Double down, good or bad?

First, I'm not talking about clipping here- at all. I am well aware of the significance of the woofer in the box!

Atmasphere, clipping power is precisely what this thread, and "doubling-down" is all about. What I'm confused about is why you seem to be discussing clipping-power specifications and output-impedance specifications as if they're interchangable . . . or at least a common debate. They're not.

What is important to note here is the word paradigm. If you are operating solely within a paradigm, anything outside that paradigm can be construed as blasphemy.

The Power Paradigm amplifier is a 'power source', i.e. it will make constant power into any load. That is the voltage and current will both vary. I don't know of an amp that does this but that is the ideal, just as there are no true 'constant voltage' amplifiers out there either- that is the ideal. Does this clarify things?

Blasphemy is for the dogmatic, and I think it's best not to look at audio this way :). A typical high-quality conventional solid-state amplifier is pretty damn close to a pure voltage source. There's no reason why one couldn't build one that was almost a perfect constant-current source as well (except that it would severely alter the frequency response of the attached loudspeaker). But if it's a perfect "power source" you want, then you simply need to build a passive network that inversely approximates the impedance of the speaker, and use it in series with an amplifier that has a low output impedance.

Before the Voltage paradigm was proposed (MacIntosh and EV were two proponents in the 50s and 60s) the Power paradigm was the only game in town. I have had to create the terms 'Voltage Paradigm' and 'Power Paradigm' simply because the industry is mum on this subject in general- its inconvenient.

I think the industry is mum because these Paradigms only really exist on the Atmasphere website. Exactly who proposed this 'Voltage Paradigm'? Can you cite it as a bibliographical source, like one should in a proper scholarly paper?

I know we've been down this road before . . . but if you actually measure the output impedance of most hi-fi amplifiers from the 1950s and 1960s (McIntosh, Marantz, Scott, Dyna, Fisher, Quad, Leek, Citation, Eico, etc. etc.), they have a reasonably low output impedance . . . low enough to keep the impedance-related response variation of even a modern loudspeaker within +/- a dB or so. Did these manufacturers jump the gun on the Voltage Paradigm, not realizing it shouldn't be in effect until . . er . . Thiele and Small had ratified it? Of course not.

Atmasphere, I understand and respect that you design your products (and analyze their measured performance) in a way that meets your specific technical goals and personal preferences. But as for these "white papers" that you present on your website and promote on these forums . . . they simply don't pass muster in terms of technical or historical accuracy, or good scholarly form . . . the Grand Conspiracy overtones being particularly tiresome.

Kirkus, does this description help?:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/16threshold/index.html

I am not a techie on the level of Nelson pass or Atmapshere (still learning), but I do have some experiences of my own, using a well built tube amp, one can use almost any speaker regardless of load, if the amps are built correctly. For example, many folks like to state that B&W or Magneplanar speakers are very hard to drive and require at least 200 watts or more. The tube amps I use drive these types of speakers easily and make wonderful music. I have been on the tube rolling circus and also discovered with the right combination, I can turn off my massive 15" subwoofer as these amps deliver deep enough to not have a sub. On some really stuff, such as deep pedal organ's, well I have to have the sub on, but the slam of the kick drum is all there.

From the reports that are starting to fill in on these amps, I think that those that state that tubes doen right are great with almost any speaker load. My amps are rated to handle loads as low as 2ohms.

http://www.octave.de/english/products/PowerAmplifiers/INFO-MRE130.htm

http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews/octave3/octave.html

Ciao,
Audioquest4life

Audioquest4life, with all due respect you are indeed "(still learning)". It would take a hell of a tube amp to appropriately drive some Apogee's.

Unsound, we got a Golden Ear Award for our MA-1 driving a set of Apogees. This is a zero-feedback tube amp BTW.

Kirkus, its clear to me that your perspective is that of the Voltage Paradigm. As to papers on the subject, one was written by one of the designers at EV. The way tube amp manufacturers were getting their 'output impedance' down was by adding feedback- to the detriment of the resulting sound quality. The HK Citation 2 is a good example- a fair amount of feedback, used to reduce the distortion imposed by the AB pentode-based transformer-coupled output section. Despite that though, the amplifier fails to double power as the load impedance is halved. And we are not talking about clipping!!

clipping power is precisely what this thread, and "doubling-down" is all about. What I'm confused about is why you seem to be discussing clipping-power specifications and output-impedance specifications as if they're interchangable . . . or at least a common debate. They're not.

I am not discussing clipping at all, nor do I see clipping power as interchangeable with output impedance- no idea where you got that.

FWIW the 'Grand Conspiracy' thing you mention seems to me an example of adding meaning where none existed prior. All I am pointing out is what is causing the tube/transistor debate, the objective/subjective debate and the equipment matching conversation- they are all the same thing. There is a secondary conversation regarding the rules of human hearing/perception, wherein I contend that it is important to understand those rules and adhere to them as design principles. FWIW, that, for the most part, is not happening in audio.