SS amps. Why so much power?


I though that there was so much tube amp talk on this page lately, I'd put up a SS thread. Why do so many people buy the big SS amps that have 200,300,500 watts of power? Is it because the speaker you want is inefficient and you need lots of power, or do you need to play real loud? Or is it a status thing, like my amp's bigger than your amp, or what? Do you buy a big amp first, and then look for a speaker with high power handling? Or do you pick a low efficiency speaker you like and then look for a big amp to drive it? Do you subscribe to the idea that if you have alot of watts, the amp will sound better at lower volumes? I've noticed that the majority of AudiogoNers go with high power SS amps and low efficiency speakers. What gives?
twl
Lets see if AudiogoN will let this one in.
sean-enjoy your mega watt headbanging amp and I'll enjoy my low watt headbanging amp.
There,that should pass the moderators.
As some of you might have guessed, David and i have been going "round and round" via email. Since much of our conversation pertains to information that might clarify either or both of our positions, i am responding to one of his emails publicly. This will give some of you a better idea of where i'm coming from. This may help to clarify the situation and ease some tension.

David stated that his system ( 30 wpc Class A driving 92 dB speakers ) plays almost as loud as a 250 wpc Krell driving 88 dB speakers. I believe that 100% and would never argue that point. It takes a LOT of power to overcome measurably higher speaker efficiency. I just don't think that either set-up is "loud" nor would it be "clear" due to amplifier strain when cranked up. With that in mind, David and i might not have been as far apart in perspective as it seems.

As such, I think that there have been some large misconceptions as to where i'm coming from. Most people think of a 250 wpc amp as being "BIG". It's really not when you get down to it ( unless you have HIGH efficiency speakers ). In order to achieve the levels of volume with the clarity that i speak of, David thought that i would need something along the lines of a Krell 600 to do the job. I agree that this would be a good starting point. I still don't think that it would get you there due to power losses and distortion in the passive crossover network and out of band power being fed to the drivers. The beauty of active multi-amping is that it bypasses all of that AND increases amplifier efficiency and headroom at the same time.

This information is presented here STRICTLY as a point of reference to why i have said the things that i have about volume levels and clarity. You'll also understand why i said that 250 wpc is not a lot of power.

My main 2 channel system consists of six stereo amplifiers that are actively tri-amped and total 4800 watts of rms power. It consists of amplifiers built and designed by Threshold and Perreaux. Speakers consist of three different sections per side. There is a line array of e-stat tweeter panels, a set of "double stacked" e-stat panels for mids and multiple woofers for each side.

My HT system is rated at 6400 watts rms at the rated speaker impedance, all channels driven. Amplifiers are a Sunfire Signature driving the mains and a Sunfire Cinema Grand Signature driving the center, surrounds and subs. I have six 12's, four 10's and six 8's in this system, so power handling, max spl and low frequency response is not a problem.

My bedroom system is currently bi-amped and may be going to tri-amplification sometime soon. It currently consists of two identical amps ( Quad's ) rated for 100 wpc. Speakers are stand mounted two way monitors and a pair of downloaded subs.

My computer room system uses two Kinergetic Class A mono-blocks into low impedance omnidirectional speakers. Each amp is rated at 800 watts rms into those speakers. While these speakers won't "crank", they do require at least 350+ wpc to let them do what they are capable of doing.

For the record, i do have a "low powered" system. It consists of a vintage Marantz tube amp driving 104 db horns. Some of you may have seen me recently posting a question about this in the Vintage Asylum.

Unless you've ever heard a system that has nearly endless reserves of power and you can move a LOT of air rather effortlessly, you've never heard "loud and clear" before. As i've mentioned before, most of what people think of as being "loud" is actually "distortion byproducts" hurting their ears. I'll leave it at that and hope that some of you can more clearly understand my point of view. Sean
Hey Sean, I have never doubted the truth of the position you are laying out here - for your stated purposes only. And I'm glad your hearing is still intact (though I didn't quite need the full auditory report - I was making a j-o-k-e). Now the only thing I am wondering about is why anyone would want to listen to "metal" in this fashion! (Peace - that was another one.)
Sean-Nice post.To clarify a bit more.I mentioned 2 Krell 600's and a pair of Grand Utopia's 93db?? This was in response to Sean e-mailing me stating I had given him the impression I was claiming to get "bone crushing,concert level" volume from my set up.
I 'shot back' it would take the Krell and Grand Utopia set up to achieve that(maybe)
I never claimed anything close to that kind of volume only that I get sufficient volume with head room for metal music.
Maybe what it comes down to is:
1) "loud" is in the ears of the beholder
2) Im a headbanger imposter
3) it does take 8000wpc to be a true headbanger
4) this is ridiculous
If I offended anyone wih my big D&%#K remark Im sorry.I can be crude at times.I know Sean was a little offended and I am sorry for that.
Sean- this is our first exchange here on the 'gon.
GLAD TO MEET YA!!