[Hantra]

Or. . What does it "sound like" to have more power. . . ?

I love my new amps.  I am going to write up something on them soon.  But I keep going to my friend's place and listening to his, and I can't help but wonder.  

Here's what we got. . . My friend has the following setup:

- McIntosh 602 amplifier
- McIntosh C-41 preamp
- NorthStar 24/192 transport, and DAC
- All Audience AU24
- Piega C-10 Limiteds

I have:

- SN 40 watt monoblocks
- Kora Equinoxe preamp w/ Siemens
- SN Tube DAC, upgraded power supply w/ 7700 transport
- All Audience AU24 cables
- Piega C-3 Limiteds

My room is 12.5' x 14.5', and his is about 10 feet wide, and way long, opening into another room with that as the back wall about 20+ feet away. . .

What I am hearing is that his sounds a lot more "live".  Like, mine does what his does, but there is one thing I don't have. . The McIntosh is so easy to listen to, and so relaxing.  Also, it does this thing. . .  My system will center the vocals, and make them very resolved, and nice.  His will actually make the vocals more palpably real, as if there really is a guy there.  Mine, I rarely get fooled.  It is more like a voice really is there, and it is in the right place, but its dimensionality consists of itself in a sphere, whereas, his is like I hear at a live show.  The dude is there.

So. . . The speakers are about $10,000 apart in price, but. .  They use the same tweeter, and midrange.  The 10's have 2 9" woofers, and 2 passives 9", and are not ported.  The 3's are 2 7" woofers, and are front ported.  The interior volume is probably 2X what the 3's are, on the 10's.  

The Kora is no doubt a better sounding pre.  It beats the CAT SL-1 Sig. . .

My question is, what is causing this?  Is it the extra power?  Is it the speakers?  Is it the room?  

I have to know b/c I don't want to make a big mistake, but I do want that sound. . BAD. . .  

Any thoughts?

Thx!

B

[lonewolfny42]

Any thoughts?  Yeah, switch amps when he's not looking ! Joking aside, that Mac is a nice amp,companys been around a long time,quality stuff! Might be time to break out the Ben Franklins !

[lonewolfny42]

For Sale >>>>>>http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?ampstran&1062735282

[Marbles]

If he's a good friend, he'll let you guys trade components to find out what's doing what.

[lonewolfny42]

Here's the Pre >>>>>>http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?preatran&1063205369

[satfrat]

Could you get your friend to haul over his Mac`s to your place and hook them up to your speakers? Allot of your questions could be answered, as in power? equipment? speakers? the room? And maybe you could take your pre/mono`s to his place for a listen. It would sure broaden your insight into a workable solution. Just some thoughts,,, Regards, Robin

[Den]

Or. . What does it "sound like" to have more power?. . .
His will actually make the vocals more palpably real, as if there really is a guy there. . .

More power usually yields better bass control and higher headroom for program peaks.
Palpability is more of a tube thing than a high power thing.  The difference in sound is probably because his amp is a good tube amp, not because it has more power than your SS amp.

[Val]

I agree with Den. In my long audio life the best experience of "palpability" that I remember was due to an apparently innocent switch from ss Sumos to an early tube conrad-johnson pre-power combinations, driving Magneplanar 3s. I was at a Florida dealer who was demonstrating the combinations to a customer, and even at my off-center, standing-up position, Ella Fitzgerald was there in front of us, but not with the Sumos.

Val

[Hantra]

Palpability is more of a tube thing than a high power thing. The difference in sound is probably because his amp is a good tube amp

He has no tubes in his system at all.  The C41, and the 602 are not tube pieces.  That's the crazy thing.  My Kora has very nice tubes, and the monoblocks do the tube thing pretty well.  

I would love to try the stuff out, but the fact is, the 602 weighs 170 lbs, and we both almost died trying to carry it up his stairs b/c it's so awkward.  

Thanks for the ideas though.  I may just see if I can take my gear over to his place. . .  I am leaning toward the room at this point.  

L8r,

B

[DVV]

I agree with Den. In my long audio life the best experience of "palpability" that I remember was due to an apparently innocent switch from ss Sumos to an early tube conrad-johnson pre-power combinations, driving Magneplanar 3s. I was at a Florida dealer who was demonstrating the combinations to a customer, and even at my off-center, standing-up position, Ella Fitzgerald was there in front of us, but not with the Sumos.

Val

I wish I was nearer to you guys - according to the above definition, my solid state Karan Aacoustics KA-i180, preceded with a deZorel line filter, and fed from a humble Yamaha CDX-993 (somewhat tweaked) CD player would, using my B&M Acoustics 1041 monitor, give you guys a run for your money. And then some.

While all of them are well designed and executed pieces of gear, the real trick of course is in the way they click together, they blend into one. The result is music right there, 6-7 feet in front of you, palpable, real, not just a performance, but the performers.

Cheers,
DVV

[Psychicanimal]

Your friend's system has no tubes, but the Mac's emulate tube amps--they are transistor amps with output transformers!

