Benefits of a seperate amp?

[jinjuku]

For speakers that aren't particularly hard to drive, I still mostly hear praises and bass response is usually one the first categories mentioned. I have no reason to doubt this. I bought some older Polk LS90s awhile back. They are a line array, I believe, but not difficult to drive. I auditioned them on an HK635. If I hadn't known anything about those speakers, I would have left them. The sounded nice and balanced, but slightly anemic. When I brought them home and put them in my rig, the difference was staggering. Those puppies really dug deep in the bass and hit hard which they are noted for. These were TOTL in their day, but I wouldn't be totally shocked if the M70s didn't improve as well.

I would agree. Bass response and mid bass will be the two things most people hear immediately when putting in a proper power section. You don't hear of too many tweeters that will take 500 watts RMS now

Most amps will also have a better dampening rate which results in much better transducer control (usually 400hz and down).

I like having an amp that I can throw almost any speaker on and know it will be driven properly. I have been through more speakers while my electronics stay the same.

 

[yepimonfire]

The ONLY improvement possible with any decent gear is increased power. (This is related to impedance, as what matters is the power capability into the exact impedance of your particular speakers, not the 8 ohm rating.) But some audiophile brands give crap performance that screw up the frequency response (or some other quality, like some type of distortion, etc.), and so they will give you a different sound than a competently made receiver (or other amplifier):

http://www.stereophile.com/content/wavac-sh-833-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements

If your current receiver is capable of driving your speakers as loud as you want with clarity, there is no reason to buy a separate amplifier, unless, of course, you want to buy some piece of crap like what you will find at the link above, or you like spending money on gear that makes no audible difference at all.

I know exactly what you mean, reminds me of people who like to use those wimpy 5w tube amps. That "warm" sound you hear is gross even order harmonic distortion. If your goal is to get true high fidelity, youre not going to get it by dumping that kind of distortion into youre speakers.

 

[Ron Temple]

I would agree. Bass response and mid bass will be the two things most people hear immediately when putting in a proper power section. You don't hear of too many tweeters that will take 500 watts RMS now

Most amps will also have a better dampening rate which results in much better transducer control (usually 400hz and down).

I like having an amp that I can throw almost any speaker on and know it will be driven properly. I have been through more speakers while my electronics stay the same.

What do you think of the guys that recommend such and such amp for taming bright speakers vs either not buying bright speakers in the first place of padding down the tweater with a few bucks x-over mod. That one always gets me: Lets use a $900 2 channel amp as EQ.

I wouldn't recommend it without some personal experience...and if...the amp was lying around or a real bargain that you could flip painlessly. A more laid back amp might or might not improve things overall. It's about synergy between the amp, processor and speakers. Also, generally, if you don't like the tweeter on a speaker, get rid of it. I did flip those LS90s and while the tweeter wasn't bad, I felt it was a weakness in comparison to my SDAs.

 

[j_garcia]

I know exactly what you mean, reminds me of people who like to use those wimpy 5w tube amps. That "warm" sound you hear is gross even order harmonic distortion. If your goal is to get true high fidelity, youre not going to get it by dumping that kind of distortion into youre speakers.

Have you ever listened to a nice tube setup? Tube amps handle distortion a lot different from solid state and it is one of the main characteristics why some people prefer them. I've heard one inexpensive 2ch setup with a 75w tube amp and it sounded excellent. I've also heard a few rather expensive tube setups and they sounded amazing.

They are also the reason a lot of our favorite rock music sounds like that. That distortion does have some benefits

 

[Hocky]

Have you ever listened to a nice tube setup? Tube amps handle distortion a lot different from solid state and it is one of the main characteristics why some people prefer them. I've heard one inexpensive 2ch setup with a 75w tube amp and it sounded excellent. I've also heard a few rather expensive tube setups and they sounded amazing.

