Why are most people here so opposed to separates? I've read where Alan Lofft says,
"in many cases, the actual power output of an A/V receiver is measured with only one or two channels driven to maximum output while the other five channels coast along at one eighth of the rated output".
He also says,
"Specifications (distortion, noise, etc.) of preamp-processors and power amps are usually a bit superior to an A/V receiver, since there is better internal physical separation of wiring pathways (more room), hence less chance of interference (and resulting noise) from nearby hum-causing component parts. And having separates also means that you can upgrade to a larger or different power amplifier while keeping your preamp-processor."
These look like good reasons to purchase separates to me. I can also see if space is an issue why a receiver would be a better option. It seems most people here want the least expensive component they can get their hands on. I've heard the "all amps and receivers sound the same" line many times. If thats true, then amps and receivers may be the only products I can think of that are massed produced (less expensive) and are equivilent to products made by companies who specialize in one type (audio components, more expensive) of product. For example, Budweiser is inferior to Sierra Nevada or Anchor. Yugo is inferior to BMW or Mercedes. Is a Radio Shack receiver really as good as a Rotel or Naim? Are speakers out of a White Van as good as Axiom's (I know the answer to this question)? I'm not trying to start an argument, I just don't understand how in many instances the more money spent on a product the better the product.
