Why are separates so much more expensive?

[TLS Guy]

Is this just your theory, or have you actually done an A/B comparison between separates and a receiver with the same power output (same source, speakers, room, etc., of course)?

No because my speakers would never drive from a receiver. My fronts require six amps alone, 14 for the whole rig. My previous two channel rig required four amps.

The other issue is that I have played with amps and gear for years. The amps in receivers are usually current limited for lots reasons, and their output stages are biased far too far to class B operation for my tastes. I like my sounds in a really silky smooth flavor. I use unusual class C feed forward amps designed by the late Peter Walker OBE. We were very sympatico.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

No because my speakers would never drive from a receiver. My fronts require six amps alone, 14 for the whole rig. My previous two channel rig required four amps.

The other issue is that I have played with amps and gear for years. The amps in receivers are usually current limited for lots reasons, and their output stages are biased far too far to class B operation for my tastes. I like my sounds in a really silky smooth flavor. I use unusual class C feed forward amps designed by the late Peter Walker OBE. We were very sympatico.

Ah. I need to remember this about you, and ignore your advice in the future. Nothing against you, you understand, we just live in different universes so that nothing that applies to your system is in any way relevant to that of we ordinary mortals.

 

[Soundman]

The cost of production for separates is a little higher because receivers share a lot of things like cabinet, power supply, packaging etc. etc. However the main reason you such a huge difference in price production volume. Separates are a tiny piece of market compared to receivers.

I should also mention that they are also higher because they can be. Separates are purchased by more hardcore enthusiasts who are willing to and expect to pay more for equipment.

Very good points. Also, separates are just higher quality. Most of the ones I've seen seem to be built rock solid, wheras alot of receivers just look cheap by comparison. Plus, I don't know of any receivers that are going to give me 200 "REAL" WPC. I suppose there are some as maybe a flagship receiver, but for that price, you might as well get a nice separate system.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... Higher quality is just more costly to produce.

Except that WmAx looked inside the Behringer A500 and found plenty of quality parts yet the amp sells for about $180.
The name on the nameplate is expensive at times. The market has something to do with it as well.

 

[fmw]

Very good points. Also, separates are just higher quality. Most of the ones I've seen seem to be built rock solid, wheras alot of receivers just look cheap by comparison. Plus, I don't know of any receivers that are going to give me 200 "REAL" WPC. I suppose there are some as maybe a flagship receiver, but for that price, you might as well get a nice separate system.

Thanks, but 20 wpc is more than enough for the typical home theater, let alone 200 wpc - particularly one with powered sub. If a 200 wpc amplifier were actually run at full power it would blow circuit breakers and break speakers. You couldn't use all that power even if you wanted to or had equipment that could take it.

I have a receiver with 130 "real" wpc and that is a difference of only 2 db in overhead from 200 wpc - barely audible. The receiver is built like tank and looks super to me. I doubt the amps have ever been asked to put out more than 15 wpc.

I Used to use a preamp/processor and an array of 3 stereo amplifiers until May of last year. I switched to a receiver for the convenience of it. Glad I did. I'm not against separates, I just understand that their real purpose is to make their owners happier, not their home theaters more effective. Been there done that I don't know how many times. Too many for sure. Take care.

 

[Seth=L]

Thanks, but 20 wpc is more than enough for the typical home theater, let alone 200 wpc - particularly one with powered sub. If a 200 wpc amplifier were actually run at full power it would blow circuit breakers and break speakers. You couldn't use all that power even if you wanted to or had equipment that could take it.

I have a receiver with 130 "real" wpc and that is a difference of only 2 db in overhead from 200 wpc - barely audible. The receiver is built like tank and looks super to me. I doubt the amps have ever been asked to put out more than 15 wpc.

I Used to use a preamp/processor and an array of 3 stereo amplifiers until May of last year. I switched to a receiver for the convenience of it. Glad I did. I'm not against separates, I just understand that their real purpose is to make their owners happier, not their home theaters more effective. Been there done that I don't know how many times. Too many for sure. Take care.

Seperate amplifiers have more headroom and can have dramatic results with certain speakers and listening habits.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Is this just your theory, or have you actually done an A/B comparison between separates and a receiver with the same power output (same source, speakers, room, etc., of course)?

Must be. Not aware of a DBT showing his theory to be correct

Certainly the famous 'Steve Zipser' amp DBT shows that a $300 Yam integrated was not differentiated from a $15k monoblock.

 

[Seth=L]

Must be. Not aware of a DBT showing his theory to be correct

Certainly the famous 'Steve Zipser' amp DBT shows that a $300 Yam integrated was not differentiated from a $15k monoblock.

LMAO, always making me laugh.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I know separates are supposed to sound better than receivers or integrated amps, .

Well, lots of things are 'supposed to' but in reality it isn't

 

[fmw]

Seperate amplifiers have more headroom and can have dramatic results with certain speakers and listening habits.

Nonsense. Perhaps you mean to say some separate amplifiers have more headroom than some receivers. The reverse is also true. Some receivers have more headroom than some separate amplifiers. You would also need to define dramatic to get me anywhere near accepting such a broad statement.

