Using Receiver as a Switcher?


I currently have a Marantz SR7002 receiver powering my Vienna Acoustics Beethoven Concert Grands. When I was at Best Buy Magnolia I decided to stop by and see what their VA Mozarts sounded like by comparison. To my chagrin, they sounded better/clearer to my ears in the mids and highs. I'm not sure how much of this may be due to the room acoustics, but I noticed they had a Denon DRA-CX3 integrated amp powering the Mozarts.

I really have three questions. First, is the DRA-CX3 really THAT much better than the Marantz SR7002? My dad seems to be under the impression that as long as an amp has the power to drive the speakers without distortion (and it's not a tube amp), then there should be an extremely negligible difference in sound quality between amplifiers, and that what I have is fine, and I'll be disappointed if I shell out the cash for an upgrade, and that room acoustics are way more important. I don't think he's very accurate in his assessment, but I'd rather ask you guys. I'm basically assuming he's wrong, but under this assumption, still is the difference really THAT big between the Marantz and the Denon?

Second, if I do get the DRA-CX3 (which for only 570 on listenup right now is a real temptation), is there a way to use my Marantz as simply a switcher, and use the pre and power amps on the Denon? Giving up my switching capabilities would be terrible.

Third, for the extremely reduced $570 price tag on the Denon at the moment, would I be better off getting a standalone power amp at that price, and using my Marantz as a pre (which I know I can do)?

Thanks for taking your time to read this post, and please help!
sweetnumb

Showing 2 responses by sweetnumb

All right Bob, I want to make sure I'm getting a good understanding of what you are saying. It seems that you're saying that my dad is correct, and the higher the wattage, the better, and room acoustics are much more important when it comes to the sound you'll actually hear.

All right, well I'm still pretty new in this realm, and I cannot personally attest to knowing otherwise. However, if this is the case, there is something that I don't understand. Why does something like my receiver, which puts out 110 watts per channel, on up to seven channels, cost only $600 (at least on sale at Amazon right now, $1400 retail)? I picked a random integrated amp to compare this to, the Primare 130. Why is that $2500 at retail when it only puts out 100 watts per channel, and only on TWO channels? Not to mention the lack of HD switching capabilities. I just don't understand why they would charge that price, and also why people would actually buy it, if there is no difference in sound quality.

Also I was incorrect, the price is $579 for the Denon DRA-CX3 right now. Not a huge difference, but I figured I'd clear that up.
All right. Well that makes a lot of sense Bob. Does it make a difference that my receiver isn't officially rated to drive 4 ohm speakers? I'm just having a hard time understanding the difference I heard, and I don't think room acoustics can account for that difference, as I heard amazing clarity and detail at extremely low volumes.

Perhaps the CD Player they used can account for the difference? It always seems ridiculous to me to be spending great deals of money on one, since the data is just digital, and seems it would either get read or not read. I have my PS3 setup to send the signal straight through digitally via the HDMI cable without converting it to analog. Perhaps I'm wrong about this concept though. I have also tried playing through a Panasonic Blu-Ray player we have with no audible difference, but I'm sure they are of relatively comparable quality either way.

The other possibility I can think of (aside from me just being crazy, which may very well be) is that the source material they used was just recorded and mixed/mastered flawlessly. If that's the case, then I'll need to find out what they were playing so I can experience it again.