|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
137.254.4.4
I recently heard my 2 Way monitor with Accuton Ceramic drivers (80Hz to 22kHz, Sensitivity: 80dB/watt/meter, impedance does not fall below 7 Ohms) powered by Mastersound 845 Monoblock Tube Amplifier (Class A, 50W RMS/channel). It sounded far better than my NAD C390DD Direct Digital Amplifier which is (Class D, 160W RMS/channel).The sound of NAD was clean/lean, and I was trying to add warmth/body to my music system by changing cables. With Mastersound tube amplifier, the sound now had body, holographic (huge soundstage) and was easy to listen for long periods of time. I live in an apartment and I do not crank up the volume. I would be satisfied if I play music up to 90dB. Based on SPL calculator, I require at leaset 25W to get 90dB at listening position 10 feet from the loudspeakers.
This experience has made me think that I need 'better power' rather than 'more power' (quality of watts vs. quantity of watts). Has this been your experience? Should I change my amplifier to a Class A tube amplifier to add warmth/body and soundstage to my music system? Are there any solid-state amplifiers that have similar sound?
Note:- I will be adding a Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofer to my music system soon.
Edits: 06/28/12Follow Ups:
Some folks with class AB amplifiers (or switching amplifiers will sat sometimes the first watt or even 1/4 watt - where the music signal resides a greater portion of the time - with normal sensitivity loudspeaker. An inefficient loudspeaker - like a magnepan or small monitor forces the signal high enough so the bias point is not in the "small signal" range - of course a higher voltage (and power) amplifier is required. The other way - class A Single ended requires high efficiency loudspeakers to take give you the dynamics from their characteristic low power output.
Note High power and lesser Quality (signal fidelity) are not mutually exclusive properties. And Cost is not a direct relationship either.
Three most important things in Audio reproduction: Keep the noise levels low, the power high and the room diffuse.
.
IMO, a basic requirement is to listen at enjoyable volume levels. This is almost as basic a requirement for a power amplifier as "can I connect it to my speakers?"Quality is then critical for listening enjoyment. We plug in power, but we buy quality. IMO, both are essential. If a compromise was absolutely needed, I would drop the power requirements to maintain quality.
Happy listening.
Regards,
JerryS
Edits: 07/01/12
more important on lower power amps or low sensitivity loudspeakers is the way the amplifier behaves when clipping!
Quality is important because most the time we listen the average power is only one or two watts or less. At two watts though a musical transient might require passing a 20dB higher than average signal. If the amplifier cannot swing it's voltage or current (or both) - to cover that transient (Peak power of 200Watts) the the amplifiers clips the signal. For some amplifiers it gracefully limits the signal and continues tracking the input voltage after the peak. Other amplifiers - under some or all loads - hickup on recovery - sometimes for just a momment.
Why test reports do not report this - even after articles (even in Stereophile) have documented this behavior. Note: the sound of this "clipping" events is not a click or obvious aural artifact - as it is sometimes "hidden" in the music that passes after (and sometimes before) the event.
Three most important things in Audio reproduction: Keep the noise levels low, the power high and the room diffuse.
It looks like there are not many powerful SET (845) amplifiers in my price range.
How is the EAR Yoshino 834T ? It is a 100W MOSFET amplifier with a tube circuit. It is supposed to have a signficant subset of tube sound.
How about the MC2 Audio 1400? It is designed by a well respected designer, Terry Clarke. It has 775W RMS @ 8 Ohms. It can drive my inefficient speakers easily. However, I do not how it is voiced.
How about the Transistor Research Labs ST-225 integrated amplifier / Samson power amplifier? I have heard the TRL Dude preamplifier and I like its voicing very much.
I am also considering Ayon and Dodd.
I think these amplifiers are in my price range.
The MC2 Audio MC1200 has been discontinued but can still be purchased badged as Quested AP1400. They were (or are) also rebadged as Tannoy, DynaudioAcoustics, TurboSound and Funktion One.
