Need advice on an Integrated Amp to drive Dynaudio Heritage speakers

[Verdinut]

It depends on how you look at it. In a way, just about any integrated amps can be paired with 4 ohm speakers as long as the owner knows their limits.

Take a look of an extreme example using the A-S801 being discussed, and the $8,000 Denon flag ship integrated amp, my favorite example that is rated only 50 W/100 W into 8/4 ohm. Which one would you think is more "properly designed" to drive 4 ohm speakers? Wouldn't the answer be: it depends, right?

A more practical example would be to compare something like the NAD C326 BEE, rated 50 W into 8 or 4 ohms, with the A-S801.

The 801 is, as you know rated 100 W into 8 ohms but not rated for 4 ohms, but we know based on ohm's law and the power formula, it could have been rated 50 W into 4 ohms without question. So if you think of the S801 as a 50 W 4 ohm rated integrated amp and use it with 4 ohm speakers on that basis there would be absolutely nothing wrong. Yamaha did not rate the amp for 4 ohm load, most likely for marketing reason. They know it won't look good if they say 100 W into 8 ohms, 80 W or even 100 W into 4 ohms. NAD apparently has no such concern..

It is interesting to note that the A-S1100 is rated 90 W into 8 ohms, 0.07% THD, that's a little less powerful than the A-S801, but it is officially rated 150 W into 4 ohms, also at 0.07% THD. Not surprisingly, it weighs almost twice as much as the A-S801, that is a clear sign of having a substantially larger power supply and beefier heatsinks.

You are right in saying that it depends. Of course, in a small listening room at a short distance from the speakers, there is a lot less demand on an amplifier.

It is surprising though that a big company like Yamaha did not use a beefier transformer for the power supply. I know there are several reasons behind a company's decision to use a smaller power transformer for the power supply, among which are lower cost, cheaper shipping costs and competition. But nowadays, a great percentage of loudspeakers have an impedance of around 4 ohms and IMO, a serious company should make sure that its products can handle most loudspeakers on the market.

In a previous post, someone questioned about the NAD C388 as an option. Would you have an opinion on that product? It's a lot more expensive than the A-S801. I didn't find any serious reviews about it.

 

[PENG]

You are right in saying that it depends. Of course, in a small listening room at a short distance from the speakers, there is a lot less demand on an amplifier.

It is surprising though that a big company like Yamaha did not use a beefier transformer for the power supply. I know there are several reasons behind a company's decision to use a smaller power transformer for the power supply, among which are lower cost, cheaper shipping costs and competition. But nowadays, a great percentage of loudspeakers have an impedance of around 4 ohms and IMO, a serious company should make sure that its products can handle most loudspeakers on the market.

Now we seem to be in agreement, but we can beat the dead horse a little more with no harm done.

Indeed, good quality power supply transformers, the associated storage/filter caps are often said to be the most expensive parts of a power amplifier and they are heavy so as you said, shipping and handling cost will increase too.

The A-S1100's specified power consumption is 350 W versus the A-S801's 270 W. Using power consumption figures to estimate realistic output power into 8/4 ohm loads is not a reliable way but I think it can be used to compare products of the same brand and in same model series if done in certain ways.

For example, the ratio 350/270 is roughly 1.3. Both amps are of the linear power supply and class AB design so efficiencies should be very comparable. The A-S1100 is rated 150 W into 4 ohms, so it may be reasonable to estimate the A-S801 could have been rated 150/1.3 = 116 W, under the same test conditions, assuming the output devices and heatsinks are adequate for the much higher current.

Still, short of a manufacturer specifications for 4 ohm loads, the A-S801, like their receiver/AVR cousins are only officially rated to drive 4 ohm speakers by setting the impedance selector switch (or via the menu) to 4 ohm and that would presumably lower the rail voltage. The A-S801 apparently don't have such impedance selectors, hence no 4 ohm rating by Yamaha, leaving the decision to the informed users who would/should take their own precautionary measures.

