Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 107
  1. #51
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Yep

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    So how does the "good" distortion mask the bad distortion? Especially given the fact that the magnitudes of distortion for line stages are typically in the 0.01-0.03% range if not lower. Unless of course this buffer design, unlike any line stage, has added deliberately high levels of distortion to achieve this effect. The theory would also suggest that this masking effect would hide the *real" distortion profile of sources upstream of the tubes. ...
    But I think this masking does occur. People do report the "warmth, body, harmonic richness, depth, an 'organic' quality" resulting from the insertion of a simple, unity gain tube buffers. And I can reported based on my use of a tube preamp versus the passive preamp I used before.

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    ...
    I don't find that any really good tube gear can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
    ...
    Of course I agree with this.

  2. #52
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    There's no question that I prefer the SS amps from Sugden and Pass because of their pure class A and Single Ended no feedback approaches - I liked Sugden before I knew zilch about the technology so my ear led me to the conclusions not the technobabble. And no doubt there will be endless streams of counter argument to the technobabble anyway. Still IMO even the SS designs here really don't compete with good SE Tube amps IMO.

    Power is the issue but that is being blown out of proportion as well. The room as well as the efficiency rating need to be looked at - big room LE speakers then yes the SETs are going to run into trouble but I said a million times - there just is no good reason for a speaker to be low efficient. My 10 watt tube amp can drive the Quads electrostatic very easily and loudly (well as far as Quads go anyway). Since I have not heard a cheaper panel from anyone else that is even remotely as good then I think SET and Panels are covered.

    Then if you leave panels you're into box designs and here you have speakers like the AN E and J for medium rooms - 5 watts is more than enough to play deep bass at ear pain levels. For a larger room you have even more sensitive speakers like the Tannoy Westminster which can play even louder at even harder hitting levels with the same 5 watts. Most normal listening sessions do not require amps to go above a few watts. And anyone out there who claims otherwise simply has not done their homework by actually LISTENING to such systems.

    The only reason to trade efficiency was for bass but that is simply not the case and enough speakers have illustrated that that is a fallacy. Keeping costs down is more likely the reason based on my listenng experience.

    I get complaints from neighbors with my set-up, my keyboard bounces, the paintings shake. No I can't crack plaster but I didn't have my system up more than half way. And Feaner the AN J while easy to drive is not a pinnacle of efficiency. 89.5-93db depending on corners and while they don't dip much under 4 ohms this plays more than loud enough for any sane audiophile with a 10 watt amp (4.2 watts before distortion arises).

    95db is loud and prolonged listening will damage your long term hearing. SETS are easily capable of that with resonably efficient speakers.

    10 watts with reasonably efficient speakers is more power than you'll ever need. Rather than blaming the amp - I look at the speakers. Offer me better sound than the AN J or AN E or Westminster or Kensington or the 2905 etc and then show me why I need a 250 watt amp.

  3. #53
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    There's no question that I prefer the SS amps from Sugden and Pass because of their pure class A and Single Ended no feedback approaches - I liked Sugden before I knew zilch about the technology so my ear led me to the conclusions not the technobabble. And no doubt there will be endless streams of counter argument to the technobabble anyway. Still IMO even the SS designs here really don't compete with good SE Tube amps IMO.

    Power is the issue but that is being blown out of proportion as well. The room as well as the efficiency rating need to be looked at - big room LE speakers then yes the SETs are going to run into trouble but I said a million times - there just is no good reason for a speaker to be low efficient. My 10 watt tube amp can drive the Quads electrostatic very easily and loudly (well as far as Quads go anyway). Since I have not heard a cheaper panel from anyone else that is even remotely as good then I think SET and Panels are covered.

    Then if you leave panels you're into box designs and here you have speakers like the AN E and J for medium rooms - 5 watts is more than enough to play deep bass at ear pain levels. For a larger room you have even more sensitive speakers like the Tannoy Westminster which can play even louder at even harder hitting levels with the same 5 watts. Most normal listening sessions do not require amps to go above a few watts. And anyone out there who claims otherwise simply has not done their homework by actually LISTENING to such systems.

