Upgraded to Audio Note J - and other musings.

[skeptic]

Here are some facts about the horsepower wars of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s.

The most conservatively rated amplifiers of the mid 1960s were made by McIntosh, Marantz, and Dynaco. The last of the big tube models popular for the richest audiophiles were Dynaco MK III which were 60 watt monoblocks, MC275 also available as MC 75 monoblocks, and Marantz model 8 which cold be configured as a pentode or triode amplifier and so had different power ratings but was in that range. McIntosh also offered 300 watt tube monoblocks. These same ratings would probably have applied after the FTC ruling. They were for continuous power per channel with both channels driven over a specified bandwidth with a given maximum harmonic and IM distortion. In 1968 Crown introduced the DC 300 which put out a whopping 185 wpc under the same conditions. Phase Linear followed shortly with the Phase Linear 400 and Phase Linear 700 presumably with 200 and 350 wpc. A tier below was the IHF method of meausrement which was 25% higher. Most receivers were in the 15 to 50 wpc rms in the early to mid 60s but were rated slightly higher by the IHF (Institute of High Fidelity) method 20 watts RMS = 25 watts IHF. I don't think the manufacturers had to even use the same power supply as came with the amplifier either, they could substitute a lab bench supply of the same voltage. Then there was the EIA power. This usually doubled the IHF power and allowed up to 5% distortion. Finally there were amplifiers rated by the power they consumed, not by the power they delivered to a load. So a 20 watt RMS =25watt IHF= 50 watt EIA might be a 100 watt or more by this new method without a name. Finally about 1975 the FTC stepped in and required not only the most rigorous rating method in use but required a 20 minute preconditioning at 1/3 rated power. Even so, Big receiver manufacturers like Marantz, Kenwood, Pioneer, Sansui started building flagship units with 150 wrms and more. Other models with power ratings of 60 wpc rms became commonplace. 100 to 200 wpc solid state amplifiers also became very commonplace as well. The issue of adequate power for all but the least efficient speakers like Bose 901 or electrostatics was for all intents and purposes over.

[E-Stat]

The issue of adequate power for all but the least efficient speakers like Bose 901 or electrostatics was for all intents and purposes over.

Agreed. I have always centered a system around the speaker that meets the greatest number of my priorities. The choice of amplification is secondary. Since I favor the purity of condenser transducers, be they microphones or speakers, I am faced with a higher power requirement. Given the availability of a wide range of higher power amplifiers, I find that to be a non-issue.

rw

[RGA]

Of course the entire issue is moot - If you own the AN E you can use either a 5 watt amp or a 500 watt amp. If you absolutely despise tubes great - but if you want your low watt tube amp option open - Totem etc is not going to cut it.

Watts are abused -- like my over generalized statement that high efficency is more lifelike in dynamics the notion that high mega watts are going to be a better sounding amplifier is also. I mean just look at those 550 watt JVC boom boxes with big red flashing lights - I mean they look as tacky as it can get but for a kid sure would be "cool"

But it's interesting that that despite all that it won't play as loud as an E and 8 watt amplifier. Not even remotely in the ball park. Because a few of us know the relationships between sensitivity even if just enough to get us by we are not going to be conned by buying watts alone. But does the average consumer?

I guess this is what saddens me more is that people out there who want good sound are looking at woofer sizes and watt figures and the size of the speakers - what reviews have to say - I have looked after the purchase more out if interest not as a gode me into buying them.

My first experience with watt nonsense was when a Arcam at 75 watts sounded better than the 125 watt flagship Pioneer Elite and Denons of the time(Mid to late 90's). Especially noticable in the bass. If the difference can be that startling - on a sub satelite system from M&K and my own 95db horn Wharfedales - easy as pie to drive - then I began to wonder what the hell the spec sheets were all about. The Pionner claimed numbers that Bryston would be proud of - but only when the Bryston was hooked up I no longer wanted to sell what I thought were flabby crappy speakers - was not the speaker after all.

I can't see needing more than 60 watts to drive any loudspeaker to acceptably loud levels. 4 watts to get 87(average speaker) decibals at 8 feet is still bloody loud.

I remember listening to a carver or CJ or something that had the actual meters on the channels - driving a set of speakers i don;t recall - but not a horn - and they had these thing rattling the walls of the store - very big room because it was the open entry area - the meters never exceeded 12 watts and that was just momentary bursts - and we're talking deafening levels - most of the time the meters were sitting at 1-4watts with little bursts. Kinda of fun to watch actually. But if yu were listening at normal levels even normally loud levels this thing would probably not move past 6. The sepakers were probably in the range of 89-91db like many today are.

