Is there any point buying a powerful amp for low volume listening?

madmax · June 2010

Some amps are better at playing very low levels than others, regardless of power. Typically tubes play much better at lower than average listening levels than SS. Never have I seen a manufacturer point out their amp is better than others at low volume so you pretty much have to try different ones.

j allen · June 2010

mhardy6647 wrote: »

one place where one needs (IMNSHO) to be very careful - pairing high-power (and/or ultra-low distortion via extreme use of NFB) amplifiers with high-efficiency loudspeakers (or, I guess, moderate-efficiency loudspeakers listened to at low levels and/or nearfield). Many of the behemoth amps just aren't at their best at the 100 mW (or less!) to 1W average output levels that such uses entail. No less luminary hifi mavens than Paul W. Klipsch and Nelson Pass (whose Venn diagrams probably don't otherwise intersect all that much!) explicitly recognized the primal importance of that "first watt".

http://www.firstwatt.com/
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3195485&postcount=8

So, I was looking at the schematics for some of the amps on the firstwatt page. Why not build one of these for yourself? It's a very simple circuit, especially for amplification purposes.

cfrizz · June 2010

pitdogg2 wrote: »

To be fair you really can't compare these two amps. The only thing they have in common is the TFM name. They are built on two completely different principals. I got this information from Rita and Roland, Rita would know she built them for years and still repairs them.

all things considered if you never ever get your amp to break a sweat more power is better than just enough. I heard a Ayre amp 200wpc that just ran circles around my TFM 45 but then i would expect that for a 7000.00 amp so in that case less power was better.

Face wrote: »

All of my tube and class A amps were under $1,200, I don't know where you pulled $7,000 from.

This is where I got it from.:D

mhardy6647 · June 2010

j allen wrote: »

So, I was looking at the schematics for some of the amps on the firstwatt page. Why not build one of these for yourself? It's a very simple circuit, especially for amplification purposes.

Mr. Pass is also generally amenable to that approach...
www.passdiy.com

renowilliams · June 2010

Fongolio wrote: »

I recently went from a 225 wpc Carver TFM-25 to a 375 wpc Carver TFM-45. I live in an apartment where cranking it is very rare. The 45 has more low level bass, better detail, better transients and a slightly wider deeper soundstage. Absolutely nothing wrong with the 25, it's just that the 45 has more of everything at low volume and can shake the house at higher volumes.

Not to jack this thread,but what is your opinion of the TFM-35??

treitz3 · June 2010

"Is there any point buying a powerful amp for low volume listening?"

Yes. Most definitely.

nooshinjohn · June 2010

renowilliams wrote: »

Not to jack this thread,but what is your opinion of the TFM-35??

A wonderful little amp.

vc69 · June 2010

renowilliams wrote: »

Not to jack this thread,but what is your opinion of the TFM-35??

nooshinjohn wrote: »

A wonderful little amp.

Meh, it's ok. It's a 250wpc amp and it can't hold a candle to my 100wpc tube amp. Bottom line is that it's the quality of that 1st watt that counts.

mdaudioguy · June 2010

Yes, to your original question. In fact, that was one of the things that surprised me when I added my first external amp. I can't always play at the volume I'd like to, but was stunned at how much more definition I heard at lower volumes.

cfrizz · June 2010

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Yes, to your original question. In fact, that was one of the things that surprised me when I added my first external amp. I can't always play at the volume I'd like to, but was stunned at how much more definition I heard at lower volumes.

And this basically says it all.:)

heiney9 · June 2010

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Yes, to your original question. In fact, that was one of the things that surprised me when I added my first external amp. I can't always play at the volume I'd like to, but was stunned at how much more definition I heard at lower volumes.

This doesn't always have a direct correlation to more wattage. In your case it's simply a better designed amp than you had before. There are just as many poor sounding high power amps out there.

H9

Face · June 2010

heiney9 wrote: »

this doesn't always have a direct correlation to more wattage. In your case it's simply a better designed amp than you had before. There are just as many poor sounding high power amps out there.

H9

qft.

hearingimpared · June 2010

cfrizz wrote: »

Getting my first really powerful amp (Parasound 1500A) was a real eye opener for me. ESPECIALLY at lower volume. I always had trouble hearing my music clearly when just using my Denon receiver. Once I hooked up the amp, I was hearing everything that was there (and some music I didn't know was there before) & was even able to lower the volume from -30 to -40 since it would have been too loud when listening at 6:00 in the morning.

