SEparates vs Integrated Amp.

[rollo]

Are separate components really worth it ? Over the years it was never questioned just told separates are better. Especially dual mono everything. We know power supplies are the heart of any component. However is it wise to have several different ones? Lots of magnetic fields, grounding, etc.
Why not just keep it simple with an integrated. Less Cables, cords, rack space. As you know we carry Qualiton by Audio Hungary. I have compared their integrated Amps to their separates. To be honest no difference in sound, stage or noise. Actually a bit quieter.
As a Dealer separates make me money. However we push integrated. We would rather see your dollars go to a better front end or speakers. Any thoughts ?

charles

[Nick B]

I've been thinking and I can't recall that I've ever owned an integrated. I will trust your judgment on the Audio Hungary integrated. Their preamp that you sold me was pretty good sounding. Back in those days, they didn't have a dedicated service tech in the US. Has that changed nowadays? I see they have also changed their styling and it's quite attractive. That KT series amp is pretty interesting.

Right now, I think separates just give me more flexibility. I also really like the Hattor Big preamp. It would be tough to take that unit out of my system.

[rollo]

Yes there is service in USA now. However none required and are built like a tank. Flexibility has its merits if one desires to change things. Remember it is not the one component it is a system. Finding the synergy can be exhausting and costly. Keeping it simple might just be the answer.


charles

[Nick B]

Yes there is service in USA now. However none required and are built like a tank. Flexibility has its merits if one desires to change things. Remember it is not the one component it is a system. Finding the synergy can be exhausting and costly. Keeping it simple might just be the answer.


charles

Good to know as to US authorized service. I have been able to get very good synergy so far. Am just curious about a tube amp now in my setup, but don't want to give up any  of the resolution that I have now.

[rollo]

Tradeoffs can be frustrating.Your combo of tubed Pre a SS Amp works. So leave it be. The front end, DAC CD transport, Cart, etc can always be improved. Streaming can be Vg . A CD transport or TT are better. Look at the new TEAC CD transport and Lab12 DAC.


charles

[Nick B]

Tradeoffs can be frustrating.Your combo of tubed Pre a SS Amp works. So leave it be. The front end, DAC CD transport, Cart, etc can always be improved. Streaming can be Vg . A CD transport or TT are better. Look at the new TEAC CD transport and Lab12 DAC.


charles

Don't have my tube preamp anymore. I liked the Supratek, but the Hattor Big is excellent, beautifully built, very functional and sounds great. My current solid state amp has been a Starkrimson Ultra V1 that I bought when it was on the demo tour. It's a really good class D amp. Amazing how good the sonics are and I got a good price on it as it was a little bit beat up from the tour.

I am still looking at tube amps and considering the Miller version of the ST 70 as well as an Erhard Audio push pull amp that Jack gave me a link to. Your Audio Hungary amp is intriguing, but I don't know if I want to spend that kind of money. When I do get another DAC, it would need to be DSD capable, preferably 256 rather than 128. That's because I am using HQ Player up sampled to 256. The way I look at it is it's the less expensive way to get very good sound.

[steve]

Are separate components really worth it ? Over the years it was never questioned just told separates are better. Especially dual mono everything. We know power supplies are the heart of any component. However is it wise to have several different ones? Lots of magnetic fields, grounding, etc.
Why not just keep it simple with an integrated. Less Cables, cords, rack space. As you know we carry Qualiton by Audio Hungary. I have compared their integrated Amps to their separates. To be honest no difference in sound, stage or noise. Actually a bit quieter.
As a Dealer separates make me money. However we push integrated. We would rather see your dollars go to a better front end or speakers. Any thoughts ?

charles

Excellent questions Charles. As you indicate, separates do not automatically mean improved
sound quality. A few points I hope will clarify what is possible, cutting edge,
with separates that are not possible with an integrated.

When I got into this venture 45 years ago, I had no idea of the rabbit holes, and how deep
I would go, but was worth it. The results are cutting edge.

Here are some thoughts from research and developments.

1. The power supplies in typical designs of all types are far from optimum. But then
this includes both integrated and separate types. However, more gain stages are
often incorporated in an integrated amplifier, thus more problems. There is such a
thing as too simplistic, even in power supplies.