In a previous post, someone questioned about the NAD C388 as an option. Would you have an opinion on that product? It's a lot more expensive than the A-S801. I didn't find any serious reviews about it.

As you probably know I am not a fan of integrated amps that have build in DAC, let alone streaming gadgets. The amp section of the C388 has impressive specs but unless they provide a lower cost version that doesn't come with DAC and streaming features it is not something I would spend money on regardless how good the power supply and amp section are.

 

[highfigh]

Now we seem to be in agreement, but we can beat the dead horse a little more with no harm done.

Indeed, good quality power supply transformers, the associated storage/filter caps are often said to be the most expensive parts of a power amplifier and they are heavy so as you said, shipping and handling cost will increase too.

As you probably know I am not a fan of integrated amps that have build in DAC, let alone streaming gadgets. The amp section of the C388 has impressive specs but unless they provide a lower cost version that doesn't come with DAC and streaming features it is not something I would spend money on regardless how good the power supply and amp section are.

Get the glue bucket, 'cause we're not done with the horse.

I have been using a Yamaha WXC-50 MusicCast piece with a Parasound A23 power amp for almost 5 years and for the price of the Yamaha and a less expensive amp that's capable of handling a 4 Ohm or lower load, it wouldn't be a bad way to go and it would stomp just about any integrated amp below $2000. It also streams, but it's not an integrated amp. I have no complaints about the sound, other than the few times I have used the 'enhancer' and 'extender' for the low end, which is part of the DSP in the Yamaha- I hear a slight delay between the original note and the extended mote, which is an octave lower and when I have called their Tech Support line, they say they haven't had other calls about it. That's great, but it's not the first time I have heard this in most devices that synthesize a lower note, so it's probably a case of "We don't want to talk to you, anymore", like the French knight in Monty Python's 'Holy Grail'. When I don't use those features, I hear nothing that I don't like and a whole lot that I do. The power amp is rated for 2 Ohms and the output is far more than most integrated amps.

I still have a Sony ES integrated that was made before 1990 and it works great, but it didn't have pre-outs. However, since I worked in the AV business, I was able to have a set of output jacks connected to the preamp at the level control, so it was able to drive a power amp that I no longer use. It has a more sensitive MC phono stage than many integrated/preamps and it still sounds very good but at this point, I only need it for the phono preamp. It was rated at 100W/ch, wide band and low distortion- the specs are better than many new products. The integrated amp I used before that one (Sony TA-F6B) was rated at 100W/ch, but when I had it tested on a BPi distortion analyzer and on a scope), it was cooking along at 176W/ch, at or below rated distortion (which was pretty low).

I was going to buy an integrated amp before I got the Parasound, but I couldn't find anything with enough inputs and other features that I wanted, like a good MC stage, at a reasonable price.

 

[TankTop5]

Get the glue bucket, 'cause we're not done with the horse.

I have been using a Yamaha WXC-50 MusicCast piece with a Parasound A23 power amp for almost 5 years and for the price of the Yamaha and a less expensive amp that's capable of handling a 4 Ohm or lower load, it wouldn't be a bad way to go and it would stomp just about any integrated amp below $2000. It also streams, but it's not an integrated amp. I have no complaints about the sound, other than the few times I have used the 'enhancer' and 'extender' for the low end, which is part of the DSP in the Yamaha- I hear a slight delay between the original note and the extended mote, which is an octave lower and when I have called their Tech Support line, they say they haven't had other calls about it. That's great, but it's not the first time I have heard this in most devices that synthesize a lower note, so it's probably a case of "We don't want to talk to you, anymore", like the French knight in Monty Python's 'Holy Grail'. When I don't use those features, I hear nothing that I don't like and a whole lot that I do. The power amp is rated for 2 Ohms and the output is far more than most integrated amps.

I still have a Sony ES integrated that was made before 1990 and it works great, but it didn't have pre-outs. However, since I worked in the AV business, I was able to have a set of output jacks connected to the preamp at the level control, so it was able to drive a power amp that I no longer use. It has a more sensitive MC phono stage than many integrated/preamps and it still sounds very good but at this point, I only need it for the phono preamp. It was rated at 100W/ch, wide band and low distortion- the specs are better than many new products. The integrated amp I used before that one (Sony TA-F6B) was rated at 100W/ch, but when I had it tested on a BPi distortion analyzer and on a scope), it was cooking along at 176W/ch, at or below rated distortion (which was pretty low).

I was going to buy an integrated amp before I got the Parasound, but I couldn't find anything with enough inputs and other features that I wanted, like a good MC stage, at a reasonable price.

Or if the OP is feeling adventurous he could add a MiniDSP DDRC-24 and drop the A23 for a Parasound 2250 v2 with a WXA-50 and comes in under $2k.

 

[lovinthehd]

Speaking of the OP, where'd he go?

 

[highfigh]

Speaking of the OP, where'd he go?

Elsewhere- maybe out for a bite.

 

[JengaHit]

How about a Parasound NewClassic 200 pre-amp ($895), paired with two Outlaw 2220 monoblocks ($399 ea)? The Parasound also has a built-in DAC and analog bass mgt, should he want to add a sub later.

ASR review & measurements of older model Outlaw 2200:

Outlaw 2200 M-Block Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Outlaw 2200 single-channel amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member. The 2200 costs US $399 plus shipping although I read that it goes on sale for less than that. I was surprised how svelte the 2200 is given its power capability: The...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[PENG]

How about a Parasound NewClassic 200 pre-amp ($895), paired with two Outlaw 2220 monoblocks ($399 ea)? The Parasound also has a built-in DAC and analog bass mgt, should he want to add a sub later.

ASR review & measurements of older model Outlaw 2200:

Outlaw 2200 M-Block Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Outlaw 2200 single-channel amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member. The 2200 costs US $399 plus shipping although I read that it goes on sale for less than that. I was surprised how svelte the 2200 is given its power capability: The...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Sure, if one likes the convenience of having everything they need in one box then such integrated amps would be for them.

For me, I would not contribute to the higher profit margin of such integrated amps that come with DAC and other gadgets, it would all or none, as pure separate as practically possible, or an AVR.

Separate DACs can be had for less than $140 and will have specs/measurements much better than those build in to just about every <$3000 integrated amps. Such DACs are also small enough that can be easily hidden from view if that's the issue.

 

[lovinthehd]

Sure, if one likes the convenience of having everything they need in one box then such integrated amps would be for them.

For me, I would not contribute to the higher profit margin of such integrated amps that come with DAC and other gadgets, it would all or none, as pure separate as practically possible, or an AVR.

Separate DACs can be had for less than $140 and will have specs/measurements much better than those build in to just about every <$3000 integrated amps. Such DACs are also small enough that can be easily hidden from view if that's the issue.

Um, this is three boxes and no integrated amp (altho Parasound has a similar named integrated amp too of more modest power than the pre/dual mono amp setup). So how audible would the difference be by using a separate dac? What pre-amp would you suggest without the dac so you could add another box?

 

[JengaHit]

Um, this is three boxes and no integrated amp (altho Parasound has a similar named integrated amp too of more modest power than the pre/dual mono amp setup). So how audible would the difference be by using a separate dac? What pre-amp would you suggest without the dac so you could add another box?

Yes, the Parasound isn't an integrated amp but stereo pre-amp.

Model NewClassic 200 Pre « Parasound

If he's intent on sticking with 2-ch, the Parasound pre-amp is attractive because of its analog bass-mgt capability. As for the internal DAC, he can always add a Topping DAC or such for minimal $$ if he needs more digital inputs. There might be cheaper stereo pre-amps, but I've had reliable experience with Parasound. Have a 24+yr Parasound P/LD 2000 stereo pre-amp that still works flawlessly. Never had a problem with it.

