Why are separates so much more expensive?

[Joe Schmoe]

I know separates are supposed to sound better than receivers or integrated amps, but why such a friggen huge price gap? For example: the entry-level NAD integrated amp is $350 while their cheapest preamp+power amp is $1400. It is this way with most brands for which I am able to find price lists.

 

[Soundman]

I know separates are supposed to sound better than receivers or integrated amps, but why such a friggen huge price gap? For example: the entry-level NAD integrated amp is $350 while their cheapest preamp+power amp is $1400. It is this way with most brands for which I am able to find price lists.

I think it's really just simple economics. Higher quality is just more costly to produce. Think of it this way, with separates, you have a separate chassic for your power supply and another one has to be built to house your processor. Also, the quality of components in most separate systems is just much higher then the typical receiver. If price is an issue, I would look at the Emotiva UL combo. However, I believe it is sold out right now, but there is an excellent review here: http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/amplifiers/emotiva-ultra-theater-series/

 

[Soundman]

I know separates are supposed to sound better than receivers or integrated amps, but why such a friggen huge price gap? For example: the entry-level NAD integrated amp is $350 while their cheapest preamp+power amp is $1400. It is this way with most brands for which I am able to find price lists.

Another option would be to get a cheap receiver with pre-outs and add an amp to it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Another option would be to get a cheap receiver with pre-outs and add an amp to it.

No, that would not be a "True" Separate Component System.

Gotta be Stereo Preamp + Stereo Amp.

 

[3db]

I think it's really just simple economics. Higher quality is just more costly to produce. Think of it this way, with separates, you have a separate chassic for your power supply and another one has to be built to house your processor. Also, the quality of components in most separate systems is just much higher then the typical receiver. If price is an issue, I would look at the Emotiva UL combo. However, I believe it is sold out right now, but there is an excellent review here: http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/amplifiers/emotiva-ultra-theater-series/

I think it would be more difficult to design a A/V receiver than it it does a pre/pro and or a seperate amplifier. In an A/V receiver, one has to seperate the digital world from the easily corrupted analog section. Easily corrupted analog because the voltaages in the pre-amp stage are much lower than that of digital. Plus digital circuits are inherently noisy containing many high frequency harmonics that could corrupt an analog circuit.

Now the only reason I can come up with that seperates cost more is volume of sale. If they achieved the same level of sales, I'm sure their price would lower alot.

 

[Seth=L]

The bottom of the line integrated amplifier is rated 40 watts x 2 and weighs only 12 pounds. It also lacks preouts to connect to an external amplifier if needed.

The starter amplifier is rated 150 watts x 2 and weighs 25 pounds (just the amplifier mind you). The preamp has more connectivity and phono stage (MM and MC) with more options. It also weighs almost 11 pounds (just a preamp). I think the price increase is relatively logical and justifiable.

The NAD C372 (integrated amplifier) and NAD PP-2 (phono preamp) would offer similar power and functionality to the preamp/amplifier combo, with a combined suggested retail of $1150. I would almost rather (given I had the money) pay $250 more to get the nicer looking preamp/amplifier combo.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Part of it is economy of scale- they will sell a few thousand preamps, but hundreds of thousands if not millions of receivers. Percieved value is another part of it. Receiver buyers are often more price-sensitive than buyers of separates, too. It's amazing how many 2CH guys won't even consider a peice that's under $1000...

 

[TLS Guy]

I know separates are supposed to sound better than receivers or integrated amps, but why such a friggen huge price gap? For example: the entry-level NAD integrated amp is $350 while their cheapest preamp+power amp is $1400. It is this way with most brands for which I am able to find price lists.

Two power supplies at least, two cases and the economies of scale. There you have it. Also separates do have a higher build quality. As I have stated previously, I have never owned a receiver of any type and don't intend to. But if more of you guys would do the same thing it would save me money!

 

[Joe Schmoe]

NAD was just an example. If I buy electronics from them, I will probably go the integrated route. 40 watts/ch is as much as I am ever likely to need (and fortunately I will never have any use for a phono stage.)
Separates would be nice, but are too big of a jump. someone should make a preamp/power amp combo that suits those of us who will only ever connect a CD player and one pair of speakers, and who don't need a lot of power, at a price comparable to a basic integrated.

 

[Seth=L]

I think it would be more difficult to design a A/V receiver than it it does a pre/pro and or a seperate amplifier. In an A/V receiver, one has to seperate the digital world from the easily corrupted analog section. Easily corrupted analog because the voltaages in the pre-amp stage are much lower than that of digital. Plus digital circuits are inherently noisy containing many high frequency harmonics that could corrupt an analog circuit.

Now the only reason I can come up with that seperates cost more is volume of sale. If they achieved the same level of sales, I'm sure their price would lower alot.

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

 

[Soundman]

I think it would be more difficult to design a A/V receiver than it it does a pre/pro and or a seperate amplifier. In an A/V receiver, one has to seperate the digital world from the easily corrupted analog section. Easily corrupted analog because the voltaages in the pre-amp stage are much lower than that of digital. Plus digital circuits are inherently noisy containing many high frequency harmonics that could corrupt an analog circuit.

Now the only reason I can come up with that seperates cost more is volume of sale. If they achieved the same level of sales, I'm sure their price would lower alot.

I see what you're saying. And there may be some truth to that. But all I know is that every separate system I've seen seems to be better built, not to mention it sounds better.

 

[Soundman]

No, that would not be a "True" Separate Component System.

Gotta be Stereo Preamp + Stereo Amp.

Well, when you say it like that, I suppose you are correct, Funny Guy. I was just trying to think of a cheaper solution seeing as price was a concern of his.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Well, when you say it like that, I suppose you are correct, Funny Guy. I was just trying to think of a cheaper solution seeing as price was a concern of his.

I also don't see how receiver+amp is going to sound much better than just the receiver, unless more power is the main issue. It is the preamp section that will have the most opportunity to add noise or otherwise modify the signal, correct?

 

[furrycute]

Far more receivers are sold than dedicated amp/preamp combos. That's why receivers are a lot cheaper than amp/preamp combos. Also, manufacturers have long figured out that audiophools are willing to shell out big bucks for beefy looking audio equipment, so manufacturers really take advantage of this and charge big bucks for amp/preamp combos.

Technically, a receiver is far more complex to design and manufacture than an amp or a preamp. And a receiver represents a far better value for the dollar.

A mid range receiver should be more than good enough for most speakers. You only need an external amp when you are trying to drive 4ohm or esoteric 2ohm speakers.


A preamp is just a volume pot that has a bunch of connections that allow you hook up your CD player, DVD player, etc. to the amp. In the old days of record players, that signal coming from the record player is really low, so it has to be "pre-amplified" before it can be sent to the amplifier. But nowadays, signals from CD/DVD players are more than beefy enough to be fed directly to the amp. All the preamp really does these days is to attenutate the signal strength and thus adjust the volume. That's about it.

 

[TLS Guy]

Far more receivers are sold than dedicated amp/preamp combos. That's why receivers are a lot cheaper than amp/preamp combos. Also, manufacturers have long figured out that audiophools are willing to shell out big bucks for beefy looking audio equipment, so manufacturers really take advantage of this and charge big bucks for amp/preamp combos.

Technically, a receiver is far more complex to design and manufacture than an amp or a preamp. And a receiver represents a far better value for the dollar.

A mid range receiver should be more than good enough for most speakers. You only need an external amp when you are trying to drive 4ohm or esoteric 2ohm speakers.


A preamp is just a volume pot that has a bunch of connections that allow you hook up your CD player, DVD player, etc. to the amp. In the old days of record players, that signal coming from the record player is really low, so it has to be "pre-amplified" before it can be sent to the amplifier. But nowadays, signals from CD/DVD players are more than beefy enough to be fed directly to the amp. All the preamp really does these days is to attenutate the signal strength and thus adjust the volume. That's about it.

Oh! How about the decoding, DACs with very accurate clocking and accurate switching. To say nothing of the set up software. A modern preamp/processor is an awesome thing. I no more want my preamp sharing a power supply with my power amps any more than I do my audio workstation"s DAC sharing its power supply with the computer.

Now I know there are a certain sector that goes over the top about certain matters , but this is not one of those issues.

If you have a really nice high end set of speakers, I don't think you would want to drive them from any receiver I'm aware of.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

If you have a really nice high end set of speakers, I don't think you would want to drive them from any receiver I'm aware of.

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)?

 

[Soundman]

Far more receivers are sold than dedicated amp/preamp combos. That's why receivers are a lot cheaper than amp/preamp combos. Also, manufacturers have long figured out that audiophools are willing to shell out big bucks for beefy looking audio equipment, so manufacturers really take advantage of this and charge big bucks for amp/preamp combos.

Technically, a receiver is far more complex to design and manufacture than an amp or a preamp. And a receiver represents a far better value for the dollar.

A mid range receiver should be more than good enough for most speakers. You only need an external amp when you are trying to drive 4ohm or esoteric 2ohm speakers.


A preamp is just a volume pot that has a bunch of connections that allow you hook up your CD player, DVD player, etc. to the amp. In the old days of record players, that signal coming from the record player is really low, so it has to be "pre-amplified" before it can be sent to the amplifier. But nowadays, signals from CD/DVD players are more than beefy enough to be fed directly to the amp. All the preamp really does these days is to attenutate the signal strength and thus adjust the volume. That's about it.

I don't know if this is entirely true. Everone has a different idea of what the best value is. For the most part, a receiver is a good value, but most audiophiles don't want to settle. With the rise of the ID's, it's possible to get separates for the price of a mid-fi receiver. Check out Emotiva! The UL combo, IMO, is a better value than a receiver. www.emotiva.com It really depends on what features are important to you. If good clean power and built quality is important then it's definitely the way to go. If you want an all-in -one set-up with a lot of features you'll never use, then get a receiver.

 

[Seth=L]

Oh! How about the decoding, DACs with very accurate clocking and accurate switching. To say nothing of the set up software. A modern preamp/processor is an awesome thing. I no more want my preamp sharing a power supply with my power amps any more than I do my audio workstation"s DAC sharing its power supply with the computer.

Now I know there are a certain sector that goes over the top about certain matters , but this is not one of those issues.

If you have a really nice high end set of speakers, I don't think you would want to drive them from any receiver I'm aware of.

Um, I am going to go out on limb here and disagree.

Higher end receivers use seperate power supplies for the preamp and amplifier sections. The interference factor is pretty much nill, it just simply isn't there.

I also believe some of the stuff people say about audio on computers is bogus too, you can make it work very well. If you buy cheap components you may get interference from the HDD or a fan, but if you put some decent stuff in a PC, (I mean build, not Dell) you can get very good and clean sound from it.

I don't believe that there is much audible difference between modern DACs now days, it's much like amplifiers, if operating correctly little to no audible difference should be heard.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

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.

 

[fmw]

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.