Do Separates actually perform better than Integrateds?

[restorer-john]

I sold mainly integrated amplifiers (and early HT gear) back in the day. The main reason was the TOTL integrated amplifiers from the big Japanese companies were often better designed than the more expensive separates from the same companies. Other sales guys would push the big pre/powers to the tweeter blowing crowd. To me, a great integrated could see you through many upgrades of sources and speakers.

High quality integrated amplifiers have always been popular in the Japanese home market- much more so than separates. (space issues no doubt) We were lucky and often got small numbers of those world multivoltage military sale models. (the ones with every conceivable voltage range 100-110,120-127,220-230,240V etc) Sometimes those models were brought in as halo products for shows and put on 'appro' in dealer showrooms. I got a few of them.

I have a Marantz PM-95 here. It sold in 1990 for AU$6000 and the build quality is stupendous (27.5kg). It's performance is beyond criticism IMO and it is 30 years old.

Another of my absolute favourites here (and currently in use) is my 'Reference' Pioneer A-91D. It was sold with an 'Elite' moniker in the US and sold rather well. The heaviest (29.9kg) and best integrated Pioneer ever built. Back then it was AU$2699 and I still regard it as one of my absolute best integrated amplifiers. Here's an internet shot of her partially naked:

Both those units BTW have onboard D/A converters (for 32-48/16bit vintage). The Marantz PM-95 has the TDA-1541 S1 select in it's own internal isolated case and PSU. Same implementation as the Reference CD12/DA12LE which is here too. The optional remote cost 40,000 Yen (USD$350)!

https://audio-database.com/MARANTZ/amp/pm-95-e.html
I posted a couple of random shots when I was inside the PM-95 doing housework (scroll down):
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...m-technical-picture-upload-thread.1452/page-5
There's one of these in my storeroom too:
https://audio-database.com/MARANTZ/amp/pm-94-e.html

There's also several big Sonys here too from the same era, TA-F333ESR, TA-F444ESX and some others. Big, heavy and high performing. This is how they built them:

Basically, they outperform, outlast and are a joy to use, compared to the rubbish I see and work on made these days. Quite simply, outside the reference grade, hang the expense, high end, the big Japanese majors simply don't make anything I am remotely interested in anymore. A pity, but it's true.

Anyway, I'm happy to start a thread, take a bunch of photos inside and out if anyone is interested and describe the internals and construction of these beasts. It's about time to look back at how things were done properly and balance this seemingly endless stream of cutesy little disposable toy pieces of Chinese circuit-boards-in-a-box.

There's plenty of members here with excellent US made vintage gear too. Stuff that cost a fortune, was bulletproof and it still serving them well, decades later. Honestly, that gear is just as interesting, if not more so.

 

[JJB70]

I think the big Japanese outfits worked to standards of build quality and design in the 80's and 90's that shame modern gear, I think that today we do live in an era which is brilliant (we've never had it so good) in terms of accessibility to good sound as although much of the equipment we see isn't especially impressive in terms of build and design you can achieve transparent sound and get to the point of diminishing returns for peanuts. If you listen using headphones then I don't even think you need actual audio equipment anymore if your device such as a smart phone or tablet can drive your headphones to the volume you want. My smart phone has an audibly transparent DAC and headphone amp. Audio equipment has been commoditised, with the exception of speakers and even in the case of speakers I really don't think you need to spend that much. However, for all of that, which is undoubtedly good, I do miss the build and design of those old Japanese ranges. Even the entry level Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, Marantz etc stuff was very well made (fit and finish blew most mega buck audiophile brands away) and when you went to their mid ranges and higher they were superb. What I find sadder than the cheap stuff (to be honest, if you can pick up equipment for peanuts which performs as well as anything in audible terms, does it matter that much if the build quality is nothing to get excited about? Treat it as a disposable item) is that when I look at the expensive stuff it seems like design and quality are really not that brilliant and shamed by stuff made 20 or 30 years ago. I'm under no illusion that paying more will get me better sound than a well designed low cost item from companies like JDS, Topping, SMSL etc, but I do like the tactile feel and warm glow that comes from well made items. That's why I keep my old Sony ES gear, it may be old and well behind features wise but it still sounds as well as I need and in terms of build quality it shames anything else I've looked at in recent times.

And yes, I'd enjoy a Restorer John thread on classic hi-fi.

 

[Ceburaska]

If separates are superior you have to wonder why the Kii and Dutch&Dutch (and also KEF LS50 wireless) get generally excellent subjective and objective reviews. According to the proposition they should be at least three separates.

