Integrated vs. pre/power amps

[amitsood]

What is the difference between integrated amps and pre/power amp combos?

For example, Rotel has a pre/power amp combo, RC1070 and RB1050 and an integrated amp RA1070. Cost os of course a differentiator, but what else?

Thanks...

[Geoffcin]

Seperate dedicated power supplies. Better isolation for the preamp from the power amp. Less feedback. Lower noise floor. Ability to match different amps to preamps. The list goes on.

Can you hear a difference? That will depend on your speakers, and setup.

Intergrateds are a good bang for the buck, especially when you start moving into the more expensive componants.

[psonic]

Also if you are looking at them vs. receivers, they are generally superior to receivers in stereo sound...ie i have a NAD integrated at 40wpc that plays fuller, louder, cleaner, less fatiguing and with better dynamics in every area than my 65wpc H/K & 100wpc Pioneer receiver. My point if you go to either integrated or separates expect a big improvement in stereo sound over Japanese receivers. Also you don't need 100wpc like most people look for in a receiver, especially if using common 8ohm speakers. I am using this 40wpc NAD 304 and I rarely put it above 9 or 10 oclock.

[skeptic]

40 years ago, the size and weight of output transformers of the best equipment and the heat generated by output tubes made it logical to put them on a separate chassis. Also, preamplifiers had many controls their modern day counterparts often lack. Even so, it would still have been possible to combine them on one very large chassis. There is no inherent reason that modern designs using solid state devices and no output transformers can't combine the best amplifiers and preamplifiers on one chassis. It's basically a marketing decision because over time, audiophiles have come to associate "separates" with better performance. A receiver is a power amplifier, preamplifier, and radio tuner all on the same chassis. Anyone who thinks you can't achieve outstanding performance from a reciever has never seen or heard models like Marantz 2550 or 2600. These monsters will still give the best separates one hell of a run for their money.

[Geoffcin]

Anyone who thinks you can't achieve outstanding performance from a reciever has never seen or heard models like Marantz 2550 or 2600. These monsters will still give the best separates one hell of a run for their money.

Yes, the large Marantz, and other ultra-powerful receivers like the Pioneer SX-1980, represented a no-compromise idea of what a receiver should be. I aspired to one of these back in my "sonic youth" eventually getting a very-powerful Pioneer SX-1280 (1981) that was great (my EPI towers could be heard from several blocks away), but it didn't last long before it's first failure. The problem with the high powered receivers is they ran hot, often cooking the more delicate internal components. To find one today in good condition is a rarity, and they command a price accordingly.

There's a Marantz 2385 on Ebay right now, guy want's $400 for it, if it's in good condition that's a STEAL!

[RGA]

There are some terrific receivers from Magnum Dynalab which proves that a receiver can be made to sound good. You could buy a car for the price of that receiver though.

An integrated is a good choice because most have the pre-outs power out so that you can change the integrated to serve as a power amp or a preamp down the road.

For instanc I can connect a power amp to my Sugden and use it as a preamp, or connect a preamp and use the Sugden as a power amp.

Once i have done one of these things then I could trade the Sugden in for the second piece.

Most integrateds especially tubes are quiter than many separates. Unless your speakers are ineficient and insensitive the 20-50 watts will play plenty loud with good dynamics etc.

Most receivers use the poorest of the poorest possible parts and built by accounting departments than those who are tying to create the best sound.

[markw]

For instanc I can connect a power amp to my Sugden and use it as a preamp, or connect a preamp and use the Sugden as a power amp.

I believe NAD and other integrated amps also allow this as well.

Gee, I can even do that with my 30 year old Marantz 2270 receiver, too.

[woodman]

If the integrated will save you a significant amount of money over the equivalent "separates", it's a no-brainer. The belief that separates are somehow vastly superior to both receivers and integrated amps is a MYTH ... perpetuated by "audiophiles" with far stronger Beliefs in cherished (but not technically correct) audio "facts" than their technical expertise and knowledge can support.

As skeptic pointed out in his post here, there simply are no technical reasons why well designed integrateds and yes -receivers too, can sound every bit as "good" as separates ... period!

Plus, I must take exception to the denigrating of the Japanese electronic design engineers ... they are easily as talented and capable - if not more so, as any of their counterparts in ANY other part of the world, including American, British, German, French, Indian ... any of them.

