Integrated amps are usually better of cause depending on the price points that are compared. You get more integrated detail, more intimate sound, more music less artifical HIFI effect because of the shorter signal path. Mono blocks with preamp, just usually gives you more power/gain/control which creates the illusion of better sound, but usually the sound is also a bit more flat, where you suddenly also begin to hear the monoblocks, preamps, cables signature on top of each other as separate parts. Huge potential of better sound, but usually it does not happen, unless it is done at a high level so things communicate very well. Most people that have integrated going to this more expensive alternate, just fall in love with the added gain and looking at something that is more cool. That is the precise truth.
If that is true, then everyone will be rocking integrated amp. The best thing to do is move the power amp part of the integrated amp out of the same chassis. Keep everything separate is what hifi is all about.
I so enjoy learning the ins and outs of hifi in your knowledgeable and casual style which is full of relevant information and examples and no bluster. Please keep them coming.
Thank you so much for this excellent explanation, Paul. I used to think that running an amp without a preamp was the way to the most pure sound, well, I WAS WRONG, and one of your earlier videos concisely spelled out why. My mistake for not listening to you in the first place. From my research and investigation, I think that the best way to go is to put 75 pct of your money for your front end gear in the PREAMP and 25 pct in the AMP for the simple reason that it's the preamp that colors the sound the way you like it. A good preamp can make all the difference in the world. Again, thanks for the video.
I completely agree with you. Decades ago I ran a cd player with a variable output straight into a power amp, and I thought that eliminating an entire component and set of cables helped maintain the "purity" of the signal. Well, a fellow I knew lent me a preamp he was selling and I couldn't believe the improvement it made! More depth, more detail, more bass, etc... I was converted! I would never go without a preamp again. These days my preamp is a two piece unit that weighs 60 pounds, puts out a full 8 watts at the output, and costs more than my power amp.
It's always been received wisdom that the main advantage of a separate pre-amp is it allows the sensitive, low-level circuitry (moving coil inputs, for instance) to be physically isolated from the noise (induced hum etc) from a heavy-duty power amp. transformer. There are another couple of practical benefits too; it allows for monoblock power amps. to be placed close to the speakers with short speaker leads but long interconnects to the pre-amp which may be advantageous in some circumstances and, secondly, it allows for the upgrading of individual components easily; for instance a better pre-amp, additional power amps. or active crossovers etc.
I like separates because I can keep my amp forever and switch the preamp when new tech and formats are released. Other than that I think the room is more important than any combination of cables, separates etc.
Yes, abso-damn-lutely! The room's impact cannot be overstated. In addition, all too often we see these fabulous systems whereby so much performance is left untapped due to a disregard of the simplest, easily addressable, "low hanging fruit" acoustic issues.
But you can do that with a receiver. Add an amp to it to get clean power right. Then if there si new technology then you can upgrade your receiver and keep the amp.
I do agree that separates is typically the way to go... I wouldn't say it is THE way to go though. If you have a great integrated, the differences, if any are so minuscule that it isn't worth spending any extra to own separates. I use a Hegel H190 and haven't heard anything that is objectively better than it... I've tested this same setup with several separates and I always go back to the Hegel. It is damn good.
As a general rule yes, the less power supply you have to share with a given primary function in any audio system the better. Preamp, amp, dac, all using their own power supplies = better. But there are some darn good integrated amps out there that will beat out some separate amp/preamp combos. It's really a matter of research, understanding the unit you want and your given space situation, sometimes separates aren't feasible.
Wouldn't you just uprate the power supply to the integrated to get to a supply point where nothing is compromised? (I appreciate probably at the top end driving monster speakers lots of power in a confined space is never good but I'm talking for the vast majority of us who don't spend 5 or 6 figure sums on hifi)
I have 2 Monoblock-Power-Amps, a Dual-Mono-Preamp an a DAC/Streamer, all True-Balanced... Even my Loudspeakers are Seperates (Stereo Bass-Modules with 12-Inch Woofers from ScanSpeak combined with 2-Way-Speakers and an external Crossover.) All Components are Specialists. Greetz from Switzerland.
I love this guy, he is one of my go to guys for audio stuff. He is not trying to sell you his product. I "may" never buy his product. Would I like to, you betcha.
Another major difference about separates and integrated is that the latter only requires one 2nd mortgage, as opposed to waiting 15 years and taking out another 2nd mortgage for the second piece of gear. I raise my beer to all music lovers out there who are squeezed out of enjoying Mahler (or their favourite music) because of outrageous "diminishing returns" audio prices. May audio prices crash, along with the price of good wine. May we, who actually love music, live long enough to see fair pricing.
Simply to say . It is extremely difficult to compete with the other great integrated amps , like : Parasound , Macintosh , Naim , not to mentioned even Yamaha , Pioneer , ONKYO etc . " Considering diminishing returns " :-)
What about if you only have one source, maybe a media transport, that is connected to a DAC which in turn is connected to a power amp? What would then be the point of adding a pre amp in between the DAC and the power amp? (Knowing you would not need more input sources.)
For an audiophile, having a separate preamplifier is a must as, it gives him/her the opportunity to experiment with many different types such as solid state or valve devices to get the sound that s/he prefers. And even though many people would have you believe that, preamps don't have a 'voice' of their own, reality is, they do and give the whole system a different audible result each time. When you buy an integrated amp. you're 'stuck' with whatever preamp. circuit the designer has given you in the box. Simple as that!
Another factor: it's best to have the source, especially a turntable, some distance from the speakers. Separate power amp(s) gives you the option of locating it near the speakers with short speaker cables, which is usually preferred.
Curious that he would react "old school" when he mentioned CD & not have that reaction when he mentioned "phono" which was decades ahead of CDs I remember a time when I had a CD with numerous scratches and it would still play perfectly even. I don,t think a vinyl would survive that well even with some scratches, or sometimes it would even falter when you don't even see a scratch.
I have just inherited a vinyl collection from my uncle, all the classic albums .most are first print. They are from the 60 70 and 80 about 3000 of them. Not sure if I will get a record player though.
Just bought a power amp. And a preamp too. A Chinese tube pre amp to be married to a British power amp. Speakers are wharfedale floor standers. I followed your advice that I should get the best of both worlds.
@@paulcarrasco4694 it's a DIY. No brand. Just bought it on a hunch and thankfully it's good. I was quite surprised that after running in it sounded better that some expensive preamps I had before.
Linear power amplifiers produce much heat. Switch mode power amplifiers produce much RFI. Both heat and RFI can degrade preamp performance. Then, some people decide to separate them. Cheers from Indonesia
Separates would not only sound much better (Caveat: IF and only IF configured, matched and calibrated properly), but they would also make the whole system obsolescence-proof for much longer, as nothing great would change between the power amp and the speakers for many years (and both can last for very long), while the source, pre-amp, DAC, streamer etc. would constantly keep evolving at a much faster rate, in-sync with Moore's Law! If the initial cost were not a concern, separates is the way to go, as it would also open the gateway to experimentation with multiple source players, and different amps - tubes, valves etc. etc. If you don't mind the numerous connectors and cables, that is! 😁
A preamp has less heat, an amp preamp set keeps heat and interference in its place. And if one breaks it can be replaced. Also I bought one one year and the other the next. Separates are the only way to go
What the are you talking about? PS Audio does not make integrated amp. He is talking about the different between a specific product vs cost, Integrated vs separate. Every product has to have a cost vs benefit other wise everything would be a cost no object item. I clicked on this video because I wanted to know the answer and it actually answered it very thoroughly.
separates will take up more space and weight so make sure you can accommodate those. You’ll also have to be prepared to spend a lot more on cabling, audio and power cables.
All things being equal, and they usually aren't, I think in modern well-designed and implemented gear it's a more efficient, and performing device putting these two things in one box. It reduces footprint, external wire, and matching issues for the consumer even when they use the same products of the same brand. Everything is isolated so well, and optimized so I can't imagine a feature lost by using the same enclosure assuming cost having little or no bearing on it. Another play for separating however may be layout. You could lay two mono-blocks out near the speakers with their heat leaving the control equipment cool as a cucumber centered for a really elegant look we often see in audiophile videos. It really depends on your budget and taste. What I was just saying is performance doesn't really suffer when integration is done right.
He shouldn't be too glib about Portsmouth. There are 8 of them in the USA that I know of and I live in the Rhode Island one. New England is loaded with British place names.
This is the best video I've seen Paul do to explain something. Right to the point and with good authority. This all just makes perfect sence of "separates" (which I own and beleive in).
honestly....you don't even NEED pre amps....you don't really need it ...especially for home theater or any sound reproduction device anyways ...the amplifier itself already does all you need ..only thing if needed after the signal source would just be some DSP for some very fine tuning ..and pre amps can't do that
Absolutely superb explanation but for all you non-English viewers out there we never pronounce "mouth" in a Proper Noun. "Muth" is correct - PortsMuth. Similarly "Shire" isn't pronounced like in Lord of the Rings. So Worcestershire sauce is "Wuh-Sta-shuh". Glad your audio products are so damn good Paul. Peace.
There are two kind of listeners, audiophile's and purest. Audiophile's have to have all the guagets so they can play with their toys and of course bragging rights but often not happy with their rig. A purest will select the best of 3 components that complement each other, source, amplification and speakers.
On an integrated that's not even an issue. The biggest advantage is flexibility, being able to swap out your amp or pre, and being paranoid about breakdowns,a backup plan is more easily implemented.
Paul, you don't mention at least two of the advantages of an integrated: 1 chassis instead of 2 equals lower cost, and shorter, internal interconnects equals less chance for interference (plus less cord clutter)
The short answer is that with separates, each box gets its own dedicated power supply. I cannot stress enough the importance of a quality power supply. It is probably the single most important part of any audio component, and really good ones are hand built and expensive. That is why you can not only go from an integrated amp to a separate pre-amp and power-amp, but you can take the next step, and go to monoblock amps (so that each speaker gets its own dedicated amp, and that amp has its own dedicated power supply that is used for only that one speaker). And to take it a step further, you can bi-amp your monoblocks, so that you have: -- a single amp powering the left speaker's low frequencies, and -- a single amp powering the left speaker's mid and high frequencies, and -- a single amp powering the right speaker's low frequencies, and -- a single amp powering the right speaker's mid and high frequencies. The above, done properly, gives the bass its own power supply for each speaker, and the mids/highs their own power supply for each speaker. In life, equipment or machinery that is well built to do one single and very specific task will usually perform that task exceedingly well.
@@joncarl3431 "There's zero need to bi-amp any speaker system unless either a) your amp is deficient or b) your speakers are deficient" -- That means that your contention is that the best amp on the planet will reproduce voices exactly the same when that amp is also reproducing deep, dynamic bass notes? -- That means that your contention is that that amp can do both deep, dynamic bass + voices exactly the same as the same amp doing only voices? -- That means that your contention is that that amp's resources that are being expended on deep, dynamic bass notes has absolutely zero impact on it simultaneously reproducing voices? -- That deep, dynamic bass taxes the amps zero? That deep, dynamic bass is done effortlessly by the amp? That deep, dynamic bass takes zero toll on the amp's resources? Vandersteen's Model Seven speakers are bi-amped. That is their built-in design. I suppose Vandersteen's flagship Model Seven speakers are deficient? I suppose Vandersteen's reference Model Seven speakers, that compete with speakers triple the price, are deficient? Perhaps you should call Richard Vandersteen and offer him your experience and your services? 559-582-0324 Jon Carl: Have you ever listened to a high-end stereo? Have you ever tested your assertion that "There's zero need to bi-amp any speaker system unless either a) your amp is deficient or b) your speakers are deficient"? Please list the components of the stereo with which you did your listening tests, that you used to form your conclusion.
@@NoEgg4u I have no idea what Vandersteens are. Maybe try you appeal to authority argument on someone else? I also have no idea what "dynamic" bass is. My subwoofer can reproduce 18hz at 130db so I guess that's "dynamic" enough for me. My loudspeakers are DIY and compete with commercial offerings that retail for 20 times the cost of my materials in any objective test (frequency response, THD, phase, efficiency, etc)
@@joncarl3431 "I have no idea what Vandersteens are." It shows. And that you did not check, before replying, shows your "couldn't care less" attitude to learn. "Maybe try you appeal to authority argument on someone else?" In order to try something on someone else, it has to be tried on someone to begin with. That is what you tried, by implying that I appealed to authority, when I did not. Vandersteen speakers are universally applauded. If owners, reviewers, and nearly everyone that has heard them at shows or elsewhere all praise them, then that supposed authority is the general public. "I also have no idea what "dynamic" bass is." It shows. "My subwoofer can reproduce 18hz at 130db so I guess that's "dynamic" enough for me." The frequency has zero to do with dynamics. The decibels have zero to do with dynamics. "My loudspeakers are DIY and compete with commercial offerings that retail for 20 times the cost of my materials in any objective test (frequency response, THD, phase, efficiency, etc)" 1) Name the commercial offerings that cost 20 times your cost. 2) List any of your objective tests. 3) Explain how that has anything to do with the benefits of bi-amping. 4) You are not the only person that preaches specifications with no mention of sound quality. People that understand sound quality will nearly always purchase components based on how they sound; not on measurements. But if you would rather tout measurements and not even mention sound quality, and that makes you happy, then more power to you. All of the above evidences that you do not understand the benefits of bi-amping, which is why I took issue with you misinforming people by way of your initial reply. My crystal ball shows me that you will refuse to answer any of the above numbered items because you can't, and the reason that you can't is because you lied.
@@NoEgg4u You expect me to give to a reply to you on your terms after making an ad hominem against me? I'm not going to respond to your nonsense other than to tell you nobody appreciates being insulted and that appeals to authority and ad hominems are classified as logical fallacies. I only debate people that are courteous.
both have pros and cons. separate preamp is more flexible, you can use it with other systems. with an integrated, you can almost certainly eliminate all hum and feedback oscillation by star-grounding everything on one single ground. separate power supply is not necessary to eliminate interactions between circuits, you just need separate rectifiers and proper grounding. both can be excellent in terms of performance if properly designed and vice versa.
Wickham is the most beautiful village with a large market square, a classic british pub and great teashops. Just off the square is the Chesapeake Mill (now an antique shop) so called because it was constructed from the beams of the US ship Chesapeake (captured in the war of 1812). Wonderful video, by the way. Everything explained so simply and clearly.
Howdy again. There is one good reason to use separate preamlifiers and power amplifiers. That is the desire to use graphic equalizers. If possible to aquire the loudspeakers sensitivity graphs one may compensate the unlinearities of the frequency responses. Particularily bothersome are the bass element resonance and the tweeter resonance. The former causing a pealing sound and the latter annoying whines. A graphic equalizer may actually make the speakers sound one price class better.
THANK YOU for the explanation of a Power Amplifier. For decades, I have ALWAYS been confused about their purpose. Various salespeople (different manufacturers) over the years have given me non-sensible reasons ("well, that is just high-end gear set up").
BTW: I recently put together my own small Valve Amplifier (studied and then soldered together using Solar Power). I got it working and it sounded GREAT but I immediately wanted MORE of the Fantastic Sound. I came to an epiphany that one will require MUCH MORE power only after they hear better sounding HiFi!- thus the need for Power Amplifiers....Never Realized this before!
Yes, the key difference is the separate power supplies as well as being in separate shielded boxes. This isolates the preamp from current surges that take place in the power amp. I have been using separates since 1967.
All of today’s high-end mfgrs, offer integrated models. Their benefits are the simplicity of a 1 enclosure design, unity with synergy engineered in their topography. They require less space, & usually cost less vs separates. Sonic differences largely don’t exist, only physical image prestige does. Separates allow individual upgrading & mixing brands, where integrated’s don’t. But they can also feature a DAC & Phono stage, in their design, or as plug-in options, saving room with cost savings which can’t be overstated. Listen, Compare & Decide🔊😎.
I have always thought integrated amps were bad. 1. They are sharing power with everything else and do not not have their own dedicated power supply. 2. They are not isolated. There are ways to isolate them internally but its never 100%. To be truly isolated it needs to be in its own enclosure outside of. 3. if you burn up a resistor, blow a fuse, or whatever else everything goes down including the amp. 4. There are no external gain, sensitivity, etc.. controls. 5. The grounding is shared. Which can create all kinds of issues.
Great answer, never thought about the "design" aspect, I always thought about the issue being preamp circuits next to heat sources that didn't need to be if separate.
Interesting. With more content streaming thru the internet, having an input selector is less of an issue. All my CD's are ripped and stored on hard drives. All my video watching comes via the internet, I use my computer as the input selector, equalizer and volume control going to my amplifier. My preamp sits in storage.
I like your gentle and clear descriptions.. This time I found that the distinction between integrated amp and separate power and pre amplifier was one of concept rather than concrete example. Sure in concept it makes sense but in reality there's likely to be such a small difference in many cases that proponents of separate devices are just blowing wind in typical audiophile fashion. It'll greatly helped your responses if you provide one or two examples to...amplify your point. Pun intended. I have a question.. Is the distortion figures that we see on Integrated amplifiers mainly from the power amplification stage or the pre amp stage ? My thoughts is that it's likely the power amplification stage. I've hooked up a technics su-z980(su-V98 in the states) to a technics su-vx800 so that the su-z980 is the preamp to the RCA unbalanced direct I put to the vx800 as a power amplifier. Am I getting the .007 THD in total or will it be throttled by the worse .07 THD of the su-z980 used as a preamplifier.. I'm doing this so I get remote control of the vx800 volume... effectively.
Sources do not always have a volume control. Traditionally, disc players, tape players, tuners, turntables did not have volume controls, but newer source components have changed that, and in a good way. Easier interfaces and new components with ever expanding capabilities enter our reality like never before.
I thought it would be something like this, but that still leaves me with the question: What part of one particular integrated amplifier has been compromised on?... As in, did they compromise on the pre-amp, the power-amp, or are they equally "compromised" so that they're of equivalent quality?... Perhaps they didn't compromise much in terms of the internals and they compromised on the casing or some other part?... This is probably something you couldn't find out unless you'd analyze each product thoroughly or asked the engineers somehow. Sad thing for me is: I probably won't have a budget for separates for a long time to come. I'm looking at stuff like Schiit, which... yea, have some affordable options. But they will lack some features and they jump up in price significantly as you go up the products in each category. - Maybe there are better options, but I'm just saying, it will just drive up the price significantly. I like the idea of each component being of good enough quality in its own right, but if only it would be clearer what the compromises are in the "all-in-one" type products. I mean, for example, I have this older digital receiver from like 2001 or so, by Sony, which at the time was probably really expensive (I got it used, but finding an equivalent today ends up on some of the more expensive ones). And... it sounds good... It's powerful and it doesn't have much noise, even without any "conditioners" or whatever. It sure has hefty components in it, as lifting it is a workout in itself. - But it's chock-full of stuff, from its slew of inputs to the fact that it has a load of DSP-options, plus a tuner, prety substantial amplifications and so on. So where did they compromise?... Is the sound-quality just not all that it could be?... Does it lack dynamics?... Which it sure doesn't seem like it when it slaps me in the face with really dynamic masters. I don't know, it's hard to really find where compromises are. Especially if you can't directly compare stuff. - So how much it matters, I don't know.
Yes, an argument can be made that separates sound better and are "less compromised." But more importantly, if a separate breaks (or becomes obsolete) then both units don't have to be replaced preserving some of the original investment.
Vinyl is older than CD, but very few people still buy CDs or use CDs. A lot of young people who have never bought a CD, buy vinyl records. Vinyl records are still nowhere near as popular as digital downloads and digital streaming though. I'm not sure if vinyl sales have surpassed CD sales, but CDs are dying and vinyl is becoming more popular. Although vinyl will never be as popular as they were prior to the 1980s.
ATC SIA2-150 integrated has a proper discrete pre amp stage with its own transformer and psu. The 2 box set up is a little better though as they run the output of the pre class A. There is not enough room to do that in the integrated. But in the most part integrated amps do not have decent pre amp sections, some just have a volume pot and that sounds poor.
But wouldn’t a bad choice on the pre amp get away with all the effort the manufacturers put on making the good amplifier? What if the amp is an excellent one at 10,000 dollars and then someone mix it with a cheap and not so great pre amp that greatly degraded the amp signal ?
The OP was asking what the point of having a preamp in the first place would be instead of just plugging a source directly into a power amp. Paul got the point completely wrong and answered a different question. My own answer would be that certain sources could use a bit of gain from a good pre. A good pre will also have a decent phono stage (or not) and besides switching and volume control, might have EQ or tone controls that (heaven forbid) you might want to use to tweak the sound coming out of your speakers. Or to use as a headphone jack it’s no speakers. Also, there are many vintage monoblocks that don’t have any volume controls and need a preamp in order to control. And there are lower powered or low sensitivity monoblocks that benefit from a hotter preamp signal. It you have more than one source, you need a preamp.
The objective of asking all about these gadgets is I strongly believe to hear confirmation that connecting these makes the audio coming out of our devices better. If there nothing to gain then there is abolutely no need, just stick with the most conventional or even the cheapest.
Howdy. I have a 2 x 70 W Yamaha integrated amplifier. It is really good. I guess the designers were dedicated to design an integated amp. It has all the usual inputs. It has a built-in RIAA preamp. for a vinyl player. It may be bypassed. My vinyl player also has a built-in RIAA preamp that may be bypassesd. I can't say I observe any significant difference using either one. I use the player preamp because it is more appealing to me. My thinking is that it is good to amplify the signal as close to the source as possible. Also, I think that some effort has been given to dedicate the player preamp just for that pick-up.
I'm with you. the classic mid 70's receivers etc had ( I still think ) very fine internal parts, along with superior style. MAYBE the cost would be up 6 x in todays cost ( $1800. or so ) maybe not. Yamaha notably still imports classic silver models. Denon & Marantz sell them in Japan, sad to say not here... WHY ?
Ideal for an active speaker setup rather than a passive crossover speaker. Cleaner, no bulky amplifiers to create heat, cooler by miles than a integrated unit. Most audiophiles would prefer a preamp.
Funny, I had two old perfect quality stereo preamps stored away for future use. One could pick them up commonly for about $75, I purchased several Carver units at that price or even lower. For some reason, analog preamps had temporarily run out of favor in the mass market. Folks are idiots the world over...
Can anyone help- I am using my Audiolab 8000a integrated amp as a pre-amp and connecting to my Audiolab 8200p’ power amp. I am wanting to move up to a dedicated pre amp but am mindful of the cost. I am considering a Audiolab 8000q if I can find one? Thanks 👍🏼
Here's a lot of people with lot of audio experience. I am looking for a good tube preamp? Any ideas? Sorry for my bad english. I want to combine with a denon poa2200. I want to pay 600euros.
The whole reason preamps were invented is because manufacturers ran out of room on the front of receivers to put all the knobs added to top-of-the-line receivers in the 1970's. In that day, it was becoming common to have a midrange tone control (I wish that was still true) in addition to adjustable turnover controls for both the bass and the treble, plus a "loudness" button, plus a "Record Out" selector, a speaker selector, low filter button, high filter button, phase inversion, volume muting, and several tuning meters, and tuner settings buttons/levers. Now consider that the tuning dial took up the top half of the front panel of most receivers. At some point, manufacturers just needed more room for the circuitry and more front panel real estate for buttons, knobs, and levers.
Hi Paul for the first time you did not sound like my grandfather with Alzheimer's this video actually made sense thanks Paul and have a great day first time ever well they always say there's a first time for everything thanks again Paul for actually making sense😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
Just because you didn't set out to put a preamp in the "box" with an amplifier, doesn't mean that an added preamp has to be cheesy. Unless there is a problem with circuit board real estate, where is the issue? Preamps don't require much power. Most of the time, line level is about 200 mV, as I recall. Itty bitty. This sounds like it has to do more with bragging rights, that a real problem with the physics of adding in a preamp. But, that's legit. There's an ego factor with owning "high end" equipment, and if people need that to impress themselves or other people, that's cool. Everyone has their own TV show going on in their heads, where they're starring in it. Bragging rights for brands is part of some people's "script." I'm just glad that we are living in a country that is affluent enough that people can concern themselves with these types of things.
I don’t know that Paul answered the question. I think the question was, can he directly connect the source to the amp without a pre-amp. If you only use one source for listening, do you still need a pre-amp? It wouldn’t be as loud, but is the extra gain/volume worth the price?
Is he saying what an integrated amp cannot is creating the quality sound most separate amps can create?? 8:22 "the results are usually superior to one of an integrated" I wonder if "the results" are from his personal experiences or some kind of blind tests. It's much easier to understand if he could show us the data such as frequency response, THD+N, linear dynamic range, damping factor, etc.
I have an Atoll in50 , and I use the pre-out for a power amp . So my integrated serve only has the preamp . And if something apen to my power amp , well my Atoll his a good back up :)
I often wonder what would happen if separates were used for the modern applicances such as iPhones. Separate battery, separate screen, separate motherboard?
Audiophiles are trying to replicate, to the extent possible and as near as they can the sound as originally produced or created. All other media don't have this fidelity counterpart so it would seem to me that creating separates in these cases would yield unnecessary engineering, costs and space. If you went to a concert, loved what you heard and wanted to hear a live version of what was recorded you may try to purchase equipment that archives just that, because most equipment will NOT and you may not come close to reliving that live experience. However, if you were trying to drive from Point A to B, a separate GPS unit won't get you any closer to your destination than would a GPS unit already included in a cell phone. The end results for sound repo and other modern equipment that have integrated components aren't quite the same in a lot of cases. I remember when PCs had separate modems, outside and separate storage drives, and all other components had their own language/software that had to be read, it was all very cumbersome for those type devices. Motherboards were separate from sound cards in later PCs and it made the sound better if you consider those as separates, but it was still "integrated" within the same box.
Del Stanley - The recreation is a fools errand. The only way it can be done if one uses the same speakers as used during the recording/mastering process.
@@Enemji >Or standing in a different spot in the recording room. Whether or not it can be actually achieved is NOT the point here. It is the efforts a listener will make in getting to that point. Some think separate AUDIO components gets you there closer---even if you theoretically can never achieve it. I'm just saying separate components in other electronic media aren't necessarily comparable to audio---in most cases the comparisons are apples and oranges. The original poster it seems had suggested that if the best music repo came from separate components then shouldn't we get superior results if we applied that logic to other electrical components like TVs etc. Would I get better toast from a toaster if the heating element were separate for each slice of bread, instead of the current stereo or quadraphonic toasting method? Maybe, maybe not, but there is no toast nirvana concept to compare it to. You can always get ideal toast with what you have---if you burn it, then reset the toaster! You CAN get it just right. There is no need for a discussion about separate toaster components in the same magnitude we have in audio---even if there could be benefits.
Del Stanley - my point is that none of these audiophiles were there to know what was really intended. That said, I am all for pursuing equipment that elevates your listening pleasure. It is akin to trying to interpret what Jesus or any such religious leader intended when they preached. We only know what was interpreted by their immediate followers, and then their followers, and so on and so forth over the days, months, years, centuries and eons. In the end, we hear what we personally believe in, and resonates to our inner self.
That's what I thought. The pre-amp boost the audio signal to where the amplifier will have an adequate enough signal to further amplify so it can drive the speakers.
A preamp usually provides some amount of gain, albeit a very small amount. But if you listen to what Paul was saying, it's the fact that the preamp stage provides "buffering" between the source and the power amp that is the important thing there.
