• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

integrateds vs TOTL receivers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Twenty20Man

Twenty20Man

Is that you Michael?
Ok I would think our renowned audio techs would have some insight here. So often Receivers are looked at askance because of their all in one presentation, I understand seperates with each component having their own power supply has been given as one of the reasons for the overall improvement. Integrateds I have seen with dual power supplies have been one driving each channel not one for the amp section the other for the pre section. So guys having been inside many of these units tell us where trade offs are on receivers. I mean is it more sophisticated design better components ..both.. the 1250 for example is a quality receiver I have heard comments about its amp design, does it fall way short of totl integrates or seperates or what..what gives..
 
Register to hide this ad
The receiver is fine for those who have limited space but in the high end world receivers DO NOT EXIST. By isolating the tuner in its own cabinet it cannot get noise or contamination from the power supply of the amp section and thus, for the high end, separates is the ONLY way to go. The integrated amp exists in high end but the costs are usually requisite.

Separates are the best way to go for the best results, but receivers are convenient and practical. In terms of sonics receivers are good, perhaps even very good but not the best and certainly not equal to separates equalling the same thing.

Just looking at the equipment list you have you have (it appears) 17 receivers. One for each station? Such redundancy could of been spent on separates that in total would surpass the best units you have (1250, 3020 and 16.5), take up less space and provide flexibility; that is, if the tuner section is not enough you can replace it and keep the amp/preamp part, or if the amp is not powerful enough due to new speaker purchases, upgrade the amp and keep the rest. Judging by the fact you have so many I would conclude you are not convinced yourself the receiver is the way to go otherwise you would have only one, but I understand the collecting side of things.
 
Blackfly nailed the basic concepts.

I would add that integrated and separates also allow you to upgrade individual components like tuners, preamps, amps without replacing everything all at once. This can be a factor if you easily get tired of one receiver. Can be cheaper too if you shop wisely.

For the cost of some TOTL receivers you can get any one or more of a TOTL tuner, integrated, amp, preamp, etc. with better specs and performance.

The benefits of swapping out individual components would be obvious with the many maintenance issues with receivers where if something goes wrong with the preamp, amp or tuner sections you could have one wounded duck or total system failure.
 
Good luck finding components at Goodwill, thrift shops. Rarely
sell on Craig list. Recievers are very common and therefore
easy to collect.

My main system are pioneer componets. I love them but since
they are mid-range quality they don't sound better than
my Sony STR-7050 or Pioneer SX-939.

I use components for listing to music. I buy recievers to work on
as a hobby & use receivers on the main & second floor for back ground music.

have fun
 
Twenty20Man said:
Ok I would think our renowned audio techs would have some insight here. So often Receivers are looked at askance because of their all in one presentation, I understand seperates with each component having their own power supply has been given as one of the reasons for the overall improvement. Integrateds I have seen with dual power supplies have been one driving each channel not one for the amp section the other for the pre section. So guys having been inside many of these units tell us where trade offs are on receivers. I mean is it more sophisticated design better components ..both.. the 1250 for example is a quality receiver I have heard comments about its amp design, does it fall way short of totl integrates or seperates or what..what gives..
Click to expand...

Whether a unit is a receiver, or an integrated amplifier and tuner, or a separate power amp, preamp, and tuner, or a pair of mono power amps, preamp, and tuner, is simply a question of the number of boxes the stuff is put into. Counting boxes is no way to determine quality. In general, receivers are the best value, for two reasons. First, you are only paying for one box, one power cord, etc., and if you pay for the exact same electronics in separate boxes, you will be paying for the extra boxes. Second, more receivers are made, and since it is cheaper to make a lot of something rather than a few of something, this further drives the price down for receivers. Generally speaking, unless you are wanting something better than the best receiver made, it is cheaper to get it in a receiver than as separates.

Now, as a matter of fact, manufacturers tend to put their best things in more boxes, so the very best equipment will tend to be separates. But you will be paying for this doubly, for the reasons sited above.

As for power supplies, equipment in one box can have more than one power supply built in. That is something that a manufacturer may or may not choose to do.
 
I don't agree with blackfly, receivers like the sx-1980 are high end, they were built better then allot of newer separates, and I'm sure you would need to spend much much more to even come close to the performance of many vintage TOTL receivers, you would need to spend a few grand on an amp and pre-amp and tuner to get the performance of the sx-1980, or a Nikko NR-1415, or a Technics SA-1000. TOTL receivers are like AMG Mercedes sedans, there not race cars but they outperform most things on the road, and you need to spend a considerable amount more to buy something that is better all around.

so are they the ultimate? no, but they are allot more high end then allot of modern stuff. these were flagship units, allot of resources went into them.