[spacedeckman]

Although he is right on the whole marketing thing..."Things are seldom what they seem..." (Rogers & Hammerstein HMS Pinafore...Hey, I'm straight and not into showtunes, but I really LOVE that line)

Keep in mind here that there are additional costs that are significant in making separates, and we will have to assume that no marketing contamination exists in this example.

Dedicated separate components will often cut fewer corners in design than integrated type components. Since price is less of a factor (often, but not always), the designer will make choices that he wouldn't or couldn't make if the budget were tightened. Some of these will affect the sound, some are made for purposes of "statement". The fact remains that the component will have to stand on its own merits. Now marketing and reviews contaminate this quite badly, but in it's purest form, this is what happens. The power supply will probably be better, parts may be better, switches, connectors, etc. In the end, it is, or should be a "statement" product and offer exemplary performance. (I'm still in my perfect world here)

When you combine different functions in the same box, you save a ton of money. You share a power supply, you only have to design and ship one box, one CE/UL certification, one owners manual, and you don't need to order a whole bunch of parts like connectors to hook the two units together. To keep the price more attractive, you will probably use a simpler, though maybe still large power supply, use more "run of the mill" parts, and, due to larger numbers of sales available, your cost basis per unit will be much lower. R&D can be spread over a larger family of similar products which also adds up. Simply stated, if it cost you a million bucks a year to keep the factory open and you only sold 1000 units, the factory overhead for each unit will have to be $1000 plus what parts, labor, shipping, and other expenses add up to. We would be easily talking about a $5-6000 product here. If you made 100,000 units, the cost would be only $10 per unit plus everything else. If you take a company such as Sony, Pioneer, or Yamaha with R&D resources that only a multi-faceted tech company would have, you can make and sell some amazing products for really stupid cheap prices. However, often times sound goes to the background and features rise to the top in importance, and decisions get made that you may not agree with.

So, in a nutshell, it isn't as cut and dried as a lot of these guys want it to be. Shades of Gray. Not that there aren't some perceived "high end" companies that make products that are complete dogs that sell on their name. Caveat Emptor is the name of the game. There aren't many guarantees out there so use your ears and think it through. It isn't as hard as you think to figure it all out.

[Geoffcin]

Actually, there are some very good reasons that I stated in my previous post. The one I didn't mention that really should have been first is the SIZE of the components. When you get into the larger amps it doesn't make sense to even attempt to put a preamp in there with it. My amp is huge and weighs 75 lbs. You couldn't get a preamp in there with it if you wanted to. As big as that is, I helped a friend move in an enormous Classe 401, and that puppy weighs in at over 140lbs!

The audiophiles that I know don't make rash judgments about ANY components, whether integrated, tubed, SS, or a combination of both, as my latest audio enlightenment by hearing an Audio Research LS-25 with said Classe 401 amp proves. (transparent nirvana + plate tectonic moving power)

Who said that the Japanese don't make good equipment? Just because my old SX-1280 failed, I didn't write off Japanese stuff. Far from it, I realized WHY it failed, and what it would take to get me where I wanted my system to go. I STILL use a Pioneer receiver in my HT setup, the VSX-53. A tour-DE-force of electronic wizardry.

I try not to knock equipment, but the guy who said that today's receivers don't have the "balls" of separates and/or intergrateds is mostly correct. I've yet to hear one that can approach my old SX-1280 in sheer power for less than 3 grand, and I'm certain that there's almost nothing to compare with the top Marantz of the late 70's.

One of the reasons for my choice for my HT mains, the Cambridge Soundworks T-500s, was the fact that they are self powered to the tune of 300 watts each. This built in amp is powering only the woofer, so the receiver only powers the "needs" of the midrange and tweeter. By using this tacit BI-amp system I'm able to achieve clean undistorted SPL for my HT that only a separate components could achieve, if only for the fact that you couldn't get all that amp into one chassis!

There's a thousand ways to skin a cat in audio, and what I like might not be your cup-o-tea, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions about what "audiophiles" believe, even if some of them do cling to myths.

[skeptic]

HMS Pinafore was written by Gilbert and Sullivan. Rogers and Hammerstein wrote many wonderful show tunes and some fine Broadway musicals but they were not in the same league with Gilbert and Sullivan and they weren't nearly as clever.

