Matching ultra high-end speakers with a (good) cheap amp?

[BDWoody]

I get this is a what-if, but still this would be cool candidate for some blind testing.

Great expensive speakers, and see how extensive non-sighed volume-matched listening shakes out using an inexpensive Topping-style Class D amp, a more expensive Buckeye Class D, a classic mid-priced AB amp, and the Benchmark AHB2, plus maybe a respected “high-end” McIntosh or equivalent tube amp.

Maybe throw in a decent AVR and blow some minds.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Something I posted in another thread. Wilson did something like this in a public demo at the CES in 2004.

Anyone remember the Wilson audio demo at the CES show in 2004. The demo had a Wilson Sophia system and a B&W 800 Nautilus system. The other system had a Nagra PLL preamp, Krell CD player and Krell amps. The Wilson had the same preamp, amp and CD player. Speakers were level matched and people were allowed to hear both and vote. The Wilson got more votes.

Afterwards it was shown that the Wilson system was something of a fake. A hidden 16 bit iPod was the music source, the Nagra was used, but it was feeding a hidden Parasound $1000 amplifier. Obviously Wilson had a vested interest in showing speakers are the overwhelming component of importance. They couldn't force people to hear it that way of course.

Speakers and the room are where it counts. Everything else is a solved problem.

Here is a quote from Mr. Wilson about that demo:

The demonstration was meant to explore
some prejudices in the way people look at system hierarchy.
to me, that means determining which element of the system is the
most critical in determining the quality and the character of the
sound the listener will experience.

And in thinking about that, I came down to the three most
important factors. First is the microphone used in the recordings.
Another is room acoustics, and then the third is loudspeakers. . . .
The loudspeaker is, to me, the most critical element in the
playback chain. The purpose of that experiment was to show that
the quality of the loudspeaker overrules the quality of the amplifier,
the quality of the cables, and even the quality of the signal source.


Loudspeakers are the least perfect devices in the system and
yet they have the hardest job. . . .

Because there is such a range between the poorest to the best
loudspeaker, it behooves the customer to anchor the system with
the best loudspeakers that he can, and then to build the rest of the
system around that.

 

[Audionaut]

Given these informations, would a cheap but well-designed amplifier like Topping's PA5 (2x 100W, verified on ASR) sound as good to the human ear as any $100 000 ultra high-end amp (if you listen at a very moderate volume)?

One of the chip amplifiers based on the TPA3255 can be used in this case, but I don't think it makes sense.
A very good pairing, however, would be amplifiers with the Hypex Nilai module or Purifi Eigentakt.

 

[OCA]

Not exactly cheap but not expensive either given it's an integrated amp with a descent DAC and HT bypass, etc specs Rotel Michi X5 will make those Focals sing.

 

[ZolaIII]

Something I posted in another thread. Wilson did something like this in a public demo at the CES in 2004.

Anyone remember the Wilson audio demo at the CES show in 2004. The demo had a Wilson Sophia system and a B&W 800 Nautilus system. The other system had a Nagra PLL preamp, Krell CD player and Krell amps. The Wilson had the same preamp, amp and CD player. Speakers were level matched and people were allowed to hear both and vote. The Wilson got more votes.

Afterwards it was shown that the Wilson system was something of a fake. A hidden 16 bit iPod was the music source, the Nagra was used, but it was feeding a hidden Parasound $1000 amplifier. Obviously Wilson had a vested interest in showing speakers are the overwhelming component of importance. They couldn't force people to hear it that way of course.

Speakers and the room are where it counts. Everything else is a solved problem.

Here is a quote from Mr. Wilson about that demo:

The demonstration was meant to explore
some prejudices in the way people look at system hierarchy.
to me, that means determining which element of the system is the
most critical in determining the quality and the character of the
sound the listener will experience.

And in thinking about that, I came down to the three most
important factors. First is the microphone used in the recordings.
Another is room acoustics, and then the third is loudspeakers. . . .
The loudspeaker is, to me, the most critical element in the
playback chain. The purpose of that experiment was to show that
the quality of the loudspeaker overrules the quality of the amplifier,
the quality of the cables, and even the quality of the signal source.


Loudspeakers are the least perfect devices in the system and
yet they have the hardest job. . . .

Because there is such a range between the poorest to the best
loudspeaker, it behooves the customer to anchor the system with
the best loudspeakers that he can, and then to build the rest of the
system around that.

It's all relative my dear Holmes! I can clamp up relatively budget studio active setup that would ashame even great big salunes you might think of for let's say 1/10 of price (living God's nowhere) and some DIY guy's can get there for cheaper than I do. If it's really, really high sensitive speaker (over 90 margin 95) for home use you really want as clean A stage only. Same rule applies as with headphones mid sensitive or bit above that.

 

[kemmler3D]

Given these informations, would a cheap but well-designed amplifier like Topping's PA5 (2x 100W, verified on ASR) sound as good to the human ear as any $100 000 ultra high-end amp (if you listen at a very moderate volume)?

As others have said, yes, basically.

I think a good analogy is that you may put premium fuel in your $250K supercar, but that is still only 50% more expensive than regular fuel. The fuel makes the car go, it is absolutely fundamental to making the car go, but it doesn't make it go in a categorically different way based on what fuel you use. Someone will sell you fancy fuel if you want, but you won't feel a difference if you use $100/gallon fuel. As long as the fuel is up to spec, the car will do what it's meant to do.

If I had these speakers I'd probably go for a 800w+ amp setup so I could really get some dynamics going, but I wouldn't be looking to spend more than (say) $2-3K on that.

 

[DanielT]

Wait a minute. Are Focal Grande Utopia the same speakers as the Focal Grande Utopia EM Evo? If so, TS you absolutely need to take this into account when choosing an amplifier for them:

Focal's 8ohm nominal figure doesn't sit well with its claimed 3ohm minimum, and we measured a low of 1.9ohm. LF phase angles are quite well controlled but, with the low modulus, drops the EPDR to a minimum of 1.1ohm at 187Hz, with further dips to 1.2ohm at 130Hz and 1.4ohm at 88Hz – so the latest Utopia presents an extremely challenging load.

Plus, given their FR, if that measurement in the same test was correct, I would have spent money EQing them.

Focal Grande Utopia EM Evo loudspeaker Lab Report

Focal claims 94dB sensitivity for the Utopia EM Evo which would make it one of the highest-sensitivity direct radiating loudspeakers we have measured. But our pink noise figure of exactly 91dB is well short of that. This was obtained by measuring at 2m distance (not our usual 1m), the cabinet...

www.hifinews.com

 

[JustAnAudioLover]

Wait a minute. Are the Focal Grande Utopia the same speakers as the Focal Grande Utopia EM Evo? If so, TS you absolutely need to take this into account when choosing an amplifier for them:

Focal's 8ohm nominal figure doesn't sit well with its claimed 3ohm minimum, and we measured a low of 1.9ohm. LF phase angles are quite well controlled but, with the low modulus, drops the EPDR to a minimum of 1.1ohm at 187Hz, with further dips to 1.2ohm at 130Hz and 1.4ohm at 88Hz – so the latest Utopia presents an extremely challenging load.

Plus, given their FR, if that measurement in the same test was correct, I would have spent money EQing them.
View attachment 436143

Focal Grande Utopia EM Evo loudspeaker Lab Report

Focal claims 94dB sensitivity for the Utopia EM Evo which would make it one of the highest-sensitivity direct radiating loudspeakers we have measured. But our pink noise figure of exactly 91dB is well short of that. This was obtained by measuring at 2m distance (not our usual 1m), the cabinet...

www.hifinews.com

Oh I didn't know there was two different sets of speakers.
Well again, this is just to give an example, I could have chosen any other luxury speakers in my post actually.

 

[DanielT]

Oh I didn't know there was two different sets of speakers.
Well again, this is just to give an example, I could have chosen any other luxury speakers in my post actually.

Aha, in any case. You need a fairly powerful, current strong amplifier that can handle tough loads to drive those Focal Grande Utopia EM Evo speakers.

 

[dedobot]

Oh I didn't know there was two different sets of speakers.
Well again, this is just to give an example, I could have chosen any other luxury speakers in my post actually.

No , its same.

 

[voodooless]

Plus, given their FR, if that measurement in the same test was correct, I would have spent money EQing them

… or just buy something decent in the first place . This just shows how silly spending that amount of money on speakers is.

 

[voodooless]

this is just to give an example, I could have chosen any other luxury speakers in my post actually.

That doesn’t make sense. These speakers have nothing in common, other than the high price tags, and generally poor performance.

 

[ZolaIII]

As others have said, yes, basically.

I think a good analogy is that you may put premium fuel in your $250K supercar, but that is still only 50% more expensive than regular fuel. The fuel makes the car go, it is absolutely fundamental to making the car go, but it doesn't make it go in a categorically different way based on what fuel you use. Someone will sell you fancy fuel if you want, but you won't feel a difference if you use $100/gallon fuel. As long as the fuel is up to spec, the car will do what it's meant to do.

If I had these speakers I'd probably go for a 800w+ amp setup so I could really get some dynamics going, but I wouldn't be looking to spend more than (say) $2-3K on that.

That's terrible analogy. Best fuel for internal combustion engine is alcohol and still not pure as it's dry. You get 30% power boost with 35/40 procenat less combustion heat if you use it wisely you can get 2x efficiency increase regarding consumption. Problem are boozers. Additives for gasoline are a drop of kerosene (to scrub the injectors) and procentage of alcohol (usual 13 or under but not non heard of 20%). It doesn't matter if you pure it in Bentley or Beetle (tho Beetle would profit more). I hope trafo station near your hause survives the abuse. I mean a KW is fine for pair of 13+" mid sensitive rigid linear sub's and still on same typology and PA is way more useful form. Or something extremely low sensitive.

 

[ZolaIII]

Aha, in any case. You need a fairly powerful, current strong amplifier that can handle tough loads to drive those Focal Grande Utopia EM Evo speakers.

How something rated at 8 Ohms deaps to 1.9?
Definitely cleanest Hypex you can get then, certified for 2 Ohms loads. Or not bridged A, A-B(F) including G also certified for such loads. That scraps Topping of.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

How something rated at 8 Ohms deaps to 1.9?
Definitely cleanest Hypex you can get then, certified for 2 Ohms loads. Or not bridged A-B(F) including G also certified for such loads. That scraps Topping of.

As I said, the Buckeye should work.

Power​

• 1200 watts @ 2 ohm
• 750 watts @ 4 ohm
• 375 watts @ 8 ohm
• (per channel, 1kHz, 0.1% THD, Hypex SMPS)

 

[DanielT]

… or just buy something decent in the first place . This just shows how silly spending that amount of money on speakers is.

The price performance (FR) ratio is incredibly bad.

How something rated at 8 Ohms deaps to 1.9?
Definitely cleanest Hypex you can get then, certified for 2 Ohms loads. Or not bridged A-B(F) including G also certified for such loads. That scraps Topping of.

Incredibly bad of Focal to sell such expensive speakers without honestly reporting the technical specifications. Does Focal just assume that people automatically match them with the type of amp I mentioned is needed?

I mean imagine a person who thinks they are 8 Ohm speakers with 94 dB sensitivity and connects a low power, let's say single end, tube amp built to handle not much lower than 8 Ohms (or 4 Ohm) with them.

 

[Ropeburn]

With 250 thousand moneys to spare, I'd probably spend 10k on a hifi system, doing everything I ever wanted, and spend the rest on a downpayment for a house, and maybe a nice car or something.

Hifi is trivial in those price ranges. The point of diminishing returns hits hard after maybe 5000 for speakers or even less, and 1000-1500 for amps. Plus subwoofers for maybe 1000-2000 each. Anything above that is just nice materials and aesthetics, but not sound.

Hell, depending on your taste, you can probably hire a professional PA company and have them install a real banger of a system in your garage for less than 10k moneys. Proverbial and literal 5000W bassmachine. They'll do it without breaking a sweat.

 

[ZolaIII]

@DanielT I wouldn't use bi amped 2x4 Ohms (two motors magnets) subwoofer's with min of 6 Ohms mid sensitive (86~7 dB) and still 400 W would be plenty. And not being particularly picky either. He had to pick a butcher of a speakers... If you by any means get speakers that deap under 2 Ohms do you self a favor and ditch them as fast as you can. It doesn't matter if they eat themselves or amplifier first.

 

[Roland68]

Why would you pair a 200 euro amplifier with 250,000 euro speakers? It makes no sense, although acoustically in their power range they will surely sound indistinguishable from any other well-designed amplifier, but I would certainly never risk pairing such expensive speakers with an amplifier of questionable reliability that risks doing damage if it fails.
I would certainly opt for something of absolute reliability, something with aesthetics that I appreciate as well as a power of at least 300 watts per channel into 8 ohms.
That said, if the question is academic, obviously the audio quality will be indistinguishable from any well-designed amplifier.

My speakers have been destroyed twice by DC current from high-quality, so-called high-end amplifiers developed and manufactured in Germany. Both manufacturers' amplifiers cost several thousand euros. Both amplifiers had DC current protection circuits, but since this happened after the two-year warranty period, the manufacturers were no longer concerned.

I haven't heard of any speakers being damaged with the PA5 (or PA5 II) mentioned in the first post, except that the protection circuit is built into the TPA325X ICs anyway.

 

[Talisman]

My speakers have been destroyed twice by DC current from high-quality, so-called high-end amplifiers developed and manufactured in Germany. Both manufacturers' amplifiers cost several thousand euros. Both amplifiers had DC current protection circuits, but since this happened after the two-year warranty period, the manufacturers were no longer concerned.

I haven't heard of any speakers being damaged with the PA5 (or PA5 II) mentioned in the first post, except that the protection circuit is built into the TPA325X ICs anyway.

These are anecdotal considerations, they are certainly valid for you, personally I would much prefer to connect speakers like this to a McIntosh than to a Topping amplifier