Why do we need a preamplifier?

Why need to separate the preamplifer & power amplifier instead of integrated ?
Why not just use passive volume pot prior power amplifier ?

katak dibawah tempurung

why do need a cd transport + dac combo?
why not just use a good descent cdp?

the same rules apply bro

mugenfoo wrote:katak dibawah tempurung

Ah bro mugenfoo, since u have many audio related books beside you, y not give us more useful information, instead of only 3 malay words?
i do think that forum is build for us to discuss or asking for help, so we can gain more knowledge here~

azri wrote:why do need a cd transport + dac combo?
why not just use a good descent cdp?

the same rules apply bro

preamp as i know is to amplify enough power to drive the power amplifier, and the most important job of a preamp is use as a volume controller, with a higher gain or sensitive power amplifier a passive preamp will be ok, but sometime without a active preamp, might make the sound less dynamic/energy/body, in the end it is depends on user's preference
Integrated amplifier not always equipped with preamplifier, so it might a bit different with a cd player rules which a transport and DAC section is always needed~
i think there are some more experience sifu here can explain in detail, and correct me if i am wrong~
thanks hope my experience helps~

in an integrated amp, there is pre amp & power amp
separation are made to produce different & better sound

same rules applied with a cd transport & dac
u need each other or things wont work

Well the folks at Gryphon sure don't think you always need a preamp. The proof is in the integrateds they make.

u need the preamp to provide enough gain for the power amp because some power amps have low gain & cannot use passive preamp

I am using both preamp & passive preamp. Changing from one to another.

well, in that case, i guess sonata & mirage are just for fun

skydna wrote:
preamp as i know is to amplify enough power to drive the power amplifier...

Preamplifier(active) does not amplify power but low level signal from sources to the power amp which in turn provides the current to drive loudspeakers. Passive preamps wouldn't amplify anything.

skydna wrote:
Integrated amplifier not always equipped with preamplifier.....

Then it's not called an integrated amp. The preamp has all the switches which enable users to switch between different line level sources, and a volume control. All these functions coupled with the power section give us an integrated amp.

As with whether integrated or pre/power sounds better, there are many factors to consider. A good integrated can match or surpass an equally good separates in sonic performance although the general consensus is separation is better with the latter due to the 2-box approach. It depends on the circuit design of the amp, the quality of parts(capacitors and transistors etc.) and power supply to name a few. One of the advantage of separates is having the ability to use high-powered amps(>200W) in driving difficult power-hungry speakers apart from the flexibility to mix-n-match with different preamps. Other than that they are equally similar in sonic performance. There wouldn't be any worthwhile benefits in using separates with high-powered amps to drive "easy" efficient speakers as an equally small integrated would do the job as well, or better. Most speakers with high sensitivities are driven with low-powered integrateds or tube amps.

An advantage of using integrated is negating the use of an additional pair of interconnects(which costs money) and eradicating impedance incompability issues associated between preamp and power amp in the event components from different manufacturers are mixed and matched.

thanks Ryder, your explanation is very detailed.
my personal opinion is preamp own the soul of the music.
whereas power amp own the body.

Hi mugenfoo , arrogant won't let one go very far.. may God bless u.

thank you, it was only specially dedicated to you.
And may god bless you too

skydna wrote:

mugenfoo wrote:katak dibawah tempurung

Ah bro mugenfoo, since u have many audio related books beside you, y not give us more useful information, instead of only 3 malay words?
i do think that forum is build for us to discuss or asking for help, so we can gain more knowledge here~

Tiring lah bro.... most times not only is it not appreciated but it invites the silliest and shallowest replies like a 5 year old.

so have decided to "operate" under some new personal guidelines:
- Tech info, facts & "knowledge" : Will depend on the occasion (but tend more towards just keeping quiet and having a good laugh reading the threads instead)
- Opinions : Will depend on where the wind is blowing.
- Sarcasm : F.O.C. by the truckloads.



This is gonna be so much fun (for me at least)....

ryder wrote:

skydna wrote:
preamp as i know is to amplify enough power to drive the power amplifier...

