Integrated Amp discussion...

[highfigh]

They should have placed the internal parts of that cheap amp into an amp chassis. Talk about a lazy job.

Take a Crown, QSC, or Yamaha pro amp and place it into a real amp chassis.

My silver PCs sound so much better than any AVR because they look more like big amps. Doesn't hurt to place them near high-end speakers, not cheap speakers.

Have you listened to any of those speakers with no others in the room? Seriously. They all affect the ones that are playing, if their terminals haven't been shunted.

 

[highfigh]

I have one and I'm fortunate that I hadn't had any of the reported board issues. Great amp that can be had below $200. My only complaint was the looks so I painted the face plate.

Edit: those heat sinks kept the unit cool efficiently.

I wasn't dumping on the amp, I was dumping on Linn of Maine. I have used that model in a bar and home theater- they work great.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

IA vs AVR vs AVP - It depends on a lot of things.

1. How much money you want to spend
2. Willing to buy used vs new
3. Aesthetics
4. Beliefs in audiophile hearsay
5. 2Ch vs MCH
6. Features (bass management, DTS NeuralX, DSU, etc.)

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Have you listened to any of those speakers with no others in the room? Seriously. They all affect the ones that are playing, if their terminals haven't been shunted.

Yes. That was years, man. That's an old picture.

 

[everettT]

I wasn't dumping on the amp, I was dumping on Linn of Maine. I have used that model in a bar and home theater- they work great.

I got your point, all good. I used it to drive a pair of electrostatic panels.

 

[highfigh]

I challenge anyone to go to the bottom of the page in the link below and look at the tuners in the rankings. Then find me a receiver from the same manufacturer (or any manufacturer then or now) that has an equivalent tuner. (especially the higher ranked tuners). Or find the matching integrated and show me the comparable receiver that is better.

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/standings.html

Usually, as goes the reduced tuner quality in these receivers (all-in one units) so do the amp sections and everything else in there. BTW when these tuners were made the Receiver was king (at least in America) so the sales volume/cost argument I hear so often about AVRs is a moot point.

At this point, most tuners are a small board, with a chip and a few other components. I had a Sony ST-A7b, which was FM only and weighed 34 pounds. No circuitry was visible from above- everything had a sheet metal cover. The list price in '78 was $900 and it was beautiful-sounding. I'd like to have seen that in their comparison.

 

[everettT]

Have you listened to any of those speakers with no others in the room? Seriously. They all affect the ones that are playing, if their terminals haven't been shunted.

Drivers a rocking.

 

[highfigh]

Yes. That was years, man. That's an old picture.

Thanks for putting a time stamp on it, so we would know.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Wait you evolved from all analog? This is Trumps America

I started out all analog. I hated AVR as much as some of these guys. I didn't even use a Pre-pro.

At one point I owned 4 Analog Preamps + Amps for my 7.1 HT.

And then some years after that, I downsized to 3 Denon PMA-2000IVR Integrated amps for my 5.1 setup.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

The main culprits are the Tuner and the chassis itself.

The Tuner will make it sound sonically inferior in every way and the AVR-looking chassis will also make it sound sonically inferior.

If you want something to sound sonically superior regardless of price, you must place it into an amp chassis (not AVR) and you must remove the Tuner at all cost!

Screw the speakers and subs. It's all about amp chassis without tuners.

Come to think of it, all you have to do is put the insides of an AVR into an Amp chassis and it will sound sonically superior.

It must be the superior metal that conducts the audio signals better through the cerebral cortex.

Agreed. Beautifully said.

 

[killdozzer]

Except for the cool aesthetics, why would anyone spend a lot more money buying integrated amps when AVRs sound at least as good and cost a lot less?

Yes, it's this fact. The fact that it costs less, but from the same manufacturer that makes me think the market is being driven towards AVR’s. I understand that if you’re making only stereo amps, you won’t sell much and you have to fix your price accordingly. But IMO (and this is just a very subjective opinion) if Yamaha made an amp as in your pic and stacked it with stereo music oriented features and a reasonable price, I think it would sell more of these and wouldn’t in fact lose money because of the lower price.

Remember, in another thread you say that stereo amps are almost stripped AVR’s today, so it should cost less, right? Because it would just be reducing features and putting on a pretty face plate.

I would agree that the crowd here is extra hard on the idea of not buying what you don’t need. I remember I tried to explain this once but failed. In my eyes, even if SQ is not higher, buying a multi channel AVR is like living alone, not planning a family and buying an eight seats minivan. I just don’t need it. Six seats are going to be driven around empty for no good reason.

And I don’t really mind all-in-one’s or integrated or feature packed amp, I’m not a purist. I’d just want to get what I’ll use.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

I started out all analog. I hated AVR as much as some of these guys. I didn't even use a Pre-pro.

At one point I owned 4 Analog Preamps + Amps for my 7.1 HT.

The original Mondial Design of New York.

Paul Rosenberg and Anthony Federici

I owned their components back in the day. The original Acurus and Aragon.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Even when FM was king any manufacturer that made a receiver had a superior model that was an integrated amp with a separate tuner. There are hundreds of examples out there. The integrated usually had superior everything internally vs the receiver. Times have not changed that dramatically to alter this business model.

Not only that, most of the stand alone tuners out there have always been dramatically better than the tuners available in the comparable receiver of that brand. But both were surely better than the poor excuse for a Tuner that is found in AVRs today.

And I'm not even getting into phono stages if they still even put them in there. I know my Denon 3803 has one but it is terrible.

Receivers have always been and still are a compromise. Why would someone buy a receiver over an integrated if they don't need all the extra features? I know I wouldn't trade filter capacitance, quality heatsinks, more robust outputs and reduced complexity for features I don't need or want. Sure, if I need to run video through it I'll get a receiver, if not- why?

I challenge anyone to go to the bottom of the page in the link below and look at the tuners in the rankings. Then find me a receiver from the same manufacturer (or any manufacturer then or now) that has an equivalent tuner. (especially the higher ranked tuners). Or find the matching integrated and show me the comparable receiver that is better.

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/standings.html

Usually, as goes the reduced tuner quality in these receivers (all-in one units) so do the amp sections and everything else in there. BTW when these tuners were made the Receiver was king (at least in America) so the sales volume/cost argument I hear so often about AVRs is a moot point.

Are there isolated unscrupulous examples out there? Sure, but that is not the norm.

That FM tuner website is completely subjective.

 

[<eargiant]

Except for the cool aesthetics, why would anyone spend a lot more money buying integrated amps when AVRs sound at least as good and cost a lot less?

I guess we could argue forever about which ones actually sound better. Or we could look at actual measurements instead of hearsay and opinions.

Because some like myself do not like to fill landfills more than necessary. We like to buy something that has a better chance of lasting decades. That can often be determined by the robustness of the components used, not hearsay. At least you will know which stands a better chance.

Instantaneous measurements tell you very little if not nothing about the potential longevity of an item. Cheap is cheap, and often more expensive in the long run especially if you don't need the unit to process video in the first place.

 

[<eargiant]

That FM tuner website is completely subjective.

Go listen to one of those top 10 tuners and tell me what you think subjectively. Then, look at the design and construction (number of FM & AM gangs, etc.) one of those top 10 tuners and tell me what you think objectively.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Go listen to one of those top 10 tuners and tell me what you think subjectively. Then, look at the design and construction (number of FM & AM gangs, etc.) one of those top 10 tuners and tell me what you think objectively.

I'd be happy to listen to any of those tuners, but only blind.

In fact, one of them I used to own.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Yes, it's this fact. The fact that it costs less, but from the same manufacturer that makes me think the market is being driven towards AVR’s. I understand that if you’re making only stereo amps, you won’t sell much and you have to fix your price accordingly. But IMO (and this is just a very subjective opinion) if Yamaha made an amp as in your pic and stacked it with stereo music oriented features and a reasonable price, I think it would sell more of these and wouldn’t in fact lose money because of the lower price.

Remember, in another thread you say that stereo amps are almost stripped AVR’s today, so it should cost less, right? Because it would just be reducing features and putting on a pretty face plate.

I would agree that the crowd here is extra hard on the idea of not buying what you don’t need. I remember I tried to explain this once but failed. In my eyes, even if SQ is not higher, buying a multi channel AVR is like living alone, not planning a family and buying an eight seats minivan. I just don’t need it. Six seats are going to be driven around empty for no good reason.

And I don’t really mind all-in-one’s or integrated or feature packed amp, I’m not a purist. I’d just want to get what I’ll use.

Lost words, I'm afraid killdozzer. You're making very good points wrt quality and selecting a device to meet a requirement, but the intended recipient doesn't get it.

 

[<eargiant]

I'd be happy to listen to any of those tuners, but only blind.

In fact, one of them I used to own.

You can listen any way you want. I can't tell you what you're going to hear. Don't even know if the one you had was properly aligned. But the facts remain the same, separate tuners have almost always been better than the tuners in receivers.

Any of the many techs that specialize in tuners (yes they're still out there) that put separate tuners on test benches will show you that they dramatically outperform. Are you really going to dispute that?

Here is a tech working on and adding objective facts/observations regarding one of those top 5 subjectively ranked tuners, :

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Because some like myself do not like to fill landfills more than necessary. We like to buy something that has a better chance of lasting decades. That can often be determined by the robustness of the components used, not hearsay. At least you will know which stands a better chance. Instantaneous measurements tell you very little if not nothing about the potential longevity of an item. Cheap is cheap, and often more expensive in the long run especially if you don't need the unit to process video in the first place.

I agree that HIGH-END integrated amps may last longer than most AVRs. But I don't have any proofs either.

I don't condone a bunch of internal parts either. But that's just my personal preference too.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

You can listen any way you want. I can't tell you what you're going to hear. Don't even know if the one you had was properly aligned. But the facts remain the same, separate tuners have almost always been better than the tuners in receivers.

Any of the many techs that specialize in tuners (yes they're still out there) that put these on test benches will show you that they dramatically outperform. Are you really going to dispute that?

If the "differences" can't be heard then what we're left with is just placebophile nonsense.