According to Roger Quested, an extremely highly regarded designer of studio monitors (he did the Abbey Road monitors before Abbey Roads owners decided to take the cash offered to them by B&W to use theirs) it is the best amp in the world today regardless of price.MC2 Audio amps have been voiced by Ian McCarthy who in his previous career co-founded E.A.R. with Tim de Paravincini. Terry Clarke, the founder of Klark Teknik then made it road-worthy and practically bomb proof. You can run them on full power forever if you want or need to even if you run four 8Ohm subs in parallel ie they are stable into a nominal 2Ohm load.
I spoke to Ian on the phone once and according to him in domestic use you are highly unlikely to ever leave class A operation.
Edits: 07/02/12 07/02/12
You can't go wrong wit this one. I don't know about the others.
Observe, don't think
This experience has made me think that I need 'better power' rather than 'more power' (quality of watts vs. quantity of watts). Has this been your experience?
I agree. High resolution systems sound more *live* even at lower levels.
NT
To me the terms have different meaning. "Live" is an attribute of reproduction. "Alive" is an attribute of music.
One can go to a concert in a hall that has good acoustics and sit in a good seat. The music will sound live. Unfortunately, if the musicians are falling asleep or clueless the music will be dead.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
.
That is my mantra for amplifiers. Get the quality first over quality... A little off topic, but still in the ball park!
"If the audio industry built gear that sounded as good as it did 50 years ago, there would NEVER be a need to re-issued anything!"
Unfair comparison, Awe-d-o-file is right.
You are correct, there is such a thing as quality vs quantity.
A lot depends on the speaker. You have an easy one to drive and that makes all the difference with tubes. I should point out though that even though transistor amplifiers can drive lower impedances that is not the same as saying that they will sound better doing so- even they do better on higher impedances if sound quality and nuance are your goals.
There are tube amps that will give you the same sound stage with more bandwidth and less coloration though. Its a never-ended quest...
You might want to take a look at this link.
Thank you, Ralph. The link is very informative.
Is it? It seems to be full of assertion, with little empirical justification.
It's an interesting hypothesis, "Power Paradigm" amplifiers have lower psychoacoustically-important distortion than "Voltage Paradigm" amplifiers.
Both of parts of this ought to be justified and tested experimentally.
This is all a matter of audio history.
Don't believe me? Google 'fisher A-80 amplifier". On the first page of hits you will see a You Tube image.
You don't need to look at the video- just the image. Its a picture of the feedback knob on the amp. Fully counterclockwise its labled 'Constant Voltage', at 12:00 'Constant Power' and fully clockwise 'Constant Current'.
The issue was back in the 50s when this amp was made was that not all speakers worked properly with a low output impedance amplifier, just like today. This could easily result in the crossover frequencies being shifted, odd resonances, stuff like that. You had to adjust the amp for the speaker.
Today the Voltage Paradigm has sort of taken over, but like the LP and vacuum tubes themselves, failed to actually displace the prior art, which was the Power Paradigm. The two design criteria have been in conflict in audio for 45 years!
Right now I am guessing you did not read the article fully, as I am going to point to an example in it- that of the Sensitivity spec for loudspeakers as opposed to Efficiency. The former is Voltage Paradigm and the latter is the Power Paradigm spec. You see this in recording studios too- in the old days everything drive 600 ohms with 1 watt... now that is all a matter of voltage. I could go on, but instead, why not go back and read the article a little more closely? Then we can discuss it if you like.
The NAD is nice. It's an integrated amp for about $2500. The Mastersounds are power amps only, weigh about 75 pounds each and cost about $17,000/pr. PLUS you need a preamp with them. It's time to compare apples to apples a little more than what you did. What pre did they use with the Mastersounds?
You mostly get what you pay for in this world. Just a little smart shopping can insure that you do these days with so many resources available.
Tubes are different than SS and you may like them a lot more as many people do. My opinion is class A is also a lot different sounding to the good than typical A/B. Good luck on your search.
ET
Your experience is TYPICAL for a person with resolving system and healthy ears.
To be fair, NAD digital amplifier is by no means "cream of the crop" in any imaginable category, so it would be wrong to assume, based on your experience, that tube amp will be inherently better than SS in your system. There is a possibility that you'd like quality solid state amp just as much, or better.
Please - ignore nonsensical "quality of watts doesn't matter" responses below. It surely doesn't to respondents with unresolving systems and bad hearing, but that's clearly not you.
