Hi all...

Often the natural upgrade for most is from an integrated amp is to a pre & power combo. I have reservations about the idea of the theory of separating the pre-gain stage from the output stage, each fed with their own pwr supplies etc etc. This is nice, someone will/can explain the advantages of this. However when you consider that the 2 stages need to be physically separated , this spells the need for a longer path for the low level signal to reach the output stage.

The need for a length of interconnect cable (no matter how good it is) will further degrade the sound which will offset some of the advantages of separating the low level input from the final output signals.

Further problems arise with Bi-amping. Where separate power amp units are used to drive a bass driver, a mid-range and a treble unit. Each input for the speaker driver has its own impedance, while the amps usually have a fixed output impedance. So you have amps driving the bass with its own set of load, whilst the mid/treble has its own, and likely to be different. There are quite a few problems with output vs input impedance mis-matching, now we have 2 or 3 mis-matches in the same system.

Lets consider the problem with the interconnect again with bi-amping. Daisy chaining 2 or more power amps together introduces slight phase problems as the nearest amp will be fed with the low pre-amped signal first, and then it has to copy that signal and feed it to the next pwr amp, and so forth. Also add to the fact that the signal is constantly copied and passed on to the next amp in line, which degrades the signal somewhat.

Of course this thread is no way implying that pre/power amps are a waste of time/money. The net gains in an amp combination is what matters. I am just opening a discussion to consider the inherent flaws with this type of upgrade. I don't believe my thread is bullet proof so you can agree or disagree with some of the things I said, its your opinion and I won't treat is as blasphemy! :)

The main thing that annoys me with me with multi box amps is the unnecessary additional costs. If you use a half decent dedicated stand (QS Ref, Hutter Fraim, etc etc) then each shelf can cost well over 150 quid, i.e. the extra to house a 4 box amp over an integrated can be over 500 bloody quid. Next there is the interconnect thing; OK, Naim amps come with them, but all others need yet another expensive variable adding to the equation. It is easy to spend many hundreds on interconnects and the same goes for power leads, an integrated just needs fewer and therefore saves cash. I keep my phono stage seperate from the amp, I see it as a different thing, but I see no real point in pre / powers any more. There are plenty of very nice integrated amps available these days so why bother with over complex multi-box alternatives?

Tony.

Yeah i agree with Tony....after going through so many boxes I ended up with an Accuphase E530 integrated and a TACT integrated (TDA2200). Although i may now move to a Tact Millenium with room correction.

I suppose it depends on speakers too...most real world speakers dont ever require more than 10watts at normal listening levels...my E530 never goes above 15watts even at very loud levels (with AP Calderas).

RH

After trying many pre/power combinations i ended with tweaked Nait 2...

It strongly depends on the sort of integrated. I have found I prefer fully stabilized PowerAmps, which aren't built into integrated amps too often. (except Exposure,Densen,...). Also, the Pre-Stage needs to be sufficiantly shielded and if possible served by either it's own power supply, or what also works fine at least it's own DC-regulator.

Integrateds were long seen as a cheap "entry" into HiFi, and thus never developed to their full potential. Afterall, nobody would have bought an expensive full-blown integrated a few years ago. Times are changing though. The Rotel integrateds are getting better and better for instance, and I wonder what Densen is developing right now to follow up the DM10.

I dumped my full blown Linn 3 way (later 2 way) active system for an integrated DM10 about a year ago, and havn't looked back since. Wonderful amp.

Cheers, Tobi.

After trying many pre/power combinations i ended with tweaked Nait 2...

Me too....untweaked though..;)

Almost any piece of kit in existence is designed with a set of compromises, almost always with cost involved, but also with the designers priorities (or lack of them as the case may be).
Personally I've been through the Naim pre-power route, which was better than their Nait solution (IMO), I'm now back to an integrated (Belcanto Evo) and love what it does, especially so at the price.

MMMM...Bel Canto...nice amp. They go well with Audio Physic speakers.

