[werd]

Why haven't integrated amplifiers taken over? Is it pure size constraints, with people gravitating toward big power SS?  It would seem to me that in 2010 we should be able to design great audio around integrateds. It could be that they resemble HT recievers and it maybe more of a novel aesthetic constraint that holds back these 2 in 1 components.

[srb]

A well designed integrated amp has a lot going for it.  There is (should be) perfect impedance match and coupling between pre and power sections.  And with all of the talk, hype and expense of high dollar interconnects designed to "neither add or subtract from the sound, but to simply pass the sound unaltered", what could be better than incredibly short-pathed direct internal wiring?
 
Thoughtful internal shielding and compartmenting may have to be employed to prevent hefty power amp power supply interaction with the lower level preamp stage.
 
At a certain point high power will require a physically large space, and two Bryston 28Bs or BAT VK-600s monoblocks aren't going to fit in a single enclosure.  The biggest drawback to an integrated amp is probably not being able to simply change to a higher power amp, should speaker changes require it.
 
But with a limit of say 250 watts per channel, I find a robust integrated amplifier very appealing.
 
Steve
 
 

[werd]

That was good. I guess it is a bit of a hobby nerf using integrated amps. For me i like looking for pre amps that match speakers and keep  my power amps big SS. You win on the cabling for sure, a lot cheaper. But i see a lot of people who are in the category of power that an integrated would work nice for them and they use combos.

[jdbrian]

 Hi

  Interesting topic! I think most people choose separates to get the greater flexibility compared to integrated. It also allows more options for fine tuning, for example tube pre with SS power amp. I recently upgraded my amplification. I had
Rotel separates- 995 preamp and 990 200wpc power amp. I was poised to upgrade the PA first but after looking at all the alternatives
I ended up with a Wyred4sound STI500 integrated. It has all the features I need and has high power, low noise and low heat output. The sound is far superior to the Rotel's and it also eliminates a set of IC's from the equation. The cost was less than what I payed for the Rotel's 12 years ago so it offers great value to me. If I need tubes in my system I can always use a separate preamp into the STI500's programable dedicated bypass input. Even easier, for my digital only system, would be a tube buffer such as the Dodd between the source and amp. When choosing an integrated the features of the amp need to be evaluated carefully to assure it will meet your needs now and in the future.

Cheers
Brian

[davidrs]

Performance issues aside,

A 'somewhat' mature and highly fractionalized market is going to diversify and find as many niches it can fill profitably and maintain.

Plus...there are more margins and profits to keep the industry solidly behind separates and the power supplies, cabling, and additional add-ons that go with separates etc. etc.

I mean, even at the edge of the market, you need two shelves for your audio rack vs. one. Nearly everything gets multiplied by a factor of two or more. So the fabrication industry profits as well - two chassis vs. one. Two faceplates vs. one. The list goes on.

The market (us buyers) are supporting the model, sustaining it, and even demanding it.

Not saying this is wrong, just a factor and reality. If you are a supplier, the primary manufacturer or the end retailer, and everyone in-between (including advertising / journals / reviewers) etc. which option would make more sense to you? Good for jobs and the economy and our hobby. 

[nonoise]

I find integrateds to be the end all, for me. Setting aside the market's needs an integrated can answer all the needs of a music lover save for those who are never satisfied, need to experiment, or can't rid themselves of the upgrade bug. What started out as a hobby has led me to integrateds as the answer. They can sound as good as separates and saves a bunch of money in the process.
Let the music play.

[srb]

But i see a lot of people who are in the category of power that an integrated would work nice for them and they use combos.

True, but you also sometimes see a continual upgrading or swapping of preamps and power amps in search of synergy or that elusive "magic".  I suppose that also satisfies the "hunt" that is often part of this hobby.
 
And if you subscribe to the superiority of separate monoblocks next to each speaker with very short speaker cables, then that is the way you will go, even if the power requirements for those monoblocks are modest.
 
All this being said, I don't know of many integrated amplifiers that meet all of my requirements and features:
 
- 150W/ch @ 8ohm, 300W/ch @ 4ohm (minimum)
- Remote controlled
- HT Bypass
- Input Level Trim and Input Naming
 
The BAT VK-300x comes to mind, but if anyone knows of others I will add them to my list.
 
P.S.  I didn't mention the possible use of a tube preamp with a solid state power amp, this being the All Solid State circle!
 
Steve

[Letitroll98]

Thoughtful internal shielding and compartmenting may have to be employed to prevent hefty power amp power supply interaction with the lower level preamp stage.
 
At a certain point high power will require a physically large space, and two Bryston 28Bs or BAT VK-600s monoblocks aren't going to fit in a single enclosure. 

I agree with all of your positive statements on integrated amps, and there are some really nice offerings out their now.  But my quote of your post here are the two main reasons against integrated amps, PS isolation and size, which are somewhat inter-related.

[JLM]

Audiophiles want to do their own hunting and to be individuals.  So products like the Peachtree Nova (DAC, tubed pre-amp, headphone output, and power amp all in one cabinet) will never sell to audiophiles (even with mods such as underwood wally's, except in a 2nd system).

Why not go with active speakers?  The synergy issue is even more important there.  Yes, there is a possibility for significant microphonic issues, but some of the best speakers are fully (or partially with built-in woofer amps) active.  With actives you could build a very good system by simply adding a Bolder modded Logitech Touch and interconnects.

[Johnny2Bad]

All things being equal, an integrated amp should be equal to or better than separates.

The obvious qualifier there is "all things being equal". An integrated by nature will be different in at least some way from separates. Some companies incorporate different features in an integrated amp than in their separates offerings. But even if that's not the case ... even if you are given a choice where the guts are really the same. Is there shielding or other effects from putting everything in closer proximity in one box? Is there a power supply difference or an interaction? Do separates incorporate some feature designed to make them more compatible with other gear that might affect sound quality in a positive way? In a negative way?

The other factor is simply consumer choice. There is a far wider range of goods available in our marketplace as separates than as integrateds. This may be important to the listener.

I'm a fan of solid, well implemented integrated amps. They can offer a cost advantage if your budget is tight, especially if you compare what is available to you in a pure-dollar-strict-budget form. In other words, if you cannot possibly go past $4000 can you get sound quality with an integrated in that budget than you cannot get with separates? What do you give up in flexibility when you choose an integrated over separates? Is convenience and compactness important to you?

The short answer is it depends (as always) on what your needs and goals are. I think everyone should consider integrated amps as part of your shopping and evaluation, along with separates.

 I've owned both and don't regret either choice.