price point to move to separates vs integrated

Im keeping my eyes on this thread very closely. Im definitely on that fence. My simaudio 600i is great, but since i got the Franco Serblin Ktema im lacking a little low end at low volumes. Have not spent much time swapping amps to evaluate differences, but looking forward to. My rule, separates will need to sound two times better for me to move up. Wish i had originally bought the 700i knowing i was going to purchase larger speakers in the future.

IMO there is no such thing as a “price point” in determining separates vs. integrated - it simply depends on what your goal is. If your goal is maximum flexibility in tailoring your system to the type of sound you prefer, then go with separates (or mono-blocks if one of your goals is shortest speaker cables). If your goal is less expense (via fewer ICs, power cords, power outlets), more convenience, shortest IC paths, and/or less real estate usage, then go with integrated.

04-29-13: Rockadanny
IMO there is no such thing as a “price point” in determining separates vs. integrated - it simply depends on what your goal is. If your goal is maximum flexibility in tailoring your system to the type of sound you prefer, then go with separates (or mono-blocks if one of your goals is shortest speaker cables). If your goal is less expense (via fewer ICs, power cords, power outlets), more convenience, shortest IC paths, and/or less real estate usage, then go with integrated.

While I do agree that there is no set "price point" to switch from an integrated amp to separates, I would probably re-word what you say that if your goal is maximum flexibility in tailoring your system to the type of sound that you prefer, then go with separates. If your goal is to maximize the bang for your buck sonically, then go with an integrated amp. I wouldn't say that if your goal is less expense go integrated amp anymore than I would say if your goal is more expense go separates. Generally, people go with separates because they want more flexibility, it's not because they are simply looking for more expense. Same with integrated amps, generally people are looking to get the most sound for their buck, a preamp that will mate with their amp, no guessing games, they are not necessarily looking for less expense.

As I posted earlier, I know of a $6500 integrated amp that has embarrassed many more expensive separates, costing over $20,000. I also know of integrated amps that cost more than $10,000 or even $20,000. So it's not necessary to equate an integrated amp with cheap. More cost effective? Yes, simply by limiting the chassis', power supplies, and other double dipped items.

Sure, you could certainly spend a lot more money on separates, buying 4 box amplifiers (each monoblock having it's own separate power supply, etc.), 3 chassis preamps, etc., could put you well over $100,000. You can spend a WHOLE lot more money if you want to. Most of us economize to some extent. Economizing, or simplifying, doesn't necessarily mean the sound has to suffer. I've heard stereo amps that outperform monoblock amps. I've heard single chassis preamps outperform dual box preamps. I've heard integrated amps outperform separates.

I post this because I am currently considering an integrated amp, but I don't think I can afford it. At a $15,000 list price, it costs more than my separates do. I don't consider myself making this move with a goal of "less expense".

I wouldn't say that if your goal is less expense go integrated amp anymore than I would say if your goal is more expense go separates.

You misinterpreted my meaning. "Less expense (via fewer ICs, power cords, power outlets)". You can save money by installing fewer ICs, power cords, power outlets, dedicated lines, etc. That equates to less expense for ancillary equipment. I did not mean less expense because integrateds are cheaper.