Get a grip.....

[Daan]

Just got up over on this side of the pond [NL] and read your posts.

If there is confusing amongst you what I mean, then it's my fault and not yours; English is not my native language.....

By "grip" I mean the amp's ability to control the cone-movement in both ways during demanding passages or playing loud, resulting in a more accurate reproduction of the original recording.

Just wanted to know if what we think to hear [ that "they play more livelier than ever"] with the Bryston instead of with the Denon [which is not a receiver btw] can be explaned.

The C15-W woofers used in the Classics , of which I'm talking ,have a very stiff suspended cones ;they will need some muscle to get them moving. Maybe that's the whole issue, as the K-33 woofers from the La Scala's are suspended much softer.

I posted my question because it seems redicilous to use a 250W /ch amp on a pair of big 102Db efficiency hornspeakers in a normal sized livingroom, although it sounds better.

[Shakeydeal]

Since no one bothered to answer my question I am going to make the assumption that the Denon in question is indeed a receiver and not a power amplifier.

With that in mind and as much as I tend to abhor Brystons, I would expect it to outdo a Denon receiver. And keep in mind that 100 watts isn't always equal in every situation. Power supplies are going to tell the story when an amp is pushed. Add to that, no two power amps sound the same, even when power is equally rated.

Long story short, the Bryston should sound better than the Denon, but that bar is so low that I would keep looking. Something better can be had for not a lot of cabbage.

Shakey

[willland]

Since no one bothered to answer my question I am going to make the assumption that the Denon in question is indeed a receiver and not a power amplifier.

Sorry Shakey but I think the OP did answer your question.

Denon [which is not a receiver btw]

I was wondering myself but found it embedded in the text.

Bill

[erik2A3]

Amplifier topology may be only part of the story. There are numerous factors associated perceived synergy between components, and the kind and strength of output devices in use (as in hollow vs solid state) are not the elements in the equation. Interstage impedance relationships both between individual components, as well as with components themselves, play a big role, too. Moreover, not all La Scalas were created equal in terms of balancing networks. The AL, in particular, has been found to be problematic for some users, some of whom, including myself, found it to be ultimately less transparent and immediate sounding than some of the other comparatively more simple Heritage networks (as in type A and AA). Fewer passive components in the form of inductors, capacitors, and resistors (often in shunt positions) encourages lower insertion losses than would a network by my personal early favorite, the type A. Insertion losses present a greater burden to the power stages in amplifiers, which, if one happens to be using extraordinarily low amplification, as in single-ended 2a3 or 45 triodes (which I have used and continue to use) or a 1.5 watt channel OTL amplifier (which I also own and often use), translates, for some tastes and preferences, into muddying of sound, indistinct imaging, and just a less satisfactory presentation overall.

However, when that same AL network is put into position with some real power behind it, the formerly heavily veiled reproduction and inaccurate timbre of instruments is very quickly improved and polished up. The difference is not subtle, and is the reason that some very high order crossover networks, which (again for some people -- everyone is different) can be spectacular with higher power amplification, do less well with single-digit-watt amps,

Though I do know of some who have very steep slope crossovers in use with SET amps and are happy. The tastes and perceptions of the user in question is of course the most important determine factor in what is 'good' or less good. In my view, at least.

[pzannucci]

It's easy to understand the grip vs power statement if you have owned a bunch of different amplifiers.

One comparison is something like a Rogue Audio 88 or my Jolida 801 tube amps I used to have compared to a Murano Audio P200s amps I had at the time as the Rogue. Arguably the Rogue may have more headroom than the P200s IcePower amp (100w at 8ohm vs 60w tube at 8ohm) because of soft clipping and the Rogue was slated to sound more SS than Tube.

Well the Murano amps would trounce the Rogue on the bass, mid-bass lines because it was faster, tighter (not nearly as loose - boomy/bloated but not there) as the tube amps - just more there. This was easily evident at 1 or 2 watts with KLF-30s to Khorns. So when I think grip I think of bass mostly. That is where the power, topography, and dampening (something tube amps don't have) come into play. Tubes can do the mids and highs better than a lot of inexpensive SS equipment due to taking off the edge much SS has. Some people like it but some people don't.

I can even compare the P200s amps to a new Pioneer SC-1222 (same amps as their Elite receivers - D3 based on Ice) and even in that configuration, you can immediately tell the difference in the control. The Pioneer, though slated to be one of the best sounding AVRs I have heard (along with some mags) when paired with the right speakers, doesn't keep up.

The real item here is component synergy. Once you hear real grip on the bottom end, you won't want to give it up

[willland]

The real item here is component synergy. Once you hear real grip on the bottom end, you won't want to give it up

I second that statement. Once I first heard an Acurus A150 on my Heresys, I could not believe what I was hearing. It was immediate. Grip on the bass was an understatement. That is when I became an Acurus "fan boy".