Almost any piece of kit in existence is designed with a set of compromises, almost always with cost involved, but also with the designers priorities (or lack of them as the case may be).
Personally I've been through the Naim pre-power route, which was better than their Nait solution (IMO), I'm now back to an integrated (Belcanto Evo) and love what it does, especially so at the price.

Surely the only real reason for pre/powers in the digital age is marketing and profit led?

hi

do you mean because in the digital age the amplifier can receive a digital signal and work with that in the digital domain (like tripath?)

Surely the only real reason for pre/powers in the digital age is marketing and profit led?

Not always.

Integrated means that the low level stages live in the same box as the main power amp power supply, which is a potent source of vibration and electrical noise. These problems can be mitigated with expensive solutions, but good old physical spacing and inverse square law takes a lot of beating.

On the other side of the argument, you haven't mentioned one big attraction of integrated designs; the line-level stage can be entirely skipped, and a slightly higher gain power amp can be drievn directly by the sources via volume control. I don't know which, if any, modern designs do this.

No Chris,

I mean in the old days when a preamp had to deal with RIAA EQ and delicate analogue signals, it seemed to make sense to keep that circuitry away from the power amp.

But is there really a benefit with line preamps other than to offer an "upgrade path"?

I've certainly heard enough quality integrateds recently to question the need for anything more exotic.

PigletsDad, what low level signals are you talking about?

In terms of sonic degredation, the Pre Amp can have a massive effect. The way it amplifies and transfers the tiny signal from the source to the power amplifier is very critical to the success of the whole system. You can have the best source in the world, but if the pre amp is poor, the end result will be like wise.

Some have the view that the best pre amp is no pre amp. This means using a simple potentiometer between source and power (i.e. passive pre amplifier). These can be great, but you need a low output impedance source, with a healthy volatge and a high input impedance power amplifier. It also helps to have a power amplifier with a high input sensitivity. Then by using a short, low capacitance interconnect (to avoid any trebble roll off) you can be very close to an ideal set up. This is great in theory, but in many systems passives are not ideal. Multiple power amps are are a no no, and electrical matching often does not occur.

Companies such as Creek and now Naim (with the Nait5i) and Exposure (with their latest budget integrated) are using passive pre amp stages matched electrically to the power amp stages. This is easy to do with low power designs (less than 60 watts per channel for example). However, the problems arrise when a high power, high current power amp is required. Linearity, sensitivity and gain suffer and the passive pre idea breaks down. An active, powered pre amplifier is then required.

At this stage, I believe it makes sense to go separate pre/power with a separate active pre amplifier. Each amplifier has it's own power supply and the delicate low level signals are protected from sonic degredation by being insulated within a separate box with a clean, undisrupted supply of power.

So, in summary: Low powered solid state amplifification: Go passive pre with power amp in one box (integrated. i.e. Creek 4330, 5350, A50, Naim Nait5i, Exposure etc...).

Higher powered amplifiers: Go separate pre/power with active pre amp.

If I were to have a range of amplifiers, this is the way I would do it. This is only my honest opinion though.

Brad.

No Chris,

I mean in the old days when a preamp had to deal with RIAA EQ and delicate analogue signals, it seemed to make sense to keep that circuitry away from the power amp.

But is there really a benefit with line preamps other than to offer an "upgrade path"?


On the understanding that the amplifier manufacturer can make a really good pre-amp just aswell as they can make a really good power amp then I agree completely.

The fact that so many just plain don't is the best arguement against. That's no criticism of the integrated as an idea, just the practicality of what many manufacturers do or fail to do when they implement it.

So, in summary: Low powered solid state amplifification: Go passive pre with power amp in one box (integrated. i.e. Creek 4330, 5350, A50, Naim Nait5i, Exposure etc...).

Higher powered amplifiers: Go separate pre/power with active pre amp.

That’s the traditional view for sure, but there are some real powerful one box amps around at the moment, check out some of the bigger Acuphase or the very elegant 180 watt AVI integrated etc. Then there’s the valve amps…

Tony.

Aren't the powerful 1 box solutions really pricey?

For instance, what 1 box solutions would drive my Neat MFSs, and how much would they cost?

