Separates vs. Integrated

Except for the cost, I don't understand the 'no interconnect' as a plus for integrated amps. Is there nothing connecting the sections within a one-chassis? And there are those who rewire the inside of thier components with wire from ICs. Its an inconsequential debate, but I think the no-ic-plus is a farce.

I think that the power amp with integrated passive volume controls, ala Berning and Tenor, is starting to take hold. For those who don't need input switching, this is a real money saver. However, personally I would rather go the other way than this thread suggests, and go with monoblock amps and monoblock preamps, all with separate individual power supplies for total segregation of the signal and power supplies. In the phono, I'l like to keep that format, with 2 mono phono sections with individual power supplies like the Aesthetix IO. I feel that 2 completely separate mono systems, that join only at the cartridge, or the CD player is the ideal way to go, given good design criteria and execution of the products.
With integrateds, there is the inevitable sharing of circuitry that will degrade the potential maximum sound quality produced.

"Separate components will always offer the potential of superior sound". Why ? Give me an engineering principle why this is so. The marketers may decide that the integrated will not be their top-of-the-line, but I see no reason why it can't be. Power supplies can be separated for pre and power stages, and dual-mono construction can be used.
To me there is no reason that separates should be better than an integrated or vice-versa ... you should choose the amp appropriately for your system.

SDT99, it's more of a practical issue than anything else. There's no physical or engineering reason why someone couldn't build a 500 watt per channel tube integrated amp with phono preamps and enough power supplies to put a smile on Twl's face, but it would end up being the size of a Sub Zero. Is it marketing or is it common sense?

My 2 cents. I would recommed you get a very nice power amp, and a passive pre. Money spent -> 80% for power amp, and 20% for passive.

Unless you have more than a few components to play and you value the convenience of not pulling cables whenever you switch the input sources, power amp + passive pre (such as FT Audio which I still own) or power amp which has volume control (such as Berning which I own and love) is the way to go, IMO. If you have only CDP which has relaiable enough volume control, then you don't even need a passive pre amp. Just feed directly to the power amp like I do.
I still don't understand why people expect a pre-amp to do what power amp is supposed to do other than volume control and input selection (and maybe phono section).

Of course, your taste may vary. You have to decide yourself. Listen for yourself. But if you like the sound with pre amp, you should wonder why that power amp cannot sound like this without pre amp. Something must be missing (synergy? chemical reaction? or inherent lack of xxx?) there. There may be some power amps which are designed to be purchased together with the same mfg's pre amp (meaning that power amp is not manufactured to sound great without the better half). That may be a marketing strategy or customer service. Some people may prefer complex "machine" sitting in the living room. There also may be many manufacturers like that, and some people may choose to combine one power amp with another mfg's pre amp. Like I said, some people may prefer different brands sitting on the same rack. Again, it's the question of your taste. There is no good or bad. Whatever sounds best is what you have been looking for.

I am a minimalist and a simple-mind guy, and I may be wrong as usual.