The argument could go like this... Assume they are built for the same price point, does the tuner have a cost? Yes, so that cost has to be deducted elsewhere in the product to meet the price point. Do the less expensive parts compromise sound quality? Maybe.
Rosedanny - I've benefitted from some posts you had placed previously. Hope I can return the favor. I think Bob_reynolds response gets to the heart of the matter.
FWIW - I'd been running a Yamaha R1000 receiver (from the early '80s) for many years. New it cost me close to $1K US. Well-regarded in its day - though not megabucks high end, obviously. Went to an entry level integrated tube amp (JoLida 502B) a few years ago for similar money and couldn't be happier. Actually, I probably could be happier but that will take some additional money that isn't in the current budget. So, my long-winded point to you is that for an equal spend, an integrated can do you better than a receiver.
Like Bob said.
If you have a receiver and an integrated at the same price point, hopefully, the cost of the tuner is used for better parts in the integrated and it will sound better. However, design is as important as "parts". Therefore, an integrated may or may not be better than a receiver at the same price point. I think the reality is that the integrated will be better than the receiver, but it doesn't have to be this way.
If you're headed where I think you are... consider this as a better solution, though perhaps a longer path... buy an amp instead of an integrated, and use the Receiver as a preamp.
Unless of course you need 'now' more so than perhaps 'better' or at least more flexible, down the road. Or simply a second system. Naturally if concerns for some degree of immediacy, or budget are in play an integrated can serve very well. The above posts, and Bob's in particular point out the obvious differences between receivers and integrateds at the same price points, generally speaking of course.
Are you considering a tube int? Solid state? have you thought about your plans long term?
I've wanted a real nice integrated for some time, yet receivers always are attractive to me as they possess greater bang for the buck usually. that and the facct I've a fair 2 ch system too play a part for my decision making.
Again, a very good path for a very good 2 ch system can be had by attaining a nice int. I would caution against taking a sideways step in either direction though.
I've a penchant for trying to move up the food chain in audio when the mood or opportunity presents itself. having flexibility for future moves is also a big deal for me.
As an insentive , when I moved from a receiver to Rotel seperates , it sounded as if I had taken a blanket off of my speakers ! All of the other equipment and cables remained the same .
I then moved on to integrateds that , used , cost much less and I have received better sound . I am now using an integrated that is head and shoulders above the Rotel stuff at 1/3 the cost new .
I believe that in your price range you can't beat a good integrated . You have many well respected pieces to choose from .
Good luck .
Hey thanks to you all! What you've all said makes sense to me and helps to clarify things. If I'm understanding you, an integrated amp would produce better sound, provided I move up rather than sideways as Blindjim says. I'm considering mostly solid state, but might be swayed to tubes. Here's the list so far: Creek, Rogue, Luxman, Bryston, Arcam, Rega . . . still narrowing down. I want one with a phono stage, around 100 watts per (SS), and two sets of speaker posts. Any suggestions of an integrated that would gell with my existing set up would be appreciated. What integrated do you have, Saki70?
All things being equal, an integrated will sound better than a receiver because there is less components in one box resulting in less interference between components. Not to mention a receiver's tuner, preamp & amp all share the same power supply. Along those lines of thinking than separates will sound the best.
I took my own advice last night just to see what sort of difference (s) sonically speaking could be determined by using a receiver as a preamp and replaced my tube preamp with my latest HT RECEIVER Onkyo's TX SR805.
I hooked everything I checked via RCA and did not use the processor functions. Hooked both mono blocks and the sub up and defeated the subs x over network using only the receivers default settings for it, and no other adjustments... defaults all around.
I didn't have many lengthy cables laying about so I used my Art Audio IC3 1.5m pair as main IC... $120 new. I was forced to use my current power cords as they would have been in play anyhow. I did also use the ICs I would have normally used off the xa 777es CDP, Synergistics Acoustic Ref active (Tesla series). that's it. Oh, and an indoor Rat Shaik $15 FM antenna.
Let things get hot and scanned some FM stations then threw in a disc... then another... and another... and another... and if I hadn't had to be up early today I might still be listening. I was simply amazed. Straight up, honestly anazed! The Sony CDP sure outran the tuner by some good bit. the sound was fascinating and involving.
Sure it was on a Sound Anchor rack, as were the rest of the conponents and some upscale cords were used but when I thought of employing the AA ICs (by necessity rather than choice), I thought back to this thread and my previous post.
Maybe these newer receivers are sounding better lately. Mine had never been attached to a component via SE cables before last night so I was completely taken aback by how well things went.
I'll still hold to saying I feel separates will prove out best if performance is the goal, BUT a likewise priced integrated (depending on ???) may be a really worthwhile endeavor given my first time audition/run of the SR805 as a preamp.
I also thought of Creek, and BAT, and Prima Luna too for myself. DK Desgin as well came to mind.
At present I am using a Primaluna Prologue 2 integrated .
I started my search by listening to as many different systems as I could in my area and when I traveled . I found that I liked tubes much better than SS . They provided a body and presence to the music that I had been looking for and could not find with any of the SS based systems that I had auditioned .
I started with a Cayin A88T , it provided the warmth , body and presence that I enjoyed and was reasonably priced in the used market . But due its extreme , for me , difficult biasing procedure I moved on to the Primaluna .
The Primaluna is self/auto biasing and of the 'modern' tube sound . It gave me much more extension in the top end , a clearer sound and more detail at the exspense of the more traditional warmth of the Cayin . This was somewhat of a revelation to me as I didn't know what I was missing until I had it ! I have now changed the input tubes which have given me some of that traditional tube warmth of the Cayin without loosing the features that I had gained . The PL will take quite an array of output tubes to allow for even more experimanation .
The Primaluna , as good as it sounds , may not be the ultimate amp for me but it is definately a good tool . It will allow me to experiment , easily , to find what that ultimate tube sound might be . At @ $ 1300 , to me , it is a bargain and a great tool !
Good luck .
BTW , if you don't already , you may want to pull your speakers out into the room a few feet . I see in your pictures that they are against the wall and beside some furniture . Could make a difference !
Good luck .
The primaLuna is also on my list, and I'll be able to listen to one this weekend! Thanks for the detailed account of your experimenation Blindjim--sounds like you had fun last night! Your results further reinforce my feeling that an integrated is the way to go for my purposes. BTW, Saki70, thanks for the speaker placement suggestion--I did move my speakers further into the room, but had to compromise for the sake of domestic relations. I've reached a happy medium, now, which is slightly further out into the room than the picture shows. Bass is more defined and soundstage is wider and deeper. (When the little ladies are away, I move them out further for critical listening sessions). Thanks to you all--I'll keep you updated as I get closer, sonically and financially, to making a switch to a new amp.
In theory yes...but how old is your receiver? If its an older vintage rotel receiver...then yes a current rotel intergrated would sound better when listening to non-radio sources...older vintage tend to have very good tuners...so if you ever have the hankering to get back into free tunes...might want to keep it for a 2nd system...at any rate...the rotel 1062 is a very nice piece...
Sorry...you have your componets listed...and your receiver is a current Rotel model...that being said...i dont think moving to a rotel intergrated is going to be a quantum leap in performance...more of a lateral move...