Cath, some good points and they've pretty much been addressed as I read the rest of the thread before replying to you.

One thing you absolutely forgot to mention is that your "really powerful amp," the Parasound 1500 has a great design and much better components used in it. A lot of these super high power amps out there have crap, cheap components and the design leaves a lot to be desired.

As you know I'm a two channel guy however I've put together a pretty good HT rig in my living room for me and my family to enjoy. I use an NAD T765 AVR with no outboard amplification. Mate that with RT2000Ps, a CS350LS center, and Rt/Fx rears and I get a clear, house shaking experience when watching movies. It didn't cost much and I have no reason to even consider upgrading or adding external amplification. . . then again, it is rarely used for music but when it is, although my little guy and wife like it, the sound of the music can at times make me cringe. Of course I'm not going to compare it to my two channel rig . . . that would be like comparing a VW Beetle to a Ferrari but I will say this when my wife really wants to boogie with music, I find her in the two channel room.

My point above is YES synergy is very important and I lucked out that the synergy of my AVR, DVD mutli-format player and speakers synergized on the first try. It was a different story with my two channel rig.

As far as the $7000 amp goes . . . 'cmon now you should know better than to go to extremes! It sounds similar to the guys who come into cable threads where lower cost high end cables are being discussed and the guys will drop obscenely priced cables into the mix just to create a stir. I know that's not what you are doing here but going to the $7000 extreme where no-one really mentioned that in this thread is reaching to make what you already have as good points.

IMHO of course!;)

reeltrouble1 · June 2010

who cares about cost valuation comparison, only going to leave you pissing down against the upwind storm, get the best you can afford to get, figuring out the best is the fun.

RT1

zingo · June 2010

I had my most telling experience with power last weekend. My uncle owns a pair of Klipsch Horns and powers them with a pair of HK Citation 16 in monoblock configuration (which is just nuts for 105db sensitive speakers). I was listening with him for the day, and we decided to switch in my KingRex 20wpc T-Amp. The T-Amp was much cleaner and had no noise compared to the high power amps. But, the HKs had noticeably more bass and lower end definition, as well as better dynamics. I had always known in principle that more power gives you more headroom and better bass control, but this was the most obvious example on the subject I had heard.

However, the level of noise and slight lack of clarity made the rig not as friendly too my ears, and cementing the first watt theory for me. Power is great and there is no substitute for it, but I was not willing to give up other attributes to gain that power, and my SET isn't going anywhere any time soon.

heiney9 · June 2010

Seriously a T-amp vs. HK Citation's that's absoultey ludacris and it has nothing to do with the wattage. It has to do with the fact that the T-amp has no internal guts.

Take a real 20-25wpc SS amp up against the HK's and you'll be very, very surprised. Again in your example it has nothing to do with rated power output between the two, it has everything to do with design.

H9

cfrizz · June 2010

hearingimpared wrote: »

Cath, some good points and they've pretty much been addressed as I read the rest of the thread before replying to you.

One thing you absolutely forgot to mention is that your "really powerful amp," the Parasound 1500 has a great design and much better components used in it. A lot of these super high power amps out there have crap, cheap components and the design leaves a lot to be desired.

As you know I'm a two channel guy however I've put together a pretty good HT rig in my living room for me and my family to enjoy. I use an NAD T765 AVR with no outboard amplification. Mate that with RT2000Ps, a CS350LS center, and Rt/Fx rears and I get a clear, house shaking experience when watching movies. It didn't cost much and I have no reason to even consider upgrading or adding external amplification. . . then again, it is rarely used for music but when it is, although my little guy and wife like it, the sound of the music can at times make me cringe. Of course I'm not going to compare it to my two channel rig . . . that would be like comparing a VW Beetle to a Ferrari but I will say this when my wife really wants to boogie with music, I find her in the two channel room.

My point above is YES synergy is very important and I lucked out that the synergy of my AVR, DVD mutli-format player and speakers synergized on the first try. It was a different story with my two channel rig.

As far as the $7000 amp goes . . . 'cmon now you should know better than to go to extremes! It sounds similar to the guys who come into cable threads where lower cost high end cables are being discussed and the guys will drop obscenely priced cables into the mix just to create a stir. I know that's not what you are doing here but going to the $7000 extreme where no-one really mentioned that in this thread is reaching to make what you already have as good points.

IMHO of course!;)

Joe, I'm NOT the one that brought up the $7,000.00 cost of an Ayre amp, someone else did.

Unless you are an engineer, how the hell are you supposed to know who has put good components into which amp? You can't you just assume it by the pricetag of the amp.

Everytime this topic comes up someone has to toss in thier low watt tube amp, which is an apples to oranges comparison & expensive to boot.

It took me YEARS before I was willing to trust buying used gear, and it only happened after my bought new Rotel amp died after 18 years of use!

We all have to start somewhere, and 9 times out of 10 COST is a major factor.

I don't assume that a newbie is going to be willing to buy a used "better" brand, and quite frankly "better" is relative to each individuals perspective. Nor do I assume newbies want to endlessly play around & swap out gear.
Nor do I assume newbies are going to want 2 separate systems.

I was lucky in getting good gear with my first system, it was Rotel, Onkyo, & my Polk RTA-8Ts. Purchased new for a little over $2,000.00 20 years ago. Back then it was a heck of a lot of money, but I was still living at home at the time so I had plenty of disposable income. I couldn't do it now with all my other expenses.

Hence my always adding Outlaw & Emotiva as options, because even IF they are made with cheaper components, they will still sound better than just the receiver alone.

Joe, you and alot of the guys have more than outgrown the Outlaw & Emotiva brands of gear, but your automatic, negative feedback is doing a great dis-service not only to the gear, but also to most newbies that are looking for REASONABLE options when purchasing equipment that is built to last for years.

madmax · June 2010

One idea is you get a low powered amp for low level listening now and then later get high efficiency speakers for that same amp.
madmax

cfrizz · June 2010

madmax wrote: »

One idea is you get a low powered amp for low level listening now and then later get high efficiency speakers for that same amp. madmax

:eek: Yeah you could do it this way, But high efficiency usually means horns or metal tweeters!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Just the mention of it gives me a splitting headache!:eek::D

madmax · June 2010

cfrizz wrote: »

:eek: Yeah you could do it this way, But high efficiency usually means horns or metal tweeters!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Just the mention of it gives me a splitting headache!:eek::D

Oh man the things I could enlighten you on...

I took your advice on 200W, take mine on 1W.

madmax

mhardy6647 · June 2010

cfrizz wrote: »

:eek: Yeah you could do it this way, But high efficiency usually means horns or metal tweeters!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Just the mention of it gives me a splitting headache!:eek::D

Doesn't have to be either.

and horns aren't inherently evil; there are just some awful horns out there and some awful combinations of amplifiers and horn-loaded loudspeakers.

If you have ever heard Altec Voice of the Theatre speakers driven by, say, a single-ended 45 amp; you might feel differently about horns. One of the most astonishing (albeit not terrifically extended) HF transducers I've ever heard is the Altec 1505 15-cell horn with a vintage Altec 288 (1.4") compression driver on it.

Heck, for all I know, there might even be one or two decent metal dome tweeters out there -- somewhere.

mdaudioguy · June 2010

heiney9 wrote: »

This doesn't always have a direct correlation to more wattage. In your case it's simply a better designed amp than you had before. There are just as many poor sounding high power amps out there.

H9

Agreed. Of course, I made the move based on the assumption that the external amp was more optimally designed to perform better than the smaller amps crammed into my AVR. Now, I don't have the ability to tear down my gear and analyze the components, so I had to resort to research (reading and asking questions here and elsewhere), as well as trial and error. I am certain there's some less optimally designed, high powered junk out there as well.

mdaudioguy · June 2010

hearingimpared wrote: »

[...] As you know I'm a two channel guy however I've put together a pretty good HT rig in my living room for me and my family to enjoy. I use an NAD T765 AVR with no outboard amplification. Mate that with RT2000Ps, a CS350LS center, and Rt/Fx rears and I get a clear, house shaking experience when watching movies. It didn't cost much and I have no reason to even consider upgrading or adding external amplification. . . then again, it is rarely used for music but when it is,[...] the sound of the music can at times make me cringe. Of course I'm not going to compare it to my two channel rig . . . that would be like comparing a VW Beetle to a Ferrari but I will say this when my wife really wants to boogie with music, I find her in the two channel room.

