Whats more importnat to upgrade Amp or pre-amp?

[flykmair]

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

 

[SundayNiagara]

Start with the source component, cd player, or turntable/arm/cartridge and upgrade to the best sounding unit you can find/afford. Then, work your way through the electronics chain. To do things differently will put you on an endless tape loop to nowhere.

 

[flykmair]

Start with the source component, cd player, or turntable/arm/cartridge and upgrade to the best sounding unit you can find/afford. Then, work your way through the electronics chain. To do things differently will put you on an endless tape loop to nowhere.

Remember this has all been done, top of the line wires, top of the line interconnects and speakers, and sacd player and dvd-audio player etc. The last 2 pieces are the amp and pre-amp, which piece if changed first would show the most improvement?

 

[Rich]

Ask a question like this and you will get a dozen completely different answers. I believe it is important to do this in a manner that is exactly the opposite of what SundayNiagara proposes. I think with a poor amp and preamp, you really can't hear the benefits of an upgraded source and can't easily tell the nuances between different sources when auditioning.

I believe you should start by upgrading the amplification first, then the preamp, then the source. This way I believe you can better discern the benefits of each upgrade. The first thing your speakers need is lots of clean, powerful, current to drive them. Until you give them that, you won't notice as much benefit from a better source and you won't notice nuances between different preamps as well. Once you supply your speakers with some quality watts, then you can start thinking about how best to tailor your sound with an upgraded preamp and then down the road an upgraded source.

I've done this both ways, and this is the way that I believe works the best.

 

[eknuds01]

This is sort of a loaded question because you didn't mention any sort of budget constraint (at least not explicitly).

I will assume that the RMB 1095 runs around 2k and that is the price range I am looking at. I will also assume we are looking at purchasing new equipment for now. This is important because most people have told me that SS amps do deliver a lot of bang for the buck but only up to a point. If you can spend upwards of $6000 or $8000 then you are getting into the realm of really solid performers, like the much heralded Pinius amps.

So I don't think buying another amp in the same price range will make a huge difference, with all things being equal. Now, if you choose run with a tube amp, then that is different and the argument here is more complicated. Some people love the depth and warmth of tube gear, others will tell you the high end is too rolled off and you need to worry about the added expense of purchasing and matching the tubes every now and then.

Based on my experience, since the signal passes through the player to the pre-amp, and then the amp itself, obviously the pre-amp is very important. I noticed a a fairly significant difference when I upgraded from an old integrated receiver to an audio research (tube) pre-amp. Lots of people like to mate ARC electronics with ML grear. I love the detail and warmth that the ARC pre-amp added vs the integrated amp.

And this is still a matter of taste and experience. When I was looking for a new amp, I looked some of the amps from Rotel (and the SS state pre-amps) and an amp from NAD (and the similarly priced pre-amp), and I couldn't really tell the difference between the two amps. Yeah, on some songs I there were a few subtle differences. I thought the NAD provided more slam and 'oomph' whereas the Rotel gear was a little more balanced from top to bottom. One wasn't necessarily better, just different.

Where did I start to see a noticeable difference? When I had the chance to try out some tube pre-amps with some SS amps. I think a blend of these two paths is where you'll experience the changes the most. I am not going to throw a ton of flowery adjectives at you or claim that a tube amp will 'soften' the harshness of a SS amp. I just noticed a difference, and that's it. Whether it was good or bad, is up to the listener.

In the end, it boils down to trial and error. There is no right or wrong way here. But if I had to choose today, I would see if you could try upgrading the pre-amp first and do an A/B comparison between two similarly priced pre-amps (one tube and the other SS).

Erik

 

[amey01]

Argh - it depends on personal preference and system synergy.

Let's get this out of the way:

The power amp is very dependent on synergy with the speakers. Is the power amp capable of exerting control over the speakers, and driving them with authority and definition? Can it drive them to the levels you requrie? Can it provide the definition you require? Simple yes/no? If the answer is "yes" then I'd say you have very little to gain from subsequent power amp upgrades. Go the preamp.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the power amp should be chosen for your speakers, and after this is done, it almost becomes part of your speakers. Get the pairing right and leave it alone. Subsequent upgrades of a preamp will then give you tangible benefits.

However, if the power amp is not up to the task, then upgrading source and preamp will only get lost in the mush between the inadequate amp and speakers.

I would have always said "preamp", but I experienced the mess of an inadequate amplifier in the form of a Rotel 1080 wheezing and moaning under the load of the ML Aerius. I owned that amp for less than 24 hours.

