[polar316]

What are the differences between using an integrated amp versus a pre amp and a power amp?

[Wayner]

Separates are always better. The real problem is noise and the difficulty shielding the fragile preamp section from the powerful amplifier section. Another advantage of separates is realized at upgrade time, if more power is required, all you need is a new amp. All high performance systems are separates.

Wayner

[Wayner]

Well then, maybe you should ask the many, many companies that build only separates what their reasoning is? Then I will start laughing. Also, people who make statements like that have no clue about the engineering aspects of the product. Integrated amps will never equal their counterpart separates in most respects. LOL

Audio by Van Alstine offers an Integrated amp, which is very good for those on a budget, but the true performance pieces are all separates, enjoyed by many.

Wayner

[maxwalrath]

Separates are always better. All high performance systems are separates.

Well then, maybe you should ask the many, many companies that build only separates what their reasoning is? Then I will start laughing. Also, people who make statements like that have no clue about the engineering aspects of the product. Integrated amps will never equal their counterpart separates in most respects. LOL
Wayner

Maybe you should ask the fine companies that make integrated amps if they like being referred to as something other than "high performance", to use your words.  If I were to pick my dream system...sure, they would consist of separates, but that wasn't the question. 

Maybe you don't literally mean what you said, but when you make sweeping generalizations you are more likely to come off as offensive and condescending (to a number of AC manufacturers, to boot...Response Audio and Vista make fine products, for example).  Rather than ask the OP what kind of budget they have, or trying to elicit any information that might help lead the person towards some useful information, you got up on a high horse.  I think realizing that you took a condescending tone in both your posts would be a fine place to start. 

Now I understand my comments might be a little harsh, but if you don't see any problems with saying "All high performance systems are separates", then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  But hey, what do I know...I'm from the northeast, so I'm lacking in manners and class compared to my mid-west counterparts.

[srb]

I'll take an integrated amplifier.  Give me that Accuphase E-408!
 
It's true that a separate preamplifier and power amplifier is more versatile because you could swap out the power amplifier to a more powerful one if you got less efficient speakers, for example.
 
But there's something to be said for shorter signal paths, too.  It wouldn't be as versatile (or sellable), but a two-box solution where both the preamp and power amp were in one chassis and their power supplies in the other, would even be "higher performance".
 
Steve

[Wayner]

I guess the topic was one or the other. I picked my preference and now I'm the bad ass. Maybe it's just stupid to ask a question that has one or the other answer. Your response is very questionable as well.

Wayner

Maybe you should ask the fine companies that make integrated amps if they like being referred to as something other than "high performance", to use your words.  If I were to pick my dream system...sure, they would consist of separates, but that wasn't the question. 

Maybe you don't literally mean what you said, but when you make sweeping generalizations you are more likely to come off as offensive and condescending (to a number of AC manufacturers, to boot...Response Audio and Vista make fine products, for example).  Rather than ask the OP what kind of budget they have, or trying to elicit any information that might help lead the person towards some useful information, you got up on a high horse.  I think realizing that you took a condescending tone in both your posts would be a fine place to start. 

Now I understand my comments might be a little harsh, but if you don't see any problems with saying "All high performance systems are separates", then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  But hey, what do I know...I'm from the northeast, so I'm lacking in manners and class compared to my mid-west counterparts.

[Big Red Machine]

I'd say that the majority of good pieces are separates.  Sure, someone out there has a no-holds-bar integrated piece for sure.  I probably couldn't afford it either.  But from a pure engineering perspective, there will almost always be compromises made to jam in all the functional requirement components first and the package may limit how esoteric one can get.  As an old electronics packaging engineer I have had my share of 5 lb. buckets..................and you know what.  Compromises are made.

Edit:  forgot the convenience factor of an integrated.  Takes up less shelf space, etc.

[bunnyma357]

Separates are always better. The real problem is noise and the difficulty shielding the fragile preamp section from the powerful amplifier section. Another advantage of separates is realized at upgrade time, if more power is required, all you need is a new amp. All high performance systems are separates.

Wayner

I think this statement only applies within one companies line. It implies all separates are always better than all integrated amps. There are many quality integrated amps that are better than poor separates.

Also perhaps saying "the highest performance systems are separates" might be more accurate - since there are many high performance integrated amps. Generally dogmatic statements generate a LMAO type reaction, especially in response to a question about the differences between the two.

Several key differences are that integrated amps are generally less expensive, smaller, more convenient, and don't have the system synergy issues that a separate amp and pre-amp from different manufacturers may have.

