SQ: small amplifiers vs. big amplifiers

puroagave

Member Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
1,345
45
970
It's been debated in various places re the sound quality of small amps vs big amps. in my experience ive found the smaller sibling by the same designer often sounds superior to its larger more powerful brother. I noticed this with the krells ive owned (ksa-50 vs ksa-100 and ksa 80 vs ksa-250) and i've observed the same difference bewteen two spectral amps i curently have in the house (dma-150s & dma-80).

i cant find where i read it but i recall something about the loss of linearity with mult output transistors you find in big amps (more than a dozen per ch in many cases), not being able to match them, poorer signal propagation (much more wire, longer signal traces over larger circuit boards, etc) and bigger PS xfmers that put out more RFI, hash, etc.

Whats the conventional wisdom on this subject, whats been your experience and does this crossover to tube amps as well?
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Rob, that's generally been my experience as well. IMO, my medium/low powered ARC tube amp is better sounding than its higher powered brethren. BUT, my Rowland ss amp, which is high powered, seems to sound better than its lowered powered brethren...so go figure???
 

Frank750

VIP/Donor
Jul 8, 2011
821
1
928
Rob, that's generally been my experience as well. IMO, my medium/low powered ARC tube amp is better sounding than its higher powered brethren. BUT, my Rowland ss amp, which is high powered, seems to sound better than its lowered powered brethren...so go figure???

I had ARC's Ref 110, 210 and 610. There was no comparison, the 610 was the best sounding by far. Unreliable but best sounding.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
I think that was true years ago; not so much so now.

No question the cj ART is better than it's smaller brothers; that was also Roy Gregory's conclusion also in HF+ too.

Of course the famous comparison was the Bedini 25/25 vs the 100/100.
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
This has been my experience as well. The Pass XA-100/160 sound better to me than the XA-200. I like the XA-100 slightly better than the XA-160.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Most of the time comparing small with big amplifiers means comparing very different amplifier designs. In my experience I have seen my preference going both ways. A few examples - Krell's - every time I felt the larger amplifier sounded better (sorry Rob :eek: ), Electrocompaniet smaller amplifiers sounded better, Audio Research and cj both ways depending on models, Mark Levinson larger models sounded better.

Some manufacturers just increase the output power section and power supply when they create a more powerful amplifier, others also improve the input and driver stages and the respective power supplies in the larger model.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Most of the time comparing small with big amplifiers means comparing very different amplifier designs. In my experience I have seen my preference going both ways. A few examples - Krell's - every time I felt the larger amplifier sounded better (sorry Rob :eek: ), Electrocompaniet smaller amplifiers sounded better, Audio Research and cj both ways depending on models, Mark Levinson larger models sounded better.

Some manufacturers just increase the output power section and power supply when they create a more powerful amplifier, others also improve the input and driver stages and the respective power supplies in the larger model.

I think that was true years ago; not so much so now.

No question the cj ART is better than it's smaller brothers; that was also Roy Gregory's conclusion also in HF+ too.

Of course the famous comparison was the Bedini 25/25 vs the 100/100.

I agree with both Myles and microstrip :eek:
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
I agree with both Myles and microstrip :eek:

There's probably a reason and my experience is that the more or bigger transformers create more noise. Take the noise away and more clarity,dynamics,ect. My 1250 watt monos sonics sound very good now. YMMV
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
It's been debated in various places re the sound quality of small amps vs big amps. in my experience ive found the smaller sibling by the same designer often sounds superior to its larger more powerful brother. I noticed this with the krells ive owned (ksa-50 vs ksa-100 and ksa 80 vs ksa-250) and i've observed the same difference bewteen two spectral amps i curently have in the house (dma-150s & dma-80).

i cant find where i read it but i recall something about the loss of linearity with mult output transistors you find in big amps (more than a dozen per ch in many cases), not being able to match them, poorer signal propagation (much more wire, longer signal traces over larger circuit boards, etc) and bigger PS xfmers that put out more RFI, hash, etc.

Whats the conventional wisdom on this subject, whats been your experience and does this crossover to tube amps as well?

