Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

What are the advantages of a component audio system?

Oct 30, 2008 8:36AM PDT

I recently bought some high end speakers for my media room. I am new to this. In the past I have used an AV receiver and wired all my components to it, including speakers to use its internal amplifier. However it seems the serious audiophile uses an entirely different approach with individual components consisting of tuners, preamps and amps etc. Can someone please explain why this system is better and if its really worth the extra cost involved? Also, whose components are good without breaking my bank account? Thanks.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Components do cost a bit more, but offer flexibility.
Oct 31, 2008 1:53AM PDT

They might even actually save a buck or two when one might realize they will not listen to radio over their system. I have good enough a system that low quality radio sounds horrid at home even though I nearly always listen to it while driving.

One prime example of the flexibility is that a separate pre-amp will make possible adding another amp to an existing one (whether it is an receiver or just separate amp.) That can make up for a nice older receiver that is only stereo & you can supplement that with a more up to date amp for additional channels.

Separates also makes possible replacing/upgrading one component at a time. Some years back it was common for stereo receivers to have an easy changing of conducting pins on the back to unhook the pre-amp from the adjoining amp so that an additional amp could be added for more power.

It is curious that because of differing engineering concepts used when designing speakers creates the situation that some are highly efficient & therefore provide plenty of volume from relatively few watts per channel of power, whereas another choice of speakers is referred to as a "difficult" load requiring a lot more power.

Most folks new to this probably do not need separates because their needs are not extensive. But you mention you recently bought high end speakers so you know this hobby can become contagious & lead to more expense. I'm guilty, but have to claim fine sound & image are worth it.

- Collapse -
Response to Bill
Oct 31, 2008 2:28AM PDT

Bill: Thanks very much for your reply. I feel stupid here as a novice. It seems that if you are not an expert of and up and coming audio fanatic that no one will give you the time of day. If you would be available for further dialogue on the component subject, please let me know as I have more questions. Thanks again.

- Collapse -
(NT) Go ahead & shoot. What's on your mind?
Oct 31, 2008 2:33AM PDT
- Collapse -
The advantages has slowly vanashed over the years.
Nov 4, 2008 4:22AM PST

The late 1950s saw the start of component stereo, components became the king(sort of ). But over the years the AV receiver has taken over. Receivers used to limited to about 50w per channel, but not any more.
I had component system for years, but when I wanted to go 5.1 then I got an AV receiver. Today's receivers are extremely good, high power and low distortion.
You could spend $500 on a good receiver and $1500+ on separate components and I really doubt the you could hear the difference. Once the amp distortion gets below .1% it becomes increasingly harder to hear the difference.
Yes you can up grade the amp if you need more power with separates, if your thinking about biamp then separates is the way to go. John

- Collapse -
Response to John
Nov 4, 2008 6:24AM PST

John: So you are suggesting to use my receiver as a preamp and add a multichanel amp if I want more power? Is there any difference in distortion between using my midrange quality (Yamaha) receiver with a high end amp and using a high end preamp and amp package?

- Collapse -
just get a receiver
Oct 31, 2008 7:23AM PDT

its good enough for the great majority of folks.

for tuners... im under the impression that your choice and placement of antenna are more important than the actual component you choose.

for separate amplifer... its rather unwieldy to put a huge power supply, amps, heat sinks, into a receiver.

so the question is simply if you need that much amp. Most don't.

I do, but I'm unlike most others. And heck, I already had the amp.

- Collapse -
new to the game
Nov 5, 2008 1:19AM PST

If you are new to the higher quality audio scene, I'd say stick with getting a quality receiver instead of separates. Most likely you won't be able to hear a difference between a very well made $800 receiver or a $1500 amp/pre-pro combo.

I'd stick with Denon, Onkyo, or Yamaha for your receiver needs depending on your budget. Just make sure that whatever you get has good customer satisfaction with the product.

- Collapse -
Oh and...
Nov 5, 2008 1:22AM PST

I wanted to add that if you get a receiver, get one with pre-outs. That way down the road if you want more power or a better amp to drive your speakers you can use your receiver as a pre-pro (pre-amp) to process the audio signals and then feed a standalone amp.