As recently as 8-10 yrs. ago, I maintained my card carrying residence in the ‘lots o’ watts’ camp’ regularly. I’ve since held only a casual attendance to that group, and since departed with the acquisition of higher eff speakers, and lower powered tube amps.
Now I’m debating the future and appropriateness, of that perception and considering another SS, or a non tube amp. This time a digital amp… such as a class D or ICE configuration… as in a Bel Canto, PS Audio, Spectron, Wyred 4 S, etc., to use for both music and HT with my current Silverline speakers.
Several of these amps profess IMO rather high ratings for output power. 250, 300, and 500 wpc into 8 ohms, as your ‘oh by the way’ choices, and then doubling up should the impedance drop off to 4 ohms!
1000 wats per!
E frekin' Gad!
Truth be told, I’ve never put together a high eff speaker & high powered amp combo, nor felt the need, so I’m in a whole new ball game now, or am I?
I understand immense power reservoirs on tap, (like with my former BAT vk500) is a good thing, as well as are other attributes like a good input impedance, and control or damping figures. that amp ran VR4 JRs though, and both have since departed la casa Sunburn.
Additionally, my current tube mono blocks (120wpc) handle my 93db Sonata IIIs quite well IMO. My Odyssey Stratos SE also does a good enough job too rated at about 160 wpc. Between the two amps, the Dodds are the better sounding, and appear to have better control and more ease with the Silverliness.
In making a choice on one of these Digital or ICE amps, should the power numbers be regarded as something other than what they are? I mean more likely, do 250 wpc into 8 ohm rated ICE amps provide likewise results or the same feel, of an SS amp having the same output? Ie., control, power reserves, etc?
I do feel a good match between the speakers and amp is a prime consideration now, and do not wish to buy far too much or too little an amp, given these thoughts.
There too is the thought of the amps actual 'voice' itself to consider.
I sure wouldn’t want to smoke the speaks with too little or too much power on tap. Or have the amp ()s) always loafing. Or is that loafing bit just nonsense?
Any experiences and insights here on the digi power front is more than appreciated as I'm trying to get a 'feel' for this 'new to me' amp topology and not over or under buy.
Blindjim seemed to be exploring an interesting question and Guido, mentioning several brands other than Rowland, joined in talking, on point, about the issue. Next thing we know, Ill-Will-Bill-Feil comes along to slam Guido and me in one fell swoop.
BTW, in order to save others any need to research me, I own a Rowland Continuum 500 which I use to drive speakers presenting a nominal 4 ohm load, such that the amp has a potential of 1,000 wpc. Maybe poor ole Bill anticipated what I'm going to say next.
I moved up from a C-J putting out around 200 wpc and I've heard the various powered Rowland amps driving the same speakers and noticed a very clear improvement in bass control, in particular, as the power went up. I don't claim to fully understand why, but the best sounding amplifiers to me were the ones delivering more power.
Interesting. . . I usually get a little cantankerous with fellow Audiogoners by about the middle of August, when the temperature in my home office reaches the low hundreds. By mid september, I am typically back to my unflappable self. Unfortunately, it seems that our Bill may be a little more sensitive to heat than I am. By the time the last of the maples in western New York state are in full foliage, he starts picking fights on Audiogon. The good news of course is that by the time I fly off my 1st rocker, maples in Buffalo will be turning red, Bill will have downed his 1st flanels of the Fall season, and he will be back to his peaceble self. Excellent arrangement really, because we never seem to get mad at the world at the same time.
On the other hand, it is really too bad that he gets so cranky so easily. He would find it a lot easier to find customers for those marvellous Bel Canto Amplifiers and TEAC Esoteric players that we both love so much, if he only managed to assume a sunnier disposition during the summering canicula. Perhaps a mid year rereading of the collected works of the immortal Dale Carnegie may allieviate his obvious Weltschmertz. G.
Dcstep must be considered an equal if not bigger shill.
Perhaps it is time we cleaned up this website and eliminated all the product favoritism displayed by regulars on this website - especially that one guy who keeps favoring ATC ;-)
The power as engineering term is the product of voltage and the current and thus you must control both, separately.
It is my opinion that rated continius power into specific load (e.g. 100 wpc into 8Ohms) is almost totally meaningless since you do not listen to music as to continous test signal.
In normal conditions, you use may be 5% may be 10% of this "power" - however, when you want to reproduce creshendo your demand for voltage and/or current will rise two orders of magnitude (x100) !!!!!!!
The only one characterisic which truthfully describe real "power" of the amplifier is its Headroom which in turn, has a number of parameters to watch - most important of which are peak voltage, peal current, their duration, and level of distortions at full output and few more.
Its somewhat complex matter so most reviews and audiophiles describing specs emphesize the nominal (meaningless) power stats and threads like this one discuss one meaningless parameter versus another meaningless parameter.
What is common - the more power however you define it - the more expensive and more difficult is to build such device be it tube, solid state of switching.
"Kijanki is right - an underpowered amp can clip when played loud, and clipping of an amplifier causes high-frequency harmonics that are routed to the tweeter by the crossover, possibly overloading it."
This is often what makes a system sound "perceptively" loud when in reality it isn't at all loud. When you have 15" subwoofers with 1000 watt amplifiers that can still clip then it is not hard to imagine that you can exceed any amplifiers requirements (no matter how big) if you go loud enough and deep enough in frequency.
Jaymark's example of a biamped speaker eliminates the problem - you still get crytsal clean highs even if you bass is clipping somewhat.
The issue is to determine whether your listening levels are high enough to often cause clipping distortion in some musical passages.
"Kijanki is right - an underpowered amp can clip when played loud, and clipping of an amplifier causes high-frequency harmonics that are routed to the tweeter by the crossover, possibly overloading it."
Yes, I have seen more speakers fried this way than any other over the years.
Jim, in the Rowland lineup, there are 3 amps that may fit the bill if you augment them with a JRDG PC-1 rectifier:
Model 102 stereo -- 100W over 8 Ohms. Model 201 monoblocks -- 250W over 8 Ohms. Continuum 250 -- 250W over 8 ohms also contains linestage circuit of Capri preamplifier.
The PC-1 seems to greatly enhance musicality of these amps. Similar active power factor correction (PFC) circuit as the PC-1 is already built into the 312 and the Continuumm 500.
Kijanki is right - an underpowered amp can clip when played loud, and clipping of an amplifier causes high-frequency harmonics that are routed to the tweeter by the crossover, possibly overloading it.
I used Bel Canto solely as a reference point. They aren't on my short list for consideration. Only Wyred 4, Rowland, & Spectron are. The latter two probably will be cost prohibitive though.
I run 300 wpc Sheng Ya monoblock solid state amplifiers on the low end and Wyred 4 Sound 125 wpc amps on the top end of Emerald Physic speakers. These are highly sensitive speakers yet they sound specatcular with the powerful amps I am using on the low end. Do you need this much power? Probably not with these pseakers. But again the sound is spectacular, emotive, and impactful.......I was surprised very pleasantly....
Larryi, what you heard is probably the old Rowland 302. I agree completely with you, it sounded nice but it did not stir any emotions. That is why I was kind of skeptical when I first auditioned its successor, the 312. . . luckily it is a completely different beast and it is a greatly involving amp. . . and I have it in my system. But its price point is probably not what Jim is looking for, nor is its throughput. That is why I am suggesting the Bel Canto Ref 500.
Class D amps are evolving rapidly. What was the state of the art in Class D designs just a few years ago has already been long surpassed. It is not only a matter of newer modules, but also of a learning curve by class D amp designers. The Rowland 302 does not represent the current state of the art in class D sound, and your misgivings about it are quite justified.
It is worth pointing out that class D and ICEpower amps are neither inherently superior nor inferior to any other technology. I can say the same of tubes or classic SS. ICEpower modules are basic components just like 6550 tubes. One can create a very basic device with them, or one can create a cost no object amp. We can't really judge one by the other, nor we can make some broad assertions about sonic footprints of the class in general, because class D amps today tend to sound very different from one an other.
"But are they in general, dryer or cooler sounding than SS?"
The answer is. . . there is really no answer, because there is no longer an . . . "in general" with ICE amps. Some of the older designs tend to be on the cool side of neutral. The more recent designs tend to fit exactly where the designers want them to fit. E.g. the Bel Canto Ref 1K Mk.2 that I review yields mounds of harmonics and has just a smidjin of warmth. It definitly does not sound like stereotypical old ICE, nor like stereotypical SS. On the other hand, it neither has a stereotypical tuby sound, although its neutrality has just the slightest hint of tubes. I have heard some comments that the Ref 500 may be even slightly more extended and may have an even sweeter treble. Guido
The sentiment that one can always benefit from more power, may be true, assuming nothing else is lost in attaining more power, is often grounded on demonstrations that live music has an enormous dynamic range. In particular, a piano, and symphonic orchestras are used as examples. But, no commercial recordings ever really exploit the full dynamic range of either; if they did, most people would be unable to listen to such recordings. In other words, the importance of lots of power is greatly exaggerated.