 

[flykmair]

This is sort of a loaded question because you didn't mention any sort of budget constraint (at least not explicitly).

I will assume that the RMB 1095 runs around 2k and that is the price range I am looking at. I will also assume we are looking at purchasing new equipment for now. This is important because most people have told me that SS amps do deliver a lot of bang for the buck but only up to a point. If you can spend upwards of $6000 or $8000 then you are getting into the realm of really solid performers, like the much heralded Pinius amps.

So I don't think buying another amp in the same price range will make a huge difference, with all things being equal. Now, if you choose run with a tube amp, then that is different and the argument here is more complicated. Some people love the depth and warmth of tube gear, others will tell you the high end is too rolled off and you need to worry about the added expense of purchasing and matching the tubes every now and then.

Based on my experience, since the signal passes through the player to the pre-amp, and then the amp itself, obviously the pre-amp is very important. I noticed a a fairly significant difference when I upgraded from an old integrated receiver to an audio research (tube) pre-amp. Lots of people like to mate ARC electronics with ML grear. I love the detail and warmth that the ARC pre-amp added vs the integrated amp.

And this is still a matter of taste and experience. When I was looking for a new amp, I looked some of the amps from Rotel (and the SS state pre-amps) and an amp from NAD (and the similarly priced pre-amp), and I couldn't really tell the difference between the two amps. Yeah, on some songs I there were a few subtle differences. I thought the NAD provided more slam and 'oomph' whereas the Rotel gear was a little more balanced from top to bottom. One wasn't necessarily better, just different.

Where did I start to see a noticeable difference? When I had the chance to try out some tube pre-amps with some SS amps. I think a blend of these two paths is where you'll experience the changes the most. I am not going to throw a ton of flowery adjectives at you or claim that a tube amp will 'soften' the harshness of a SS amp. I just noticed a difference, and that's it. Whether it was good or bad, is up to the listener.

In the end, it boils down to trial and error. There is no right or wrong way here. But if I had to choose today, I would see if you could try upgrading the pre-amp first and do an A/B comparison between two similarly priced pre-amps (one tube and the other SS).

Erik

Erik,

Like you I think the nad amps provide that needed mid-bass slam vs the rotels. I am actually using a NAD M25 right now and totally love it for the price. The only draw back with the NAD Master series M15 pre-amp is HDMI is video pass thru only no audio. I want to be able to pass thru PCM over hdmi and had to go back and use a NAD t-175 to have active HDMI's to receive both PCM and digital. This set up is fine but the Nad M15 is a way better sounding pre-amp with only one set of 7.1 analog ins.

I am setting up another room where the t-175 would be fine and the Nad M25 amp is more than enough. I just happen to have 2 Nad m25's and was wondering should I sell the second and get an Anthem p5 and an Athem D2 pre-amp or use the NAD M25 and run it thru a better pre-amp that does everything i need like the Anthem d2 which runs about $7500 and see what that sounds like with the NAD M25. I have 3 rooms with deicated audio and changing each room as we speak.

I know i dont want the Rotels, i just dont like the lack of attack from them and i have never heard the Anthems but people rave about them. I have no dealer with 150 miles of me that carries anything better than Rotel. I deal with an Autho dealer in georgia for my ML and some audio but not alot of places let you try a product without walking into their store. I need a online stereo place like www.usedcables.com where you can sample different cables for a fee of 5 percent.

I have another audio dealer that lets me buy the units and return them after testing at 100 to 200 less than what i paid plus i loss shipping both ways. So when you ship 130lb amp insured i am losing 500 just to try it most of the time. try 5 amps and your in the hole $2500 lol

So I would like to use the NAD M25 for now and want an all around pre-amp in the price range of 5k to 7k! Then ill dump 10k to 12k on amps. I just have a ton of equipment going thru my pre-amp.

sacd player used only for Multichannel sacd
hd-dvd player
Blu ray player
direct tv hd dvr
denon dvd-3930ci used for 2 channel audio has been modified with Burr Brown OPA-627 only on 2 channel. planning on doing the 5.1 but thats another 1800 to do yet.
nad M55 .. used for standard dvd and dvd-audio

Dollar for dollar I love the Nad M25 best hitting amp at that price range.

Thanks Mike

 

[Craig]

It depends on what you would replace your amp or preamp with. There are some that sound the same as what you have and others that could be drasticall different and maybe even better.

Just becuase you replace a component it doesn't necessarily result in an improvement. If you provide a list of possible components to consider we can probably tell you thier characteristics , good and/or bad.