Personally, the above benefits have always made an integrated more appealing to me, if that means that I can't have a high performance system in some peoples eyes, so be it. However, each year at RMAF I get confused when my low performance system easily betters "high performance" systems in rooms that are acoustically superior to mine.

I think in most cases where budget is considered, the cost of separates over an integrated would be better spent on room treatments that will by far out deliver the performance difference between quality integrated and separate amps. If you have a large budget that can include room treatments and separates, and you don't mind the practical drawbacks of separates - then that would be a better way to go.

For an example of how important system synergy can be see this thread on amp/pre-amp combos that are fine separately, but when combined deliver shocks. (Always better?)

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=72651.0


Jim C

[*Scotty*]

Wayner, I am pretty sure you're dead wrong about your position regarding integrated amplifiers. Here are a couple of advantages that an integrated amp could have. A single ground plane which would eliminate ground loop problems encountered in separates. The elimination of a set of interconnects and a possible entrance point of RFI into the system. I think you should have a discussion with Frank and perhaps he could weigh in on the pros and cons of building an integrated amplifier from a purely performance stand point.
The economic advantages to a manufacturer  building an integrated amplifier are obvious unless of course the thing doesn't sell.
Looking at the integrated amplifier offerings from Chord Electronics I see very little to criticize.
http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/products_cat.asp?cat=7
http://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/701chord/index.html
Scotty
 

[Niteshade]

Oftentimes it's possible to build an attenuator into an amplifier, what some call a passive preamplifier. This system can work very well and is quite popular.

It would be difficult to build an elaborate preamp in the same box as an amp.

There is a time and place for every design. I wouldn't say that one is always better than the other. It's better to think in terms regarding a specific application when making equipment/circuit comparisons.

[S Clark]

Separates are always better. The real problem is noise and the difficulty shielding the fragile preamp section from the powerful amplifier section. Another advantage of separates is realized at upgrade time, if more power is required, all you need is a new amp. All high performance systems are separates.

Wayner

All you have to do is change "always" to usually, and I suspect that we all fall into agreement.  Wayner's main point is valid.  However, it should be noted that there is usually a significant increase in cost in going with seperates- and used integrateds can be found often for a song.

[Greggo]

The differences are as follows:

1) Rack Space / Floor Space

2) One or Two or Three pairs of interconnects depending on if you prefer basic integrated amps or more full featured ones that include phono and/or DAC...

3) Personal taste...

This is all personal opinion at the end of the day with no clear formula to lean one way or the other.  Both offer a different set of pros/cons and both are capable of providing pleasant or less than pleasant synergy with source and speakers.  Since I like having at least two inputs, one for my CD player and one for my turntable, I like full featured integrated amps that include a phono stage as well and I would recommend the following:

1) If your budget for phono/pre/power is roughly $2,000 or less, in general I would highly recommend an integrated over seperates...

2)  The higher your budget above 2k, the more I would entertain seperates, but as you approach the 10-15k mark I would probably lean more towards seperates simply because the choices seem more rational at that price point.

3)  At some point in your evolution as an audiophile you will probably find a fork in the road that has you treating your system like a studio where the more hunks of metal and blue LEDs you have the better you feel about your high horesepower system, or you start to treat your system more as a simple pleasure and force yourself to obsess more over the music than the equipment (though I would submit that a true audiophile can never completely stop obsessing about equipment), and at that point integrated amps will become extremely attractive.  When you start auditioning the very competitive field of integrated amps in the 3-10k price bracket with speakers you are convinced you could spend the rest of your life with you will wonder why anyone would want seperates in the first place.

But the most important rule is that there are no rules and if we all trusted our own ears and judgement we could dismiss 90% of the BS that permeates this hobby and get on with it...

Regards,

Greggo

[JLM]

Glad to see that this thread is getting more reasonable.

Other than taking less space/power and requiring one less interconnect there is normally no difference between using separates versus an integrated.  A note of warning though: it is possible to find particular pre and power amps that don't work together well (both from purely an electrical standpoint and from a sound quality standpoint).  Impedances and signal strengths need to be checked for compatibility.  That's the easy part.  How they complement each other acoustically is harder to know (unless they're from the same manufacturer or vendor, or if you can find a review that used both).

To elaborate on what Greggo and others have stated, there is an obvious cost savings in interconnects and duplication of power supplies, cabinets, etc. going the intergrated route.  OTOH loss of flexibility to upgrade one side (pre or power) may be worth something.  Frankly the point where equivalent separates (same guts) sound better than an integrated is normally pretty darn high.

