Integrated vs. Separates

[Barry2013]

I replaced my four box Naim Nap 500/552 DR with a Vitus SIA 025 integrated and never regretted the change. The Vitus sounds significantly better and costs less than the four box Naim,even without taking fewer power cables into account.

 

[stehno]

All else being equal an integrated will easily best separates - the latter immediately introduces a whole set of weaknesses which will then "colour" the sound; which may be to some people's preference, of course.

Excellent point. All things being equal, when it comes to performance, any time one adds more to the mix, one should only hope for more coloration.

 

[DaveyF]

Doesn't a manufacturer stand to generate significantly more revenue by keeping the chassis' separate?

Not necessarily. Many people ( including myself) use amps and preamps from different manufacturer's. OTOH, I do think that most manufacturer's would prefer it if the amp and the preamp were purchased at the same time and from their line. In some instances, I even suspect that the manufacturer may have designed their pieces to make it difficult to add a piece from another vendor. IMO, ARC in recent years has done this...with their balanced only inputs on their amps. Those with only single ended outputs on their preamps, need not apply. Spectral are another company that comes to mind trying to control this issue.

 

[Atmasphere]

The problem I see with integrated amps is the speaker cable limitation.

Its often a very good idea to keep your speaker cables short. This is particularly true if you speakers are low impedance. Longer speaker cables often tend to smear detail. I've had this demonstrated in spades! This could limit how far apart the speakers can be set up. IME if you have good resolution, its advantageous to get the speakers further apart so you don't have the 'miniature musician' syndrome.

If the amp is an integrated then you have to keep it between the speakers in order to run shorter runs. That's not always the best place in the room for an amp. So it can be advantageous to run separates so the speaker cable can be kept short for best results. I run balanced lines between the preamp and amps, so essentially its as if the interconnect cables don't exist, as far as the system sound goes.

Another issue with integrated equipment is of course the power supply. If shared between channels and/or preamp section the result can be noise, which will manifest as higher distortion, reduced separation and loss of bass impact.

This latter issue can be overcome with proper design and construction.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Ralph, do you feel that there is also additional value in purely just the physical separation between pre and amp in terms of better mechanical isolation and minimising electrical rfi noise.

I've found using additional copper sheeting for shielding between components (in particular around the digital gear) has made good inroads in reducing any background sheen of greyness in the noise floor and it makes for a sound that is tonally more true, rich, dynamic and vivid.

I also wondered that since my Shindo pre is point to point wired that this might also make it benefit even more so from using this extra shielding approach.

 

[stehno]

The problem I see with integrated amps is the speaker cable limitation.

Its often a very good idea to keep your speaker cables short. This is particularly true if you speakers are low impedance. Longer speaker cables often tend to smear detail. I've had this demonstrated in spades! This could limit how far apart the speakers can be set up. IME if you have good resolution, its advantageous to get the speakers further apart so you don't have the 'miniature musician' syndrome.

If the amp is an integrated then you have to keep it between the speakers in order to run shorter runs. That's not always the best place in the room for an amp. So it can be advantageous to run separates so the speaker cable can be kept short for best results. I run balanced lines between the preamp and amps, so essentially its as if the interconnect cables don't exist, as far as the system sound goes.

Another issue with integrated equipment is of course the power supply. If shared between channels and/or preamp section the result can be noise, which will manifest as higher distortion, reduced separation and loss of bass impact.

This latter issue can be overcome with proper design and construction.

If (and I don't know it is so) longer cables smear detail that would certainly be one potential con going with a single integrated amp. Since 2001 all my speaker cables have been just over 6ft in length so no experimentation there.

But I can certainly confirm your last point about noise being shared between the amp section and preamp. In fact, a few years ago, I did away with the integrated amp, went with mono-block amps, and switched to using the CDP's passive volume attenuator. Something I swore I'd never do. The increased level of pristine and delicate detail notes / presentation were larger than I would have imagined. And considering the mono-blocks 575wpc output, I still have perhaps the most dynamic system I've yet encountered. There were a few other benies too but I digress.

But very good points. Nearly everything (not all) is a compromise, i.e. 2 steps forward, 1 step back, etc.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . That 'hump' is the fact that most a'philes, including myself, believe that a great pair of separates still sound better. This really should not be the case in theory....the integrated can/ could just as easily encompass of all the same parts and quality as the greatest separates, and yet it can enjoy far shorter signal paths and do away with the connection that is required between amp and preamp....IOW...the interconnect cable. So, why is it that the integrated amp is still not of the very first category as to SQ and is still considered as the 'step child' in audio...??

Because audiophiles like to have more boxes to show off? Because audiophiles like to judge stereo systems by the pound?

Shorter signal paths and fewer connections certainly are potential advantages of integrateds. But Bonzo and DaveyF (flexibility to swap boxes and try different components from different manufacturers) and Atmasphere (better to keep speaker cables short) raise the potential advantages of separates.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

I have predominantly used integrated amps - mainly because I like a low box count and less cables, and also because of space and budget, both of which are not unlimited.

Atm I have a Luxman 507 ux , and am very happy with the sound. It has a few especially useful features - tone controls, a loudness button for low level listening, a great phono stage and a terrific headphone output. And it suits my speakers (Harbeth 30.1's) very well. I like simple systems - and atm I have a TT > Luxman > Speakers. Simple as simple gets. And at around US$20-25k cost effective. That is about the level of spend I like to have in audio. Too much less and I struggle to get the SQ I like, too much more and for me the opportunity cost begins to bite.

As for sound quality, it makes sense to me not to have additional cables etc between the pre and power stages and to have short signal paths, but acknowledge that SQ is usually better, ceteris paribus, with separates than with integrated's. Why that should necessarily be isn't entirely clear, other than that manufacturers devote their efforts accordingly.

Some integrated amplifiers IMHO can perform at the level of separates eg the Diablo 300 or Pass Labs Int 60 are each superb amplifiers easily capable of holding their own with separates IMO. Or indeed the Ypsilon Phaethon Integrated or new Absolare integrated, neither of which I have been lucky enough to hear. Both of which I should love to own.

Ultimately though it comes down to space, budget and choice. The one thing I know from this marvellous hobby is there is something for everyone.

 

[Barry2013]

There has certainly been a significant number of new high/highish integrated amps coming on to the market in recent months from a number of respected manufacturers.
I think a lot of people are baulking at the box count with separates and finding very good sound quality from the new range of integrateds.
If you have a number of sources pre/power/separate power supplies really need a dedicated listening room which is not an option for many people and even if it is the extra number of boxes and expense can be an issue.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

There has certainly been a significant number of new high/highish integrated amps coming on to the market in recent months from a number of respected manufacturers.
I think a lot of people are baulking at the box count with separates and finding very good sound quality from the new range of integrateds.
If you have a number of sources pre/power/separate power supplies really need a dedicated listening room which is not an option for many people and even if it is the extra number of boxes and expense can be an issue.

Great Post ^^ -

 

[Rodney Gold]

I think the removal of angst in terms of matching components , cables , power issues etc using an integrated is a big thing..Devialet is wot i got and that's it...I worry more about room acoustics instead..and improvements gives real results.
Less is more is a path a lot of my audiophile pals go - I know at least 6-8 high end folk who have gone that way...

 

[Jlaz]

I was a holdout for many years. I had a full Naim set up. When we moved to our current house I decided that it was time to change my system out. I traded out of my Naim set up and after testing ended up with the Boulder 865. I might have bought the Vitus SIA 025 if I had heard it before I bought the Boulder. I was considering an arc ref 40 with Boulder 1060 or the Boulder 1010/1060 combo. I went to my dealer and asked to compare the 865 with the 1010/1060. Was the 1000 series better? A little bit, but with my speakers (Wilson's) and cabling--Nordost-- the 865 was truly 90% of the way there or even 95%. I felt the Boulder was just amazing and went with it. I had a chance to hear the Vitus RD 100 and fell in love. Funny thing, the system even with the cables was not bright at all, and in fact was very accurate. Base was present, tonality sounded right. If Vitus had an S series dac/preamp I would have tried that. I tested it with the Boulder 865 and was truly over the moon. This set up replaced the Naim ndx, 555ps, Naim dac, unitiserve. The Vitus was transformational. I am even considering the SIA 025 although i should probably live with the Boulder a bit longer. I have considered upgraded the Boulder to a 1060 but right now I am happy. The integrated is great, bested the Naim and is on par with some of the best separate systems I have heard. To go to the next level, it's serious money!

 

[Barry2013]

I was a holdout for many years. I had a full Naim set up. When we moved to our current house I decided that it was time to change my system out. I traded out of my Naim set up and after testing ended up with the Boulder 865. I might have bought the Vitus SIA 025 if I had heard it before I bought the Boulder. I was considering an arc ref 40 with Boulder 1060 or the Boulder 1010/1060 combo. I went to my dealer and asked to compare the 865 with the 1010/1060. Was the 1000 series better? A little bit, but with my speakers (Wilton's) and cabling the 865 was truly 90% of the way there or even 95%. I felt the Boulder was just amazing and went with it. I had a chance to hear the Vitus RD 100 and fell in love. If Vitus had an S series dac/preamp I would have tried that. I tested it with the Boulder 865 and was truly over the moon. This set up replaced the Naim ndx, 555ps, Naim dac, unitiserve. The Vitus was transformational. I am even considering the SIA 025 although i should probably live with the Boulder a bit longer. I have considered upgraded the Boulder to a 1060 but right now I am happy. The integrated is great, bested the Naim and is on par with some of the best separate systems I have heard. To go to the next level, it's serious money!

