IN your case with 86db efficient speakers my guess is the 200 w Krell will sound better and more "effortless". |
Power is most likely not an issue with your nearfield listening position.
Devils in the details..... |
For your situation, listening nearfield and not at high volume, amp power is not likely the key to good sound.
If you take Minor1's advice and audition different amps to see what sounds best in your rig, don't count out some of the better Class D amps if you do look at amps with more power. Mine do quite well listening near field at lower volumes. But again, power alone is not likely the solution to your needs. Try some different amps and see what works best. |
If an amp is clipping, there is a good chance the sound quality is negatively affected well before any any clearly audible distortion is noticed. Better to have an amp that goes loud effortlessly to provide headroom before any clipping comes into play. One might be surprisec what is needed to do this for less efficient speakers. The difference can be subtle but very significant. With the exception of very efficient switching Class D amps, some weight and size is usually required. |
"I have 4 ohm speakers being driven by a 150wpc into 4 ohm amp. Say I never go louder than 3 watts. I should have enough power for all peaks and dynamic events.
Say I then replace that 150wpc @ 4 ohm amp with one rated at 300wpc into 4 ohms. I still listen at 3 watts. Will I have gained anything? "
I'd say the answer is: it depends.
Digital in particular is very challenging for an amp to deliver peaks and transients. I am of the opinion that this has always been a major reason why digital does not sound good to many, ie their amp cannot deliver the peaks and transients accurately to the speakers. A good, well constructed amp selected specifically for its ability to drive the speakers efortlessly can. I have found that going with more power in general helps, especially as the volume goes up. THe amp has to be good. IF its a good amp, the extra power becomes an insurance policy at minimum. In general, I believe this is where one wants to be. |
Agree with pubul that addressing clipping with a tube amp is different than for SS amps in general. Tube amps tend towards soft clipping which is more gradual and generally less offensive allowing for fewer watts.
Not all clipping occurs similarly however. Clipping always results in distortions, regardless of how offensive or not those may be, and is never a good thing. |
If the sound levels increase and the sound continues to expand in proportion as you turn up the volume, that is a good indicator that clipping is under control.
If the sound stops getting louder in proportion to how much you increase the volume, even if you do not hear obvious distortion, clipping is probably in play.
This applies to any amp, tube or SS, although the audible distortion effects with the tube amp is likely to be significantly less and may seem non-offensive.
You would likely hear a difference in the dynamics and clarity of transients between any two amps, SS or tube, if one is clipping and the other is not, all other things aside, at least with some better and more challenging recordings. |
Atmas,
No I am aware of all that. Has nothing to do with my argument. I agree why many amps sound bad with digital (compared to vinyl) has nothing to do with the level of the recording.
It has more to do with the transients in digital recordings compared to most vinyl. PLaying a record is a physical process involving mass and inertia that inhibits the ability to deliver transients. The fact is historically most vinyl rigs/record players do not handle this very well, although many more modern, high tech and expensive rigs probably do better.
Often or typically the result is a natural and perhaps even pleasant filtering of transients that makes the signal easier for an amp to deliver. The more this occurs, the easier for the amp, often with pleasant sounding results nonetheless.
DIgital involves no physics of mass and inertia. THe challenges there are different but more solvable with technology as a result. In practice, the results with modern digital is often quite good and the technology to do a good job is not expensive. That was not the case early on with digital. The cost was reasonable but most stereos put together for use with vinyl and tape prior were not up to the task. Today, they are and also for fairly reasonable cost.
Of course I cannot prove any of this but that is my assessment based on my experience and observations over the years nonetheless. |
The thing is music music is a lot more complex than any test signal. Transient response is different technically from clipping, however I suspect the two are related. AN amp that does not tend to clip should be able to handle transients better, though there is more to it than just that.
An analogy is can a water balloon be inflated instantaneously when required. A lot faster when there is sufficient volume of water and pressure (similar to voltage and current ie power in electronics).
Similar with transient response an amp that does not break a sweat handling the peaks (ie does not clip) is more likely to have the drive needed for fast transients when needed as well. Not to say that less powerful amps with good design may not also do quite well with transients, but I think that would be more hit or miss and clipping could become an issue.
The Class D (switching) Bel Canto ref1000m amps I use with my inefficient hard to drive speakers are champs to me at this. They are very efficient and very powerful, articulate at lower volume and also seem to never break a sweat. Clipping is a non issue as best I can tell with these. Not so with most any other amp up to 200 w/ch or so that I have tried. |
DIg,
Oh, so you actually have run the Vandy's off the larger Krell in the past!
So what is your take on your question based on your recollection of how that sounded compared to what you have now?
Whether any particular setup floats your boat or not is all that really matters.
Harbeth would sound much different than VAndersteen in general I would expect. We all need some change in our lives sometimes. |
|
YEs, so bottom line, personally, for mainly lower volume near field listening in smaller quarters, I would be more inclined in general to go exclusively with speakers that are easy to drive and more phase coherent at close range due to proximity of drivers and I would give strong consideration to more moderate powered tube amplification to drive them. |
"There are also those that think that deep, tight bass is the be-all-and-end-all of musical reproduction and those people, too, might find anything less than 200 watts to be inadequate. The rest of the crowd really don't need that much power."
Deep tight bass is very important to me but not the be-all-end-all. That's just one piece of the puzzle. But to get that one right, yes in many cases beefy amplification is exactly what is needed to get that right, but I find the rest need not suffer as a result and in fact can also still be top notch. It all depends.... |
Kiwi,
I suspected this was the case but it was only once I pulled out all stops and went with the 500w/ch Class D BelCanto Ref1000m monoblocks that I became convinced.
I've had several amps in my rig prior with the relatively hard to drive OHMs and Dynaudios up to 200w/ch or so. The BCs are the first to always play effortlessly at any reasonable volume with no signs of running out of gas. Effortlessly means transients are clean and crisp even as the volume goes up.
I did have a 360w/ch Carver amp originally that went plenty loud enough, but that amp had Carver's tube transfer function technology and did not have the guts to drive the current hungry OHMs or Dyns as well at any volume. |
"It certainly is not, in my experience, Class D switching amps. It is too early to predict where further improvements in that technology will take performance of that technology, so there is hope there, but right now, the amps I heard fall short of the best conventional solid state gear."
Larry, is that an opinion or do you have some facts to support?
My experience is different. Personal preferences may result in not liking Class D, or Class D may not always integrate well with the rest of the system, like any amp, but my assessment is that the performance can be competitive with other amps I have heard in other very good systems. |
"it is at the same time nice to not be able to come anywhere near clipping the amps regardless of the source or the volume setting. Certain LPs, like the Soria Verdi Requiem, demand this ability!"
Bingo!
I agree 100%. That's the insurance policy as I like to refer to it.
Atmas, you like 140 tube watts I assume with the 98 db efficient speakers. That would be a nice insurance policy I would think! |
When I used to sell audio gear back in the 70's, the more powerful amps/receivers in any particular line ALWAYS sounded better on all but perhaps the smallest and most limited speakers. Most lines covered anywhere from 15, 20, 40, 80, 100 120 watts with the various models.
SOme lines sounded better than others at similar power points but a 40 watt amp never trumped a more powerful one with any decent line.
Nothing has changed there in general these days as best I can tell. |
