After reading about and listening to many integrated amps I acknowledge them as sounding superior to most receivers on the market. But what is it about them that makes them lack? I pose a hypothetical question, as an owner of an HK 445 which has both pre out and direct ins, and someone looking to upgrade, do receivers fall short on the processing end or the amplification end. Which could sound better, a pre amp feeding the HK or the HK feeding an amp. I understand that there is simply more things to be taken into account like source, but all things being equal, which has the potential to deliver better results?
Only ones that I can currently afford, NAD 325, Rotel 1062. I wanted to listen to the Cambridge but the dealer I went to told me that he would not be surprised if they came off the same assembly line as NAD stuff, thus they basically sound the same.
Just because they came off the same assembly line doesn't mean they came from the same design room.
Utica Club and Saranac are brewed in the same 'factory.' They don't taste similar in any way.
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and Sierra Nevada Stout are brewed in the same place, and probably use the same equipment. Again, they don't taste like each other.
Find a new dealer. It sounds like the idiot that told me to buy a Marantz receiver over an NAD 320BEE because thats what he had in the back room at the time - "At this level, they all sound the same."
I would not be surprised if the guy could not explain how the Nad powerdrive works, or the soft clipping. I do not see other mentioned brands with the same stuff as that.
I'm certain that in the Greater Boston area you can find a couple dozen worthy places to audition new stuff. Many will have a used department featuring trades and consignment goods. Might be worth a days voyage into 'town'.
Good pre-amps usually have a very short signal path and little in the way of extraneous features. Good power amps usually have hefty power supplies and large capacitors.
Receivers usually (not always) lack these attributes.
Both the NAD 325 and Rotel 1062 are fine budget integrated amps. If you can live without a remote the Rega Brio 3 is better IMO than either of the above.
And no, the Cambridge and NAD's don't sound the same. The fella's are right, find another dealer.
Everybody's right on this one; the difference between CA and NAD sound is like Scarlett Johansson v. Linda Hunt. The dealers comments is even dumber than some of my posts.
HK has introduced a new integrated with enormous power that doubles from 8 ohms to 4 ohms: http://www.harmankardon.com/EN-US/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?PID=HK%2099 0
One complimentary review noted that it lacked in dynamics - this is not new to my ears that the HK sond is kind of lifeless and boring.
Don't think the new HK integrated offers the HT pass thru feature like Krell, CA, MF - this is a big selling point for versatlility in a HT AVR type of market.
Yup. A straight comparison a while back from the big dog H/K receiver compared to my NAD really showed the lifelessness of the H/K. At least in my system and to my ears. It was terrible.
Cambridge and NAD DO NOT sound ANYTHING alike at all. I can't say I like one more than the other but they sound totally different. That dealer is a moron.
"But what is it about them that makes them lack? I pose a hypothetical question, as an owner of an HK 445 which has both pre out and direct ins, and someone looking to upgrade, do receivers fall short on the processing end or the amplification end. Which could sound better, a pre amp feeding the HK or the HK feeding an amp."
You'll first need to compare components within the same manufacturer's line to fairly determine whether one type of amplifier sounds "better" than another. This, of course, should be done using the same speakers since differences in amplification would likely not be evident on speakers that are either not very stressful to any amplifier or have sufficient colorations to obscure the deficiencies or benefits of the new amplifier. Any good audio shop should be capable of presenting their products in a good light and this would make for an unfair comparison when one of the competitors is missing in action.
Unless you've done a fair comparison it would be unlikely you should really notice any significant differences between amplifiers that could not easily be undone by another listen with other speakers or a different receiver vs another integrated. Listening done on different systems in different dealer's or friend's rooms lends itself to too many judgemental errors of bias expectations being met.
Comparing a good sounding but still mass market line such as HK against a good sounding specialty line such as NAD is somewhat unfair unless you have the ability to bring both amplifiers into the same associated system. Given a proper audition you should be able to arrive at an idea that you are essentially getting what you pay for. One company builds with a certain customer in mind and the other company builds for yet another prospective buyer.
