Roland68
Major Contributor
Maybe your information is incorrect.
Almost all of Amirm's tests come to about 139 watts per channel for TPA3255 stereo amplifiers and over 191 watts for mono amplifiers, at 4 ohms.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Fosi Audio V3 Mono Amplifier Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Almost all of Amirm's tests come to about 139 watts per channel for TPA3255 stereo amplifiers and over 191 watts for mono amplifiers, at 4 ohms.
I did that (went to a minidsp with Dirac from marantz with audyssey) and are now going back because in my case the AVR room correction was far superior than the minidsp.Or you could see this as an opportunity and embark on the journey to DSP and room correction
The minidsp without room correction sounds phenomenal though, but my room is garbage.
The difference between 139W and 191W is +1.39dB
I looked at Texas and it is a full 10% more power, which corresponds to about +0.5dB.
The real reason is the possibility of connecting a 2 ohm box, because then the differences are very big.
Attachments
DavidM1
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2023
- Messages
- 139
- Likes
- 155
Easy. Sinad greater than 100, significantly more power than a PA5+, including down to 2 ohms, at much lower cost, balanced and SE inputs, lack of load dependency, auto standby and restart, manufacturer who engages actively with customers, no volume knob, not unattractive design.
If there was a stereo amp with these features, especially one without the need for power bricks, it too would be getting attention.
stereo version is coming
3e Audio TPA3251 TPA3255 Finished Amplifier with PFFB is coming!
Hi Amigos: It has been for around 2 years after we release TPA3251 and TPA3255 series amplifier DIY kits with post filter feedback design that improve the overall performance of the single chip itself. With many buyers(diyer) enjoyed our diy kits and having so many fun from their own diy...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I compare two configurations, namely BTL and PBTL at 4 Ohm. The power gain is +0.41dB more for PBTL and the costs double.
I'm a fool and it's very good that you noticed that. I am now a big believer in buying Mono Amplifiers.
DavidM1
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2023
- Messages
- 139
- Likes
- 155
I didn’t notice anything of the kind. You asked for someone to explain, which I did. The mono aspect wasn’t a concern to me but the things I listed influenced my decision. You’ve probably noticed I’m playing this with a straight bat.
If the minidsp sounded phenomenal (I assume you mean transparent), as expected, then it means Dirac is messing up room/speaker eq.
Unless you find your Marantz receiver more convenient in your system, if I were you I would go back to the minidsp (if you still own it) and tweak Dirac parameters. There is no reason you could not get a very similar eq compared to what Audissey does.
I would first look into limiting Dirac processing to low frequencies (say <500 Hz) and listen/measure again.
Roland68
Major Contributor
That's the difference between numbers/theory and experience.
I had built two TPA3255 evaluation boards, 1 as a BTL, 1 as a PBTL. The headroom of the PBTL board compared to the BTL was impressive, and if more power is needed, it's a viable option.
The speakers were impedance-corrected 4 ohms and the power supply was not a limitation.
Theoretically, the difference between a Yamaha A-S 701 and 1000, for example, is not great; according to the numbers, they are even the same. In practice, hardly anyone would choose the 701 after hearing the 1000 in comparison. The performance, headroom, etc. are impressive compared to the 701.
That's the difference between theory and practice. I knew the theory beforehand, but there's no substitute for practical experience.
I can live with your opinion because I have my experience.
I think my loss is smaller.
OK, and here we enter the wood's space and we have no chance for a technical exchange of opinions.
I once had a small flashlight and I connected another 4.5V battery in parallel and was disappointed that it didn't shine brighter.
Last edited:
Roland68
Major Contributor
I don't understand the theory behind it, but you've learned something in practice.
But actually I just wanted to give you food for thought with my examples, to revise your opinion and statement and to recognize that something is wrong.
Here's the correction, because your post is also confusing other users.
Do terms like volume, sound pressure and sound intensity mean anything to you? There are a few subtle differences.
1.5 dB may not sound like much, but at 105 dB that's almost 1.5 times the volume for a human (1.4 times exactly), 3 dB would be a doubling of the volume heard.
Do you realize that 1 dB at 100 dB is an x-fold increase in the volume heard than 1 dB at 6 dB? Exactly the opposite of what is normally the case, or for example with % figures.
Of course you may think that almost 1.4 times the volume is not much, but in reality that is the difference between not being able to turn my speakers up as loud as I would like to hear and having enough headroom.
The performance tables from the data sheet are not very useful, @amirm's measurements are much more reliable, realistic, consistent and comparable.
I think Amir's measured difference is probably coming from all the PSU current being available for one channel, rather than split between two. And bear in mind 1.39 dB is still a 14% perceived volume increase or additional headroom.
The other advantage of the ability to drive 2ohm loads, is the capability to drive more challenging speakers - whatever the nominal impedance might be.
Sokel
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 7,315
- Likes
- 7,552
Based on the figures of BTL Power loss vs Output power for 4 Ohm operation and if the difference is analogous for 2 Ohm I wouldn't push it hard down there:
At 300 watt for example it will reach 70-80 watts of power loss,that's not easy to dissipate.
Roland68
Major Contributor
1.4 dB corresponds to a 40% higher volume perception for humans, 3 dB to a doubling.
The 139 watts measured by Amirm in many amplifiers in BTL operation per stereo channel and 191 watts in PBTL in mono operation is what the TPA3255 can achieve in a certain THD range. There is no limitation due to the power supply.
14% is exactly 0.56dB. As for the ability to deal with a 2 Ohm load, I agree 100%.
Attachments
Do an experiment and edit a recording where you increase it by +3dB. You can also take a regular audio recording and increase the volume by +3dB. If you have done that, contact me.
3dB is a doubling in power. That is not a doubling in perceived volume.
You need approx 10dB for a perceived doubling in volume. If you have a device with a volume control showing dB - try it.
Again - we are not talking about power, we are talking about perceived volume 10dB = approx doubling of perceived volume
Very good, and the difference between 100W and 1000W is exactly +10dB or 1Bel or twice as loud.
The diagram is about the total power of 2 channels. At 300W that would be about 60W
We remember the old light bulbs, how hot they were with 60W
Similar threads
- Poll
