Jeff Matthews

Paul, I know what you mean. All these questions, and here's what I learned - which is good. (1) there is such a thing as a 60-watt amp that will deliver plenty of precise slam and that 200 more watts headroom is not all that necessary at all with Klipsch. It might be good for less efficient speakers or speakers that are needed for live concerts such as those performed in concert auditoriums, etc. (2) the difference between the 60-watter that will do that vs. the 60-watters that don't seems to be largely a factor of the power supply and matching capacitance, which incidentally adds lots of physical weight to the amp. So, though I learned a 60-watt amp will do it, this reinforced my impression that all you need to do is lift the amp and see if it's real heavy as compared to the shelf models in department stores. If so, it'll probably give good punch and slam. Something old, something new..... The reason all these questions came up is when Meagain was saying her sound quality could be improved for her newly-acquired KHorns, I suggested she replace the shelf-model HK receiver with a "serious" amp. She responded that the HK had 65 wpc with 85 wpc peaks, and I said it was not enough. Everyone chimed in and said 65 wpc is definitely enough, and we had a big headroom thread over this. As it turns out, 65 wpc is enough with the right power supply - which apparently is the heart of the amp. So, my definition of a "serious" amp has changed. Meagain, I will re-phrase that suggestion I made awhile back. Go get you an amp that is not combined with a pre-amp or a tuner - and make sure it is heavy as hell. [] Then, I think you'll notice a remarkable improvement in the way those Khorns sound.

It ain't the money, Bob. Trust me. What I am struggling with is why I can't hear a difference with Rick's re-caps. The point of this is not to do with the money. Instead it has to do with when you suggest it'll be good for my ears, I want to hear it, so I can thank you and mean it. []

The question I posed above was to ask in the end whether these voltage in/voltage out ratios have anything to do with sound quality, and one ratio might be preferred over another. Would be good to know this ratio when looking at specs of an amp of unfamiliar brand? Just wondering. But no, I'm not looking for an amp - this is just so you can impart some knowledge to me for who knows when.... Thanks.

Shawn, you da man! I get it. I get the math, but I want to make sure I get the "real world" application. Is it that the multiplication factor (e.g. 15v per volt) by itself, means nothing? Or is it important because in your "amp B" example, you can run out of dial before you reach the amp's max?

Guys, I know you are right because you are all in agreement. I wish I could understand, but I think it would have to start with "See Spot Run." So, I won't belabor the point out of courtesy. It would be nice to understand, though. Anyone who cares to share their knowledge of the formula that fits this, I'm all ears, but I'm not going to bother anyone who's had enough of my questions. Craig LeMay, you have e-mail.

Is there a joke in there? If not, please explain.

Rick, if I read correctly, voltage is directly related to power, and therefore, that's why you'd have to turn the dial or more or less, depending on voltage (which seems to directly relate to power), to achieve the same loudness. Shawn, how about one more time... Trust me, you will educate me with a little patienc, and it will work. I am not trying to argue against your point - just trying to work it out in my head so I stop thinking the way I have. "If they were playing at the same volume, they were putting out the same power." This would mean that it takes 1/2 the dial to get x watts out of my Crown and about 2/3's to get the same x watts out of the tubes, correct? My thought on it was the dial is there to start out at the bottom - letting nothing out, and to wind up at the top - running the amp wide open (maybe not a perfect reasoning, but you get the idea). So, having to turn the dial more to get the same volume, is an insight into how much amp power remains - not what has been used - but what remains. Right?

Double spot-on, then! That explains to me what I said early, early on about auditioning the KHorns I bought. The seller tried to demo them for me through a Marantz receiver, which I just "knew" was not going to let the KHorns shine. I knew it because I've seen this lackluster performance of receivers matched w/Klipsch on a number of occasions. When the Marantz did not cut it, I milled around the seller's rooms full of hi-fi and eye-balled a rackable amp (I think Definitive). I lifted it, and it was heavy. It took both hands - unlike the Marantz that you could carry cradled against your hip in one arm. That amp did the trick. So, instead of knowing what specs you'd look for on paper, I guess I could probably go by the old "weight" rule of thumb.

Okay, Max, please clarify because here's what we have: (1) Crown, Yammy pre and HK CD, playing "Babylon Sister" by Steely Dan - turn it up 1/2 way. (2) VRD's, Yammy and HK CD, playing same tune - turn it up 2/3 for the same loudness. This was roughly the difference. Either way, you get all the loudness and dynamics you want, but I thought the difference of having to turn the dial more was due to power.

D-Man: I know that now and am not confused anymore. I am confused about what makes the difference, other than wattage - because I've seen 60-watt winkies and 60-watt slammers. Frzn: Thanks. 2 follow-ups: Are the power supply and capacitance banks the main difference? The reason I ask is because I thought these components were relatively inexpensive and certainly not enough to transform a $500 receiver into a $2500 amp. Second, what specs in a power supply and capacitance would you look at as a standard for reference? I'm just wondering if there are any specs along these lines that are included with specifications sheets that typically come with amps/receivers. I should look for power supplies that have...... (you name it). I should look for (you name it) to know if the amp/receiver has good supporting capacitance banks.

We don't. []

Okay, so I've come to see that 60-watts will produce equal slam, dynamics as my 310-watt Crown - so long as you have a good "first watt." Somebody who knows (I'd bet NosValves knows) - pease answer this. What components or specs of a good 60-watt amp make it have faster, punchier slam than say, a 60-watt HT receiver?

This was my point in the other thread where I stated tubes would be a waste for old Jeff. Craig I admit that, with the exception of the pre-amp. The only thing that would keep me from a tube pre-amp is the fact that I already have a pretty decent SS pre-amp. If I was looking for a pre-amp from scratch, I'd go tube pre all the way.

That's true. Craig kind of took off to the kitchen while I test drove it in 6th gear.

On the KT-88, I hope it isn't the result of something we did re: cranking it up. If so, let me know. On the power issue, I agree that the difference in power is obvious, but not as far as sound goes. The difference only related to how far you turn the dial before it's too loud. Either way, they both have enough power to do what you want with the Khorns.

Are you saying all we're talking is an efficiency drain?

Yes.

Look at Craig LeMay's (Born2RockU's) profile. I think its a Scott 130 tube pre that was freshened/rebuilt by Craig Otsby (NosValves). Based on what I heard, I would recommend it - but you would need to know that the difference probably comes from NosValves' work.

Craig would have to answer this.

What do you mean set to "small?" Please explain wiring or whatever you are referring to.

Max, we listened at moderate volumes, too, although not whisper levels. The review stands across the board, except for low volumes - we did not bother with that. And liquefying the Crown with the Scott tubes was very noticeable. It's good to see we have disagreement on the wattage we were pushing. Wonder where this will fall out. So many, with so much scientific, knowledge; yet, so little agreement. At least you showed the math.... Craig LeMay can probably chime in to give his take on what we heard/didn't hear.

But what is it that is not associated with, or in, that first Wal-Mart Sony watt that is otherwise in, or associated with, the first watt of good equipment?

Cal, please explicame this: Why, if the first watt is so important, does my cheap Wal-Mart Sony 5.1 Receiver not do diddly squat? I don't know how many watts it was - I remember the box saying (to me) it's enough to crank. Well, it's not. Not even close. It couldn't even BUDGE the woofers on my Corns. It was just a dumb little test I wanted to try after I got KHorns and moved the Corns downstairs to the TV room. So, why can't Sony's first watt compare to NosValves' first watt, your first watt or my first watt. If it's not the watt that gives the slam, what is it? MaxG stated in an earlier post he thought it had to do with the size of the power supply (and its resistance?). Is this true? I would think that if it is, you could upgrade the power supply on any piece of junk for a modest price and get all the slam you want for under $150.

Yes, you did. [:$] I have only 2 sets of past observations that led me to this error. One is, I've never seen a department store grade receiver produce the same quality of slam, although I have seen many get plenty loud. The second is I've heard McIntosh amps/receivers at Home Entertainment (now Tweeter) on a number of occasions many years ago, and while they sounded pretty good, they never seemed to crank. My guess is the salesman were just not going to crank it out of fear - or out of thinking I wasn't interested in hearing 115dB. All said and done for me, I found my Crown jewel. And with its pedestrian price, it certainly did everything the McIntosh did for sure, and then some. Anybody agree Craig and I were listening to 6-12 watts?

I wonder why..... [] Well, we went there. I asked him about his xovers because I did notice a difference. I thought the squawks were more subdued. But, I also noticed that there were 2 huge distinctions in lay-out. His KHorns were a few feet wider apart than mine (about 4 or so), and they were pointed where the sweet spot is 14.5 feet away. Mine are pointed where the sweet spot is about 5 feet away. So, on mine the squawks are right up on your ears compared to Craig's. I noticed this as I was in front of his system, so the sweet spot was pointed about 8 or 9 feet behind me. We did listen from the 14.5-foot distance, and by then, I wasn't prepared to judge on speaker comparisons - it just sorted of all flowed together where our focus was on the other components. Want to box some up for a postage-risk-only try-out? I'll promise a review. [] They did sound different, though - whether it was xovers or room lay-out, or both. BTW: I had to laugh a little when reviewing this because you MUST be wondering whythe position of the sweet spot in my room is only 5 feet away. My room is 10 x 9. [] Actually, I have my speakers behind me when I play drums, so that I can reach back and control the stereo and pop in different CD's without getting up from the throne.