Preamplifier(active) does not amplify power but low level signal from sources to the power amp which in turn provides the current to drive loudspeakers. Passive preamps wouldn't amplify anything.

Hi ryder, this is what i wanna talk about, it is amplify the signal to drive the power amp, thanks to explain in detail~~

ryder wrote:

skydna wrote:
Integrated amplifier not always equipped with preamplifier.....

Then it's not called an integrated amp. The preamp has all the switches which enable users to switch between different line level sources, and a volume control. All these functions coupled with the power section give us an integrated amp.

As with whether integrated or pre/power sounds better, there are many factors to consider. A good integrated can match or surpass an equally good separates in sonic performance although the general consensus is separation is better with the latter due to the 2-box approach. It depends on the circuit design of the amp, the quality of parts(capacitors and transistors etc.) and power supply to name a few. One of the advantage of separates is having the ability to use high-powered amps(>200W) in driving difficult power-hungry speakers apart from the flexibility to mix-n-match with different preamps. Other than that they are equally similar in sonic performance. There wouldn't be any worthwhile benefits in using separates with high-powered amps to drive "easy" efficient speakers as an equally small integrated would do the job as well, or better. Most speakers with high sensitivities are driven with low-powered integrateds or tube amps.

An advantage of using integrated is negating the use of an additional pair of interconnects(which costs money) and eradicating impedance incompability issues associated between preamp and power amp in the event components from different manufacturers are mixed and matched.

Ah my mistake, cause i see some of the amplifier has volume controller and switches to change source, but it has no so called "preamp" part and the signal direct go to the power amp part and control volume by adjust the gain(eg. ASR Luna 6), may be that cannot be called as a integrated amplifier
As i am not a scientific man, i think classifycation is not really important as so many different design in the world, as long as the amplifier perform well i think thats will be good enought~~

just my two sen worth...

actually there is a school of thought that passive preamp is better than active preamp cos active preamps, unless they are well designed, can colour the sound. the fewer the components, the better.
there is also a school of thought that an active preamp is not needed at all because the output from modern cd players and DACs are high enough to drive power amps. thus there is no need for the active preamp's gain. CD players typically have two-volt outputs while power amps typically have input sensitivities of one volt. This means that power amps will deliver full power with only a single volt of signal. Thus, there is no need for any gain at all and what you really need is a good volume control to actually reduce the output voltage from the CD player/ DAC. hence the case for the passive preamp.
having said that. passive preamps tend to sound thin and less dynamic.
but some audiophiles and DIYers have pointed out that this is caused by poor quality volume controls. by using high quality ones like the DACT CT2 stepped attenuator or the Goldpoint in their passive preamps, some audiophiles have reported excellent results.
to confuse matters, there is another branch of thought - there are some who advocate using a transformer volume control (TVC) instead of stepped attenuators.
the most well-known of the TVCs is the Stevens & Billington tx102 (available at Octave electronicss in PJ) while a Malaysian product called Promitheus is making its presence felt. TVCs give a fuller sound with better bass, generally.
to make things even more confusing, or interesting, is the buffer amp. some people say that a simple buffer amp with good volume control can replace the active preamp. technically speaking, a buffer amp is not passive.
a buffer amp is a device that features high input impedance, low output impedance and the capability to provide sufficient current. These devices are often used to drive ultra-high frequency video signals over long 75-ohm coaxial circuits. In effect, it matches the input and output impedances of the source (CD player) and amp while providing unity gain. In other words, it does not amplify the signal, but ensures that there is no signal loss, especially over long lengths of wire.
Based on my experiece, the buffer amp works very well. i used to own the qed passive pre, which sounded thin and not dynamic on its own, and when i put the Musical Fidelity X-10V3 tube output buffer inbetween the cd player and qed passive pre, which is essentially a box with selector switch and volume pot, the sound improved tremendously.
in fact many high-end cd players and DACs have buffered outputs with volume control. these can be plugged directly to the power amp. new DAC models feature built-in preamps - for example the benchmark dac 1 pre.
there's no reason that a good-quality passive pre would not work well.
however, an active preamp is a must when using long interconnects to link to active speakers or if the power amp is in another room or if you are using monoblocks which are placed next to the speakers.

sflam wrote:just my two sen worth...

