More power "better"

After 30 years of building both home and studio playback systems, I have concluded this. The way to approach the reproduction of sonic realism is by having tons of power at your disposal. I'll use my own system as an example, but this is how I set-up studio monitoring systems in the Hollywood area and high-end home theater systems too. I am currently running a three-way low-level crossover system (tri-amplified). Each of the six woofers has its own 400 Watt amplifier (speaker-fused at 150 Watts). Each large midrange is driven by a 400 Watt amplifier (spk-fused at 75 Watts). Each tweeter is powered by a 250 Watt amplifier (spk-fused at 25 Watts). All amplifiers are Bryston models and the crossovers are Bryston too. This may seem like over-kill power, but the resulting sound says it all. Two audible things result. First because the Brystons are generally operating in the bottom 10% of their power range, the distortion and frequency response is clean and flat. Second, when realistic peaks are required of the amplifier, these powerful units have no problem providing steep peaks instantly, meanwhile the speakers are protected from heat burn-out by the fuses. I have never lost a driver unit using this method -- lost a few fuses along the way, but no speakers. The big advantage is the realistic dynamic range this system provides. It's not about being able to play it loud, although it certainly can be, it's about having the effortless ability to reach those peaks when demended of the source material. A drum, cymbal crash, bell clang, are obvious examples of going from zero power to max power in nanoseconds. This translates into realism. Of course this system is adjusted and measures in-the-room within one dB from 25Hz out to 20k and has inadable noise even a full volume -- that goes without saying these days. But, no matter how good a fidelity a system has, if it does not have power and lots of it, it sounds compressed to me. Think of it this way, suppose you have a 125 Horsepower/2000 pound car going down the highway at 50 mph and you want to pass someone. You can certainly pass them without problems. No suppose you have a 850 Housepower/2000 pound car going at 50 mph. Do you not believe the second car would pass with very little effort as compaired to the first car? Of course. What is really going on is the amplifier is trying to control the speaker cone so as to make the cone the mechanical equivilent to the electrical signal provided by the source. A strong ampllifier will control the speaker cone with little strain whereas the smaller amp will strain to control the cone. This is heard as "amplitude compression" and the ear is very sensitive to compression of peaks. I can alway be certain the first comment people make when hearing one of my monitor designs or my current home system is "it sounds so real, so immediate." The immediate sound they notice is the fact that (even with the fuse) the midrange (for example) is under complete control by the amplifier at all times. By measurement, the fuse will let peaks of 200 watts go to the speaker (which is rated at 50 watts) for short periods of time -- the initial peak. Those peakes are usually so short that little heat is produced, but the impact of the wave front from the speaker is there to hear. It's like being held and shaken by a 10 year old child compared to being held and shaken by a 300 pound body-builder. Both can shake you, but one is definately going to put your body where they want it. Power = Control = Realism. ~HAPPY LISTENING, Steve Desper

You can never have too much (amplifier) power, RAM, wit, compassion, intelligence or horsepower. Contrary to popular belief, however, it is quite possible to be too rich and/or too thin.

I have 2 systems in my den. (28ft x 14ft 9ft ceiling. One consist of 2 CERVIN-VEGA 3 way 15" with a 450W solid state amp. The other is 2 BOZAK B310 speakers each have 2 12" lo freq drivers, 2 6" mids abd 16 3" tweeters. The amp is MaCINTOSH 2-70 tube amps. Both systems have been voiced with passive EQs. ie LC nets. The sound is noticably diff. as to be expected. At low levels 75dB spl the Bozak MAC system sounds much more realistic. At higher levels the CV system is better. Swapping amps makes a diff. With the higher pwr. amps the BOZAKS have more punch from transits. The CVs with the 70W tube amp sound totaly diff. Probably dur to the higher output Z of the tube amp. You can get a tube like sound from a solid state amp by putting a resistor in series with the speaker (1 or 2 OHMS 50W. This reduces the damping of the lo freq. drivers and rounds off the sharp edges of transits. This diff. sound is very noticable and sounds better to some people. It also lets you play at higher levels without causing the lo freq. driver bottom out.

YES!! If you choose Classe, go for the higher end models -CA 400 OR CA401 OR even the new monoblocks

My experience as a thirty year professional recording engineer and studio designer has been that both Solid-State and Tube Amplifiers sound the same if running at well below their respective maximum power ratings. That is a 100 watt SS and 100 watt Tube amp delivering five or even ten watts will have the same "sound." It's that even-order verses odd-order distortion production difference that makes the two amps sound different. If you stay away from distortion being generated because you are operating the amp near its non-linear region, both are going to give you a linear amplification. After all, the signal doesn't know thermal from switching amplifiying schemes until non-linear slopes on the amplifiying scale are reached. It's not the fact that tube amps use thermal devices to amplifiy that makes them sound the way they do, its the topology of the amplifiying scheme. MOSFET's and Tubes are the same topology and have very simular "sound," not because of temperature but because of topology. Push both types into distortion or near-distortion and both begin to sound alike -- when compared to doing the same with tube verses any non-MOSFET SS amplifier, you get that "transistor sounding amp." I would also comment on this: I'm not certain as to why, but I have noticed that when you are converting one form of energy to another, tubes are generally the better sounding interface. Energy conversion such as: phono (mechanical) to electrical, microphone (acoustic) to electrical, electrical to acoustical (loudspeaker). However in all conversions, again, if you operate the converter (preamp or amplifier) in its linear area, that is, at very low voltage or power ranges, both tube and solid-state "sound" the same. In other words, once the conversion is made, what you do in the electrical area with the signal (EQ, Filter, Dynamic compression or expansion, etc.) tube or SS makes little difference. Conversion of energy forms is where the difference is made and is heard. I would further comment that good quality transformers (such as Jensen Transformers) placed near the energy converter will eliminate distortion due to common-mode-rejection, i.e., getting ride of noise and letting only the sound signal through for further amplification. This may be one BIG reason many people prefer the sound of tube amplifiers. It's not the tubes, it's the transformers that make that sound so sweet. Placing a good Jensen Transformer closer to the source of program material will do wonders to clean-up the signal for amplification further down the signal line. Comments Please ...