price point to move to separates vs integrated

One fellow said something along the lines of: as soon as you can afford low end separates you should go that route over a more expensive integrated due to the interactions in the same chassis.

LOL! What a twit! Maybe he meant that low end separates would beat a low end integrated amp, in which case he could be right.

Yes, in the last 10 years or so integrated amps have come a long way, yet some audio snobs still refuse to give them their due. I have listened to a $6500 integrated amp go toe-to-toe with $20,000 separates and not only did not get embarrassed, but was surprisingly close. I would say the results were mixed. That integrated amp also embarrassed many separates costing more than it did.

Yes, theoretically separates have the potential to sound better, but there are many mitigating factors that can keep that from happening. Mismatching separates, extra cables and power cords are just other chances to screw up the sound. My current separates list for over $11K, yet I would be very tempted to switch to that integrated amp if I could find one.

Integrated amps will give you the best bang for the buck. $5K worth of separates may beat a $2K integrated amp. $10K of separates may beat a $5K integrated amp, etc. It would probably take over $50K of separates to beat VAC's $22K Phi Beta 110 integrated amp.

04-29-13: Rockadanny
IMO there is no such thing as a “price point” in determining separates vs. integrated - it simply depends on what your goal is. If your goal is maximum flexibility in tailoring your system to the type of sound you prefer, then go with separates (or mono-blocks if one of your goals is shortest speaker cables). If your goal is less expense (via fewer ICs, power cords, power outlets), more convenience, shortest IC paths, and/or less real estate usage, then go with integrated.

While I do agree that there is no set "price point" to switch from an integrated amp to separates, I would probably re-word what you say that if your goal is maximum flexibility in tailoring your system to the type of sound that you prefer, then go with separates. If your goal is to maximize the bang for your buck sonically, then go with an integrated amp. I wouldn't say that if your goal is less expense go integrated amp anymore than I would say if your goal is more expense go separates. Generally, people go with separates because they want more flexibility, it's not because they are simply looking for more expense. Same with integrated amps, generally people are looking to get the most sound for their buck, a preamp that will mate with their amp, no guessing games, they are not necessarily looking for less expense.

As I posted earlier, I know of a $6500 integrated amp that has embarrassed many more expensive separates, costing over $20,000. I also know of integrated amps that cost more than $10,000 or even $20,000. So it's not necessary to equate an integrated amp with cheap. More cost effective? Yes, simply by limiting the chassis', power supplies, and other double dipped items.

Sure, you could certainly spend a lot more money on separates, buying 4 box amplifiers (each monoblock having it's own separate power supply, etc.), 3 chassis preamps, etc., could put you well over $100,000. You can spend a WHOLE lot more money if you want to. Most of us economize to some extent. Economizing, or simplifying, doesn't necessarily mean the sound has to suffer. I've heard stereo amps that outperform monoblock amps. I've heard single chassis preamps outperform dual box preamps. I've heard integrated amps outperform separates.

I post this because I am currently considering an integrated amp, but I don't think I can afford it. At a $15,000 list price, it costs more than my separates do. I don't consider myself making this move with a goal of "less expense".