Adding an Amp to Reciever(multi-ch or stereo?)

[mtrycrafts]

i agree 100%,on top of the added volume a 3 db increase can add alot of dynamics & punch.

That 3 dB gives power over the design limits of the other amp. That includes 3dB RMS power and whatever dynamic headroom it has. It doesn't help when both are within the lower amps design limits, that includes dynamic headroom. And, when one operates amps close or at its limit, that isn't RMS power but a peak, in another word, you are not running amps on continuous 100 watts. I am out of that room in a hurry.

 

[highfihoney]

That 3 dB gives power over the design limits of the other amp. That includes 3dB RMS power and whatever dynamic headroom it has. It doesn't help when both are within the lower amps design limits, that includes dynamic headroom. And, when one operates amps close or at its limit, that isn't RMS power but a peak, in another word, you are not running amps on continuous 100 watts. I am out of that room in a hurry.

hi mtry,let me see if im reading your post correctly,are you saying that you think 100 watts is excessively loud? if this is the case can we say that you are not a fan of loud music.

 

[Josuah]

I can't reach reference levels for a movie with 100W with my speakers (91dB sensitivity) and setup. I need 235W. The same speakers in a different setup can reach the required 105dB easily with 100W. But I certainly would never listen to music at that sort of average volume. When listening to music, my setup uses about 0.25W RMS.

 

[Leprkon]

Please explain how that is possible when you operate well within the limits?

the simplest explanation is that an amp is designed to be an amp... there are no compromises for size or aesthetics. it can do what it does best better than the hodge-podge that is a receiver can, usually even at the lower levels.

If you planned on hauling a bunch of stuff, would you buy a truck or would you buy an El Camino ? (hint here.. they still sell one of these )

 

[scotty11]

I enjoy loud music.
While i rarely play movies at levels above 85dB when it comes to music I like it loud.
There is something about feeling the drums and the bass that I love.

I think listening to music at moderate to high levels is enjoyable as long as the sound is clean and within the limits of your system.

Im no audio expert but i do know that more wattage will deliver more dynamic and detailed sound, even at lower volumes.

 

[rollinrocker]

More WATTS is not about more VOLUME.

 

[W_Harding]

Ugly is better?

the simplest explanation is that an amp is designed to be an amp... there are no compromises for size or aesthetics.

All the commercial amplifiers I have seen have had some consideration for both size and aesthetics. It is true that some big and ugly amplifiers have been produced. Most high end amplifiers pay a lot of attention to aesthetics. Think McIntosh, Krell, Boulder, etc.,.

it can do what it does best better than the hodge-podge that is a receiver can, usually even at the lower levels.

Some separate amplifiers can perform better than some receivers but the reverse is also true. A lot depends on the design of the individual pieces. Not every amplifier is well designed. There can be advantages to a well designed receiver over separate components.

 

[mtrycrafts]

the simplest explanation is that an amp is designed to be an amp... there are no compromises for size or aesthetics. it can do what it does best better than the hodge-podge that is a receiver can, usually even at the lower levels.

I thought you were going to explain to me how or why the first 10 watts, since you didn't make a distinction where that 3dB extra power will matter, matters from a receiver compared to a separate amp with that 3 dB more power.
You are implying that the receiver has such poor capability that that 10 watts will be audibly different from the other one. Yet, the specs at RMS full power are equivalents. I am confused but if you have an example spec sheet, that would help.

 

[mtrycrafts]

hi mtry,let me see if im reading your post correctly,are you saying that you think 100 watts is excessively loud? if this is the case can we say that you are not a fan of loud music.

20 dB above the sensitivity rating, continuous output, not peaks, you bet. In many speakers that would be close to 110 dB spl.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I can't reach reference levels for a movie with 100W with my speakers (91dB sensitivity) and setup. I need 235W. The same speakers in a different setup can reach the required 105dB easily with 100W. But I certainly would never listen to music at that sort of average volume. When listening to music, my setup uses about 0.25W RMS.

I don't follow here and am curious.
Can you elaborate on these?

 

[mtrycrafts]

More WATTS is not about more VOLUME.

What is it about, please.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Im no audio expert but i do know that more wattage will deliver more dynamic and detailed sound, even at lower volumes.

Only if the dynamic demand is such that it exceeds your amp/receiver's dynamic range. If it doesn't, it cannot.

 

[Leprkon]

All the commercial amplifiers I have seen have had some consideration for both size and aesthetics. It is true that some big and ugly amplifiers have been produced. Most high end amplifiers pay a lot of attention to aesthetics. Think McIntosh, Krell, Boulder, etc.,.

I have a receiver that puts out 130 watts into 7 channels plus all the useless video doodads and converters. It weighs 30 pounds.