Too few filter sections, separation between stages is further explained with
my attached link (used to be SAS Audio Labs website before retirement).

http://www.godsloveforyouandme.com/theory8a.htm

As an example, the SAS Audio Labs 10A, 11A Line preamplifiers use 6 power supply filter
sections, for just one stage in the preamplifier. This prevents any sort of interference from degrading
the musical signal. Those preamplifiers are also designed to separate the L and R channels, explained later
in the post.

My monoblock amplifiers are necessary due to separate power transformers and multiple filter
sections for each of 3 power supplies. As such each power supply completely isolates one
gain stage from the others; so absolute minimum musical interference from stage to stage.
The penalty is that each channel requires its own chassis due to physical constraints.

2. As mentioned earlier, the other problem is channel separation. We must minimize the
musical signal in one channel from leaking into the other channel. Not only caused by
common wires, parts, but also from through the air. Musical signal can cross channels
as low as 2khz, or even less.

This problem is frequency sensitive. Bass and rising frequency are the main problems.
Mid/lower mid frequencies are usually where the channel separation is greatest.

A. Bass crossover due to power supply design flaws, including filter design, and common
wires to both channels, including those so called ground wires.

B. As the frequency rises, high frequency crossover is due to proximity of L&R parts,
common wires, and shielding between channels etc. As channel separation weakens due to
rising frequency, the harmonic structure of instruments and spatial information are
altered. Even if we have the correct instrument harmonic structure in the correct
channel, leakage into the other channel will alter the total harmonic structure that
we perceive. It would be a great idea if designers/manufacturers would spec the
channel separation at various frequencies.

I hope this helps in answering questions that the public might have.

cheers

steve   

[Nick B]

Are separate components really worth it ? Over the years it was never questioned just told separates are better. Especially dual mono everything. We know power supplies are the heart of any component. However is it wise to have several different ones? Lots of magnetic fields, grounding, etc.
Why not just keep it simple with an integrated. Less Cables, cords, rack space. As you know we carry Qualiton by Audio Hungary. I have compared their integrated Amps to their separates. To be honest no difference in sound, stage or noise. Actually a bit quieter.
As a Dealer separates make me money. However we push integrated. We would rather see your dollars go to a better front end or speakers. Any thoughts ?

charles

Excellent questions Charles. As you indicate, separates do not automatically mean improved
sound quality. A few points I hope will clarify what is possible, cutting edge,
with separates that are not possible with an integrated.

When I got into this venture 45 years ago, I had no idea of the rabbit holes, and how deep
I would go, but was worth it. The results are cutting edge.

Here are some thoughts from research and developments.

1. The power supplies in typical designs of all types are far from optimum. But then
this includes both integrated and separate types. However, more gain stages are
often incorporated in an integrated amplifier, thus more problems. There is such a
thing as too simplistic, even in power supplies.

Too few filter sections, separation between stages is further explained with
my attached link (used to be SAS Audio Labs website before retirement).

http://www.godsloveforyouandme.com/theory8a.htm

As an example, the SAS Audio Labs 10A, 11A Line preamplifiers use 6 power supply filter
sections, for just one stage in the preamplifier. This prevents any sort of interference from degrading the musical signal. Those preamplifiers are also designed to separate the L and R channels, explained later in the post.

My monoblock amplifiers are necessary due to separate power transformers and multiple filter
sections for each of 3 power supplies. As such each power supply completely isolates one
gain stage from the others; so absolute minimum musical interference.
The penalty is that each channel requires its own chassis due to physical constraints.

2. As mentioned earlier, the other problem is channel separation. We must minimize the
musical signal in one channel from leaking into the other channel. Not only caused by
common wires, parts, but also from through the air. Musical signal can cross channels
as low as 2khz, or even less.

This problem is frequency sensitive. Bass and rising frequency are the main problems.
Mid/lower mid frequencies are usually where the channel separation is greatest.

A. Bass crossover due to power supply design flaws, including filter design, and common
wires to both channels, including those so called ground wires.

B. As the frequency rises, high frequency crossover is due to proximity of L&R parts,
common wires, and shielding between channels etc. As channel separation weakens due to
rising frequency, the harmonic structure of instruments and spatial information are
altered. Even if we have the correct instrument harmonic structure in the correct
channel, leakage into the other channel will alter the total harmonic structure that
we perceive. It would be a great idea if designers/manufacturers would spec the
channel separation at various frequencies.