 

[PENG]

Yes, the Parasound isn't an integrated amp but stereo pre-amp.

Model NewClassic 200 Pre « Parasound

If he's intent on sticking with 2-ch, the Parasound pre-amp is attractive because of its analog bass-mgt capability. As for the internal DAC, he can always add a Topping DAC or such for minimal $$ if he needs more digital inputs. There might be cheaper stereo pre-amps, but I've had reliable experience with Parasound. Have a 24+yr Parasound P/LD 2000 stereo pre-amp that still works flawlessly. Never had a problem with it.

Absolutely but point being is why pay for that mediocre DAC? It isn't that you will hear a difference because of the poorer performance on paper but you will be limited to play certain digital files with such DAC IC.

Then again, if one's priority is "convenience" and have no intention to seek out the best available recording/mastering music contents then yes it is a viable device for sure.

 

[lovinthehd]

Yes, the Parasound isn't an integrated amp but stereo pre-amp.

Model NewClassic 200 Pre « Parasound

If he's intent on sticking with 2-ch, the Parasound pre-amp is attractive because of its analog bass-mgt capability. As for the internal DAC, he can always add a Topping DAC or such for minimal $$ if he needs more digital inputs. There might be cheaper stereo pre-amps, but I've had reliable experience with Parasound. Have a 24+yr Parasound P/LD 2000 stereo pre-amp that still works flawlessly. Never had a problem with it.

I wasn't thinking of something quite that pricey but the feature set and am sure the dac is decent, but Peng could be right it may be limited to a certain level of file sample rate/bit depth (192/24 perhaps?) and may not handle dsd if that's needed. There appears to be a fixed lpf at 80hz for the sub and seems the hpf is variable but they don't specify range particularly other than between 50-80.

 

[JengaHit]

Absolutely but point being is why pay for that mediocre DAC? It isn't that you will hear a difference because of the poorer performance on paper but you will be limited to play certain digital files with such DAC IC.

Then again, if one's priority is "convenience" and have no intention to seek out the best available recording/mastering music contents then yes it is a viable device for sure.

Well, I don't the see the internal DAC as the main selling point, but merely a bonus convenience. As you say, one can always add on a better-measuring DAC with more features for not much money. For me the analog bass mgt offers future flexibility for the 2-ch enthusiast that might want to add a sub later (even admitting its limits compared to an AVR's digital bass mgt). And the build quality, reliability, and brand customer support also matter. (I've had a couple bad experiences with modestly priced AVRs crapping out on me after a year or two.)

You can also always save money by buying a used model. Or if the analog bass mgt doesn't matter, and you want to buy new, Parasound also has the compact Zpre3 for half the money. I'll let others suggest alternative affordable pre-amps, as I only have experience with Parasound.

 

[JengaHit]

T

I wasn't thinking of something quite that pricey but the feature set and am sure the dac is decent, but Peng could be right it may be limited to a certain level of file sample rate/bit depth (192/24 perhaps?) and may not handle dsd if that's needed. There appears to be a fixed lpf at 80hz for the sub and seems the hpf is variable but they don't specify range particularly other than between 50-80.

Yes, the DAC is limited, but it's a more common feature companies are including in their stereo pre-amps now anyway, so I'd just take it as a bonus convenience for the 2-ch listener. Maybe use it as a DAC for a blu-ray player (most of these don't have analog RCA outs anymore); I admit it's not an ideal solution for streaming or an extensive digital library.

The high-pass crossover is variable between 20-140.

 

[lovinthehd]

@kiett you're asking new questions about digital music player but left this hanging....what did you decide on?

 

[kiett]

Hi all,
I am still here, and still digest all the provided info. I am trying to get back to hifi world after almost 25 years, and most of what has been said sofar seems complicated to me.
I really appreciate your inputs and analysis.

Sincerely,
Kiet