I am certain your input is worth more than that.

Excellent information.

being called "integrated" means they have both pre+pwr section. Separated means pre & Pwr amplifier.

Good design integrated can always perform better than pre/pwr. Same like Monoblock, why do they exist?. when they perform individual job/channel it would be better. Then again, good design pwr amp can always out perform monoblocks

sting wrote:being called "integrated" means they have both pre+pwr section. Separated means pre & Pwr amplifier.

Good design integrated can always perform better than pre/pwr. Same like Monoblock, why do they exist?. when they perform individual job/channel it would be better. Then again, good design pwr amp can always out perform monoblocks

Thats an interesting idea... lemme try and follow the above comments:

"Good design integrated better than pre/pwr.
Monoblock perform individual job so monoblock would be better
Good design pwr amp can always out perform monoblock."

OK, do you have an example of a "good design integrated" that always perform better than pre/pwr?

ALSO, do you have an example of any "good design pwr amp" that perform better than monoblock?

good designed integrated?

Ongaku?

Try LFD integrated Zero and compare with NAD pre/pwr. We're not talking about price point but the design itself.

How about Krell power amp compare with audiolab monoblock. Againt not at price point....style without substance is nothing.


Again I must stress out, we're talking about design not the price.....

sting wrote:Try LFD integrated Zero and compare with NAD pre/pwr. We're not talking about price point but the design itself.

How about Krell power amp compare with audiolab monoblock. Againt not at price point....style without substance is nothing.


Again I must stress out, we're talking about design not the price.....

But the price point will dictate that "design" and "quality" you get, irregardless whether its integrated or pre/power or monoblock.

For example, A Krell FBI "Integrated" will whack the snake sh!t out of ANY Audiolab integrated, pre/power or Monoblock or any fancy modem in Audiolab's entire product range. But this doesn't mean that an Integrated design is going to be better than all pre/power or monoblk or whatever layout. But how much is a Krell FBI vs the top top top of the line Audiolab amp? So you still cannot run away from the price factor.


Does this mean that monoblocks are inferior to Integrated amps ???

Mind you, Krell's top of the line models (and allow me to borrow your phrase to ignore the price points) are all MONOBLOCKS. Even the blessed Top model Evolution Pre-amps are MONOBLOCK units.


Hence, your statements regarding the above (integrated, pre/power , monoblocks...) cannot be applied even in the simplest sense.

BTW, give NAD a rest ya ... its a good "value for money" brand but no one considers NAD to be even close to the big boys league like Jeff Rowlands, Gryphons, and not forgetting Krell.
Using NAD as an example is a really poor choice for any debate.

Mugenfoo, don't get me wrong. It's hard to argue or debate this matter into tiniest details. But as you go along the way you'll find high priced separated being beaten by integrated. friend in S'pore "downgrading" to LFD integrated.

Price will dictate the design, yes..but in this specific thread we only talk about design only. The author of the thread only ask why do we need a pre amp and here we're trying to explain what preamp does and the differences. No point of having pre/pwr of lower end for the sake of having a "pre/pwr" than to get a very good integrated.

I just sold my Tubes Monoblock VTL MB250 with 250wpc and keep my McCormack DNA225 power amp solid state 225wpc. I speaks through experienced that I get along the journey...maybe not enough and yet to listen more.

sting wrote:Mugenfoo, It's hard to argue or debate this matter into tiniest details. But as you go along the way you'll find high priced separated being beaten by integrated. friend in S'pore "downgrading" to LFD integrated.

Price will dictate the design, yes..but in this specific thread we only talk about design only. No point of having pre/pwr of lower end for the sake of having a "pre/pwr" than to get a very good integrated.