IMHO
 
Obviously you chaps have never heard a Yamaha CR-3020. Frex, the Yamaha CA-1000 and the CR-1000 use exactly the same power amp except that the CR-1000 has a jumper and no adjustment for Class A operation. I have been inside enough Yammies to know that they devoted as much design effort to their receivers as they did to their separates.

The major reasoning behind separates was that if a better tuner came along you only had to replace that unit, or pre-amp, or power amp. The upgrade path was achievable in moderate bites.
 
The following is IMO!!! I've owned a bunch of TOTL receivers and very few of them sound as good as the true separates from the same brand and year. For example, the 300DC/3650/2130 totally outclasses the 2500/2600 receivers. I think the Pioneer SPEC 4 sounds much better than the SX-1980. And in the Kenwood line-up, the Supreme Series is clearly better than the KR-9600 or KR-9050. I would say it is a toss up between the AU-919 and G-9000 but I imagine the BA/CA amps are superior. As Merrylander has pointed out, there are exceptions in the Yamaha world.
 
To really get a perspective on the issue and it has been discussed before you have to compare apples to apples. That is, compare a receiver with the components that go into it. There are a few such as the Marantz 1060 and the amp/preamp in the 2230, also the Marantz 18 receiver to the 20b, 7t, and 15 or a Fisher 600T to the TFM 300 and TX 300. If you try comparing unlike components you never will get an answer or consensus.

As a general rule in each cited example the receiver is somewhat compromised due to having more limited funtions though, that actually removes components from the signal path and may shorten wire runs and that may actually be a good thing and usually the power supply must be compromised to fit into the chassis space as well as usually is closer in proximately to the components and unless shielded better than the individual components can be noisier. Also, less ability to run cabling for minimum noise and rf pickup.

All that said if the receiver is well designed in layout, it can come very close to the components and to all but the more critical listener there may be almost no sonic difference.
 
Brian said:
To really get a perspective on the issue and it has been discussed before you have to compare apples to apples. That is, compare a receiver with the components that go into it. There are a few such as the Marantz 1060 and the amp/preamp in the 2230, also the Marantz 18 receiver to the 20b, 7t, and 15 or a Fisher 600T to the TFM 300 and TX 300. If you try comparing unlike components you never will get an answer or consensus.

As a general rule in each cited example the receiver is somewhat compromised due to having more limited funtions though, that actually removes components from the signal path and may shorten wire runs and that may actually be a good thing and usually the power supply must be compromised to fit into the chassis space as well as usually is closer in proximately to the components and unless shielded better than the individual components can be noisier. Also, less ability to run cabling for minimum noise and rf pickup.

All that said if the receiver is well designed in layout, it can come very close to the components and to all but the more critical listener there may be almost no sonic difference.
Click to expand...

Very true. You can always come up with examples here and there that are better.

The original question was also looking at the trade-offs.

So some of the other trade-offs is budget, opportunity, condition, and availability of listings.

I was looking for an upgrade in tuner. I was always on the losing side of the TX-9500II and others.

So I aimed lower at a TX-9100. Still kept losing.

Finally an SX-1010 receiver showed up locally. The specs are virtually the same as the TX-9100 give or take a few digits. Grabbed it. If the separates version is better so be it. But it sure sounds and met my expectations.

In other cases it was easier to go the separates route. When a CA-2010 just all of a sudden jumped out at me. ;) I understand from threads it's similar to the CR-2020 amp section, but that wasn't jumping out at me or for the same price.
 
I think the situation varies, but in the case of the Sansui G4700 which I own, and the Sansui AU 317 which I recently got on ebay, the reason I bought the AU had more to do with the elaborate write up about how the 317 operated, compared to the same level of detail Sansiu gave the G4700 writeup.

They are both rated at 50 watts, but the 4700 has 8000 uF main rectifier caps, and the 317 has 10,000 uF caps, and that is without the tuner and all the lights, although the 317 uses a different negative feedback approach, which must consume more power, and also results in very clean sound even at very low volumes. The 317 goes deeper, as in lower.
 
Even though I'm someone who owns several receivers I can certainly see why amps in concept are better at what they do. They simply have less work to do within the confines of each unit and as stated above are more versatile than their all in one kin.
 
Brian said:
To really get a perspective on the issue and it has been discussed before you have to compare apples to apples. That is, compare a receiver with the components that go into it. There are a few such as the Marantz 1060 and the amp/preamp in the 2230, also the Marantz 18 receiver to the 20b, 7t, and 15 or a Fisher 600T to the TFM 300 and TX 300. If you try comparing unlike components you never will get an answer or consensus.

As a general rule in each cited example the receiver is somewhat compromised due to having more limited funtions though, that actually removes components from the signal path and may shorten wire runs and that may actually be a good thing and usually the power supply must be compromised to fit into the chassis space as well as usually is closer in proximately to the components and unless shielded better than the individual components can be noisier. Also, less ability to run cabling for minimum noise and rf pickup.

