Why are separates so much more expensive?

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I would surmise that you can freely spend all you want on separates, but the only true way to get the good results you are looking for can only come from A-B testing (blind testing even better). It's difficult to overcome the placebo effect after dropping a chunk of change on equipment.

If we do a retrospective study on all the reviews of analog stereo preamp separates versus receivers, I think we may find overall that the analog stereo preamps have the edge in terms of sound quality.

I've done an A/B comparison (not blinded), and I find that there is a difference in sound quality. Now the significance may vary. But I clearly was able to hear the difference even with the volume levels matched. The separate preamp just sounds clearer with not just voice, but also instruments.

 

[Craigslist Joe]

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!

Hear! Hear! Redundancies definately play a huge part of the cost. Well said. Don't forget the little things like packaging, power cords, remote controls in some cases...even instruction manuals have a cost associated with them. Remember that an engineer has to write that manual!

The biggest factor is PERFORMANCE and image. It's a matter of marketing. They charge more because people are willing to pay more for better performance - especially the 2 CH folks as mentioned earlier in this thread. I think someone mentioned that a stack of components "looks" better too. Think marketing is involved in that?

McIntosh is a great example of having some real marketing panache. Those UV meters they seem to be able to justify on the front of just about any component they make are not all that expensive to build (so they don't add a TON of value) and they have a limit to their usefulness but they SELL components cause they look cool. I'm not knocking McIntosh, btw. I'm just saying they have great market presence IMO.

 

[j_garcia]

My answer is simpler than that: If you are asking this question, then separates aren't for you.

Note too that the thread is four years old.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You know they sell plenty of "separate" amps & preamps for $300 - $400 each. Some of these amps even have those blue power meters in front.

I wonder if they are better quality than the Denon AVR-4311, which you can buy from Electronics Expo brand new for $1330?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Note too that the thread is four years old.

And Joe Schmoe (thread starter) isn't around this neck of the woods anymore either.

 

[cpp]

My answer is simpler than that: If you are asking this question, then separates aren't for you

So true so true

 

[3db]

Who resurrected this bag of bones from the grave?

 

[Craigslist Joe]

Guilty. Sorry, I was feeling nostalgic...

 

[hidefguy]

First post in Audioholics. Figured I would make it a resurrection

Since were comparing seperates in here I would like to know if you guys think I would hear any quality difference between an Emotiva XPA-5 and a Bryston 9B-ST. The reason I ask is because I got the Bryston for free, and can sell it for close to $1400. Figured if I could use 1/3 of that money to buy an equivalent amp replacement and use the proceeds towards a Plasma I would be better off.
My system will be used 50/50 (theatre/music) and i'm powering five Dynaudio speakers (Focus 220MKII's, 200C center, and 140 surrounds)

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

First post in Audioholics. Figured I would make it a resurrection

Since were comparing seperates in here I would like to know if you guys think I would hear any quality difference between an Emotiva XPA-5 and a Bryston 9B-ST. The reason I ask is because I got the Bryston for free, and can sell it for close to $1400. Figured if I could use 1/3 of that money to buy an equivalent amp replacement and use the proceeds towards a Plasma I would be better off.
My system will be used 50/50 (theatre/music) and i'm powering five Dynaudio speakers (Focus 220MKII's, 200C center, and 140 surrounds)

I don't think you can tell the difference at all.

 

[hidefguy]

Thanks for the opinion. I'm no engineer but just read up a little on the Emotiva and Bryston. I guess they are both Class A/B amps. What justifies the $2500 price difference?

 

[Davemcc]

Build quality alone screams in Bryston's favor. Bryston offers a 20 year warranty. It is built to last. If you already have the Bryston...keep it.

 

[DD66000]

I don't think you can tell the difference at all.

There can be a difference. Why do some amps/pre-amps provide a better depth to soundstage, or imaging. Or smoother HF.
It would be in the bias current. Higher the bias the smoother the HF. Lower the better the imaging. Its finding the best compromise of the two that counts. And I suspect many cheaper amps don't use any bias current, as in cheap AVRs.

 

[hidefguy]

I figured since i'll be doing a fair amount of 2 channel listening I should keep the Bryston. I'm also using the world class Anthem D2 (w/ARC) pre-pro along with it. Why seperate them
I always tell myself that this gear is a long term investment but it never ends up that way

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

There can be a difference. Why do some amps/pre-amps provide a better depth to soundstage, or imaging. Or smoother HF.
It would be in the bias current. Higher the bias the smoother the HF. Lower the better the imaging. Its finding the best compromise of the two that counts. And I suspect many cheaper amps don't use any bias current, as in cheap AVRs.

Actually most of us here believe it is in the speakers, not the amps and preamps. There have been double-blinded studies to prove that amps & preamps are not different in soundstage, imaging, or anything else.

And there are no studies to prove that amps differ in sound at all.

So subjectively we can argue all day long without getting anywhere. But objectively via double-blinded studies, amps and preamps just don't have a sound of their own.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I figured since i'll be doing a fair amount of 2 channel listening I should keep the Bryston. I'm also using the world class Anthem D2 (w/ARC) pre-pro along with it. Why seperate them
I always tell myself that this gear is a long term investment but it never ends up that way

Absolutely nothing wrong with having expensive gears. My AVP-A1HDCI is $7,500. My AT3005 is $4,000.

 

[hidefguy]

I agree but unfortunately in our (US at least) society it's perfectly normal for a middle-class blue collar working Joe to spend 30K on a new Ford SUV, but when I spend $2000 on a car and 20K on basement toys people look at me like i'm nuts

 

[DD66000]

Actually most of us here believe it is in the speakers, not the amps and preamps. There have been double-blinded studies to prove that amps & preamps are not different in soundstage, imaging, or anything else.

And there are no studies to prove that amps differ in sound at all.

So subjectively we can argue all day long without getting anywhere. But objectively via double-blinded studies, amps and preamps just don't have a sound of their own.

It is true speakers are the big difference of any system.
But any blind test can be rigged. Why do you think anyone can ask for a blind test of 3 amps from the guy saying he will pay out $10K to someone who consistently picks the same amp? Cos he was the ones picking the amps.

IF, on the other hand, the challenger wants to pick the amps, then he also has to put up $10K. Cos he knows the challenger will have done his homework and rigged it by picking one amp that sounds slightly different from the other two. Now if the challenger can pick out that one amp continually is the unknown, but he would certainly stand a better chance than listening to the other 3 amps.

I have three amps here; HK 3390 receiver; HK Citation 19; Parasound HCA2205A. If I am only doing casual listening, they all sound the same. But if I really get into a concentrated listening session I notice the Citation has a much deeper soundstage, better imaging than the 3390. True, it is only slightly different, but it is noticeable if I really do pay attention.
If the quality of the components are better in one amp compared to another, there has to be at least a slight difference. And as I said on my last post, how the bias current is set certainly makes a difference.

For years I used a Yamaha CA2010 amp with my L212 system. The highs were always somewhat edgy. Years later I picked up a Citation 11 pre and the 19 power amp. I did not know what to expect, as I had never used HK before that. The HF was quite a bit smoother, compared to the CA2010. The difference had to be in the bias current, and/or better components used in the Citation gear.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
I always tell myself that this gear is a long term investment but it never ends up that way

Maybe you need to redefine 'long term.'

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
But any blind test can be rigged. Why do you think anyone can ask for a blind test of 3 amps from the guy saying he will pay out $10K to someone who consistently picks the same amp? Cos he was the ones picking the amps.

Did you ask him which amps and if you can bring your own, properly operating amp for the test?
If not, your above assertion is way off base and uncalled for.

But if I really get into a concentrated listening session I notice the Citation has a much deeper soundstage, better imaging than the 3390. ...r.

Of course you level matched and used DBT protocols, right?