    The only reason to trade efficiency was for bass but that is simply not the case and enough speakers have illustrated that that is a fallacy. Keeping costs down is more likely the reason based on my listenng experience.

    I get complaints from neighbors with my set-up, my keyboard bounces, the paintings shake. No I can't crack plaster but I didn't have my system up more than half way. And Feaner the AN J while easy to drive is not a pinnacle of efficiency. 89.5-93db depending on corners and while they don't dip much under 4 ohms this plays more than loud enough for any sane audiophile with a 10 watt amp (4.2 watts before distortion arises).

    95db is loud and prolonged listening will damage your long term hearing. SETS are easily capable of that with resonably efficient speakers.

    10 watts with reasonably efficient speakers is more power than you'll ever need. Rather than blaming the amp - I look at the speakers. Offer me better sound than the AN J or AN E or Westminster or Kensington or the 2905 etc and then show me why I need a 250 watt amp.
    Good Post!

    When I upgraded my first budget 'audiophile' setup from a 85 watt NAD Integrated amp to a 200 watt Rotel Pre/Power Combo, the difference in bass was not subtle (in fact that week was the first time I ever received a noise complaint from my neighbors)... I was pretty happy with the jump in power (and brand) and was set to look along the path of high power amps... Until I heard a 50 watt Musical Fidelity Integrated (with tubes in the preamp section) on speakers of the same 89db sensitivity and realized that raw power is not everything.... That experience alone makes me willing to consider low powered tube/Class A amplification... (kind of ironic since Musical Fidelity's big claim to fame in recent years has been mega watt amplification... yet they've convinced me of the benefit of lower powered amps).... Since my listening room is 15.6 x 11 ft (with high ceilings though, about 15 feet) I'm sure I could make do with a low powered amp...

  4. #54
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    But I think this masking does occur. People do report the "warmth, body, harmonic richness, depth, an 'organic' quality" resulting from the insertion of a simple, unity gain tube buffers.
    Maybe they truly needed an impedance buffer! Here's one case where the addition of a tube buffer stage was superfluous: Musical Fidelity DAC Another unit tested added some gain and admittedly helps some CDPs with weak op amp output stages: X-10D.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    And I can reported based on my use of a tube preamp versus the passive preamp I used before.
    "Warmth" can always be achieved via altered frequency response. Perhaps your SF is like older C-J units having a slightly chocolate flavor to their tonal balance. The MKII version of my preamp sounds leaner, but the output devices are unchanged.

    rw

  5. #55
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Maybe they truly needed an impedance buffer! Here's one case where the addition of a tube buffer stage was superfluous: Musical Fidelity DAC Another unit tested added some gain and admittedly helps some CDPs with weak op amp output stages: X-10D.


    "Warmth" can always be achieved via altered frequency response. Perhaps your SF is like older C-J units having a slightly chocolate flavor to their tonal balance. The MKII version of my preamp sounds leaner, but the output devices are unchanged.

    rw
    I think this line in your second link best sums up the use of tube buffers:

    Quote Originally Posted by John Atkinson
    With both these units, it will be very hard to predict whether or not they will work an improvement on the sound of any specific system.
    .................................................. ..............
    But more than usual, you should try to audition these units in your own system before you make a purchase decision.
    But in fairness to the buffers, that quote is true of all audio products... Will a Passive Pre sound better than an Active? Will no Pre sound better than either Passive or Active? Will a Turntable sound better than a CD player? Will Tube sound better than Solid State? At the end of the day, you just have to try it for yourself to see if it works for you...

  6. #56
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Re. SF

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    ...
    "Warmth" can always be achieved via altered frequency response. Perhaps your SF is like older C-J units having a slightly chocolate flavor to their tonal balance. The MKII version of my preamp sounds leaner, but the output devices are unchanged.

    rw
    In fact the Sonic Frontiers are somewhat (in)famous for a solid state-like sound and are not archtypically tubey. Using the standard Sovtek tubes my SF sound remarkably like the Adcom GFP 750 I'd been using in passive mode.

    I wanted a bit more of the tube sound but got a measure of it only after some tube rolling. My best result was with Amperex white label 'PQ' tubes.
    Last edited by Feanor; 01-05-2009 at 09:58 AM.

  7. #57
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Will no Pre sound better than either Passive or Active? Will a Turntable sound better than a CD player? Will Tube sound better than Solid State? At the end of the day, you just have to try it for yourself to see if it works for you...
    I certainly agree about system matching considerations. Passive arrangements are highly sensitive to specific gain and impedance matching issues. Similarly, tube power amplifiers are not a good match for all speakers. Where my VTLs are wonderful with the stats, they are not so much with the Advents where a "lesser" Threshold sounds better.

    I do not, however, believe that all tube gear make music better by "masking distortion". My experience suggests it has to do with the nature of their distortion spectra which is shared by a few SS designs as well.

    rw

  8. #58
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    I dare say

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    ...
    Power is the issue but that is being blown out of proportion as well. The room as well as the efficiency rating need to be looked at - big room LE speakers then yes the SETs are going to run into trouble but I said a million times - there just is no good reason for a speaker to be low efficient.
    ...
    I have heard of people driving Magneplanar MG 1.6's like mine quite happily with 35 watt tube amps such as the PrimaLuna ProLogue Four or Five. Given I tend to listen a fairly low volumes, something like that might might well work for me. On the other hand there are certainly more people who insist that these Maggies sound better the more power you give them. I wouldn't know who is right without trying both in my own environment.

    Meanwhile I'm quite content with my 120 wpc Monarchy SM-70 Pro's run as balanced monoblocks. I paid less from them than what a PrimaLuna ProLogue Four would have cost me.

    I think nightflier mentioned that he like the MG 1.6s better with a Spectral amp than the Monarchys. Frankly this isn't hard to believe: the least expensive Spectrals are twice the MSRP of the Monarchys and almost four times the going price. I would covet a Spectral DMA-100S, or say a Pass Labs X150.5, or Ayre V-5xe far more than any tube amp even in their $5000 range.

  9. #59
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    I have heard of people driving Magneplanar MG 1.6's like mine quite happily with 35 watt tube amps such as the PrimaLuna ProLogue Four or Five. Given I tend to listen a fairly low volumes, something like that might might well work for me. On the other hand there are certainly more people who insist that these Maggies sound better the more power you give them. I wouldn't know who is right without trying both in my own environment.
    I suspect they're both right..... In my experience, you can either upgrade your amp to a more powerful one or upgrade to a higher quality one (of the same or even lower power) to improve the sound of your setup... my guess, is that many people just choose one path without giving much thought to (much less, really testing) the other path...

  10. #60
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Y'know this thread has evolved into a pretty good read in it's own right. Thanks gentleman. Unfortunately my general lack of experience with tubes in a home audio scenario, or at least within the confines of a reproduction system in my home precludes me from adding much.

    Five years from now I'll resurrect this thread and discuss the "CD Treatment Lie".
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  11. #61
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Feaner

    Most speakers I've tried sound better with SE amplifiers regardless of power. Unfortunately the designs of the LE speakers tend not to be able to play loud enough to satisfy so then they're forced into high power and generally poor sounding alternatives. No matter how great the LE speaker may have actually been it is reduced to mid-fi IMO when one is forced to use seriously worse sounding amps. A speaker can't fix what it was given.