[spacedeckman]

I told you I was straight.

I still love that line.

[RGA]

You want to know if there is a difference in amps. 2 easy steps to do.

One find a receiver that has a "direct" button. This is one solitary switch that simply bypasses the treble bass control. Set the levels to flat. Listen...then push the direct button and listen A/B this a few times...every and any receiver is a noticable difference and that is one switch - not even an entire amp or preamp change.

The second little test is to listen to the Marantz 7300 versus any of their lower models. The 7300 is basically the same amp as the underlings but has a beefed up Toroid transformer. Listen at several volume with any competant speaker. I was using the Energy C9 a relatively easy to drive floorstander. Listen to the 4300 at a few volume levels using a cd with a heavy bass line. I was using Sarah McLachlan's Remix album and the song SIlence which is a very high level excellently recorded cd with very deep bass and extreme highs(one advantage of a synthesizer is that it covers the entire audible band and well beyond...so does the piano but the extremes are rarely used).

The poster mentioned earlier that they can save money, the 7300 moves up a notch. You'll find a Toroid in far cheaper integrated amps, with better isolation. Receivers suffer from noise. One listen to the 7300 versus the Bryston 3B and it is very obvious as the 7300 has an audible hiss. The Bryston is dead quiet.

Perhaps all the people in these listening tests are a bunch of 60 year old+ deaf engineers that spent too much time listening at too loud of volume levels. A noise meter even showed the differences.

High end amps have higher costs, and higher margins because they sell less of them. Big companies COULD make far better amps than Bryston for half the money that Bryston charges. A company like SOny has no interest in doing that however because they would make no money. It is much better to sell a hundred 1k receivers that cost them $75.00 including box, manual, remote, shipping and advertising and labour and parts, than it is to use $400.00 in materials and have to pay far more for shipping becuase it weighs more and is bigger(less can fit on the plane), and then to sell that at $1k because you have to undercut Bryston.

Does'nt take rocket science to know what the smarter business decision here is.

Sony and Marantz and Denon usually have a couple of cost no object designs sort of like the Car makers who make cost no object racing cars. Sony for example makes a $4,000.00 set of headphones just to say they know how...and it is indeed supposed to be world class (I would hope so).

Marantz used to make brilliant receivers that probably fetch quite a bit on the used market. Those amps versus the new ones would be funny. The new ones will have far higher watt ratings and more impeccable spec sheets and will likely sound like a dog's fart in comparison.

[amitsood]

Thanks everyone for the information.

One thing that was mentioned several times, and which I've heard from dealers and others is about the power supply. I can understand that the power supply has to be capable of providing enough power to drive the speakers at whatever volumes, and so a good stable supply is essential.

But what kind of intereference can be caused by the power supply in a modern amp/integrated/receiver? If inteference is such a problem, why not put the power supply outside the box or in a lead cage inside the box?


amit...

[RGA]

Thanks everyone for the information.

One thing that was mentioned several times, and which I've heard from dealers and others is about the power supply. I can understand that the power supply has to be capable of providing enough power to drive the speakers at whatever volumes, and so a good stable supply is essential.

But what kind of intereference can be caused by the power supply in a modern amp/integrated/receiver? If inteference is such a problem, why not put the power supply outside the box or in a lead cage inside the box?


amit...

Cost. It costs money to do those things. That is why there are separates. I had a $650.00 receiver that if you set it to CD. And turned the volume all the way up...without pushing play on the cd you could hear the radio come through. RF interference and I heard the exact same thing the other day with a Denon 1604.

Yes sure it's full volume and maybe someone with a lower sensitivity speaker won't notice or care...but that is grunge that is present in the path. The receiver maker simply cheaped out.

Power supplies in receivers is one tiny whimpy ass box driving 5 or 6 speakers sharing whatever gutless amount it has to offer. Capacitor and wiring is of the cheapest poorest possible quality. Yamaha has always been and probably still is a bit better on this point. A lot of the speakers beg made are so pourous that one woun't notice a difference between amps anyway so I suppose that's something. Many receivers luckily come with the preout and power amp jacks which allow you to upgrade.

A Receiver is basically an all-in-one printer. If you're serious about scanning, photo prining or mega photo copying chances are you won't buy a $79.99 Lexmark. And while there are much better ALL- In ones at 1k...chances are you could get a separate photo printer, scanner and photocopier that would be better on all three counts for $750.00.

