Amp Questoin.

[PENG]

My two cents worth. I have a Yamaha RXV2400, with Paradigm studio 60 fronts. I have recently added a Bryston 4BSST amplifier to the system. I purchased it only after trying one out on my system. Like other people have reported, it is best to try the equipment out first, to see if the change is significant. I had previously tried another amplifier and did not notice much difference. I did notice sufficient improvement with the Bryston amp, even at modest sound levels, for me to make the purchase. In terms of Home Theatre, there was also an overall improvement to the sound (centre, surround and rears are powered by the Yamaha) although less obvious, in my opinion, than strictly two channel sound.

As I previously posted, adding an 200WPC Adcom or a 300WPC Bryston to my 3805 did not produce noticeable difference. So I thought I would use my eyes instead of my ears, i.e. I took voltage and current measurements on each combination. Surprisingly, at up to >100 dB SPL, the 3805 delivered practically the same r.m.s. as well as peak to peak currents with or without the Bryston or the Adcom. I did the same with my Adcom GFP565 preamp with similar results.

I am one of those who could tell the difference between speakers but have hard time telling amps apart. I still like my amps and have no regrets, they give me the peace of mind knowing that they are robust enough for my relatively inefficient Veritas (87 dB, min. 4 ohms). Also, I can convince myself that they actually produce better/cleaner sound whether I could tell the difference or not. I know there are people who claim they could hear huge difference in SQ (like more details, hearing things they didn't before etc.) and that's good for them but I also I am not the only one who could not hear such differences.

The only way to find out whether an amp/more power will get you noticeable improvements or not is to go and listen for yourself.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There's always room to feed that "upgraditis" hunger.

And for much less than one would expect

 

[beta5alphamu]

I Have to completely agree with MDS...everything said is o the money. Take my scenario for example. I have a Denon 3805 running an Aperion 5.1 setup, 634 center 2 633t's front, and 2 534 back.....a very efficient speaker system plus a very reliable speaker. I decided to get a seperate amp and use my Denon as a pre. I was truly happy with the sound my denon was giving out but at high volumes it would warm up a bit and for the sake of protecting my investment and giving it a breather I decided to get an amp. I actually ended up getting an amp with the exact WPC as the Denon so my impressions my shed some light here. I was expecting a sonic miracle and I didn't want to unnecessarily drop to much on an amp because honestly it didn't make any sense. I got my amp solely on the reasons of being a lifesaver to my receiver. So I decided to get Emotiva's LPA 1. This amp did exactly what it was supposed to do for me. My system sounds a bit more dynamic and bass has more uumph at the same listening levels that I was accustomed to when just using the Denon, but at higher volumes I can see where the amp makes a difference. Not because it is sonic miracle but because its a huge, 63 lb, built like a rock contraption that is meant to simply just amplify. The Denon on the other hand, was multitasking all these things in about the same amount of space.
So to answer the originator of the thread. NO don't get an amp and throw away your money just to say you have 200 WPC on your system if you're never going to use it. BUT if you're doing it to to protect your receiver from clipping at high volumes then YEAH get an amp. As a matter of fact the LPA 1 for 500 dollars new will give you exactly what you are looking for and since you have less than 125 watts already, I am pretty sure you will notice an improvement. I think this whole WPC thing is very misleading. Get what you need according to your listening habits. If you're going to get an amp and listen at the same volumes after its implemented ...YOU ARE WASTING YOUR MONEY

 

[Nick250]

Too add my $.02, one a scale of of 1 -10 the road to sonic bliss goes like this with one being the most important.

1. Speaker choice
2. Speaker choice
3 Speaker choice
3. Speaker placement in the listening room.
4. Acoustic room treatments. (three, four and five really all go together).
5.Acoustic room treatments
6. Eq the room.
7.
8.
9. Assuming the receiver is mid priced, $500 and up.
10. A really comfortable chair.
11. (Maybe this should go much higher) the bliss of UPS droping of the new, I can't live without it, upgradeitice piece of really nice equipment.

Nick

 

[Resident Loser]

Question is...

As I previously posted, adding an 200WPC Adcom or a 300WPC Bryston to my 3805 did not produce noticeable difference. So I thought I would use my eyes instead of my ears, i.e. I took voltage and current measurements on each combination. Surprisingly, at up to >100 dB SPL, the 3805 delivered practically the same r.m.s. as well as peak to peak currents with or without the Bryston or the Adcom. I did the same with my Adcom GFP565 preamp with similar results...

...what did you expect?...with the same SPLs and loudspeakers all you did was add the potential to play things louder and provide more headroom...If you had issues with output current vs. true rather than nominal impedance you may have noticed some diff but, if there were no related sonic issues to begin with...and yada, yada, yada...

BTW hearing the diff between loudspeakers is really the only thing that matters cuz for the most part (SS vs. tubes excluded-only for expediency) it's the only diff that really exists...

jimHJJ(...TGIF...)

 

[Aburtch]

Enlightening

I just had to say thank you to everyone who is chiming in here. I was going to post a thread asking about amps and when they are necessary, but found this one and all my questions are now answered.

 

[moreira85]

original poster here, i agree i learned so much, i thought you were suppose to add an amp to give it more power and better sound, little did i know i learned so much about amps, i am gonna spend my money on the BA vr3s then eventually get an amp to save energy output for all the channels.

 

[Ampdog]

Coming into this thread rather late, I did not notice one particular aspect mentioned specifically, although alluded to. That is that we accept a 3dB difference to be the lowest worth "writing home" about- and that amounts to a doubling in output power. The experience of Peng is evidence of this, as with others.

So to simplify do not loose sleep over your amplifier(s) unless the output chnage is at least a factor 2. (I am presuming of course that said amplifiers were all properly designed. Naturally if the "100W" was crappy the experience would have been different. Apparently that would not apply in this case; still.)

 

[moverton]

Too add my $.02, one a scale of of 1 -10 the road to sonic bliss goes like this with one being the most important.

1. Speaker choice
2. Speaker choice
3 Speaker choice

Agreed
Agreed
Agreed

 

[no. 5]

Too add my $.02, one a scale of of 1 -10 the road to sonic bliss goes like this with one being the most important.

1. Speaker choice
2. Speaker choice
3 Speaker choice
3. Speaker placement in the listening room.
4. Acoustic room treatments. (three, four and five really all go together).
5.Acoustic room treatments
6. Eq the room.
7.
8.
9. Assuming the receiver is mid priced, $500 and up.
10. A really comfortable chair.
11. (Maybe this should go much higher) the bliss of UPS droping of the new, I can't live without it, upgradeitice piece of really nice equipment.

Nick

I guss my brothers, 7 and 8 don't matter.

 

[cfrizz]

The Denon 3805 only has 120wpc. You obviously decided to upgrade your Emotiva amplifier up to the more powerful 200wpc Rotel 1095 that is now in your signature. Why? Did you want your Denon to have even more breathing room? Or did you find out that having even more power made more of a difference? If so, why would you tell someone else NOT to get a 200wpc amp?

I Have to completely agree with MDS...everything said is o the money. Take my scenario for example. I have a Denon 3805 running an Aperion 5.1 setup, 634 center 2 633t's front, and 2 534 back.....a very efficient speaker system plus a very reliable speaker. I decided to get a seperate amp and use my Denon as a pre. I was truly happy with the sound my denon was giving out but at high volumes it would warm up a bit and for the sake of protecting my investment and giving it a breather I decided to get an amp. I actually ended up getting an amp with the exact WPC as the Denon so my impressions my shed some light here. I was expecting a sonic miracle and I didn't want to unnecessarily drop to much on an amp because honestly it didn't make any sense. I got my amp solely on the reasons of being a lifesaver to my receiver. So I decided to get Emotiva's LPA 1. This amp did exactly what it was supposed to do for me. My system sounds a bit more dynamic and bass has more uumph at the same listening levels that I was accustomed to when just using the Denon, but at higher volumes I can see where the amp makes a difference. Not because it is sonic miracle but because its a huge, 63 lb, built like a rock contraption that is meant to simply just amplify. The Denon on the other hand, was multitasking all these things in about the same amount of space.
So to answer the originator of the thread. NO don't get an amp and throw away your money just to say you have 200 WPC on your system if you're never going to use it. BUT if you're doing it to to protect your receiver from clipping at high volumes then YEAH get an amp. As a matter of fact the LPA 1 for 500 dollars new will give you exactly what you are looking for and since you have less than 125 watts already, I am pretty sure you will notice an improvement. I think this whole WPC thing is very misleading. Get what you need according to your listening habits. If you're going to get an amp and listen at the same volumes after its implemented ...YOU ARE WASTING YOUR MONEY

 

[PENG]

...what did you expect?...with the same SPLs and loudspeakers all you did was add the potential to play things louder and provide more headroom...If you had issues with output current vs. true rather than nominal impedance you may have noticed some diff but, if there were no related sonic issues to begin with...and yada, yada, yada...

(...TGIF...)

I did not know what to expect because at the time I wasn’t sure whether Denon was truthfully about the published specifications of the 3805. If the specifications reflect reality, then no, I didn't expect to hear a difference at less than 100 dB SPL in my room. Based on my listening experience and measured data, I now know I can rely on Denon's specs for the 3805 and likely any of their 3800 series receivers, i.e. their watts are watts as specified. Obviously I cannot vouch for their lower models without conducting the same kind of comparison and measurements.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I guss my brothers, 7 and 8 don't matter.

