Using a prepro for dedicated 2-channel listening instead of a stereo pre is like using a minivan on a racetrack instead of a sports car — sure you can do it, but why?
|
I did get try out a Sherwood Newcastle R-972 Pre/Pro . it sounded fantastic with music. probably the best pre of any kind I have ever heard. That’s actually a receiver from like 10 years ago. I then tried a Parasound P3 stereo pre and it sounded like crap. Might as well have been a 1980/s receiver. nothing special about it. and people love that brand and apparently that pre. Yeah, that John Curl’s a real hack. Clearly all the other people are wrong. But so far ive only used 1 stereo pre that I liked as much as my favorite Pre/pros and that was a modified/upgraded NAD Pre. Well that’s not surprising since NAD is the pinnacle of stereo preamps, and modded it must be killer. I know I shouldn’t ask, but what other stereo preamps have you tried?
there is no way some cheap made in china Parasound stereo pre or similar "stereo" would ever sound as good as a proceed that isworking 100%. Considering the Proceed cost somewhere around $5000 I should certainly hope not. But it might face some competition from the likes of ARC, VAC, Atmasphere, Ayre, LTA, Pass, etc. But then they’re probably no better than a prepro either so why even bother? I think you’ve made your point here.
|
um..well....the point is you can get so much better product with a former high dollar pro than you can get with a stereo PRE. the nicest stereo pre I have seen lately was the emotiva XSP-1 gen 2. most of the rest of the stuff out lately are not that great. its easier to buy an old AVR or HT Pre/Pro and get much more for you dollar than to just buy a pre. Um, I’ll just politely disagree with all these statements, especially for a 2.2 system where music is the priority. But if you’re hell bent on a prepro, have at it and best of luck. |
If you only have L/R speakers and subs and mainly listen to music I’d just use a good stereo preamp.
|
