|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.181.239.45
In Reply to: Was hoping to generate some good debate regarding the benefits of big watt units versus small. posted by HamBone77 on February 27, 2007 at 14:56:48:
You originally asked:
Would, say a Marantz 2600 @ 300 wpc have an improved tonal quality over the 25 watt receiver at similar decibal levels?If the speaker is a Lowther, the answer is almost unequivocally "no".
It it is a Dahlquist, the answer would be a decidedly qualified "maybe".A 2600 at 100 mW will sound like lukewarm crap.
A single-ended 45 amp at 100 mW will sound like real life.Your Advents are quite inefficient and will sound their best with a fairly powerful amplifier. That being said, the AR-1 (grandfather to the Advents) was developed (just) prior to the solid state "revolution", and was meant to work with, say, a push-pull EL34 amplifier (ca. 35 Watts continuous) in the real world.
A CR-1020 or 2020 would be a fine match for a pair of Original Advents.
Follow Ups:
mrh brings up the question of low level signal quality. I first grasped that concept back in the 70s when I used an AR integrated amp with my first pair of Advents. The amp sounded fine at high levels, but resolution went out the window at low levels.While Advents can benefit from short instantaneous bursts of high power with dynamic musical content (Rite of Spring, etc), they require very little power on an average basis. Most of the time, my 400 watt Threshold amp plays music at reasonable levels below 2 watts. At that power, it runs pure class A and benefits from having has no protection circuitry and a large power supply. In my older age (50), I have come to appreciate the qualities of low level resolution (which my main system does even better).
More power is good, but not all powerful amps sound the same where they spend the most time - sub watt output levels.
Seems, as I expected, that it is not such a simple question. It seems the answer points towards the many threads regarding the rewards of "matching" components that compliment one another.Would it be an accurate assumption that those in the late 70s and early 80s that chased wattage and huge speakers were in some ways chasing ghosts?
As you have noticed, matching is the key...
Would it be an accurate assumption that those in the late 70s and early 80s that chased wattage and huge speakers were in some ways chasing ghosts?What is a big speaker? A Klipschorn is a big speaker. It is very efficient, and does not need a lot of power to play loudly. But you can.
Many two way stand mount monitor speakers are much less efficient, and need power to sound their best.What is a lot of power? In the early 70's most entry level Mass market amps and receivers, were around 10 watts/channel. Most lines had models for every price point. What were you willing to spend? 100? 2 3 500? Can a company afford to put the same tuner and preamp in its $300 30 watt/channel receiver that it does in its $549 60 watt receiver?
Is 60 watts/channel enough? To drive 4 speakers? At 4 Ohms each? During a party?For a few years, I listened to a pair of AR-2a's driven by a Kenwood 28 watt/channel receiver. I was satisfied with the sound, especially in a small bedroom. But eventually I noticed that the louder I turned up the volume, the better the AR's sounded. They seemed to "Open up" the more I cranked up the volume. It seemed that I was missing something listening at the normal volumes I normally listened at. Or perhaps the speakers were not matching well with that amp. Sometime later, I had occasion to use the speakers (I still have them) with much higher powered amps. I tried a Sansui G-7700 (120 watts/channel) and a Sony TA-3200F amp (100 watts/channel). With both those amps, there seemed to be more "ease" to the music. Like there was more reserves, more dynamics, I could draw upon to drive the music, if need be. Even listening at moderate volumes, I had that sense that there was always some "extra" behind just waiting. It seemed to make listening at moderate volumes sweeter. Contrasting that with a Yamaha CA-410II (35 watts/channel) I had, which did not sound any different than the Kenwood. Of course, that Yamaha really did not sound like anything, that was a neutral amp...
So yes, some of the 70's power wars was hype. Some companies threw all the best things they could come up with in their top Receivers. And the low price and low power units usually cut corners to cut costs. So probably the best place to be is in the middle. Isn't it always?
--Matt
"Cold Turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds..." --Homer Simpson
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: