Reciver/Integrated same sound?

obviously, merely being made by the same maufacturer won't cause the integrated and receiver to sound identical (any more than a lexus will perform like a scion). assuming the integrated and amp have identical power supplies, transformers and other guts, they should sound very close. i've owned both the nad 3020 integrated and its receiver version, the 7020 and couldn't hear any difference; likewise a yamaha rx-1000u receiver and supposedly identically-built cx integrated. however, as stated above, in the usual case receiver manufacturers are forced to make cost or design compromises to jam extra stuff into the box; likewise the extra circuitry and functions can compromise sound quality. none of which means that an integrated will always outperform a well-designed receiver.

That one could not tell the difference between a NAD receiver and a NAD integrated doesn't say a lot to me. Yes, I think NAD is seriously overrated. Slow, dark and veiled. Can't imagine how you could tell the difference between components unless we're distinguishing the difference between muddy and slightly less muddy.

Very rarely did receivers come close to the performance of integrated amps; they were made for different markets and to different standards. Two integrated amps from the same company were not guaranteed to sound the same; let alone an amp and a receiver.

Receiver can mean 2 channels with a tuner, or a multi channel SSP? Regardless, an integrated amp at the same price should outperform it, although it may not be obvious with all speakers. You'd expect a lot of the difference to show up in drive capability and that would be more apparent with difficult to drive speakers. A pretty common disagreement around these parts is whether a high end integrated can outperform separates - so they can certainly be made to very high performance levels.