Vote

Not only are Integrated Amplifiers more practical, they generally are also faster. You can compare it with the difference between a car with either 4 cylinders or 6 cylinders. The car with 6 cylinders will run more smoothly, the car with 4 cylinders will run faster when pulling up. All depends of course on the design and the power supply built in. I am using an Accuphase 406V, specifying a +200W per channel. The power supply is really capable of sustaining this power level, so my amplifier is noways falling short. I must add however that my listening room is rather small (4m h*3mM l*3m h), which of course does not require the same power levels as bigger rooms

Surprizingly good

Integrated amps help bring new people into hi-fi.

I have found that a good interated amp can outperform separates. There are no cables to match or spend money on, and the manufacturer has made sure that the preamp and power amp are mated properly to ensure coherency. Plus you'll save money. A integrated will be less expensive than separates of the same caliber.

For my Second system i use a Denon AV Intergrated reciever. Easy to use and set up. Makes the wife happy.

Marantz PM-94 Integrated 140W RMS @ 8ohms/ch. Has always functioned just great with a pair of Maggies 1.6QR panel speakers!

Yes, I have a Technics SA-360 on my desk at work. All of its light bulbs have brned out but it still sounds pretty good compared to the intergrated recievers today.

I know people will think I am crazy, but I bought a small micro system (TEAC) at Costco-PRice Club that sounds very nice in the kitchen. It's so pleasing sounding that sometimes I would just as soon stay in the kitchen and listen to it than go in the living room and listen to my big rig. This micro system even has a 1-bit CD player. I definitely think there are some excellent integrateds out there worth pursuing. If I ever lost my current system from fire or theft, I would opt for a good integrated amp system!

Each amp.has is own power- suply. And very short speaker- cable.

A Yamaha AV recevier is ALL I have. So you know I am not an audiophile. But I amd reading Stereophile. The previous "Vote!" question is exactly what I needed.

Good music for the money.

Yes, I use one because I am not a really big fan of the "music pre-amp" when it comes to components. For me, that's one less component I have to deal with in terms of "system matching" and one less set of cables that I have to buy. Besides, most "affordable" pre-amps impart too much of "their" own inherent sound into the music. They are not nuetral at all. It's not until you spend some serious money that you get a totally nuetral sound. Integrated amps are simpler and to the point. And believe it or not, a lot of them sound good too. Especially my Krell integrated!

I would prefer the flexibility that separetes provide, but at the time and integrated was all I could afford I feel that there are many top-drawer integrateds out there, and one must listen to a few different options before they can decide what will work for them. I have listend to a Krell integrated and also a Levinson integrated and I don't think I could be happier with anything else in their price range.

I had an old Luxman for years. When it finally fried, I went to buy a replacement and discovered high end audio. Yikes! Just think how much money I would have saved if that Luxman was still working!

I had the Pionner A9 (I think thats the right model??) as part of an early system in 1983. I believe it was 90 Watts RMS, and followed the "SX" series Pioneer equipment. I bought it after owning my first piece of "real" audio gear, a Pioneer SX-780 Receiver; how I miss that receiver!

It makes perfectly fine music and economic sense, especially if you can afford a really good one, e.g. Mark Levinson.

It was my first step into high end audio - it replaced a Technics receiver - cost:same, sound:better! Now my friend enjoys it :-)

I've always used one. My previous amp was a Rotel integrated. I just upgraded to a YBA Integre DT. In my house, I can't justify the amount one can spend on separates, including interconnects or the added space, power requirements, etc.

I have owned several NAD integrateds and sometimes use them only as a preamp. either way, I've had great sound quality on a budget.

Only for tube amps, when bi-amping the mids and uppers with tubes, and the bass with solid state. Volume control on the tube amp in that scenario is critical.

it's the least expensive option ( NAD 304). Suits well with my apeakers ( CDM1 B&W ) and my small listening room.

yes. The baby Krell, the 150 watt integrated. Just a wonderful smooth amp. Lots of power and detail, and no glare. $2500 and worth every penny.

I am interested in an affordable integrated, but the ones I keep seeing in the price range I want often lack headphone jacks, and, God forbid you should want tone controls. Maybe I'll look at NAD, although I admit I am tempted by Creek or Musical Fidelity.

Yes, back in my younger days I owned a very nice Carver CM 1090 integrated amp. It was clean, punchy and musical. Nowadays, I don't really think integrated amps are a viable option: I feel multichannel is the wave of the future. The two-channel system is dead, and I expect the integrated amp will follow stereo into oblivian.

Who knows , which piece of the puzzle produces and which piece dosn't ?

And I'm considering doing it again.

I am using a Krell KAV-300i. I like my system simple. Maybe I don't get the oomph of separates, but an integrated has its advantages: one pair of interconnect, one power cord, less rack space, and a shorter signal path. All of these translate to sonic advantages.

I've owned one in the past and am thinking of purchasing another in the near future. Sounded great and fit my needs well.

My ears have grown up since I used an integrated!

I own a creek 4040 s2, which is still very good after many years. I now use an Adyton Opera integrated (50W, class A). Made by the same people that manufacture the Forsell Statement amplifier. One of the best sounding integrateds in the world. Extremly transparent!