Densen will gladly sell you their 3k B150.

And, although I don't fancy them... McIntosh do very powerful integrateds

OK, If you took a Densen Integrated, a Krell, or an AVI Lab series Integrated etc, etc, and separated the pre and power amp stages and put them into individual boxes with separate power supplies, the performance gain would be very small and not worthy of a two box price. But I bet there would be an improvement. Take any integrated, use it as a pre amp and add a matching power amp, and there will be a sonic improvement, as the power supply for the pre can offer a cleaner electrical supply.

However, if at the design/development stage, the plan is to go separate pre/power I think the sonic benefits can be very worthwhile over a high end one box strategy. This may be a bit old school in thinking, but I think it still holds true. It also allows for expansion through additional power amps in order to drive larger, three way speaker designs.

Brad.

hi,

i was going to post this question separately but seems related to this thread.
sonically, which is better, 42.5/110 or a nait (1 or 2)? rest of the system is tukan/p3.

Yes. A pre/power or multi-amp combination definately increases the price to practically use them to their best. It makes you think that the enhancements to various departments of the design of these multiple boxes must be very good to justify the price increase and the help offset the reduction in fidelity by the technical flaws that multi-boxes inherently have.

Since most hifi is about acheiving the ultimate in sonic fidelity within the constraints of price, market, available technology etc etc, Why can't the huge efforts in making these mega multi box amp combos be concentrated on a powerful integrated amp? Is shielding the pre-amp stage from the output stage and even the power supply too much of a feat? Also this eliminates the need for external interconnects which do nothing but colour and in bi-amp cases, delay the signal for separate power amps.

It seems like many hifi companies wish to address old problems at the cost of introducing new ones. The only motivation I can see in a company who knows how to build hi-fidelity equipment that knowingly faces the increase in engineering odds is for the extra money/profit that they can make from it.

Reminds me of Bose really.

An adequately powered integrated is fine for passive loudspeakers. Tough if you want active amplification though. On the cards for me is yet another power amp. This time, a four-channel Densen B-340 to complement my pair of B-350 monos, and my first tentative steps into active amplification.

James

This is exactly what I have been going through the past several months. I wanted to upgrade my 112/150 to something with more power,a nd something that osunded a bit better, and realized what it would cost to stay the Naim route towards something like a 282/250.2.

So I started getting some well-reviewed integrateds at home to see how they did. I also wanted to decrease the box count, and pout more money into upgrading the front end (CD5-Hi) and my speakers (audio Physic Virgos). The three best well known integrated I had for extended demos were a Unico SE, a BelCanto, and a YBA Passion. I wanted to try a newer Accuphase, but couldn't find any here in eattle to check out. Quite different was each, and I can definately see the appeal of each these amps to different tastes. I also think fewer boxes,no interconnects, shorter signalpaths etc has to be agood thing.

I'll be keeping the YBA, although each would have been fine. I'm looking forward to no more SNAICS, etc., and next will probably be the CD5, since I've got an Opus 21 at home right now......


Bruce

Bruce-

What were your thoughts on the Bel Canto?

An interesting comparison would be the Densen B150 integrated and the B200/B320 pre/power combo.

The integrated is more expensive.

Hi Erik,

I didn't care for the BelCanto, but not sure why, and I have the feeling my room and system were a poor match, since many fellow Pinkfishers (as well as mags) love it.

They are VERY reasonably priced on Agon, and available almost daily.

Bruce

Aren't the powerful 1 box solutions really pricey?

For instance, what 1 box solutions would drive my Neat MFSs, and how much would they cost?

I was searching for a powerful integrated amp for some power hungry ATC SCM12. I found the following reasonably priced int amps in the second hand market:

ATC SIA2-150 : 1000 pounds 150W
Tact SDAi2175 : 700 pounds 200W
AVI Lab Series integrated : 850 pounds 150W
Classe CAP101 integrated : 500 pounds 100W
Musical fidelity A308 : 750 to 900 pounds 150W

I settled with the Tact with great satisfaction. The Tact SDAi2175 int amp is a class D with an active pre amp stage, but the sensitivity is a bit too low at 2V for full output. Fortunately, I don't play music very loud, so I have found the Tact with a Quad FM4 tuner which has a very low output gives sufficient volume for me.