They are also the reason a lot of our favorite rock music sounds like that. That distortion does have some benefits

Inexpensive 75w tube amp? Where? :-\

 

[yepimonfire]

i understand that but the distortion in guitars is SUPPOSED to be there. my preference is flat clear sound, i want it to be reproduced as closley as possible to the original recording, i hate any sort of coloration. my dad has a pair of super expensive studio headphones, they are literally the flattest most accurate headphones i have ever seen, i asked him if i could test them out one day, his words were "you can, but they sound like **** with music, they are made for accurate mixing" so i listened to them, best sounding headphones ever. my preference is flat neutral sound. as far as a 75w tube amp, sure of course that probably sounds great because it would be able to provide decent clean power to most speakers. they may handle distortion in a much more pleasing sounding way, but when people intentionally want to add that distortion into the mix is where i start laughing. i was on an audio forum (not this one) once where someone was complaining about the brightness of their speakers, a person chimed in recommending they use a low power tube amp to combat it. IMO, a more realistic and logical way to reduce brightness is to measure the response variations in the higher frequencies and correct them with an EQ.

 

[j_garcia]

Inexpensive 75w tube amp? Where? :-\

Relatively speaking Inexpensive compared to the other ones I've heard. It was around $750.

i understand that but the distortion in guitars is SUPPOSED to be there. my preference is flat clear sound, i want it to be reproduced as closley as possible to the original recording, i hate any sort of coloration. .... my preference is flat neutral sound. as far as a 75w tube amp, sure of course that probably sounds great because it would be able to provide decent clean power to most speakers. they may handle distortion in a much more pleasing sounding way, but when people intentionally want to add that distortion into the mix is where i start laughing. i was on an audio forum (not this one) once where someone was complaining about the brightness of their speakers, a person chimed in recommending they use a low power tube amp to combat it. IMO, a more realistic and logical way to reduce brightness is to measure the response variations in the higher frequencies and correct them with an EQ.

You are kind of contradicting yourself. An EQ is an electronic measure, altering the actual signal, adding the coloration that you say you don't like. If a person doesn't like their speakers bright, then they should be looking for the right speakers not an EQ. That's a band-aid at best.

It is ironic that you say your preference is for uncolored, because most people who say they like tube amplification like them because they sound more natrual and neutral. Quite often people will use slightly brighter speakers with tube amps to achieve a kind of balance, toning down the brightness; such as ribbon type speakers.

 

[yepimonfire]

true, but the point i was getting at is it would flatten then speakers response.

 

[KEW]

That one always gets me: Lets use a $900 2 channel amp as EQ.

I just have to elaborate on this statement as where I have seen this, it is:

Lets cycle through various 2 channel amp SS and tubed amps ranging from $800 to $2000 in a blind trial and error attempt to find the right EQ "setting".

Of course this approach does have the advantage of never being able to conveniently compare old versus new amps, so ultimately, the owner can convince themselves they've got it right whenever they want. Conversely, they'll never have the assurance they could have from simply playing with EQ settings and being able to repeat and double check preferences.

 

[jinjuku]

I wouldn't recommend it without some personal experience...and if...the amp was lying around or a real bargain that you could flip painlessly. A more laid back amp might or might not improve things overall. It's about synergy between the amp, processor and speakers. Also, generally, if you don't like the tweeter on a speaker, get rid of it. I did flip those LS90s and while the tweeter wasn't bad, I felt it was a weakness in comparison to my SDAs.

I guess my point is there are plenty of X-over mods out there for production speakers. I keep seeing people on other forums telling others to use such and such amp to tame those speakers tweeter. The speaker in some cases just needs a minor tweak.

1. 1st off the user almost invariably has a speaker designed for HT duty and they don't like it for music.

2. I have seen the amp suggested cost as much, it not more than the speakers 'needing tamed'.

3. For a higher powers sake: Throw a $0.70 resistor at the tweeter circuit. Not a $900 amp. The entire notion is absurd.

"Synergy" is often over rated. Get an amp of known quality and design, with known operational parameters that meet the speakers worst simulated impedance dip and exceeds their RMS values.