Bill

[Ski Bum]

Here are some of my own observations that seem relevant. A K-25K woofer (stock forte II woof), using a worst case scenario zero nfb single ended tube amp (output impedance ~3ohms) results in electrical deviation of <+/-2 db, with the deviations centered on the woof's resonant freq. Keep in mind that 1) this is an electrical response, not an acoustic response; the room does far more damage than +/-2db; and 2) this amp has almost no headroom, maybe 5 watts before it becomes objectionable. In comparison, the electrical response using a proper and powerful amp is flat, but I found that the added power tends to excite room modes much more than the non-linear amp, simply because it can go so much louder at the offending frequencies. The big ss amp results in more "room boom" and "loose" sounding bass than the lower power amp, requiring eq, speaker repositioning, etc. to fix it. More bass is not necessarily better bass.

I'm weird, I like tubes and have the whole system and room optimized for their peculiarities, so an amp change, particularly one with audible bass differences, requires a bit of fussing.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Ski Bum

[Schu]

I posted my question because it seems redicilous to use a 250W /ch amp on a pair of big 102Db efficiency hornspeakers in a normal sized livingroom, although it sounds better.

you know... I never quite understood this view, even though it IS a view shared by 99% of the folks specially on this forum.

I standardized response is that it's a waste... why is it a waste? I would never run any amp I owned near 100% of it's output because I want to limit distortion, so why would it matter in the slightest manner if I owned an amplifier and decided to run it at 40%-50% (or less) of it's output?

the only possible argument I can see is that lower output amplifiers generally are less prone to distortion, which I agree with... but my 250w amp's are extremely low in distortion.

Since my system ALSO seconds as a semi Home Theater set up, I do need some higher rated amp's for that duty.

I guess if you are really driven and need the "grip"... you could bi amp and use a different set up for the LF section.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Schu

[Zen Traveler]

I posted my question because it seems redicilous to use a 250W /ch amp on a pair of big 102Db efficiency hornspeakers in a normal sized livingroom, although it sounds better.

you know... I never quite understood this view, even though it IS a view shared by 99% of the folks specially on this forum.

For me it would be a cost vs benefit analysis...Why buy something that you don't need when that money could be spent on something else? Fwiw, here is a thread I started recently at AVS: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1532635/would-i-benefit-from-an-external-amp

Edited June 2, 2014 by tkdamerica

[Schu]

For me it would be a cost vs benefit analysis...Why buy something that you don't need when that money could be spent on something else? Fwiw, here is a thread I started recently at AVS: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1532635/would-i-benefit-from-an-external-amp

of course there is that component... the "logic" portion of the argument.

obviously there is that lowest common denominator aspect that says you should only spend X to achieve Y... but I don't think that is what I was trying to get at.

I think when I made my choice to go with SS over tubes, initially it was one convenience and solid measurable "in a box" thinking. Tubes, for a beginner, seemed like black magic with MANY MORE variables and tune-ability to consider. When I made my choice of manufacturers, I wanted plug and play goodness along with 2 channel warmth.

Manufacturer "claims" lead me to compensate for hyperbole they always use and I made sure I had enough to get by for my foreseeable and varying needs. certain I could have gotten 500w monsters, but I was trying to balance lower distortion and better sound with slightly more than enough power... this lead to the 250w (@ 8ohms) models.

now I am at a spot where I am the happiest I have ever been (component synergy was critical here), and everything is working beautifully together.

If I followed the general consensus, I would be putting my 250's up for sale and looking for 125's-150's... and I just do not see that as beneficial even though I would be saving some $. The latest generation of Class D's and extremely efficient and cost effective Operationally. I am not using the higher output to specifically merely generate more db's.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Schu

[Ski Bum]

I never quite understood this view, even though it IS a view shared by 99% of the folks specially on this forum.

The numbers seem much less ridiculous when expressed in dbW. Then the prodigious power is expressed in a way that puts things into better perspective, where those hundreds of watts only buy you a handful of extra headroom. It would never fly due to marketing reasons. Which sounds more impressive: "150 w, 180 w, 220 w, 340 w, 460 w", or "21.76 dbW, 22.55 dbW, 23.42 dbW, 25.31 dbW, 26.62 dbW"? (They each say the same thing.)

I've always felt that when it comes to solid state power, too much is just enough. You never want it to clip, ever, as even tiny amounts will ruin the illusion.

[Daan]

I guess if you are really driven and need the "grip"... you could bi amp and use a different set up for the LF section

You are right; I use three amps in combination with the miniDSP. Compared to using passive crossovers, going active has been a great discovery.

The Bryston 4B powers the LF section now, and two Decware Zen Tube-amps [mono's] the left and right HF section.

Thanks to the versatility of the miniDSP everything is "synchronized" in terms of sensivity. Ofcourse there's the difference in gain of both types of amps which will make the LF section play louder at some point when cranking it up, but we don't experience problems with that.

The idea is to have the sonic benefits of the SET mono's for the mid and highs, while the SS amp uses it strength on the low end.

So far it's a very good match !

Thanks for your thoughts guys, one of the great things of beeing here is that many people have their own experiences and are willing to debate about them so I can learn a bit every time.

Nico

[beeker]

Aerosmith!!!

[The Dude]

Aerosmith!!!

For comments like this there ought to be a thumbs down button.

[kaiser SET say]

You mean like this?

[Zen Traveler]

If I followed the general consensus, I would be putting my 250's up for sale and looking for 125's-150's... I am not using the higher output to specifically merely generate more db's.

Thanks for posting in my thread over at AVS but as others there have pointed out isn't that the only benefit you would be getting? Once you provide enough current to drive the speaker without clipping then adding more power isn't going to make it sound better at a volume it wasn't distorting in the first place. Of course, there is more to this hobby than prudence and logic, but otoh, there is also a lot of things to spend money on....

Edited June 2, 2014 by tkdamerica

[garyrc]

That is where the power, topography, and dampening (something tube amps don't have) come into play.

Assuming "dampening" is the same as "damping" .... I remember McIntosh bragging that their 60 watt mono tube amp had a damping factor of 12!

Edited June 2, 2014 by Garyrc

[pzannucci]

That is where the power, topography, and dampening (something tube amps don't have) come into play.

Assuming "dampening" is the same as "damping" .... I remember McIntosh bragging that their 60 watt mono tube amp had a damping factor of 12!

Nah!!!! Brain fade really...

The 12 they used to brag about barely holds the woofer taught (I'm going to get beat up here ). Might have even had a fair amount of frequency variation with the speaker impedance due to the output's.

[Schu]

Thanks for posting in my thread over at AVS but as others there have pointed out isn't that the only benefit you would be getting? Once you provide enough current to drive the speaker without clipping then adding more power isn't going to make it sound better at a volume it wasn't distorting in the first place....

let me preface this by stating I am only beginning my understanding of this realm of sound and never contend to be of any authority.

however, I don't completely agree... though I do agree in part.

db's are part of the benefit you are getting. I also think that the speaker/amplifier interaction is only part of the equation, and that part is probably of lessor importance.

I think the assumption here is that by adding more (wattage), you should be receiving more in return... whatever that more is, whether it is db's or as you stated better sound, you should be seeing MORE BENEFIT by adding more wattage in order for it to be of any worth... I say that is the incorrect way of looking at the equation/issue.

I haven't purchased slightly higher wattage amplifiers to get "MORE GOODNESS", I purchased them so the goodness that the units provide keep them operating at a more relaxed and controlled level.

I don't believe distortion is a completely linear phenomenon meaning that the more value you apply to the signal, the higher the distortion and graininess. Higher wattage SS amplifiers are of good build quality offer EXTREMELY LOW distortion ratings but like all things, the more you push them towards the rated limit, the higher the distortion. Therefore having this extra "headroom" means that I only need to run them at a fraction of there total output capabilities to listen at the levels I desire... ie: less distorted and cleaner signal for a given listening level. I hate to use the word "headroom" because of all the negative connotations associated with it but I suppose that is exactly what it is... more than enough with reserves to spare = headroom.

There is one other thing that I think also applies here... It is mainly that in these modern times, many of the modern recordings/compositions we listen to demand extremely fast response times from the amplifier in order to deliver precise accurate representation. Recordings these days have all kinds of extreme peaks and very sudden power demands that require the amplifier to respond in milliseconds with high output power. Having that power on reserve helps to fulfill this need with very fast response speeds instead of straining to keep up.

Mainly, we're talking about Home Theater at this point, which my amp's also double for even though it is of secondary concern for myself. I have also found that many of the modern soundtracks I listen to as part of my 2 channel enjoyment seem to make similar demands on my system with what are extreme peaks... all combined with LFE at times.

I am sure I will be corrected by some here, but that is my understanding from others with far more expertise than I.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Schu

[seti]

There are so many threads that beat this horse into the ground on the forum over the years. There are some that are even fairly entertaining.

I've switched to higher powered SS and tube amps and back and forth over the years. Generally I am happy in the short term with higher powered amps but never long run.

To each his own and the wonderful thing about this hobby is there are always exceptions. In the end if your happy that is all that matters..

Edited June 3, 2014 by seti