    Still there are amps that sound great don't cost much and offer tremendous build construction and excellent ridiculous power - more than enough to drive any Magnepan which is not as hard to drive as some think. While I'm not a fan of Magnepan's sound the Grant Fidelity Rita would easily drive the 1.6 to levels and grip that I doubt can be bettered. With 450 watts capable power from a very powerful tube compliment in class A it will be tough to better where SS balls but without the grain and still sound better than digital amps I've tried. http://grantfidelity.com/site/RITA-8...Tube-Amplifier

  12. #62
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    One thing for sure

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    ... While I'm not a fan of Magnepan's sound the Grant Fidelity Rita would easily drive the 1.6 to levels and grip that I doubt can be bettered. With 450 watts capable power from a very powerful tube compliment in class A it will be tough to better where SS balls but without the grain and still sound better than digital amps I've tried. http://grantfidelity.com/site/RITA-8...Tube-Amplifier
    It's certainly a gorgeous looking piece of equipment, (see below). But if I wanted to try tubes I think I'd look at a pair of AES SixPacs although they aren't single-ended -- a favorite of the amplfier-obsessed Abe Collins over at AA.
    ...
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Feanor; 01-06-2009 at 04:30 AM.

  13. #63
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Feaner

    Most speakers I've tried sound better with SE amplifiers regardless of power. Unfortunately the designs of the LE speakers tend not to be able to play loud enough to satisfy so then they're forced into high power and generally poor sounding alternatives. No matter how great the LE speaker may have actually been it is reduced to mid-fi IMO when one is forced to use seriously worse sounding amps. A speaker can't fix what it was given.

    Still there are amps that sound great don't cost much and offer tremendous build construction and excellent ridiculous power - more than enough to drive any Magnepan which is not as hard to drive as some think. While I'm not a fan of Magnepan's sound the Grant Fidelity Rita would easily drive the 1.6 to levels and grip that I doubt can be bettered. With 450 watts capable power from a very powerful tube compliment in class A it will be tough to better where SS balls but without the grain and still sound better than digital amps I've tried. http://grantfidelity.com/site/RITA-8...Tube-Amplifier
    RGA, any thoughts on Grant's entry level Integrated, the A-348?

    http://grantfidelity.com/site/A-348+EL34+Tube+Amplifier

    The price and looks are certainly appealing (shame it doesn't have the headphone output of the A-534)....

  14. #64
    nightflier
    Guest

    Spectron amps & planars

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    I think nightflier mentioned that he like the MG 1.6s better with a Spectral amp than the Monarchys. Frankly this isn't hard to believe: the least expensive Spectrals are twice the MSRP of the Monarchys and almost four times the going price. I would covet a Spectral DMA-100S, or say a Pass Labs X150.5, or Ayre V-5xe far more than any tube amp even in their $5000 range.
    Actually they aren't that bad on the used market. I purchased mine for $800 with some scratches here & there. I also purchased a PS Audio GCA-250 for a great price too, so there's some deals to be had. Both amps are extremely well suited to low impedance loads and were a good match for the MMGs, with the PS Audio being definitely warmer and less analytical. The Spectron is like a laser with oodles of power to spare and, IMO, a better match. Interestingly, John Ulrich (colorful character, BTW) recommends using Spectron amps with Analysis Audio speakers (these are uber-expensive foreign planars) that he feels are a better match than the Maggies.

    Personally, if I had $20K to blow on speakers, I'd be on the opposite end of the spectrum and have a pair of Avantgarde horns mated to flea-watt SETs. I've really only heard Apogees, Maggies, Martin Logans, InnerSound, and Final Sound speakers, mostly the lower-priced stuff (the Maggie MMGs I had in my home for a good audition period). In each case, I was still not bowled over by the planar-wow factor that everybody raves about. Maybe because it wasn't any of the top-of-the-line gear or maybe it was the whole dipolar-radiation thing, but I just couldn't get them to perform as good as box speakers. For my ears, I have heard much improvement when switching to tubes (from solid state) and using low-power / sensitive gear. That's ironic because almost everything I currently own is high-power and very non-green, very much out of character for me.

