Any truth to speakers being better with a more powerful amp?

[VintageFlanker]

Spl Calculator

Worthless if you are basing on manufacturers specs only. (For both amps and speakers)

 

[Blumlein 88]

Worthless if you are basing on manufacturers specs only. (For both amps and speakers)

Maybe, maybe not. In this case soundstage.net tested them. Claim was 90.5 db and was not far off. Also the claim of 4 ohm minimum was verified. For a counter-example I think Acoustat claimed 86 db for most of their speakers. Best I could tell the real number was more like 80 db.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Maybe, maybe not. In this case soundstage.net tested them. Claim was 90.5 db and was not far off.

Sure. Focal isn't Klipsch.

 

[Ciobi69]

Ironically there is a tendency, even on ASR, to accept a self-evident audiophile truth that more power is better and sounds better, without any empirical evidence. Hence the obsession with AVR preamp output and power amp advice.

Whats the deal about the People worrying about the preamp voltage output

 

[ErVikingo]

Is the dealer saying that you are playing your Denon so high (overdriven) that it is clipping? (thus a more powerful amp will provide the SPL you like without being in the clipping zone/limits).

 

[Mattknz]

Is the dealer saying that you are playing your Denon so high (overdriven) that it is clipping? (thus a more powerful amp will provide the SPL you like without being in the clipping zone/limits).

No we didn't discuss volume levels.
I actually went in to discuss subs and when it became clear I wasn't going to fall or his "if it's for music you HAVE to get a REL" spiel he went down this route.

 

[Ze Frog]

No we didn't discuss volume levels.
I actually went in to discuss subs and when it became clear I wasn't going to fall or his "if it's for music you HAVE to get a REL" spiel he went down this route.

Yeah, he's clearly just trying to part you from your cash.

 

[MattHooper]

And yes, power supply capacitors do play a big role especially for lower registers as the amp can only give burst power that it has available.

A little while back I had in a second pair of Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks. The only difference between those and my long time pair was that the newer pair had been "upgraded" with newer capacitors (Teflon...one of those things CJ owners pay for, but it came basically free in this case).

I didn't buy them because they'd been upgraded, so much as they were a newer pair and I thought I might sell my old-in-the-tooth CJs. When playing all my bass torture tracks, the consistent impression was the bass was tighter with the newer pair. I'd play a track with a bass guitar that always sounded a bit unruly and bloated on my system, but it would clean up and be more controlled and tight, on the newer CJ monos. If that's at all plausible, could it have been due to the newer/different capacitors?

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

That Denon has soft power.

I am guessing, but I assume that is referring to AVR power ratings being for 2 channels driven; you don't get 100 w/ch all the time for all playback. So that is a "soft" number, one that is not always the same.

Irrelevant in this case, since music means 2 channel or so I assume, but I do think the term is somewhat grounded in reality. Distorted by the sales person, but not totally meaningless.

To the main question, I have found (and very many people say) more power gives more control over the bass. Tightens it up. Other than that, unless you are really stretching a low power amp, I don't think there is much effect in the audible sense.

 

[Ze Frog]

A little while back I had in a second pair of Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks. The only difference between those and my long time pair was that the newer pair had been "upgraded" with newer capacitors (Teflon...one of those things CJ owners pay for, but it came basically free in this case).

I didn't buy them because they'd been upgraded, so much as they were a newer pair and I thought I might sell my old-in-the-tooth CJs. When playing all my bass torture tracks, the consistent impression was the bass was tighter with the newer pair. I'd play a track with a bass guitar that always sounded a bit unruly and bloated on my system, but it would clean up and be more controlled and tight, on the newer CJ monos. If that's at all plausible, could it have been due to the newer/different capacitors?

Very possibly depending on the age of the caps in your old amp and if the newer one had a higher reserve as the amount; of capacitance in power supply makes a difference in it's availability to suddenly draw more current.

 

[BDWoody]

Whats the deal about the People worrying about the preamp voltage output

The preamp voltage has to be high enough to get max output from the amp. If you have inadequate output, your amp will never be able to provide full power.

This depends on the amp input sensitivity obviously.

 

[gnarly]

It's less often that we need a more powerful amp, and far more often that we need the amp to have greater headroom.
Per the old adage....'all we really need is a 100 watt amp with 18dB headroom'.

Problem with amps is, they typically have little headroom above rated output power. So to get headroom, we have to buy an amp larger than the power needed to achieve desired SPL average. Much larger in fact.

But then, with a larger amp to get that headroom, a real risk of thermal damage to drivers arises.
Speakers with headroom sound cleaner than ever before, at higher SPL, and the temptation to keep going arises.

Proper RMS limiting needs to be in place. (and never hurts to have peak limiting in place all well....mandatory imo, if amp is excessively oversized.)
Not hard to do active, for each driver section.
But tricky-dicky to do passive, because a limiter has to be set/chosen to protect weakest/most at risk, driver section.

 

[voodooless]

Per the old adage....'all we really need is a 100 watt amp with 18dB headroom'.

That's a 6.3 kW amp...

 

[anmpr1]

Maybe, maybe not. In this case soundstage.net tested them. Claim was 90.5 db and was not far off. Also the claim of 4 ohm minimum was verified. For a counter-example I think Acoustat claimed 86 db for most of their speakers. Best I could tell the real number was more like 80 db.

In '91 Atkinson measured 84dB @ 1 kHz for Acoustat's third generation hybrid Spectra; company literature claimed 88dB @ 400 Hz.

An earlier full-range Model 2 was reviewed by High Fidelity (1981). HF reported 80.5dB at 2.8 volts using their then 'new' protocol (not discussed), but stated when using their 'old' measurement protocol the loudspeaker would have been rated at 74.5dB (with a 'nominal' impedance of 2 ohms).

