Integrated amp recommendation for Sierra 2

[maheeinfy]

Hi All,
My budget is $500 or under. What would be a good integrated amp that matches Sierra 2 speakers?
For the most part, i'd want to pay for sound alone. Looks, number of inputs, DAC stage are all secondary but nice to have.

Thank you!

[Jasonindenver]

Sorry, forgot to mention the PM 5004 is the one within your price range. I think it is simply a lower powered version of mine with the same features.

[Jasonindenver]

Having issue swith thread reply for some reason so forgive me if this is a duplicate...

I like the Marantz 2-channel integrated Amps. I have a PM 6004 and love the built in DAC and tone controls. The lower powered version should meet your budget and have plenty of power. If you need an AVR instead of 2 channel, I would also recommend a Marantz, or even a Denon.

One feature that I simply love in my Denon AVR's is the built in Airplay. I am surprised how much I use it for casual listening.

[Sivar]

Emotiva is a well-regarded manufacturer of amplifiers. They make an integrated amp, the Fusion 8100:

http://emotiva.com/products/receivers/fusion-8100

It can 110W RMS into each of 2 channels or 65W RMS into each of 7 channels should you decide to use it in a home theater.

Note: I have not used this product. I mention it because the company has an excellent reputation for great "bang for the buck" amplifiers. Obviously, you'll want to research the product before buying it.

[maheeinfy]

Thank you all for the suggestions.

More inputs plz..

[RicardoJoa]

500 isnt alot so you might be limited to a very few choices. The emotiva fusion though not an actuall integrated amp, is a good alternative. It has sub out so down the line may be advantage if you decided to get one, and it has more power, for a speaker like the sierra 2 that dosnt dig low in impedance you might want take advantage of the higher 8 ohm power rating. The only thing is that emo has issues with their processors.

[curtis]

The only thing is that emo has issues with their processors.
This is also something I would caution you on.

[Sivar]

This is also something I would caution you on.

My understanding is that this applies only to the Emotiva UMC-1, which is what I have.

I have noticed that it sometimes loses signal on HDMI devices if they aren't unplugged/replugged after the UMC-1 has completely initialized. This is pretty irritating, but I have not heard other than good things for all their other processors.
That said, I've heard nothing (at all) about the Fusion-8100. Still, it would be difficult to find a new receiver with similar specs and audio quality for under $500 elsewhere.

[curtis]

My understanding is that this applies only to the Emotiva UMC-1, which is what I have.

I have noticed that it sometimes loses signal on HDMI devices if they aren't unplugged/replugged after the UMC-1 has completely initialized. This is pretty irritating, but I have not heard other than good things for all their other processors.
That said, I've heard nothing (at all) about the Fusion-8100. Still, it would be difficult to find a new receiver with similar specs and audio quality for under $500 elsewhere.
From me...I would caution anyone buying anything from Emotiva that involves DSP processing.

Have you read this thread?
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1517916-emotiva-fusion-8100-receiver-has-been-released-5.html

If you look at Emotiva's history, it goes beyond the UMC-1. UMC-1 has been around a while, a bug such as the one you are experiencing should have been fixed a long time ago.

[N Boros]

Check out http://www.accessories4less.com/

They have refurbished receivers at usually half the MSRP, that have a full manufacturer's warranty.

[Sivar]

@curtis: Good to know.

[Beave]

Lots of good integrated amps under $500 or so that will power the Sierra 2's just fine.

Onkyo A-9050
Yamaha A-S500
NAD C326BEE
Cambridge Audio 540A V2, 640A V2, 550A V2, 650A V2
The aforementioned Marantz units as well

Consider used and save $$, as long as seller is legit.

Here's one at an appropriate price for what it is:
http://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649146671-cambridge-audio-54a-v2-remote-controlled-integrated-amplifier/

I have no affiliation to the seller, but I used to own this model and it was a solid amp.

[DNAer]

You might want to look at the Outlaw Audio RR2150. It is usually $700 but they have a special going on B stock units (you can call and ask what does B stock means when it comes from Outlaw....you will not be disappointed!). The RR2150 has made Stereophile Magazines top picks every year since it was introduced. Bass management, conservative 100 WPC and not your standard black box looks.

