Pre-power vs Integrated

[Gromit]

I'm considering having another go at box-count-reduction; last time I tried this I ended up with more than I started with!

However...I've also been mulling over the possible sonic benefits, if there really are any, of the separate box route vs the integrated. The fact that the integrated has its psu and other 'heavy duty' gubbins in the same box as the 'light duty' stuff - does this outweigh the integrated not needing extra bits of cable and sound-degrading connections?

I appreciate the separate box phono stage really does need to be kept away from the power amp's toroid(s) but today I've put the P90sa on top of the A60, used really short i/c, and not noticed any degradation from having the pre sat directly on top. It may actually sound a tiniest smidge better through using only 30cm of interconnect (SuperSoundpipe in this instance). It made me think 'why don't I just be done with it and get a big integrated'.

Thanks for any views/ideas.

[pjdowns]

Gromit,

I could certainly recommend either the Exposure X or XV as an integrated option

Ok so the pre-power options probably out perform the X or XV, but not by a lot !!!

Paul.

[Gromit]

Gromit,

I could certainly recommend either the Exposure X or XV as an integrated option

Ok so the pre-power options probably out perform the X or XV, but not by a lot !!!

Paul.

Hi Paul - funny you should say that, in fact I've owned both the X and Super XV. The X was a total riot of an amp (and was a definite improvement on my Nait 2), not subtle especially but it got the emotional juices flowing. The Super XV still ranks as one of my 'regretted sales' and possibly one of the nicest integrateds I've ever heard.

I'd love to hear a Farlowe Expo with my NVA phono stage - the NVA works superbly with the my Naim rig (72/Hi/180) as well. Now it's nicely run-in it's a definite step-up (sorry!) from a P75 Mk2.

[pjdowns]

I know what you mean Gromit, my friend has a X and although my XVII and 2 XVIII were better when we compared them, it was certainly a diminishing returns situation as although they were better, they weren't significantly better, well certainly not to fork out the difference financially.

The main difference I guess was that the X had more get up and go, it was more in your face, where as my amps were more laid back, less pressured, you know what I mean.

I haven't heard a XV for ages, but I am aware that like mine it was designed by John Farlowe before he left the Hifi industry and use similar techniques.

With reference to your Naim comment, I personally prefer the sound of Exposure as their amps are a lot more laid back and to me more musical, although I am sure that a lot of Naimies would argue that

Paul.

[Gromit]

With reference to your Naim comment, I personally prefer the sound of Exposure as their amps are a lot more laid back and to me more musical, although I am sure that a lot of Naimies would argue that

Paul.

They would indeed Paul - and I'd be right there defending Exposure's honour.

My final Exposure rig was a IX psu (the big one designed for the XIV pre) with XI pre and IV Dual-reg power amp. In sheer musical terms it probably wasn't that much better than the Super XV although it clearly had a lot more dynamic headroom - I drove Mk1 Kans with this set-up, on the end of which they sang their little hearts out.

This could match Naim punch for punch in terms of dynamics, but it was so much more colourful and well-balanced. I've never known an amp, not in my listening room, to get the goosebumps going as easily.

[Colinx]

I'll stay with the separate boxes thanks, If I had the listening environment to do it, then I may have the amps near the speakers, but 11m I/C's just my be taking the urine. If I could find a integrated that came any where near the sound I currently have, with the same quiet background (blacker blacks?) then I would give it a try, but overall I feel that the space requirement of pre/mono's is well worth accommodating. All I need now is 9 to stand on top and I'll be a happy bunny.

[Steve Toy]

In general terms, never underestimate what a decent active pre can do. It may seem in theory like adding another unnecessary component in the audio chain but subjective evaluations tell us time and time again that it gives you a lot more musical information in all areas.

If you have an integrated amp as I do, put a good pre between your source component and one of the inputs of your integrated with the volume of the latter set at near the maximum position so that all of the attenuation duties are then performed by the pre and you may be amazed at the results.

I know that Accuphase integrateds respond positively from putting a Spectral pre such as mine in the chain. Similar spectacular results have been obtained using both the Croft pre of Marco's and my Spectral on both his Yaqin and my Pure Sound integrated valve amps.

Why? I really don't know for sure other than that signals from source components are very delicate (subject to losses) and the preamplifier stage is where they are at their most vulnerable ahead of being sufficiently amplified before a speaker can do anything with them. Putting the pre and power stages of amplification into separate boxes which, in turn are adequately isolated froom each other does bring huge improvements. Certainly at one time the circuitry in a Naim Nac92(R)/90 pre/power combo was identical to that within a Nait 3 integrated yet the sonic/musical improvement derived from splitting the pre and power circuitry into two boxes was obvious. IIRC you even had the option of having the power gubbins removed from the Nait 3 so as to turn it into a 92(R) pre.

Thus, by the same token doing away with the preamplifier circuitry of an integrated for what then becomes a power amp is entirely logical.

[Mike Reed]

Very interesting and illuminating comment, STEVE, but WHY plug a pre. into an integrated? OK if you already have an int. amp. and want to experiment, and a number of (Japanese?) black boxes used to come with 'pre.in/out'), but I thought that was a low-cost gimmick.

Received wisdom has it that, firstly, the pre./power route has always been the upgrade path for a very good reason, and , secondly, cramming all those electronics into one box without cross-interference was ever a designer's nightmare. Only caveat that I can see is the addition of i/connects, giving yet more subjective variations on the theme as well as losses.

Box count must be an issue for some, I suppose, and the (few) high-end integrateds out there, such as Macintosh, may well surmount these problems.

Monoblocks or two-channel power amps? I've never seen a dissertation on the pros and cons of these approaches. Any luminaries out there?