There is no electronic theorem that says that adding other functions to an amplifier causes it to have less headroom. Just isn't true.

Sorry.

 

[sparky77]

Ah yes, features. Here are the features I want: One stereo input for a CD player, a volume control, and one pair of speaker jacks. That's it.

IMO, go out and buy a component switcher, and check out a few books from the library and build your own volume controler. That way you even have the satisfaction of doing it yourself, and no more bowing down to the highpriced corporations.

edit: Forgot to mention, not all of us have the benefit of a budget related to a 200grand a year income.

 

[TLS Guy]

Ah. I need to remember this about you, and ignore your advice in the future. Nothing against you, you understand, we just live in different universes so that nothing that applies to your system is in any way relevant to that of we ordinary mortals.

You are a wise man. And if there were more like you we would not have this mortgage mess.

However in my defense it is fun to push the boundaries and someone has to. I think however that sooner than you think more systems will have a game plan like mine and a price tag for a Joe Schmoe budget.

There is revolution in the air. Current amp designs have more similarities than differences from tube design. It is now 60 years on since Harold J. Leak used negative feedback to make an amp with 0.1% THD. Many regard that milestone as the beginning of the Hi-Fi era.

Now the class D amp is really getting ready to take over. It already powers your subs. The problem of high distortion and non linear output impedance has been solved. Pulse width modulation has been adapted to modulate the input and solve the above problems. Bottom line: - smaller more powerful amps that run totally cool, and have specs better than anything seen before. And the best part for you Joe, at lower prices than current designs.

Now the part that really limits even the best speakers is the analog crossover. This new technology coupled with new digital crossover techniques will put the amps in the speaker where they belong. One amp for each speaker or speakers driven from the relevant crossover output. It won't be long before you all have at least two amps in each speaker and if it is a three way, three amps.

You won't have those bulky receivers everybody is talking about either, so you had all better start scoping out your preamp processors. But Joe, save your pennies until everyone starts buying them, then the cost will rapidly fall.

May be my system is not so strange, just a sign of good things to come for all.

So get ready to pull your speaker cables and change it for balanced audio cable. But no wait, it might be a digital interface to some not yet named standard. Yes it will all come sooner than you think.

 

[Soundman]

Thanks, but 20 wpc is more than enough for the typical home theater, let alone 200 wpc - particularly one with powered sub. If a 200 wpc amplifier were actually run at full power it would blow circuit breakers and break speakers. You couldn't use all that power even if you wanted to or had equipment that could take it.

I have a receiver with 130 "real" wpc and that is a difference of only 2 db in overhead from 200 wpc - barely audible. The receiver is built like tank and looks super to me. I doubt the amps have ever been asked to put out more than 15 wpc.

I Used to use a preamp/processor and an array of 3 stereo amplifiers until May of last year. I switched to a receiver for the convenience of it. Glad I did. I'm not against separates, I just understand that their real purpose is to make their owners happier, not their home theaters more effective. Been there done that I don't know how many times. Too many for sure. Take care.

First of all, let me quote Seth by saying, "Separate amplifiers have more headroom and can have dramatic results with certain speakers and listening habits." Secondly, my comments had nothing to do with convenience. If you are happy with your receiver then fine. That's all that really matters, that you are happy with the gear you are using. Again, my comments had nothing do do with that. I was merely stating why separates are more expensive, they cost more for a number of reasons and are of higher quality then the average receiver. Whether or not you use it to it's full potential is entirely up to the end user.

 

[fmw]

First of all, let me quote Seth by saying, "Separate amplifiers have more headroom and can have dramatic results with certain speakers and listening habits." Secondly, my comments had nothing to do with convenience. If you are happy with your receiver then fine. That's all that really matters, that you are happy with the gear you are using. Again, my comments had nothing do do with that. I was merely stating why separates are more expensive, they cost more for a number of reasons and are of higher quality then the average receiver. Whether or not you use it to it's full potential is entirely up to the end user.

Unfortunately Seth's quote is incorrect. To say some separate amplifiers have more headroom than some receivers would be correct. Nothing in the world of amplifier design says adding a preamp and tuner to a power amplifier's cabinet and power supply must by definition reduce its overhead. Many factors are involved and "separateness" isn't one of them.

Your statement that separate amplifiers are higher in quality is also incorrect. It would be correct to say that some separate amplifiers are higher in quality. Just as there are some bad receivers, there are also some bad separate amplifiers.

The last statement about using it to its full potential is also incorrect. The problem is that you CANNOT use a 200 wpc amplifier to its full potential without installing a special electrical service and using speakers capable of managing all that current. These things are rarely done by audiophiles. So it isn't up to the end user. It is up to the laws of physics and factors beyond the amplifier and the end user themselves. Hope that helps just a little.

One thing I will do, however, is stop trying to educate people here about amplifiers. The truth isn't popular here and people don't really want to hear it. So I'll let it go. Take care.

