|
New member Username: MagfanPost Number: 8 Registered: Oct-07 | Anybody know anything about ColdAmp other than what is on there site? They sell to the DIY crowd and make some claims which I would like verified. If this equipment is as advertised, I'd give it a go. Easily expandable when/if I go to HT. I also have some questions, which I am trying to answer. Digital PS same as switching? Why only 4ohm ratings on ColdAmp site? |
|
New member Username: SsanmorMadrid Post Number: 1 Registered: Feb-08 | Hello, this is Sergio from coldamp. Digital PS does not exist, some people misunderstand that switching PSUs are "digital". The same happens with Class-D amplifiers. They are not digital, but switching. We have the 4 ohm ratings because this is the most common load, but they work perfect down to 1 ohm and up to 100 ohm or more, with different power ratings of course. You can see some graphs of max. available power vs. load impedance in the BP4078 datasheet. If you are interesting in an application in particular and would like advice, just contact us and we will be glad to help you (info@coldamp.com). We can provide OEM samples with full support and reduced price to OEMs. Best regards, Sergio |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 124 Registered: Oct-07 | Sorry, Serge. I ended up going with a B&O based design, in the form of a PS Audio GCC-250. I need the hi-current to drive my panels. I continue, however, to be intrigued by all class 'd ' amps and the various applications. My company, International Rectifier, has promised to comp me a class 'd' reference board. I intend to make a demonstration version of a home amp which is battery powered. Some comments have been made about car audio sound which I intend to refute. Based on what I read, class 'd' still has a ways to go for mass market acceptance in home audio. To me, the advantages are just too good to pass up. Low heat and hi efficiency would seem to be the only way to go for a 7.1 HT receiver, especially if more than about 100watts/channel are actually needed. I won't even get into the higher sensitivity side of the speaker arguement. For now, my system is all set and I can not afford too much $$ on experiments. If I had the time and money I'd have a ColdAmp and maybe a Hypex, too. There are others, but those are the 2 that come to mind. IR is also coming on so I wish them well, too. .........leo.......... |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12315 Registered: May-04 | . "I won't even get into the higher sensitivity side of the speaker arguement." Why not? If the speakers are highly sensitive, there is no need for 100 watts. Yeah, yeah, de panels, boss, de panels. I know but you are barking up the wrong tree. . |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 127 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, why CAN'T I just take a pass at arguing about hi/low sensitivity speakers? I actually tend to agree with your position, as it turns out. But to expect most (NOTE: not all) speakers to conform to the higher sensitivity end of the scale is not reasonable given todays market. Fact is, hi sensitivity speakers (>94 or 95 db/1watt-1 meter) are probably <20% of the market? (not married to that figure). That being said, I don't think there is a serious downside to the idea of a stereo or HT using less electricity to get more or the same output. When I was looking for a new integrated amp to replace seperates, I tested the Krell KAV400i. Nice sound and it liked the panels, but it simply would not last in my enviroment. It would have cooked itself to death. Summer was out of the question. Now, I don't know how to do the math, but it seems that to get a satisfactory SPL in a real room, you can do it several ways.....higher power to speakers that can handle it, OR in the case of home theater, you can use 5, 6 or even 7 speakers driven with less power to achieve the same SPL. I think that's right, isn't it? ..But probably not an exhaustive list of ways to achieve hi SPL in a real room. Besides, IS 100/side of a HT receiver REALLY unreasonable? I don't think so, especially since there are so many of 120 / 130 and even higher available. Do we need to argue about 'all channels driven', too? God, I hope not, since that is yet another can of worms. The other (yet another) fact of the current situation is that as you go upscale in features, power typically follows. While I am not up-to-the-minute concerning HT receivers, it seems that to get mass amounts of HDMI switching, the full monte of onscreen displays, maximum setup flexibility, upscaling and who knows what else, you need to go upscale in any lineup. You get more power as a result. Now, if you choose seperates, you can get as much pre/pro as you can lift and as little amp as you desire. A couple generations ago, what the world needed was a good .05$ cigar. Now we apparently need a good 75x(5, 6, or 7) channel amp. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12316 Registered: May-04 | . I have always agreed with Paul Klipsch on one thing, what the world needs is a good five watt amplifier. When PK made that statement back in the 1960's, there weren't many available. Fortunately, there are numerous good quality - if not exceptional quality - small wattage amplifiers to choose from in the current marketplace. http://www.decware.com/newsite/mainmenu.htm http://www.decware.com/newsite/mainmenu.htm http://www.decware.com/newsite/mainmenu.htm . |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 153 Registered: Jul-07 | "....to get a satisfactory SPL in a real room..." Ah, there's the rub. I know "satisfactory" means something entirely different depending on who you ask, but IMO you don't need 100W to drive even average efficiency speakers to "satisfactory" levels for me. If you subscribe to the theory that an amplifiers first few watts are its best, needing 100 to drive a speaker to an acceptable listening level would imply you're missing out on something good. I suppose if folks listen loud enough, long enough, the quality part of the equation becomes moot in time. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 130 Registered: Oct-07 | We're getting a little off-track here. My original posting was about class'd' amps. I was, and still am curious about this approach to amplifiers. For all those who hold hi-sensitivity speakers as a worthy goal, I feel it is inconsistant to hold your other equipment to a lesser standard. In this day of 100$bbl oil and gas prices which will apparently crest 4$/gallon an amp which is higher in efficiency as well should be considered. Most HT receivers regardless of rated power 1. won't do it all channels driven and 2. can be used as cooktops in an emergency AND 3. won't drive low impedence loads, I think the class 'd' stuff deserves a chance. They all drive 4ohm loads. Some claim 2 ohm or lower ability. Given, you only NEED a fraction of the rated power for 90%+ of listening, points 2+3 above are still valid. In fairness to other views, I will also note that the HK stuff is generally lower in rated output, but is never seen by anyone as underpowered. One question, though. Why are the 1st few watts any more important than any other watt? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12317 Registered: May-04 | . "Satisfactory" is a too simple word to describe what sort of volume requirements various listeners might "require". I know Mike Wodek ocassionally prefers to have his ears hurt when he's finished listening. Another forum member believes reproducing the "real thing" means playing his system at levels similar to those heard at a rock concert and suggests he listens at that level every night. If that's your idea of realism, then you'll need lots of watts and still require speakers with above average sensitivity. However, since most of us don't require 130dB peaks to satisfy our desire for realism, the point is not so much in peak levels as it is in the quietest of moments. That's what the "first watt" theory is all about. The idea of the first watt being the most important - if the first watt sucks, why continue? - originated with Nelson Pass who now manufactures the First Watt line of components. A distinction must be made, however, when discussing the First Watt amplifier against most other components. Pass makes the point that it is current that does the work of moving the voice coil of any speaker, save electrostats which have no voice coil, and most transistor amplifiers excel at voltage but do not do well at current until they are running at a fairly high voltage delivery. Therefore, most solid state amplifiers will need to be turned up to deliver sufficient current to adequately drive the speaker. In that respect, the first watt sucks since it cannot deliver what a common speaker requires to perform well. Turn the clock back to vacuum tubes which are current sourcing devices and you have the solution to the problem Pass tries to address. The issue now becomes using vacuum tubes which can deliver only limited amounts of current (when compared to most transistors) to drive a modern speaker built around the concept of cheap (transistor) watts. Anyone who has tried a tube amplifier on a pair of Thiels should know there are better ways to get good sound. At issue is really the speakers which are sold to pair with cheap watts. High mass drivers and complex crossovers waste most of the energy from the amplifier. The crossover literally throws this energy (information) away as heat which is irretrievable as sound. High mass drivers mean most of the energy is wasted in the voice coil and the driver must have high voltage/current to perform. High senstivity/low mass drivers, on the other hand, do not require high current, do not waste energy as heat and respond well to the first watt. That concept of responding to the first watt means the driver can respond to low level signals that retrieve important information which otherwise gets thrown away by high mass/low sensitivity drivers. More ambience, more nuance, more detail and more dynamics are the result of a driver that responds to the first watt. IMO, the speaker industry has simply led us down the wrong path by requiring partnering amplifers that can produce large amounts of wasted heat to deliver less than adequately sourced power. Between the solid state amplifiers that are ten per cent efficient and speakers at one or two per cent efficiency most of what is in the original source is simply thrown away before it ever reaches the voice coil which may then throw away another fifty per cent of the incoming power. Traditionally high efficiency speakers meant poor frequency response and severe phase distortions. That is becoming a thing of the past as driver technology has improved over the past decade thanks to the resurgence of single ended amplifiers. Once again looking back to the origins of "high fidelity" has provided an important clue into how to reach the goal of real fidelity to the source. * "To me, the advantages are just too good to pass up. Low heat and hi efficiency would seem to be the only way to go for a 7.1 HT receiver, especially if more than about 100watts/channel are actually needed. I won't even get into the higher sensitivity side of the speaker arguement." "Jan, why CAN'T I just take a pass at arguing about hi/low sensitivity speakers?" "That being said, I don't think there is a serious downside to the idea of a stereo or HT using less electricity to get more or the same output. When I was looking for a new integrated amp to replace seperates, I tested the Krell KAV400i. Nice sound and it liked the panels, but it simply would not last in my enviroment. It would have cooked itself to death." "Besides, IS 100/side of a HT receiver REALLY unreasonable? I don't think so, especially since there are so many of 120 / 130 and even higher available. Do we need to argue about 'all channels driven', too? God, I hope not, since that is yet another can of worms." "The other (yet another) fact of the current situation is that as you go upscale in features, power typically follows." "A couple generations ago, what the world needed was a good .05$ cigar. Now we apparently need a good 75x(5, 6, or 7) channel amp." * Leo - Well of course you CAN ignore the issue of high sensitivity speakers. You can also drive your car in second gear on the highway with a load of bricks in your trunk and two flat tires. If you wish to conserve energy in one area and then throw away all of your stored energy as heat and wasted effort, that's your choice. I'm not clear on your argument of watts coming with features. If you're not looking at a receiver, what does this have to do with your situation? I thought we were discussing a separate power amplifier to pair with a processor. You have me somewhat confused with your discussion of HT receivers and then saying you bought the PS Audio GCC-250. That's a two channel "control amplifier", right? Please tell me what we are discussing before I spend time here. You seem to be confusing several other things in your comments. Six or seven speaker will get you more SPL? Yes, they will, but not if they are all playing separate, discrete information as they would be in a HT set up. Also, the "all channels driven" is an argument that only finds reason when discussing the common crap that is sold in the mass market HT gear. We're not headed there I assume. Your idea that 100 watts is not out of the question since there are so many 120-130 watt HT receivers is equally confusing. Are we discussing HT crap or are we discussing decent audio gear? The proliferation of 120-130 and higher watt HT recievers is based on the proliferation of poorly designed loudspeakers and the ignorance regarding power that has permeated the mass market for the past fifty years. I have no doubt the Krell "liked" the panels and vice versa. Do you know why? What is it about the panels that you like so much? . |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 131 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan:: first, I brought the HT gear into it because there is great opportunity there. The current crop generally doesnt' like low impedence loads and at the same time generates huge amounts of heat. I was in a mass market store and went by the HT stuff. In the 'sound room' (chuckle) existed many HT receivers. It was a HOT room. ALL the gear was at least warm and some was nearly too hot to touch. I am NOT in the market for any HT gear at this time or the forseeable future. Class 'd' is at least a partial solution. Speaker sensitivity is a physics problem. You are up against the wall of rules. High sensitivity, at least at low frequencies requires big, heavy magnets and a larger enclosure.....like the old school speakers to which you refer. The dawn of the accoustic suspension design (AR lineup) required more power. Speaker efficiency is also based on magnet strength and gap size. larger gap and lower strength is less 'efficient' at turning electricity into sound. The Fostex / Lothar drivers are kings at this. Some Lothar drivers have over 1 tesla at the gap.....huge. Generally, to get good bass from small drivers, you must sacrifice overall sensitivy to bring the mid/hi end back into line with the diminished bass. The 2-way monitor speakers are good examles of this. Add in the nutty x-over needed to do this and there you go....weird loads/hi phase angles and sensitivy at the low end. Is it a coincidence that low efficiency / small speakers came into being at the same time, nearly as solidstate amps became available? Now, IS efficiency/sensitivity coorelated with sound quality when controlling for price? B&W is at the mid to low end of the sensitivy scale and has a good following. My Maggies also have a large following and more important, a large repeat following while being pretty darn in-sensitive at 84 or 85 db/1watt/1meter. I like them because they are incredibly transparent and probably what is called fast. The sound is immediate and is the most together I have heard. I liked them immediately when I heard them......25 or so years ago. I'll be buried in the box my 1.6's came in. At the other end, mediocre sound abounds and is available at all sensitivity levels. The regulars to these forums who listen to LOTS of stuff should be able to illuminate this point. I'll bet they've heard some real clinkers at all price and sensitivity points. none of which they own! If you could illuminate why the Krell and panels seemed to agree, I'd appreciate it. As for automotive comparisons, I think low sensitivity speakers are more like a full-size, truck based SUV. Takes lots of HP to make it go, it has a tendency to not like to stop or change direction, gets poor gas mileage and is the shits to park. (don't know what parking has to do with Stereo!) My automotive choice is the fast/nimble end of things in the form of a Honda S-2000. Bottom line is I don't think that speaker sensitivity is a big deal. Good and bad designs exist across the entire range of sensitivities. NOW, if you say you have a philisophical bias towards hi sensitivity speakers, that is the end of the discussion. Can't argue with that. I also understand from some of your prior posts that you are a big fan of the LS3/5a. http://www.ls35a.com/ http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html I am 99% certain you are familiar with both above links. I find it slightly inconsistant that someone who is a big fan of efficient speakers should pale at the thought of an efficient amp. Sounds like a win-win? |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2505 Registered: May-05 | Interesting points, Jan. In my experience, another way to achieve what I think the first watters are ultimately looking for is through active crossovers. I've heard a few systems that incorporate active XOs, particularly Bryston/PMC, Naim, and Linn systems. The system with the active XO blew away the same exact system without the active XO. It wasn't even close. Everything was much more real and believable. I didn't really put the two together until now. Not that active XOs and first watt are completely interchangable, but they may be a lot closer than most poeple think. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 132 Registered: Oct-07 | Briefly, my goal(s) remain the same. 1. Have a stable home system that I don't need to mess with. Before the last year or so of evolution, my system had been stable for nearly 2 decades. 2. Explore class'd'. If you are willing to do some reading, here is a link I have found invaluable. http://www.irf.com/product-info/audio/ |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 155 Registered: Jul-07 | I certainly would agree that class d amplification is a very efficient, and also a very effective implementation. Lots of good examples, and there are some out there that would surprise the heck out of people I think. So no argument there Leo. My point is simply that we should look at it as efficient and effective, not that since watts are now cheap we should assume that more watts are better. In many cases they are not needed. If we make the first watt or two exceptional, and design a speaker to make the most of that, often magic is the result. And the speaker doesn't have to be efficient to the extreme. Anything north of 88db without crazy shifts in impedence or phase are really pretty easy to drive. The first few watts go a long way. The speaker industry has finally begun to design its products to be compatible with a wide variety of amplification. Hopefully we don't start to shift back the other way. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 133 Registered: Oct-07 | I would like to add a point or 2 about class 'd' and how it is really implimented. My company makes such an amp. I just recently found out about it by reading a press release on non-audio site. The point is that these amps are 'scalable'. The same chassis, if you will, can hold a variety of engines. Bottom line: 2x power is NOT 2x the cost. Power supply makes a big difference. In the board I am looking at, all the housekeeping voltages are provided onboard from the +-25->35vdc input. So, if you want more power, up the voltage (and $) to the board. For more power, more voltage and use different output transistors and add heatsink capacity. The IR boards go from 50 or 60 watts to 500 watts. http://www.audiokit.it/ITAENG/KitElettr/Hypex/UcD180.pdf The Hypex amp, link'd above is a fine example of a kit which is available to anybody. This is not expensive all things considered. The DIY crowd loves it. So, while I can agree that the 1st few watts are important, there is no economic reason not to go to a higher level. Even if you NEVER used more than a total of 30rms in your HT, economically, it would add nearly nothing to make the amps 2x or 3x more powerful. I further agree that it is in the speaker industries INTEREST to make speakers that are more easily driven. My first integrated amp was a Kenwood KA-7100 of 60/side which even had a 4ohm rating. Not so today where if you find a HT receiver with a 6ohm rating, it is unusual. I had a pair of JBL copy Rogersoundlab 3600s. 12"3-way w/dome tweeter and a nice midbass peak. Today it should be possible to make a fine HT setup from 3 stereo t-amps and a nice pre-pro. Use speakers like from Jan's link, above and it should provide room filling sound and use less than 200 watts, total at full blast. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12321 Registered: May-04 | . Now we've gone from 100 to 200 watts?! LS, you're missing the point! |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 134 Registered: Oct-07 | doesn't seem to be economical to make smaller class 'd' modules. here are the reference boards from IR. http://www.irf.com/technical-info/refdesigns/audiokits.html my last post ref is for a total system draw of 200 watts.....all amps going full blast, and a source. Should be enough left over, within the 200 watt limit for a reading lamp. Using the T-amp, you should be able to bring the whole thing in for 100watts total. A single car battery would give you 20 hours continuous full power fun. During daylight hours, a single 1meter/square solar panel would yield about 100 watt-hours per hour. Jan, what would be wrong w/a 6.1 system using 3 stereo T-amps? 36 watts @8 or 54@4....using your favorite 94db speaker, this should provide killer sound, if a tad expensive to keep in AA's. Your remarks about them being 'scarey quiet' is an endorsement of sorts. The next level would be a full demo system. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12324 Registered: May-04 | . LS - This thread is like hunting with Dick Cheney. Even if you are sober, you don't know which way to move to not get hit by a flying lead pellet aimed squarely at your head. We've discussed amplifiers that range from the Coldamp, to HT receivers, a Krell that liked your panels but heated your room, to the product your company designs which you haven't got, a Hypex DIY kit, a Kenwood from the 1970's, to the T amps and let's not forget the PS Audio control amp which you say you bought. You've said you prefer to ignore high efficiency speakers and then suggest a system utilizing 94dB sensitive models with 200 watt amplifiers - which would probably never peak at more than 1/10 of their RMS wattage with such speakers. We've gone from solar power, to AA batteries and an Interstate 60 amp cranking power car battery (just don't sit in the same room while you're listening - 20 hours of off gassing won't save you money on your hospital bill) and you've justified your purchase of an efficient amplifier by citing the price of a barrell of oil. I have to admit, LS, I don't know how to respond to this other than to say I don't know where you got the idea I was advocating inefficient amplifiers. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12325 Registered: May-04 | . Let me make one correction to this statement; "Turn the clock back to vacuum tubes which are current sourcing devices ... " As far as most loudspeakers are concerned, a vacuum tube amplifier typically operates as a voltage source just as a transistor amplifier would. |
|
Gold Member Username: Mike3Wylie, Tx USA Post Number: 1142 Registered: May-06 | My 2 cents. There is music which hurts my ears by the time I am done listening to it. It is music from Tool, Rare Earth, Rush, SRV, and some others which if I were at their concert I would experience the same or worse in terms of how my ears hurt. My worst experience was trying to max out my Carver while playing this real long song by Iron Butterfly. There is also music I listen to at between 3 and 30 watts. That is where 90-95% of my listening is done at. Yes I have 540 watts per channel counting both the MAC and Gallo SA amp, but I have also listened to music at the 0.3 watt level and enjoyed it. I like having power available for when I want it. 100 watts per channel is relative to the quality of the amp and there is not too many times all 5,6, or 7 channels are going to be fully driven, so IMO I would rather have 30 good watts X 7. Let the subs do the heavy lifting for HT. Obviously 2 channel audio is my passion and HT is just there for me. I find myself rambling now, so it is time to stop typing. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 136 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, I just find it slightly inconsistent that you advocate efficient speakers and decry cheap watts without finishing the thought that there are more efficient watts out there, and of good quality, too. A class 'a' amp that just sits there at a couple amps doing nothing but heating your room has to put a dent in the old electric bill. Please, re-read, I NEVER said you advocated inefficient amps. I just suggested an inexpensive, highly efficient amp scheme. You seemed to enjoy your t-amp, so why not for HT use as well? I noted that except for the t-amp, there are few really low power 'd' amps available. The UcD180 is at the bottom of the power scale. That's all. The old Kenwood reference was meant to indicate that years ago, 4ohm ratings were normal in regular, consumer equipment. Not so today where few HT receivers have the PS to drive 'em and if power is tested, it is invariably only slightly higher than the rating at 8ohms. We should be approaching these posts like a couple of civilized persons, having a beer (scotch?) sitting around a table just tossing ideas and thoughts back and forth. There should be no shooting or pot-shotting. In case you hadn't noticed, I have been unfailingly polite, even in the face of some of your more abrupt statements. I asked a serious question in #131. repeat: Is sound quality related to efficiency, when controlling for price? Just your opin is OK. Maybe an example, too. I re-read your 1st watt segment. I like the remarks Chris made, too. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12327 Registered: May-04 | . "Is sound quality related to efficiency, when controlling for price?" I don't understand this. What does "controlling for price" mean? Are we discussing efficient amplifiers or efficient speakers? At the moment, "sound quality" - whatever that means - does not tend to favor efficient amplifiers as much as it does highly efficient speakers. Both are niche products. Therefore, discounting one while embracing the other seems inconsistent to me. LS, I'm not at all trying to be rude or abrupt but your references have been all over the board and I cannot follow your reasoning in most cases. While I am not an advocate for wasting energy in any form, the difference in energy consumption between a class A amp and a class D amp is not at this time the reason to buy the more efficient amplifier if the less efficient model sounds better. I assume they both have on-off switches and you'll use them a few hours per week. If you tell me you are running these amplifiers full blast 24/7, then I'll change my mind. "Jan, I just find it slightly inconsistent that you advocate efficient speakers and decry cheap watts without finishing the thought that there are more efficient watts out there, and of good quality, too. A class 'a' amp that just sits there at a couple amps doing nothing but heating your room has to put a dent in the old electric bill. Please, re-read, I NEVER said you advocated inefficient amps." Of course I decry cheap watts. But I have "finished the thought" that there are efficient watts available that offer decent sound quality for most tastes. You seem to think I'm knocking your choice of amplifier when I'm not. If you prefer the PS Audio product, that's fine with me. I haven't heard it but I assume it is a good quality product from a long standing high end company. It is not, however, the amplifier you purchased which has brought me into this thread, LS. For one thing, it is that you seem to justify your decision with the price of oil. If you are looking for a small compact amplifier, your selections are limited to a niche market. If you are looking for a cool running amplifier, there are a reasonable amount of those around once you dismiss the cheap watts of a poorly designed HT receiver. But mostly I am not concerned with your choice of amplifier. You stated, "I won't even get into the higher sensitivity side of the speaker arguement." To which I replied, "Why not? If the speakers are highly sensitive, there is no need for 100 watts." My issue has been you should not ignore high sensitivity speakers. What high efficiency amplifier you run (or even if you should choose a high efficiency amplifier) with a high sensitivity speaker is another matter that I have not addressed in this thread. My point is 1) do not ignore the most obvious solution to your issues with hot running amplifiers and 2) you are the one being inconsistent when you insist on efficient amplifiers while also insisting on large amounts of wattage to drive speakers at no more than 1% efficiency. Do you really not see the issue at hand here? When the speaker achieves virtually all of its sound potential within the first watt, you can buy a 10 watt amplifier and still has the capacity to - how did you put it - "provide room filling sound and use less than 200 watts, total at full blast." OK, but why the need for 200 watts? Why not the 10 watts and a speaker that only requires three of those ten at full blast? Surely a speaker that can achieve that sensitivity can be no more physically imposing than your existing panels. If you like your panels, that's fine. But you are looking at a major change in your system and you're buying an amplifier as if you are still focussed only on the horsepower in the SUV. The S2000 isn't a nimble car because it has good horsepower. It is a nimble car because it has sufficient HP to work with the requirements of the rest of the vehicle. If you are going to make a change, you should consider all the factors that relate to your goals. The speakers and amplifier should be considered as a pair and not as separate entities. That is my message here. I am not against efficient watts when they sound good but I am largely against a speaker that requires throws away massive amounts of power no matter how efficient the power source might be. I still believe the 82dB LS3/5a's are wonderful speakers that do many things most larger speakers can only dream of accomplishing. However, to comment on the 3/5a's you must understand they are not and were never meant to be your average commercial speaker. And I don't use the 3/5a's at the moment. I've moved to a speaker with about 10dB more sensitivity, a lower nominal impedance and without any crossover components between the amplifier outputs and the driver. These speakers have trade offs just like any other speaker but they are quite happy when played with the 6 watt Italian T-amp paired with a class D subwoofer amp. I can't say whether you would be happy with them, LS, (and my less efficent McIntosh tube amps still sound better on these speakers) but I am saying you should not ignore the high sensitivity speakers similar to them. Putting together your system by considering all the alternatives works better than buying piece meal. If you consider all the alternatives, you cannot ignore the high sensitivity speakers. . |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 161 Registered: Jul-07 | One thing that helped me in this whole brute force discussion was a little measurement exercise I did a little while ago. I have pretty average sensitivity speakers (89db 8ohm), so I turned up my little 15W amp until the music was playing louder than I would ever play it. Now I don't play my music particularly loud, but you had to raise your voice significantly to be heard in the same room. Based on my measurements with my multimeter at the speaker terminals, the amp was peaking at around 2.5 watts (calculated based on measurements of volts and amps, and calculating ohms and watts). My point is simply that I think many people assume that far more power is required to play music at reasonable levels than is truly needed in the vast majority of instances. Sure, there are some speakers that don't "awaken" until some serious juice is flowing, but that isn't the always the case. In fact, a few watts will go much further than most of us think. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 9871 Registered: Dec-04 | And a lot of amps will not. |
|
Gold Member Username: Mike3Wylie, Tx USA Post Number: 1155 Registered: May-06 | MC7300 .3 up to 3 Watts with Gallos, can still hear conversation, but with Wishing You Were Here playing on the CD why would I want to? Seriously Chris, you bring up a good point, and I never would have believed it had I not had the meters on the MAC to tell my otherwise. Not only that, but before long I expect somebody in the house to knock on the media room door or send me a text message asking me to lower it a bit. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 143 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan said: Putting together your system by considering all the alternatives works better than buying piece meal. Boy, don't I know it! fortunately I've gotten lucky and haven't made too many awful errors. My current system will remain stable except for maybe a CD player in the future. My Rotel is on the block and the ancient NAD pre/tuner will eventually be salvaged. Nobody seems to want it except for some Real budget vinyl guys. Too bad since when I checked it out, one channel of the phono stage had taken a dive. Other than that I'll experiment w/class 'd' if and when my company coughs one up. Sorry, Michael about the gang knocking on your door when they think you are exceeding there loudness standards. Where I live, I have shifted / late hours so I have a very quiet house at midnite. I have made an interesting but obviously not original discovery. I sit about 3 feet in front of my Maggies. The sound level is such that if the refrigerator kicks on, it interferes. This is the most amazing thing. Full surround/wrap around and amazingly full. Can't be drawing over 1 watt, total. It's like wearing perfect headphones. |