Why are Integrated amps MORE expensive than recievers

Turntables from ₹16,900.00
What I think that appreciation of music is highly subjective.. and is nothing wrong in it.
And it is not wrong to have VFM approch.. in fact I briefly heard some tube based systems and I never find that they "exicite" me - maybe listening was brief and maybe the music was unfamilier (western classical).. in fact one of the system I was talking about is Cadence -Pre- Power - ELS Speakers system.
I feel that a wrongly paired 2 channel will sound worse than a good pair of AVR with good fronts. Also personally I enjoy Dolby Digital concerts .....( unfortunatly DTS are not available) ...despite the compression I like the bass, the sound pouring from all the channels.

From the two channel standpoint I'll say that their specs are really honest . I am giving an extreme example -- from sony india's site
DVD Home Theatre System - DAV-DZ870W

Power Output - Total (RMS at 10% THD) 1000W

now I am not very familier with THD concept but I know lesser is better and 10% is too too high!!!!!!!!

Now once I was offered Onkyo A 809 ( regret not buying it!) must be more than 10 years old -- only 105w x 2 @ 0.008 % THD ( Also Mentioned -Both channels Driven - from 20 Hzto 20 KHz with NO MORE than 0.008% THD) !!!!

Please can someone explain the techonology?I feel these are detailed and " honest" specs!
Also the Amp was weighing appx 17 KGS!!

Again I am saying It is very subjective... once I enjoyed Bose 201's , Bose AM 10's and still I like Ipod sound ...also sometimes convenience is also important -- I am using pioneer 100 CD changer ans selling My Marantz Cd player -- and some loss of sound is acceptable to me.

So my suggestion - have a budget - audion urfav music - buy the system - AND ENJOY THE MUSIC!!!

" THE ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT - LET IT ROCK!!"

( Anyway I like Tea analogy- buy why not liqior?? There were days of MacD No 1 - Now I have a decent stock of Black Label & Chivas but my most favorite is Jack Danials!!! And I still enjoy Old Monk .Still nOT developed taste of wine ..... so it is like while enjoying B&W ,having a soft spot for JBL's and still having a liking for Lithos!And hope one day I'll like Tubes and will afford it! :D:D;)
 
hemantwaghe said:
( Anyway I like Tea analogy- buy why not liqior?? There were days of MacD No 1 - Now I have a decent stock of Black Label & Chivas but my most favorite is Jack Danials!!! And I still enjoy Old Monk .Still nOT developed taste of wine ..... so it is like while enjoying B&W ,having a soft spot for JBL's and still having a liking for Lithos!And hope one day I'll like Tubes and will afford it! :D:D;)
Click to expand...

Hemant,

I will join you with the Chivas Regal & Jack Daniels. LOL, but great stuff and hopefully no arguments/disagreements on these two at least.
 
No matter what I cannot believe that a CDP, a stereo amp, etc. should be so expensive. I am not contesting their quality here, but I cannot believe that a stereo amp which will amplify two channels should cost more than an AVR which will work on multiple 6 channels. Similarly a CDP (my pet gripe) which handles only audio CD should be on par or cost even lesser than a DVDP which has more codecs and handles more formats. Once again let me state that I am not contesting the quality part here. My question is when a DVDP and an AVR can be made available for so less then why not a stereo amp and a CDP? I cannot believe that they cannot be manufactured cheap. In everything we have expensive and cheap with even cheap (like Maruti 800) being quite good i.e. without compromising on quality. Obviously expensive will be more refined and better, but in the context of CDP there is no budget CDP for 2K or 3K available from a good company. Don't believe that it cannot be made... Simply law of supply/demand at play here and manufacturer's know the audiophiles will pay more so they charge more considering it is a niche market. I for one do not believe an expensive CDP/stereo amp justify their cost. Even an all rounder like Oppo does everything so well and at a reasonable price. My friend has a Isabellina DAC and its very good I will admit, but I cannot justify its price tag of 1+ lac (just off the shelf) when you can get a DacMagic or a Beresford for so much less comparatively. Even here the Stereo Integrated Amplifier is at 3000 USD and Monoblock Power Amplifier at 5200 USD. I guess like Gopi I will take time to acquire appreciation for such products.
 
Asit, am I not saying exactly the same thing as you?

I like music in stereo form only when I use a Redbook CD. All I was trying to say was that modern AVRs do not use inferior parts, and that they do the job they were made for (videos and movie sound) quite well. And that the specifications they mention (well known brands only) are not lies.

I have been repeatedly asking new joinees who say they want good music why they were looking for an AVRs. 50/50, 70/30, the combination may be endless, but nearly all of them say they want good music. And, all of them end up buying an AVR of some kind or the other. I think the excitement of listening to 'good' music, and also enjoy a movie now and then is irresistible.