Integrated amplifiers have always been the more appealing product to the erudite listener while receivers have for the most part remained the poor cousin wrapped in mass market off the rack clothing. This certainly isn't true for all integrateds and receivers but today most designers approach an integrated amplifier as a component that must perform to a higher level than a comparably powered stereo receiver. The signal paths of integrateds are minimized by a typically less feature oriented pre amp section which should allow more of what came in to now go out with less noise pickup and fewer contact points to degrade the signal path - button and knob technology vs. a more direct signal path. Receivers are most often sold by pointing out the number of features, switching facilities and the usefullness of the remote control. None of those things tend to play into the decision making process of the average integrated amplifier buyer or else they'd be looking at recievers. Switches, connectors and other passive parts are usually of a slightly better grade for the integrated vs the receiver providing improved sound quality and expectations of increased longevity and realibility. The lack of a tuner is no longer a real issue in an integrated as the tuner is effectively removed from the signal path when it is not in use in all but the lowest priced receivers and little real money is devoted to the inclusion of a digital tuner of moderate quality in any mass market receiver. None the less a tuner does require space inside the chassis and does present the potential for signal degradation and this almost always cramps most recievers into placing circuits and wiring closer together and closer to noise and heat producing components.
Designed to appeal to the more discriminating listener, in addition to better circuit layout, a good integrated amplifier is more likely to have a higher quality power supply which is providing control voltage and current to fewer circuits vs the average stereo receiver. Since any analog amplifier can rightly be described as not much more than a modulated power supply a higher quality power supply will almost always result in higher quality sound reproduction. There is much more to building a good amplifier than just a big power supply but the rule still holds that you should consider the amplifier that weighs more to be the better built component. Manufacturers tend to scrimp where they think they can most easily get by with it and a high quality power supply is often the first fudge in an inferior amplifier design.
Unfortunately, most integrateds shy of the Krell, Rowland, Pass or Mcintosh variety are still considered compromise components and they very likely won't have the ability to adequately drive the most difficult speaker loads to high SPL's but in the current day market place it is fairly uncommon to see integrateds sporting the current limiting "6-8 Ohm" switches that have become ubiquitous on mass market receivers. Therefore, given a not too difficult speaker load the integrated amplifier should be somewhat more transparent to the ear than most comparably priced stereo recievers. In high end audio more than any other single quality "transparency" is the key to better, more believable, more three dimensional, more realistic, relaxing and engaging sound quality.
So, given the average design differences between receivers and integrated amplifiers you can expect most budget oriented integrateds to perform to a higher level than a receiver from the same company. IMO, the trick would be to find the integrated amplifier that sounds just as good as the same company's receiver. That is most likely to be the company that designs to a standard of audio reproduction and not just to a price point or to the competition's products. That sort of consistency in a product line doesn't come cheap.
I can't begin to tell you what to buy, a new amplifier or a new pre amplifier. I have no idea what your priorities are or how you listen nor do I have any idea how well your current system is set up to demonstrate the improvements a higher quality component like a power amplifier could offer. Your speakers are not that difficult to drive so your reciever should not be stressed at moderate listening levels by their presence. You haven't even listed why you might consider buying a new anything if this is more than a hypothetical question. You haven't established any goals for your system's sound for me to go by when making suggestions so it's very difficult to say do this or that - hypotheticals are just that because the reality of the situation doesn't impose itself on the answer.
A better amplifier will give you more flexibility in speaker selection and ideally more transparency in any and all conditions . A better pre amp will provide less hash, crud and crap to be passed to the amplifier and more music to pass unharmed from input to output. A higher quality source will allow every piece that follows to perform to a higher level of quality. Better-than-mass-market-speakers will get you closer to the music by offering more to hear arranged in a more interesting and more engaging fashion.
Given your listed system I would tell you the pre amp in your reciever has a pretty easy job to perform and despite the issues of more hash, crud and crap probably is allowing a good bit of music to pass relatively unharmed. As long as you have speakers that do not demand a lot from the amplifier your receiver's power amp section is committing more sins of omission than of commission - which is the more desirable trade off.