I just sold my Tubes Monoblock VTL MB250 with 250wpc and stick to McCormack DNA225 power amp solid state 225wpc. I speaks through experienced that I get along the journey...maybe not enough and yet to listen more.

curious question: How come all the super duper sky high end models still come in at least pre/power forms, or if u recall the recently dislayed McIntosh system at the KLAV show, its all hunks and chunks of monoblock metals aren't they?

Are the manufacturers stupid or something ? Or even worse, are the global consumers lagi stupider?

Show me an extreme high end integrated, (please, no Ongaku's ya ....) then maybe your statement MIGHT hold water.

BTW, I didn't happen to come across any current model Integrateds from FM Acoustics (of course you know this brand! ) , let alone occupying the top spot of the hifi model food chain. If u know of any, do lemme know ya !

oh and one more thing ... "The devil is in the details"

Pls. refer to the question again..you've been gone far enough. If we take one company for example, of course their pre/pwr would be better than their integrated. But their pre/pwr not necessarily better than other company integrated.....

I'm not saying that monoblock or pre/pwr are bad design, not at all..of course they're made to performed well above the integrated. Good example in my case..VTL are monoblock but I sold it off and using DNA225 instead which is stereo pwr amp.

My point is integrated is better than to have pre/pwr for the sake of having more boxes, fancy looking but not taking into sound quality consideration.

So u saying that the high end makers are all just making more boxes so their equipment will look fancier and just making more eye candy?

ok, game on ...

Lets get down to the basic facts and physics of any hardware equipment in design.


Given the SAME manufacturing cost constraint and materials used, an Integrated would perform better than a pre/power built with the same materials constraint.
( ie. Money has got to be put into 2 chassis boxes instead of 1, money for 2 separate power supply systems, etc etc.)


Given the physical LIMITATIONS of having to cramp everything into one BOX, will mean that in a "cost no object" scenario, a pre/power/monoblock platform will ALWAYS outperform an integrated design.

There OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE drawbacks in an Integrated platform which makes high end gear come in separate boxes:
- Power supply regulation and isolation
- Channel interference aka crosstalk
- Heat dissipation
- RFI / EMI rejection
- IM interference
- microphony isolation
- etc etc yadiyadiyadda


Sound quality-wise, a pre-power platform will ALWAYS be superior than any Integrated due to the above physical constraints.

Lets have a debate on the engineering merits between Integrated vs Separates shall we? I'm all ears! This will get interesting!



BTW, on the sideline, would you prefer a "window unit" aircond or a "split unit" aircond in your home?

My point of view in this threat is quite simple...lets say i have budget at RM5k for an amplifier..should i choose

a)integrated--at the price i can get hi end amplifier
b)pre/power--decent level pre power combination
c)monoblock--maybe entry level amp from china or even not enough money to purchase together with pre amp

From 3 above i will go for integrated due to the hi quality and hi end product..maybe back to the square one's ---> to consider room size,speaker,equipment matching and so on...

Mugenfoo, you still don't get the point....you seem to take only one point of my reply and go from that. Digest all la bro...Ryder has given very good explanation in beginning of this thread.

I never said that integrated will surely better than pre/pwr and I never said in price factor point of view. But, If RM10k integrated to be compared with RM10K pre/pwr, is it means the pre/pwr will definitely be better?..Why does the integrated cost so much as a pre/pwr?. It could be the parts that being used are high quality and circuits design that properly executed rather than to use the same amount of money to make two separate boxes...everything double in parts (trans, circuits board, caps) with same budget.

Like I said if you to compare within one brand, yes their pre/pwr would be better in their hierarchy. I was a Naim user before Their SuperNait are better than 122x/150x pre/pwr combo in my point of view even though the integrated was slightly expensive in pricing. But surely cannot compare with my previous setup of 202/200 and of course it's more expensive than the SuperNait. You see this is between in one company and yet they still can offer better integrated than their entry level pre/pwr and the different in price was not that much.

