Integrated vs. pre/power amps

[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.

[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.

[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.