Depending on your priorities and your preceived budget as to a time line for upgrades I would tell you to consider new speakers first, then a new source and then a new amplifier of some sort - whether integrated or separates. Keep any new source balanced with what you might later own in speakers and amplifier - particularly in turntables, the RX should be replaced if you have a major investment in vinyl. Devote a good portion of your funds to source components but look also for components that can be upgraded instead of replaced. Listen to speakers that offer more transparancy and less sizzle and boom for the dollar than your BA's. With those two pieces in place you would be in a better position to choose which amplifier will best suit your system and your tastes. That is, if the question is more than a mere hypothetical.
Jan, I don't know about todays stuff, but there used to be the catagory of 'tuner-preamp', the advantage of which was to keep the hi power and lo power stuff on separate chassis with exclusive power supplies. My long-gone NAD serviced 3 different power amps over the years before being retired. Had a reasonable phono section, too.
I doubt that plays in the current market, where the closest component would probably be the Pre-Pro of the HT crowd.
Thanks for all the great advice. Jan that was quite the informative novel. Thank You. Overall, the goals would be a higher level of transperancy, more engaging and a better soundstage (The ability of the speakers tp create perceieved sounds outside their actual distance along with a depth of the sounds stage.) From what I gathered from what you were saying, for these goals it would be best to invest in the speakers that could support my system at the level I wish it top be at.
Sure, the system has to be balanced and each component should serve the better qualities of every other component while downplaying the lesser qualites of each component. That means you have to have a clear idea of what it is you want each component to achieve separately and together as a system. And you need a plan on how to get from where you are to where you want to be.
The annoying thing about upgrading is you can very easily get one component that lets down all the others just as you can have one component that is too good and provides few benefits while it shines a light on the deficiencies in other areas.
If you can find a very good audio shop that can give you the time for quiet weekday afternoon auditions, you'll find that not-all-that-expensive-speakers can be driven to surprisingly good quality with top notch components in front of them.
I would frequently demonstrate a $250-350 pair of speakers with $20k worth of electronics and source player in front of them and I always found the results to be astonishingly high quality for such an inexpensive speaker. But, I chose very, very good for the price $250 speakers to use for the audition.
I could be wrong because I've not listened to BA's in years but I doubt they have strayed too far from the mass market products I last heard from them. (And, FYI, I owned a pair of the original BA A200's way back when but BA is now a very different company.) I would suggest you give a listen to some higher quality speakers and determine whether what you own can be as organized, as truthful and as musical in their presentation as some of the better stand mounts under $1k. Spending a modest amount on new speakers could be the lynchpin to getting started on an upgraded system. I would think you might be satisfied with something well under $1k if you shop carefully and your area has a decent representation of brands to choose from.
Get your priorities straight in your head so you're not just buying something else on a whim and do some serious listening to live music performed in your area and then to some speakers. If you haven't established any priorities beyond the simple goals of transparency and engagement, then wait until you have a more fully formed idea of what it is you are seeking. Get over the idea that you have to spend some money just because you have some money to spend. Every time you think about buying something that doesn't really make a noticeable improvement in your system, stick that money aside as if you'd spent it and save it to buy a still better component later.
Generalities such as transparency and engagment are not qualities a salesperon can lead you to. They are not qualities which you can easily discriminate between one product and another in a short store bound demonstration. They are a step above "tight bass and clear mids" but not by much. We would all hope most audiophile oriented components and speakers should be able to achieve higher degrees of transparency and engagement when compared to more mass market lines, that is supposedly why the high end products exist. The question should be whether they can do so in comparison to live music, how do they stack up against the real thing? So you'll need to have a more defined concept of what it is you're seeking unless you just want to try this hit and miss because such and such a speaker makes so and so's voice sound really good on this or that recording.
Be certain you can discriminate between what is attributable to the different speakers and what is coming from the rest of the system. If the shop is willing, listening to the same speakers on various levels of electronics and source players should allow for this level of perception.
