Integrated Amp vs Receiver

[Mark111867]

Hi folks. I have never owned an integrated amp set up. I have always used a receiver and been pretty happy with them. I especially like that everything is in one unit and also like the fact that the receivers that I have used have switched outlets.

I'm going to make a purchase in the near future. I've been looking at the NAD C720BEE receiver. I've also been looking at the Cambridge Audio Azur 540A integrated amp with a Cambridge Audio T500 tuner. The NAD and the Cambridge set-up are both in the ball park of $600. The 540A has no swithced outlet, so everytime I want to turn the cd player off, I have to get up to do it. I know, it doesn't sound like that big a deal, but I could see it irritating me over time.

I guess what I'm really getting at is this question........Is the lack of convinience in terms of the 540A worth it? Is an integrated set-up that much better than a receiver? Thanks for any input.

[topspeed]

You are usually better off with an integrated over a receiver because the former will normally employ higher quality parts (better power supplies, transformers, caps, etc.). However, NAD cut it's teeth in the world of separates and then worked it's way backwards towards receivers. This would lead me to believe they are more likely to not compromise as much as the Denon's, Yammie's, and Pio's of the world.

FWIW, I bought a 540a after comparing it with a c320bee and Rotel RA01. I don't listen to the radio at the office so I didn't care if it had a tuner or not. My thinking being I'll likely add Sirius or XM if I want random music. Between the 320bee and 540a, the 320bee had a thicker bottom end, but everything else was pretty much a wash. The 540a did excel at low level dynamics, which was very important to me considering its application. Some amps need to pour on the watts before the music will coelesce. The 540a doesn't. One other factor, and I'll admit it's shamelessly shallow, is that I didn't like the appearance of the 320bee. It's unfortunate the 720 hasn't adopted the new NAD look, which is actually quite striking.

If convenience is paramount, the NAD makes more sense. No patch cables to buy, a switched outlet for your cd player, multi-zone output, and a sub output as well. The Azur offers none of these, although if you buy a CA tuner, the remote powers the integrated, tuner, cdp, etc., on with one touch. The CA offers more versatility, but how important is that to you? Both brands have good reps and receive glowing reviews. Weigh your priorities with the sound quality of both (auditioning each is a given) and be happy with your decision. You can't go wrong here.

Hope this helps.

[nightflier]

One thing that bothers me about the CA 540A, is that it's really designed to be a standalone product. It therefore has just one set of preamp outputs, no amp inputs, no 12v. trigger, no sub output, no outlets, etc. So if you want to attach a tuner (or any other source) from another manufacturer, you'll have to use multiple remotes or walk over to the unit.

But the comparison is not fair, since the NAD C720BEE is a receiver. A better comparison might be the C372 which is a capable integrated amp in its own right and has a 12v. trigger that can power on another device (like an external amp) with a similar 12v input. If external amps are in your future, I would consider a preamp instead.

One word of caution, the C320BEE NAD does not have a switched outlet, just an unswitched one (continuous power) and I don't know if the outlet on the C372 is switched. That said, both amps have 12v. triggers, a huge plus for me.

[Mark111867]

Thanks for the replies nightflier & topspeed. I'll let you know what I decide to go with.

[Mark111867]

Hi folks. Thought that I would keep you posted. I bought the NAD C720BEE today. So far, so good. I'll post a review after I've had it a while. Thanks again for your input.