[maheeinfy]

Thank you all for some great suggestions. it has been a lot of help.
I already have a HT receiver, so I am kind of leaning towards 2 channel Integrated amp for my stereo setup. I am assuming that Integrated amps sounds better than an avr(like mine rx-v675);because of toroidal transformer and no additional circuitry and processing that an avr usually have. May be I am imagining things, don't know.
If any one has experience with NAD D3020 or 316BEE or 326BEE, pls let me know. I am looking for a good sonically matching amp with Sierra 2.

Thanks again!

[Beave]

To be blunt, you're probably imagining things. The toroidal transformer has its advantages (size, more controlled magnetic field generation), but it's also more expensive and doesn't necessarily have any performance advantages that are audible. Same with the "additional circuitry" - it usually doesn't cause any audible degradation.

The concept of "matching" an amp to speakers is misguided. You want an amp that can power the speakers to the levels you want without clipping or going into shutdown (auto protect). That's it. Besides that, an amp shouldn't have a sound signature of its own (tube amps excluded).

I have owned three Cambridge Audio integrateds, the NAD 326BEE, and several others sets (AVRs, separates, etc). They all sounded different to me. UNTIL I level-matched them. Then suddenly they would sound the same. The point is, our hearing can be easily fooled by what we see and what we read. When you remove those variables with a level-matched and "blinded" listening comparison, you'll find its hard to differentiate even high-end separates from an AVR running in pure direct mode (again, assuming you're not running the AVR past its limits).

As for the NAD, it was nice, but it lacks the features of a modern AVR, it ran hot, and I had some minor reliability issues with it. I did like the look and feel and the simplicity of operation, but I think that "sound quality" is not a reason to get one.

[N Boros]

To be blunt, you're probably imagining things. The toroidal transformer has its advantages (size, more controlled magnetic field generation), but it's also more expensive and doesn't necessarily have any performance advantages that are audible. Same with the "additional circuitry" - it usually doesn't cause any audible degradation.

The concept of "matching" an amp to speakers is misguided. You want an amp that can power the speakers to the levels you want without clipping or going into shutdown (auto protect). That's it. Besides that, an amp shouldn't have a sound signature of its own (tube amps excluded).

I have owned three Cambridge Audio integrateds, the NAD 326BEE, and several others sets (AVRs, separates, etc). They all sounded different to me. UNTIL I level-matched them. Then suddenly they would sound the same. The point is, our hearing can be easily fooled by what we see and what we read. When you remove those variables with a level-matched and "blinded" listening comparison, you'll find its hard to differentiate even high-end separates from an AVR running in pure direct mode (again, assuming you're not running the AVR past its limits).

As for the NAD, it was nice, but it lacks the features of a modern AVR, it ran hot, and I had some minor reliability issues with it. I did like the look and feel and the simplicity of operation, but I think that "sound quality" is not a reason to get one.

Nice post! One argument I have often heard with regards to the need for a separate or external amplifier is with "soft clipping". Soft clipping is when an amplifier doesn't have enough reserves and/or cannot quickly enough represent big dynamic peaks that we hear in say a Hollywood blockbuster on a Blu-Ray disc. It makes sense to me that with an entry level receiver, this situation could be possible in some people's set up depending on their listening levels, room size and how big the peak is. So it seems that the peak (for a slit second) would be possibly sound harsher due to the increased distortion and possibly accumulate to listening fatigue over longer listening sessions. Have you noticed any such differences in how well dynamic peaks are handled with external amplification versus say an entry level receiver? If you have noticed a difference, was it subtle or not?

I have only had mid-level receivers and below and have never messed around with external amplification and am curious.

[Sivar]

To be blunt, you're probably imagining things. The toroidal transformer has its advantages (size, more controlled magnetic field generation), but it's also more expensive and doesn't necessarily have any performance advantages that are audible. Same with the "additional circuitry" - it usually doesn't cause any audible degradation.