I mentioned many time as a clear cut example on my very own case. Why does USD8k VTL MONOBLOCK cannot compete with my USD3k DNA225 Stereo Pwr amp. Different company, different approach and design. So you cannot say that Monoblock is definitely better than Stereo pwr amp...in one brand yes you can say that but not as a blanket treatment. And some company doesn't have monoblock, just the stereo pwr amp.

On paper yes, monoblock offers better in term of everything you mentioned..emi, rfi, crosstalk..etc. But the absolute result when you listen to it and again this is between two different companies or maybe one company like Naim in particular.

You given the example with AC and of course the split unit better in term of noise reduction. But think about window unit which has no copper piping, more efficiency as no wastage of energy along the piping. Imagine that if the window unit made from highly reliable, quite operation motor and installed/sealed properly by the window and try to compare with split unit that installed just out side the room and you can hear the compressor running when its not properly isolated.

May I remind you this not a debate, just sharing of info aka point of view. If I may compare with vehicles, Cars with 4 tyres not necessarily faster than a 2 wheeler superbikes...eg. RM80K Satria GTI with 1.8litres engine compare with 1100cc Kawasaki same price as GTI. Sometime less is more.....

At the first place this should not be a lengthy issue as I already stressed out in my 2nd reply "Again I must stress out, we're talking about design not the price.....". Thus, the NAD pre/pwr analogy does valid or to make it direct comparison try SuperNait with 112x/150x

I think this is the best that I can explained to you. If you don't agree, it just fine as everybody got their own view. Maybe others might to share their own view, go ahead...

Ooooo... cars , & i love a good debate opps i mean "discussion" ! And yeah, i am NOT agreeing with you for even a split second and just having a real blast with this thread.


Just to highlight the irrationality of your EXAMPLES:
Cars vs. Bikes:
They are just no comparison. A Satria GTI against a Kawa 2 wheeler ? oh cmon .... one encloses you in metal, while in the next one, YOU are actually straddling the metal. One of them actually MIGHT qualify for a 1 to 3 star Euro NCAP rating while the other ... well, you just pray real hard & hope never to crash at all in the first place ( u get the idea).

OK, so , lets take a more realistic comparison ... and just stick to cars shall we? (i loooove cars too )

OK, Integrateds would be akin to a FF (front wheel, front engine car), and the Separates would be akin to FR (front engine RWD), MR (mid engine, RWD) or even RR type car.

Given the similar price point for a well built FF vs a FR car , and say build upon the performance requirement aspects (i.e. power & handling) . Yeah, the FF would sure beat a similar built-cost FR anytime. Lemme give u some "real world" examples: a Beemer 3 series or Lexus IS series against a Honda Civic-R. We all know who will cross the finish line first in Sepang circuit.

But move up the price category, its going to be just FR performance cars slogging it out.
Show me an FF car costing RM500K from the showroom and i'll show you "Puff, the Magic Dragon".

Move even higher up the scale, u get your exotic MRs like the Prancing Horse and Raging bulls from the land of the Ceasars.
Any FWD cars in that category ?

an FF layout just cannot handle anything more than approx 350 ponies and still retain driveability. Whereas , FR and MR cars are good up to in excess of putting 500 ponies on ground and still retain some sense of driveability and usability. (OK, we'll leave those 1000+horse monsters from Top Secret, HKS, Lingenfelter, Saleen, Brabus and them other tuninghouses for now ya...)

The fact is, you're now going round and round the merry-go-round from your previous posts in which now you would give examples of Integrateds being better than separates, but then later saying separates are better than integrateds. Dude, you just got NO Point of reference do you ?

And mind you, its your initial sweeping statements of whats better than what thats really beckoning for a colourful debate opps i mean disucssion.

FACT: All top range models will inevitably BE of separates. Unless some high end manufacturer decides to built an Integrated Amp the size of a household fridge, but until that happens you're out of luck dude.


Mission Accomplished.
Coz U now provide some examples to counter back your initial statements of whats better than what.


oh, and one more thing... 4 wheels ARE faster than 2 wheelers coz "fast" is just not all about the straight line. Compare the lap times of a MotoGP bike against the lap times of a SuperGT series car?

And even in an absolute straight line shootout at the Bonneville Salt Plains, Utah: to go real fast and live to tell the tale, its much better to have 4 wheels than 2 !

Adding on & just philosophically speaking, an Integrated still has to have a Pre-amp section and a power-amp section in order for it to function. Hence in the grand hi-fi design hierarchy, Integrateds are therefore only a "sub-set" (mathematical term) of Pre/Power amps.

So for all those seeking the HOLY GRAIL of Hi-Fi Nirvana, their path lies along the road of "separate component systems" instead of the "Integrated" way.

As I said you'll take one point and dragged it over & over and this time cars. You go to the ultimate, YES 4 wheeler faster but at what pic point?, same apply for integrated and Pre/pwr. But I just compare into specific machines that I mentioned but at. Make it short, I think you still doesn't understand what I'm trying to say...but it's ok. While the rest of members will be laughing reading..probably at me.

Pls. look back in the thread did I mentioned that integrated is actually pre/pwr that integrated into one.

One question, do you think the NAD pre/pwr is better than SuperNait?...just answer this. Remember not at the price ratio...

I'll put a pause for this thread and waiting others opinion....

why do u like to "bully" NAD and compare it with Naim ? Would you bring a knife to a gunfight ?


How about comparing "any" FM Acoustics pre/power vs. SuperDuperNait instead ? Which is Better?
Same lah, lets just put price aside. Ignore the price of the those being compared.

For each of your examples, i'll supply a counter argument & counter example.
Anymore brilliant comparisons u wanna throw up here?

This is really Fun eh? Keep 'em coming !

You don;t answer my question...

Still you don't digest everything written so far. At beginning did I mentioned good designed integrated can always out perform pre/pwr which I meant the one not properly designed or has built to a price point (lower range).

I use NAD because it's a clear example that eventhough it's made for pre/pwr but still SuperNait will smoked them. SuperNait too much,I give Naim Nait5...still the same verdict.

FM acoustic is a bad designed amp?....may I ask you

Let's be fair.....let the rest of forumers have their say on this.

I think the point trying to be made is:

For a given budget, what would serve you better sonically, a pre/power, pre/monoblock or integrated?

I would say, it depends on the budget first, and then you go out and listen damn hard and make up your mind.

I think we have to re-define the pre/power amp.
For my point of view, let forget what so ever which is batter.

Pre/power amp is 2boxs equipment to control volume + power
Integrated amp is one box equipment to control volume & power

For most of the manufacture, they will make higher range equipment to pre/power & lower range to integrated amp. (this doesn't mean all manufacture will do this way)

Also, small amount of manufacture will integrated all the high range preamp board & power amp board to one box.

Another example is Naim Audio NAP500, this power amp is putting 2 monoblock in to one box.

How many box to set up a system in mainly depend on manufacture. Difference manufacture will do the difference way.

http://www.echoloft.com/hifi-forum/index.php?topic=19223.0

we do not need to agree guys...but worth reading

sting wrote:http://www.echoloft.com/hifi-forum/index.php?topic=19223.0

we do not need to agree guys...but worth reading

So where does that leads to? Speakers and amplifiers matching! You must also understand that Fut only buy fr m white van salesman!

Why must FUT post reply to be quoted, few others are worth sharing. They didn't say dual mono is bad, it's good but real good one comes with a cost....

M7 wrote:good designed integrated?

Ongaku?

Bear in mind even Kondo Audio Note's top of the range amp is the Gakuon-II which is a monoblock pair. Check out http://www.audionote.co.jp/pwramp/index.htm


The thing is there are very valid technical advantages that a separate (pre-power-monoblock) has over an integrated, like dedicated power supply, lack of left-right channel signal inteference (cross-talk), heat (low-level circuitry is more susceptible to heat), etc.

Also we have to be clear and that the amps being compared are really integrated or separates in design. Some super high-end amps for e.g. are -packaged- differently from their design. E.g. amps like the original Mark Levinson No 23 and 23.5 are actually dual monaurual meaning they actuall have two separate sections inside, much like a monoblock but is packaged in a single chassis. But eventually even Mark Levinson came out with a two chassis monoblock.