Hon

Hon

Tony L said:The main thing that annoys me with me with multi box amps is the unnecessary additional costs. If you use a half decent dedicated stand (QS Ref, Hutter Fraim, etc etc) then each shelf can cost well over 150 quid, i.e. the extra to house a 4 box amp over an integrated can be over 500 bloody quid. Next there is the interconnect thing; OK, Naim amps come with them, but all others need yet another expensive variable adding to the equation. It is easy to spend many hundreds on interconnects and the same goes for power leads, an integrated just needs fewer and therefore saves cash. I keep my phono stage seperate from the amp, I see it as a different thing, but I see no real point in pre / powers any more. There are plenty of very nice integrated amps available these days so why bother with over complex multi-box alternatives?

Tony. yes, Yes, and YES!

Did I mention that Fraim costs (as against 'worth') A$1000.00 per shelf! I'll leave you to work out the exchange rate difference to what it converts to in UK pounds! :o

I can see some theoretical benefits in the mutl-box approach; individual power supplies, keeping sensitive pre-amp circuits away from magnetic fields/interference from transformers, power supplies etc, however to me in this day and age, it is still playing around with yesterdays technology, trying to come up with a better blade on a well outdated axe, when digital amplification technology, whilst not without it's shortcomings, circumvents most, if not all of the shortcomings of analogue design in a stroke.

Certainly an integrated design lends itself extremely well to a digital amp, with very short signal paths, and with a 'pure' digital amp, the signal is effectively digital from input, until just before the speaker outlets, so all the traditional things that cause endless compromise in an analogue amp are dealt with at the design stage.

No negative feedback is required (although some do use feedback designs), no crossover distortion, no thermal modulation distortion; even the volume pot is not in the signal path; it merely regulates the power from the power supply to the output transistors, which again are not in the signal path, but merely act as switches for the digital pulse bitstream.

To take the axe analogy, I'd far sooner have an titanium axe with a magnesium handle, than a wooden handle on it's third or fourth iteration, with a semi-blunt axe blade, even if the balance of the titanium axe needs a bit more work in some areas!

To my mind, digital amplification is the way of the future, and I have little doubt that in a few years, traditional solid state as we know it will go the way of the technological dustbin, apart from the odd diehard specialist who will likely denigrate digital amplification (along with valves) whilst they purport the superiority of their views, and of course, analogue amplification product.

Lets see, there's Nuforce, Bel-Canto, Tact, Tripath, Lyngdorf, and now Rotel, Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, and even Denon are bringing out digital amps. Oh, and heheh, even the mighty 'God' of salisbury are bringing out the NVi, with of course their own badge and mantra attached to it, but at it's heart beats OEM US sourced Tripath digital amplification. Lets not forget B&O patented ICE power digital amplification either, which is used in their own active speakers, but also licensed to Rotel, Jeff Rowland high-end amps, B&W subs, etc.

Nope, basically I see no further need with the technology available today, and at such sensible prices, to stick with the sheer expense, complexity, and compromises as pointed out by others, of multi-boxed analogue amplification.

No doubt others will disagree, and fairly so, but when I have found a technology which promises so much on paper; delivers it in terms of sound quality, AND at prices the enthusiast on a sensible/realistic income can afford, well, I just rejoice and would happily consign the over priced multi-box amp to the dustbin!

Just my 2c worth of course!

Best

John..;)

Unless your 'integrated' amp includes a phono stage, it can't really be said to be 'integrated' can it?

And unless your integrated actually contains a preamp, so you have post volume control buffered outputs, it's somewhat constraining should you get into sub-woofery etc. And there are probably still people about who benefit from independently routed tape outs and similar. Or the opportunities for multiroom setups.

Most modern 'integrated' amps seem to be power amps with passive input selection and a volume pot. Which is very cost effective and simple but not necessarily a complete solution.

Paul

Unless your 'integrated' amp includes a phono stage, it can't really be said to be 'integrated' can it?
Paul

So can a Naim 252 be called a preamp then Paul?

Lets see, there's Nuforce, Bel-Canto, Tact, Tripath, Lyngdorf, and now Rotel, Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, and even Denon are bringing out digital amps.....basically I see no further need with the technology available today,

John,

Having owned and listened to a number of those amplifiers, I would say the technology still has some way to go before you can make those claims. With the exception of some Tact amps and the Sony S Master modules, the technology in use has been around for getting on for fifty years without usurping other forms of amplification. Tact and Sony's propositions are still an aquired taste and not popular with many despite their undoubted virtues.

I have little doubt that in the long term these technologies will dominate the market. This will be IMO down to cost and convenience advantages rather than any inherent sonic superiority. Oh and one thing I did find with Tact and other "digital" amplification was that it benefitted enormously from keeping pre and power as far away from each other as possible, no doubt due to the horrendous amount of RF produced by the circuitry.

Unless your 'integrated' amp includes a phono stage, it can't really be said to be 'integrated' can it?

It is far more logical it is to think of the phono stage as part of the turntable than part of the amp. Phono stages were built into amps as a historical tradition dating from the days of ceramic cartridges / radiograms etc, once MM carts and especially MCs came along it became pretty obvious that an amplifier is rather a silly place to put such a delicate circuit, removing it allows the preamp section of an amp to be greatly simplified or even reduced to a passive selector and volume pot. This makes the phono stage an optional extra which is fair enough as many people (I like to refer to them as idiots) don’t even have a turntable.

Tony.

So can a Naim 252 be called a preamp then Paul?
It does a lot of things that most modern 'integrated' amps don't. So I guess 'yes'.

The trend towards the integrated amp as a power amp with multiple inputs and a pot was triggered by the move to CD, especially with CDs high output level. It makes a lot of sense in CD based systems.

Paul

It is far more logical it is to think of the phono stage as part of the turntable than part of the amp.
This may be 'logical' but outside the Naim Prefix it is almost unknown. Once you have a separate box with a phono stage in it what is the argument for putting the volume control and switching in the power amp?

And surely the logical place for a power amp is right beside (or even inside) the speaker...

Paul

It does a lot of things that most modern 'integrated' amps don't. So I guess 'yes'.
Paul


Sorry Paul, like what? What does it do that say my McIntosh didn't? Or an Accuphase E307? Or.....

Prat?

Could well be but since when did that bar me from asking a question?

What does it do that say my McIntosh didn't? Or an Accuphase E307? Or.....
Or your Berning? I guess the McIntosh and Accuphase are 'old fashioned', Accuphase claim "Separate switch allows independent use of preamplifier and power amplifier", which sort of makes the point.

Paul

Or your Berning? I guess the McIntosh and Accuphase are 'old fashioned', Accuphase claim "Separate switch allows independent use of preamplifier and power amplifier", which sort of makes the point.

Paul, you're slipping. You forgot to put an ellipsis (...) into your post.

There isn't one in #32 either.

Or in this one. I seem to have missed a couple of colonic opportunities though.

Paul

I do feel its time for another (irrigation), Paul.

Or your Berning? I guess the McIntosh and Accuphase are 'old fashioned', Accuphase claim "Separate switch allows independent use of preamplifier and power amplifier", which sort of makes the point.

Paul

Berning's not an integrated - it's a power amp with a passive pot.

Just because some European flatties have managed to boost margins by removing a gain stage doesn't mean it's right to apply that to proper integrateds.

So 'proper integrateds' are power amps and preamps in the same box. Which validates the concept of putting them in separate boxes, when it makes sense.

I'm not sure we're talking about 'flatties' here since sticking a switch and a pot inside a valve power amp seems a popular marketing move.

Paul

mike

have you considered replacing the carbon track passive volume control with a decent stepped attenuator?

I've just put one in my pre (been promising myself one for years) and I think on balance it's better.