I have an ATI 150 amplifier. It puts out 150 watts for TWO channels. It weighs 45 pounds.

The ATI takes roughly 150 % of the weight to produce 30 % of the power.

Does that sound like a compromise ?

 

[scotty11]

i said "more wattage will deliver more dynamic and detailed sound, even at lower volumes."

I did not imply that wattage is only about volume but you cant deny that room size,power, and volume are not related.

 

[mtrycrafts]

i said "more wattage will deliver more dynamic and detailed sound, even at lower volumes."

Yes, this has been stated. But not explained how and why since I have not seen he evidence for this.

I did not imply that wattage is only about volume but you cant deny that room size,power, and volume are not related.

Power will deliver volume. Depending on the listening distance, room size may be a factor, yes.
But, much of the discussion is at low/er volume levels, not at and beyond full power.

 

[W_Harding]

I have a receiver that puts out 130 watts into 7 channels plus all the useless video doodads and converters. It weighs 30 pounds.

I have an ATI 150 amplifier. It puts out 150 watts for TWO channels. It weighs 45 pounds.

The ATI takes roughly 150 % of the weight to produce 30 % of the power.

Does that sound like a compromise ?

Dear Leprkon,

Your original comment was:

the simplest explanation is that an amp is designed to be an amp... there are no compromises for size or aesthetics.

Sorry, your example does not prove the rule. It seems that you are equating low watts per pound (amplifier weight) as a standard of quality. One may be able to site examples where this is true, however, that does not make it true in all cases. What about class D amplifiers in receivers or as stand alone amplifiers? Do they sound worse because they are lighter? Does the heavier amplifier always sound better? Is the heavier amplifier better because it was designed better or because the engineer was too lazy to design something more efficient? Just because your ATI amplifier weighs 45 pounds does not mean that the designer did not make any compromises for size or aesthetics.

I have two mono amplifiers that each weighs over 30 pounds. For two channels that equals 60lbs at 30 watts per channel. Does that automatically mean that my two amplifiers combined sound much better than your 150 watt/channel 45 pound ATI because your two channels provide 6.66 Watts per pound as opposed to my 1 Watt per pound amplifiers? Does it mean that ATI made compromises in size or aesthetics to produce your amplifier? Does it absolutely mean that my 30 watt amplifiers will sound better than my BPC receiver that is rated at 100 watts per channel x 5 because the watts per pound are lower? Please, give me a break.

 

[Leprkon]

Sorry, your example does not prove the rule.

What about class D amplifiers in receivers or as stand alone amplifiers? Do they sound worse because they are lighter?

Please, give me a break.

Class D amplifiers have worked so well that exactly 3 mass-market receivers, the exact products who stand the most to benefit from their lighter weight and smaller size, have used them.

All three were SO incredibly successful (the HK DPR1001, 1005, and 2005) that they are are no longer sold. If Class D was the miracle you make it out to be, HK should have ruled the world. Even Audioholics' own reviews of the HK's state that Class D is still years away from audiophile quality.

Class D amps have found a home in some sub-woofers, to be true, but let's face it, they ARE NOT used for anything that stresses mid or tweeter work. Subs are the one place you can amplify junk noise without much chance of it being noticed.

There's your break... right in the middle of your logic !

 

[W_Harding]

Class D amplifiers have worked so well that exactly 3 mass-market receivers, the exact products who stand the most to benefit from their lighter weight and smaller size, have used them.

All three were SO incredibly successful (the HK DPR1001, 1005, and 2005) that they are are no longer sold. If Class D was the miracle you make it out to be, HK should have ruled the world. Even Audioholics' own reviews of the HK's state that Class D is still years away from audiophile quality.

Class D amps have found a home in some sub-woofers, to be true, but let's face it, they ARE NOT used for anything that stresses mid or tweeter work. Subs are the one place you can amplify junk noise without much chance of it being noticed.

There's your break... right in the middle of your logic !

I think you missed the point. Weight does not necessarily make an amplifier better is the point I made and that you did not refute. The argument and examples were not limited to class D amplifiers. Did you read the rest of the post?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think you missed the point. Weight does not necessarily make an amplifier better is the point I made and that you did not refute. The argument and examples were not limited to class D amplifiers. Did you read the rest of the post?

You're just burning up this place About time I get a break
Lots of great points but as you see, hard to get across to some.

 

[Hi Ho]

I agree with the people that have recommended the Behringer A500. Why spend almost $1000 more for the same thing? It's just silly. Just because it's a "pro amp" does not rule it out for home theater. Most of the home theater amps are exhorbitantly expensive. Pro amps are all business and are priced accordingly.