    PS, when buying used, there is always risk, and in my case I had to send the Spectron back to them twice for service. Fortunately, they are within driving distance, so that wasn't too much of a bother, but I thought I would mention that anyhow. The amp internals are extremely complicated and not the kind any old tech can work on. Of course, it's always worth it to get a chance to talk to John - he seems to be a treasure-trove of information, even if it is very opinionated. Good times....

  15. #65
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421
    MMG's can't be compared to the more expensive models of Magnepan's.
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  16. #66
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Nightflier

    No need to feel bad about not liking panels but I would advise you to try true 100% electrostats on not the ribbons or ML Hybrids. I was in a similar boat but the Quad 989 and 2905 changed my mind. Not for rock or harder hitting music but they're very good and IMO a huge cut above ribbon panels which to my ear has a sonic presence that doesn't go away. Many Maggie fans actually prefer the 1.6 quasi ribbon over the 3.6 and 20.1 in the treble. I can't say I agree or disagree but they make a credible case. The Quads are simply much better in every way - but they cost $14,000 so....

    I prefer the HE SET over the Quads simply because the music I listen to the Quads simply can't reproduce well enough. I would suggest if you like real loud vibrant powerful - as an alternate to the Avantegarde - the trusty old Tannoy Westminster which is a Dual Concentric but very easy to drive. If I had a large room where the AN E could not fill I would probably lean to the Westminster. (It's even uglier unfortunately). But 8-20 watts of AN would be positively ridiculous power driving the Westminsters or Acoustic Duos.

  17. #67
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Confusion??

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    Actually they aren't that bad on the used market. I purchased mine for $800 with some scratches here & there. I also purchased a PS Audio GCA-250 for a great price too, so there's some deals to be had. Both amps are extremely well suited to low impedance loads and were a good match for the MMGs, with the PS Audio being definitely warmer and less analytical. The Spectron is like a laser with oodles of power to spare and, IMO, a better match. Interestingly, John Ulrich (colorful character, BTW) recommends using Spectron amps with Analysis Audio speakers (these are uber-expensive foreign planars) that he feels are a better match than the Maggies.

    Personally, if I had $20K to blow on speakers, I'd be on the opposite end of the spectrum and have a pair of Avantgarde horns mated to flea-watt SETs. I've really only heard Apogees, Maggies, Martin Logans, InnerSound, and Final Sound speakers, mostly the lower-priced stuff (the Maggie MMGs I had in my home for a good audition period). In each case, I was still not bowled over by the planar-wow factor that everybody raves about. Maybe because it wasn't any of the top-of-the-line gear or maybe it was the whole dipolar-radiation thing, but I just couldn't get them to perform as good as box speakers. For my ears, I have heard much improvement when switching to tubes (from solid state) and using low-power / sensitive gear. That's ironic because almost everything I currently own is high-power and very non-green, very much out of character for me.

    PS, when buying used, there is always risk, and in my case I had to send the Spectron back to them twice for service. Fortunately, they are within driving distance, so that wasn't too much of a bother, but I thought I would mention that anyhow. The amp internals are extremely complicated and not the kind any old tech can work on. Of course, it's always worth it to get a chance to talk to John - he seems to be a treasure-trove of information, even if it is very opinionated. Good times....
    I think I was, or maybe we both were, confused about Spectral versus Spectron amplifiers. Both highly regarded but quite different high-end amps. I'd be delighted to hear either together with my Maggies.

  18. #68
    abNORMal IBSTORMIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Blue Springs, MO
    Posts
    246

    or both

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    I suspect they're both right..... In my experience, you can either upgrade your amp to a more powerful one or upgrade to a higher quality one (of the same or even lower power) to improve the sound of your setup... my guess, is that many people just choose one path without giving much thought to (much less, really testing) the other path...
    In my limited experience on one of those paths, I have found as I moved up Onkyo's Integra line from the M-5060RS to the M-504 to the M-508 and finally the M-588F not only do you get more power but a cleaner/higher quality sound. Why is this?