It has affected the overall gain (despite being a similarly rated device to the carbon track alps blue it replaced) so that will need sorting with resistors.

So 'proper integrateds' are power amps and preamps in the same box. Which validates the concept of putting them in separate boxes, when it makes sense.


When does it make sense? That's my problem. It certainly makes sense to the manufacturer to charge for two boxes. But does it make sense to buy these boxes?

Chris,

Can't be arsed mate. It's good enough as it is and I'm not into "on balance" upgrades anymore. But glad you had some success.

An interesting comparison would be the Densen B150 integrated and the B200/B320 pre/power combo.

The integrated is more expensive.
The B150 is based on the B250 and B350, which makes the integrated cheaper by far.

James

Passive pre's seem logical, however in practice they seem often seem to lack liveliness and dynamics. This issue is often blamed on hf rolloff caused by the interconnects, however I have tried placing the pot physically right at the amplifier input - IME this does not solve the issue.

Even with really high impedance, high gain amps (e.g. Leak ST20) I get better results using an active pre than a passive one.

To me this is one of the many unsolved mysteries of hifi. Only if some sort of bandlimiting/noise reduction/signal processing is applied (e.g. Naim) can I see any logical reason to use an active pre. My pre is very wide bandwidth and has no (intended) filtering anywhere near the audio band but it still "enhances" the sound quality significantly.

Maybe it would sound the same or better if the active stages were placed inside the power amp, thereby becoming an integrated amp (but not with a passive line stage). Who knows?

I think I'll be sticking with separate pre and power amps.

So... shoulndt a Linn Classik be the best solution of them all? :rolleyes:

It could be seen as a CDP that is able to drive a speaker - no wires whatsoever and as a result, glorious sound ever after...



Samuel

Vin,

if you match the Classik to some good speakers and are careful with setup, it can be surprisingly good.

The Naim NVi is so good it has caused problems with dealers preferring it to some Naim seperates (two channel) which has led to delays.

When does it make sense? That's my problem. It certainly makes sense to the manufacturer to charge for two boxes. But does it make sense to buy these boxes?
ISTM that you have at least a 2 box amp, possibly 3, I'm a little out of touch. So perhaps the answer is obvious?

Also if you run active speakers or want to hide the big ugly bit and just have something small and literally cool on show, there are myriad reasons for splitting the functionality.

The Accuphase and McIntosh you referenced earlier only suit a small minority, fans of a particular style of appearance. They're not very flexible.

Paul

Isn't the main argument for separate pre and power more to do with isolating the sensitive low-level signals in the first amplification/buffering stages from a great big whopping transformer? When I had Naim amps, I could clearly hear the deletrious difference when the preamp was placed close to its PSU and power amp(s). Maybe switch-mode PSUs fixes all that.

James

The Accuphase and McIntosh you referenced earlier only suit a small minority. They're not very flexible.

Paul

Well they can operate as integrateds, or as power amps, pre amps, or as seperate pre/powers in biamp/active arrays or with processors, EQ's inserted inbetween.

They have on board phono stages or serviceable quality, tape loops, tone controls, theatre bypasses, power indicators and remote controls.

Could you explain where they lack flexibility?

The Naim NVi is so good it has caused problems with dealers preferring it to some Naim seperates (two channel) which has led to delays.

???
I've heard an Nvi, thought it was pants.

The Accuphase and McIntosh you referenced earlier only suit a small minority, fans of a particular style of appearance.

Ok, so some people (for some inexplicable reason) may not like lovely big blue watt meters, so what about the AVI Integrated (http://www.avihifi.co.uk/IntAmp/Integrated%20Amp.html) – on paper it competes with the very best available from Salisbury or Glasgow and IIRC costs just 1400 quid. I’ve never heard one, though if it does what it says on the tin it should be a formidable amp and somewhat destroys the argument you need a series of huge boxes to generate serious wattage into any speaker load.

Tony.

???
I've heard an Nvi, thought it was pants.

Well all I can tell you Mike is that the dealers seemed to think otherwise when left to play with it by themselves.

Could you explain where they lack flexibility?
Once you've put them somewhere, that's where they stay.

And one wouldn't fit under the sofa, not to mention then having difficulty working the knobs.

Paul

The AVI lab series integrated is very good. Infact I almost bought one second hand. They are about 850 used. I also know a few people with them with full AVI systems. One thing though, the AVI stuff produces quite a rounded sound. It's not that it does not do PRaT, but it tries to offer excellent levels of detail, resolution and soundstage depth + width. If you are after a true flat earth amplifer, forget it. However, if you want a well balanced all rounder with plenty of current, then it is a very good buy. I wanted more rhythm and went Rega Cursa/Maia pre/power.

I think that the Rega pre/power systems (cursa/maia and cursa/exons) are some of the best kept secrets in high quality value for money hi fi.

AVI also do a pre/power system and they do say it is better than the integrated.

Brad.

Isn't the main argument for separate pre and power more to do with isolating the sensitive low-level signals in the first amplification/buffering stages from a great big whopping transformer?
That's just a minor engineering problem. If you can make a good power amp you can put a preamp or volume control in there too.

Paul

That's just a minor engineering problem. If you can make a good power amp you can put a preamp or volume control in there too.
Paul
The problem might be major rather than minor.
Installing a passive attenuator onto a good power amp can yield good results, whilst trying to fit an active linestage in a limited space, seems to be more challenging to make it worthwhile.

I don't get your argument, Paul. The case usually accounts for 30-50% of an amp's cost, the packaging for another 5-10%. Surely a good reason for integrateds?

Well all I can tell you Mike is that the dealers seemed to think otherwise when left to play with it by themselves.

Only comparing to Naim amps?

I don't get your argument, Paul.
The argument is that there's a place for both, and that the popular trend towards a passive controller inside a power amp is explicable for cost reasons but implies significant limitations for some uses. And that there's no difference semantically between a separate phono stage followed by an 'integrated' amp and a pre with phono followed by a power...

There's a place for both, why this cause such angst is unclear. Try putting your integrated amp under the sofa, or in a cupboard, or in the speaker stand...

Paul

Try putting your integrated amp under the sofa, or in a cupboard, or in the speaker stand...

Or under the floor, where my Avondale power amp is.

Passive pre's seem logical, however in practice they seem often seem to lack liveliness and dynamics. This issue is often blamed on hf rolloff caused by the interconnects, however I have tried placing the pot physically right at the amplifier input - IME this does not solve the issue.

I agree!

Mr Tibbs

Could this (http://www.soundscapehifi.com/leben-integrated.htm#cs-300) be the best looking integrated amp in the world? (Eye of beholder etc, etc)

I have a Creek 4330 with a passive pre and it seems to work just fine. IME it is more lively than the higher powered Creek integrated amps (which also have passive pre).

Recently, I noticed that Creek now offer an optional gain board for their higher powered integrated. A bit of fence straddling maybe?

I have owned both the Creek 4330 and the 5350SE. I have also biamped the 4330 with the A43 power amplifier, before I went to the 5350SE. I now have a Rega Cursa/Maia set up which I prefer to both the Creeks. I believe this is manily due to the active pre amp. This set up may not have the transparency of the Creeks, but it's dynamically better.

Both of the Creeks are cracking integrated amplifiers, or should we say power amplifiers with a passive volume control. I think I would agree, the 4330 is perhaps a little bit less polite, compared to the 5350SE. The 5350SE is a more refined amplifer with a cleaner sound. But with sensitive speakers, the 4330 does the trick.

Creek has always prefered a passive pre. In 1997, he managed (with the help of a talanted engineer named Alex Nikitin who has now left Creek and started ANT audio) to utilise a passive pre amp stage in the 4330. This amplifer sent shockwaves through the audio world and set new standards in it's price sector (and beyond). However, Creek could not use a passive with his higher powered amplifers (i.e. 5250). It was four years later, that he achieved the goal of a high current integrated with a passive pre amp stage, without sacrificing linearity. The 5350SE was born.

I have also noticed that the new Destiny has a switchable passive/active pre amp. This is probably because he is not totally happy with the electrical match of the passive with the higher powered power amp stage.

Naim are now using a passive pre amp stage in the Nait 5i. Exposure as well as others are doing the same.

I wonder if the Super Nait (when will it be released?) will have a passive pre?

Brad.

Only comparing to Naim amps?

SS, I was told that the feedback suggests some Naim dealers would struggle to sell lower end two channel seperates because many felt the NVi was better.

Quite what they plan on doing about this I don't know, but some insiders are suggesting they may "modify" the NVi rather than attempt to improve the two channel gear.

Could this be the best looking integrated amp in the world?
I don't know about best looking but apparently it offers,

Authentic Made in Japan

So its designers have their priorities right.

Paul

Yeah the Leben amplifiers are to valve amplification what Accuphase is to solid state...the best build quality in the world.

Could this (http://www.soundscapehifi.com/leben-integrated.htm#cs-300) be the best looking integrated amp in the world? (Eye of beholder etc, etc)

Leben amplifiers
Indeed some interesting stuff there..
I've allways fancied the old Lux look and didn't know about Leben until now. - I'd love hearing on suitable effective speakers.

the Super Nait (when will it be released?
Hopefully soon, I simply can't understand why Naim hasn't been more upfront with a finest possible integrated ? Why let other brands stay unchallenced in market leader ? Just take a look at the succes Linn have with their Adikt and Classic range !
I bet they make big money..while Naim are doing AV..
Looking back, Naim did change allmost their entire amplifier range overnight (82 to 282, etc..) Don't tell me they haven't resources.

No doubt the 5i is a fine amp but they should be able to release 202/200 level or better with the insight and simplicity a good integrated amplifier should contain.
Cost matters little these days - There is a huge market out there.

Forgive me for not remembering who, but someone on pfm has often remarked how good the Leben amps sound too. . . .

I get the feeling Naim prefers consumers to buy 'lego' rather than a singular item.

I fear so, a strongly no-no for any future SuperNait is they won't interfeer within their current hiearchy ie. the 112/150 should be food for many integrated..

It would be foolish not to release a SuperNait imo. - hiearchy or not

Quite what they plan on doing about this I don't know, but some insiders are suggesting they may "modify" the NVi rather than attempt to improve the two channel gear.

Now, why doesn't that surprise me? ;-)

Originally Posted by Paul Dimaline
Could this be the best looking integrated amp in the world? (Eye of beholder etc, etc)

There was one of these on static demo at Manchester recently. It looked rather better in the flesh.

I'm going to ask around in Tokyo...there must be one there!!! would love to try one out.

I get the feeling Naim prefers consumers to buy 'lego' rather than a singular item.

Lego® is cool.

Lego® is cool.

Its the epitomy of upgraditis to me :) Still its good gear make no doubts about it!

R

Forgive me for not remembering who, but someone on pfm has often remarked how good the Leben amps sound too. . . .
martin47 spoke as much in the recent "Chinese valve amps" thread.

The best looking integrated in the world is still the Margules HD-1:
http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9017/hd1grande8pf.jpg

Integrateds may equal simplicity, but active pre/power combos generally have more balls.

Why can't the huge efforts in making these mega multi box amp combos be concentrated on a powerful integrated amp?

One problem is perceived value. We tend to feel we have got better value if we get 2 boxes for £3000 rather than one for £2000.

Regards passive/active preamps, the advantage of active is that it is more consistant between different sources. A passive may work well with a source that has low output impedance but less so if it has high impedance.

Integrateds may equal simplicity, but active pre/power combos generally have more balls.

Depends what you mean by "balls". My interpretation would be more grunt in the way of current and responsiveness to power requirements (therefore not necessarily absolute power).
If anything, I'd expect an integrated to do quite well on this.
As an example, with the integrated being cheaper to produce, an equivalently priced integrated might well in theory have a bigger/better transformer unit, which I'd expect to give better current delivery.

Did you ever listen to the ATC amp? I have SCM12s too and am swithering on paper between demoing the AVI or ATC. Any views?