 

[ralflar]

You're not Tom, you're Mike. Perhaps Tom experiences music like you do; perhaps not. I'm neither Tom nor Mike. My answer to your question is, pre-amp/processor.

 

[kach22i]

Just to offer options, how about an integrated tube amp, maybe Rouge Audio?

I don't know anything about this one:
Tempest 90 watts
http://www.rogueaudio.com/Products_Tempest.htm


This one I've heard, it's pretty good - only 55 watts:
Cronos
http://www.rogueaudio.com/Products_Titan.htm#Cronos

The amp makes the signal much larger than the preamp does ratio wise. The preamp is the most important in my opinion. I'm only saying this because it was the weak spot in my system for many years (Carver CT-17, not bad, just not great)..

 

[David Matz]

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

If your amp has enough juice to drive the speakers, the preamp will make a bigger difference sonically.

 

[SundayNiagara]

Ask a question like this and you will get a dozen completely different answers. I believe it is important to do this in a manner that is exactly the opposite of what SundayNiagara proposes. I think with a poor amp and preamp, you really can't hear the benefits of an upgraded source and can't easily tell the nuances between different sources when auditioning.

I believe you should start by upgrading the amplification first, then the preamp, then the source. This way I believe you can better discern the benefits of each upgrade. The first thing your speakers need is lots of clean, powerful, current to drive them. Until you give them that, you won't notice as much benefit from a better source and you won't notice nuances between different preamps as well. Once you supply your speakers with some quality watts, then you can start thinking about how best to tailor your sound with an upgraded preamp and then down the road an upgraded source.

I've done this both ways, and this is the way that I believe works the best.

Having worked in the business and having seen so many people make avoidable mistakes, because they wouldn't listen, I stand by my earlier post. My favorite hi-fi saying is, "Garbage in, Garbage out!" The source component is the single most important part of a stereo system.

 

[Rich]

Having worked in the business and having seen so many people make avoidable mistakes, because they wouldn't listen, I stand by my earlier post. My favorite hi-fi saying is, "Garbage in, Garbage out!" The source component is the single most important part of a stereo system.

There is no such thing as "the single most important part" of a stereo system. Each component is important in its own right and has a noticeable effect on the sound. It is the synergy that they all have together that really makes a system sing.

You can take a perfect signal from the best source component in the world and send it through a garbage preamp and then a garbage amp into garbage speakers, and guess what you get coming out the other end? That's right -- garbage!

If you have a crappy preamp and inadequate amplification hooked up to your Martin Logan speakers, you will not be able to hear the capabilities of and nuanced differences between great source components such that you can make a sound judgment as to which you prefer.

But even with a cheap $200 Oppo Universal Player as your source, you can hear the differences between a basic integrated receiver and quality separates, or between a tube amp and a solid state amp, or between a CJ preamp and an ARC preamp. I know this is true because I have made these exact comparisons.

The speakers must receive clean, copious current for amplification and the source signal must be correctly amplified before the quality of the source component comes into play at all. In order to properly evaluate a source component in your own system, you must first have in place quality amplification and a decent preamp (or no preamp).

Obviously, I stand by my earlier post as well.

 

[SundayNiagara]

There is no such thing as "the single most important part" of a stereo system. Each component is important in its own right and has a noticeable effect on the sound. It is the synergy that they all have together that really makes a system sing.

>If you don't have it at the beginning, it ain't coming out of the speakers!

You can take a perfect signal from the best source component in the world and send it through a garbage preamp and then a garbage amp into garbage speakers, and guess what you get coming out the other end? That's right -- garbage!

>A good source will still sound better than a bad one!

If you have a crappy preamp and inadequate amplification hooked up to your Martin Logan speakers, you will not be able to hear the capabilities of and nuanced differences between great source components such that you can make a sound judgment as to which you prefer.

>I say you can!

But even with a cheap $200 Oppo Universal Player as your source, you can hear the differences between a basic integrated receiver and quality separates, or between a tube amp and a solid state amp, or between a CJ preamp and an ARC preamp. I know this is true because I have made these exact comparisons.

>I wouldn't use that as a verifiable source in a high end system!

The speakers must receive clean, copious current for amplification and the source signal must be correctly amplified before the quality of the source component comes into play at all. In order to properly evaluate a source component in your own system, you must first have in place quality amplification and a decent preamp (or no preamp).

>You need the quality source component there first!

Obviously, I stand by my earlier post as well.

>You are most certainly entitled to your opinion!

 

[DrJRapp]

I view this from a slightly different angle. A lot depends on the type of pre-amp we are talking about here. If it's a 2 channel tried-and-true or a state of the art multi-channel you are seeking.

If it's the state of the art multi-channel, then I would get my amps first. Amplifier technologies change very slowly, and you are likely to see everything available today unchanged six months from now. However, during that six month period pre-pro market will have changed and their will eiher be more state of the art units available, or current ones will be selling for less money.

If you are seeking a tried- and- true 2 channel, ignore the previous paragraph because that technology changes about as fast as amplifier technology..ie: slowly.

 

[Rich]

If you don't have it at the beginning, it ain't coming out of the speakers!

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

A good source will still sound better than a bad one!

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.

I wouldn't use that as a verifiable source in a high end system!

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.

You need the quality source component there first!

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.

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion!

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

 

[David Matz]

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



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.



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.



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.



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

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. Let's look at some specific examples of someone who has limited resources. One has speakers. To get decent sound, one needs a decent amp instead of a Yamaha to bring some life to them - take an old Bryston or Classe for $1200 and you are in business.

Now you are running your Oppo into your Yamaha via pre outs. For $200 you can have an old Bryston preamp for $200. It will be dead quiet. For $500 you can do even better, maybe an old Threshold. Now, you can spend $1K+ on the source, and you have a pretty nice system!

Your next upgrade then is your preamp, as it is your weakest component. You can then upgrade your source again as the old Bryston or Classe will be doing their job just fine.

Once you have a world class source and preamp, only then does it make sense to get a world class amp. It will then be that missing piece that makes your jaw drop.

There are probably other scenarios, but this seems the most logical progression for someone looking to enjoy music by incrementally spending as little cash as possible.

Sure, you can get a $10K amp, a $10K tube preamp, and run your Oppo. When you put that $15K Esoteric or the $6K Ayre in the system you will be in heaven as it will the biggest upgrade you can make, but you can have heaven wisely spending incremental amounts that will give you great sound along the way.

 

[timm]

Ask a question like this and you will get a dozen completely different answers. I believe it is important to do this in a manner that is exactly the opposite of what SundayNiagara proposes. I think with a poor amp and preamp, you really can't hear the benefits of an upgraded source and can't easily tell the nuances between different sources when auditioning.

I believe you should start by upgrading the amplification first, then the preamp, then the source. This way I believe you can better discern the benefits of each upgrade. The first thing your speakers need is lots of clean, powerful, current to drive them. Until you give them that, you won't notice as much benefit from a better source and you won't notice nuances between different preamps as well. Once you supply your speakers with some quality watts, then you can start thinking about how best to tailor your sound with an upgraded preamp and then down the road an upgraded source.

I've done this both ways, and this is the way that I believe works the best.

I agree with Rich... Maybe in the past - for me at least - it has just been easier to A/B amps - and I have HEARD big differences between amp a/amp b. I have not had the same experience with the pre-amp comparisons. I'll give you a 'stupid' example... - and some of you might think I have 'junk' - but just the same..... I have a Carver pre-amp from 1981 and a Sunfire TGIII from 2005 -- took one out -put one in - The differences were subtle. Both were hooked up all analog. When I bought my amp, a Sunfire Sig Grand - I a/b'd it to a comparable priced Rotel. The differences were LARGE. I have always found it difficult to a/b preamps in stores... they just don't seem setup to do it quite as easily as amps...

 

[timm]

One more follow up on this ... I have A/Bd my source (Denon 5900) with a 10K Wadia rig and a modded APL Denon 3900 (solid state mods only). Again, very subtle differences - Differences that would not necessarily be missed if I didn't have them there in the room to a/b. Nothing memorable pops out as to the HUGE diff between the Wadia and my Denon. Because there wasn't a huge difference. There was a subtle difference. My experiences have been that I have heard more noteable differences with the amplification.

Also, talking to Dan Wright at Modwright - I was considering a move - and asked him where I thought I should make my change - Pre or the source (he sells both). He said the pre - because although I might here a diff moving my denon out - he thought the diff would be quite large with a move to the pre. How this relates to this discussion is that the biggest change was determined to be FARTHER down the line away from the source.

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...

 

[kach22i]

I think the argument in common is having a balanced system with no short-cuts.

I pointed out one short-cut, that of an "integrated amp".

Another short-cut would be no preamp and a CD player with variable output. If going this route you forgo other sources such as turntables.