About amp pricing

[caioferrari]

I’ve been researching amplifiers for a 2.1 system. I have good Revel M105 speakers and an active KEF subwoofer, so I’m looking for a quality amplifier, not something like an Arylic that sounds like low-quality MP3.

I’ve noticed something odd:

Multichannel receivers offer a lot of features—dynamic EQ, which is great for low-volume listening, high-pass and low-pass filters, and decent equalizers.

At the same price point, there are 2.1 receivers that lack many of these features: no equalizers, no high-pass filters, and no sophisticated power transformers like those in integrated amplifiers.

Also, at the same price, you can find integrated amplifiers. However, they also lack equalizers, digital inputs, and bass management.

Purists justify the prices of integrated amplifiers due to their sophisticated power supplies, very low distortion power outputs, more robust heat sinks, and cleaner circuits without DACs or Wi-Fi receivers. While this is debatable from a technical standpoint, it’s an objective justification for why components with few features can still be expensive. But when it comes to 2.1 receivers, I can’t find a reason why they cost the same as a 5.1 or 7.2 model with significantly more features. Does anyone know why?

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I’ve been researching amplifiers for a 2.1 system. I have good Revel M105 speakers and an active KEF subwoofer, so I’m looking for a quality amplifier, not something like an Arylic that sounds like low-quality MP3.

I’ve noticed something odd:

Multichannel receivers offer a lot of features—dynamic EQ, which is great for low-volume listening, high-pass and low-pass filters, and decent equalizers.

At the same price point, there are 2.1 receivers that lack many of these features: no equalizers, no high-pass filters, and no sophisticated power transformers like those in integrated amplifiers.

Also, at the same price, you can find integrated amplifiers. However, they also lack equalizers, digital inputs, and bass management.

Purists justify the prices of integrated amplifiers due to their sophisticated power supplies, very low distortion power outputs, more robust heat sinks, and cleaner circuits without DACs or Wi-Fi receivers. While this is debatable from a technical standpoint, it’s an objective justification for why components with few features can still be expensive. But when it comes to 2.1 receivers, I can’t find a reason why they cost the same as a 5.1 or 7.2 model with significantly more features. Does anyone know why?

I think it's just volume of sales. Margins need to be higher for products that have a lower rate of sale.

Also performance may not be equivalent, especially with all channels driven at full power.

 

[JeremyFife]

I think you said it yourself: "Purists justify the prices of integrated amplifiers ... While this is debatable from a technical standpoint..."

Marketing, and the huge amount of misinformation out there that makes people think that hifi is somehow magic and doesn't follow normal electrical engineering rules ...

 

[caioferrari]

I think you said it yourself: "Purists justify the prices of integrated amplifiers ... While this is debatable from a technical standpoint..."

Marketing, and the huge amount of misinformation out there that makes people think that hifi is somehow magic and doesn't follow normal electrical engineering rules ...

This is frustrating. I understand that there are true gems in the HiFi world, even if they don't make a difference to our ears. What perplexes me the most is a 2.1 receiver without any audiophile sophistication costing more than a 5.1 or 7.2 receiver with many features.