One needs to be very careful with such comparisons, and at the basic level, make sure they are based on the same design. The DMA-150S is a "universal" amp - does not require a high-current preamp - and clearly inferior to its sibling, the 150, which does; since I thought the 150 itself was not a very good design, I suspect the 150S is also inferior to the 80 which has garnered a great reputation over the years. So the "numbers", in this case, work as you say. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of trickle-down designs that don't sound better than the larger sibling. I would say there is great dependency on where compromises have been made, and I am sure there can be big powerful amps where priority is given to more power and not adjusting the topology and parts at the same time, and yet again, there can be plenty of _properly_ designed and executed bigger brothers. My impression is that Pass amps, for example, meet the bigger-is-better assumption we would expect.
 

XV-1

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
3,591
2,573
1,860
Sydney
I think that was true years ago; not so much so now.

No question the cj ART is better than it's smaller brothers; that was also Roy Gregory's conclusion also in HF+ too.

Of course the famous comparison was the Bedini 25/25 vs the 100/100.

100% agree

in every cj series of tube amps that higher powered models have been better sounding than the smaller lower powered models in every respect. I wish it was not true, but in push pull tubes it is.

SS amps might be different. by all accounts the smaller D'Agostino Stereo is slightly sweeter sounds than the big brother monoblocks - where that translates to better sounding I am not sure.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Maybe its the guys in the middle who get lost...whereas there is the 'small jewel' and the 'all-powerful, statement reference?
- Bryston 4BBSST2 and 28BBSST2
- CJ MV60 and ART
- Krell KSA50 and Master Ref
- ARC75 and 750?

Just a thought, not a statement by any means...
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
why not turn your small amplifier into a big amplifier?

bridging an amplifier can also have a tremendous effect, as it relieves the stress on the power supply and if done well the extra power is also significant if the load is staying near the design center most of the time (8ohms). My haflers amazed me at their effortlessness when bridged. The gain in headroom is the key IMO. More power, and better power, can't lose, except of course now you need two amps. Bridging is a quick way to get to mono status, perhaps even better than straight mono actually.

good call...I loved my little CJ MV60 and nearly bought a second and had them rewired to do this which CJ confirmed could be done. Ended up with a Gryphon Antileon instead and very very happy I did...never looked back. But I spoke to a number of people who liked the idea of doing exactly what you say, Tomelex.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
As with everything, there are trade-offs.

A small amplifier will have only two power devices per channel - be it two power transistors, or two power tubes. A single-ended amplifier will have only ONE. It is far easier to match two devices than it is to match four, and then it gets exponentially more difficult. I doubt that there are many SS amp manufacturers who would match power transistors (FM Acoustics is the only one I know), whereas tube amplifier manufacturers almost always do.

When you have many such power devices, I find that the amplifier doesn't sound as good. My preference of course.

However, if you can stick to just two power devices (using exotic power transistors for example), then you have the problem with the power supply design. And as noted earlier, the larger the power transformer, the more likely it is going to hum.

What is generally ignored is that you are almost always only going to be using the bottom of the scale - from 0W to 5W - of any amplifier anyway. However, higher-powered amplifiers give you headroom and the "ease" in the music that can be so elusive. So, in designing the high-powered amplifier, it is usually more difficult to keep the first watt clean.

Nelson Pass famously said that the 1st watt is the most important one, I couldn't agree with him more!

If two amplifiers have the same quality for their 1st watt, I always prefer the higher powered one.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
good call...I loved my little CJ MV60 and nearly bought a second and had them rewired to do this which CJ confirmed could be done. Ended up with a Gryphon Antileon instead and very very happy I did...never looked back. But I spoke to a number of people who liked the idea of doing exactly what you say, Tomelex.

And most cheap amps will blow up if driving a 4 ohm load. (See Adcom)
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Good to know!! Thanks, Gents.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
As with everything, there are trade-offs.

A small amplifier will have only two power devices per channel - be it two power transistors, or two power tubes. A single-ended amplifier will have only ONE. It is far easier to match two devices than it is to match four, and then it gets exponentially more difficult. I doubt that there are many SS amp manufacturers who would match power transistors (FM Acoustics is the only one I know), whereas tube amplifier manufacturers almost always do.

When you have many such power devices, I find that the amplifier doesn't sound as good. My preference of course.

However, if you can stick to just two power devices (using exotic power transistors for example), then you have the problem with the power supply design. And as noted earlier, the larger the power transformer, the more likely it is going to hum.

What is generally ignored is that you are almost always only going to be using the bottom of the scale - from 0W to 5W - of any amplifier anyway. However, higher-powered amplifiers give you headroom and the "ease" in the music that can be so elusive. So, in designing the high-powered amplifier, it is usually more difficult to keep the first watt clean.

Nelson Pass famously said that the 1st watt is the most important one, I couldn't agree with him more!

If two amplifiers have the same quality for their 1st watt, I always prefer the higher powered one.

Cello monoblocks (500 wpc/8 ohms) for instance employs two pair of 250 wpc, metal case, bipolar output devices per channel. Sure Jayson's amps that you've used are similar. So device choice is also important since it has a bearing on stability, feedback used, matching, temp. stability, distortion, etc. And of course there's always the issue of test bench vs. real world performance.
 

andromedaaudio

VIP/Donor
Jan 23, 2011
8,354
2,731
1,400
Amsterdam holland
I think to really get an opinion on the subject , you first have to establish the same load for each amp , if that has not been the case " maybe" all the time , then its comparing apples and pears .
Load is off course the speaker, if its on the same speaker then its okay off course.
If the low power amp is hardly capable of driving the speaker you get a different sound , a little less controlled and people might like that , just my 2 cts
 
Last edited:

puroagave

Member Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
1,345
45
970
my listening preferences will be different than most unless you own horns. whatever amps I evaluate they're first tested on my ESL-57s, a speaker which was designed to marry with 20 wpc amps. doesnt matter whether you have 50 or 5000 wpc the quad only needs 20 and will quickly lay bare the differences between amps, and without exception smaller amps have always sounded better.

that said I keep higher power amps around when I get a speaker that needs it, no doubt many of those that heard an improvement going up the wpc ladder have heard improvements because you cant get around physics (large rooms, insensitive/low efficiency speakers).

Gary touched on an interesting point, one that has not escaped someone like nelson pass and his first watt amps. he uses just one complimentary pair of output devices to make the "best" sounding watts he can muster. the downside is you have to pick the 'right' speaker to enjoy them, and they're few and far between.

Gamut has a simlar philosophy and uses just a single mosfet output device for similar reasons. from rufus smiths review:

"Danish designer Ole Lund Christianson's Gamut D-200 amplifier differs from its competitors in the high power sweepstakes in its use of a single high power MOSFET to produce its rated power. Previously, most high power amplifiers made use of multiple transistors operated in a parallel fashion to produce their rated power. The major drawback to this design philosophy is that no matter how hard you try; you are never able to completely match the transistors. As a result the signal that is produced is a mixture of the signals from all the parallel-coupled transistors. According to GamuT, the result is that the fine details found in music can be lost."
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
my listening preferences will be different than most unless you own horns. whatever amps I evaluate they're first tested on my ESL-57s, a speaker which was designed to marry with 20 wpc amps. doesnt matter whether you have 50 or 5000 wpc the quad only needs 20 and will quickly lay bare the differences between amps, and without exception smaller amps have always sounded better.

that said I keep higher power amps around when I get a speaker that needs it, no doubt many of those that heard an improvement going up the wpc ladder have heard improvements because you cant get around physics (large rooms, insensitive/low efficiency speakers).

Gary touched on an interesting point, one that has not escaped someone like nelson pass and his first watt amps. he uses just one complimentary pair of output devices to make the "best" sounding watts he can muster. the downside is you have to pick the 'right' speaker to enjoy them, and they're few and far between.

Gamut has a simlar philosophy and uses just a single mosfet output device for similar reasons. from rufus smiths review:

"Danish designer Ole Lund Christianson's Gamut D-200 amplifier differs from its competitors in the high power sweepstakes in its use of a single high power MOSFET to produce its rated power. Previously, most high power amplifiers made use of multiple transistors operated in a parallel fashion to produce their rated power. The major drawback to this design philosophy is that no matter how hard you try; you are never able to completely match the transistors. As a result the signal that is produced is a mixture of the signals from all the parallel-coupled transistors. According to GamuT, the result is that the fine details found in music can be troop lost."

Actually Peter Quotrop of Audio Note talked about the importance of the first watt long before Nelson and I'm sure somebody did before them. And Tom Colangelo and Mark Levinson about minimizing output device and real world performance.

Know everybody has their preferences but this continuing love affair with Quad 57s just escapes me. Very, very limited and flawed speaker that barely does one thing well. YMMV...
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing