Are Integrated Amps making a comeback?

[Phelonious Ponk]

I've owned two different sets of active speakers. If your thinking isn't limited to outside the box,
there are lots of tweaks, upgrades and mods an active owner can do.

It's not my thinking, but my skills that are limited to outside of the box. I am confident that I'm not nearly as qualified to muck around in there as the engineer who designed the system, and even more confident that I wouldn't improve things if I tried. YMMV.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Well there are also some designs that utlise external crossovers and so give greater flexibility regarding amps, but then this loses the ergonomic benefits that fits in with this discussion about integrated amps.
Someone I knew with B&W snail-Nautilus used with CAM400s; this made a mockery of ergonomics
Shame the Kef Blade lost its external active crossover from the concept Blade, wonder what the reasoning was behind that (possibly market size would be reduced and cost I assume).

Still, most consumers will always weigh up the benefit of an all-in-one design of internal active speaker against that of changing speakers,what will I have if a problem occurs, what about selling,etc.
Those who are in favour of actives (and I agree there are a fair few, especially when considering sound benefits) will not be deterred by such challenges.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If I had the room for them, I'd have a pair of Linwitz Orions with active crossovers and amps outside of the speakers. I would have them knowing that I had not only missed the ergonomic benefits but had probably bought far more amplification, physically and othewise, than I really need. But I'd have them.

Tim

 

[fas42]

It's not my thinking, but my skills that are limited to outside of the box. I am confident that I'm not nearly as qualified to muck around in there as the engineer who designed the system, and even more confident that I wouldn't improve things if I tried. YMMV.

Tim

Just curious, Tim, how much have you played around with attempting to stabilise the actives physically on the surface that they are normally sitting on. Are they simply plonked down on what's available, or do you do more than that? I ask that because my initial tweaking, back in the mists of time, was with B&W DM10s, about the same size and configuration as your setup, and that was to make these lock into the room as rigidly as possible. The ability of these units to go loud, with bass subjectively far more under control and with greater impact, was dramatically improved by doing this ...

Frank

 

[microstrip]

If you really buy into the rationale behind going with active systems, these issues become irrelevant. In a truly optimized active system, individual amplifiers are chosen, if not engineered, for individual drivers. "Upgrading" either of those elements would be counter-productive. If I wanted to upgrade, I would want upgrade the system not the amps or speaker. Fortunately, the efficiencies gained by engineering in the synergy between amps and drivers make actives a good enough value that an active upgrade looks pretty good, even compared to simply upgrading high-end passive speakers.

I think I'm still an audiophile in the literal sense of that word, but I'm no longer an audiophile hobbyist in the upgrade/tweak/gearhead sense. The most the owner of actives has to tweak is the source, the pre, the DAC and a couple of cables. The small stuff. And it's not enough for most audiophile hobbyists, I'm afraid.

Tim

Tim,
Just two remarks. The first one is that I am curious about what you call the "synergy between amps and drivers". Anything else than power? The second is that you are forgetting to address one critical part of the design - the active crossover.

 

[fas42]

Tim,
Just two remarks. The first one is that I am curious about what you call the "synergy between amps and drivers". Anything else than power? The second is that you are forgetting to address one critical part of the design - the active crossover.

If I did the ideal active system, it would be to use digital filters to fine tune precisely what each driver required in terms of FR, discard completely what that unit didn't like, so this is still in the digital area or domain. Then the digital feeds would be fed to dedicated DACs for each amplifier and driver combination. This way you would get "perfect" frequency and phase behaviour at the surface of the cones, it's then up to the enclosure and room to not muck that up too much ...

Frank

 

[Old Listener]

Interesting thread. In 40+ years, I've had

a tube integrated amp
a SS integrated amp
a receiver
a pre-amp and 2 channel power amp
a 6 channel amp - died
a 6 channel power amp (too much heat)
a 6 channel power amp (class-D, very cool)

My library system looks like

PC ---------> preamp -------------------> crossover ------> 6 channel amp ---> 3 ways speakers
passive mode for Vol. ctl.

Way too much clutter for me now but I own it, it sounds good and it isn't broken.

The next step for the library system will be to get a DAC with remote controlled volume

PC ---> DAC ---> passive volume control ---> crossover ---> 3 way speakers

The DAC will be used for remote volume control and the passive volume control for gross level setting. (Or maybe I don't need to passive volume control.)

My office system is representative of the arrangement I want from now on

PC -----> DAC ---> powered Audioengine A5s
digital out (with volume control on the front)

I will probably replace the A5s with larger active speakers.

If the speakers in the library need replacing I'll go to something like this

PC ----------------> active speakers with digital input (and maybe a sub-woofer)
digital out and remote volume control

or

PC -----------> DAC ---------------> passive Volume control ---> active speakers
USB out remote volume

I don't expect to buy another pre-amp or integrated amp from here on. Just not relevant to my direction.

Bill

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
Just two remarks. The first one is that I am curious about what you call the "synergy between amps and drivers". Anything else than power?

I guess that depends on what you call "power," but we're not just talking about watts. I'm no engineer, micro but my understanding is that the amps can be matched to the voltage, current and load requirements of the individual drivers.

The second is that you are forgetting to address one critical part of the design - the active crossover.

Haven't forgotten that at all. That advantage seems obvious: Much steeper crossover and the elimination of a mass of passive resistance between the amps and the drivers.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I guess that depends on what you call "power," but we're not just talking about watts. I'm no engineer, micro but my understanding is that the amps can be matched to the voltage, current and load requirements of the individual drivers.



Haven't forgotten that at all. That advantage seems obvious: Much steeper crossover and the elimination of a mass of passive resistance between the amps and the drivers.

Tim

If you were someone who could accept large sound differences between amplifiers I could understand your argument - but since you usually minimize the value of sound differences between amplifiers , even used in full bandwidth, I think that what you can consider to win in cost and performance is minimal, compared to the increase in complexity of the system - e.g. to match the power amplifiers to the speakers you need separate power supplies with different voltage and current capabilities.

The argument of steeper slopes in the crossover is not accepted by most designers as a positive thing - I am not an expert but I remember seeing articles about its drawbacks. Also, many response shapes and phase corrections you can create in passive crossovers are not easy to duplicate with active components. Most people oversimplify this task, as they consider that it is just taking a good filter cookbook and choosing the Rs and Cs.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If you were someone who could accept large sound differences between amplifiers I could understand your argument - but since you usually minimize the value of sound differences between amplifiers , even used in full bandwidth, I think that what you can consider to win in cost and performance is minimal, compared to the increase in complexity of the system - e.g. to match the power amplifiers to the speakers you need separate power supplies with different voltage and current capabilities.

The argument of steeper slopes in the crossover is not accepted by most designers as a positive thing - I am not an expert but I remember seeing articles about its drawbacks. Also, many response shapes and phase corrections you can create in passive crossovers are not easy to duplicate with active components. Most people oversimplify this task, as they consider that it is just taking a good filter cookbook and choosing the Rs and Cs.

One doesn't have to believe in the huge differences between amps that audiophiles accept to believe that an approproriate match of amp to the specific load of the speaker, and the elimination of the imprecision of passive crossovers will net audible benefits. Really, all you have to do is consider that the amp trying to deliver clean transients to the midrange/treble speakers will not have to compete with the demands of the woofer and the simplest theoretical benefits are easy to understand. Audible benefits? We all hear what we hear. What I hear is a clarity and precision in good active systems that I only hear approached by the most expensive passive speakers driven by gobs of big iron.

You'll have to link me to the idea that shallower slopes and, therefore, too much mid-bass information getting to tweeters and treble information getting to woofers is a goodthing. Put a shallow crossover slope in the wrong place (and it is often in the wrong place, especially in greater than 2-way systems) and you will not only distort the sound, you will physically distort the drivers.

But I'm no designer, I just appreciate the design. If you want really good answers, I'd ask Sean and Gary, both of whom have stated here that they'd love to build active systems, if the market would only buy them. One of whom (Gary) does build semi-active systems.

I'm sure they can articulate the benefits much better than I.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

One doesn't have to believe in the huge differences between amps that audiophiles accept to believe that an approproriate match of amp to the specific load of the speaker, and the elimination of the imprecision of passive crossovers will net audible benefits. Really, all you have to do is consider that the amp trying to deliver clean transients to the midrange/treble speakers will not have to compete with the demands of the woofer and the simplest theoretical benefits are easy to understand. Audible benefits? We all hear what we hear. What I hear is a clarity and precision in good active systems that I only hear approached by the most expensive passive speakers driven by gobs of big iron.

You'll have to link me to the idea that shallower slopes and, therefore, too much mid-bass information getting to tweeters and treble information getting to woofers is a goodthing. Put a shallow crossover slope in the wrong place (and it is often in the wrong place, especially in greater than 2-way systems) and you will not only distort the sound, you will physically distort the drivers.

But I'm no designer, I just appreciate the design. If you want really good answers, I'd ask Sean and Gary, both of whom have stated here that they'd love to build active systems, if the market would only buy them. One of whom (Gary) does build semi-active systems.

I'm sure they can articulate the benefits much better than I.

Tim

Tim,

Please consider that I have nothing against active speakers - my dream system would also be an active system. But knowledgeable people who own them told me that fine tuning such a system to sound better than an active one is beyond the capabilities of normal un-experienced users. I am arguing in engineering terms, where the perceived quality / cost ratio is critical. If the market does not accept something, may be it is just a little more than just disliking the idea or ignorance.

I am prepared to accept your argument that separating the amplification task in more then one unit and reducing the amplifiers bandwidth will result in improved transients quality - but no measurements can confirm it, just my biased feeling.

Considering the slopes it is a designer option, and improper design of passive speakers is not a good argument to criticize them. But my point is also that designing a proper active crossover will have a high cost . BTW, there is a large difference between an active (that we are addressing) and a semi-active speaker.

Also the imprecision of passive crossovers can be considered small compared with the tolerance of speaker units, unless you recognize the effects of high grade expensive components in these tasks.

Anyway I think any of us would be happy with this system (notice that the last version uses Tact amplifiers ) :

http://cpskal.gr/pop_jyk.htm

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Are you saying that it is difficult to set up and optimize an active system on your own? I imagine it is. I wouldn't try.

Are you saying that it's all in the implementation? It always is. But there are plenty of resources out there discussing the advantages of active systems, going well beyond the relief one driver gets from not sharing a power amplifier with another. Measurable? Absolutely. When I get some more time on my hands I'll see if I can find some measurements for you.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

8...) But there are plenty of resources out there discussing the advantages of active systems, going well beyond the relief one driver gets from not sharing a power amplifier with another. Measurable? Absolutely. When I get some more time on my hands I'll see if I can find some measurements for you.

Tim

Unhappily those I found do not discuss, they just claim...

And most just use childish arguments such as "In fact, everything is more difficult to manage at high power levels" . Or still worst - "the big advantage of active speakers is that they do not use external amplifiers"!

Please point me the good ones.

BTW, I have owned several Meridian active speakers in the past with the beautiful M101 preamplfier - I still own the 104 FM tuner

 

[welwynnick]

I've owned a mixture of separates and integrated amps for some years. Although I am separates kind of person, I think integrated amps do have specific advantages. I'm a believer in doing as little as possible to the signal

Consider the interfaces. Line level outputs are voltage sources with low output impedance. Line level inputs have high input impedance. Both the input and the output have line-level buffers to achieve these ideal low output/high input impedances.

But buffers, although they may not provide any voltage gain, are still amplifiers. They provide current gain, not voltage gain, so they still provide power gain. That power gain may not be realised, as a high load impedance won't draw a lot of power, but the amplification is still there.

So a separates system will have two additional amplification stages (not to mention an additional set of connections and cables) that an integrated doesn't suffer from. The advantages of separating low and high power sections probably overcomes that disadvantage, but knowing how a line-level pre-amp affects SQ makes me think the additional stages are a tangiable burden.

I have a good integrated amp (Sony DA9100) and, with "easy" speakers at least, it continually challenges separate amplifiers to beat it, nomatter how much I spend. Which seems to vindicate the minimum processing idea.

Nick

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Integrated amps have had vanishingly low noise for years. So have good separates. The only questions - at least the one I can ask with my limited technical knowledge - are a) if there is an advantage to separating power stages, where does it show up? Can it be/has it been overcome by good implementation? and b) is there is an accumulative effect with separates? Does the redundancy of stages, caps, resistors, power supplies, interconnects - all of which generate noise - build up as you connect components to the chain? If the old audiophile ethos of "less is more" is true, then a well-designed integrated amp should be better. What am I missing. And please speak slowly.

Tim

 

[fas42]

I have a good integrated amp (Sony DA9100) and, with "easy" speakers at least, it continually challenges separate amplifiers to beat it, nomatter how much I spend. Which seems to vindicate the minimum processing idea.

Nick

My experience too, the typical electrical store receiver will do an excellent job with Klipsch speakers, say: their biggest flaw is, again, insufficient power supplies, so the typical "better" hifi speaker will quickly overstress it as you wind up the volume.

Frank

 

[fas42]

If the old audiophile ethos of "less is more" is true, then a well-designed integrated amp should be better. What am I missing. And please speak slowly.

Tim

It WILL be better: the trouble at the moment is that most of the well designed ones are pretty expensive. Again, most of the problems come in because people cut corners on power supplies.

Frank

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

My experience too, the typical electrical store receiver will do an excellent job with Klipsch speakers, say: their biggest flaw is, again, insufficient power supplies, so the typical "better" hifi speaker will quickly overstress it as you wind up the volume.

Frank

My room is very small (approx. 10x11), so I don't have an issue with insufficient power supply. The loudest my Pioneer SA-9500II ever sees is -22db on the Volume control with Totem Sttafs that have a sensitivity rating of 88db. I'm almost inclined to think that an IA is the perfect companion for a room this size.

 

[microstrip]

(...) If the old audiophile ethos of "less is more" is true, then a well-designed integrated amp should be better. What am I missing. And please speak slowly.

Tim

IMHO , the old audiophile ethos of "less is more" is not true, but the "more is more" is not true also.

Separates and integrated amps are ultimately a matter of convenience - if you make a big box and put a preamplifier and an amplifier inside they will sound the same, unless there are some technical issues with noise due to the proximity of units. But not all integrated amplifiers are convenient, and you are not seeing the three thick 6 feet power supply umbilical cables and respective mains power cables!

 

[JackD201]

Some "integrateds" aren't integrated at all, I've been told. Some, are amps with attenuators and source selectors before them. No actual gain stages. Sadly I wouldn't know one from the other just by looking inside. I'm also not so sure if it's even a bad thing or not.

Any thoughts on this guys?