My point above is YES synergy is very important and I lucked out that the synergy of my AVR, DVD mutli-format player and speakers synergized on the first try. It was a different story with my two channel rig. Of course I'm not going to compare it to my two channel rig . . . that would be like comparing a VW Beetle to a Ferrari but I will say this when my wife really wants to boogie with music, I find her in the two channel room.

You make some good points here, but I'm going to tie them together in a way that you may or may not have intended. I've made the observation before that synergy seems to be considerably easier to achieve in the HT realm. In my HT rig, I've swapped out 4 AVRs and 3 amps. My intent was to find synergy for music through my HT rig. I have a 2-channel setup elsewhere in the house, but more often than not, I find myself in my HT room (which also doubles as a sunroom) wanting to listen to some tunes. I was finally able to find a palatable combination. Not entirely optimal, but pleasing nonetheless.

I should add that with every change, I still found HT to be perfectly acceptable - no synergy issues whatsoever.

lanchile · June 2010

it is not just power! it is also how it is build, specifications, quality. etc.
I do not buy commercial amps, all my amps that I build I use excellent parts and the specifications are top. Better sound, parts quality and specifications than Bryston!. if you like electronics and have some knowledge, just get your feet wet and build your own amp!. one web is Diyaudio.com you will get all the help to build better amps than commercial ones. you will find amp kits from many members. just check these guys Aussieamps.com. check the NXV series kits.

FTGV · June 2010

lanchile wrote: »

all my amps that I build I use excellent parts and the specifications are top. Better sound, parts quality and specifications than Bryston!.

Thats a bold statement.May I ask what vintage of Bryston you are referencing,pre -NRB,NRB,ST ,SST,SST2?

cfrizz · June 2010

Well good for you to be able & WANT to build your own amps. However, not EVERYONE is so inclined, nor do they want to make this a lifetime hobby.

A great many people simply want to put together a great sounding rig that is adept at both music & HT without going bankrupt.

You should ALWAYS buy your gear aimed at music first, the HT will sound just fine no matter what.

mhardy6647 · June 2010

Plenty of good sound out there that's not expensive. Plenty.

Like wine snobbery, the most fun if finding stuff that's good and cheap.

lanchile · June 2010

FTGV wrote: »

Thats a bold statement.May I ask what vintage of Bryston you are referencing,pre -NRB,NRB,ST ,SST,SST2?

I knew someone will be surprised lol. but it is true!.
Well the candidates were: Bryston B60R, Bryston B100 SST, Bryston 3B SST and the Bryston B4 SST and those are just from Bryston, I did more tests from many other "commercial" amps like Portal panache, Adcom, Luxman, Acurus, Marantz, Blue Circle etc. and it was not just a simple test. I went to the oscilloscope test with a friend of mine. most or all of these "commercial" amps use average quality parts or good quality parts. but for what they charge it is way too high. just one example here. Bryston 3B and 4B use 30,000uf per rail in their power supply if I remember well and the caps are just "average" quality.I use 40,000uf per rail and the caps are Mundorf caps costing about $240 just in the caps for the power supply and my amps are about 120 watts RMS per channel. and when I build 200 watts I use double capacitance and the transformers I use are high quality toroidal (made here USA) about 800 to 1k (depends if they want to spend more money or power). as I said .it is not just power! the most important thing is they sound beautiful and they are not fatiguing at all. So far I have build many amps for my friends and my family. The most expensive one was for my brother in law about $900 just in parts but, my average for a good amp is around $600-$700 in parts for a 100 watts amp.

lanchile · June 2010

I do not want to brag around here, but I just wanted you to know that most of those commercial amps are just "average" quality that is all!. it is like people that "think and swear" that Bose are the best speakers lol.
Well if I offended you in any way...Please forgive me.

Face · June 2010

lanchile wrote: »

I use 40,000uf per rail and the caps are Mundorf caps costing about $240 just in the caps for the power supply and my amps are about 120 watts RMS per channel.

My DAC has more filter capacitance than your amp.

Is there any point buying a powerful amp for low volume listening?

Comments