2. amps-preamps
  3. 1365245459

price point to move to separates vs integrated

Hi,
I have spoken to different dealers about the most effective way to spend my money on amplification and have gotten different views. (I know opinions are like elbows, everyone has one, or two...).

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.

Another suggests still going integrated at $6K.

I realize my ears are the final deciding point but the grey stuff between them is longing for a more concrete set of guidelines.

Thanks for your thoughts and replies, the more the merrier,
Gus
gustav1

Showing 3 responses by rockadanny

rockadanny
1,231 posts
 
If you get separates you can control your sound by changing the preamp, amp, and/or the interconnect between them. Upgrading and fine tuning is thus more flexible.

Agree! If possible, I will always use separates for this reason.
rockadanny
1,231 posts
 
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.
rockadanny
1,231 posts
 
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.

You misinterpreted my meaning. "Less expense (via fewer ICs, power cords, power outlets)". You can save money by installing fewer ICs, power cords, power outlets, dedicated lines, etc. That equates to less expense for ancillary equipment. I did not mean less expense because integrateds are cheaper.
More to discover