You sound like a high-end manufacturer!
You sound like a "measurements mean everything" objectivist......
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
Do I? Strange my views are a lot more reasonable than that.
How about 97% science and 2% tweaking or voicing, call it what you want, and 1% serendipity?
N/T
You guys are tinkerers when you should realize you stand on the shoulders of giants.
Spit in the soup all you want.
Which giants be these? Where are their shoulders to be found? In these lofty regions will there be enough oxygen?
If you can't answer these questions to my satisfaction then I shall assume that your are out of your depth.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Don't confuse science with technology...
You should try to assemble a decent system, check your hearing if needed, and listen carefully.
Yeah, sure let's all be obsessed by the system and forget what the goal is.
What are you resolving anyway?
Why do you hold this belief that recording equipment is so much better than playback equipment that every month a piece of new and improved playback equipment will make you hear more detail?
How many bloody veils can you lift (if that expression is still used) from analog or, heaven forbid, digital recordings before you run out of veils to lift?
Well, I resolved several days ago to immediatly skip to the next post at the first unqualified instance of the phrase "high resolution" or it's variants. So far the scheme is working well, I recommend it.
Intelligent comments rarely ensue once the schoolyard taunts begin and I've not seen the unqualified term used in any other fashion since it came into vogue as an insult a few months ago on AA.
I got a good chuckle from your question, it's both legitimate and a great rejoinder...
Rick
That's not the case with those who don't understand what "resolving system" is.
Judging by your posts, where you question the most basic things like quality of power affecting sound etc., you do not.
Here's my take, adjusted for you and middleground specifically:
Resolving system is the one that puts to rest beliefs you hold, and the kind of questions about sound quality both of you ask in this thread.
You do specialize in tautology, right?
"you question the most basic things like quality of power affecting sound"
Oh no, I don't question that at all and if you concluded that based upon one or more of my posts then I apologize as it is certainly not the case.
"Resolving system is the one that puts to rest beliefs you hold, and the kind of questions about sound quality both of you ask in this thread."
I don't know what YOU mean by "resolution", surely you aren't just using it as a synonym for "good" or "that which I like" which is what I get from the sentence above.
My point is simply that the term "resolution" is meaningless without either either a qualification or custom. Resolution is the limit of detection, the ability to "resolve" something or another under controlled conditions to some degree of statistical confidence. The photo world uses the term a lot, or at least used to pre-MTF and in general it's how many lines-per-inch you can make out in an image after it's passed through the whatever, usually a lens.
So even though photographers don't spend much time taking pictures of lines, the results and their appearance helps you to know how sharp a picture your niece will turn out.
What would YOU say the appropriate units are for whatever it is that you call resolution? Just knowing that will probably get me on the same page the fastest.
Rick
The only unit high-enders understand is USD (or whatever currency is in use where one resides) and the only equation that counts is: more money = better sound.
Well, it not like there is NO correlation between the USD metric and sound, but I haven't found it to be reliably monotonic nor very predictive for particular instances.
My take on it is that throwing money at the problem is suboptimal but that sometimes the best solution costs more than you might wish.
Rick
Being retired, everything costs more than I might wish!
Audio is beyond the pale however.
"Audio is beyond the pale however."
I'm retired too but I think good audio is more affordable than ever. It's just confusing because we don't have either a good handle on all the variables nor a suitable understanding of the required performance. Shoot, we don't even know if there IS a singular solution across individual users.
Price-wise good sound is available across the spectrum from free to lofty luxury-goods.
Makes for a fun hobby!
Rick
PS: It isn't just stereos, ask a birder about binoculars, a runner about shoes or a fisherman about flys.
is so much better than playback equipment that every month a piece of new and improved playback equipment will make you hear more detail?
Go ahead and burn it.
If you'd like for us to consider your argument, then please stay on task.
Whatever, logic has gone out the window long ago in audio.
The sound is night and day different from SS or PP tube amps. Your speakers, as you say, are pretty insensitive, but easy to drive. If they sounded good with the 845 amp (Class A), you won't get very close to that sound with SS. About the closest you could come to the 845 sound with a tube amp (25W+) is a PP-triode amp (triode-wired power pentode), but probably class A/B instead of all Class, as Class A PP triodes are usually down around 10-12W.
Why not get an 845 amp?
Observe, don't think
Do you have any suggestions in the #3-4K range?
Look at Triode, a Japanese company. Otherwise, not in an 845. Don Garber's 2A3 and 300B amps are in the 4-5K range, now, I think. I have his 2A3 monos, but you could not drive your speakers very well with so little power.
Observe, don't think
There were the old Melos amps. The monoblocks put out over 400 watts triode, push/pull of course, with about 25 watts before switching to class A. The stereo amps did about 1/2 that. And they also had a fairly high damping factor around 20 so they were quite tolerant of speakers with wildly varying impedance frequency wise.
I'm not familiar with that amp, but it must have had more than 4 power pentodes per channel. The most 2 x KT-88/6550/per channel will get in Class A is about 12W. A 300B PP with 2 tubes per channel may get you a bit more in Class A. Finding a class A PP triode commercially is virtually a non-starter in this, the high-power age!
Observe, don't think
nt
Quality is everything, power almost nothing (obviously the amp must deliver SOME watts but more than about 50 is unnecessary in 95% of the cases).
I have heard 30 watt SET amps CRUSH 500+ watt monos in terms of sound quality even driving relatively tough speakers. Your experience is not unusual to me.
"Should I change my amplifier to a Class A tube amplifier to add warmth/body and soundstage to my music system? Are there any solid-state amplifiers that have similar sound?"
Yes! and No.
...is the key, as well as a good match to your speakers.
Quantity comes into play when you want to turn it up.
A 75 watt tubed amp is usually considered to be as powerful as, maybe a 125w solid state amp, because the tubed amp clips more gently.
There is no such thing as "quality of watts".
... no such thing as "quality of posts".
Does that mean that you believe that there are better watts than others, in a technical sense I mean?
Or does it mean that your subjective audiophile's sensitivities are jangled by curt responses meant to prod the faithful?
A bunch of things matter in amp design and production, but to take one unit of measurement and twist it to make it say falsehoods is simply wrong.
The small amp sweet amp mantra is one of those counter-intuitive notions dear to subjective (are there any others?) audiophiles.
I think that to take technical terms and subjective terms and make a mishmash out of the whole thing is akin to tavern talk: maybe a lot of fun, but don't confuse it with any real effort to describe and analyze reality.
I think there is some difference in watts (the way we measure amplifiers today). Maybe someone will come up with a unit to measure the sonic difference between amplifiers.
I think you should elaborate because so far all I read here is tautological.
Sure there is!! There's 'tube quality', and everything else. ;-)
The little Forte 4 transistor amp provides 50 watts of Pure A. A nice deal can be had for 800 - a grand, depending on upgrades. And yes, I have one.
Is the manufacturer still in business?
Also best as monoblocks but that will run around $2,500.
Years ago, I had a pretty good sounding system - with a powerful B&K A/B amp driving Vandersteen 2Ce speakers. My current speakers are probably considered "modest" compared to the old Vandersteens, but I prefer the sound I'm getting from my current system, all things considered. The Forté 4a is a wonderful amp! :)
Only general comment I can make is you be the judge. After all, it's your own ears you have to please. If you are happy with volume then watts be the answer/ If instead you prefer subtlety, real music, emotion and connection with the experience then the answer is rather obvious no?
Emotion hey?
I always love that one.
I keep looking for the "emotion" control on an amp.
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Obviously wrong kind of amp? All my amps have an emotion button.
And we've all seen this one. Some amps have more emotion knobs and buttons than others. ;-)
Abe,
You need to copyright that quickly (unless it's stolen, of course).
Listening in Them Woods
.
Cool!
.
Like unto some well known ads of the past ;-)
vs.
.
.
Not sure you can dial them down enough to work with the 80 dBmw speakers. I ahd almost to the bottom my 2wqs (both of them) when i matched them to the Soundlabs, which are supposedly 84 dBmW sensitivity. try before you buy.
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
I will try the subwoofers before I buy. I am also considering TBI Magellan.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: