Is More watts better?

[RGA]

If all things are indeed equal then more watts is better than less watts, to bring it down to your level more Audio Note watts are better less Audio Note watts irrespective of speaker sensitivity, whether more watts are necessary is another matter entirely. By the way I did get to hear the Audio Note J-Spe, and other Audio Note gear not relevant to this discussion, and it sacrifices bass depth for higher sensitivity, a trade-off that is not unreasonable since Audio Note sells low power amplifiers. Going to Brighton to listen to Ongaku is certainly not on the cards for a variety of reasons.

Actually I agree with you here. If all else is equal then more watts is better For instance my amp is 10 watts if another exactly the same sounding amplifier called the OTO 2 existed and it was 30 watts then as long as it sounded exactly the same and the price was not exorbuitantly more (a personal judgement call) then yes I agree with you. I'm not against more watts so long as more does not make it worse. With many amplifiers separates are indeed better - for instance I would take a Bryston 3bST with preamp over the B60 and I would also go separates with AN rather than buy the Meishu but these are more about sound quality reasons than power reasons. The OTO is not a true integrated amp -- it is one of their preamps and power amps stuck in one box -- or separates in a box.

Remember though that AN also does in home trials -- they will come to you. Even here they lend the stuff out to people for weeks at a time - don't know about over there.

[kexodusc]

The OTO is not a true integrated amp -- it is one of their preamps and power amps stuck in one box -- or separates in a box.

.

How is this different than any other pre-amp on the market? Most I've seen are exactly that.

[RGA]

How is this different than any other pre-amp on the market? Most I've seen are exactly that.

Integrated amps are not full size separate units in a box. The B60 is not a 3bST and their .5 preamp. No they have a smaller power supply share circuits. The OTO can be purchased as separates -- I believe the M1 preamp and the P1 power amp. The OTO is simply cheaper less noisy and does not require the external interconnect.

I am not going to get into the ins and outs because I don't buy amplifiers or anything else on the technology or the technobabble but on the sound. So all I can do is direct you to what AN claims -- and you can feel free to e-mail them or ignore it. With regards to the integrated amplifiers this is what Peter claims:

"Unlike the majority of integrated amplifiers, which are technically compromised in order to meet their price target, an Audio Note integrated amplifier is a full pre-power amplifier combination, complete with independent power supplies, in a single box. Therefore, rather than being a compromise, it is an advantage. Single box construction provides a shorter signal path and more ideal interstage matching giving obvious sonic benefits. The Meishu takes this principle several steps further and provides separate valve rectified choke smoothed power supplies for each amplification stage." (go to http://www.audionote.co.uk/ click products and then click level 3) [As an aside {nobody who does not have direct access to an all An system need read this bit} -- to this article Indeed, a nice test is to compare the Meishue or OTO with the AN speaker against say a Bryston B&W speaker. What you do is play the B&W set-up at 85decibals to a group of people blind with a given piece of music -- you will need a rat shack meter at the least for this. Then play the same cut on the AN system of around 80-82db and then ask the participants which one sounded louder. Avoid playing bass heavey music though as the B&W's wikll be disadvantaged and bass to the ear often sounds louder so try and avoid stuff under 50hz - anyway I only mention it because a relative of yours has the speakers and this should work -- this note is only in regards to the link I provided and the issue of volume related to resolution - that which is clearer seems louder or does not need to be turned up to be made out so the competing set-up needed to be played louder to seem as loud as the more resolute one.]

Audio Note technically does not make a true integrated amp in the usual way -- in that they said let's make an integrated amp which is usually filled with comprpomises (The B60 is worse than any of their separates for example) -- With AN they are separates in one box and many of them had or had separates like the M1 pre and P1 power amp. The other thing is that while the OTO is cosnsidered a level 2 product in their line - the M1 and P1 are considered level 1. So if indeed you agree that the OTO sounds better than the separates then that supports his argument of shorter signal path being better blah blah blah. The advantage of many separates is that of reducing noise -- but the AN amps are so physically large using such good parts even for an entry level amp that everything seems spaced far enough apart to not be a problem -- the OTO is nearly as large as my 300 disc changer.

Of course I have heard the M8 and Kageki power amps and they blow the OTO to dust. My view is you get what sounds best to you through the speakers you have. The M8 and Kegon costs well over 15 times the price of the OTO and actually have 2 less watts per channel.

[kexodusc]

Integrated amps are not full size separate units in a box. The B60 is not a 3bST and their .5 preamp. No they have a smaller power supply share circuits. The OTO can be purchased as separates -- I believe the M1 preamp and the P1 power amp. The OTO is simply cheaper less noisy and does not require the external interconnect.

