First, I'm still on the "jouney", so not all of this is first hand, and you can accept or reject accordingly. The claim is oft made that they can/will outperform separates at a similar (combined, including interconnects) price point. And frequently some multiple is claimed ("...performs better than separates at up to twice it's price"...). I can understand and pretty much accept the former, not so sure about the more extravagant claims. Have heard a number of people upgrade to an outboard amp and still use receiver as pre/pro, and claim very noticeable improvement. I've done this bit with a mid-fi receiver, and a much better (but still mid-fi) receiver, and a good quality amp that costs as much as the better receiver (one-half of separates at twice the price, so to speak). There IS a very noticeable improvement with the outboard amp, although less so over the better receiver. Insofar as the amps go, I believe it has a lot to do with how easy is your speaker load, and do you have multi-channel demands, and the amp design of the receiver.
I just have a hard time rationalizing putting $3k or $4k into a super-receiver, when so much of it is now in a/v technology that will be superceded if not obsolete in a year. Great amps are great amps forever. Once I got over some $ threshold, I'd put my money in long-term amplification, and buy "disposable" pre/pro's. YMMV.
I just have a hard time rationalizing putting $3k or $4k into a super-receiver, when so much of it is now in a/v technology that will be superceded if not obsolete in a year. Great amps are great amps forever. Once I got over some $ threshold, I'd put my money in long-term amplification, and buy "disposable" pre/pro's. YMMV.