Anybody else using AV880x as 2 channel preamp?


I am, and I’m happy. I had been using my Cambridge 851N as a digital preamp, streamer, and DAC for my Marantz SA8004. I wanted to add a tv to the mix, and found a Marantz AV8801 at a good price. I’m using it as a 2 channel preamp and it sounds (slightly) better than the Cambridge. Anybody else using a multi channel AV processor for two channel and liking it?
tomaswv

Showing 2 responses by yakbob

@tomaswv , I use multichannel pre with success in my main system. It's a McIntosh MX-120. The analog section is essentially a C46 preamp, so it offers the flexibility for HT and critical 2-channel listening. I've since moved away from HT altogether, but kept the 120 for its sound quality.
You can find this and the MX-119 and 134 fairly cheap since they're shunned by both line stage purists and HT geeks ( not intended as a jab) who want the latest codecs. 

The classe 800 unit mentioned above also gets high marks for 2-channel use.
To clarify, the MX-119 and MX-120 are the same analog circuit as found in the C45 (when used in analog mode) since both lack the C46 equalizer function. RonC has mentioned this in a few threads on audiokarma, where there is some great discussion on the benefits of these units in 2-channel systems. They're a relative bargain in the Mc world in that they're built as stereo pre's with the added benefit of a DAC (if you choose to use it) or output multi-channel.
The value, or better yet, performance to value of the later "flagship" processors is debatable since units like the MX-150 are more akin to the Denon units they're based off of. The MX-121 even has some Marantz parts inside. It's not a bad thing if you must have the look or later codecs, but in tomaswv's case (2-channel stereo use), the 119, 120 or even 134 would present a better value and 2-channel performance. For decoding digital multichannel or latter HDMI standards the 150 and newer units would be a better choice.