HT bypass with Proceed PAV

Bdgregory,

It hadn't occurred to me that you might be able to control the level of the output of the PAV by controlling the level of the signal input to it. I had assumed preamps have a fairly limited range of acceptable input levels, but that assumption may be incorrect. Does varying input level over the range needed for volume control lead to distortion?

db

Just to be clear, in the setup proposed by Bdgregory the PAV would drive the amps for the main LR speakers and the HT processor would drive the amps for the center and surround speakers. Is that correct? The Velodyne SMS-1 and HGS-15 could be driven by either.

db

Queefee,

I'm aware that although the PAV was A-rated much of the cost went into what was at the time SOTA video processing, and that as a preamp alone the PAV would be rated a high B. But, of course, it wasn't a preamp alone.

A strong argument for separates is that amp technology changes slowly if at all whereas processor technology changes rapidly. The same argument can be made for separating the preamp from the processor.

It would be more helpful to suggest "near world class" analog preamps with HT bypass than rant about the vintage PAV. The least expensive Stereophile A-rated preamp is the Parasound Halo JC at $4K, but no mention about HT bypass. Anyone know if it has HT bypass?

The guru at the local high-end shop tells me I have to step up to the Classe SSP 800 to match the sound of the PAV/PDSD if I want a modern processor, but I think a fine preamp coupled with something like an Anthem D2 might be a better solution for me.

db

Queefee,

1. Your point on video processing is well taken. I take the output of my HD-DVR and PS3-80 via HDMI to a DVDO Edge where video is split off and sent via HDMI to my projector in naive 1080p. Audio from those sources is sent via digital optical to the Proceed PDSD.

2. Regardless of its rating, the Proceed PAV/PDSD is part of a system that provides a sense of air, timbre detail, and soundstage that satisfies me, whether 2.1 or 5.1. I paid about 10% of their $10K MSRP, and have owned the units for years, so using them for audio is essentially free

3. I played 3 discs that I use as test cases on a system that included an Integra 80.1, then 15 minutes later played them again on my system. I cannot conclude that the much poorer timbre detail and soundstage of the test system was due to the 80.1 and not the associated equipment or his setup. If the sound had been equal to that of my system, I could have at least concluded that the 80.1 was not a impediment to achieving a level of sound quality with which I would be happy. But an 80.1 supplemented by my PAV as Bdgregory suggests may be all that's needed.

4. I've never heard of a CAT preamp; is CAT an acronym? Where's the list of "near world class" preamps, and do any have HT bypass? You suggest I can't trust the reviewers at Stereophile (nor I assume Absolute Sound), so whose judgement can I trust? I like to buy discounted used components from Audiogon listings; thus, listening before buying is rarely possible.

db

Queefee,

I agree with most of what you wrote, although I do think there can be separation between editorial and advertising interests. I became interested in "HIFI" in the mono days of the early 1950s, and have listened to lots of systems since. I confess to having been one of those kids who haunted the HIFI shops between Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. I've built a number of mostly bad speaker cabinets and poorly assembled amp kits in my day. As a grad student, I had lots of experience with Mac MC 60s and Altec VOT speakers, both in the lab and with those I took home for a while.

I've pretty much used a cost/benefit approach to buying audio gear. My original Proceed PAV and Amp 2 purchase replaced a Marantz 18 receiver I bought as a post-doc. I auditioned the Proceed stuff carefully at a high-end shop in Palo Alto. Had cost and size limitations been no object, of course I would have bought the bigger than a breadbox Levinson amp along with the 3-panel maggies. But cost and size were considerations and the PAV, Amp 2, and KEF Reference 102.2 combination sounded very good to me. I did listen to a Krell amp and Martin Logans, and didn't like what I heard.

(The original PAV, Amp 2, and 102.2s are in a secondary system; the Marantz receiver, AR3a speakers, and AR turntable are in a closet.)

So when a PAV/PDSD pre/pro came up on Audiogon, I bought it. Same with KEF Reference 104.2s. I bought a Velodyne HGS-15 as a demo from our local high-end dealer, and the HGS-10 and SMS-1 through Audiogon. Bottom line: I have put together what to me are two very nice systems for little money.

Of course, I'd prefer to try any proposed new purchase in my setup, but that just isn't practical. So I read reviews and posts at several web sites. For example, I'm pretty convinced I'd like the sounds of a Cary Cinema 11a, but the long series of posts at AVS from 11a owners about how buggy they are has scared me away -- nearly everyone raves about the sound when they do work.

I also agree that preamps are at a very stable point of development compared to processors, and that if I were going to buy that is the place to put the money. But knowing my predilections, I'm more likely to do nothing, and just continue to enjoy what I have.

db

PS: By the time I did have the space and money to buy the bigger-than-a-breadbox Levinson amp and 3-panel maggies, my head was in Ferrari land.