I think the problem is that some forumers who has the experience with a very wide range of amps or who has good technical foundation knowledge finds to be very far-stretched for a no-holds-barred integreted to beat a no-holds-barred pre-monoblock or even pre-power. But other forumers who have personal experience to the contrary might have their own valid opinions as well.

But in the end, I think bassraptor's point is most applicable. What was the original question ? I thought it was whether a proper preamp is needed or can a passive preamp, not sometimes just a volume control is good enough or better ? A lot depends on the actual equipments being talked about - impedance matching, output level, input sensitivity and so forth.

sting wrote:Why must FUT post reply to be quoted, few others are worth sharing. They didn't say dual mono is bad, it's good but real good one comes with a cost....

Fut posts occupied a third of the thread, mostly at the end. They didn't really dwelt on the original question being ask; viz, the level of musical coherence in a separate compartments system.

My point here in term of hi quality..

1st-Pre with monoblock power amp
2nd-Pre with power combination
3rd-Integrated amp

And price is the main factor..i still think if we have budget for RM5k for instant,integrated amp will be on top of pre/monoblock and pre/power combination

For RM5k we can buy very good performance integrated compare to what amp can we buy for the price of 5k for pre/mono or pre/power and we talking about new amp not the used or demo amp.

Fizi, spot on...that's what I meant....cheers!

sting wrote:being called "integrated" means they have both pre+pwr section. Separated means pre & Pwr amplifier.

Good design integrated can always perform better than pre/pwr. Same like Monoblock, why do they exist?. when they perform individual job/channel it would be better. Then again, good design pwr amp can always out perform monoblocks

Sting,
Statement 1: A well-designed integrated may perform better than a pre-power combo, not always. This applies when you are comparing Brand A integrated vs. Brand B pre-power, regardless of whether you are taking a specific price-point into account, at least to a given person.
Why is this so? Maybe Brand A or B's amps better match the speakers being used? Maybe the listener's taste is more inclined towards either Brand A or B's design philosophy/voicing, perhaps as exemplified by your VTL/McCormack comparison or your friend downgrading from a pre-power to an LFD integrated?

Statement 2: That said, when you compare different models from the same brand (NAD, Krell, Naim etc.), it almost always end ups with pre-power or pre-monoblocks being the top dog, superior to the integrateds of a common architecture. It is also rare to find an integrated sounding better than the pre-power from the same brand. You wouldn't find the designer portraying an integrated for a flagship product, will you?

Which brings a logical conclusion to the following statement:
Statement 3: A well-designed power amp almost always will not outperform monoblocks from the same brand with the same architecture. If you are comparing a Brand A power amp vs. Brand B monoblocks, refer to Statement 1.


Cheers,

sting wrote:You don;t answer my question...

Still you don't digest everything written so far. At beginning did I mentioned good designed integrated can always out perform pre/pwr which I meant the one not properly designed or has built to a price point (lower range).

I use NAD because it's a clear example that eventhough it's made for pre/pwr but still SuperNait will smoked them. SuperNait too much,I give Naim Nait5...still the same verdict.

FM acoustic is a bad designed amp?....may I ask you

Let's be fair.....let the rest of forumers have their say on this.

Hahahah, you're the one that's not getting the gist of it ...

u give an example of a lower range pre/power to go against the superduperNait, so i give you a creme de la creme FM Acoustics pre/power combo to compare against the superduperNait lah.

sting wrote:being called "integrated" means they have both pre+pwr section. Separated means pre & Pwr amplifier.

Good design integrated can always perform better than pre/pwr. Same like Monoblock, why do they exist?. when they perform individual job/channel it would be better. Then again, good design pwr amp can always out perform monoblocks

Here are the nebulous motherhood statements just for reference again.

"Good design integrated can always perform better than pre/pwr".

Does anyone think that this statement is valid one, without any qualifications, conditions or specific circumstances mentioned?