I hope this helps in answering questions that the public might have.

cheers

steve   

Steve,
Thanks for the information and your perspective as a designer.
Nick

[rollo]

Yes I agree that power supplies and filter sections are key.


charles

[P.I.]

My mantra:

Without abundant (high current capable) clean power your gear is drinking sewage through a straw.

[Nick B]

My mantra:

Without abundant (high current capable) clean power your gear is drinking sewage through a straw.

Interesting about clean power in my system. Everything gets plugged into the UberBUSS because my focus is on the least noise possible. I recently had an umbilical built for my Hattor Big preamp. It is made of solid silver with no shielding, but braided for noise cancellation. The improvement over the stock umbilical from Hattor is significant. As a result, more resolution, more realistic sound from instruments, better focus and a bit more of a holographic presentation. The Hattor loves clean power...

[steve]

Are separate components really worth it ? Over the years it was never questioned just told separates are better. Especially dual mono everything. We know power supplies are the heart of any component. However is it wise to have several different ones? Lots of magnetic fields, grounding, etc.
Why not just keep it simple with an integrated. Less Cables, cords, rack space. As you know we carry Qualiton by Audio Hungary. I have compared their integrated Amps to their separates. To be honest no difference in sound, stage or noise. Actually a bit quieter.
As a Dealer separates make me money. However we push integrated. We would rather see your dollars go to a better front end or speakers. Any thoughts ?

charles

Excellent questions Charles. As you indicate, separates do not automatically mean improved
sound quality. A few points I hope will clarify what is possible, cutting edge,
with separates that are not possible with an integrated.

When I got into this venture 45 years ago, I had no idea of the rabbit holes, and how deep
I would go, but was worth it. The results are cutting edge.

Here are some thoughts from research and developments.

1. The power supplies in typical designs of all types are far from optimum. But then
this includes both integrated and separate types. However, more gain stages are
often incorporated in an integrated amplifier, thus more problems. There is such a
thing as too simplistic, even in power supplies.

Too few filter sections, separation between stages is further explained with
my attached link (used to be SAS Audio Labs website before retirement).

http://www.godsloveforyouandme.com/theory8a.htm

As an example, the SAS Audio Labs 10A, 11A Line preamplifiers use 6 power supply filter
sections, for just one stage in the preamplifier. This prevents any sort of interference from degrading the musical signal. Those preamplifiers are also designed to separate the L and R channels, explained later in the post.

My monoblock amplifiers are necessary due to separate power transformers and multiple filter
sections for each of 3 power supplies. As such each power supply completely isolates one
gain stage from the others; so absolute minimum musical interference.
The penalty is that each channel requires its own chassis due to physical constraints.

2. As mentioned earlier, the other problem is channel separation. We must minimize the
musical signal in one channel from leaking into the other channel. Not only caused by
common wires, parts, but also from through the air. Musical signal can cross channels
as low as 2khz, or even less.

This problem is frequency sensitive. Bass and rising frequency are the main problems.
Mid/lower mid frequencies are usually where the channel separation is greatest.

A. Bass crossover due to power supply design flaws, including filter design, and common
wires to both channels, including those so called ground wires.

B. As the frequency rises, high frequency crossover is due to proximity of L&R parts,
common wires, and shielding between channels etc. As channel separation weakens due to
rising frequency, the harmonic structure of instruments and spatial information are
altered. Even if we have the correct instrument harmonic structure in the correct
channel, leakage into the other channel will alter the total harmonic structure that
we perceive. It would be a great idea if designers/manufacturers would spec the
channel separation at various frequencies.

I hope this helps in answering questions that the public might have.

cheers

steve   

Steve,
Thanks for the information and your perspective as a designer.
Nick

Respectfully, more than a perspective Nick. A clear difference in spatial,
bass through highs musical enjoyment.

For instance, changing just one decoupling capacitor from electrolytic (DA of 7-10%)
to accurate Polypropylene (DA of 0,02%) allows one to obtain up to 50db deeper into
the inner detail across the decoupling capacitor.

Due to RL, this figure will generally be less at the plate of a tube, per stage.
With one's entire audio system utilizing decoupling capacitors changed to polypropylene,
over the decades, we consistently perceive FR changes in the -132db change vs fundamental,
using the 20log db voltage equation. That equates to 1 part in 4,000,000.

Most probably won't believe of such sonic improvements, and the cost is higher, but imo,
well worth going separates if maximum enjoyment is to be obtained.

Cheers and all the best.

steve

 

[Nick B]

Are separate components really worth it ? Over the years it was never questioned just told separates are better. Especially dual mono everything. We know power supplies are the heart of any component. However is it wise to have several different ones? Lots of magnetic fields, grounding, etc.
Why not just keep it simple with an integrated. Less Cables, cords, rack space. As you know we carry Qualiton by Audio Hungary. I have compared their integrated Amps to their separates. To be honest no difference in sound, stage or noise. Actually a bit quieter.
As a Dealer separates make me money. However we push integrated. We would rather see your dollars go to a better front end or speakers. Any thoughts ?

charles

Excellent questions Charles. As you indicate, separates do not automatically mean improved
sound quality. A few points I hope will clarify what is possible, cutting edge,
with separates that are not possible with an integrated.

When I got into this venture 45 years ago, I had no idea of the rabbit holes, and how deep
I would go, but was worth it. The results are cutting edge.

Here are some thoughts from research and developments.

1. The power supplies in typical designs of all types are far from optimum. But then
this includes both integrated and separate types. However, more gain stages are
often incorporated in an integrated amplifier, thus more problems. There is such a
thing as too simplistic, even in power supplies.

Too few filter sections, separation between stages is further explained with
my attached link (used to be SAS Audio Labs website before retirement).

http://www.godsloveforyouandme.com/theory8a.htm

As an example, the SAS Audio Labs 10A, 11A Line preamplifiers use 6 power supply filter
sections, for just one stage in the preamplifier. This prevents any sort of interference from degrading the musical signal. Those preamplifiers are also designed to separate the L and R channels, explained later in the post.

My monoblock amplifiers are necessary due to separate power transformers and multiple filter
sections for each of 3 power supplies. As such each power supply completely isolates one
gain stage from the others; so absolute minimum musical interference.
The penalty is that each channel requires its own chassis due to physical constraints.

2. As mentioned earlier, the other problem is channel separation. We must minimize the
musical signal in one channel from leaking into the other channel. Not only caused by
common wires, parts, but also from through the air. Musical signal can cross channels
as low as 2khz, or even less.

This problem is frequency sensitive. Bass and rising frequency are the main problems.
Mid/lower mid frequencies are usually where the channel separation is greatest.

A. Bass crossover due to power supply design flaws, including filter design, and common
wires to both channels, including those so called ground wires.

B. As the frequency rises, high frequency crossover is due to proximity of L&R parts,
common wires, and shielding between channels etc. As channel separation weakens due to
rising frequency, the harmonic structure of instruments and spatial information are
altered. Even if we have the correct instrument harmonic structure in the correct
channel, leakage into the other channel will alter the total harmonic structure that
we perceive. It would be a great idea if designers/manufacturers would spec the
channel separation at various frequencies.

I hope this helps in answering questions that the public might have.

cheers

steve   

Steve,
Thanks for the information and your perspective as a designer.
Nick

Respectfully, more than a perspective Nick. A clear difference in spatial,
bass through highs musical enjoyment.

For instance, changing just one decoupling capacitor from electrolytic (DA of 7-10%)
to accurate Polypropylene (DA of 0,02%) allows one to obtain up to 50db deeper into
the inner detail across the decoupling capacitor.

Due to RL, this figure will generally be less at the plate of a tube, per stage.
With one's entire audio system utilizing decoupling capacitors changed to polypropylene,
over the decades, we consistently perceive FR changes in the -132db change vs fundamental,
using the 20log db voltage equation. That equates to 1 part in 4,000,000.

Most probably won't believe of such sonic improvements, and the cost is higher, but imo,
well worth going integrated if maximum enjoyment is to be obtained.

Cheers and all the best.

steve

 

Thanks for your input, Steve. Always good to get your technical perspective. I appreciate the simplicity of an integrated, but it's just not something I want to try out and invest in right now. I have flexibility with having all separates. I also would have no idea of a reasonably priced integrated that would equal what I'm getting with the Hattor preamp and  Starkrimson amp. I am curious if you ever worked on developing an integrated when you were running SAS.

Nick

[steve]

Are separate components really worth it ? Over the years it was never questioned just told separates are better. Especially dual mono everything. We know power supplies are the heart of any component. However is it wise to have several different ones? Lots of magnetic fields, grounding, etc.
Why not just keep it simple with an integrated. Less Cables, cords, rack space. As you know we carry Qualiton by Audio Hungary. I have compared their integrated Amps to their separates. To be honest no difference in sound, stage or noise. Actually a bit quieter.
As a Dealer separates make me money. However we push integrated. We would rather see your dollars go to a better front end or speakers. Any thoughts ?

charles

Excellent questions Charles. As you indicate, separates do not automatically mean improved
sound quality. A few points I hope will clarify what is possible, cutting edge,
with separates that are not possible with an integrated.

When I got into this venture 45 years ago, I had no idea of the rabbit holes, and how deep
I would go, but was worth it. The results are cutting edge.

Here are some thoughts from research and developments.

1. The power supplies in typical designs of all types are far from optimum. But then
this includes both integrated and separate types. However, more gain stages are
often incorporated in an integrated amplifier, thus more problems. There is such a
thing as too simplistic, even in power supplies.

Too few filter sections, separation between stages is further explained with
my attached link (used to be SAS Audio Labs website before retirement).

http://www.godsloveforyouandme.com/theory8a.htm

As an example, the SAS Audio Labs 10A, 11A Line preamplifiers use 6 power supply filter
sections, for just one stage in the preamplifier. This prevents any sort of interference from degrading the musical signal. Those preamplifiers are also designed to separate the L and R channels, explained later in the post.

My monoblock amplifiers are necessary due to separate power transformers and multiple filter
sections for each of 3 power supplies. As such each power supply completely isolates one
gain stage from the others; so absolute minimum musical interference.
The penalty is that each channel requires its own chassis due to physical constraints.

2. As mentioned earlier, the other problem is channel separation. We must minimize the
musical signal in one channel from leaking into the other channel. Not only caused by
common wires, parts, but also from through the air. Musical signal can cross channels
as low as 2khz, or even less.

This problem is frequency sensitive. Bass and rising frequency are the main problems.
Mid/lower mid frequencies are usually where the channel separation is greatest.

A. Bass crossover due to power supply design flaws, including filter design, and common
wires to both channels, including those so called ground wires.

B. As the frequency rises, high frequency crossover is due to proximity of L&R parts,
common wires, and shielding between channels etc. As channel separation weakens due to
rising frequency, the harmonic structure of instruments and spatial information are
altered. Even if we have the correct instrument harmonic structure in the correct
channel, leakage into the other channel will alter the total harmonic structure that
we perceive. It would be a great idea if designers/manufacturers would spec the
channel separation at various frequencies.

I hope this helps in answering questions that the public might have.

cheers

steve   

Steve,
Thanks for the information and your perspective as a designer.
Nick

Respectfully, more than a perspective Nick. A clear difference in spatial,
bass through highs musical enjoyment.

For instance, changing just one decoupling capacitor from electrolytic (DA of 7-10%)
to accurate Polypropylene (DA of 0,02%) allows one to obtain up to 50db deeper into
the inner detail across the decoupling capacitor.

Due to RL, this figure will generally be less at the plate of a tube, per stage.
With one's entire audio system utilizing decoupling capacitors changed to polypropylene,
over the decades, we consistently perceive FR changes in the -132db change vs fundamental,
using the 20log db voltage equation. That equates to 1 part in 4,000,000.

Most probably won't believe of such sonic improvements, and the cost is higher, but imo,
well worth going integrated if maximum enjoyment is to be obtained.

Cheers and all the best.

steve

 

Thanks for your input, Steve. Always good to get your technical perspective. I appreciate the simplicity of an integrated, but it's just not something I want to try out and invest in right now. I have flexibility with having all separates. I also would have no idea of a reasonably priced integrated that would equal what I'm getting with the Hattor preamp and  Starkrimson amp. I am curious if you ever worked on developing an integrated when you were running SAS.

Nick

My apologies Nick. I had to correct a mistake listing "integrated" when it should have
been "separates" in post #11.

I will never go integrated. There is just not sufficient physical room for
a perfect design, with all the parts, best layout etc.

I realize this is cutting edge, but for diyers, if there is room in your separates
to add power supply filtering sections, maybe a little redesign, I would do it.

cheers

steve

[Nick B]

Are separate components really worth it ? Over the years it was never questioned just told separates are better. Especially dual mono everything. We know power supplies are the heart of any component. However is it wise to have several different ones? Lots of magnetic fields, grounding, etc.
Why not just keep it simple with an integrated. Less Cables, cords, rack space. As you know we carry Qualiton by Audio Hungary. I have compared their integrated Amps to their separates. To be honest no difference in sound, stage or noise. Actually a bit quieter.
As a Dealer separates make me money. However we push integrated. We would rather see your dollars go to a better front end or speakers. Any thoughts ?

charles

Excellent questions Charles. As you indicate, separates do not automatically mean improved
sound quality. A few points I hope will clarify what is possible, cutting edge,
with separates that are not possible with an integrated.

When I got into this venture 45 years ago, I had no idea of the rabbit holes, and how deep
I would go, but was worth it. The results are cutting edge.

Here are some thoughts from research and developments.

1. The power supplies in typical designs of all types are far from optimum. But then
this includes both integrated and separate types. However, more gain stages are
often incorporated in an integrated amplifier, thus more problems. There is such a
thing as too simplistic, even in power supplies.

Too few filter sections, separation between stages is further explained with
my attached link (used to be SAS Audio Labs website before retirement).

http://www.godsloveforyouandme.com/theory8a.htm

As an example, the SAS Audio Labs 10A, 11A Line preamplifiers use 6 power supply filter
sections, for just one stage in the preamplifier. This prevents any sort of interference from degrading the musical signal. Those preamplifiers are also designed to separate the L and R channels, explained later in the post.

My monoblock amplifiers are necessary due to separate power transformers and multiple filter
sections for each of 3 power supplies. As such each power supply completely isolates one
gain stage from the others; so absolute minimum musical interference.
The penalty is that each channel requires its own chassis due to physical constraints.

2. As mentioned earlier, the other problem is channel separation. We must minimize the
musical signal in one channel from leaking into the other channel. Not only caused by
common wires, parts, but also from through the air. Musical signal can cross channels
as low as 2khz, or even less.

This problem is frequency sensitive. Bass and rising frequency are the main problems.
Mid/lower mid frequencies are usually where the channel separation is greatest.

A. Bass crossover due to power supply design flaws, including filter design, and common
wires to both channels, including those so called ground wires.

B. As the frequency rises, high frequency crossover is due to proximity of L&R parts,
common wires, and shielding between channels etc. As channel separation weakens due to
rising frequency, the harmonic structure of instruments and spatial information are
altered. Even if we have the correct instrument harmonic structure in the correct
channel, leakage into the other channel will alter the total harmonic structure that
we perceive. It would be a great idea if designers/manufacturers would spec the
channel separation at various frequencies.

I hope this helps in answering questions that the public might have.

cheers

steve   

Steve,
Thanks for the information and your perspective as a designer.
Nick

Respectfully, more than a perspective Nick. A clear difference in spatial,
bass through highs musical enjoyment.

For instance, changing just one decoupling capacitor from electrolytic (DA of 7-10%)
to accurate Polypropylene (DA of 0,02%) allows one to obtain up to 50db deeper into
the inner detail across the decoupling capacitor.

Due to RL, this figure will generally be less at the plate of a tube, per stage.
With one's entire audio system utilizing decoupling capacitors changed to polypropylene,
over the decades, we consistently perceive FR changes in the -132db change vs fundamental,
using the 20log db voltage equation. That equates to 1 part in 4,000,000.

Most probably won't believe of such sonic improvements, and the cost is higher, but imo,
well worth going integrated if maximum enjoyment is to be obtained.

Cheers and all the best.

steve

 

Thanks for your input, Steve. Always good to get your technical perspective. I appreciate the simplicity of an integrated, but it's just not something I want to try out and invest in right now. I have flexibility with having all separates. I also would have no idea of a reasonably priced integrated that would equal what I'm getting with the Hattor preamp and  Starkrimson amp. I am curious if you ever worked on developing an integrated when you were running SAS.

Nick

My apologies Nick. I had to correct a mistake listing "integrated" when it should have
been "separates" in post #11.

I will never go integrated. There is just not sufficient physical room for
a perfect design, with all the parts, best layout etc.

I realize this is cutting edge, but for diyers, if there is room in your separates
to add power supply filtering sections, maybe a little redesign, I would do it.

cheers

steve

Thanks for clarifying that, Steve. The majority of the Audio guys that I know only do separates. But I hear there are some very good integrated like the Cary.

Nick