seperates over integrated. Why?


This is a general question, raised by an experience today.I own a Tube Technology Seer pre, and today turned down one of their integrated amps at $700. I'm running home made triode monoblocks through the preamp with Fi Phy and Ear 834p and the preamp's phonos, and One thing audio Quad ESL57's. All these years of gradually changing gear, and thinking about cables, and all the different bits of gear, just buying an integrated sure sounds good right now. The Tube Technology pre's phono stage is up there with the other 2, only being inferior during exhaustive ABing. So whats the fuss? All those cables degrading the signal with seperates, or "it all in together" integrateds vibrating and cross-talking the signal away? I ASK THIS CONFUSEDLY.
gilbodavid

Showing 5 responses by timrhu

For years (more than I care to admit) my listening system consisted of separates including amp, pre-amp, transport and DAC with all the associated cables. About a two and a half years ago I bought an integrated amp and haven't looked back. Does it match the sound quality of separates? To my ears yes it does. The price tag for the equipment now installed is probably 20% of what it once was and still it satisfies my needs. Basically I was an equipment junkie, now I listen to music. My experience, good luck.
>>No, it's a performance thing.<<
I we're talking about quality components, which measured parameters are bettered by separates over integrateds? If there are no consistently measured differences then I'd say it's a personal thing. This is assuming we admit there are percieved differences in sound quality. And on this forum I'd say that's a given.
Stanhifi, I understand your point very clearly, I just happen to disagree with it. Now I'm not talking about extremes here such as comparing a $3K integrated to $30K worth of separates. Let's compare the measured performance of a $3K integrated to $3K worth of separates (not including cable). I don't have the data at my fingertips but I feel confident the difference in specs would be statistically negligible. Some listeners would prefer the sparates while other would prefer the integrated. I call that personal preference.
Is the advantage of having separate power supplies disputable? To those who prefer the sound of the integrateds, I think the answer is an indisputable yes.
If the power supply in an integrated amplifier is designed and built properly for the application, not an impossible task, then there is no advantage to separate power supplies.
Okay Stanhifi you convinced me........just kidding.
This depends on the price point we're looking at. As I said before, if we're talking about an amplification system retailing for $30K, separates will be superior. But can a separate system be built to compete with the NAD 320BEE integrated for $499?
Stan, we don't disagree at all here except for the point about price. I always look at the price point to which a component was built when considering performance. If looking for the best sound on a budget of $2K or less then integrated amps should be considered. The originator of this post mentioned a $700 integrated as a possibility; that's where I was coming from.
BTW my first amp was an Eico integrated tube amp I had as a teenager back in the 60s. Been an active listener ever since.