Whatever it was, from practical experience, living with the 2+2 (and before that, the Model 3) you really needed a beefy amplifier. Their MOS FET 200 watt amp (325 watts/4 ohms) was sufficient for an average sized living room. However the typical consumer 80 watt/ch integrated amplifier wasn't going to work. For instance, an Amber Series 70 (70 watts/side) would blow a fuse (or worse) driving the Model 2.

Over the lifespan of these 'second gen' models the company came out with a couple of tranformer mods that were supposed to help with amp matching. From memory my dealer installed the 'upgrade' gratis. I honestly couldn't tell much if any difference, but at the time I may have convinced myself otherwise.

FWIW, the first generation Model X incorporated its own OTL tube amplifier, directly driving the panels. I believe that expense and reliability was a problem, but whatever the reason for it, that design was soon abandoned.

Addition: In a rather unusual (but funny) 'subjective' description of the loudspeaker HF concluded: So here it is: An electrostatic in the tradition of the KLH Nine and the Acoustech, but less subject to idiosyncrasies than they and certainly less expensive than they would be were they available today. Listening to the Model Two is rather like driving a Jaguar XKE-with some modernizing modifications, of course.

 

[gnarly]

That's a 6.3 kW amp...

Lol...

What the adage begs, is an amp that can maintain its voltage rails for both relatively short term bursts, and also very fast peaks....
.....such that it effectively/practically has +18dB unclipped music headroom.

So there's really a power curve vs time, power/voltage on the Y axis vs increasing signal duration on the x axis.
The low end of the power curve, continuous over time is unfortunately the only one that gets much attention.
And even more unfortunately, the high end of the curve, instantaneous short term peak power, is the province of huckster marketing.

Here's an interesting test of some proamps power-vs-time (albeit some marketing no doubt slipped into the test)

Comparative Performance

Test equipment used: Audio Precision System 22 with burst generator Audio Precision AUX-000025 Switching Amplifier Measurement Filter Valhalla 2301 Digital Power Analyzer Tektronix 2465B scope 8 x...

www.speakerpower.net

 

[gnarly]

FWIW, the first generation Model X incorporated its own OTL tube amplifier, directly driving the panels. I believe that expense and reliability was a problem, but whatever the reason for it, that design was soon abandoned.

I've a pair of those still. Wonderful speakers, holding up to the audio quality test over time, imo.
But yeah, the kilovolt tube output reported caused some amps to catch fire. And the idea of amps with lethal output voltage scared folks off too.
Bottom line I guess, too much liability to underwrite..

 

[Blumlein 88]

In '91 Atkinson measured 84dB @ 1 kHz for Acoustat's third generation hybrid Spectra; company literature claimed 88dB @ 400 Hz.

An earlier full-range Model 2 was reviewed by High Fidelity (1981). HF reported 80.5dB at 2.8 volts using their then 'new' protocol (not discussed), but stated when using their 'old' measurement protocol the loudspeaker would have been rated at 74.5dB (with a 'nominal' impedance of 2 ohms).

Whatever it was, from practical experience, living with the 2+2 (and before that, the Model 3) you really needed a beefy amplifier. Their MOS FET 200 watt amp (325 watts/4 ohms) was sufficient for an average sized living room. However the typical consumer 80 watt/ch integrated amplifier wasn't going to work. For instance, an Amber Series 70 (70 watts/side) would blow a fuse (or worse) driving the Model 2.

Over the lifespan of these 'second gen' models the company came out with a couple of tranformer mods that were supposed to help with amp matching. From memory my dealer installed the 'upgrade' gratis. I honestly couldn't tell much if any difference, but at the time I may have convinced myself otherwise.

FWIW, the first generation Model X incorporated its own OTL tube amplifier, directly driving the panels. I believe that expense and reliability was a problem, but whatever the reason for it, that design was soon abandoned.

Addition: In a rather unusual (but funny) 'subjective' description of the loudspeaker HF concluded: So here it is: An electrostatic in the tradition of the KLH Nine and the Acoustech, but less subject to idiosyncrasies than they and certainly less expensive than they would be were they available today. Listening to the Model Two is rather like driving a Jaguar XKE-with some modernizing modifications, of course.

I somehow don't recall the High Fidelity review. I owned and was thinking of the Acoustat Two. I measured it outdoors and came up with my approximately 80 db number. The actually very similar Soundlabs I came up with about 82 db. Friends owned 3s, 2+2s, and 1+1s. I thought the Model 3 was their best and thought the 1+1 was a mistake. I modded those interfaces a few ways with/for other people. As far as I know the change Acoustat made was essentially altering the crossover point between the high and low frequency transformers. It should help a little, but didn't fix the low 1 ohm or so impedance in the treble. One friend had an amp that didn't like that we ended up putting a half ohm power resistor in series with the feed to the high frequency transformer which fixed his problem. The very top end rolled off some more of course which he liked anyway. I'm surprised more amps didn't 'complain' about 1 ohm impedance with about 75 degrees phase shift in the treble.

I always wanted to come across those Acoustat X's with direct coupled amp.

 

[ahofer]

n French the word was "courant",

Doesn't that just mean keeping up with the times?

I didn't know French had the same synonym.

 

[voodooless]

Doesn't that just mean keeping up with the times?

I didn't know French had the same synonym.

It’s from the Latin “currere”, meaning “run”.

 

[mhardy6647]

I somehow don't recall the High Fidelity review.

Easily rectified.

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-High-Fidelity/80s/High-Fidelity-1981-06.pdf