An amp should be doing nothing to the sound. It's an amp, not an EQ.

 

[audiofox]

A couple of thoughts:

1. having a separate amp allows one to "decouple" their pre/pro from the amp function, allowing one to change out those functions independently. I have the same power amps I began with 10 years ago (two Rotels), but I am on my third receiver because of the improvement in features.

2. Not all tube amp features are necessarily bad-a tube amp exhibits a "graceful degradation" as it is driven into the nonlinear region, as opposed to most solid state amps that have a much more abrupt transition from linear to nonlinear. This is used to advantage for certain non-audio applications, such as TWT (traveling wave tube) amplifiers for satellite transmitters, where the transition region also offers much better power efficiency. I have often wondered if this is the same dynamic at work with tube-based audio amplifiers, ie, the more "graceful" transition to the nonlinear region vs. the more abrupt transition for solid state amps that possibly produces the "warm" sound so loved by tube amp aficionados.

 

[j_garcia]

A couple of thoughts:

1. having a separate amp allows one to "decouple" their pre/pro from the amp function, allowing one to change out those functions independently. I have the same power amps I began with 10 years ago (two Rotels), but I am on my third receiver because of the improvement in features.

I'd say that is true, but the benefit is not necessarily the ability to separate them, but rather the fact that a good amp is a good amp, period. That is why you are able to keep using the same ones as you have pointed out.

2. Not all tube amp features are necessarily bad-a tube amp exhibits a "graceful degradation" as it is driven into the nonlinear region, as opposed to most solid state amps that have a much more abrupt transition from linear to nonlinear. This is used to advantage for certain non-audio applications, such as TWT (traveling wave tube) amplifiers for satellite transmitters, where the transition region also offers much better power efficiency. I have often wondered if this is the same dynamic at work with tube-based audio amplifiers, ie, the more "graceful" transition to the nonlinear region vs. the more abrupt transition for solid state amps that possibly produces the "warm" sound so loved by tube amp aficionados.

I mentioned this previously; that "soft clipping" ability of a tube amp essentially allows a much lower power amp to handle large transients. I read an article once on it saying that a particular 75W tube amp might be able to have transients up to 300w peak because of that ability to somewhat artificially "fudge" its output. Yes, it is distorted, but it is more kind to the signal than what happens with SS amps. A transient like that on a lesser SS amp would either fry it, fry a fuse, or go into protection simply because it can't tolerate a swing like that. So when we often say a good SS amp is stout if it can "double down", then when a tube amp can have potentially much larger swings than that it does tell me that something is going on there.

I completely agree that using an amp to achieve some level of EQ/tone adjust is a bit dumb. At the same time however, I also know, just as Ron pointed out in his system (which I have heard many iterations of), that speakers will sound different with different amps.

 

[yepimonfire]

in my opinion i just don't see the point in paying an outrageous price for a tube just so you can have distorted high output that doesen't sound awful or destroy your equipment, to me if i am going to expect my amps to swing up to 300w dynamically, i would just rather buy a SS amp that can go up to 300w.

 

[Pyrrho]

in my opinion i just don't see the point in paying an outrageous price for a tube just so you can have distorted high output that doesen't sound awful or destroy your equipment, to me if i am going to expect my amps to swing up to 300w dynamically, i would just rather buy a SS amp that can go up to 300w.

Most likely, you can get a 300w SS amp for less than the cost of the 75w tube amp, so you not only get the peaks undistorted, but you save money as well. And it will probably be more efficient and therefore use less power, and probably be more reliable, so that the savings in the long run will be even greater than just the difference in purchase price.

 

[yepimonfire]

^ my point ive been making all along.