Sure they matter. They are your brothers. As to 7 or 8? Well, that may be up for debate But, we'd all have to come over and spend some time there to evaluate.

 

[mtrycrafts]

original poster here, i agree i learned so much, i thought you were suppose to add an amp to give it more power and better sound, little did i know i learned so much about amps.

That, is only because you came to the right place Some other boards, they would have talked you into who knows what voodoo or bs

 

[no. 5]

Sure they matter. They are your brothers. As to 7 or 8? Well, that may be up for debate But, we'd all have to come over and spend some time there to evaluate.

as long as you guys bring your own food.

 

[PENG]

I think it is important to recognize that there are people who reported hearing improvements even at low to moderate SPL levels after adding a powerful external amp to the their mid level receivers. Whether those perceived improvements (bass, details) were due to their more acute hearing ability, the higher quality of their receiver's prepro sections, their receiver's amp sections are not in top shape for whatever reasons, or any other unknow reasons I do not know. Regardless, we should not discount such reports/claims just because we cannot hear such difference in our own environment.

One thing for sure, a powerful amp is needed if you want to hear the best your speakers can do for you, assuming you have decent speakers, at high SPL level (also depends on room acoustic, size etc.) while listening to music that has high dynamic peaks.

 

[majorloser]

I guss my brothers, 7 and 8 don't matter.

No, this is a family forum. So use your imagination and picture what two things would make your theater perfect

 

[Jack Hammer]

I'm a little confused.

I thought one of the biggest benefits of adding an external amp was generally each channel is getting it's own amplification as opposed to having one commonly shared power source sending various frequencies simultaneously to 5-7 channels. This was supposed to allow for a "cleaner" and better overall sound because the external amp was doing less 'work'.

That is really the only reason I would add an external amp, other than needing more power for higher spl's. I've seen plenty of advice to add an external amp instead of an upgraded AVR. What am I missing?

Thanks

Jack

 

[PENG]

I'm a little confused.

I thought one of the biggest benefits of adding an external amp was generally each channel is getting it's own amplification as opposed to having one commonly shared power source sending various frequencies simultaneously to 5-7 channels. This was supposed to allow for a "cleaner" and better overall sound because the external amp was doing less 'work'.

That is really the only reason I would add an external amp, other than needing more power for higher spl's. I've seen plenty of advice to add an external amp instead of an upgraded AVR. What am I missing?

Thanks

Jack

Jack, do you not agree that a mid level receiver such as a HKAVR740, Yamaha RX-V2700 has 7 discrete power amplifiers in them, just like an external multichannel amplifer does. They do share one common power supply but each internal amplifer takes care of amplifying the signals that it received from the pre/pro section. So each internal amplifier send the amplified signals (all those frequencies that you mentioned) to the speaker connected to its output. Sharing, i.e. having one single large power supply is not always bad. Consider the fact that such P.S is sized for all 7 channels, though not for all 7 at rated output (except for HK in my examples). So for 2 channel music listening, this single large power supply only have to cater for 2 channels. Also, keep in mind that not all multichannel amplifers have independent P/S for each channel. Many of them do, but some don't.

As for the benefits of adding ext amp., for those who need the extra power, the benefits are obvious, cleaner sound at high SPL level (again relative to room size, speaker efficency/sensitivity...) tighter bass etc., as you mentioned. It only becomes controversial when people talk about whether one of the benefit is improved sound quality that is audible at low to moderate level when the average power needed for most music source is less than 50WPC and may be peak once in a while to 150 to 200W. Some people say it is, some say it is not. My suggestion is, go find out for yourself by doing as much comparison listening as possible before spending your money.

 

[Jack Hammer]

Jack, do you not agree that a mid level receiver such as a HKAVR740, Yamaha RX-V2700 has 7 discrete power amplifiers in them, just like an external multichannel amplifer does. They do share one common power supply but each internal amplifer takes care of amplifying the signals that it received from the pre/pro section.

In all honesty, I really don't know. That is where the confusion comes from. My choice of words in my previous post may have been poor. It was the amplification to each channel I was refering to, not the actual power supply to the amp itself.

I was under the impression that most mid-level recievers used a single shared amplifier to supply power (sound) to all of the speakers. Whereby a high quality external amplifier used one amplification unit (not sure what to call it) per channel. example: a 3 ch external amp would contain 3 separate amps for my fronts vs a reviever having one amp to power those same 3 speakers. (basically sharing bandwidth)

I hope that made sense. So my confusion is I'm under the impression that with less channels to supply vs many there was a "better" sound quality overall (+more headroom). What I'm getting from this thread is that essentially the main benefit of an external amp is you get a cleaner sound at very high spl's but very little real world difference at low to moderate levels. If so, why would an external amp be more future proof than an upgraded reciever (which would get you more features and in some cases a little more power)?

Asking, not challenging

Jack