The concept of "matching" an amp to speakers is misguided. You want an amp that can power the speakers to the levels you want without clipping or going into shutdown (auto protect). That's it. Besides that, an amp shouldn't have a sound signature of its own (tube amps excluded).

I have owned three Cambridge Audio integrateds, the NAD 326BEE, and several others sets (AVRs, separates, etc). They all sounded different to me. UNTIL I level-matched them...

I agree and applaud any effort to quell the kinds of widely accepted misinformation that lead people to spending more than they need to, however, there is an exception: Class D amplifiers.
My understanding is that some very good ones exist, and that their quality depends in part on their operating frequency, with high frequency units being superior (all else equal) but more difficult to manufacture.
I have heard a few and I am all but certain that those I heard sound inferior at well below their peak power output capabilities. The worst I have come across is Klipsch's BASH amplifiers, usually used for subwoofers where distortion matters somewhat less, but sometimes used for main speakers.
To be fair, I have not heard any recent models.

Due to my impressions and to the relative newness of class D, I recommend they are avoided except perhaps for subwoofers. Class D amps also use far more power when idle, so situations where power is not cut after use should be considered carefully.

Also of note is that avoidance of clipping can require a surprising amount of power above the speaker's rated RMS capability, though that varies with the design of the amplifier. 99% of the time, when listening well below the peak capabilities of the speakers, this doesn't matter a whit.

Finally, it is important to note that many receivers (and possibly discrete amplifiers) do cannot produce even close to their rated power with all channels driven, though such a need is uncommon.

[curtis]

Sivar...where do you get your information?

What class D amps have you heard? What have you been reading?

"Class D amps also use far more power when idle, so situations where power is not cut after use should be considered carefully."

Where did you read this?? What do you consider "far more power"? How does 0-9 watts at idle sound to you?

[curtis]

Here is a good primer on amp classes:
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/amplifier-classes

[Beave]

Nice post! One argument I have often heard with regards to the need for a separate or external amplifier is with "soft clipping". Soft clipping is when an amplifier doesn't have enough reserves and/or cannot quickly enough represent big dynamic peaks that we hear in say a Hollywood blockbuster on a Blu-Ray disc. It makes sense to me that with an entry level receiver, this situation could be possible in some people's set up depending on their listening levels, room size and how big the peak is. So it seems that the peak (for a slit second) would be possibly sound harsher due to the increased distortion and possibly accumulate to listening fatigue over longer listening sessions. Have you noticed any such differences in how well dynamic peaks are handled with external amplification versus say an entry level receiver? If you have noticed a difference, was it subtle or not?

I have only had mid-level receivers and below and have never messed around with external amplification and am curious.

In my room (13' x 17') I never played anything loud enough to get to clipping, soft or otherwise. However, about two years ago I was visiting a local dealer who has a large listening room (maybe 20x30 with high ceilings). They were playing some speakers that dip to 2Ohms in the midbass - and playing them LOUD. The midbass was quite muddy, so I suspected the speakers weren't up to the task. But then they switched to a McIntosh amp rated at something like 600W into 2 Ohms (!), and then the bass sounded much cleaner, even at the previous LOUD levels. That's a situation (loud levels, big room, low-impedance speakers) where a bigger, beefier amp makes a difference.

[Beave]

I agree and applaud any effort to quell the kinds of widely accepted misinformation that lead people to spending more than they need to, however, there is an exception: Class D amplifiers.
My understanding is that some very good ones exist, and that their quality depends in part on their operating frequency, with high frequency units being superior (all else equal) but more difficult to manufacture.
I have heard a few and I am all but certain that those I heard sound inferior at well below their peak power output capabilities. The worst I have come across is Klipsch's BASH amplifiers, usually used for subwoofers where distortion matters somewhat less, but sometimes used for main speakers.
To be fair, I have not heard any recent models.

Due to my impressions and to the relative newness of class D, I recommend they are avoided except perhaps for subwoofers. Class D amps also use far more power when idle, so situations where power is not cut after use should be considered carefully.

Also of note is that avoidance of clipping can require a surprising amount of power above the speaker's rated RMS capability, though that varies with the design of the amplifier. 99% of the time, when listening well below the peak capabilities of the speakers, this doesn't matter a whit.

Finally, it is important to note that many receivers (and possibly discrete amplifiers) do cannot produce even close to their rated power with all channels driven, though such a need is uncommon.

I have not owned or auditioned any class D amps. From what I've seen of their measurements, they're very power-efficient compared to class A or A/B amps. The one parametric where they come up short - that I've seen, at least - is that their output impedance can be high, meaning their damping factor isn't so good. This means that, like some tube amps, their frequency response is more load-dependent than class A or A/B amps. In other words, the frequency response of a class D amp varies more depending on the speaker it's powering. Some vary quite a bit; others less so; but most more than any class A or A/B amps. Whether it's audible depends on the speaker. Whether it's preferable depends on the listener. But ideally you would want an amp whose frequency response does not vary with the load.

[N Boros]

Here is a good primer on amp classes:
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/amplifier-classes

I remember reading that article when it was first published. What was very surprising to me, when I first read it is that it isn't until the amplifier is using more than about 15% of its maximum power until the efficiency is more than 80% for a class D amplifier. So when content is only requiring say 1 Watt from the amplifier, the efficiency of the class D is quite low. It is better than class AB, but I had always thought that regardless of the wattage demanded by the content and loudspeakers, the efficiency was always 80 to 90% or higher.

[curtis]

I have an amp that uses ICEPower 1000asp modules, unadulterated. 500wpc/8ohms.

If anybody wants to try it, and you are local, let me know. If you are not local, and want to try, you pick up shipping both ways, and I will send it to you.

[Quinn]

Another option is to buy a used pre present HDMI standards HT amp/receiver. Stuff that was cream of the crop a few years ago goes for a song on audiogon.com and the like due to various HDMI input issues.

[Sivar]

Sivar...where do you get your information?

What class D amps have you heard? What have you been reading?

"Class D amps also use far more power when idle, so situations where power is not cut after use should be considered carefully."

Where did you read this?? What do you consider "far more power"? How does 0-9 watts at idle sound to you?

Curtis,

I can't find my original source, but consider the article Exploding the Efficiency Myth of Class D Amplifiers (http://www.ecnmag.com/articles/2010/01/exploding-efficiency-myth-class-d-amplifiers), which includes a chart showing terrible efficiency of class D amplifiers until near clipping.

[curtis]

Curtis,

I can't find my original source, but consider the article Exploding the Efficiency Myth of Class D Amplifiers (http://www.ecnmag.com/articles/2010/01/exploding-efficiency-myth-class-d-amplifiers), which includes a chart showing terrible efficiency of class D amplifiers until near clipping.
Thanks Sivar...that is interesting, but there are many articles/white papers that say otherwise. I'm sure you ran across them.

Also, this article was written by someone trying to push his employer's own amplifier ICs.

[Sivar]

Thanks Sivar...that is interesting, but there are many articles/white papers that say otherwise. I'm sure you ran across them.

Also, this article was written by someone trying to push his employer's own amplifier ICs.

I had previously come across a number of sources complaining about idle and low-power class D efficiency, though detail was always scarce, but when you asked a few days ago I had a hell of a time finding anything that even mentioned efficiency other than vague "higher than Class A/B" or an unqualified "85-95%".

Class D amplifiers are a relatively young technology in audio. Not unlike the tube --> discrete transition (from what I've heard), use of anything but class D and maybe H will likely be considered quaint in 20 years once the kinks and marketing impressions have been worked out.

[curtis]

I had previously come across a number of sources complaining about idle and low-power class D efficiency, though detail was always scarce, but when you asked a few days ago I had a hell of a time finding anything that even mentioned efficiency other than vague "higher than Class A/B" or an unqualified "85-95%".

Class D amplifiers are a relatively young technology in audio. Not unlike the tube --> discrete transition (from what I've heard), use of anything but class D and maybe H will likely be considered quaint in 20 years once the kinks and marketing impressions have been worked out.
You should read about Hypex Ncore and ICEPower based amps.