I am not going to get into the ins and outs because I don't buy amplifiers or anything else on the technology or the technobabble but on the sound. So all I can do is direct you to what AN claims -- and you can feel free to e-mail them or ignore it. With regards to the integrated amplifiers this is what Peter claims:

The only beef I have with the comment is the implication Peter makes that all other integrated are always built with compromise to achieve a price target. When you really think about it, there isn't a product on Earth that isn't compromised in this fashion to some degree. But, that's a rather unfair comment to make. Instead of accusing companies of lining their products, why not approach it from the point of view of the consumer who doesn't want to fork out big bucks for 2 separate boxes where no audible advantages exist.

I can't speak for Bryston's integrateds, but smaller power supplies aside, a lot of integrateds aren't much different than their separate counterparts. A lot of cost is eliminated when you don't have to build 2 chassis, and buy a whole separate power supply (even small ones cost a good chunk of dough).

You can take apart an old NAD integrated (I haven't checked new models) and compare the guts to a smaller amp and pre-amp. You'd be hard pressed to find a difference in circuitry where it matters. Most of them are the same. The difference is their circuits are integrated, so there's no input/output stage on the two components in the traditional sense, just a direct feed. The power supply is generally the same size as the amplifiers, so I suppose it is disadvantaged by having to power a whole other piece of electronics, but pre-amps dont' consume much power at all and once activated don't fluctuate current demands much and won't make difference unless you overdrive the amp anyway. Arcam has been quite successful at employing this strategy. Especially with their newer a/v receivers, which are the best sounding a/v receivers I've ever heard.

Adcom even made a few integrateds for awhile, but gave up on this practice not because the product was compromised, but because their customers didn't like the marriage of both components requiring upgrading both at once. Perception drives this business more than substance, I think.

[RGA]

The only beef I have with the comment is the implication Peter makes that all other integrated are always built with compromise to achieve a price target. When you really think about it, there isn't a product on Earth that isn't compromised in this fashion to some degree. But, that's a rather unfair comment to make. Instead of accusing companies of lining their products, why not approach it from the point of view of the consumer who doesn't want to fork out big bucks for 2 separate boxes where no audible advantages exist.

Well Audio Note is considering costs for the average Joe which is why they save the consumer money by putting two separate componants in one box. This is different that designing and building a new 'inferior' product to lower the price to hit a target market. The difference is that the OTO got cheaper and also got better than the M1 and P1.

Don;t get me wrong I'm not saying there are not great integrated amplifiers -- there are MANY I like and of course all companies have budget products including AN. So Peter makes compromises. That is why I think he should re-write what he has said there. I understand what he means in that he didn't go and make a compromised integrated to meet the accountants' plan, but make a less pricey version of their separates. But the M1 and P1 are technically compromised or priced to less financially well off market which is what he accused other makers of doing. In other words he is listening to the M10 and Gaku-on not the P1 and M1 or OTO (these are targetted at a budget).

I can't speak for Bryston's integrateds, but smaller power supplies aside, a lot of integrateds aren't much different than their separate counterparts. A lot of cost is eliminated when you don't have to build 2 chassis, and buy a whole separate power supply (even small ones cost a good chunk of dough).

Well the difference is that the B60 isn't as good and it's targetted to people with less money and hopefully more efficient speakers. I'm far less interested in the technology than the result. I could care less if it's in one box or ten boxes. I prefer the Sugden A21a sound wise to a great many separates that are out there at more money. Sometimes separates are better. Both can be expensive or inexpensive -- At one time I was considering a tube preamp and two monoblocks for what would have been $497.00US from ASL. My point though was about watts -- going separates can actually provide less watts.

You can take apart an old NAD integrated (I haven't checked new models) and compare the guts to a smaller amp and pre-amp. You'd be hard pressed to find a difference in circuitry where it matters. Most of them are the same. The difference is their circuits are integrated, so there's no input/output stage on the two components in the traditional sense, just a direct feed. The power supply is generally the same size as the amplifiers, so I suppose it is disadvantaged by having to power a whole other piece of electronics, but pre-amps dont' consume much power at all and once activated don't fluctuate current demands much and won't make difference unless you overdrive the amp anyway. Arcam has been quite successful at employing this strategy. Especially with their newer a/v receivers, which are the best sounding a/v receivers I've ever heard.

Well I can't argue this but what one company does is not what all companies do. There are several OTO amps one is a push pull -- looking at it you can;t tell the difference -- but there is a world of difference when the cover is taken off. AN simply has bulk boxes to cover the inards. I had an arcam Delta 290 integrated which has an internal switch to make it a power amp - the power amp section is identical to the Delta 290P power amp. So yes many companies use the exact same power amp. Though the separates to me sounded better than the 290. Again it's largely going to be company and design dependant.

Adcom even made a few integrateds for awhile, but gave up on this practice not because the product was compromised, but because their customers didn't like the marriage of both components requiring upgrading both at once. Perception drives this business more than substance, I think.

I always liked Integrated if they had a preout. This way you could buy a good integrated on a budget and then later down the road buy a power amp and use the integrated's preamp. Then years later you could save up and trade the integrated in for the preamp. This is one of the best things about going with an integrated so I don;t buy Adcom's line - most others not in home theater seem to like integrated's.

That is one down side with some of AN's Integrated's in that they are matched for specific power amplifiers according to their level system approach and very likely the impedence matching.

Indeed, I'm not sure that the Ongaku even has outputs for separate add ons -- but then it was not really designed to meet a price point.

[theaudiohobby]

Integrated amps are not full size separate units in a box. The B60 is not a 3bST and their .5 preamp. No they have a smaller power supply share circuits. The OTO can be purchased as separates -- I believe the M1 preamp and the P1 power amp. The OTO is simply cheaper less noisy and does not require the external interconnect.

I am not going to get into the ins and outs because I don't buy amplifiers or anything else on the technology or the technobabble but on the sound. So all I can do is direct you to what AN claims -- and you can feel free to e-mail them or ignore it. With regards to the integrated amplifiers this is what Peter claims:

"Unlike the majority of integrated amplifiers, which are technically compromised in order to meet their price target, an Audio Note integrated amplifier is a full pre-power amplifier combination, complete with independent power supplies....

Then maybe you can explain this quote

The Meishu's pre-amplifier is only designed to be used with the P3 for bi-amplification it is NOT designed as a general purpose pre-amplifier.

The power amplifier section needs to be loaded with a speaker load otherwise it will, if left with signal in and no load, damage either the valves or the output transformers or both.

On the other hand, there are products on the market when the preamp sections can be used as a general purpose amplifier.

The point you are trying to make in the second part is rather unclear, the 800D will go louder and deeper than any current production Audio Note, the 800D spec is a freefield measurement, whereas the AN-E/Spe is an in-room corner loaded measurement. Secondly, the B&Ws (800D, 802D) covers about the same equivalent bandwidth with 3 drivers that the AN-E covers with a single driver, at 8 inchs, is the same size as a single 802D bass driver and smaller than any of the bass drivers of the 801D or 800D. In addition the B&Ws have a much stronger frame as well as larger internal volume. Given all these, it is a practical impossibility given optimal driving conditions that the AN-E can go deeper or sound clearer than the B&Ws, especially <100Hz. The B&Ws have the AN-E totally whipped in the resolution and bass depth department by design and they can play louder Note the B&W can be used reasonably close to a wall, you just need to know what you are doing.

[RGA]

Then maybe you can explain this quote

On the other hand, there are products on the market when the preamp sections can be used as a general purpose amplifier.

Sure I can. The Meishu is an integrated amplifier of spearates designed specifically for one another and not designed to be a price point saver. After all the Meishu is more expensive than a number of their separates. I believe that is the point he was making but I grant you it's not a clear one -- maybe he should hire a marketing department after all!

The point you are trying to make in the second part is rather unclear, the 800D will go louder and deeper than any current production Audio Note, the 800D spec is a freefield measurement, whereas the AN-E/Spe is an in-room corner loaded measurement.

Well first the E is designed to be a corner loaded speaker so any measurement that is not an in room at roughly a normal listening distance is a rather pointless measurement to make. That is the problem -- one would need the 800D in the same room and measured the EXACT same way. Magazines and other outfits measure in a way that is not always condusive to the speaker in question which is why many of these reviewers have to make excuses for the results.

Secondly, the B&Ws (800D, 802D) covers about the same equivalent bandwidth with 3 drivers that the AN-E covers with a single driver, at 8 inchs, is the same size as a single 802D bass driver and smaller than any of the bass drivers of the 801D or 800D. In addition the B&Ws have a much stronger frame as well as larger internal volume. Given all these, it is a practical impossibility given optimal driving conditions that the AN-E can go deeper or sound clearer than the B&Ws, especially <100Hz. The B&Ws have the AN-E totally whipped in the resolution and bass depth department by design and they can play louder Note the B&W can be used reasonably close to a wall, you just need to know what you are doing.

You're welcome to that opinion - I have been fortunate enough to hear them in the same room and B&W sure doesn't convince me or those of us there listening or selling it of this.

[theaudiohobby]

You're welcome to that opinion - I have been fortunate enough to hear them in the same room and B&W sure doesn't convince me or those of us there listening or selling it of this.

It is not opinion, it is a fact, bass depth is an objective reality and measurable in a lab. As I said in another thread it is a practical impossibilty for the AN- E is whatever guise to have more bass depth than either B&W800,801or the 802D, it simply a'int possible. As mentioned earlier AN J-Spe, I took a listen, has bass commensurate to its size and design, it sounds like a medium sized standmount that it is, corner loading notwithstanding and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the AN-E in whatever guise will be any different.

[RGA]

Man you should get your low frequency hearing checked - typical of a standmount that size LOL your're a dreamer.