Integrated Amp discussion...

[AcuDefTechGuy]

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.

Yeah, at the end of the day, I think it comes down to just pure personal preference, which is perfectly okay until people start adding a bunch of personal theories, hearsay, and adjectives about how one sounds better than the other based on what others say.

The comparison between Integrated amps vs AVR (if this is the TRUE purpose of this thread by the Original Poster),should be purely about personal preferences.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with personal preference.

1. IA has a lot less internal parts, so it's possible IA may last longer than AVR
2. Can't argue about aesthetics - IA may look a lot sexier
3. Pride of ownership - can't argue here if that's how people feel
4. IA has a lot less features you don't use

But to say that a $800 MSRP IA has so much better high-end parts than a $1,600 MSRP AVR is far off (if someone were to say that ).

Now I think most of us would believe that a $3500 or $7000 Yamaha A-S3000 Integrated Amp might have higher-end parts and may last a lot longer than most AVRs (I've owned AVRs that lasted 20 years). Just not the cheap $800 Integrated amps. Please.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Now I think most of us would believe that a $3500 or $7000 Yamaha A-S3000 Integrated Amp might have higher-end parts and may last a lot longer than most AVRs.

But as you know through experience with your very expensive Denon prepro, there is still no guarantee of longevity.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

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.

The intended recipient(s) has owned a lot of high-end expensive integrated amps, DAC, CD players, Tuners, analog preamps, amps, wires and interconnects and speakers.

 

[<eargiant]

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

Keep dreaming. It's obvious you have never heard a good separate tuner vs the very best tuner in a receiver.

Watch the videos of the separate Tuner I posted above.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

But as you know through experience with your very expensive Denon prepro, there is still no guarantee of longevity.

Yeah, I was waiting to see if anyone caught that. Haha.

Of course, the $7,500 Denon AVP-A1HDCI, which I bought brand new, has a lot more internal parts - layers and layers of circuit boards pile upon one another. It's ridiculous. I think (personally, of course) that it gives separates a bad name.

Give me that simple pre-pro design of DataSat/ATI/Monoprice HTP-1 any day over that Denon AVP-A1HDCI.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Keep dreaming. It's obvious you have never heard a good separate tuner vs the very best tuner in a receiver.

Watch the videos I posted above.

Oh, I was dreaming 20 years ago back in my foolish, audiophile days.

I owned an expensive, separate "audiophile" tuner. One of those on their list.

What did it sound like?

Well, it sounded just like....a tuner.

Maybe it pulled in some far away stations a little better than the tuner in my Yamaha receiver, but probably not.

The Emperor has no clothes, he's "dreaming". He just thinks he does.

 

[<eargiant]

Oh, I was dreaming 20 years ago back in my foolish, audiophile days.

I owned an expensive, separate "audiophile" tuner. One of those on their list.

What did it sound like?

Well, it sounded just like....a tuner.

Maybe it pulled in some far away stations a little better than the tuner in my Yamaha receiver, but probably not.

If you say so.

 

[killdozzer]

Still, I think you're at the extremes of this converstion. It's a smoother gradation.

I do think something's missing in the market today. I'll try to share my vision of „sound first“ approach that might differ slightly or, rather, is a combination of stereo and HT.

First of, good sub region means the sub has to move independent of main speakers > it has to be at least a 2.1 system > it will profit from good bass management. Then, you still have a couple of records you like > phono stage, but it's mainly digital these days > there has to be a DAC > it wouldn't hurt to have an USB connection as PC is often used in playing music. Of course, if you have a year or two under your belt, you went through the CD phase and you're not throwing those, why would you > enough inputs for other sources. Headphones should be taken seriously as well.

So a pre-amp that features all of these on top of a serious, beefy 4ohm capable amp of at least 2x80 into 8. I sincerely wouldn't mind if it was an integrated.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Keep dreaming. It's obvious you have never heard a good separate tuner vs the very best tuner in a receiver.

Watch the videos of the separate Tuner I posted above.

I used to own a separate $500 Tuner a long time ago when I owned all analogs.

I do believe subjectively that it sounded better than the regular AVR/AVP tuners. But I don't think it was nigh-and-day and definitely not worth the money.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This is definitely another Separates vs AVR thread.

We just can't get enough. Gotta stir up the pot.

 

[killdozzer]

Yeah, at the end of the day, I think it comes down to just pure personal preference, which is perfectly okay until people start adding a bunch of personal theories, hearsay, and adjectives about how one sounds better than the other based on what others say.

The comparison between Integrated amps vs AVR (if this is the TRUE purpose of this thread by the Original Poster),should be purely about personal preferences.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with personal preference.

1. IA has a lot less internal parts, so it's possible IA may last longer than AVR
2. Can't argue about aesthetics - IA may look a lot sexier
3. Pride of ownership - can't argue here if that's how people feel
4. IA has a lot less features you don't use

But to say that a $800 MSRP IA has so much better high-end parts than a $1,600 MSRP AVR is far off (if someone were to say that ).

Now I think most of us would believe that a $3500 or $7000 Yamaha A-S3000 Integrated Amp might have higher-end parts and may last a lot longer than most AVRs. Just not the cheap $800 Integrated amps. Please.

I'm not all that into comparing 2ch with AVR's. I'm trying to add some new dimension to this topic. It's not about "pure 2ch vs. all inclusive AVR's". I don't mind features, but I wonder why I don't see more of these "music only" amps with all the "music orientated" features. THOSE are missing.

And since you said a lot of cheaper 2ch are stripped AVR's, you could have a nice stereo amp with everything I listed and it could be cheaper for the price of everything video related. I think there's a market for these. I could be judging the world through my needs, though.

 

[killdozzer]

I mean, if the sound is what is important to you, then you have to accept the laws of acoustics and understand that the placement of the sub is very often different from the placement of the mains. As soon as you accept that, you have every right to ask why the f... does that Yamaha amp cost so much and boast with its dedication to sound and it doesn't have a sub out. That's just old school audio purist (dumb).

I added dumb because it is precisely the audio purist that should opt for separate sub since it clearly benefits the sound in your room. If you’re sacrificing the sound quality because of the mental image of two towers standing in front of you and you have some religious experience while gazing at them as two monoliths from 2001, then you’re not about music. Then your set-up probably represents your father/altair.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

If you say so.

What I find so interesting is their fixation over that Kenwood tuner that seems to beat out anything they throw at it. That should be a red flag right there. And I have nothing against that Kenwood tuner. Somebody there through his own stubborn, cognitive bias won't let anything defeat that Kenwood. It's sitting on an invincible throne in his mind.

 

[<eargiant]

What I find so interesting is their fixation over that Kenwood tuner that seems to beat out anything they throw at it. That should be a red flag right there. And I have nothing against that Kenwood tuner. Somebody there through his own stubborn, cognitive bias won't let anything defeat that Kenwood. It's sitting on an invincible throne in his mind.

Forget the subjective rankings and focus on the objective truths related to those top 10 subjectively ranked tuners.

What I find so interesting is how members on a site that claims to be science based and objective throw objective facts and fantastic engineering out the window when it suits them.

If they sound the same to you, there's nothing I can do about that.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm not all that into comparing 2ch with AVR's. I'm trying to add some new dimension to this topic. It's not about "pure 2ch vs. all inclusive AVR's". I don't mind features, but I wonder why I don't see more of these "music only" amps with all the "music orientated" features. THOSE are missing.

And since you said a lot of cheaper 2ch are stripped AVR's, you could have a nice stereo amp with everything I listed and it could be cheaper for the price of everything video related. I think there's a market for these. I could be judging the world through my needs, though.

It comes down to price for most people.

If you just need 2Ch, it makes sense to buy a 2Ch receiver or integrated amp if it were less expensive than the AVR and has enough power for your system.

For example, if you have 2 cheap B&W speakers and just need a 2Ch amp, you could just get a $150 Yamaha R-S202 stereo receiver and call it a day.

But if the stereo receiver or integrated amp doesn't have the power output you want for the same price as the AVR, then get the AVR.

 

[GrimSurfer]

It comes down to price for most people.

If you just need 2Ch, it makes sense to buy a 2Ch receiver or integrated amp if it were less expensive than the AVR and has enough power for your system.

But if the 2Ch receiver or Integrated Amp costs $500 w/ 50WPC and you can get an AVR for $500 w/ 120WPC, then I would take the AVR for more power.

It might be easier to look at actual cases/examples.

But performance and suitability have to factor somewhere into the calculus. Otherwise, one just wastes money.

You should look up the relationship between power output and spl. Doubling the power doesn't equal twice as much spl, but only incrementally more spl.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You should look up the relationship between power output and spl. Doubling the power doesn't equal twice as much spl, but only incrementally more spl.

Wow. I never knew that after all these years. Geez.

Isn't there something like an SPL calculator that tells us how much power the speakers need based on SPL, listening distance, speaker sensitivity, placement from walls?

I don't know what those variables are, could you please explain?

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

What I find so interesting is how members on a site that claims to be science based and objective throw objective facts and fantastic engineering out the window when it suits them.

Boy isn't that the truth. Maybe it's because of how they're evaluating the various devices.

When it comes to sighted listening, there's a lot power to be had in ego-gratification.

 

[killdozzer]

It comes down to price for most people.

If you just need 2Ch, it makes sense to buy a 2Ch receiver or integrated amp if it were less expensive than the AVR and has enough power for your system.

For example, if you have 2 cheap B&W speakers and just need a 2Ch amp, you could just get a $150 Yamaha R-S202 stereo receiver and call it a day.

But if the stereo receiver or integrated amp doesn't have the power output you want for the same price as the AVR, then get the AVR.

I'm not lost about what I would do. It's not like we're trying to solve a particular need or problem here. This is just chit-chat, getting to know everyone. I've just noticed that every time I try to conceive a perfect system (perfect for me, of course) I have to go way around to achieve it. And there always have to be some extra 7 channels and all the video wizardry and so on.

What I wanted to discuss with you was the price because of your generalization on stereo amps. It’s alright, I get it it’s an oversimplification, but it holds true to some degree. I also don’t think that comparing 800$ AVR and 800$ amp from Yamaha, that the amp will have better parts. But this is precisely the reason why I ask about the price. Relieve the amp of extra channels; remove all the video features, make a pretty face plate (since stereo folk like this) and offer that with a price reduced for all the video features.

I think it would have some traction. (At least with all the people who don’t want to go for the AVR’s, I mean only here we’ve seen myriads and there’s bound to be more out there)

 

[Irvrobinson]

I mean, if the sound is what is important to you, then you have to accept the laws of acoustics and understand that the placement of the sub is very often different from the placement of the mains. As soon as you accept that, you have every right to ask why the f... does that Yamaha amp cost so much and boast with its dedication to sound and it doesn't have a sub out. That's just old school audio purist (dumb).

I added dumb because it is precisely the audio purist that should opt for separate sub since it clearly benefits the sound in your room. If you’re sacrificing the sound quality because of the mental image of two towers standing in front of you and you have some religious experience while gazing at them as two monoliths from 2001, then you’re not about music. Then your set-up probably represents your father/altair.

I don't believe it. I'm in complete agreement with something killdozzer is posting.