[Wayner]

I guess the original poster was looking for recommendations. When I was a kid, many, many, many years ago, I bought a receiver. That was what I could afford at the time. It didn't take long to realize that a receiver, like an integrated amp has many limitations. Not always the sound, but by other virtues of upgrading. The ability to change the preamp, or jump to a larger power amp (can any of you show me an integrated with 300 WRMS?) or replace a tuner. The separates have been my way for over 40 years and I could not suggest to anyone that is an audiophile to go in any other direction then separates. While the initial investment is more, the ability to upgrade pieces as you go along out way those initial costs. It's a long term investment. I also encourage folks to buy separate DACs and CD players. A Great DAC can really bring out the best in a modest CD player. I'm not slamming integrated amps, I just believe that economically,  over the long haul, and in most cases, sonically seperates are superior. AVA makes separates, Bryston makes separates, Mosecode, Dodd, Ayre, and on and on and on are all on that same plane. That is my reason for my very blunt statement.

Wayner 

[JackD201]

I've owned and used many an integrated amp over the last 30 years from both sides of the Atlantic AND Pacific. Integrated amps serve specific needs and particular people. In our distributorship, integrated amps sell like hot cakes to "non audiophiles" or folks that just like good music enough to prioritize a few Gs but are just not into the technical side of music listening. Simplicity with good sound gives the humble integrated its reason for being.

Now if these folks ever cross over into our world where we sweat every last detail to achieve those fleeting moments of immersion via the elimination of even the most benign of sonic distractions OR go so far as painting personalized sonic landscapes with gear as the paint then I guess separates are the way to go.

MY point is, integrateds may not be "The Best" (but then again, what is?) but they can definitely be "Good Enough". The listener's needs and not spec sheets IMO should always be the priority.

[JLM]

Note that "separates" can be taken even farther:

I have monoblocks (separate left and right channel power amps).  Any "real" audiophile has to have monoblocks (tongue in cheek). 

And if you insist on woofers, midrange, and/or tweeters then they must be in separate (optimized) enclosures with the crossover most certainly also in a separate enclosure (to avoid microphonics, etc.). 

Isn't this supposed to be the starting block?  Let's maintain context.

[doug s.]

while i prefer separates for their inherent flexibility, i know there are integrated amps that will compete sonically w/the best separates out there.  not on my budget, tho!   

but, as has been said before, as this thread was posted to the starting block, i suspect that, if the o.p. has a lower budget, & if he can deal w/the flexibility issue, he will get better performance w/an integrated amp then with separates.

ymmv,

doug s.

[JLM]

The best of both worlds is to look for an integrated that has pre-amp outputs and power amp inputs on the back (normally found with short/solid connectors in place).  That way later on you can keep one (say the power amp section) and replace the pre-amp (normally the pre-amp section is the weaker of the two).  Eventually you could even use it (if it has enough output) for less critical woofer bi-amping duties.

[TheChairGuy]

You can implement excellent separate-like quality into an integrated or receiver....but the market for them generally doesn't justify the price tag.

So if the disease takes you far enough into this hobby...you generally end up with separates to improve sonics.

That said, I use a Pioneer SX-a9-J receiver ($600 or so new...but I think now discontinued) today.  It's fully dual mono to the twin toroid power supplies, has built in MM and MC capability (a tuner and remote, of course), sounds great and looks handsome. 

They're economical - like it's owner

I find the internal 50 watt amps to beinferior than my tube monoblocks...so I use the preamp outs and have the tube amps driving the speakers. However, that's merely a preference not necessarily fact - if I had to use th Pioneer's amps I'd probably be no worse the time spent listening to them.

It sounds great - and much as Steve/srb (and Scotty and JLM) indicates above - they have very short signal paths, no additional (potentially troublesome) rca junctions and it even has a 'direct path' switch that shuts off all equalization and all LED's that cause noise. 

It's as luxurious a product as I can think of for USD$600.00 and heartily recommended if you want a fine 'integrated' that gives you expandability options over time 

If willing to buy used, there is a range of separates that is often 50% of it's original retail that can offer up the excitement of separates at reasonable costs.

John

FOR SALE - Fully updated Superphon Dual Mono Preamp and DM200 Amp - $800 shipped http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=72676.new#new

[woodsyi]

I use a Legend (Von Gaylord) Starlet integrated in my bedroom and I am quiet happy with it.  I, of course, got it used and upgraded the tubes.  It has active tube preamp section with Alps pot.  With the space issue, it's a perfect fit in my bedroom with 3 inputs for CD, phono and Sqeeze Box.