Jump to content

Choosing an amp on the basis of tone.....


maxg

Recommended Posts

Mark raised an interesting question in another thread that got closed down on the basis for assessing an amp.

The implication was most of us choose an amp - apparently - on the basis of its output power but not on the basis of its tone (as an example of an alternative).

I for one am not sure I want my amp to have any tone at all. I expect to get flavour (or colour - choose your language) from the front and back ends of the system along with the pre-amp - but the amp....shouldn't that be as close as it can be to straight wire with gain?

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 355
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tonal accuracy is maybe a better approximation, as it relates to nailing the sound with respect to timbre and manner of expression, pitch, mood and emotion. Not to be confused with colorations. Instead, balanced along the lines of neutralness, or naturalness.

The question becomes, what happens to tone when the entire audio signal waveform is amplified by the power triode (SET), versus where two output tubes work together in phase opposition (PP).

I'd rather have a teaspoon of tone, than an ocean of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The selection cannot be made in a vacuum (pun intended). The question is what is the best amp to drive my particular speakers, where they are placed, into what room they are playing and for their anticipated extremes of program material.

I want purity, yes, but it has to be consiered in context. In the context of Khorn, for example, noise floor and gain are other important considerations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic "argument" that has transpired here 600 times is why SET amp owners (or it could be some other amp too) prefer to sacrifice the so-called "required 20 watts" in favor of better TONE. Why this puzzles people is a mystery to me. To insist on the 20W minimum is to tell people that hamburger is best for every meal. It seems patently silly, and yet....and yet...we argue about it every couple weeks.

md

But by the same token the arguement often ends up from the lowered power camp that higher powered amps have an inherent character of not having good "tone" at lower listening levels and that is just not true in fact the reverse is often true if the designer paid attention to that aspect of the amplifier. False hoods and generalization reside on both ends of this fence. IMHO most low powered users base their opinion about higher powered amps on pretty sad examples. Any well designed amp can sound great within its operating range whether that be 1/4 watt or 200 watts. Output power has little to do with the actual end result when the amp is operated within its intended operating range.

That said if I was out shopping for some new amp and could have the best of both worlds , gobs of head room with great "tone" for those times that I wanted to use it and still have that great "tone" I enjoy at lower listening levels the choice wouldn't take much thought. I've heard many lowered power amps in my day and none of them were versitile enough to be the "only amp" I would own. I'm sure others have the exact oposite opinion and that is just fine with me.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All amps have some kind of tone. Many years ago, a roommate and I each had a stereo. One had a Technics receiver driving BIC Venturi speakers, the other a Yamaha receiver driving Dynaco A-25s. Just for curiosity, I swapped the components back and forth and was amazed to find that the receivers differed more in their sound than the speakers did.

Higher-end gear may have less variation in tone than low-end or mid-range stuff, or does it? Bottom line is buy what sounds good to you. As in many things, there are no absolutes or ultimates, or how could this year's model be better than last year's "ultimate"?

Pat on the Island

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall *anyone* on this Forum *ever* saying that power was the only thing that matters in regards to an amp, although the claim was made just yesterday that that is the way most Klipsch people think.

And yes, unfortunately the myth continues to be perpetrated that high power amps lack the audiophile finesse of a low power amp, as a given, and that a trade-off must be made between power and quality.

Paul Klipsch's business was speakers. He didn't have a commercial interest in appealing to SET fans. So when he recommended 20W as a *minimum* for Heritage speakers, it's safe to assume that he said it because that's where his analysis led. He certainly was no headbanger and decried music that was played "too damn loud."

If one can't use an amp to play a wide range recording at a realistic level without clipping, what good are the finer points. It's misguided to worry about the hint of a trace of a mist of an audiophile quality if you have to limit yourself to playing easy-going music at conversational levels. Once you can play a loud peak without compression, then you can get around to everything else, including tone. Just because there are many aspects that go into judging a piece of equipment doesn't mean all these many aspects are equally important.

First things first is not that tough of a concept. You weed out some things with your first criterion. But it doesn't end there. If one's first criterion is "If it doesn't have a remote, I ain't buying it," one wouldn't worry about other aspects either initially. That doesn't mean that a guy who wants a remote for his system is unconcerned about power or tone or transparency or anything else. It just means that he's going to reject outright anything without a remote. When he finds something with a remote, then he'll proceed to evaluate further and see how it fares in other regards. Some people won't buy a car if it doesn't have a cupholder. But boy would it be bizarre to buy a car that couldn't make it up a steep hill, and the driver were restricted to driving downhill, or on flat roads, or those with only the slightest of inclines. "Not to worry, friend, I have a second car back in the garage that I use when I want to go up hills."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think preference of 'tone', or what I prefer to call 'signature' has very much to do with the type of music and the quality of the recordings you listen to. I can easily adjust, and enjoy anything as long as it's grain free, open and natural sounding. By 'natural', I mean I don't want to be constantly reminded that I'm listening to drivers in a box. The only solid state that I've ever owned that could pull off all three is my Super-T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - I now get what Mark was originally talking about - but I think this is drifting into the whole amplifier chain (pre-amp, phono stage if applicable and power amp) which is not exactly what I understood we were talking about.

Timbral inaccuracies from the power amp? Well I have had a few power amps in my day and that is simply not a problem I would ascribe to them (except for a very early Yamaha surround sound amp in 2 channel mode - but even there the grain was more of a problem there).

I have had amps that were not capable of driving my speakers well, amps that were a poor match to my pre-amp, amps that needed to play loud to play well, amps that broke down and amps that played well. I have had big and loud and small and refined - but I dont recall an amp I could point to as being timbrally inaccurate in, say, 5 years....

Now before you dismiss this as a simple - Max isnt sensitive to timbre - actually I am - the main comment on my system from others is quite how lifelike and tonally accurate it comes across - it the basis of how I put my system together - if not how I actively chose my power amp.

Not saying any of these suppositions and posts are wrong of course - just outside my experience...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

md,


That's all very well and good and makes total sense. BUT, bass is also an aspect of tone. The SETs I've heard either act like there is no such animal or else it's flabby, uncontrolled bass. So, granted, a low-watt SET is simple and has fewer parts but music is more than midrange, as pleasant as a place to live as it may be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a decently mixed assortment of music and I've never found it unenjoyable for a lack of loudness. I can play Mahler at the same loudness as anything else without a loss of enjoyment.


You have no problem with a 110-member orchestra being the same volume as Joanie with her acoustic guitar?!

Anyway, again it's a false dichotomy -- you can have good tone with low power or not have good tone if you want 20W and up. That's simply not true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something you hear mentioned a lot here is "realistic levels." Ok, that's what some people enjoy...

Well, you wouldn't want to play little girl with guitar music at the same level as marching band music -- which is what PK liked to listen to. I can listen to hard rock at 70dB late at night, it sounds pretty good. But it does sound better, or more 'realistic' when played at 90dB. What 'some' mean by 'realistic levels' is that the playback level should approximate that of the live performance. Of course, even a headbanger like me has issues with System of a Down at 110dB.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, again it's a false dichotomy -- you can have good tone with low power or not have good tone if you want 20W and up. That's simply not true.

================

I did not setup any such dichotomy. I said very clearly what I said - just read it again. You CAN get good tone in bigger amps, it's just going to be more costly or more difficult to get. And conversely, some small amps sound like crap. "Exceptions abound" I've said it twice now, ok?

md

No, it's not okay. That would mean you're leaving no room for debate - except that someone must know of a cheap, high-powered amp that has great tonality. Flame on.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not setup any such dichotomy. I said very clearly what I said - just read it again. You CAN get good tone in bigger amps, it's just going to be more costly or more difficult to get. And conversely, some small amps sound like crap. "Exceptions abound" I've said it twice now, ok?

Coda said in this thread: "I'd rather have a teaspoon of tone, than an ocean of power." And you replied to his post by saying that he nailed it. Maybe we'll get the it's-just-a-euphemism explanation again.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you implying that because I have a "Klipsch" brand speaker, and that Paul Klipsch listened to marching bands at live levels, that I am somehow bound to do the same in order to have enjoyment? WOW.

No. You mentioned 'realistic levels', I was just saying what I thought it meant. I mean, you wouldn't play Joan Baez at the same levels you might normally play Black Sabbath. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff--

I'll take a guess that everyone who owns a cheap high powered amp believes it has great tone. There's never a debate about "MY" stuff being good, the debate is always about "YOUR" stuff being good - - right?

:-)

md 


Sure seems to me that if 1.5W were more than enough, you wouldn't have made a 25W amp. After all, that excess 23.5W has to cost something, and it's all for nought, apparently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...