Are there tradeoffs in attaining more output capability? At least some designers think there are big tradeoffs. Some designers think something is lost when more than one output device is used (or two in a pushpull design). In the solid state realm Dartzeel amps are designed on that premise (their original amp sounds pretty good to me, though I don't know if any particular design choice accounts for the good sound). Designers of low powered tube equipment also think the same way. I tend to not like as much tube gear with high power and lots of tubes.
I have only heard a couple of Class D amps (Bel Canto and a Rowland). The Rowland (early model costing something like $14k) I heard auditioned in two systems owned by friends. In the system with Sonus Faber Anniversarios, it sounded decent, though a Hovland Radia amp sounded better to me and is a lot cheaper. In the other friend's horn-based system (107 db efficient), it sounded much worse in comparison with low output tube amps.
I don't know where the current state of the stands with respect to switching amps, but, my understanding is that there is NO performance parameter where a switching amp is better than conventional solid state; good design being a matter of minimizing bad characteristics. The advantages of switching amps are all practical: compact size, high efficiency, low heat output, and low cost to produce. That may well mean that at certain price levels they outperform other types of amps, particularly where truly high levels of power are needed. I think they would be at their competitive worst, where high power is not needed and price is not a major limiting factor.
The insights are super, the sound of it is key… and the words on how numbers apply & translate were outstanding.
Guido, I liked the review on the VA speakers.
Well, keeping booze and boozed up friends away from the remote control, and gear is not a consideration… and I learned a few years ago about handing the remote to the ‘girl friend of the month’ while I’m otherwise occupied.
I seldom if ever really crank up the vol. My hearing is sensitive, the room is not cavernous, and my preffs aren’t towards paint peeling these days… Once in a very great while I’ll zip things up for some Def Lep, ZZ or Gordon Goodwin, Illinois Jacquette, etc… but only temporarily… a song or two.
I doubt I exceed 95 - 96db +/-, on avg during those few minutes.
…and who want s to hear K D Lang 7 tony B at 98db, anyways?
I may have not been 100% clear as to my fears/worries regarding the power similarities or diffs from ICE to SS… I merely wish to get a feel for about which gate I’d best be in when deciding. Current levels.. eg., 150 +/-; 250 +/-: 500 +/-; etc.
True enough, the voice of the power plant is a larger concern. I sincerely loved the big ol’ chunky VK500 w/BAT Pk. On 88-89db speakers.
I love the sound of the 120 wpc MK II Dodd mono’s on the 91-93db speaks I have now… with the Thor pre of course.
The Odyssey SE 150 +/- either with the Onkyo receiver or Thor ain’t bad either, just not even close to the all tubes setup… but quite liveable.. Especially if no repetitive A/B’ing is going on… and it doesn’t.
So given the speed of recovery ICE’s have, I’m getting the imp here a 250 into 8, 500 into 4, should be easily enough ICE.
Now, as usuall the preponderance regards ICE’s tenor… it’s sound. I get the imp too, they are image happy little boxes, dynamic, and possess very good headroom.
But are they in general, dryer or cooler sounding than SS?
A predominate amount of the time this new pair of monos or stereo amp will serve purely as main ch’s for HT.
Now and then, I’d use them with the Thor for pure audio.
Short list needs are rain free mids, easy yet revealing top ends and good low req response.
The Wyred 4 sound units look attractive, the reviews sound awesome, and the price is right for a ST500. IMO.
Dodgealum - it is complicated. 60A peak current but at what output voltage? for how long? Why do you need 60A? Even on 1 ohm load it would deliver 3600W.
1000W Icepower (1000ASP) can deliver 40A for about 0.5s. Minimum load is specified as 2 ohm. I wouldn't pay too much attention to specifications but more to reviews or auditions.
Can amp like that blow your speakers - sure, but if you undersize you'll get into risk of cliping and damaging tweeters (high frequency content). Icepowers have even soft clipping built in to prevent it (and all other protections).
Icepower has incredible damping factor at low frequencies DF=4000 but it is pretty much useless since inductor inside of the speaker box, in series with the woofer, limits df to about 100 (80 mohms typical resistance).
I would not pick an amp on power output alone. This alone will only determine how loud the system will play cleanly.
Alone it is not sufficient to determine how good the amp will sound in your room with your system. There is no simple answer for determing that other than "it depends".
I'm no expert on the subject and certainly do not have an electrical engineering background but I really wonder whether these Class D (and other) switching amps are as powerful as their specifications would suggest. Clearly, they produce power more efficiently than Class A or AB designs, but do they really have the ability to deliver copious amounts of current when called upon to do so? Case in point: I recently went from and Audio Research 150.2 (a Tripath-Based switching amp--or Class T) to an Audio Research SD135 Class AB design. The 150.2 is rated at 150wpc into 8 ohms, doubling into 4 ohms. The SD135 is rated at 130wpc into 8 ohms and 230wpc into 4 ohms. Question: Which amp is more powerful? Easy, right?--the 150.2. However, when one looks at peak current capability, the SD135 puts out THREE TIMES as much current (60amps vs. 20amps) as the 150.2. And then there is the listening where the SD135 is way more dynamic, with gobs of headroom, much greater control and authority in the bass and the ability to play louder without a hint of strain or distortion. And, I would add, the 150.2 is a much more robustly built switching amp than the Bel Canto's, Channel Islands, ETC, ETC, which, if you look at the specs, are not able to produce the kind of current suggested by their WPC rating. If you buy into the Musical Fidelity "White Paper" on the subject of amplifier power, some serious questions are raised about the ability of switching amps to provide the kind of juice that is really necessary to convincingly recreate the sound of live music. Again, I'm no expert but regardless of their technological sophistication, I have a hard time believing that some of these flyweight amps are really up to the task, even when paired with relatively high efficiency speakers like mine.
I don't think you need a lot more power than you have. Are you hearing any distortion at typical high SPL levels and do you like to crank it often or do you play bass heavy stuff a lot?
Those are all nice high quality drivers in your speakers (the Sonata III's are excellent value for awesome sound, IMHO). they could certainly take more juice but the question is really more down to whether your ears demand it?
I could not find an impedance plot but an unusually low impedance or sharp drops might be the best indication that you might benefit from doubling or tripling your power. On a smooth impedance load at 93 db sensitivity my guess is you don't need more power.
Jim, even within the ICE amps, there are 500W, 250W, and even 100W PC units over 8 Ohms. There is probably no need for you to acquire a set of monos that deliver 500W over 8 Ohms, but perhaps some of the lower powered units may do very well. I am thinking for example about the Bel canto Ref 500 monos, that deliver 250W PC. They are said to be even sweeter than the Ref 1000 Mk.2 that I have just reviewed for Positive Feedback. Then there are the 100W per channel amps like the Rowland 102 stereo, which is said to sound very sweet but I have not heard.
I suspect that with any powerful amps on efficient speakers one of the keys may be a pre with very fine volume control granularity. e.g. the JRDG Capri I use yields 0.5db steps on the dual speed volume control.
To me it's like horsepower. I don't necessarily need a lot, but it's nice to have "just in case" hehehe. I have a limit on my volume knob I just won't pass. I did recently hear a pair of Joseph Audio Pulsars being fed by a 85 wpc Sim Audio amp and it was LOUD, and CLEAR. One of the best combos I've ever heard. Of course I haven't heard a lot, but I couldn't believe 85 wpc was that loud.
Extra reserve power can be a blessing with inefficient speakers. However, extra care is definitely warranted. An inadvertant dropped stylus, or turning on the DAC after the preamp and amp can all to easily blow your speakers.
So, if you're feeling anal, and keep alcohol away from your lips when playing your stereo, and are not an error prone individual, then go for it.
If the amp sounds good to your ears, there is only one potential problem. You have to keep drunk/impaired friends away from the volume control.
I lost a good pair of Jamo's that way. And the amp was only 75 watts into 8 ohms.
Currently my Emerald Physics are by-amped with 250 amps going to the bottom end (really 500 being seen by the 4 ohm woofers), and 125 amps going to the top. ICE powered, and the speakers sound spectacular to my ears.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