Not dissimilar from my experience.
I went for the SIA 025 and its a real star.
They do come up for sale used.

 

[Jlaz]

Not dissimilar from my experience.
I went for the SIA 025 and its a real star.
They do come up for sale used.

What really sold me was how lively and realistic the Vitus was. I actually went into this blind. DCS makes a great product but I was never in love with it. Rossini was and is a great piece but it sounded too clinical for me, especially with the Boulder. I have a friend in the industry who knew I liked the arc with the Boulder and suggested that the Vitus would be a good match. We discussed the SCD versus the RD and he was confident that the RD was extremely close to the SCD and that it was a better value. I tested it and a funny thing happened, the integrated sounded amazing. Boulder, renowned for its quietness got even quieter. Everything was better, from the articulate and deep bass, the precise soundstage, to the delineation between a snare versus another type of drum. Hell, on one track the cowbell was so perfect it was though the band was in the room. The prat that Naim was famous for was present but all things I loved about the 1060 was present. Now was it all the source? I don't know. Vitus is fully balanced and the Boulder, of course, only accepts balanced sources. Perhaps there is more synergy with the Vitus and the Boulder than a Naim high end piece. Would the 1010/1060 be better? Sure. But is it $15,000 better? Probably not I was and I am so happy that i am considering the SIA 025 or some upgrade. But at the moment I love what I have.
So am I sold on the concept that an integrated can be on par or even best separates? Yes I am.

 

[Atmasphere]

Ralph, do you feel that there is also additional value in purely just the physical separation between pre and amp in terms of better mechanical isolation and minimising electrical rfi noise.

I'm pretty sure there is a tradeoff there. With an integrated you don't have interconnection issues. So there should be less RFI potential. Its really more basic issues that seem to limit integrated equipment- there is too much temptation to share power transformers and power supplies and its easy with the increased complexity that results to not optimize the grounding and power nodes.

In our amps we found that if we made the driver power supply operate with a separate power transformer, the result was much reduced IMD. Since we already have a separate filament transformer from the B+ transformer, you can see that if we were to build an integrated amp and not skimp, the result might be that there would be 6 power transformers! Now we could combine the filament circuits without compromising anything; and maybe that is true of the driver supply as well. But if one channel can talk to the other for whatever reason through the power transformer, we will have increased crosstalk and likely higher IMD (which is very audible to the human ear). Its the latter that should be on the radar of anyone who wants the most out of their gear and is why separates have been around since the 1950s.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I'm pretty sure there is a tradeoff there. With an integrated you don't have interconnection issues. So there should be less RFI potential. Its really more basic issues that seem to limit integrated equipment- there is too much temptation to share power transformers and power supplies and its easy with the increased complexity that results to not optimize the grounding and power nodes.

In our amps we found that if we made the driver power supply operate with a separate power transformer, the result was much reduced IMD. Since we already have a separate filament transformer from the B+ transformer, you can see that if we were to build an integrated amp and not skimp, the result might be that there would be 6 power transformers! Now we could combine the filament circuits without compromising anything; and maybe that is true of the driver supply as well. But if one channel can talk to the other for whatever reason through the power transformer, we will have increased crosstalk and likely higher IMD (which is very audible to the human ear). Its the latter that should be on the radar of anyone who wants the most out of their gear and is why separates have been around since the 1950s.

Interesting about the potential for issues with IMD with packing it all into one as I've always equated the kinds of complex sub harmonics that come with IMD with causing the muddy sonic soup that makes tonality harder to distinguish out of all the noise over the musical patterns of the tonic. Anecdotally all the systems that I've heard that get tonality very right (very few systems IME) is that they have all involved a separate preamp stage and that at least either the preamp or amp stages be a high quality traditional tube typology with less processes like global feedback. The systems that have this linearity that also get tonality to be clear and easily identifiable and therefore more natural always seem the least synthetic of all the systems that I have heard. Ralph, as always thanks for the illumination.

 

[Bruce B]

I got an Integrated for its simplicity. The wife wanted something where she could just press one button and just listen. I opted for the Parasound Integrated which is a full function pre and included DAC. She, nor I, could be more happy with its performance. Has plenty of power to drive the Maggies and the tone from a Ray Brown bass is to die for!

 

[stehno]

I got an Integrated for its simplicity. The wife wanted something where she could just press one button and just listen. I opted for the Parasound Integrated which is a full function pre and included DAC. She, nor I, could be more happy with its performance. Has plenty of power to drive the Maggies and the tone from a Ray Brown bass is to die for!

In light of some other posts, excellent sanity check, Bruce.

Thanks.