From separates to reciever?

Yes.

But it coming back full circle.

I had a 2-channel system with separate pre and power, even eq, TT, CD and big tower speakers.

Family obligations meant less time with the system and my interest waned.

Then the family wanted a HT system - so I went that route and got rid of the separates (kept the power amp).

I started with a Yamaha AVR (V1800) and a modest 5.1 setup, but then I found that this was rekindling my interest and love of music.

So, wanting more out of the HT setup, I dabbled with bringing the power amp back in, hooking up the TT - but always wanted 'more' (you know the elusive 'more' factor).

Went thru several speaker upgrades, all the cabling, dedicated SACD player - but the biggest step was building a hybrid HT/music rig with a nice integrated amp with HT bypass.

So, all of my music sources connect directly to that!

Almost full circle... ;-)

I've gone from separates to an integrated amp, but never back to a receiver.

I also have gone from separates to an integrated amplifier. If this is a 2 channel audio system, I would strongly suggest an integrated amplifier. In my home theater system, I am using the Ayre AX-7e integrated amplifier and not a receiver. If your single system is being used for 2 channel audio and home theater, I would still recommend an integrated amplifier. I suggest you listen to some units but I believe you will get better sound quality from the integrated amplifier.

6month -

stick w/ separates.

thanks all, the emotive umc-200 is the processor i'm getting. after all the research it's had to go backwards. the receivers with pre-outs all are priced around $800-$1000. the emotive is only $600.