Soundstaging is something I generally tell people to ignore at the level where you're shopping. It's a minor factor when you're making a decision between $20-30k and above speakers but at the lower price ranges there are too many things that can effect the soundstaging of a system for this to be much of a factor in what you buy. Certainly, if you want a less forward or less laid back sounding speaker, you should inform the salesstaff of that preference but telling someone you want better soundstaging is like saying you want a car that feels faster or ice cream that tastes better.
Hearing fantastic soundstaging in a demo is no guarantee of having the same results in your own system and in your room. Besides, soundstaging is not much more than a trick in most modern recordings. If you are listening to the average pop/rock material, you are listening to a soundstage constructed almost entirely in the studio after the musicians left the building. What is the soundstage of a drum kit with a dozen microphones on it? What sort of soundstage does an electric guitar, bass or piano have when it's plugged directly into the mixer? What does it have after the producer/engineer do their thing with the track? So what exactly are you listening to? Parlor tricks? There's more to music than parlor tricks.
Hook your speakers out of phase and you'll have soundstaging that is outside the physical boundaries of the speaker boxes. It will be kinda weird but it will exist outside the boxes. A panpot here and a touch of chorussing there, a goosed up flange and a bit of fading the tom-tom mic and the engineer gets a "soundstage" the same way as you do when you hook the speakers up incorrectly. Any good audio shop should have a stack of demo material that knocks your socks off as far as pop/rock soundstaging goes, that's their job - to sell what they carry. So, you'll end up with speakers that have "good soundstaging" on one or two demo quality discs. What about the other few hundred discs you actually listen to for the music? Ever listen to anything in mono? You might try it, it can tell you alot about a system if you know what to listen for.
If you actually listen to classical, non-amplified material performed in a space with all the musicians present at the same time and you are well acquainted with the sound inside a symphony hall, then I would say pay attention to the soundstaging capabilites of any system as it plays a very large role in the final product by maintaining essential instruments in their proper location. If, without thinking about it, you know where an oboe sits in relation to the clarinet and the French Horns and where the chimes would be located and the tympani, then you should probably pay some attention to soundstaging. But wanting speakers that soundstage outside their locations is not IMO a very realistic priority if you listen to any style of music. That's not to say speakers cannot manage this attribute, many can and do. It is to say do not make this a priority over a quality that actually relates to the music being performed. Speakers and systems manage a well formed soundstage because they do other things well. Figure out what those other things are and listen for them and you'll have good soundstaging by default.
IMO, you need to get a better handle on what it is you want from a system in terms of the music and not just the audiophile buzzwords that you can pick up by reading any magazine or talking to friends or reading a forum. You do this by listening to real live music played by people performing in the same room as you. Before you spend money on nefarious qualities of audio reproduction find out what it is the system is supposed to be reproducing. Those are the qualities you want. They have nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the music. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone walking out of a concert exclaiming that was the most transparent sound they had ever heard and OH! the soundstaging!!! If the system does things of a musical nature, it will very likely do the rest too so concentrate on the music first.
Do you get what I'm saying?
When you have your priorities in line and you're ready to make some comparisons ask the sales staff to hook the speakers up to above their normal level electronics to begin with. Realize the equipment you have cannot pull off what a high quality system can nor will the lower priced components in the shop and ask for a home audition before you make a final decision. If you're not convinced new speakers will benefit your present system, then I would head towards a new source player. No system can be any more transparent than what comes out of its front end and no system can reproduce any music the speakers obscure. Everything must be in balance.
Thanks again. I actually just today picked up an old Panasonic integrated amp su-374 looked early nineties. I wanted it for the phono section and am current using it as a pre-to the HK. The sound did actually become a little more transparent, cleaner, darker meater and the sound stage seemed to open up. I have yet to have the time to use its amp section as I have had to go back to school. I liked the results, but still have the speaker upgrade bug, I think my starting point now. Does anyone have any info on the old Panasonic gear?, I can't find anything on Google?
Panasonic "stuff" generally sucks, that's one reason you don't find much on their products.
My intentions were not to implant a "speaker upgrade bug". Bugs turn into virsues and viruses cause bad things. Do some thinking and listening before you start spending.