Even my audition of the N805 surprised me because I was expecting the 8 watt Meishu to have all sorts of probelms - but not so. So how can I anyone who heard that system say that 8 watts isn't enough - I was playing it pretty loud - sure another could play louder the math will show that - but my hearing is intact and I'd like to keep it that way. Though an 80 watt amp would get the N805 to play twice as loud perceptually going by the numbers - I don't really see how it could do that so I'm a bit skeptical of those max watt numbers of the speakers.

[E-Stat]

I can't see needing more than 60 watts to drive any loudspeaker to acceptably loud levels. 4 watts to get 87(average speaker) decibals at 8 feet is still bloody loud.

Naturally that depends both upon the speaker involved and the music played. I am perhaps a bit unusual in that my musical tastes are rather wide ranging - I may follow up listening to Madonna with Stravinsky. On average, the power levels with classical music are far less, but - on an instantaneous basis, such wide dynamic range material can demand very much higher levels. I have listened to a pretty wide range of high powered amps, SS and tube alike. Only with the larger tube amps do I perceive an elusive quality of "authority" or absolute control and lack of strain. That is why I have a pair of 450 watt tube amps. And if money were no object, I would have even more as I have heard what a pair of VTL Wotans can do.

rw

[RGA]

Naturally that depends both upon the speaker involved and the music played. I am perhaps a bit unusual in that my musical tastes are rather wide ranging - I may follow up listening to Madonna with Stravinsky. On average, the power levels with classical music are far less, but - on an instantaneous basis, such wide dynamic range material can demand very much higher levels. I have listened to a pretty wide range of high powered amps, SS and tube alike. Only with the larger tube amps do I perceive an elusive quality of "authority" or absolute control and lack of strain. That is why I have a pair of 450 watt tube amps. And if money were no object, I would have even more as I have heard what a pair of VTL Wotans can do.

rw

I can accept this - the other thing we need to note here as well is room size and your prefernce for volume levels - And loads of other things. The AN's have a lot of plusses but ultimate volume capability is not one of them. They are not going to play like a club speaker can play in terms of volume level.

As an aside I was reading about one of the VTL amps that was a technical marvel telling you how hot your tubes were running auto bias between tracks, how much life is left and slew of other rather interesting things. Pretty sure it was VTL - big watts - it was in one of the last two UHF magazines. Tubes are not the same as they once were. Audio Note has one tube unit rated for 100,000+ hours or ~11 years 24 hours a day - or gee for many people that would be 3 hours a day for 88 years. And we're worried about tube life?

[E-Stat]

I can accept this - the other thing we need to note here as well is room size and your prefernce for volume levels - And loads of other things... They are not going to play like a club speaker can play in terms of volume level.

My room is relatively large at 30x15 feet. At age 47, I have long ago given up listening at ear bleeding levels. In fact, I wear ear protection when mowing the lawn or using the trimmer. Using my Radio Shack meter, I record instantaneous peak levels at seating position in the low 90s.

As an aside I was reading about one of the VTL amps that was a technical marvel telling you how hot your tubes were running auto bias between tracks, how much life is left and slew of other rather interesting things. Pretty sure it was VTL - big watts - it was in one of the last two UHF magazines.

You are referring to the Siegfrieds that use computer controlled circuitry to constantly monitor and maintain ideal tube bias for the output tubes. They are special amplifiers indeed. If memory serves from discussing the design with him, he incorporated four separate design teams to create the product.

http://www.vtl.com/pages/Amplifiers/Siegfried/


rw

[RGA]

You are referring to the Siegfrieds that use computer controlled circuitry to constantly monitor and maintain ideal tube bias for the output tubes. They are special amplifiers indeed. If memory serves from discussing the design with him, he incorporated four separate design teams to create the product.

http://www.vtl.com/pages/Amplifiers/Siegfried/


rw

And they say tubes are low tech - that thing looks futuristic. And at 175lbs how can people say you're not getting anything under the hood with tube amps?

Please at least you're getting solid weight to tube amps. And 800 watts. Yes I'm sure tube amps suck. I'm sure my Marantz SS reciever is much better than the VTL.

[92135011]

I guess my main question is...why would anyone need 1250 watts or 800 watts?
I guess if you were powering speakers for a large hall or something. But unless you were the Saudi King, you probably dont have a hall that large. Even in a normal banquet hall or something, chances are, VTL quality is not really required. Most concert halls just hook up some Cerwin Vega's to a car amp or something cheap like that. As long as it makes sound, its all good.

[RGA]

I am not comparing a wega to a 30 year old television. What I am saying is there isn't something enw about a tube set today than there was 30 years ago or the principle behind todays VCR as opposed to one 20 years ago. The new ones are certainly BETTER.

Electrostats have been around for decades - no doubt today's versions are better because they have been continually been betterring the parts quality. Even Sugden managed to get better sound and a few more watts because of improved capacitors among other things that could handle heat better. Princaply there is nothing new about any of this.

Getting to the actual thread which is focussed back to the E - it is no different than having a stat platform and improving it - they have improved the Snell platform.

Toole does not comment by giving a review but he does work for Harman - Harman has a speical interest in aqcuiring Toole to be on their staff - and when tests are conducted blind Harman speakers come out best. Excuse me for seeing some bias here. Some of those speakers do very well in the blind sessions at Hi-fi Choice(The Intermezzo 2.6 is a Rabos design and was awarded a Best Buy) so there is certainly merrit in them(i'm not saying buy Audio Note or nothing - but these were also awarded a best buy and recommended etc)

- I like to see external listening sessions rather than those conducted by the people selling the speakers. B&W can do a blind test where B&W's come out on top and Harman speakers come out last and B&W can hire a team of world experts and George Lucas himself to imply that this is the best approach to building loudspeakers and that most people will choose our loudspeakers because their measurments dictate that they are the superior design blah blah blah- and all of that is fine because it helps make a sale much of the time. Except the flaw in this is that that doesn't necessarily happen when I and a LOT of other people go and listen to the speakers.

ML I like and I have not changed my view of them because of their impedence - but they have had trouble with integration always have of their woofer - and they require gobs of power - they have worked on this many of their panels now don't go under 3 ohms.

Many stats and panels are consistant with their impedence - even when low impedence it's not as jumpy. And they offer certain advantages people like over any boxed speaker including Audio Note. They also have plenty of disadvantages as well - so what else is new?

[Woochifer]

I am not comparing a wega to a 30 year old television. What I am saying is there isn't something enw about a tube set today than there was 30 years ago or the principle behind todays VCR as opposed to one 20 years ago. The new ones are certainly BETTER.

Well, you're trying to weave this argument that in the good ole days, products were about quality and service, and now everything's about profits and disposability first. How does that explain the fact that TVs now are far superior in performance to anything that was sold 30 years ago, more maintenance free, and much lower in cost?. I suppose if everybody had to pay the equivalent of $3,000 for a basic color TV, then the motivation for repairing as opposed to buying a brand new one might actually exist. The TV is fundamentally about a cathode ray tube (though that is changing very quickly), but the ancillary electronics that surround it have completely changed. What TV nowadays uses vacuum tubes, manual channel dials, analog tuners, and manually controlled vertical and horizontal hold?

Toole does not comment by giving a review but he does work for Harman - Harman has a speical interest in aqcuiring Toole to be on their staff - and when tests are conducted blind Harman speakers come out best. Excuse me for seeing some bias here. Some of those speakers do very well in the blind sessions at Hi-fi Choice(The Intermezzo 2.6 is a Rabos design and was awarded a Best Buy) so there is certainly merrit in them(i'm not saying buy Audio Note or nothing - but these were also awarded a best buy and recommended etc)

If you actually read their white papers, you'll note that they discuss how to use blind testing in the design process, and how their listening setup is designed. It also discusses how in sighted listenings, the sight biases become the main determinent. Has it ever occurred to you that blind listenings are something that manufacturers mainly use to test evaluate their own designs with one another? I don't see anything about how Harman speakers rank higher than other speakers in their tests, and there's no indication as to what speakers they use in their tests. If Harman does tests like that, they certainly don't discuss that in their white papers, so I don't see where you get this idea that there's some kind of conspiratorial bias at work, or that those white papers are nothing more than biased fluff pieces. Your obsession with brand identity and condemning all things about marketing is leading you to make some pretty misguided generalizations about documents that I've used multiple times as a guide to setup my system. It's sound information, often very technical, but worth reading if you're at all interested in learning about how scientific concepts translate into everyday listening. If you equate that to Bose marketing pieces, then it's obvious that you've never bothered to read them.

I like to see external listening sessions rather than those conducted by the people selling the speakers. B&W can do a blind test where B&W's come out on top and Harman speakers come out last and B&W can hire a team of world experts and George Lucas himself to imply that this is the best approach to building loudspeakers and that most people will choose our loudspeakers because their measurments dictate that they are the superior design blah blah blah- and all of that is fine because it helps make a sale much of the time.

Like I said, I've never seen Harman put any listening results in their white papers, and for technical discussions like that, subjective product reviews are not the focus. EVERY speaker company wants to convince you that their approach is the best, but very few companies publish anything approaching the technical level of what Harman releases. It doesn't matter what speakers you own or like, those white papers present valid findings that can help anyone with an interest in seeing how scientific findings can help improve their own system performance.

