2. amps-preamps
  3. 146319-12450

Why the facination with integrated amps?

I don’t get it. Is it the manufacturers spotting a trend with the tail wagging the dog or does a significant market segment truly prefer the idea of an integrated?
Pros;
Less space
One less set of IC’s
In theory-one less chassis/case to pay for
Shorter signal paths possible
Can combine transformer/cap function
Cons;
Power supply interference/spuriae
Reduced Flexibility-can’t switch amp or preamp as easily or go to monoblocs
Less resonance control
Long history of lesser performance per measurements and long-term subjective listening
Less resale value if it turns out to be a fad
Less liklihood of an extremely high performing active preamp

I freely admit I am a skeptic. The industry-like so many others-looks for new market niches to move product. 
FWIW, the only integrateds I myself would care to audition would be from Esoteric and Luxman who have a long history of designing no-compromise (low-compromise) high-end integrateds. 

128x128fsonicsmith

Showing 2 responses by millercarbon

millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
fonicsmith
I, being a skeptic, don’t claim to be right, but only offer the humble suggestion that integrated amps are a solution for a problem that never was. Whatever is old is new again. A Krell integrated graced the cover of Stereophile 25 years ago with the immortal caption, "What the Krell?". It failed on measurements and consumer satisfaction despite delivering name cache combined with lower price. Can an integrated offer state of the art sound? Unquestionably yes. Is the fact that every major manufacturer and their sister is offering an integrated a sell-job by the industry? IMHO, unquestionably yes.



I don’t see how you can say this other than by ignoring at least half the comments posted on this thread. Have you been reading them? Any of them? The whole thread is a virtual refutation of everything you just said.

You think one Stereophile cover 25 years ago makes your point? I went shopping for my first real system upgrade in 1973 at the age of 16. There was no Stereophile or any other advertising I was aware of back then to sway me. I simply went around to every store and listened to everything and figured out for myself that integrateds had by far the most performance for the money. Not receivers. Integrateds. If there was any sell-job by the industry it was for receivers. But if it was it was a bad one. Anyone doing what I did, actually comparing and listening, would figure out the integrated is the sweet-spot.

One last thing, just to highlight the extent of your illogic. You say you’re a skeptic. Then you conclude with, "Unquestionably yes."

I’m a little hazy on my definitions. Help me out. Skeptic. Unquestioning. These go together how?
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
The answer to your question is in the way its asked. All your pros are technical considerations, nothing about sound quality. Then the cons are also all technical, except for "long term subjective listening" which the giveaway there is "subjective". Nobody says "subjective" except to be derogatory, further adding to the obvious bias.

You like the technical stuff, be proud and open and honest about being a technophile. Own it. Just don't try and kid a kidder. I've shopped and compared and lived with both integrateds and separates long enough to know that if all you care about is sound quality for value you simply cannot touch a good integrated with separates for anything resembling the same amount of money.
More to discover