power amp/stereo amp

[w_jd_w]

ive heard that if a power amp is about doubly more powerful than a stereo amp. for example if a stereo amp is 200w a channel it would the same power as a power amps 100w is this true?

sorry if that doesnt make to much sense!

 

[markw]

clarification - an amp is an amp, period.

All this stuff is composed of a few basic building blocks.

a (singular, or mono) power amp is one half of a stereo (two channel) power amp. these are available in one channel, two channels and any number of channels but, ultimately, you need one power amp for each speaker you want to use.

Moving on, one needs a a pre-amp ahead of a power amp.

These are generally available in two channel stereo or, for home theater, these are combined with a DD/DTS processor (different subject) into what's called a "pre/processor".

You can buy preamps, pre/proscessors and power amps as separate units but, they can be combined into one unit as well.

If one has a pre-amp and a power amp on one chassis, it's called an integrated amp.

If you combine a tuner, a stereo preamp and two power amps on one chassis, it's called a stereo receiver.

If you combine a tuner, a pre/processor and enough power amps for the number of speakers you're using on one chassis, it's called a home theatre receiver.

Now, can you rethink your question? I have no idea what you're asking.

 

[Seth=L]

I assume you are asking about power rating differences between mass market receivers and power amplifiers.

All receivers have amplifiers and preamps inside of them. This is a way to save space, money, and ease of use for the consumer. Not everyone wants to have a preamplifier/processor and large amplifiers taking up space or money out of their wallets. But you must take into account that anytime you try to bring the cost or size of the performance product it results in lower performance.

Many consumers have heard of a watt, and they know that it is a rating of power. Most people probably aren't sure exactly what a watt is, only that it is a unit of measure that illustrates more or less power.

So imagine you are big, bad Sony. You make stereo receivers that are 50 watts per channel with both channels driven (20hz-20khz[measure of resonance frequency from highest to lowest]). In this day and age when people see 50 watts they don't think it will be adequate for their needs, they want 100 watts or more. Why do the want all those watts, maybe they are sound demons, or maybe they just like telling their friends how powerful their stereo is, who knows?

Well good old Sony has a solution to the consumers problem (greed, vanity, whatever), they change the fashion in how they rate their products to meet the target market's wants. Instead of rating the receiver with two channels driven (20hz-20khz0 they rate it with one channel on a single frequency, which is usually 1khz). Now the power rating is 100 watts per channel (1khz). the consumer has a more powerful receiver, so they think than the guy with the NAD integrated amplifier.

Why don't companies like NAD, Bryston, Rotel, or Krell rate their products this way?, different target market. Audiophiles and techs know about these false type of ratings and many audiophiles won't touch Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo and other brands based on a few factors, they aren't rated fairly and are not expensive enough. Techs know about the ratings as well and still use the products because they are affordable and offer similar performance in many scenarios to the high end stuff (I don't think of myself as an audiophile even though I enjoy music, and a properly calibrated sound system).

 

[wire]

ive heard that if a power amp is about doubly more powerful than a stereo amp. for example if a stereo amp is 200w a channel it would the same power as a power amps 100w is this true?

sorry if that doesnt make to much sense!

It always comes down to the power supplys .
A reciever has 1 and a Amp / Pre amp has 2 ( 1 for the Amp and 1 for the PreAmp ) , most always the power supply in the Power Amp is better than the Bundle Reciever , that is why a power amp will give you power loads down to 2 ohms . The higher end receivers can handle those loads also but there worth alot of $ , the Mid recievers and mass produced stuff cant touch the heavy loads .
The Marketing of most the Midrecivers are mostly a lie and always have been .
Also reference equipment seems to give you a better sound .
But in the end of the comparison betwwen the mass produced stuff and the reference Amp/Pre Amp comes down to power supplys , in which gives you the full sound and the power when the system needs it .
My Bryston 4b is over 20 years old and had it tested just before the 20 year warrenty was up and it came out at 258 w per channel , the man whom did the work wanted to buy it off me .

 

[tubesaregood]

Audiophiles and techs know about these false type of ratings and many audiophiles won't touch Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo and other brands

WHOA HOSS

Yamaha's Natural Sound line is excellent stuff. And Onkyo makes some high end stuff too.

I think you're talking about HTIB systems made by Insignia and Classic and Coby and Lasonic and junk.

(and it's not all about power)

 

[mtrycrafts]

My Bryston 4b is over 20 years old and had it tested just before the 20 year warrenty was up and it came out at 258 w per channel , the man whom did the work wanted to buy it off me .

Sure, he is no dummy He saw a tremendous amp there he was hoping to steal

 

[mtrycrafts]

ive heard that if a power amp is about doubly more powerful than a stereo amp. for example if a stereo amp is 200w a channel it would the same power as a power amps 100w is this true?

sorry if that doesnt make to much sense!

Not sure what you are driving at with this question.

 

[no. 5]

ive heard that if a power amp is about doubly more powerful than a stereo amp. for example if a stereo amp is 200w a channel it would the same power as a power amps 100w is this true?

sorry if that doesnt make to much sense!

IF I understood the question (that a power amplifier is more power than a stereo amplifier?), the answer is; no.

There is nothing magical about power amps that makes one more powerful then a stereo amp, 200 watts is not less than 100 watts, for purposes of driving a set of loudspeakers, a watt is a watt - it doesn’t matter if it’s a power amplifier, tube amp, stereo amp or home theater receiver whichever one has more watts is the one that’s more powerful.

It should be noted that one should be relying on bench tests of amplifiers - not manufactures specs for power output numbers.

 

[Seth=L]

WHOA HOSS

Yamaha's Natural Sound line is excellent stuff. And Onkyo makes some high end stuff too.

I think you're talking about HTIB systems made by Insignia and Classic and Coby and Lasonic and junk.

(and it's not all about power)

You misunderstood me. I never said that Yamaha or Onkyo were crap. I also did not say it was all about power. Given certain speakers don't require large amounts of power to operate within your needs. Different amp topoligies offer different sound signitures, transistors vs. tubes for example.

I know that Yamaha and Onkyo make high-end stuff, I wasn't born yesterday. But when you go the the Best Buy or Circuit City what do they have? How are their receivers rated? The target is unknowledgeable people that think watts mean the world, and the more the merrier.

 

[PENG]

mark provided the definitions, until w_jd_w clarifies his question, we can only guess........

 

[Yamahaluver]

Seth=L,

Marketing gimmick is not just limited to Yamaha and Onkyo at BB or CC, there have been others, some in the echelons of so called high end claiming high current but low power, soft clipping, dynamic power on demand etc. all sheer gimmick yet they get away with that kind of deception, selling at BB and CC is a company's bread and butter situation but its nice some of them also make real high end stuff at a reasonable cost

 

[dave1490]

ive heard that if a power amp is about doubly more powerful than a stereo amp. for example if a stereo amp is 200w a channel it would the same power as a power amps 100w is this true?

sorry if that doesnt make to much sense!

i thought somthing like this with a tri amp car system i had. but i put it off to the speakers not being the same size as my home sys.just didnt have the punch.i dont know if it,s the 12volt thing.i know the capacitence in a dedicated amp is much greater then a stereo 1.

 

[PENG]

i know the capacitence in a dedicated amp is much greater then a stereo 1.

A stereo amp is a dedicated amp. Your 2B is a stereo one, but you can also call it a dedicated amp, or a power amp. A power amp can be a 1 channel(monoblock), 2 channel(stereo) or mult-channel amp.

2 ch (stereo) and multi-channel amps may or may not be of the multi mono design. Example, the Bryston 2BSST is a dual mono amp consisting of two independent power amplifiers but it is still a stereo power amplifier because it has two channels.

A multi-channel power amp that has one common power supply for all channels is not necessarily less powerful than one that has individual power supplies for each channel. In fact, a 5 channel amp that uses one large common power supply should theorectically have an edge (in terms of power) over one that has 5 individual smaller power supplies, when used to amplify a 2 channel stereo source.

 

[no. 5]

....some in the echelons of so called high end claiming high current but low power....

That marketing gimmick amuses me.

It reminds me of what I read in a tube amplifier manufacturers website; that one "tube watt" is the same as two "solid state watts".

 

[wire]

A stereo amp is a dedicated amp. Your 2B is a stereo one, but you can also call it a dedicated amp, or a power amp. A power amp can be a 1 channel(monoblock), 2 channel(stereo) or mult-channel amp.

2 ch (stereo) and multi-channel amps may or may not be of the multi mono design. Example, the Bryston 2BSST is a dual mono amp consisting of two independent power amplifiers but it is still a stereo power amplifier because it has two channels.

A multi-channel power amp that has one common power supply for all channels is not necessarily less powerful than one that has individual power supplies for each channel. In fact, a 5 channel amp that uses one large common power supply should theorectically have an edge (in terms of power) over one that has 5 individual smaller power supplies, when used to amplify a 2 channel stereo source.

I seen that new Anthem Multi channel amp today , that thing is a monster .

 

[wire]

That marketing gimmick amuses me.

It reminds me of what I read in a tube amplifier manufacturers website; that one "tube watt" is the same as two "solid state watts".

I have a SP3 in my bedroom , its only 38w x 2 , but it plays like its alot more compared to SS .

 

[no. 5]

I have a SP3 in my bedroom , its only 38w x 2 , but it plays like its alot more compared to SS .

Yes, but into how sensitive of a speaker?

 

[mtrycrafts]

That marketing gimmick amuses me.

It reminds me of what I read in a tube amplifier manufacturers website; that one "tube watt" is the same as two "solid state watts".

Yes, but they didn't tell you that they use two tubes to compare

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have a SP3 in my bedroom , its only 38w x 2 , but it plays like its alot more compared to SS .

How did you compare? Be careful of perceptions.

 

[wire]

How did you compare? Be careful of perceptions.

With 5 amps , The bryston , Carver , Sony 4 channel bridged to 2 ( the Sony sounded abit better unbridged ) and a JBL amp + the SP3 .
It was quite abit of work and time , that bryston is heavy .
Out of all the SS stuff i liked the Bryston the most for the depth of soundstage , the Carver a good soundstage and softer sound , the Sony bridged was ok at very low volumes anything higher my ears got tiered of it fast ( Harsh mids and upperend ) and the JBL was just a Amp similar to the sony at mid volumes harsh and lacked bass ( now i use the JBL on my Puter with a cheap Home sub and Klipsch speakers ) . The Sp3 is unreal at lower volumes and at mid volumes very good .