You lay all kinds of blame at Floyd Toole's feet without knowing what his actual function within the company is, or citing what about his writings you can refute. Your only response is that you don't like the speakers his company produces, therefore everything that he's written is marketing bull****. In case this point hasn't sunken in, Toole is NOT a speaker designer. Yet, you talk about him as if every speaker that you've ever hated was actually designed by him. Harman affiliate speakers aren't necessarily my favorites either, but I've put their publications to the test and found the information therein to be spot on.

Except the flaw in this is that that doesn't necessarily happen when I and a LOT of other people go and listen to the speakers.

Yeah, and who among your LOT of other people has ever done any kind of unsighted evaluations? You mention that "doesn't necessarily happen", well if you're doing your comparisons under sighted conditions and you're comparing that to blind tests, obviously it's an entirely different evaluation. If you believe that you're capable of equally judging things under both sighted and unsighted conditions, then why don't you put that to the test? I used to do blind tests when calibrating tape bias settings for different cassette tapes (trying to identify the setting that was most transparent to the source playback), and the "night and day" differences that I thought that I had picked up on under sighted conditions turned out to be much more subtle and difficult to discern under blind conditions. Same thing occurred when comparing cables, so I'm well aware of the degree to which sight biases can have a tangible influence.

[RGA]

The point is moot anyway - Hi-fi CHoice is the only magazine doing anything resembling a blind test - they get around validity(which typical blind tests do not) far better than a test though because the differences are assumed and it's not actually a testing environment but an evaluatory one. Big difference between the two from a psychological perspective.

As for Harman they have in fact done tests that according to them reveals that some journalists chose the S26 JBL over B&W 601's. And Toole conducted it - go read up - it was all nice and vague and done over short listening per usual - and plenty of weasel words like most of us chose the S26 on most tracks - not everyone and not on every clip - the S26 has a nice spike around the 1-2khz range - of course that is not mentioned as to why people chose the speaker in the short listening session. I assume this is the original 601 which was not a very good speaker really, but hey the implication works for Harman so whatever. Of course everything coming out of their research will put their speakers in the best light.

Blind I have listened cd players and amplifiers blind. Speakers being so wildly different in sound is not a requirement - though I suppose if one was comparing metal tweeter slim line designs of general size then it might be a good idea. Name bias - Well all the biases available would have B&W way out in front of Audio Note: a name I knew, a product I owned and liked, tons of good reviews, expensive, great looking, well built - lots of technology - George Lucas uses them, world renouned, really big company, won't be out of business any time soon, good customer support Adio Note - never heard of them butt ugly paper freaking woofers - you gotta be joking -- despite all of these disadvantages when it comes to sound it isn't remotely close when one actually sits down and listens.

So frankly I am uninterested in what the white paper thumpers are on about. I'll just say that I am not surprised AT ALL that other posters preferred the $550.00 AX TWO to the N805 at $2k.and this ilk. Frankly, after listening to AN it's pretty tough to buy into what companies like Paradigm, Energy and PSB put on their web-sites - sorry it's my opinion and that opinion - however others may disagree and hey there will be those - my opinion is a preference and to my ear those three are in Tee Ball playing AN's who would be the New York Yankees. Some of them make good speakers The N805 is very good - but...

Your tv arguemt I already said about 8 threads ago so why you keep on about it I don't know - I already said that low price makes it not worth fixing because it would cost more to repair it - and I stated that because the price of things back then was so expensive it made it worth repairing because one could not afford to buy new. I conceded the point - The technology has improved - trying to bring that back to tube amps doesn't fly - once again people only need to go out and listen presumably to good equipment and it will be readily apparent. Well perhaps not to every listener.

Old tube amps are in such high demand because people think the sound is better. Of course all of these people are all delusional naturally.

Frankly - I really don't care - you folks want to be skeptical that is fine by me - you said you had other priorities than 2 channel no problem there. It's your money buy whatever you wish. AN will be to you just another one of those quaint little high end makers who tinker with old gear - know nothing of acoustics and charge too high a price and snowed everyone into buying - fine you all can believe that if you wish - no skin off my nose.

AN sure does not need me or anyone or themselves advertising their products. They sell just fine to people who simply listen to music. Why advertise when your product sells itself? - No need for white paper links - no need for product literature - no need to buy advertising space - No need to advertise a famouns name who uses your speakers - the only thing you need to do is put your speaker/product up against the other guy's speakers and let people listen. Simple approach.

Be happy with whatever you want to own - so will I and we'll leave it there - everyone is happy with their choice - I no longer care about being right - I will follow 925011 well stated and simple response. I have a feeling I'm going to be quoted yet again in this thread - please just be happy with your choice - go on about the science and the white papers and the history of stereo and transistors versus tubes and the relative costs blather blather. I would buy into it - if to me the sound supported it - to some of you it does great - enjoy.