Receviers make a LOT of sense up to a certain point, beyond that point separates are more functional and cheaper. The Denon 5803 is nearly $6,000.00CDN and I can get separates that will far out perform it and be far better built for 5k maybe less if I really hunt.

As soon as you get to the model with preouts, assuming the processor for surround is a good one, is the point you no longer spend. The Marantz 4300 at $500.00CDN is right around that point for me. Because for another $500.00 used I can go get a Rotel 5 channel amp that will make the Marantz 7300 sound like a joke. Except I paid 1k instead of the 2k. I get less features now but in the long run will get more at less cost.

[skeptic]

If inteference is such a problem, why not put the power supply outside the box or in a lead cage inside the box?

A very long time ago, they used to do exactly that. One issue is shielding. Transformer shielding has come a long way over the years. There is also the issue of how wires are arranged inside a tightly packed box. When they are close together, their minute electrical signals can be unintentionally coupled to other circuits causing unintended bleedthrough and interference especially at high gain settings. As for performance, to a degree you get what you paid for. Quieter better performing transistors (and tubes) cost a little more. In a highly competitive market where the majority of consumers are less than ultra critical and the models change every few weeks, it is hardly surprising that the low end products, receivers, get built from cheap parts sometimes carelessly packed. OTOH, the more expensive high end separates are directed at a market which has higher expectations and they had better get more of what they want because bad news travels fast. So there is no inherent reason why receivers and integrated amps can't perform as well as separates, it's just a matter of judging what the market wants to pay for and how they want it packaged.

[chuckgibbs]

Since I'm new to this thread and a real novice when it comes to other than receiver equipment, here comes a stupid question. Is there an output for a powered sub on an integrated amp (like the Rotel 1075), or do I have to have a tuner to do this?

[blackraven]

Since I'm new to this thread and a real novice when it comes to other than receiver equipment, here comes a stupid question. Is there an output for a powered sub on an integrated amp (like the Rotel 1075), or do I have to have a tuner to do this?

The Rotel 1075 is strictly a 5 ch power amp and not an integrated amp. It needs a preamp.

An integrated amp is a power amp and preamp all in one with out a tuner. When a tuner is included then it is called a receiver.

You can run a sub directly off a power amp but ou need speaker level inputs on the sub. Some newer subs are doing away with this feature because all hometheater receivers have bass management and preamp sub outputs.

I hope this clarifies things for you, cheers!

[O'Shag]

Receivers such as the Yamaha RX-Z9 sound fantastic, and its only when you get into the esoteric stuff that the performance gap increases. Todays top receivers have enormous power supplies and utilize high-quality components throughout. These super receivers sound very transparent, clean, and well-balanced, with excellent extension at both frequency extremes. Good depth and width as well as decent seperation of stereo images (not homogenized) mean that the top receivers can be used without apology for serious music listening both in two-channel and multi-channel. There are some real advantages to an integrated solution and the most compelling is the shorter signal path. Cables are greatly shortened or in some cases eliminated. The other important advantage here is the integration of the DAC, so now we can have the signal running from source as digital processed at 192 and then converted to analogue all without much signal degradation. This in addition to the excellent radio recievers included in today's top receivers. I would question some of the opinions on some focus groups that older receivers easily outperform these new top recievers as it has been my experience that this is not the case.

But there are some areas where to my ears the best seperates are in a different class, such as the area of dynamics, solidity, dimensionality, expressiveness, textural and tonal complexity and a sense of thereness or aliveness. But again, you've got to get into the really good stuff to pull away from the top recievers of today,

[dakatabg]

I have Kenwood KC-X1 preamplifier that has outputs for 5.1 surround including for a subwoofer output. It is hard to find preamps with internal surround.

I think it is how you like it, powered or integrated doesn't make any difference.

I have powered and integrated amps all sound good. When the amp it is powered you have many more options to add equalizers and to run everything through the EQ.

[RGA]

Umm just so you know people - post number 16 was dated 2003 - I think that in 7 years the OP made a decision

[dakatabg]

Wow i didn't even notice that. Well he still gives us a topic to talk about. Ha ha

[02audionoob]

But a new member asked a question in #17.