[G Georgopoulos]

Hi All
are receivers good amplifiers, are the manufacturers as commited to
the amplifying part or as whole, receivers as combos do offer good
value for money including sound effects decoders/ tuner etc
i want to hear what you think, are their amplifiers similar to those
found in midfi?

cheers

[Charles Calkins]

I never had a receiver that performend as good as separates. Tuner, Preamp,and Amps.

                                   Cheers
                                  Charlie

[JLM]

Low and mid fidelity receivers are probably comparable to their matching stablemates, but precious few examples remain (at least among whats commonly found in the U.S.).  Low-fi product lines rarely include amps and I can only think of a couple of mid-fi brands that offer both (Rotel and Outlaw).  

Have no experience with some of the European offerings like Lynn.

I'm not aware of a truely hi-fi receiver, however Red Wine Audio (here at AC) offers to mod Olive CD/HD players (that can receive internet streaming) and add a small amplifiers.  This (with speakers) provides a single box solution.

[avta]

I agree with Charlie. I tried a good integrated amp but went back to separates. I think it affords more flexibilty and better matching of components.

Guy

[ehart]

I found that separates were very noticeably better than receivers.  The pre-amp made the biggest difference -- in other words, a $400 Rotel amp does well, but the matching Rotel pre-amp was weak.  Finally got a Classe CP-35 (low end of high end) pre-amp to go with the Rotel, and was very happy (until other upgrades).  Total cost about $1200 (without tuner) from a dealer (demo pricing on the Classe).

I demoed integrated amps at the same time.  I expected they would sound the same as separates, but I found the separates noticeably better, at least in the price range I could afford at the time ($1500 or less).  I'm not sure why that is.  There are certainly very well-regarded (but more expensive) integrated amps.  It may be that my speakers like more power than many integrateds provide.  Also I think there are more "deals" on separates.

- Eric

[Carlman]

Not sure what you're after with this question but it's kind of like asking if all season tires were just as good as summer racing tires.  For most people, as long as they're round and hold air, they are equal.  For a racer, he'd prefer the racing tire and appreciate the advantages it offers.

For audiophiles, most will say as a rule, an amplifier is going to sound better than a receiver.  The answer is in your question... a receiver's has several functions, and only one of those is amplification.  An amplifer has 1 function.

If I buy a $500 receiver and a $200 amplifier, I would expect the amplifier to still be better.  What do you consider 'midfi'?  I have heard $1,000 receivers that sounded pretty good... almost as good as a $500 amp ($200 used)  

For music I'll take any amp, any day.  For HT absolute sound quality is less important and the price difference isn't as valuable as it is in 2-channel to me.  So, receivers are fine for me in HT.

[Tweaker]

Seems like an odd question from someone who  designs builds and sells amplifiers:
http://members.dodo.com.au/g3000/

[G Georgopoulos]

And most of them i assume have chip form rather than discrete
--------------------
 Seems like an odd question from someone who designs builds and sells amplifiers
-------------------
well, i just wanted to find out what audiophiles think of these products,
as i said, they're combos and do seem to offer good value, but how
do they compare to traditional high-end standalone units i think
some here made some good points

thanks for your input guys

kind regards