"As Rick(BrotherBob)has rather gently pointed out, this discussion hasn't exactly been focused on the concerns that he raised. As to whether a stereo receiver or separates would be more advisable, it would seem the simplicity and economy of the receiver would be the choice except in the highly unlikely case that the power available in the receivers was inadequate.
Rick also asked about other items which would contribute to "good quality sound", but instead several suggestions relating to obsolescent audio technologies were made. Regardless of whether someone personally prefers these, they certainly don't represent "good quality" in an era when digital samples precisely reproduce the sine waves that comprise all of music. "
"Good quality" ----> is opinion. It's quite arrogant to assume that one's definition of quality is across the board for everyone so that it can be spoken of as fact. One should not have been the first one to define certain technologies as "better" (again, opinion and the exact word that was used if I can remember) than other technologies if one did not want this to happen. Again, brotherbob asked for good quality sound, not which was better. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that there does not exist all kind of options for good quality sound be it analog or digital.