"Same like Monoblock, why do they exist?"

Here's one possible answer: They exists to whoop the Integrated's ass!! Of course, you can always decide to use it as a door stopper in case you think it sounds inferior to some Integrated. Perhaps the VTL makes a great door stopper! Works for you! Highly recommended!

Anyone out there who has a Gryphon or Jeff Rowland monoblock and feels like using it as a door stopper? Helloooo ?

1) May perform..so means it can be. Irregardless of price of the integrated..that has been mentioned many times.

Statement 2: That said, when you compare different models from the same brand (NAD, Krell, Naim etc.), it almost always end ups with pre-power or pre-monoblocks being the top dog, superior to the integrateds of a common architecture.
It is also rare to find an integrated sounding better than the
pre-power from the same brand. You wouldn't find the designer
portraying an integrated for a flagship product, will you?

Of course the pre/pwr sounded better than integrated within the same brand. I can't deny that, this is purely on different brand which I try to emphasize on the lowly price pre/pwr. I'm trying to say no point for having low price/pre power for the sake of having"pre/powr" than to have good integrated..Fizi got this right.

You can find Naim integrated sound better than their entry level pre/pwr but surely cannot compete with pre/pwr on their top range.

3). My major comparison between different brand absolutely. If not back to answer 1.


Of course if you have money, buy the pre/pwr or monoblock why must you settle for integrated. My statement solely base on low priced pre/pwr .Or may I give an example of "my favorites" NAD pre/pwr or Nait 5i....which would you pick.

why do they exist?. when they perform individual job/channel it would
be better. Then again, good design pwr amp can always out perform
monoblocks

these are my full sentence, did I said something bad on good monoblock?. Take dodgy china made monoblock which has plastic feel of knobs, cheap looking paint job, full of craps capacitors but monoblock. Would you use/buy it as for sake of being monoblock?. (mind you not the one that already made well known, they do make good amp)

Ok guys...that's it, been gone far enough. End of story Your money, your like, so be it...cheers!.

p/s: Mugen, I put potted plant on my VTL as decor and powering up just to gives the ambience light to my cosy listening area.

@sting, dont stop just yet ..... this is getting to be a real quality thread!
& we're just warming up here !

OK, lets hear from fellow forumers also !

It is not everyday that we can see an integrated beats a pre/power combination and I would say it is extremely rare case.
Unless, purposely take an extremely powerful integrated like FBI to compare with a low end pre power (no need to mention brand).
If we were to compare, these integrated amps wont come cheap.

Anyhow, already skidded out of the topic.

car o scope wrote:It is not everyday that we can see an integrated beats a pre/power combination and I would say it is extremely rare case.
Unless, purposely take an extremely powerful integrated like FBI to compare with a low end pre power (no need to mention brand).
If we were to compare, these integrated amps wont come cheap.

Anyhow, already skidded out of the topic.

Thanks for your input and it does happen. From my posting I'm not saying every integrated can beat pre/pwr..that's silly. That's the reason I mentioned at no price comparison. Things like Krell KAV400xi compare with Naim 112x/150x, almost the same price, almost current technology...but I'm sure Krell gets the medal.

Like wise CDT+ DAC, in normal circumstances they are the better candidate, but does it means single box player can't beat a low budget CDP+DAC?. For instance current Cambridge DAC+CDT can they beat say Ayre, Naim CDX2 or Meridian G08. Again at no price point, let it be if the single box or integrated is whoopingly high in price. Normally high price=good designed.....

OK guys..cheers!

Wow... now there's a new theory from @sting ....
"high price = good designed"

So can a current Cambridge DAC+CDT beat a Meridian G08 ?

Can a modern day Lotus Elise beat a 1980s Ferrari 512 TR ?

so i guess the question "why do need a pre-amp?" answered meh?

azri wrote:so i guess the question "why do need a pre-amp?" answered meh?

You are absolutely right, Azri. Wanted to respond to the preamp question, but Net access is currently limited to 30 mins to an hour daily for me these coming week or so... Let's see whether access improves.