  19. #69
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    No surprise afterall

    Quote Originally Posted by IBSTORMIN
    In my limited experience on one of those paths, I have found as I moved up Onkyo's Integra line from the M-5060RS to the M-504 to the M-508 and finally the M-588F not only do you get more power but a cleaner/higher quality sound. Why is this?
    Please don't infer from what Ajani said that higher power is associated with lower quality in general -- ain't so. Ajani was speaking of the specific instance of a SET amp verus a relatively modest solid state amp. (And let's not forget the that choice is a matter of preference any way.)

    I have always noticed that within product range of from a given manufacturer, going up the line almost always improves both features, power, and sound quality.

  20. #70
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Please don't infer from what Ajani said that higher power is associated with lower quality in general -- ain't so. Ajani was speaking of the specific instance of a SET amp verus a relatively modest solid state amp. (And let's not forget the that choice is a matter of preference any way.)

    I have always noticed that within product range of from a given manufacturer, going up the line almost always improves both features, power, and sound quality.

    All things equal, increasing power should improve the sound of an amp... what I was saying is that there are other ways to improve sound, such as using higher quality components in the amp...

    Let's take a look at 2 possible scenarios:

    1) You have a relatively low powered amp trying to drive inefficient speakers in a large room... and you find yourself forced to listen at volumes much lower than your desired listening level, to avoiding clipping...

    2) You have an amp (maybe a low powered one) with more than enough power to drive your speakers to acceptable listening levels...

    Suddenly you get a bonus at work and a real bad case of upgradeitis... in scenario 1, you might see the best results by upgrading to a more powerful amp... while in scenario 2, you might have better results by going to an amp with higher quality components and the same or even slightly lower power...

    Amp selection is really about personal preference and making sure that your amp has enough power to meet your speaker/room/volume requirements...

  21. #71
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by IBSTORMIN
    In my limited experience on one of those paths, I have found as I moved up Onkyo's Integra line from the M-5060RS to the M-504 to the M-508 and finally the M-588F not only do you get more power but a cleaner/higher quality sound. Why is this?
    I think Feanor answered your question pretty well... I'll also add that as you move up a manufacturer's line, they usually put better components in addition to more power.... and as I said, all things equal, more power will usually improve sound... It's just a question of balancing whether you will see the greatest sonic benefit from adding more power or using higher quality components... If you have an unlimited budget, then no such compromise is necessary...

  22. #72
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by IBSTORMIN
    In my limited experience on one of those paths, I have found as I moved up Onkyo's Integra line from the M-5060RS to the M-504 to the M-508 and finally the M-588F not only do you get more power but a cleaner/higher quality sound. Why is this?
    Power has nothing to do with sound quality - it may very well be the case that the Receiver's high models required a better transformer in order to meet the higher watt rating. In which case it was not the higher power in itself but an improved transformer, or better shielding or lowered noise floors.

    There is zero audible difference going from a Bryston 3b power amp to a 14B power amp - the reason for the needed extra power is for ineficient loudspeakers.

    Power is not a direct function of loudness - a system of HE with a 3 watt amp will play louder, with more hard hittng impact than a LE with an amplifier capable of 250 watts. Watts is NOT volume. LE speakers however, if you insist on using such speakers, usually need a lot more "oomph" to begin to sound decent. Thus if you buy the 250 watt beastie it's probably very likely going to sound better at good volume levels than the 25 watt model the company sells. That however misleads the consumer into associating more power with better sound when it's more about one amp simply not up to the task and the more powerful amp "is" up to the task.

    Some will put the blame on the amp some wll put the blame on the speaker. In a sense it makes sense - if you buy a powerful Krell amp then it will drive pretty much every loudspeaker. If you buy my amp you have to cross off 95% of loudspeakers from your shopping list. One amp is designed to run every speaker and one amp is designed to drive a select few loudspeakers. My take is that over the last 20 years the speakers worth listening to are the speakers that really only need 5-25watts. The speakers that need a Krell probably don't sound that great. And the Krell on the easy to drive speakers no longer have the advantage of power and on sound quality - well they're no great shakes.