I think Magma and people like him are in that quandary - All these people (read audiophiles) are saying that you need a stereo for good music. But the price difference is so much. Should I invest in a stereo and miss the HT fun, or should I do it the other way?

Will we ever be able to answer this question? I doubt it.

Look at the case of Spirovious. He has an HT system he is happy with for movies, and he is desperately looking at ways of improving the sound of music with a limited budget, and using the bulk of equipment he already has. Can I buy a DAC? Should I change my DVD Player? Should I rewire? Should I buy a CDP?

All have one common goal.

Cheers
 
Lovely posts, Asit and Gopi! I wish I was able to setup two different systems - one for music and one for movies. But then there is reality and it bites:)
 
Asit said:
My point in my previous mail was that that's all one can do! One cannot provide a proof for or against anything, especially in a forum like this, but I guess that was what magma, the thread-initiator was asking for in his initial posts.

. However, no proofs can be given and nobody or no product wins. Magma as well as anybody else will have to make a decision on his own.

.
Click to expand...

Asit sir though i may have used the word "proof" in my initial post i did not mean it as you say.( i dont need photos )
sorry if it got conveyed in that fashion.

i would accept a technical justification or just even the "word" from any electronic engg or hell, any audiophile who knows avr and amp components well and can explain that the 50*2rms from an intg amp costs as much , sounds as good /better while driving floorstanders compared to a 100*5 rms receiver of the SAME brand.
(i do agree the circuits are different etc etc as venkat sir says but does the above italics statement not hold water at all/?)

moserw said:
. My question is when a DVDP and an AVR can be made available for so less then why not a stereo amp and a CDP? I cannot believe that they cannot be manufactured cheap. In everything we have expensive and cheap with even cheap (like Maruti 800) being quite good i.e. without compromising on quality. Obviously expensive will be more refined and better, but in the context of CDP there is no budget CDP for 2K or 3K available from a good company. Don't believe that it cannot be made... Simply law of supply/demand at play here and manufacturer's know the audiophiles will pay more so they charge more considering it is a niche market. I for one do not believe an expensive CDP/stereo amp justify their cost. I guess like Gopi I will take time to acquire appreciation for such products.
Click to expand...

you read my mind!
i mean i would be the first one to buy and amp that has 100*2 rms (even if it used the exact same components and circuitry of its 100*5 rms AVR counterpart!)
my god wouldnt that amp be dirt cheap! (what like half the cost of the AVR! Yipee!)
how come theres no market for such a creation!


venkatcr said:
And, all of them end up buying an AVR of some kind or the other. I think the excitement of listening to 'good' music, and also enjoy a movie now and then is irresistible.

I think Magma and people like him are in that quandary

Will we ever be able to answer this question? I doubt it.

Cheers
Click to expand...



venkat sir.
i have read many of your posts.i find them most informative
i find that you have a unique ability understand what a beginner is trying to convey. i get the feeling that you almost read his mind!

let me clarify as to how and why i wanted to know more about the topic i started here.

i started with a budget of 30-35 K for a recievr/amp and two speakers.my

requiremnt being particularly for audio
(i was and still am tempted just as you say to have the best of both worlds...the everlasting quandry!)

For the record i would like to put in here that im one who would connect my LCD directly to the dvd player for video and im happy with stereo sound even for movies

now, i got sound advice from members here
"get a good stereo amp and two bookshelf speakers"
No doubt this is sound advice and would hardly have opposition.

however during my auditions i found i like floorstanders more.(i could squeeze them into my budget too! maybe just by extending it a couple thousand

This is where things began to change for me
my budget allowed for amplifiers that pump in only 40 to 50 rms per channel

(the likes of PM 4001,5001,yamaha AX 497, cambridge 340,used NAD 320 and 325-all bought thru the grey market)
now these were more than sufficeint for bookshelves
YES AND THEY DID SOUND BETTER THAN ANY 50rms AVR

however as soon as i started demoing floorstanders i found these same amps

to be insufficeint
NOw i felt i needed a bit more power ,maybe 70rms and above.
now for this kind of power the integrated amplifier started getting too expensive and i started looking at AVR's that claim to pump in
100rms/channel and using them in steroe mode.
and mind you -these were still entry level AVR's (i didnt have to move up ladder like in the case of int amps)

i believed and still do to an extent that speakers are more important than amplifiers,hence i would compensate on amps but would still like
floorstanders(which i believed sounded better during auditions)

this is why i created this topic
to understand why an AVR pumping 100*5 rms would cost much cheaper than even a 80*2 rms int amp

this is the MAGMA QUANDRY

i plead you all to help
(P.S do you guys think im mistaken about how floortanders sounded with a 50 rms int amp as compared to a 100 rms recievr? -)
 
Last edited:
cranky said:
Likewise, and I must respectfully disagree.

I do get your point about it being different for everybody, However to say that there is no/limited difference, in my mind, is as sweeping a generalisation as saying that the difference is always very large/perceptible etc. So for the maximum enjoyment, longevity, and resale value, you really are looking at stereo.

In this case sir, I hope we can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

cranky
sir
i dont think at any point did venkat imply that there is no/limited diff between an amp and a receiver.
in fact he said that each do its function well and CANNOT be compared.
in fact he still suggestes intg amps for audio!
 
yes there is a "what should i buy" question in the above post
However memebers need not dwell on that if it distracts them
(i just posted the above so that members have a picture about what im comparingand why i find this cost not justified

im still interested in the query of my very 1st post in this thread.
humor me
 
Last edited:
Hi Venkat and Others,

I don't feel offended at all and appreciate your comments re: my input/feedback on this forum. I always look for a healthy bit of disagreement as it leads to more innovative thought and learnings. I also enjoy reading your posts.

Coming back to the core of this discussion, I think we have all said it one way or the other - magma has to make the call on what he(she) would like and get the system. We could beat down till we all turn gray as to why one system is better than the other but nothing will compare to a personal audition and a choice. During this whole process we are only suggesting/guiding and never forcing anything on anyone. Now I see magma is looking for the humour value!

I love my audio only system driven by quality Cary components that cost as much as my AV system including a plasma TV. Before common sense and family pressures hit me, I used to own more expensive systems since this hobby is very addictive and this was all in the pursuit of trying to listen to that perfect sound from my sources.


Venkat - I have mentioned before that AVR are like generalists that try to be jack of all trades where as separates or stereo components are specialists. It would be counter-intuitive to think that you would pay more for the services of a specialist rather than a generalist even in the medical field. But we know what are the limitations of each and go ahead act accordingly. HT is stil black magic and lot of voodo in terms of terminologies and implementation and interpretations. The manufacturers and retailers keep screwing us up over and over again with BS marketing/sales slogans. The main things (again) is go with what you like in the budget you can afford.

Peace be with us all.
 
Last edited:
Magma,
Whatever you do, please do not call me "sir". I have not yet been knighted, you know. Even if the queen offers me, I will refuse it. The British, however, do build decent audio equipments.

Jokes apart, let's come to business. With my limited knowledge, let me give you my opinion on the floorstander issue. At a given price point in the budget products area, the floorstanders will give you deeper bass, however, at the expense of details, I think. Going down to 50 Hz (which you will get with most bookshelf speakers) is good enough for most music. However, I am telling you only very general rules, which you probably have already been told many times.

BTW, let me tell you, after all these years, I do have a stereo amp only of 50watts per channel, and I am planning to upgrade to a better amp again at 50 watts per channel or thereabouts. That is usually enough for home use, provided you match your speakers properly with your amps. Please do not just look at the number 50 watts. It probably hides more than it reveals - that is bit of an overstatement - but you probably understand what I mean. I think Cranky in one of his earlier posts in this thread already discussed this.

A good amp with 50 wpc would be able to drive some floorstanders if properly matched. There are a lot of experts in this forum who can help you choose a proper speaker for a given amp or vice versa if you ask them the right question. For a starter, you would need a speaker with good sensitivity (around 90 dB/W/m). Although I have a lot of experience listening to music, I am also kind of novice in this business. I tend to audition things that I plan to buy and at the same time ask around for suggestions from experts.

My suggestion would still remain for a stereo amp, instead of an AVR, when it comes to listening to music. But again, that is just a general suggestion and please do not dragg me into an amp/avr fight. I really believe in whatever I said in my earlier posts. Ultimately you have to make your own decision. We all hope you be happy with your choice.
 
I also had this question for long time. I want to thank all for their views.

I was thinking didn't AVR's nothing but evolved amps. first it was stereo amps, somebody came with multiple channels and went on. But the basic idea was amp. All they added was tuner and video. But why did they change the audio circuit. It should've been infact better than the old amps. Is there any different view in manufacturers. Why they do this. With this the AVR's with additional things of multiple channels,tuner,video and so on should have been more expensive than stereo right. Or is it they think the real audiophiles will spend lot of money so they are doing it.
All the above are just my thoughts which I am putting on this. NOwhere I am referring to anybody.

One doubt. I never owned an integrated amp or any other. The first Pioneer vsx436 was a receiver which I bought in Ritchie street(used) way back in 2000. Then I got v450 yamaha. Now with denon 2309. I was wondering how the amps will be different in terms of sound. is it really way different from an AVR. (off the topic, I thought I will try an amp. cheap one norge 2060 any idea How I can buy online or in bangalore)
 
Why does an SLR camera (body only) of 5 mega pixels cost five times than a 10 megapixel all-in-one point and shoot ?
The SLR is body only while the all-in-one comes with a mechanized lens which moves to and fro when you touch a button and dozen other fancy functions.
This is a question any newbie into photography can answer.:)
Your question and its answer are quite simple and something you should have figured yourself out. If by now with all the answers these members have supplied, you are still confused, I am not sure what will help.:confused:
 
pradski said:
I also had this question for long time. I want to thank all for their views.

