2. amps-preamps
  3. 1244027822

Is too much power in an amp really a problem?

As recently as 8-10 yrs. ago, I maintained my card carrying residence in the ‘lots o’ watts’ camp’ regularly. I’ve since held only a casual attendance to that group, and since departed with the acquisition of higher eff speakers, and lower powered tube amps.

Now I’m debating the future and appropriateness, of that perception and considering another SS, or a non tube amp. This time a digital amp… such as a class D or ICE configuration… as in a Bel Canto, PS Audio, Spectron, Wyred 4 S, etc., to use for both music and HT with my current Silverline speakers.

Several of these amps profess IMO rather high ratings for output power. 250, 300, and 500 wpc into 8 ohms, as your ‘oh by the way’ choices, and then doubling up should the impedance drop off to 4 ohms!

1000 wats per!

E frekin' Gad!

Truth be told, I’ve never put together a high eff speaker & high powered amp combo, nor felt the need, so I’m in a whole new ball game now, or am I?

I understand immense power reservoirs on tap, (like with my former BAT vk500) is a good thing, as well as are other attributes like a good input impedance, and control or damping figures. that amp ran VR4 JRs though, and both have since departed la casa Sunburn.

Additionally, my current tube mono blocks (120wpc) handle my 93db Sonata IIIs quite well IMO. My Odyssey Stratos SE also does a good enough job too rated at about 160 wpc. Between the two amps, the Dodds are the better sounding, and appear to have better control and more ease with the Silverliness.

In making a choice on one of these Digital or ICE amps, should the power numbers be regarded as something other than what they are? I mean more likely, do 250 wpc into 8 ohm rated ICE amps provide likewise results or the same feel, of an SS amp having the same output? Ie., control, power reserves, etc?

I do feel a good match between the speakers and amp is a prime consideration now, and do not wish to buy far too much or too little an amp, given these thoughts.

There too is the thought of the amps actual 'voice' itself to consider.

I sure wouldn’t want to smoke the speaks with too little or too much power on tap. Or have the amp ()s) always loafing. Or is that loafing bit just nonsense?

Any experiences and insights here on the digi power front is more than appreciated as I'm trying to get a 'feel' for this 'new to me' amp topology and not over or under buy.

Thanks much.
blindjim
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,413 posts
 
Guido - 250ASP uses traditional power supply while 200ASC has SMPS. 250ASP delivers 250W at 1% THD while 200ASC is 230W at the same 1% distortion level. Bel Canto specifies S300 and M300 amps as 300W (200ASC) because it is at 10% THD. I concluded that Rowland is a little bit more mature.

250ASP is still a little stronger where it counts - it can drive 2 Ohm impedance while 200ASC needs 3 Ohms minimum.

I would not pay so much attention to power. In order to listen twice louder one needs 10x more power but changing listening distance by 2 is equal to changing power 4x.
It is therefore very difficult to say how much power is needed. Room size and absorption also plays big role.

Macrojack - do you have PC-1? If so, how did it affect the sound?
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
Thank you Kijanki, do you mean to say that 200 AS incorporates SMPS on-module, while 250 ASP relies on external PS, which can be traditional as well as switch mode?
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,413 posts
 
Guido - Both have power supply built-in and connect to mains. 200ASC has switcher while 250ASP has traditional power supply. The strange thing is that there is no large transformer on the module - only something that looks like big choke on EI type square core. I checked block diagram and it shows that they rectify and filter mains and feed it to DC/DC converter. DC/DC converter is a switcher so no matter how you slice it both use switchers. Judging by size 250ASP is a little more robust and it shows in ability to drive lower impedance than 200ASC.

I had opportunity to buy cheap REF1000 from the dealer who was loosing Bel Canto line but was afraid of 1000W with my modest size speakers. On the other hand I don't listen very loud. 200ASC is described as sweeter but 1000ASP is praised to be a little more coherent and focused. The difference is very very small and the main thing is raw power that they deliver. Stronger Mosfets are always slower therefore switching frequency has to be adjusted to avoid losses and bandwidth has to follow. 1000ASP has -3dB bandwidth of 38kHz (8 Ohm load) while 200ASC is rated 60kHz (same load).
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
I've heard the JRDG Capri/102 driving speakers with "only" 92 dB sensitivity and there was some trouble with too much bloom in the bass. That went away when we upped the power to 500 watts. With 108dB sensitivity I would imagine this combination to be exceptional.

Blindjim was inquiring about lots of power with sensitivity around 93dB. That's a totally different issue vs. speakers with 108dB sensitivity. Yes, I suppose that you could drive them with 1000 watts, but why? It may do no harm, but since watts cost money, all other things being equal, it makes sense to not go overboard with power, once the speakers' needs have been made.

All that said, IME, 93dB sensitivity speakers benefit from 1000 watt amplification. Would 700 watts be sufficient? Maybe so, but after you get past the first 250W, amps seem to come in 250 and 500 watt increments.

Dave
macrojack
1,303 posts
 
I bought my PC-1 at the same time I bought the Capri and 102. I hooked them all up together. I have never compared them to anything else. I have never listened without the PC-1. The 102 does not see anything below 400 Hz. I have a Perreaux PMF 1850 to drive my woofers from 400 down to around 45 or 50 Hz. My system doesn't reproduce from 20 to 20K. I don't even want to know how loud it can play. I'm quite happy but might someday upgrade to a Continuum 500 or just get my Audio Mirror stuff out of the boxes again.

I don't know what modules are in use or what thinking went into their selection. It amazes me that so much concern is expended over such things by people who smoke cigarettes and eat fast food. Way too much emphasis is put on cosmetics, parts lists and pedigrees and way too little on the passive enjoyment of music. Critcal listening, as so many of you like to call it, is not passive or enjoyable. It is anal and obsessive and just gets in the way. Too many armchair quarterbacks in this game.
More to discover