What is Floyd Toole saying about extra amplifier power and headroom?


I've been reading Floyd Toole's "Sound Reproduction The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" and came across a passage that I wish he went into further detail about. It has to do with whether having amplifier headroom has any noticeable improvement in sq. He happens to be talking about getting the bass right in small rooms, but in doing so, he also touches on the use of a larger amp for extra headroom: 

Remedies for unacceptable situations typically included spending more money on a loudspeaker with a “better” woofer (without useful technical specifications, that was a lottery of another kind) and a bigger amplifier (for useless headroom ...

It's the last part ("useless headroom") that I'm curious about. I have notoriously hard-to-drive speakers (Magico Mini IIs). Although the recommended amplification is 50w - 200w, in my experience, that's a bit of an underestimation. I'm driving the Minis with a Musical Fidelity M6PRX, which is rated at 230w @ 8ohms. (The Minis are 4ohm.) The combination sounds excellent to my ears at low to moderate listening levels, but I notice a slight compression in the soundstage at higher levels. My listening room, while small, is fairly well treated with DIY panels made from Rockwool, sound-absorbent curtains, and thick carpeting. So I don't think I'm overloading the room. But I have wondered if an amp with far more power than what's suggested (more headroom) would drive the speakers with a little less effort.

Those of you familiar with Toole or with driving speakers with power to spare, what are your experiences? If I went with, say, a pair of monoblocks that drive 600w @ 4ohm, would the extra headroom address the compression I'm hearing at higher levels? Or am I wasting my time and, potentially, funds that would be better spent elsewhere? 

Thanks!  


128x128diamonddupree
One thing I’ve noticed in reading his book and even in his posts is that his observations are for multi-seat listening.


Yeah, while I will never have achieved the academic and scientific level of achievement, or renown, of course, that Toole has and deserves, I also come from a motion picture theater background, so I really love his writing and perspective.

In the book, almost everything he has to say about low frequencies and subwoofer placement has to do with optimizing for multiple seating positions. I think this explains a lot about his own choices in home audio. I’m mainly concerned with single-seat listening. My home theater system is good enough for my purposes.

I know it may not sound as relevant, but your fixes are _almost_ always the same. Controlling reverberation time for instance is something hard to do for one spot, without also controlling it in the rest of the room. Adding effective bass traps makes EQ possible.

What Toole gets exactly right, IMHO, is that the concept of room correction is greatly oversold. attempting big corrections in EQ because your sound field sucks doesn’t end up with acceptable solutions for most. Let me explain with a common and specific problem. Let’s say you have a harsh or compressed mid/treble experience in a very live room. Measuring it hyper accurately at your seated position may flatten the curve, but it still won’t sound good. You will control the energy say, between 2kHz and 10 kHz, so it no longer sounds too bright, or too dull, but with long reverb times, all that signal is noise. It’s like watching a movie, where you get the right color and brightness but you can’t tell the actors and scenery apart.

In the bass, with a bad room, the best you can do is clip peaks. Now, that may be a really good improvement, I've seen peaks that were the equivalent of 200x the power output vs. the rest of the system, and clipping them was a major benefit, which EQ can handily do, but trying to EQ these subs into a great response requires a sledgehammer like approach with major amplitude shifts in multiple adjacent bands which, may work for exactly one place and is not all that satisfactory a solution at the end.

Fix your reverberation, and often, the tonal balance fixes itself, and then you are left with very mild, gentle corrections to make. Add bass traps, the peaks flatten themselves, the nulls stop being so severe and again, just a little EQ here and there can give superb experiences.

Hope this helps,

Erik
Concerning headroom:  Each channel of an early Bryston 200 wpc amp has a 375 watt transformer, two 4000 Mf filter caps and two outputs.  The 125 wpc Audire has a 500 watt transformer per side, plus 4 26,000 Mf filter caps and 6 output devices.  At loud volumes, teh Bryston loses some bass oomph. Later Audire gear uses many more outputs.  When the power supply is big enough, the output transistors can regulate the current provided; when too small, they have to strain to get anything out, as Julius Siksnius of Audire discovered with his first amp, which had a one thousand watt transformer, and two much smaller filter caps, plus six outputs driving both channels, not one.    Mine became a great sub amp, but the upper ranges sounded a bit taxed when playing really loud on full range speakers, but much less so than My Phase Linear 400.

     I mainly agree with everything erik_squires stated in his last post.  My only disagreement is that in my practical experience, the use of 4 subs, properly positioned and configured in a distributed bass array (DBA) concept system, results in exceptionally good bass performance in most any room.  Just as Dr. Earl Geddes scientifically proved with his PHD thesis over 4 decades ago.   
     There's also no need for any bass acoustic room treatments of any type when using this concept.  Mics, room analysis and room correction equipment are interesting and can be utilized if preferred, of course, but I'm certain none of this was required in my 23'x16'x8' room  to perform at a very high level. 

      On another topic that danvignau posted about, I'm failing to understand why having an abundance of amp headroom in an audio system can be accurately considered to be anything other than beneficial by Floyd Toole or anyone else.  
     As a practical but admittedly anecdotal matter, I drive fairly inefficient, 86db/1 watt, Magnepan 3.7i  4 ohm speakers with 2,400 watt/30 amp class D monoblocks with an abundance of beneficial results and no negative results that I've been able to discern.

Tim
 I mainly agree with everything erik_squires stated in his last post. My only disagreement is that in my practical experience, the use of 4 subs, properly positioned and configured in a distributed bass array (DBA) concept system, results in exceptionally good bass performance in most any room. Just as Dr. Earl Geddes scientifically proved with his PHD thesis over 4 decades ago.  


Sorry, was assuming 1 sub placement.  I don't have a problem with this either.