 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
143.97.2.35
I have looked at the technical specifications of some Audio Research amplifiers, and I wonder how important the ‘Power supply energy storage’ parameter is for the amplifiers performance.The VT100 Mk.II has an energy storage capacity of 540 joules, while the almost twice as expensive VT130SE has just 325 joules. Even the VT150SE monoblocks has got just 420 joules, which is also got less than the VT100 Mk.II.
How does this influence the amplifiers performance? Will the VT100 MK.II be better at handling difficult speaker loads? I plan to use either the VT100 Mk.II or the VT130SE with my B&W 801 Matrix S3 loudspeakers. Which amplifier should I hang on to, and which shall I sell?
Follow Ups:
Regarding difficult loads, source impedance also matters. I had a VT100 MKII and found it was able to drive my earlier Acoustat electrostats very well. On the other hand, a pair of VTL MB-450 monoblocks having only 500 joules of storage significantly bettered the ARC amp.Comparing the two channel VT100 to the mono VT150SE, you need to double the latter's supply: 540 joules vs. 840 joules. No comparison.
rw
I am not an expert on ARC but I have some experience with VT100mk2, classic30 and VT60se. For what it's worth I would say that ARC has perhaps the best "drive" factor on loads from my experience, compared to other tubeamps I know of.I have also seen the facts on the arcdb site, but keep in mind that there are other differences also, like damping factor etc, and the fact that the VT150's are monoblocks - 420joules times 2.
I have not heard the VT130SE or the 150se's but I think I would like to own them before the VT100. I think they are classics but thats just my opinion. Difficult to say what amps would work best for you.
Best of luck to you
Atle
Energy storage means alot. But for what it's worth, when manufacturers start rating their amps by Joules, they're just showing off, trying to sound electrical and dangerous. I think the formula is the working voltage squared times one half of the capacitance in Farads. So, if you have a working voltage of 450V, you square that for 202,500 times any capacitor, say 2000uf, so 1,000 to the-6th will equal 202.5 Joules. So, for any 2,000uF cap operating at 450WV, you have an energy storage of 202.5 Joules.Having sufficient energy storage can mean that you can play louder, longer passages of music without much voltage sag, consequently lower distortion. Also, it can lend 'authority' to bass, though it doesn't actually extend bass response. It can also lower the noise floor in any component, and the higher the number the lower the hum, but not necessarily hiss, directly.
As for difficult speaker loads, I don't know. All things being equal, I think the difference in energy storage may be viewed in this way. Given two combs, both with 25 teeth per inch, one is six inches long, the other is twenty-four inches long. Which will be better to part your hair? (depending on whether or not you have hair. I don't have much left, but I remember such things and it seems to me that the image is about right. ) It seems to me that when you talk about energy storage and difficult speaker loads, you are talking about the length of the comb rather than number of teeth per inch. A stable amp with little energy storage will do much better than an unstable amp with a large capacitor bank. I don't think any of the amps you mentioned fall into the unstable category. I don't know...I could be wrong.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