 

[Alex2507]

I thought the truth was popular here and I do want to hear it. I'm sure there's plenty just like me on this site. Keep bringing us to the light. I'd rather learn from the mistakes of others.

 

[orAgon]

I thought the truth was popular here and I do want to hear it. I'm sure there's plenty just like me on this site. Keep bringing us to the light. I'd rather learn from the mistakes of others.

+1. I second the motion.

 

[3db]

Seperate amplifiers have more headroom and can have dramatic results with certain speakers and listening habits.

Lots of headroom in a NAD

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that there is nothing at all wrong with the electronics I have now, and no real reason to upgrade. The only things I don't like are that they are old,from different manufacturers, and not visually attractive, none of which justify spending a pile of money.
I don't believe in audible differences between CD players (even if I did, mine is still a good one as it distills Onkyo's years of experience into one of the only two players they make.) My Carver integrated is a classic, and built like a tank.

 

[3db]

I believe this is less of a real problem than some would like to let on, but to each his own.

It is a real problem that receiver designers face. The analog voltages are very low voltages, magnitude of 10 to 100 times less than a digital signal. Special considerations need to be made when routing analog signals. Notice that analog circuits are placed on seperate PCB from digital circuits. Its not because of differing voltages but the nature of the voltages, with digital signals containing hf frequency components. Its very real.

 

[Soundman]

Unfortunately Seth's quote is incorrect. To say some separate amplifiers have more headroom than some receivers would be correct. Nothing in the world of amplifier design says adding a preamp and tuner to a power amplifier's cabinet and power supply must by definition reduce its overhead. Many factors are involved and "separateness" isn't one of them.

Your statement that separate amplifiers are higher in quality is also incorrect. It would be correct to say that some separate amplifiers are higher in quality. Just as there are some bad receivers, there are also some bad separate amplifiers.

The last statement about using it to its full potential is also incorrect. The problem is that you CANNOT use a 200 wpc amplifier to its full potential without installing a special electrical service and using speakers capable of managing all that current. These things are rarely done by audiophiles. So it isn't up to the end user. It is up to the laws of physics and factors beyond the amplifier and the end user themselves. Hope that helps just a little.

One thing I will do, however, is stop trying to educate people here about amplifiers. The truth isn't popular here and people don't really want to hear it. So I'll let it go. Take care.

Wow! I didn't realize my comments were goin to ruffle so many feathers. Wow! Is this a flame war! Look, I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with a receiver. I was just pointing out why some "separate" setups are more expensive then a receiver. First of all, (let me get this out of the way first) it is just a fact that the average "separate" system is going to out perform the average receiver. That is a fact. Your comments, "Nothing in the world of amplifier design says adding a preamp and tuner to a power amplifier's cabinet and power supply must by definition reduce its overhead. Many factors are involved and "separateness" isn't one of them." Theoretically, this may be true, but in the real world it isn't. The point of a receiver is to create an all in one solution, so obviously their are some compromises made to keep the cost down. There are some great receivers, but they just don't have the same quality amp in them that a dedicated amp has. That's just a fact. As I mentioned before, there are some flagship model receivers that can compete quite well, but again we are talking price and why separate systems are more expensive, so if one is trying to save money they aren't going to purchase a flagship model, they may as well go with separates. So getting back to what you said about receivers, yes, I suppose it's possible to make a receiver just as good as a dedicated amp, but it just doesn't happen. Here's a thought, let's take the best receiver in the world and pit it against the best processor/amp combo in the world and see who wins.

Ok, about your comments here, "The problem is that you CANNOT use a 200 wpc amplifier to its full potential without installing a special electrical service and using speakers capable of managing all that current. These things are rarely done by audiophiles. So it isn't up to the end user. It is up to the laws of physics and factors beyond the amplifier and the end user themselves. Hope that helps just a little." Doesn't this statement admit that a dedicated amp will outperform a receiver? It is true that most audiophiles aren't going to push their 200wpc amp to it's limits, but that's not the point, the point is to have enough clean power where my amp does not have to be pushed hard. There are alot of receivers that just can't keep up and are pushed too hard. This can cause clipping! Who want's that? The point is to have enough good power so you don't have to worry about your equiptment being pushed too hard. Also, it can improve the sound quality as well. Another point, in reference to your comments,"The problem is that you CANNOT use a 200 wpc amplifier to its full potential..." Technically you can. If you are willing to shell out some money, get an electrician if need be to set it up for you, then yes you could. Anyway, I know I'm kinda nit-picking there. But my whole point in posting this is to say that, if you have some money to burn, you can definitely put together a nice separate system that will far outperform a receiver. If money is an issue, then it may not be worth it too you, but to some it is, especially those that have speakers that are harder to drive and require a little more juice. There are some speakers where their potential really can't be tapped until you get them up to reference lvls. Now, I'm not saying their aren't some receivers that can drive these speakers, just not as well as the type of separate system I'm referring too. So, let me just conclude by saying that spearates are more expensive for several reasons, but mainly b/c they are catering to a different crowd then the receiver crowd, and this crowd expects a little more performance and they are willing to pay for it.