Recievers versus separates

The Magnum Dynalab receiver (designed with Sim Audio) has received some glowing reviews, and at $2k list may be worth investigating? My concerns with all-in-one units is a lack of flexibility when it comes time to upgrade, and the power supplies aren't usually big beefy beasts like those found in quality separates. In theory, recievers ought to be better, since the tuner and preamp are hard-wired and have very short cable runs internally, as opposed to separates that rely on IC's.

I would go with inexpensive separates. You can have great performance from brands such as adcom, mccormack and conrad-johnson (even more so if you are willing to go to lesser known brands). The quality and longevity will be greater too.

The modern denon receivers are some of the better sounding ones out there. They still have a little 'haze' and metallic tinge to their sound. Fine for home theater. Fine if it doesn't bother you. I don't think their sound even approaches something like an adcom 750 mated to a mccormack dna amp.

I have to apologize for my last post -- somehow I was stuck on thinking that "separates" meant monoblocks and described what I saw as the difference between stereo and mono amps. I'm should know better than to try and think before noon. Anyway, I believe that the power supply arguments apply to pretty much any piece of audio gear, but I'm not sure I can place my finger on the specific technical differnce between a receiver and separate preamp/amp.

However, as mentioned by others, I've always found the sound of separates to be somewhat finer than that of a comparable quality receiver. Perhaps its the need for each component to stand on its own against others of its kind that causes the manufacturers to put a bit more effort into designing and producing them. Maybe its that folks are willing to pay more for separates that enables them to be of generally higher quality (at the very least, two power supplies rather than just one). Or maybe its just all in my head. In any case, if you have the opportunity to listen to comparable systems of both types, it might be worth the effort to see if the marketing blurb is real, or just hype.

Cheers,
Ken

Depends on what you seek from the system.
For me, I have Marantz SR18EX receiver, which some say is as close to separate as possible. I bought good front speaker because I thought Marantz deserved better speakers. Then, I bought stereo integrated amp ($3K) because the new speakers deserved better amp for 2 channel use. The sound is REALLY night and day. See? Bottomline - if you use the system for 2 channle music more than movie or other HT use, then you must know that receiver ($3K to $5K) is not good enough. I have not compared with separate multi channel system, but I am sure the separate decent power amp is far better than the amp section of the receiver. Now I really regret spending so much on receiver.

BTW, I still use Marantz for movies connecting paralell - doing a good job for movies. Movie is movie. A movie theater is NOT a concert hall.

Great Comments, it will be hard to add anything of tangible worth; but I'll try.

I have the B&K 202: it is said that B&K put in their Reference 20 pre-amp in the package, then added 5x105wpc amplification to it. It is a fine receiver, but added the B&K 250wpc monoblocks to run my B&W N802s.

Where I'm going with this, is Receivers are a compromise of some sort, to some degree. The critical flaws in all of them is upgradability: while B&K says that the machines are, the proof is not yet here; I assume the same is true for the 5800.

As I look to upgrade for the new Audio and Video streams, I'll pay extra for upgradable products: these most likely will be separates. Frankly, I can not hear the difference: an age thing.