I was thinking didn't AVR's nothing but evolved amps. first it was stereo amps, somebody came with multiple channels and went on. But the basic idea was amp. All they added was tuner and video. But why did they change the audio circuit. It should've been infact better than the old amps. Is there any different view in manufacturers. Why they do this. With this the AVR's with additional things of multiple channels,tuner,video and so on should have been more expensive than stereo right. Or is it they think the real audiophiles will spend lot of money so they are doing it.
All the above are just my thoughts which I am putting on this. NOwhere I am referring to anybody.

One doubt. I never owned an integrated amp or any other. The first Pioneer vsx436 was a receiver which I bought in Ritchie street(used) way back in 2000. Then I got v450 yamaha. Now with denon 2309. I was wondering how the amps will be different in terms of sound. is it really way different from an AVR. (off the topic, I thought I will try an amp. cheap one norge 2060 any idea How I can buy online or in bangalore)
Click to expand...

With your analogy, it would mean that an all in one is nothing but a traditional SLR with all the other features added in so the SLR must be cheaper. But is this the case ?
The SLR is trying to keep it simple and focusing only on technology to get the best picture possible. Nothing else matters. When you concentrate on technologies where attention to detail matters, the cost is much higher and the customer is much more discerning. It is a tough market. All these contribute to costs. But the result is a fine photograph.
Same rules apply here and to all products out there.
 
square_wave said:
With your analogy, it would mean that an all in one is nothing but a traditional SLR with all the other features added in so the SLR must be cheaper. But is this the case ?
The SLR is trying to keep it simple and focusing only on technology to get the best picture possible. Nothing else matters. When you concentrate on technologies where attention to detail matters, the cost is much higher and the customer is much more discerning. It is a tough market. All these contribute to costs. But the result is a fine photograph.
Same rules apply here and to all products out there.
Click to expand...



this has answered everything.!
however i cant seem to find information on how the int amp channels / circuits are different from that of the AVR's

( the SLR and "point and shoot " camera technology(i.e different technology) is well documented and advertised and hence this question is rarely asked in that case)

however i could never find such information on any Audio mfg websites.
This is the information / jstification i have been looking for.

Sadly everyone gave me the correct answer( int amp sounds better and uses better components-thats the only explanation i got) but no-one gave me a technical expalnation( say for e.g the AVR uses this transformer,diode resister,capacitor blah bla blah BUT the AVR uses these cheap alternatives and circuits.....)

this is what i have been asking for

i will continue my search.
thanks to all the members for thier support and patience.
i am lucky to have found you all
 
Hey! Magma. I'm not sure if anyone given the same answer in your thread. As Ive not read your thread thoroughly. But here are my 2 paise.
I feel the main differentiators are.
1. The integrated amp has a simpler circuit. i.e a shorter circuit path hence less interference.
2. The transformer has to deal only with 2 channels in the integrated where as in the av recv there are multiple channels loaded
3. Normally the ops out amps are of better quality in the integrated.
4. There is no digital conversion in an integrated.
5. Mostly the integrated is more stable under even heavier loads. i.e it can drive the spk better even if the impedance drops below 3 ohms.
6. Most int have a better dynamic headroom.
Etc etc

I'm sure a more technically sound guy can throw a bit more light on what Im trying to say or may be correct my understanding on the subject.
I hope it gives you the picture.
All the best
Cheers
 
i am looking for a 2 Ch integrated amp for stereo set up. i too have noticed the AVR's are relatively less priced than integrated amp and availbility is more. the reason for integrated amps more costly than AVR's could be the competetion and scale of production. Electronics is all about standardisation, volumes and competetion , which is there in HT AVRS, thats why there is a chance of getting a better deal in AVRS than integrated amps. this is my personal opinion which may be wrong also.
i am seriously thinking of considering an AVR with good SQ over a 2Ch amp, after recent audition of Yamaha AVR.
regards
 
Audiolab 6000A Integrated Amplifier
Purchase the Audiolab 6000A Integrated Amplifier at a special offer price.

Similar threads

R
How and Why Wattage Ratings are Manipulated by Patrick Hart
Replies
2
Views
6K
sandeepmohan
S
matbhuvi
Why there is little focus on acoustics
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
5K
sivakumars
sivakumars
X
Stereo Amps - Aiyima vs Class A/B
Replies
7
Views
3K
ssf
S
V
Marantz cinema 50 vs pm7000n for 2ch music
Replies
15
Views
3K
ssf
S
A
Does this qualify as a passive stereo preamp ? :-)
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
7K
Amarendra
A
Back
Top