to *compliment* those around it - ie. synergy!

 

[Bernard]

Hee Hee. Yeah, but run that ARC Ref CD7 into a cheap yamaha integrated pushing those big Wilsons and what do you get? Garbage!

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Garbage in / Garbage out still applies, but not at the component level; rather, it is at the system level, i.e. insert garbage anywhere into a system and get garbage out of that system, ergo, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist either).

 

[JonFo]

I totally agree with Rich. The best sequence to do this in is amp first then pre.

But as other have noted, it depends on whether the new amp is better or not than the current amp.

For instance, if you have a Sanders amp, then there aren’t any benefits to changing it, look at the pre.


My guidance would be to look for an amp that works well with the speakers you are trying to drive. In the case of ML's that's a small subset of what's available. So advice from this board from people who've used models in conjunction with ML's is invaluable (not always correct, but good reading ).

 

[Rich]

Enough of the arguing

I prefer to call it impassioned debate.

I'm sure we all know that it's all about synergy.

Garbage in, garbage out - sure. But by the same token, there is no point putting quality in if it's just going to get messed up by garbage amplification.

Balance, balance, balance........

Garbage in / Garbage out still applies, but not at the component level; rather, it is at the system level, i.e. insert garbage anywhere into a system and get garbage out of that system, ergo, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Great analogy, Bernard. I agree with both of you guys. But your response still doesn't answer the O.P.'s question: If you are planning on upgrading both over time, which should you upgrade first for the most bang for the buck, the amp or preamp (and why)?

 

[C.A.P]

Im with Rich, I have had several amps. They are the starting point of the signal. I went from a pair of M-500t Carver amps bridged into a set of Maggie IIIa to a sunfire and was amazed at the speakers ability to perform. I can take my KPS 25s and run it into a Poor amp and it will be garbage ! That is the easiest way to analyze this. The KPS units are all in one units that are world class in sound. Put a poor amp in front of it you will get poor sound !

 

[Joey_V]

TOUGH question.

Provided everything is top notch and the speaker is well-resolving. I think the best move would be your amplification. That said, moving to a truly high end preamp would ALSO do wonders for a system.

This is tough... with what I've done for my system, I can tell you that I always seemed to have upgraded the amplifier then the preamp and back around again.

Here's a quick synopsis of my upgrades...

Initially had the Rotel RB1070 amp and RC1070 preamp. I initially stuck with this combo with the Summits (much to the dismay of many on this forum).

Later, I upgraded from the RB1070 amp to the Rotel RB1090 dual mono amp. I had the RC1070 preamp running for some time, then I decided to upgrade the preamp to a Rogue Metis tube preamp after several months.

Then I took the RB1090 and moved to a Plinius SA102... then at which point I decided to upgrade the preamp from the Rogue Metis to the Rogue Perseus to the Rogue Magnum 99 to the Cary SLP-98.

Then while still sticking with the Plinius as my amplifier, I upgraded from the Cary SLP-98 to the current Cary SLP-05 preamplifier.

So, by looking at my history between amps and preamps.... it would seem that I always upgraded my AMP before the PREAMP!

 

[Joey_V]

In the end, I agree with Rich.

 

[SundayNiagara]

So that's it? Your entire argument is simply based on a Linn (who makes source components) marketing slogan?

The problem with that silly catch-phrase is two-fold.

First of all, it doesn't really take into account how decent a lot of inexpensive source components are these days. There are plenty of sub-$1,000 CD players, for instance, or I-pod plus DAC combinations, that will perform nearly as well as players costing $3,000 or more on a good high-end system. Look at the number of people on this forum happily using a $300 squeezebox plus outboard DAC and they are more than satisfied.

My Oppo DV980 has pretty darn decent CD playback. My RAM modified Oppo DV970 is better, but not by that much. My Marantz SA11-S1 is subtly better than both of them to my ears, in my high end setup. But you compare the three of them on my Yamaha integrated pushing the Ascents and you can hardly tell any difference between them. They all sound like crap through the Yammy.

Second, the argument ignores the complexity of the actual work that is being done by various components in your system. It is relatively easy to read data off of a cd (or hard drive) and process that data with a DAC chip and send it on its merry way. It is just not that hard to do correctly. (Granted, vinyl is a little more complicated than that to do right, but it still isn't that difficult.)

But when you take that line level signal and amplify it with voltage gain, and then amplify it again with current gain . . . well things get a little more difficult. Which is why amps and preamps tend to cost so much more than source components. There are more electronic components involved and the quality of design and components used is critical to the linearity of the signal sent to the speakers.

Garbage in, Garbage out! If ain't there at the beginning, it ain't coming out of the speakers. Start at the front. To do it any other way is like a dog chasing it's tail!