Also, while line level analogue inputs aren't in need of any real gain as such, it's the buffering and the output impedance of that buffer stage that's then driving the power amp that is important. But the phono input from a turntable does need gain, and also equalization correction applied.
I think he was asking, if I don't need to switch inputs and I can already control the volume from the source through software, why do I need a preamp at all?
Well I guess I can have the best of both worlds. My integrated sounds amazing on its own but I can use it also as a pre and add a power amp for more power. I don't believe i would get better quality sound. Just more of it
@@scottcarpenter4265 I know what you mean. He would get far better results by adding a separate preamp and using his integrated as the power amp, rear connections allowing of course. Far better to do the opposite as it's more the preamp in the integrated that will be compromised.
i think he didn,t mean integrated but power amp since if you have only one source and it,s digital usually they have volume control so can directly connect it straight to the power amp
In essence that's not an answer. It all has to do also about ... well... Quality in design and of course materials!! Not weather it is separate or not.
He did not ask about an integrated amp, probably he has already a variable output. The real question is if to spend several thousand dollars for a preamp or buy a better dac instead?
It's pronounced ' Portsmuth' !! Not mouth ... Seperate units allow for upgrading if required too ... like going from a 10 watt per channel system to a 250 watt per channel
A little confused about the preamp- I just replaced Sumo Athena by Ampzilla with Parasound C5 Halo, did I waste my money? If the preamp is only a volume control and input selector? Why are many preamps in the multiple thousands of dollars range? Seems to me you get what you pay for?
OK I edited this because after watching the video a second time I realise I misunderstood . So my remaining questions is; if you do buy separates do they need to be each from the same manufacturer? ie: a "matched pair"? If not a designed matched pair, what criteria do I use to pair up a preamp and power amp.
Not necessarily. Sometimes, putting different brands together can be very beneficial. But that is for those with deep pockets mostly because it takes experimentation. You could e. g. buy a tube preamp for sound preference and then use a different manufacturer's poweramp to get the power output high enough so your power-hungry speakers will still benefit from the tube sound.
I think the quick answer is that it's safer to go for the same manufacturer to guarantee a good match. But you may have another goal in mind (like trying out the tube pre-amp +ss amp combo) in which case with separates you also get the choice to try that out
The main criteria involve matching output impedance to input impedance. If a preamp has relatively high output impedance then the power amp needs to have quite high input impedance. Gain is another important factor.
I have done matched pre and power from the same manufacturer twice. First was with the Audio Research Classic 150 mono amps and SP-15 pre. Within 2 years, the preamp was gone and replaced with a C.A.T. Second is when I bought a Musical Fidelity NuVista preamp. I liked the preamp so much I reserved and bought the amplifier specifically designed to mate with the preamp. They even share the same serial number. I sold the Audio Research Classics to pay for the NuVista 300 amp. While I still have both NuVistas, and they sound good together, they have spent most of their lives with different partners; the amp with the C.A.T. and the pre with my single ended triodes. Even now, the amp is in use, hooked up to a yet another preamp. So I guess my answer is: I haven't found brand matching to be important.
@@jamesrobinson9176 I was under the impression that the pre amp needs to be higher than the power amp,ie:1.6v for pre and say 1.2/1.4v for power that way the pre amp won't clip??
Please correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like it comes down to the initial setup of which way you want to go if I’m understanding your expectations correctly?
I was born in the 80'2 and I still listen to tape, a bit late to the party I know, but hey, you do what you can, especially if you land a sweet tape deck and some nice tapes to boot ;)
Hi Paul, im in the public addresss scene, amd i was always told pre-amps were for microphones and record players, which didnt have integrated amplifiers built into them Public address Mixers have two different ways of hooking an input up to them, usually RCA connectors and balanced XLR connectors, and usually the RCA goss straight through the mixer to its output stage, and usually the XLR connectors run through a pre-amp to the output stage of the mixer This im told is because a microphone and a record player provide weaker signals than say CD players, MP3 players etc My understanding of power amplifiers are what drive your speakers after mixing Russell from Derbyshire, UK
When using a pre amp/power amp combo which amp is imparting the sound characteristics? I have an Audiolab 6000A Play that I would like to give some more ooomph to, to drive my KLH Model 5 Speakers. If I add a class D XTZ power amp, is the sound characteristic coming from the Audiolab, The XTZ or a combo of both?
First, the way Paul describes the ‘designed from the ground up as an integrated’ is contrary to what he says, certainly different from separates. Keywords: ground loops, output-input matching, interconnects. Some thoughts: 1. Power supplies: you don’t want to have a single power supply for the power amp and the pre-amp. Ok. You also don’t want to have one PS for both channels. So you need 4. Ok. Most pres and power amps offer just one. Separates mostly rule, unless designed the 3rd way Paul described it. 2. It would be best to put pre and power in one casing, an integrated. Why: common star grounding scheme possible, also with separate power supplies. Best to prevent hum and all sorts of ground loop currents. Integrated wins. 3. Connecting two amp stages requires matching impedance and capacitance load. The interconnects interfere with this (just textbook electronics), altogether they act like filters. So connecting both stages causes issues, and hence all the fiddling with matching equipment and interconnects. The longer the cable, the bigger the problems. What about the speakers? They’re are passive devices, not so many issues with cables, as long as they’re fat enough to transport the current. Integrated wins. My £0.02: an integrated could be better. But integrated amps are never build to the spec separates are build. Understandable, as it would be more or less impossible to put a real beast of a power amp on the bookshelf. And they won’t be small and light, due to the heavy power supplies and heat dissipation. So in the end you’re required to deal with separates if you really want TOTL. And deal with the matching and cabling troubles. Or just listen to the music.
The question was not answered technically why it’s better separated than integrated. Are the issues with integrated due to shared power source, heat, etc.. that lowers the performance?
Funny. Ive owned quite a lot of PS Audio kit over the decades, including preamps. His current Stellar dac/pre is a joke for $2000, even $1000. It totally lacks soul. Mot likely due to a mediocre power supply
Having to downsize, meant that I have had to give up some flexibility with an integrated digital amp. But does it actually have pre-amplification? or is it just an ADC for the external inputs? If it is just ADC, plus volume control before final output stages. That has to be good doesn't it? One less component to agonise over.
I have an Optonica SM4646 intergrated amp. It is dual monoblock with a third transformer (Delta Power) meaning the preamp section has it's own power supply running in class A to the power amp section running class AB. The only thing they share is the chassis otherwise they are only connected by preout main in jumper pins. Sharp did it right when they made the Optonica series.
The user should have given his equipment set up. I had a pre amp and a dac running through the pre amp into mono block power amps. The pre amp failed( no volume) so I was able to plug my dac through xlr directly into the power amps. The dac has its own volume control. The dac has balanced and unbalanced output. I used the unbalanced output of a 600 watt powered sub. By being forced to eliminate the preamp my system improved markedly.
Listening from Portsmouth here! Yes it is the mouth of a port (and home of the Royal Navy) and the only island city in England. Nice video!
🇬🇧 Ha ha .. 🚤 ports Mouth 👄
Is it pronounced ports - mouth? Here in the states we have cities named Portsmouth as well but we say Ports-Mith.
It's pronounced Ports-muth.
@@jeremycox4658 It's pronounced Pompey. ;)
@@jeremycox4658 Ports-muff ...by the less linguistically eloquent
Integrated amps are usually better of cause depending on the price points that are compared. You get more integrated detail, more intimate sound, more music less artifical HIFI effect because of the shorter signal path. Mono blocks with preamp, just usually gives you more power/gain/control which creates the illusion of better sound, but usually the sound is also a bit more flat, where you suddenly also begin to hear the monoblocks, preamps, cables signature on top of each other as separate parts. Huge potential of better sound, but usually it does not happen, unless it is done at a high level so things communicate very well. Most people that have integrated going to this more expensive alternate, just fall in love with the added gain and looking at something that is more cool.
That is the precise truth.
If that is true, then everyone will be rocking integrated amp. The best thing to do is move the power amp part of the integrated amp out of the same chassis. Keep everything separate is what hifi is all about.
I so enjoy learning the ins and outs of hifi in your knowledgeable and casual style which is full of relevant information and examples and no bluster. Please keep them coming.
Thank you so much for this excellent explanation, Paul. I used to think that running an amp without a preamp was the way to the most pure sound, well, I WAS WRONG, and one of your earlier videos concisely spelled out why. My mistake for not listening to you in the first place. From my research and investigation, I think that the best way to go is to put 75 pct of your money for your front end gear in the PREAMP and 25 pct in the AMP for the simple reason that it's the preamp that colors the sound the way you like it. A good preamp can make all the difference in the world. Again, thanks for the video.
I completely agree with you. Decades ago I ran a cd player with a variable output straight into a power amp, and I thought that eliminating an entire component and set of cables helped maintain the "purity" of the signal. Well, a fellow I knew lent me a preamp he was selling and I couldn't believe the improvement it made! More depth, more detail, more bass, etc...
I was converted! I would never go without a preamp again.
These days my preamp is a two piece unit that weighs 60 pounds, puts out a full 8 watts at the output, and costs more than my power amp.
This is the most wonderfully explained question about the difference between the two I have ever hard ! Thank you for making these wonderful videos !
It's always been received wisdom that the main advantage of a separate pre-amp is it allows the sensitive, low-level circuitry (moving coil inputs, for instance) to be physically isolated from the noise (induced hum etc) from a heavy-duty power amp. transformer. There are another couple of practical benefits too; it allows for monoblock power amps. to be placed close to the speakers with short speaker leads but long interconnects to the pre-amp which may be advantageous in some circumstances and, secondly, it allows for the upgrading of individual components easily; for instance a better pre-amp, additional power amps. or active crossovers etc.
I like separates because I can keep my amp forever and switch the preamp when new tech and formats are released. Other than that I think the room is more important than any combination of cables, separates etc.
Yes, abso-damn-lutely!
The room's impact cannot be overstated.
In addition, all too often we see these fabulous systems whereby so much performance is left untapped due to a disregard of the simplest, easily addressable, "low hanging fruit" acoustic issues.
100%, in echoing room all speakers sound very similar doesn't matter price difference.
But you can do that with a receiver. Add an amp to it to get clean power right. Then if there si new technology then you can upgrade your receiver and keep the amp.
I do agree that separates is typically the way to go... I wouldn't say it is THE way to go though. If you have a great integrated, the differences, if any are so minuscule that it isn't worth spending any extra to own separates. I use a Hegel H190 and haven't heard anything that is objectively better than it... I've tested this same setup with several separates and I always go back to the Hegel. It is damn good.
Seems like the actual question was more about using a stand alone pre vs the source's own volume control.
Stand alone? It's audio not computing not efi it's hifi
@@paigemiller1925 huh? Who said anything about computers?
I like these short videos, but yes I don't really think the actual question was answered.
So many new sources with unheard of capabilities appear so quickly, it's impossible to know what's next.
@@theelectricsheep8204 He NEVER answers the question just go's on a PS Audio advert speech every time but its his company and channel so let him
As a general rule yes, the less power supply you have to share with a given primary function in any audio system the better. Preamp, amp, dac, all using their own power supplies = better. But there are some darn good integrated amps out there that will beat out some separate amp/preamp combos. It's really a matter of research, understanding the unit you want and your given space situation, sometimes separates aren't feasible.
Wouldn't you just uprate the power supply to the integrated to get to a supply point where nothing is compromised? (I appreciate probably at the top end driving monster speakers lots of power in a confined space is never good but I'm talking for the vast majority of us who don't spend 5 or 6 figure sums on hifi)
I have 2 Monoblock-Power-Amps, a Dual-Mono-Preamp an a DAC/Streamer, all True-Balanced... Even my Loudspeakers are Seperates (Stereo Bass-Modules with 12-Inch Woofers from ScanSpeak combined with 2-Way-Speakers and an external Crossover.) All Components are Specialists. Greetz from Switzerland.
I love this guy, he is one of my go to guys for audio stuff. He is not trying to sell you his product. I "may" never buy his product. Would I like to, you betcha.
Another major difference about separates and integrated is that the latter only requires one 2nd mortgage, as opposed to waiting 15 years and taking out another 2nd mortgage for the second piece of gear. I raise my beer to all music lovers out there who are squeezed out of enjoying Mahler (or their favourite music) because of outrageous "diminishing returns" audio prices. May audio prices crash, along with the price of good wine. May we, who actually love music, live long enough to see fair pricing.
Honest Paul reveals audio-world hidden details. Thank you!
Simply to say . It is extremely difficult to compete with the other great integrated amps , like : Parasound , Macintosh , Naim , not to mentioned even Yamaha , Pioneer , ONKYO etc . " Considering diminishing returns " :-)
What about if you only have one source, maybe a media transport, that is connected to a DAC which in turn is connected to a power amp? What would then be the point of adding a pre amp in between the DAC and the power amp? (Knowing you would not need more input sources.)
what is that creepy head in the background?
i cant stop look...
holy shit you are RIGHT!!
Cripes. You mean the small child head?! It took me a bit to locate based on your comment... but yeah. That’s bizarre
haha
It looks like a framed photo of some worker's child.
For an audiophile, having a separate preamplifier is a must as, it gives him/her the opportunity to experiment with many different types
such as solid state or valve devices to get the sound that s/he prefers.
And even though many people would have you believe that, preamps don't have a 'voice' of their own, reality is, they do and give the whole system a different
audible result each time.
When you buy an integrated amp. you're 'stuck' with whatever preamp. circuit the designer has given you in the box. Simple as that!
Nope, you just use an aux input for your chosen input device.
Mike Eastridge I agree. That is an ignorant statement to make on a public forum.
Another factor: it's best to have the source, especially a turntable, some distance from the speakers. Separate power amp(s) gives you the option of locating it near the speakers with short speaker cables, which is usually preferred.
This is a great comment and one I’m amazed he didn’t mention in the video. He rarely answers the questions properly in my opinion!
Curious that he would react "old school" when he mentioned CD & not have
that reaction when he mentioned "phono" which was decades ahead of CDs
I remember a time when I had a CD with numerous scratches and it would
still play perfectly even. I don,t think a vinyl would survive that well even with
some scratches, or sometimes it would even falter when you don't even see a
scratch.
Yup. I listen cds , original ones bought at shop. Im old shooled
Well I listen to cds , they sound superb. You can't hear hires audio anyway total waste of time.
Me too. After years of raspberry and streaming service, I'm come back to cd player and turntable
Is anyone thinking of getting a CD player or just a transport ? I am thinking of the hegel mohican or Cyrus xt signature.
I have just inherited a vinyl collection from my uncle, all the classic albums .most are first print. They are from the 60 70 and 80 about 3000 of them. Not sure if I will get a record player though.
@room-ten-oh-nine ! Would you play mint albums like pink Floyd dsotm first pressing.
Just bought a power amp. And a preamp too. A Chinese tube pre amp to be married to a British power amp. Speakers are wharfedale floor standers. I followed your advice that I should get the best of both worlds.
Wha model of Chinese tube preamp you bought?
@@paulcarrasco4694 it's a DIY. No brand. Just bought it on a hunch and thankfully it's good. I was quite surprised that after running in it sounded better that some expensive preamps I had before.
Linear power amplifiers produce much heat. Switch mode power amplifiers produce much RFI. Both heat and RFI can degrade preamp performance. Then, some people decide to separate them.
Cheers from Indonesia
👏👏👏 best explanation!
There are simply alot of awesome top notch intergrated amps made from yesterday and today that are on equal grounds in quality of seperates
Separates would not only sound much better (Caveat: IF and only IF configured, matched and calibrated properly), but they would also make the whole system obsolescence-proof for much longer, as nothing great would change between the power amp and the speakers for many years (and both can last for very long), while the source, pre-amp, DAC, streamer etc. would constantly keep evolving at a much faster rate, in-sync with Moore's Law!
If the initial cost were not a concern, separates is the way to go, as it would also open the gateway to experimentation with multiple source players, and different amps - tubes, valves etc. etc. If you don't mind the numerous connectors and cables, that is! 😁
A preamp has less heat, an amp preamp set keeps heat and interference in its place. And if one breaks it can be replaced. Also I bought one one year and the other the next. Separates are the only way to go
Interesting. It makes me wonder about the PS Audio Integrated devices. Are they compromised or just separates stored in a single box?
What the are you talking about? PS Audio does not make integrated amp. He is talking about the different between a specific product vs cost, Integrated vs separate. Every product has to have a cost vs benefit other wise everything would be a cost no object item.
I clicked on this video because I wanted to know the answer and it actually answered it very thoroughly.
@@arun2995 PS Audio makes two integrated amps: the sprout and the stellar strata.
@@michaeldickman1460 my bad
separates will take up more space and weight so make sure you can accommodate those. You’ll also have to be prepared to spend a lot more on cabling, audio and power cables.
All things being equal, and they usually aren't, I think in modern well-designed and implemented gear it's a more efficient, and performing device putting these two things in one box. It reduces footprint, external wire, and matching issues for the consumer even when they use the same products of the same brand. Everything is isolated so well, and optimized so I can't imagine a feature lost by using the same enclosure assuming cost having little or no bearing on it. Another play for separating however may be layout. You could lay two mono-blocks out near the speakers with their heat leaving the control equipment cool as a cucumber centered for a really elegant look we often see in audiophile videos. It really depends on your budget and taste. What I was just saying is performance doesn't really suffer when integration is done right.
He shouldn't be too glib about Portsmouth. There are 8 of them in the USA that I know of and I live in the Rhode Island one. New England is loaded with British place names.
This is the best video I've seen Paul do to explain something. Right to the point and with good authority. This all just makes perfect sence of "separates" (which I own and beleive in).
honestly....you don't even NEED pre amps....you don't really need it ...especially for home theater or any sound reproduction device anyways ...the amplifier itself already does all you need ..only thing if needed after the signal source would just be some DSP for some very fine tuning ..and pre amps can't do that
Absolutely superb explanation but for all you non-English viewers out there we never pronounce "mouth" in a Proper Noun. "Muth" is correct - PortsMuth. Similarly "Shire" isn't pronounced like in Lord of the Rings. So Worcestershire sauce is "Wuh-Sta-shuh". Glad your audio products are so damn good Paul. Peace.
There are two kind of listeners, audiophile's and purest.
Audiophile's have to have all the guagets so they can play with their toys and of course bragging rights but often not happy with their rig.
A purest will select the best of 3 components that complement each other, source, amplification and speakers.
👍 I WOULD LOVE TO BE AN AUDIOPHILE ( BY YOUR DEFINITION. )😊. BUT I AM CONTENT TO BE A PUREST 😊 (ALSO BY YOUR DEFINITION ) 😍😍😍
Here I was thinking that the single biggest advantage of a pre-amp was improved signal voltage to the power amp, from the source...?
On an integrated that's not even an issue. The biggest advantage is flexibility, being able to swap out your amp or pre, and being paranoid about breakdowns,a backup plan is more easily implemented.
Paul, you don't mention at least two of the advantages of an integrated: 1 chassis instead of 2 equals lower cost, and shorter, internal interconnects equals less chance for interference (plus less cord clutter)
A very nice explanation. Thanks.
Spot on Paul. A dedicated component rig vs integrated? I’ll take my system a la carte every time, no question. Within a given budget, of course.
The short answer is that with separates, each box gets its own dedicated power supply.
I cannot stress enough the importance of a quality power supply. It is probably the single most important part of any audio component, and really good ones are hand built and expensive.
That is why you can not only go from an integrated amp to a separate pre-amp and power-amp, but you can take the next step, and go to monoblock amps (so that each speaker gets its own dedicated amp, and that amp has its own dedicated power supply that is used for only that one speaker).
And to take it a step further, you can bi-amp your monoblocks, so that you have:
-- a single amp powering the left speaker's low frequencies, and
-- a single amp powering the left speaker's mid and high frequencies, and
-- a single amp powering the right speaker's low frequencies, and
-- a single amp powering the right speaker's mid and high frequencies.
The above, done properly, gives the bass its own power supply for each speaker, and the mids/highs their own power supply for each speaker.
In life, equipment or machinery that is well built to do one single and very specific task will usually perform that task exceedingly well.
There's zero need to bi-amp any speaker system unless either a) your amp is deficient or b) your speakers are deficient
@@joncarl3431 "There's zero need to bi-amp any speaker system unless either a) your amp is deficient or b) your speakers are deficient"
-- That means that your contention is that the best amp on the planet will reproduce voices exactly the same when that amp is also reproducing deep, dynamic bass notes?
-- That means that your contention is that that amp can do both deep, dynamic bass + voices exactly the same as the same amp doing only voices?
-- That means that your contention is that that amp's resources that are being expended on deep, dynamic bass notes has absolutely zero impact on it simultaneously reproducing voices?
-- That deep, dynamic bass taxes the amps zero? That deep, dynamic bass is done effortlessly by the amp? That deep, dynamic bass takes zero toll on the amp's resources?
Vandersteen's Model Seven speakers are bi-amped. That is their built-in design.
I suppose Vandersteen's flagship Model Seven speakers are deficient?
I suppose Vandersteen's reference Model Seven speakers, that compete with speakers triple the price, are deficient?
Perhaps you should call Richard Vandersteen and offer him your experience and your services?
559-582-0324
Jon Carl:
Have you ever listened to a high-end stereo?
Have you ever tested your assertion that "There's zero need to bi-amp any speaker system unless either a) your amp is deficient or b) your speakers are deficient"?
Please list the components of the stereo with which you did your listening tests, that you used to form your conclusion.
@@NoEgg4u I have no idea what Vandersteens are. Maybe try you appeal to authority argument on someone else?
I also have no idea what "dynamic" bass is. My subwoofer can reproduce 18hz at 130db so I guess that's "dynamic" enough for me.
My loudspeakers are DIY and compete with commercial offerings that retail for 20 times the cost of my materials in any objective test (frequency response, THD, phase, efficiency, etc)
@@joncarl3431 "I have no idea what Vandersteens are."
It shows.
And that you did not check, before replying, shows your "couldn't care less" attitude to learn.
"Maybe try you appeal to authority argument on someone else?"
In order to try something on someone else, it has to be tried on someone to begin with. That is what you tried, by implying that I appealed to authority, when I did not.
Vandersteen speakers are universally applauded. If owners, reviewers, and nearly everyone that has heard them at shows or elsewhere all praise them, then that supposed authority is the general public.
"I also have no idea what "dynamic" bass is."
It shows.
"My subwoofer can reproduce 18hz at 130db so I guess that's "dynamic" enough for me."
The frequency has zero to do with dynamics.
The decibels have zero to do with dynamics.
"My loudspeakers are DIY and compete with commercial offerings that retail for 20 times the cost of my materials in any objective test (frequency response, THD, phase, efficiency, etc)"
1)
Name the commercial offerings that cost 20 times your cost.
2)
List any of your objective tests.
3)
Explain how that has anything to do with the benefits of bi-amping.
4)
You are not the only person that preaches specifications with no mention of sound quality.
People that understand sound quality will nearly always purchase components based on how they sound; not on measurements.
But if you would rather tout measurements and not even mention sound quality, and that makes you happy, then more power to you.
All of the above evidences that you do not understand the benefits of bi-amping, which is why I took issue with you misinforming people by way of your initial reply.
My crystal ball shows me that you will refuse to answer any of the above numbered items because you can't, and the reason that you can't is because you lied.
@@NoEgg4u You expect me to give to a reply to you on your terms after making an ad hominem against me?
I'm not going to respond to your nonsense other than to tell you nobody appreciates being insulted and that appeals to authority and ad hominems are classified as logical fallacies. I only debate people that are courteous.
both have pros and cons. separate preamp is more flexible, you can use it with other systems. with an integrated, you can almost certainly eliminate all hum and feedback oscillation by star-grounding everything on one single ground. separate power supply is not necessary to eliminate interactions between circuits, you just need separate rectifiers and proper grounding. both can be excellent in terms of performance if properly designed and vice versa.
Well said.
I like my separates Pioneer hi-fi. Preamp Has 3 transformers and very good phono with wind transformers. Cool stuff and made in japan
Wickham is the most beautiful village with a large market square, a classic british pub and great teashops. Just off the square is the Chesapeake Mill (now an antique shop) so called because it was constructed from the beams of the US ship Chesapeake (captured in the war of 1812).
Wonderful video, by the way. Everything explained so simply and clearly.
the Kinges Head is indeed a fine pub
Howdy again.
There is one good reason to use separate preamlifiers and power amplifiers. That is the desire to use graphic equalizers. If possible to aquire the loudspeakers sensitivity graphs one may compensate the unlinearities of the frequency responses. Particularily bothersome are the bass element resonance and the tweeter resonance. The former causing a pealing sound and the latter annoying whines. A graphic equalizer may actually make the speakers sound one price class better.
THANK YOU for the explanation of a Power Amplifier. For decades, I have ALWAYS been confused about their purpose. Various salespeople (different manufacturers) over the years have given me non-sensible reasons ("well, that is just high-end gear set up").
BTW: I recently put together my own small Valve Amplifier (studied and then soldered together using Solar Power). I got it working and it sounded GREAT but I immediately wanted MORE of the Fantastic Sound. I came to an epiphany that one will require MUCH MORE power only after they hear better sounding HiFi!- thus the need for Power Amplifiers....Never Realized this before!
Yes, the key difference is the separate power supplies as well as being in separate shielded boxes. This isolates the preamp from current surges that take place in the power amp. I have been using separates since 1967.
All of today’s high-end mfgrs, offer integrated models. Their benefits are the simplicity of a 1 enclosure design, unity with synergy engineered in their topography. They require less space, & usually cost less vs separates. Sonic differences largely don’t exist, only physical image prestige does. Separates allow individual upgrading & mixing brands, where integrated’s don’t. But they can also feature a DAC & Phono stage, in their design, or as plug-in options, saving room with cost savings which can’t be overstated. Listen, Compare & Decide🔊😎.
I have always thought integrated amps were bad.
1. They are sharing power with everything else and do not not have their own dedicated power supply.
2. They are not isolated. There are ways to isolate them internally but its never 100%. To be truly isolated it needs to be in its own enclosure outside of.
3. if you burn up a resistor, blow a fuse, or whatever else everything goes down including the amp.
4. There are no external gain, sensitivity, etc.. controls.
5. The grounding is shared. Which can create all kinds of issues.
Great answer, never thought about the "design" aspect, I always thought about the issue being preamp circuits next to heat sources that didn't need to be if separate.
Interesting. With more content streaming thru the internet, having an input selector is less of an issue. All my CD's are ripped and stored on hard drives. All my video watching comes via the internet, I use my computer as the input selector, equalizer and volume control going to my amplifier. My preamp sits in storage.
I like your gentle and clear descriptions..
This time I found that the distinction between integrated amp and separate power and pre amplifier was one of concept rather than concrete example.
Sure in concept it makes sense but in reality there's likely to be such a small difference in many cases that proponents of separate devices are just blowing wind in typical audiophile fashion.
It'll greatly helped your responses if you provide one or two examples to...amplify your point. Pun intended.
I have a question..
Is the distortion figures that we see on Integrated amplifiers mainly from the power amplification stage or the pre amp stage ? My thoughts is that it's likely the power amplification stage.
I've hooked up a technics su-z980(su-V98 in the states) to a technics su-vx800 so that the su-z980 is the preamp to the RCA unbalanced direct I put to the vx800 as a power amplifier.
Am I getting the .007 THD in total or will it be throttled by the worse .07 THD of the su-z980 used as a preamplifier..
I'm doing this so I get remote control of the vx800 volume... effectively.
Sources do not always have a volume control. Traditionally, disc players, tape players, tuners, turntables did not have volume controls, but newer source components have changed that, and in a good way. Easier interfaces and new components with ever expanding capabilities enter our reality like never before.
I thought it would be something like this, but that still leaves me with the question: What part of one particular integrated amplifier has been compromised on?...
As in, did they compromise on the pre-amp, the power-amp, or are they equally "compromised" so that they're of equivalent quality?...
Perhaps they didn't compromise much in terms of the internals and they compromised on the casing or some other part?...
This is probably something you couldn't find out unless you'd analyze each product thoroughly or asked the engineers somehow.
Sad thing for me is: I probably won't have a budget for separates for a long time to come. I'm looking at stuff like Schiit, which... yea, have some affordable options. But they will lack some features and they jump up in price significantly as you go up the products in each category. - Maybe there are better options, but I'm just saying, it will just drive up the price significantly.
I like the idea of each component being of good enough quality in its own right, but if only it would be clearer what the compromises are in the "all-in-one" type products.
I mean, for example, I have this older digital receiver from like 2001 or so, by Sony, which at the time was probably really expensive (I got it used, but finding an equivalent today ends up on some of the more expensive ones). And... it sounds good... It's powerful and it doesn't have much noise, even without any "conditioners" or whatever. It sure has hefty components in it, as lifting it is a workout in itself. - But it's chock-full of stuff, from its slew of inputs to the fact that it has a load of DSP-options, plus a tuner, prety substantial amplifications and so on. So where did they compromise?... Is the sound-quality just not all that it could be?... Does it lack dynamics?... Which it sure doesn't seem like it when it slaps me in the face with really dynamic masters.
I don't know, it's hard to really find where compromises are. Especially if you can't directly compare stuff. - So how much it matters, I don't know.
Yes, an argument can be made that separates sound better and are "less compromised." But more importantly, if a separate breaks (or becomes obsolete) then both units don't have to be replaced preserving some of the original investment.
Why call cd "old school" and phono not 😂
I think he was referring to tape
Vinyl is older than CD, but very few people still buy CDs or use CDs. A lot of young people who have never bought a CD, buy vinyl records. Vinyl records are still nowhere near as popular as digital downloads and digital streaming though. I'm not sure if vinyl sales have surpassed CD sales, but CDs are dying and vinyl is becoming more popular. Although vinyl will never be as popular as they were prior to the 1980s.
Cd played on a good player still and always beats the streaming stuff sonically, „older“ or not!
ATC SIA2-150 integrated has a proper discrete pre amp stage with its own transformer and psu. The 2 box set up is a little better though as they run the output of the pre class A. There is not enough room to do that in the integrated. But in the most part integrated amps do not have decent pre amp sections, some just have a volume pot and that sounds poor.
But wouldn’t a bad choice on the pre amp get away with all the effort the manufacturers put on making the good amplifier? What if the amp is an excellent one at 10,000 dollars and then someone mix it with a cheap and not so great pre amp that greatly degraded the amp signal ?
The OP was asking what the point of having a preamp in the first place would be instead of just plugging a source directly into a power amp. Paul got the point completely wrong and answered a different question. My own answer would be that certain sources could use a bit of gain from a good pre. A good pre will also have a decent phono stage (or not) and besides switching and volume control, might have EQ or tone controls that (heaven forbid) you might want to use to tweak the sound coming out of your speakers. Or to use as a headphone jack it’s no speakers. Also, there are many vintage monoblocks that don’t have any volume controls and need a preamp in order to control. And there are lower powered or low sensitivity monoblocks that benefit from a hotter preamp signal. It you have more than one source, you need a preamp.
The objective of asking all about these gadgets is I strongly believe to hear confirmation that connecting these makes the audio coming out of our devices better. If there nothing to gain then there is abolutely no need, just stick with the most conventional or even the cheapest.
Howdy.
I have a 2 x 70 W Yamaha integrated amplifier. It is really good. I guess the designers were dedicated to design an integated amp. It has all the usual inputs. It has a built-in RIAA preamp. for a vinyl player. It may be bypassed. My vinyl player also has a built-in RIAA preamp that may be bypassesd. I can't say I observe any significant difference using either one.
I use the player preamp because it is more appealing to me. My thinking is that it is good to amplify the signal as close to the source as possible. Also, I think that some effort has been given to dedicate the player preamp just for that pick-up.
I'm with you. the classic mid 70's receivers etc had ( I still think ) very fine internal parts, along with superior style. MAYBE the cost would be up 6 x in todays cost ( $1800. or so ) maybe not. Yamaha notably still imports classic silver models. Denon & Marantz sell them in Japan, sad to say not here... WHY ?
Ideal for an active speaker setup rather than a passive crossover speaker. Cleaner, no bulky amplifiers to create heat, cooler by miles than a integrated unit. Most audiophiles would prefer a preamp.
Funny, I had two old perfect quality stereo preamps stored away for future use. One could pick them up commonly for about $75, I purchased several Carver units at that price or even lower. For some reason, analog preamps had temporarily run out of favor in the mass market. Folks are idiots the world over...
Lack of a digital tier more than likely the culprit. Easily remedied.
Can anyone help- I am using my Audiolab 8000a integrated amp as a pre-amp and connecting to my Audiolab 8200p’ power amp. I am wanting to move up to a dedicated pre amp but am mindful of the cost. I am considering a Audiolab 8000q if I can find one? Thanks 👍🏼
Here's a lot of people with lot of audio experience. I am looking for a good tube preamp? Any ideas? Sorry for my bad english. I want to combine with a denon poa2200. I want to pay 600euros.
The whole reason preamps were invented is because manufacturers ran out of room on the front of receivers to put all the knobs added to top-of-the-line receivers in the 1970's. In that day, it was becoming common to have a midrange tone control (I wish that was still true) in addition to adjustable turnover controls for both the bass and the treble, plus a "loudness" button, plus a "Record Out" selector, a speaker selector, low filter button, high filter button, phase inversion, volume muting, and several tuning meters, and tuner settings buttons/levers. Now consider that the tuning dial took up the top half of the front panel of most receivers. At some point, manufacturers just needed more room for the circuitry and more front panel real estate for buttons, knobs, and levers.
Hi Paul for the first time you did not sound like my grandfather with Alzheimer's this video actually made sense thanks Paul and have a great day first time ever well they always say there's a first time for everything thanks again Paul for actually making sense😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
Just because you didn't set out to put a preamp in the "box" with an amplifier, doesn't mean that an added preamp has to be cheesy. Unless there is a problem with circuit board real estate, where is the issue? Preamps don't require much power. Most of the time, line level is about 200 mV, as I recall. Itty bitty. This sounds like it has to do more with bragging rights, that a real problem with the physics of adding in a preamp. But, that's legit. There's an ego factor with owning "high end" equipment, and if people need that to impress themselves or other people, that's cool. Everyone has their own TV show going on in their heads, where they're starring in it. Bragging rights for brands is part of some people's "script." I'm just glad that we are living in a country that is affluent enough that people can concern themselves with these types of things.
I don’t know that Paul answered the question. I think the question was, can he directly connect the source to the amp without a pre-amp.
If you only use one source for listening, do you still need a pre-amp? It wouldn’t be as loud, but is the extra gain/volume worth the price?
Is he saying what an integrated amp cannot is creating the quality sound most separate amps can create??
8:22 "the results are usually superior to one of an integrated" I wonder if "the results" are from his personal experiences or some kind of blind tests. It's much easier to understand if he could show us the data such as frequency response, THD+N, linear dynamic range, damping factor, etc.
I have an Atoll in50 , and I use the pre-out for a power amp . So my integrated serve only has the preamp . And if something apen to my power amp , well my Atoll his a good back up :)
I often wonder what would happen if separates were used for the modern applicances such as iPhones. Separate battery, separate screen, separate motherboard?
Have a listen to one of these, www.sony.co.uk/electronics/audio-components/ta-zh1es
Audiophiles are trying to replicate, to the extent possible and as near as they can the sound as originally produced or created. All other media don't have this fidelity counterpart so it would seem to me that creating separates in these cases would yield unnecessary engineering, costs and space. If you went to a concert, loved what you heard and wanted to hear a live version of what was recorded you may try to purchase equipment that archives just that, because most equipment will NOT and you may not come close to reliving that live experience. However, if you were trying to drive from Point A to B, a separate GPS unit won't get you any closer to your destination than would a GPS unit already included in a cell phone. The end results for sound repo and other modern equipment that have integrated components aren't quite the same in a lot of cases. I remember when PCs had separate modems, outside and separate storage drives, and all other components had their own language/software that had to be read, it was all very cumbersome for those type devices. Motherboards were separate from sound cards in later PCs and it made the sound better if you consider those as separates, but it was still "integrated" within the same box.
Del Stanley - The recreation is a fools errand. The only way it can be done if one uses the same speakers as used during the recording/mastering process.
@@Enemji >Or standing in a different spot in the recording room. Whether or not it can be actually achieved is NOT the point here. It is the efforts a listener will make in getting to that point. Some think separate AUDIO components gets you there closer---even if you theoretically can never achieve it. I'm just saying separate components in other electronic media aren't necessarily comparable to audio---in most cases the comparisons are apples and oranges. The original poster it seems had suggested that if the best music repo came from separate components then shouldn't we get superior results if we applied that logic to other electrical components like TVs etc. Would I get better toast from a toaster if the heating element were separate for each slice of bread, instead of the current stereo or quadraphonic toasting method? Maybe, maybe not, but there is no toast nirvana concept to compare it to. You can always get ideal toast with what you have---if you burn it, then reset the toaster! You CAN get it just right. There is no need for a discussion about separate toaster components in the same magnitude we have in audio---even if there could be benefits.
Del Stanley - my point is that none of these audiophiles were there to know what was really intended.
That said, I am all for pursuing equipment that elevates your listening pleasure.
It is akin to trying to interpret what Jesus or any such religious leader intended when they preached. We only know what was interpreted by their immediate followers, and then their followers, and so on and so forth over the days, months, years, centuries and eons.
In the end, we hear what we personally believe in, and resonates to our inner self.
I thought a preamp means exactly what it's called preamp before amplification we have to add an amp to the preamp for amplification ?
That's what I thought. The pre-amp boost the audio signal to where the amplifier will have an adequate enough signal to further amplify so it can drive the speakers.
A preamp usually provides some amount of gain, albeit a very small amount. But if you listen to what Paul was saying, it's the fact that the preamp stage provides "buffering" between the source and the power amp that is the important thing there.
Also, while line level analogue inputs aren't in need of any real gain as such, it's the buffering and the output impedance of that buffer stage that's then driving the power amp that is important. But the phono input from a turntable does need gain, and also equalization correction applied.
I think he was asking, if I don't need to switch inputs and I can already control the volume from the source through software, why do I need a preamp at all?
Well I guess I can have the best of both worlds. My integrated sounds amazing on its own but I can use it also as a pre and add a power amp for more power. I don't believe i would get better quality sound. Just more of it
Absolutely disagree!
@@scottcarpenter4265 I know what you mean. He would get far better results by adding a separate preamp and using his integrated as the power amp, rear connections allowing of course. Far better to do the opposite as it's more the preamp in the integrated that will be compromised.
IMHO, it’s more fun to mix and match separates. One may accumulate many systems over the years.
Cheap separates will not be better than a high-end integrated. This is misleading. Good separates are damn expensive. Not worth it in smaller spaces.
I like my Yamaha C40. It works well with separates or powered monitors.
My problem is what type of cable do I use between a pre & power amp. The integrated can have very good wire inside the box.
i think he didn,t mean integrated but power amp since if you have only one source and it,s digital usually they have volume control so can directly connect it straight to the power amp
Plus less impedance and IN OUT levels compatibility problem
In essence that's not an answer. It all has to do also about ... well... Quality in design and of course materials!! Not weather it is separate or not.
He did not ask about an integrated amp, probably he has already a variable output. The real question is if to spend several thousand dollars for a preamp or buy a better dac instead?
As far as I know a nice (pre)amplifier enclosure cost a lot of money. I am sure that is a place to make a combined product more cost efficient.
That kid in the background is unnerving.
Can you add a pre-amp to a receiver?
What an excellent explanation. Thank you Paul
It's pronounced ' Portsmuth' !! Not mouth ...
Seperate units allow for upgrading if required too ... like going from a 10 watt per channel system to a 250 watt per channel
Yen as well as Portsmouth we have gt yarmouth Bournemouth. Weymouth and many more mouths
A little confused about the preamp- I just replaced Sumo Athena by Ampzilla with Parasound C5 Halo, did I waste my money? If the preamp is only a volume control and input selector? Why are many preamps in the multiple thousands of dollars range? Seems to me you get what you pay for?
Driving seperate preamp and poweramp is a better choice you have less distorsion
It can take up more space. it can cost even more money. It can make PS audio more money.....
OK I edited this because after watching the video a second time I realise I misunderstood . So my remaining questions is; if you do buy separates do they need to be each from the same manufacturer? ie: a "matched pair"? If not a designed matched pair, what criteria do I use to pair up a preamp and power amp.
Not necessarily. Sometimes, putting different brands together can be very beneficial. But that is for those with deep pockets mostly because it takes experimentation. You could e. g. buy a tube preamp for sound preference and then use a different manufacturer's poweramp to get the power output high enough so your power-hungry speakers will still benefit from the tube sound.
I think the quick answer is that it's safer to go for the same manufacturer to guarantee a good match. But you may have another goal in mind (like trying out the tube pre-amp +ss amp combo) in which case with separates you also get the choice to try that out
The main criteria involve matching output impedance to input impedance. If a preamp has relatively high output impedance then the power amp needs to have quite high input impedance. Gain is another important factor.
I have done matched pre and power from the same manufacturer twice. First was with the Audio Research Classic 150 mono amps and SP-15 pre. Within 2 years, the preamp was gone and replaced with a C.A.T. Second is when I bought a Musical Fidelity NuVista preamp. I liked the preamp so much I reserved and bought the amplifier specifically designed to mate with the preamp. They even share the same serial number. I sold the Audio Research Classics to pay for the NuVista 300 amp. While I still have both NuVistas, and they sound good together, they have spent most of their lives with different partners; the amp with the C.A.T. and the pre with my single ended triodes. Even now, the amp is in use, hooked up to a yet another preamp. So I guess my answer is: I haven't found brand matching to be important.
@@jamesrobinson9176 I was under the impression that the pre amp needs to be higher than the power amp,ie:1.6v for pre and say 1.2/1.4v for power that way the pre amp won't clip??
Please correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like it comes down to the initial setup of which way you want to go if I’m understanding your expectations correctly?
I was born in the 80'2 and I still listen to tape, a bit late to the party I know, but hey, you do what you can, especially if you land a sweet tape deck and some nice tapes to boot ;)
The amp psaudio makes you mentioned, do you sell it?
Thanks
Hi Paul, im in the public addresss scene, amd i was always told pre-amps were for microphones and record players, which didnt have integrated amplifiers built into them
Public address Mixers have two different ways of hooking an input up to them, usually RCA connectors and balanced XLR connectors, and usually the RCA goss straight through the mixer to its output stage, and usually the XLR connectors run through a pre-amp to the output stage of the mixer
This im told is because a microphone and a record player provide weaker signals than say CD players, MP3 players etc
My understanding of power amplifiers are what drive your speakers after mixing
Russell from Derbyshire, UK
When using a pre amp/power amp combo which amp is imparting the sound characteristics? I have an Audiolab 6000A Play that I would like to give some more ooomph to, to drive my KLH Model 5 Speakers. If I add a class D XTZ power amp, is the sound characteristic coming from the Audiolab, The XTZ or a combo of both?
First, the way Paul describes the ‘designed from the ground up as an integrated’ is contrary to what he says, certainly different from separates. Keywords: ground loops, output-input matching, interconnects.
Some thoughts:
1. Power supplies: you don’t want to have a single power supply for the power amp and the pre-amp. Ok. You also don’t want to have one PS for both channels. So you need 4. Ok. Most pres and power amps offer just one. Separates mostly rule, unless designed the 3rd way Paul described it.
2. It would be best to put pre and power in one casing, an integrated. Why: common star grounding scheme possible, also with separate power supplies. Best to prevent hum and all sorts of ground loop currents. Integrated wins.
3. Connecting two amp stages requires matching impedance and capacitance load. The interconnects interfere with this (just textbook electronics), altogether they act like filters.
So connecting both stages causes issues, and hence all the fiddling with matching equipment and interconnects. The longer the cable, the bigger the problems. What about the speakers? They’re are passive devices, not so many issues with cables, as long as they’re fat enough to transport the current. Integrated wins.
My £0.02: an integrated could be better. But integrated amps are never build to the spec separates are build. Understandable, as it would be more or less impossible to put a real beast of a power amp on the bookshelf. And they won’t be small and light, due to the heavy power supplies and heat dissipation.
So in the end you’re required to deal with separates if you really want TOTL. And deal with the matching and cabling troubles.
Or just listen to the music.
The question was not answered technically why it’s better separated than integrated. Are the issues with integrated due to shared power source, heat, etc.. that lowers the performance?
Funny. Ive owned quite a lot of PS Audio kit over the decades, including preamps. His current Stellar dac/pre is a joke for $2000, even $1000. It totally lacks soul. Mot likely due to a mediocre power supply
Having to downsize, meant that I have had to give up some flexibility with an integrated digital amp.
But does it actually have pre-amplification? or is it just an ADC for the external inputs?
If it is just ADC, plus volume control before final output stages. That has to be good doesn't it?
One less component to agonise over.
I have an Optonica SM4646 intergrated amp. It is dual monoblock with a third transformer (Delta Power) meaning the preamp section has it's own power supply running in class A to the power amp section running class AB. The only thing they share is the chassis otherwise they are only connected by preout main in jumper pins. Sharp did it right when they made the Optonica series.
The user should have given his equipment set up.
I had a pre amp and a dac running through the pre amp into mono block power amps. The pre amp failed( no volume) so I was able to plug my dac through xlr directly into the power amps. The dac has its own volume control. The dac has balanced and unbalanced output. I used the unbalanced output of a 600 watt powered sub.
By being forced to eliminate the preamp my system improved markedly.