  23. #73
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Power has nothing to do with sound quality
    &

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Thus if you buy the 250 watt beastie it's probably very likely going to sound better at good volume levels than the 25 watt model the company sells.
    =

    Why it is is difficult to get too technical in explaining the relationship between power and sound quality.... lol

    Seriously though, I agree with what you're saying:

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    That however misleads the consumer into associating more power with better sound when it's more about one amp simply not up to the task and the more powerful amp "is" up to the task.
    Yep... I was a tad lazy in my earlier explanations & I probably should have added that: If the low powered amp is fully up to the task of driving a particular pair of speakers, then you shouldn't hear any difference by adding more power....

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Some will put the blame on the amp some wll put the blame on the speaker. In a sense it makes sense - if you buy a powerful Krell amp then it will drive pretty much every loudspeaker. If you buy my amp you have to cross off 95% of loudspeakers from your shopping list. One amp is designed to run every speaker and one amp is designed to drive a select few loudspeakers. My take is that over the last 20 years the speakers worth listening to are the speakers that really only need 5-25watts. The speakers that need a Krell probably don't sound that great. And the Krell on the easy to drive speakers no longer have the advantage of power and on sound quality - well they're no great shakes.
    This is where good old fashion auditioning comes into play.... I've seen (read) many articles from reviewers who agree with you and just as many who wouldn't wipe their @$$es with a SET/HE combo....

    It's a shame that more brands don't make HE speakers, so that those of us who are new to SET/HE would have an easier chance of getting to audition that kind of setup...

    A high powered Krell or Musical Fidelity is a safe bet for most of us... buying a 3 - 10 watt SET is seriously risky, especially if all you've ever auditioned are LE speakers...

  24. #74
    abNORMal IBSTORMIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Blue Springs, MO
    Posts
    246

    I am not so sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Yep... I was a tad lazy in my earlier explanations & I probably should have added that: If the low powered amp is fully up to the task of driving a particular pair of speakers, then you shouldn't hear any difference by adding more power....
    OK Ajani, there are a few quotes I could have used, just happened to pick yours. From my experience, I'll have to disagree with you from what I hear in my Integra amps. From what you are saying, maybe it is not so in all lines? The amps in Integras line from the 80's might not be the quality you are referring to but are all rated at less than .003 THD. If rated at the same THD, when using the same speakers with the meters showing output at 10 watts which is well below capacity on both amps, why does the M-508 (200 watts) sound cleaner with more detail than the M-504 (165 watts)? Both use the exact same chasis/same layout just everything is bigger in the M-508. Is it transformer/capacitor size?

  25. #75
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by IBSTORMIN
    OK Ajani, there are a few quotes I could have used, just happened to pick yours. From my experience, I'll have to disagree with you from what I hear in my Integra amps. From what you are saying, maybe it is not so in all lines? The amps in Integras line from the 80's might not be the quality you are referring to but are all rated at less than .003 THD. If rated at the same THD, when using the same speakers with the meters showing output at 10 watts which is well below capacity on both amps, why does the M-508 (200 watts) sound cleaner with more detail than the M-504 (165 watts)? Both use the exact same chasis/same layout just everything is bigger in the M-508. Is it transformer/capacitor size?
    I'm not familiar with the Integra amps (though I tried to do some brief research on Google).... If both amps are using only 10 watts and they still sound different, then my first guess would be that they don't have exactly the same (or same quality) internal components... i.e. The M-508 is probably more than just an M-504 with an extra 35 watts of power.... Another possibility (considering the age of the amps) is simply that one or both are no longer working at their best (so they could have sounded the same back in the 80s, but have deteriorated enough to sound different)...

    Keep in mind that having the same chassis, layout and THD does not guarantee that all the internal components are the same...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •