integrateds in the modern age: consensus?

If I were into SS sound I would have an integrated amp provided it had high power and current delivery capacity so it could drive different speakers easily. That way I wouldn't have to buy a new unit if I changed speakers. But I'm not.....

I like tubes and I like the flexibility of being able to make tonal adjustments by just changing tubes to accomodate different placements, rooms, speakers or new source equipment. Having a pre-amp gives me one more location to make changes (although I rarely mess with the pre-amp). Tinkering can be fun on a rainy day! :-)

here's a shocker.....last time i checked, many worthy tube pre amps as well as ss integrateds had tone controls..... everyone from saul marantz to frank mcintosh saw as a way to adjust your stereo system's balance to the room it is in. this beats changing tubes everytime you scoot your speakers around or move to a different room or change listening chairs

I am a current owner of the Edge G3, this after years of seperates and other integrateds. I am completely happy with the G3, match it with a great source (for me the Naim CDX2) and speakers and it works. It works better for me then most seperates. I must admit WAF and space drove me to take a close look at integrateds.

I am reviewer for Positive-feedback.com and have had the chance to listen to several integrateds. My review of the Plinius 9100 and the G3 will be posted soon.

If I had a dedicated listening room and mucho $$$ of course I could do better. All in all I am not feeling the least bit deprived.

I agree that the integrated amp has been elevated to a viable high-end product. That said most manufactures that make “high-end” integrated amps also produce more expensive, farther-up-the-chain separates.

Here is an excerpt from the Levinson site on some pros for the integrated amp:

Combining power and preamplifier functions into a single chassis is a well-established method of delivering high performance in a more convenient and cost-effective package. In addition to savings on chassis and shipping cartons, two interconnect cables and their associated connectors are eliminated. With preamp and power amp sections designed to work together, the preamp output buffer (found on separate preamplifiers so they can be used with a wide range of amplifiers) may be eliminated.

Here is an excerpt from Larry Greenhill in a Stereophile review.

Why is the integrated more economical? It's less expensive to build, having just one chassis and shipping carton... …and achieve further savings with a closed design that doesn't interface with other amplifiers or preamplifiers. This eliminates the circuits for a preamplifier output buffer and power-amp input buffer.

There are other savings. Packing a stereo preamplifier and two amplifier channels into one chassis saves space. Hum is reduced because amplifier and preamplifier now share exactly the same ground voltage, so less shielding is required. … Equipment clutter goes down, and the spouse acceptance factor goes up. This "sweet spot" of compact size and affordability keeps the integrated alive.

Most of us here know the importance of synergy in a system, with an integrated amp two (or three if you count the PC) variables are eliminated; those being, matching the amp and pre and also matching an extra interconnect.

Separates also have their pros, such as more flexibility and the chassis being separate give manufacturers more room to “elaborate” on their designs…

I don’t think we can categorically say there is a price point where an integrated is comparable to separates; there are too many variables and always exceptions. It simply comes down to two separate options to the same means.