I own a KAV300i, albeit used, and my impression was that it is a piece of crap. Maybe it's just a bad match for my speakers (Spendor S3/5), I don't know. I much prefer my Jolida tube integrated or my Musical Fidelity A3CR. On the subject of integrated vs. separates, I'm not sure I understand the general rule that separates are better than integrateds. Wouldn't you want shorter cable runs of the lower level signal(s), I.E. between pre-amp and amp? Isn't an integrated the shortest possible cable run? Also, I'm not sure this is how all integrateds are built, but wouldn't it be better to lower the amplification than to lower the signal that's fully amplified, thus reducing noise? The analogy I use is to driving: you don't change speed by shifting, you lower the gas.
Integrated Amps vs. Separates.
I'm curious what people think the better option is, integrated amp or seperates. It seems that integrated amps are a cost cutting measure, but do they also cut sonic quality? Assuming similiar price ranges, what would people here generally choose. Give me some examples/brands/models and comparisions from your experiences. Thnaks. Carter p.s. Is the Krell KAV 300i really the king of integrateds like many reviewers say (i.e not only better than all other integrated amps but better than most seperates)?