All that said if the receiver is well designed in layout, it can come very close to the components and to all but the more critical listener there may be almost no sonic difference.
Click to expand...


this great guys...thx..I have always been very impressed with the design layout of the 1250 and the 1010 both well shielded, tuner section turned off unless selected..most others i think when on everything is ON. i was mainly wondering about the electronics, the transistors the level of quality, etc
 
Twenty20Man said:
this great guys...thx..I have always been very impressed with the design layout of the 1250 and the 1010 both well shielded, tuner section turned off unless selected..most others i think when on everything is ON. i was mainly wondering about the electronics, the transistors the level of quality, etc
Click to expand...

If you are talking about higher temperature rated caps, no they are the same. The resistor tolerances are probably the same as well.

Where you will see a difference is in the amount of power reserves available for 4 ohm loads and for dynamic headroom. Awhile ago, another thread identified the 16.5 as having one of the highest reserves for 4 ohm loads. (165 8ohm /250 4 ohm). Most powers amps comfortably exceed this ratio.
 
AltecDarpa: receiver and high end is a contradiction in terms. The whole point of a receiver is to PREVENT the dilemna of high end: each component getting its own box to ISOLATE it from one another to PREVENT contamination of ITS signal with OTHERS. Regardless of how well made the TOTL receiver is is CANNOT, by design, compete with separates where each has its own isolated power supply, chassis, shielding and controls. The SX 1980 you use as defense is a wonderful all in one unit, but it is the "jack of all trades", not the "specialist" the separates world can give.

Consider my system. I use a new Bryston 14B SST amp. There is no way this can be engineered into a receiver. My Rotel RC 5000 preamp is larger than most receivers itself and cannot be made to work, with the same sound quality, smaller. The Rotel RT 1024 tuner is a masterpiece of vintage engineering that I would put up against anything today, and it is a top tuner of any vintage. Sonically, it is superior to the tuner in the Rotel RX 1603 TOTL receiver simply as the 1024 is separate from interference, no compromises are made to make it "fit". The end result is stunning, and there is no receiver that would, or could, compare. If it could, I would of bought it (and the aforementioned Rotel RX 1603 is about the only one I would consider).

My amp is unupgradeable, but should I decide to go to monoblocks my entire system stays as per and the amps only change.

What happens if ANYTHING happens in a receiver? You are out. My tuner blows something? I still have music and can get sound while the tuner is in the shop. Cannot happen with receivers.

Consider a modern example. Both Pioneer Elite and Yamaha have VERY large TOTL home theatre units that are in the multi thousand dollar range. Very condensed, and there is no way they are totally shielded. Something goes wrong and the entire unit must be sent out for repair, leaving you with nothing.

Probably explains why I got out of home theatre and stuck to strict 2 channel audio.
 
There's no way I can directly compare my receivers to my integrateds to the separates as they're not from the same product lines and time period. Having said that the separate systems smoke the integrateds and they in turn do the same to the receivers. I like how all of them sound very much indeed, but if I have to be honest that's how it is around here.
 
Your mac receiver is definitely alone, then, and not being a mac fan I would miss it.

For your humour, consider the Stereophile 2009 buyers guide. Receivers are not even listed (I have the issue right in front of me) and IIRC the same is true for the latest issue of The Absolute Sound's buyer guide. They DO include integrated amps, but receivers are NO where to be found. If you conclude they do not exist nor are given any info or support of their existence, you tend not to include them nor consider them for worth.

In fact, despite mac being high end, Stereophiles' own web page does not list receivers of equipment reviewed. Wonder what that says. Ditto for TAS (although the main page TAS is under DOES show receivers it is not through TAS itself).

In fact the only time I have seen receivers and high end together is in the trade-in portion of the store where home theatre receivers are dropped off for "miniscule" credit towards gear or for sale on consignment. But as a product relevant to high end, it is absent. The one store I visit does sell them only to ensure there is enough market coverage to keep business good, not necessarily due to sonic reasons.

Strangely, the same stores are also absent for tuners, which to me is a complete letdown given the quality of sound one can be had on a good stand-alone tuner with cable signals.
 
ok lets say for sake of argument, i got my hands on a 700C..and i used it to drive the amp section of my 1250..now the 1250 is 160 wpc and the matching kenny is the 700m and it's 175 wpc..and i had a separate tuner lets say a yammy t1..would there be a tremdous drop off as the 1250 amp section is quite robust.
 
blackfly said:
In fact, despite mac being high end, Stereophiles' own web page does not list receivers of equipment reviewed.
Click to expand...

Mac is high priced, whether or not it's "high end" is debatable. Personally I've never been swept away by the blue fog that is Mac. And yes I've listened to plenty of Mac receivers, tuners and separates.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom