Recievers versus separates

Separates are more tweekable. Every separate component I have in my main system that is included with a receiver is a different brand. Did not start out this way, but by swapping different things over time. This includes things like trying different cables links between components.

A smaller system in my den/home office has an integrated amp. The rest are separates. More of a space issue and its good enough as is.

My HT system in the family room has a HT receiver (Onkyo). The only separate is the DVD player (there are receivers where this is built-in also). This was done because it is good enough for me for movies, the rest of the family likes it, and it is easy for them to use. They are not into gadgets and just want to plug and play.

So I guess I believe in separates where the sound is the most important thing. I will compromise for convenience.

The Magnum Dynalab receiver (designed with Sim Audio) has received some glowing reviews, and at $2k list may be worth investigating? My concerns with all-in-one units is a lack of flexibility when it comes time to upgrade, and the power supplies aren't usually big beefy beasts like those found in quality separates. In theory, recievers ought to be better, since the tuner and preamp are hard-wired and have very short cable runs internally, as opposed to separates that rely on IC's.

I would go with inexpensive separates. You can have great performance from brands such as adcom, mccormack and conrad-johnson (even more so if you are willing to go to lesser known brands). The quality and longevity will be greater too.

The modern denon receivers are some of the better sounding ones out there. They still have a little 'haze' and metallic tinge to their sound. Fine for home theater. Fine if it doesn't bother you. I don't think their sound even approaches something like an adcom 750 mated to a mccormack dna amp.

I have to apologize for my last post -- somehow I was stuck on thinking that "separates" meant monoblocks and described what I saw as the difference between stereo and mono amps. I'm should know better than to try and think before noon. Anyway, I believe that the power supply arguments apply to pretty much any piece of audio gear, but I'm not sure I can place my finger on the specific technical differnce between a receiver and separate preamp/amp.

However, as mentioned by others, I've always found the sound of separates to be somewhat finer than that of a comparable quality receiver. Perhaps its the need for each component to stand on its own against others of its kind that causes the manufacturers to put a bit more effort into designing and producing them. Maybe its that folks are willing to pay more for separates that enables them to be of generally higher quality (at the very least, two power supplies rather than just one). Or maybe its just all in my head. In any case, if you have the opportunity to listen to comparable systems of both types, it might be worth the effort to see if the marketing blurb is real, or just hype.

Cheers,
Ken

Depends on what you seek from the system.
For me, I have Marantz SR18EX receiver, which some say is as close to separate as possible. I bought good front speaker because I thought Marantz deserved better speakers. Then, I bought stereo integrated amp ($3K) because the new speakers deserved better amp for 2 channel use. The sound is REALLY night and day. See? Bottomline - if you use the system for 2 channle music more than movie or other HT use, then you must know that receiver ($3K to $5K) is not good enough. I have not compared with separate multi channel system, but I am sure the separate decent power amp is far better than the amp section of the receiver. Now I really regret spending so much on receiver.

BTW, I still use Marantz for movies connecting paralell - doing a good job for movies. Movie is movie. A movie theater is NOT a concert hall.