|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.200.146
In Reply to: RE: Recent and future amplifier measurements posted by Davey on November 11, 2015 at 11:02:44
provide insight to an amp's ability to drive a range of loads which certainly can be important with many speakers. Since I've been using full range electrostats since the 70s, I have needed to use amplifiers capable of driving challenging loads for optimum results. What's to disagree about here?
On the other hand, it is a quantitative measure as opposed to being a qualitative one. Peter Aczel thought the power cube response of the Behringer A500 was quite good. Which speaks nothing about its overall sound quality.
At least, it sounds uniformly poor across a wide range of speakers. :)
Follow Ups:
I'm well aware of the Powercube objectives.
You say quantitative, I say qualitative.
Regardless, once again you've created a straw man with the Behringer example. I was talking about the case where amplifier-X (that you've subjectively evaluated and think sounds great) comes up well short when enduring a Powercube measurement scenario. Another straw man, admittedly...but it seems this is the only thing you can understand.
So, I assume your conclusion (based on your quantitative comment) is that Powercube measurements are valid but with qualifiers? I would not disagree with that.
I see a lot of complaining in this thread about amplifier testing being invalid without complex loads. The question quickly becomes what complex load would be appropriate? Pick a speaker system at random and use it for a "baseline" complex load? Since various speaker system impedance loads vary all over the place, that doesn't help much.
And of course, it won't help much if a tester wants to explore the maximum power capabilities of the AUT. (Destroyed speakers.)
The Powercube at least makes an effort in this (complex testing) direction. I think it would be a worthwhile addition to JA's amplifier testing scheme. More objective data is always good. Whether it's ultimately deemed irrelevant and/or misinterpreted by audiophile agendas is sort of beside the point.
Cheers,
Dave.
Regardless, once again you've created a straw man with the Behringer example.
Evidently, you missed the point illustrated. While the A500 may be able to drive a quantifiably wide range of speakers, its sound quality nevertheless remains poor. Got it this time?
So, I assume your conclusion (based on your quantitative comment) is that Powercube measurements are valid but with qualifiers?
They tell you what they tell you. Nothing more. The ability to drive speakers with odd phase angles and reactive components is most certainly ONE consideration for selecting an amplifier.
The question quickly becomes what complex load would be appropriate?
Very good question since there is such a wide range of variations. I have no particular preference.
I think it would be a worthwhile addition to JA's amplifier testing scheme.
As do I. It would help narrow down the field for those who choose speakers with demanding loads. I am of that number.
The Threshold Stasis I used for over thirty years driving electrostats fared very well. Nelson specifically designed them to drive the Dayton-Wright. Similarly, I have also experienced very good success with the current VTLs (as have other Sound Lab users) for more than a decade.
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: