-=> Quoting Andres Valloud to All <=-
 AV> Hi All.
 AV> I've read the audio faq I got from rtfm.mit.edu, and now I've got
        Hmmmm, I didn't know there were any audio faqs out there.
From the sounds of it, it must be poorly implemented, because it's
left you confused.
 AV> some questions. For example, what's the matter with
 AV> pre-amplifiers AND amplifiers?. Why so much hassle?. I have a JVC
        As I just stated in a message to John Allen, there's nothing
wrong with combining an amp and a pre-amp, which btw, would then be
called an integrated amplifier.  Adding on a tuner (radio) makes it a
"reciever."  
        There are a couple of reasons "why" high end audio tends to
favor "separates."  First and foremost, the *best* reason to buy
seperates over an integrated amp or receiver is when you require large
amounts of power.  Some speakers are less sensitive than others.  This
means that whereas 1 watt of power might produce 90dB of sound in one
brand/model of speaker, another brand/model might require 6 watts of
power to reach that same level (six times as much!).  That might not
seem like a lot, but since volume levels with humans are logarithmic
and not linear, you need TEN TIMES the power to gain TWICE the
perceptable volume.  So, whereas at a certain volume the one speaker
might require 100 watts to reach that level, the other speaker is
still going to need 6 times that amount and so would require a 600
watt amplifier which is much larger and expensive and generally gives
off a *lot* more heat.
        So why seperates in this case?  Because a 600 watt amp puts
off a lot of heat, it will shorten the life span of the pre-amp if
kept in the same case.  Seperating is good when large amounts of heat
are involved.  Your typical DJ's have to provide sound for large areas
and many people and therefore usually needs large amounts of power and
so use seperates as to extend the life of the equipment.
        Many high end audio buffs tend to think you generally get
better sound with seperates than receivers, although this certainly
doesn't *have* to be true, it's a common misconception that is *is*
true.  Although it is true that the low-end market tends towards
receivers largely because they're cheaper to make than a seperate
system.  The high end systems also will want to cater towards what the
high end public wants, so if they want seperates, they'll get them!
Seperating the pre-amp from the amp also can give you more flexibility
if you want to upgrade to a larger amp although many receivers now
have pre-amp outputs for this sort of thing.  Overall, there are *far*
*FAR* more low and mid-fi recievers than there are high end ones, so
it's harder to find a good reciever or integrated amp, but there are
some good ones out there.  I personally do not like JVC receivers
(they're generally poorly made), but if you like it, that's good.
 AV> anything I've heard!. It can feed 4 speakers at 80W each, and has
 AV> many inputs. It's rated as Super-A (like, better than class A
 AV> amplifiers), and so it eats lots of power. Not that I mind or
        There is no such thing as "Super-A."  Class A amplifiers are
called such because of the way they operate.  Given the power
requirements of Class A (generally Class A is no more than 20-25%
efficient), you just don't see Class A receivers as they would
generate a LOT of heat and once again we're back to the case where
seperates should be used.  I would say most receivers are Class AB or
Class B.  While some audiophiles think the world of Class A amps, they
do not neccessarily sound any better than Class AB (however, the fact
many prefer to own Class A also contributes to why there are so many
seperates in the high-end).  Class B *can* cause "some" distortion and
so is generally not found even in mid-fi equipment.  It's also easily
avoided since it only has to do with how the amp is biased
(engineering term).  You can also find sliding Class AB that stays
Class A at low power and switches to Class AB at higher outputs.
There are also some new types of power supply classes being used now.
 AV> filters and so), but usually the result with their hardware is
 AV> much worse than my JVC, because they sound like plastic (besides,
 AV> they tend to equalize sound in such a way that the hi-freqs kill
 AV> your ears). And they are dj's or know lots more than I do, and I
        I would *not* compare typical DJ setups to even mid-fi usually
because they're poorly set up.  The tendency is for a "smiley" face
equalizer setting with boosted bass and highs and no mid-range.  This
is why probably why you think they "kill your ears."  This is *very*
poor audio reproduction!  The fact they may know more doesn't mean
they have taste or know properly or have good tastes!  (all trunk
flappers out there prove the latter and that is a driving factor
behind the production of certain equipment and why many DJ's do this)
 AV> can't accept that those results come from MUCH EXPENSIVE
 AV> hardware. And if split amps/pre-amps were so bad, why so much
        Expense doesn't automatically equate to *better* sound.
 AV> runs for huge amplifiers?. 200 watts means lots of *noise*!. The
        As I said, some speakers require more power to get the same
levels of sound.  For example, my Carver Ribbon speakers are highly
inefficient and require a *lot* of power.  I got them because of their
natural sound, not because it would require me to buy large
amplifiers.
 AV> JVC has a peak indicator with a wattage scale. When I really want 
 AV> to make everyone wake up I only use 5 watts at most, and usually
 AV> I hear music at 1 watt or less. So?. Even 80 watts per channel is
        This is normal because, as I said, sound is logarithmic.  You
need 10 times the power to get 2 times the perceptible sound.  An
average speaker may be rated at 90dB sensitivity.  This means is takes
1 watt at 1 meter of constant sound level to rech 90dB.  (Transients
require more energy, but we'll keep this simple).  A 3dB increase in
sound requires TWICE the power.  So, to reach 102dB, you would need
16 TIMES the power as at 90dB, or 16 watts.  As you keep going up, the
power requirements get more and more dramatic for the same amount of
sound increase (105db=32watts, 108=64watts, 111=128watts, 114=256
watts, 117=512watts, etc)  So, if you aren't blasting yourself and
your speakers are relatively efficient, you won't normally need more
than 5 watts or so.  My speaker are very inefficient and are also low
impedance (taking twice the current) I normally use around 20 watts to
your 1 watt for "normal" levels and I've hit bursts over 200 watts on
my meters at the same volume setting for dynamic material.
 AV> tell me it amplifies with integrated circuits or some other class
 AV> Z amplifier system as described in the Audio FAQ!. Ok, I could
        There is no Class Z.  I suggest you read up on some audio in
some magazines, journals, or books and ignore this FAQ.  It sounds
like bad news from what I can gather from your post.  I'll take a look
at it myself in a little while.
 AV> On the other hand, I've been looking for new headphones. The ones
 AV> I've heard simply suck because the phones (properly) are too
 AV> small, so they don't cover the ear completely, so noise comes
        Those are called open-ear headphones.  If you prefer the
"sealed" type, they *are* available, but usually not at cheapy stores
like Best Buy, K-mart, Walmart, Sears, etc.  Try an audio salon or buy
a Stereo magazine.  You might want to check out some Sennheiser sealed
models if you plan to use them a lot.  I've got a pair of Koss Studio
Pro's I only paid $50 for or so and they work well enough for
relatively few times I use them.  Camelot music was actually selling
them awhile back (they still might).  They're sealed and have pretty
good response.  Although personally, I don't care for headphones much
period, but these are far better than your typical open-earphones,
IMHO.
 * AmyBW v2.14 *
... Error 19F: Out of taglines.
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------