Coincident Super Eclipse and amp power


The Super Eclipse is marketed as a low-powered, tube-amp friendly design. This is, no doubt, very much true compared to many speakers.

Using the Super Eclipses, I tried the 18/36-watt Manley 300B Retros (in their interim version--after original issue and before the Neo) and the 47 Labs Gaincard-S (50 watt version with double power supplies) and found them both to be under-powered-- especially for large, orchestral music. My room is 16 x 25 feet with large vent-offs at the back, skylights, and heavy, wall-to-wall carpeting.

I am sure the kind of music one listens to influences a lot of this , but I have a sneaky suspicion that the 'Super E's' really like a lot more power than some of the rhetoric surrounding them (and their 92 dB, 14 Ohm rating) would suggest. Am I the only one who thinks that the "Supers E's,' really sound much better with about 95, strong, push-pull, tubed watts (transformer) or about 150, OTL, triode watts?
kalan

Showing 1 response by wirenut

I find your post very interesting. I don't have Super Eclipses. But, I just bought a pr of Partial Eclipses (sensitivity 92db, 8 ohms; pwr req. 7-150 watts), for use in a rather smallish room (12'x13') with a Conrad-Johnson Premier 11A tube amp (70w/channel into 4ohms). No power problem here; I can play them as loud as I want, without any hint of under powering.

However, I also own an old Krell KSA-150 (rated at 150w into 8ohms), and out of curiosity I tried the Partials with the Krell. I was amazed to find that the spkrs sound much much better to me powered by the Krell than they do by the C-J. With the Krell, there is pristine clarity, definition and a sense of the presence of pwr, etc. (at all volume levels), that I just don't get with the C-J. This really puzzles me. I expected that since the spkrs' minimum pwr requirement is only 7 watts, when I pair them with a tube amp capable of 10 times the minimum I would hear the very best they can offer. IMHO, not so.