Last Friday I went to deliver two power plugs to the store where my Marantz Esotec's are being fixed.  The store has Mac (I used to work at a store that sold Mac) and I listened to their setup.  I just came back to the basics: Mac is very smooth, relaxed sounding equipment that is not lacking in the beef department at all and is designed to last for decades.  Mac is Mac and has been rigged with the best equipment out there and still holds its own...

There was a Mac thread in Audiogon a few months ago.  Search the archives and you'll find it.

[DVV]

Essentially, more power means two things: 1) greater available dynamic range, and 2) greater freedom in choosing speakers you like which go well with the system you have.

Tube audio, by and large, is limited in power, which means that if you want to have any dynamic headroom to speak of, you are forced to buy very efficient speakers. Personally, I believe speakers should be efficient, the Britain originated fable of low efficiency speakers being better is sher nonsense and was launched to whitewash UK industry's inability to run the race of such names as JBL, Altec Lansing, Klipsch, etc. Yet it was precsiely these names which dominated the professional studio scene for years - let me just mention JBL's legend, the 4312 monitor, used by around 80% of studion in North America 1975-1985.

Solid state enables incomparably greater power outputs into real world speakers, meaning they can negotiate very difficult loads without output transformers, which are in themselves a very questionable thing, since they cannot hel introducing some sonic signature.

To give you an idea, my Karan integrated amp is capable of delivering 180 watts into 8 ohms, which is about 22 dBW. It will deliver just over 250W/8 ohms in peaks before clipping, which is 24 dBW. My speakers will deliver 92 dB/2.83V/1m, which means I am theoretically capable of producing peaks of (92+24) 116 dB at 1 meter, or about 4 dB more than is available at the worst loudness rock concert ever recroded (which was 112 dB). BTW, 111 dB is the threshold of pain, the moment when we instinctively cover our ears, as when standing 3 meters away from a jet engine at full blast.

In other words, there is no known dynamic range on any media available today which could surpass what my system can deliver. I am, at this time, dynamic range unlimited.

Of course, as you can guess, it doesn't quite work out like that in real life, there are other factors to consider, but overall, that's about it.

The problem one faces here is getting that much power from any design, solid state included. Of course it can be done, but getting it right is no easy job.

The worst problem we face is the matter of objective and subjective loudness. For example, a typical Japanese commercial power amp, rated at say 100-150 W/8 ohms, will usually sound less powerful than a say Naim rated at 50-75W/8 ohms. Because the Naim uses full electronic voltage regulation for everything, including power stages, all its devices, most notably the output devices, are in fact moved to what could be said to be an ideal operating environment. Hence, they subjectively sound like they are 3-5 times more powerful than they actually are.

As for Francisco's comments on Mac, well, I can only agree, but must add I have a sweet spot for Mac, always did.

Cheers,
DVV

[Carlman]

I realized the biggest difference in imaging AND palpability by doing proper speaker placement.  When Kris from 8th nerve came over, we positioned the speakers within a mm of being perfectly centered and equally towed.  That alone made for a new dimension in sound as well as balance.  

I know the room makes a big difference as well.  A long skinny room will definitely be different than a shallow room.  Being farther away from the speakers helps palpability as well since there is time for the frequencies to blend and hit your ear right.  Also, how high did you sit at your friend's house vs. at your home? Higher or lower?  That also makes things sound different.

[Jay S]

Try auditioning some bybees.  The more I put in my system, the better the 'dimensionality' and palpability gets.  

Right now, I've got bybees built into the power cord that feeds my balanced power supply (which feeds my entire system), in the power supply of my dac (so power to my dac is twice bybee-purified) and at the digital input of my dac.  I am going to be trying a digital cable with bybees built in so that I can move the inline bybees to the analog out of my preamp (now at the digital input of the dac).  

You may want to get Wayne's inputs on where may be the best place to start trying bybees for maximum impact.

[satfrat]

What Jay said, I concur. Get Bybee‘fied’! Regards, Robin

[satfrat]

Essentially, more power means two things: 1) greater available dynamic range, and 2) greater freedom in choosing speakers you like which go well with the system you have.

Tube audio, by and large, is limited in power, which means that if you want to have any dynamic headroom to speak of, you are forced to buy very efficient speakers. Personally, I believe speakers should be efficient, the Britain originated fable of low efficiency speakers being better is sher nonsense and was launched to whitewash UK in ...

                                            DVV, would you care to comment on Butler Audio`s Hybrid tube amps that utilize solid state for a power output of 150w/8 ohms? Would this allow for a wider variety of speaker choices with a greater dynamic headroom while still maintaining it`s tube-like characteristics? Kickass softness would be nice,,,, any thoughts? Regards, Robin

[DVV]

DVV, would you care to comment on Butler Audio`s Hybrid tube amps that utilize solid state for a power output of 150w/8 ohms? Would this allow for a wider variety of speaker choices with a greater dynamic headroom while still maintaining it`s tube-like characteristics? Kickass softness would be nice,,,, any thoughts? Regards, Robin

Sure, Robin. First, let me make this VERY clear - my comments are related to drive capability and amp/speaker interface, not how it will actually sound, and not related to any particular product or company.

How an amp amplifies the incoming signal, whether with tubes or transistors or op amps, is its own business and in any good design, has nothing to do with its actual speaker drive capability. What has everything to do with drive capability is how is its current gain stage designed, implemented and what kind of power supply backs it up.

In short, 150W/8 ohms is 150W/8 ohms, period. This is 21.4 dBW, meaning that it will let you have 21.4 dB of loudness at 1 meter above 1W levels. So, if you have two speakers, one producing say 89 dB/1W/1m and the other producing say 95 dB/1W/1m, the 6 dB difference between them means the second one is four times as efficient as the first one.

Thus, for the same power, the second will produce four times the loudness, or it will produce the same loudness with one quarter of the power the first will need.

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that you are 3 meters, or about 10 feet, away from your speakers. Let's also assume that the theoretically doubled loudness of twin speakers in a stereo system is lost on room furnishing, carpets, drapes, etc. Loudness levels drop by 3 dB, or they halve, every additional meter away from the speaker, again in theory. Thus, at 3 meters, the first speaker will produce (89-6) 83 dB/1W and the second will produce 89 dB/1W.

You have 21.4 dB extra power in your amp. In real life, this could well be more, as no designer is very likely to allow his amp to clip very soon above its nominal power rating, though this could well happen in amps with fully regulated power supplies (which tend to have little headroom above the nominal, but respond to lowered impedances better - a well known trade-off).

With the first speaker, maximum loudness is (83+21.4) 104.4 dB at 3 meters. With the second speaker, maximum loudness is (89+21.4) 110.4 dB at 3 meters. Loudest orchestral music tends to peak at around 109 dB, while the loudest rock concert was placed at 111 dB.

Obviously, with the first speaker, you will have a good dynamic range, but still short of the maximum. With the second, you are almost there.

Now, this is theory, real life is different. For a start, anything over 100 dB is hellishly loud at 3 meters, and you would have the cops, and probably the air force, navy and army at your door long before you started hitting such peaks. Also, women tend to complain at anything over 90 dB, because they feel they cannot be properly heard by you/me/us by then.

The point is, having a lot of power available does not mean you HAVE to use it all, but it does mean your amps should not run out of steam before any other component does with average speakers (whatever that means). You can expect - and receive - faithfully reproduced transients, at least in terms of power, under real life conditions with most speakers, at least those in the 90 dB/1W/1m class and better (which is say 90%+ of all speakers made today).

I reiterate, all this is rather simplified, but it does show what I wanted to say.

Since a good priest does as he preaches, I own relatively efficient speakers, rated at 92 dB/1W/1m, which are powered by amplifiers rated at 180W/8 ohms, or about 22 dBW, meaning I could attain as much as (92+22) 114 dB SPL at 1 m, or 108 dB at 3 m. Since the amp will clip at 257W/8 ohms, this is 24 dBW, so I actually have 110 dB available at 3 m. I never tried getting there, and I never will, mostly because I don't want to be arrested for disturbing of peace.

Thus, the key is the power available from the output stage, in your case 150W/8 ohms. With all but the really inefficient speakers, under normal listening conditions of music, that should be enough, unless you have an unusually large room and sit away from your speakers at over 10-12 feet. I assume you are not a headbanger.

Where that MIGHT hiccup is with DVD movies. This is because Hollywood is not in the business of high fidelity sound, but in the business of effects, and this certainly applies to audio effects as well. They tend to overblow bass sounds, as in explosions, sort of boost it in volume and frequency, and this can suck up tremendous power. Incidentally, this problem caused the appearance of powered subwoofers.

Cheers,
DVV

[JLM]

As DVV said:

I'm a firm believer in the amp having sufficient muscle to really have a tight grip on the speakers (to provide a very linear response).  

On the other hand, I'm also a SET fan.  Doesn't leave many options does it?

[JohnR]

Loudest orchestral music tends to peak at around 109 dB, while the loudest rock concert was placed at 111 dB.

We've been through this before... these numbers are too low!

[DVV]

Loudest orchestral music tends to peak at around 109 dB, while the loudest rock concert was placed at 111 dB.

We've been through this before... these numbers are too low!

I don't know where and when, but I didn't see it - sorry for the repetition.

Anyway, I picked these numbers up from a text by Paul Miller in Britain's Hi-Fi Choice magazine; I think I still have that issue, I'll look it up and report back.

Too low? John, you have to be kidding! By about 100 dB, window panes start to rattle, neighbors start looking for shotguns, and by about 105 dB the cops arrive. Although I must add, I live in a condo, so that does complicate matters, it's probably a more relaxed atmosphere if you own a private house.

In addition to which I must remind you that there aren't too many CD players capable of dynamic ranges of over 103-104 dB; how can you get more dynamics when your source is incapable of delivering them? And even those are absolute numbers, they are related to noise floors and such, meaning that of the 104 dB you have at least 20 dB less when you discount for the absolute noise floor.

Cheers,
DVV