SQ: small amplifiers vs. big amplifiers

[garylkoh]

Yep, I agree - it' something that is important with loudspeakers as well. How they play at low volumes. Is the sound still intelligible at "everybody else in the family is asleep but I still want to listen to music" levels.

 

[LL21]

Yep, I agree - it' something that is important with loudspeakers as well. How they play at low volumes. Is the sound still intelligible at "everybody else in the family is asleep but I still want to listen to music" levels.

+1. I never fully appreciated this until I got the system setup right here...took years. And then one day (I admit thru experimentation on setup of bass after the new Gryphon Colosseum amp came in), I found the 'natural' volume of the system dropping...I could hear everything and feel totally satisfied from a bass perspective at lower levels (from 40+ down to about 28)...and during the evenings I drop from the old range of 18-28...down to 1 to 12 and still happy.

 

[FrantzM]

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...

I agree again with Myles!! Aside from the midrange that is still good by modern standard although matched and surpassed these days, elsewhere in the spectrum surpassed by a plethora of modern days speakers and from all level of prices, IMO..

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I've heard cases where the smaller, less powerful, but otherwise similar circuit amp was more refined sounding (ML 33H verses ML 33 back in the day). the bigger amp had more devices in the circuit and was a bit more congested sounding.

in the case of the darTZeel 108 compared to the 458 monoblocks, the 458 has fewer devices in the signal path than the 25% as powerful 108......and therefore sounds more refined as well as more powerful. even on a speaker that demands little from the amplifier (96db, 6 ohm), the first watt of the 458 goes much further into the music. from the read out on the 458 it rarely outputs above 4-5 watts continuous and 10-12 watts on peaks into the MM7's.

 

[microstrip]

(...) 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."

As far as I remember Denon were the first manufacturer to use a single special power transistor in a high power amplifier (around 250W), avoiding the use of many parallel power transistors, in the early 90's.

IMHO paralleling devices will result in a composite device with specific properties - as I have never read any thing about the nasty sound properties of the transfer curve of parallel matched devices I fail to understand why it is inferior to a single device. I know however that the use of unmatched devices is poor electrical practice, as current will not divide adequately between them, even if degenerating emitter resistors are used. As far as I know, many amplifier manufacturers will match their power transistors, and even small signal transistors. It is one of the reasons why you should be careful when buying used equipment that has been serviced outside the manufacturer approved network.

 

[flez007]

Not in my case:

JA amps sound better than Da amps (Jadis)
Gryphon large amps sound better than small ones (Tabu vs Anthileon)
Model 8 sounds better than Model 2,1 from JRDG

I have had no experience in my place with small CJ or AR to tell.

 

[microstrip]

I've heard cases where the smaller, less powerful, but otherwise similar circuit amp was more refined sounding (ML 33H verses ML 33 back in the day). the bigger amp had more devices in the circuit and was a bit more congested sounding.

in the case of the darTZeel 108 compared to the 458 monoblocks, the 458 has fewer devices in the signal path than the 25% as powerful 108......and therefore sounds more refined as well as more powerful. even on a speaker that demands little from the amplifier (96db, 6 ohm), the first watt of the 458 goes much further into the music. from the read out on the 458 it rarely outputs above 4-5 watts continuous and 10-12 watts on peaks into the MM7's.

Mike,

I think that although the circuit of the 458 has fewer devices as you refer, its power supply is more elaborate and better performing, generating less mechanical and electrical noise. Although the circuit of the 108 was shown by Dartzeel, we were never shown the 458 one and it is not possible to discuss their differences. IMHO, knowing exactly the contribution of each factor to the 458 refinement not an easy job!

 

[TBone]

The last time I heard the Gamut D200 - it was sourced by a Gamut CDP, and I can still remember thinking that the high frequency reproduction was something really special - esp. considering it was 16/44. However, the system as a whole had major issues reproducing the lower frequencies, and I'm not talking about the extreme lows, it roll-off well before then, robbing the music of much required impact.

Could have been the amp & speaker combo, but I did get a chance to hear the Gamut CDP in another system - and it displayed the exact same low freq. characteristics.

That's my main memory of Gamut gear ...

tb1

 

[mep]

Yep, I agree - it' something that is important with loudspeakers as well. How they play at low volumes. Is the sound still intelligible at "everybody else in the family is asleep but I still want to listen to music" levels.

That's why you should have a dedicated sound room that is sound isolated from the rest of the house. Having said that, the KEF LS50s are the first speakers I have owned that still sound incredible at low levels.

 

[gamve]

My current set up uses small amp 3.5 watt (of which I only use a fraction) with high efficiency speakers and I love it.
It's a bit clique but if the first watt is rubbish then all the ones that follow after only compound the problems. I think
there is more than a grain of truth in this. Both camps can have great SQ but they are very different beasts and comparisons
are cloudy at best.

 

[garylkoh]

That's why you should have a dedicated sound room that is sound isolated from the rest of the house. Having said that, the KEF LS50s are the first speakers I have owned that still sound incredible at low levels.

With my family, that's called the living room because I more often listen with one/more of my family members than alone.

Yes, I agree that the LS50s also sound good at low levels.

 

[Bruce B]

from the read out on the 458 it rarely outputs above 4-5 watts continuous and 10-12 watts on peaks into the MM7's.

Why would it need to put out any more when the bass is self-powered!

 

[Wilhelm Kabus]

Burmester...

I am currently using a Burmester 956. Tried two monos of the bigger model 911. Price ratio 1:3,7. The overall sound quality went down. Bass and treble boost. Midrange lacking and metallic.


Will consider one or two Burmester 909, the top model. But I can not know what happens with the sound. A test in my setup is not easy to arrange for this type of 80 kg amp...

 

[MylesBAstor]

I am currently using a Burmester 956. Tried two monos of the bigger model 911. Price ratio 1:3,7. The overall sound quality went down. Bass and treble boost. Midrange lacking and metallic.


Will consider one or two Burmester 909, the top model. But I can not know what happens with the sound. A test in my setup is not easy to arrange for this type of 80 kg amp...

Are the monoblocks on the same or separate AC lines?

 

[garylkoh]

I am currently using a Burmester 956. Tried two monos of the bigger model 911. Price ratio 1:3,7. The overall sound quality went down. Bass and treble boost. Midrange lacking and metallic.


Will consider one or two Burmester 909, the top model. But I can not know what happens with the sound. A test in my setup is not easy to arrange for this type of 80 kg amp...

Sounds like you are comparing a well run-in 956 to brand new 911's. I've extensive experience with all three of Burmester's big amps, and I much prefer the midrange transparency of the 911's (in mono OR stereo) to the 956. I think that the Burmester amps are all very balanced - going up from the 956 to the 911 to the 909...... although I do prefer mono 911's to a single 909.

 

[Rocco I.]

I've had in my system for almost 4 years the 956 Mk2 and I found it a very musical and refined amp. Later on I compared (and then purchased) with 911 MK3 (stereo and monos) and the difference in terms of sound was superior in all regards and awesome and I have never turned back. I know also well the 909 MK5 (stereo and mono version) and sonically I like it very much, but at my ears with a mono-pair of 911 Mk3 is reached the heaven.

 

[garylkoh]

I've had in my system for almost 4 years the 956 Mk2 and I found it a very musical and refined amp. Later on I compared (and then purchased) with 911 MK3 (stereo and monos) and the difference in terms of sound was superior in all regards and awesome and I have never turned back. I know also well the 909 MK5 (stereo and mono version) and sonically I like it very much, but at my ears with a mono-pair of 911 Mk3 is reached the heaven.

My ears concur with your ears, Rocco. Although, I have heard that with extremely power hungry speakers that mono 909's beat mono 911's - but is is very loudspeaker specific.

 

[Wilhelm Kabus]

Are the monoblocks on the same or separate AC lines?

No. They were connected to the same dedicated AC line (16A, 4x4mm). Before the 956, I had two power hungry Pass Labs monos. They were playing good on the same line. But the 956 sound beats Pass, in my ears. So I have thought that the power line was good enough for two 911 monos. But I might be wrong...

 

[Wilhelm Kabus]

Sounds like you are comparing a well run-in 956 to brand new 911's. I've extensive experience with all three of Burmester's big amps, and I much prefer the midrange transparency of the 911's (in mono OR stereo) to the 956. I think that the Burmester amps are all very balanced - going up from the 956 to the 911 to the 909...... although I do prefer mono 911's to a single 909.

The 911s are two years old (or something). A dealer in southern Europe said to me that 911 was "not the best from Burmester". My test indicated that he might be right. I have also heard about another guy doing the same comparison which I did. He came to the same result - with very different speakers...

 

[Rocco I.]

My ears concur with your ears, Rocco. Although, I have heard that with extremely power hungry speakers that mono 909's beat mono 911's - but is is very loudspeaker specific.

Totally agree with you Gary.