And yes, I'd enjoy a Restorer John thread on classic hi-fi.

As another Sony ES fan, I would too. There’s no way I’m opening up my stuff, I’d no doubt lose half the screws or something.

 

[Ultrasonic]

I don't really feel qualified to comment in performance terms but what I will say is that I'm grateful for the flexibility that separated CD transports, DACs, pre and power amps has given me. Most recently in allowing me to run DACs directly into my power amp and stop using an analogue pre completely.

 

[House de Kris]

I'm not making claims as to which performs or sounds better. But, I have been a 'separates' guy since the beginning of my audio journey. Now that I've retired, I find myself actually considering obtaining an integrated amp, just for the simplicity. Or, even one of those cute little Marantz 22xx receivers from long ago, just for looks.

In the past, when I wanted an integrated amp, I would just make it. Fits the definition of integrated found in the OP, "'Integrateds' refers to two or more audio components that share an enclosure." A couple examples:

 

[cjfrbw]

How am I going to justify more miraculous cables without separates?

 

[chriskilbourn]

How am I going to justify more miraculous cables without separates?

That brings up a good point. Don’t separates theoretically create the possibility for additional noise via signal transfer between two components?

 

[jsrtheta]

That brings up a good point. Don’t separates theoretically create the possibility for additional noise via signal transfer between two components?

Theoretically, yes. Practically, not so much.

 

[thefsb]

So the question is this: given the same/similar performing/specced components, do separates perform or sound better than integrateds?

Personally, I prefer the modularity of separates; if one component breaks or fails, the rest of my system is still fine (in theory).

Here's to my first post on ASR!

1st, welcome and happy first post! 2nd, I love questions like this to which I can give my general meta-answer: it depends. (I use it for lots of things.)

For example 1: you wrote "given the same/similar performing/specced components". Really the same? If so, then the system will perform the same. But that's like asking "does X equal X?", which isn't an interesting question so I don't think you meant that. Integration allows degrees of freedom in design that aren't useually available when using components.

Consider a system with phono input and stereo three-way speakers. An integrated system might digitize the raw phono signal, use DSP for RIAA EQ and crossovers, use three amps per loudspeaker box, each cost/performance optimized to its drivers and the enclosure. Now imagine that the user already has phono preamp and passive loudspeaker boxes and your job is to fill the gap between. That's the job of the separates engineer.

For example 2: You asked "do separates perform or sound better" and then said you prefer separates for the resulting redundancy/repair-ability in the system ("if one component breaks or fails"). OK. How much are you willing to pay for that advantage? What if the integrated system comes with a really good guarantee and reasonably priced repair options after that?

So when I say "it depends" what I mean is that I think we need to frame the question differently before we can give meaningful answers.

It's usually the same when I am asked something about dog behavior and/or training.

In my case, I'm seriously looking at KEF LS50W, the most integrated system I've ever considered.

 

[Mahadragon]

I just made my first foray into the world of separates with a vintage Nikko Alpha III amplifier hooked up to a Rotel 1062 used as a preamp. Tbh, the only difference I can tell sound-wise is the Nikko sounds a bit tighter and sounds a bit more “true”. Outside of this, it more or less sounds the same as the Rotel integrated amplifier.

It’s hard to say because the Rotel 1062 sounded pretty damned good on it’s own. My sources are only ok. Streaming from Spotify and/or watching movies on HBO Max and watching music channels on YouTube. I also have a Technics turntable l play occasionally and a tape deck (I’m old).

I was always under the assumption that separates sounded better because each component is purpose built to do one thing. The amp drives the speakers, that’s it. The preamp takes in the sources, that’s it. You compare this with an A/V receiver and it’s night and day. The A/V receiver is designed to do everything. It’s got an amplifier, a preamplifier, tuner, Dolby Everything, DSP’s, DACs, you name it. Of course the potential for noise interference is significantly greater when you squish all those components into a small box. That’s why at the very least, I try to opt for an integrated amplifier. At least you get some modicum of separation in this regard.

 

[kongwee]

Well, AHB2 is a power amplifier.

 

[escksu]

If you compare the best separates against the best integrated amps, separates will always be better. This is due to several factors like physical size limitations, market segment and what buyers want.

However many integrated amps are actually "separates in a single box". Why I say is because they have pre amp and power amp on separate circuit boards, each with its own power. Some even have separate transformers. One good example is the Krell S-300i. It has 3 boards, 1 for preamp, 1 left channel and 1 right channel. But they share a single transformer.

Another example. For AV receivers. They always suffer in terms of power output. There is only so much space in a chassis.