Separates or Integrated? What makes more sense?

tyan42
Separates or Integrated? What makes more sense?

Separates because these days, systems have heaps of gain, and may have too much, and you could be better off sonicly using a passive preamp.
With an integrated you've got no options, unless the integrated has inputs on the back (power-amp in) to bypass the preamp stage, not many have this option. 

Remember what Nelson Pass said here.

Nelson Pass,

"We’ve got lots of gain in our electronics. More gain than some of us need or want. At least 10 db more.

Think of it this way: If you are running your volume control down around 9 o’clock, you are actually throwing away signal level so that a subsequent gain stage can make it back up.

Routinely DIYers opt to make themselves a “passive preamp” - just an input selector and a volume control.

What could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors – just musical perfection.

And yet there are guys out there who don’t care for the result. “It sucks the life out of the music”, is a commonly heard refrain (really - I’m being serious here!). Maybe they are reacting psychologically to the need to turn the volume control up compared to an active preamp."

Cheers George

Seems like there has been a lot of work on new integrated amps and they are now much better than 10 or 20 years ago. One I heard at an audio show that was really good was Absolare.

I have mainly seen plus sides of separates described in this thread and just want to say that the plus of integrated (except less space) is that it is fewer chassis and sometimes fewer parts (and cables) and can therefore, theoretically, be cheaper for the same sound quality.

As for sound differences, I suppose one question I'd have is this: In what circumstance could you do an blind A/B comparison with similarly high-quality equipment (i.e., the same manufacturer who offers both similarly priced separates and IA) in order to tell the differences? Otherwise, the comparisons would be hard for me to make due to all kinds of other factors (power, synergy with other components, etc.). Others may have keener senses or memory powers than I, but I find it very hard to assert either differences in overall quality or what is responsible for those differences, when heard. So many variables are changing.

I am currently considering this question, and many things I hear sound equally "good" but different, when they are above a certain quality level. Then, I return to other considerations — do I want to change out a separate later on, for fun? How will these work with my space? If I wanted to set up in another room, would both be equally moveable? What if I want to change speakers — would there be some advantage with IA or separates, there?

When I was young, separated were the way to go. Two things have changed. First, engineers have learned to build power and pre in the same box. Second the transformers and chassis have become much more expensive relative to the electronics. Listen to an Ayre AX5 and try to find separates that match the sound quality!

Separates allow you a lot more flexibility and greater resolution. They allow you to improve your setup incrementally, which is great on the budget!


In the resolution department as an example, you can keep your speaker cables short by placing the amplifiers right by the speakers. It was this very issue that caused me to look into balanced operation back in the 1980s; at the time it was impractical to place my equipment stand between the speakers so I was running fairly long speaker cables. When I got the balanced line preamp running and then ran short speaker cables, the increase in resolution was dramatic! Since then I have seen and demonstrated this many times.


Integrated amps can be very nice but in a nutshell represent a compromise.