 

[sholling]

you know what i find funny is that every claim made about cables and receivers and break in and every other "snake-oil" claim it usually involves the bass section amps do sound the same as far as linear response goes, amps cannot give you "warmth, brightness, softness, more bass, reduced bass etc." the only difference ive noticed in the bass section with different power rated receivers is more dynamics, lower powered receivers at high volumes seem to sound "compressed" and "strained" when heavy LFE or bass content in music such as kick drums etc come in.

My brain tells me that a receiver's amp section and a multichannel external amp should sound the same with the exception of the amount of power on tap. I sat down with my XPA-3 expecting absolutely no change other than 3db of headroom and was surprised by an obvious increase in separation which in turn created a wider sound stage.

My brain told me that moving the mains from the XPA-3 to an XPA-2 shouldn't change a thing. I was wrong the XPA-2 is brighter than my XPA-3. Something Emotiva confirmed and claims is a result of an "improved output stage". I have no idea but it's there.

On the other and I'm not sure I'd run $400/pr speakers off of a $600 amp. I think that $1000/pr mains would give a lot more bang for the buck. I'm not knocking the M70s just being practical. On the other hand if you come across a deal on a used amp or better yet a pair of used monoblocks it might be fun to experiment.

 

[yepimonfire]

they were 400/pr because they were on sale, if they werent, i wouldve paid close to 1000

 

[sholling]

they were 400/pr because they were on sale, if they werent, i wouldve paid close to 1000

I'm not knocking them just being practical and edited my remark (too late) to make that clear.

 

[j_garcia]

in my opinion i just don't see the point in paying an outrageous price for a tube just so you can have distorted high output that doesen't sound awful or destroy your equipment, to me if i am going to expect my amps to swing up to 300w dynamically, i would just rather buy a SS amp that can go up to 300w.

Most likely, you can get a 300w SS amp for less than the cost of the 75w tube amp, so you not only get the peaks undistorted, but you save money as well. And it will probably be more efficient and therefore use less power, and probably be more reliable, so that the savings in the long run will be even greater than just the difference in purchase price.

And that is why I have an XPA-3 I never said I was one of those people who preferred tubes Tubes techincally by the fact that they are more forgiving and the fact that there is no real circutry (everything is direct wired) actually are less prone to failure, but if you have an SS amp that is not being constantly overdriven it will tend to last for a loooong time also. I have a Pioneer receiver that is almost as old as me, which makes it no spring chicken.

they were 400/pr because they were on sale, if they werent, i wouldve paid close to 1000

$1k for those would require someone to be punched in the mouth.

 

[Ron Temple]

I guess my point is there are plenty of X-over mods out there for production speakers. I keep seeing people on other forums telling others to use such and such amp to tame those speakers tweeter. The speaker in some cases just needs a minor tweak.

1. 1st off the user almost invariably has a speaker designed for HT duty and they don't like it for music.

2. I have seen the amp suggested cost as much, it not more than the speakers 'needing tamed'.

3. For a higher powers sake: Throw a $0.70 resistor at the tweeter circuit. Not a $900 amp. The entire notion is absurd.

"Synergy" is often over rated. Get an amp of known quality and design, with known operational parameters that meet the speakers worst simulated impedance dip and exceeds their RMS values.

An amp should be doing nothing to the sound. It's an amp, not an EQ.

We're not in disagreement, just looking at 2 sides of the same question. Yes, you can mod your speakers. Heck, I've used the "need to be tamed" line myself, so I must be guilty (I rarely recall what I've posted after awhile ). I've never spent $900 on an amp, but I see countless recommendations for amps well north of that. If someone is looking for a warmer sound, they get recommendations. I don't think anyone making those recs is considering it an eq solution. In fact, I've seen many seasoned members come along on those threads (on other forums) and make the same suggestion that you are...put in a chiclet or dump the speaker. Synergy is just a word for "which sounds better". I agree if you have a quality amp(s) and associated gear, you can stand pat and only upgrade your speakers. I'm in that camp myself. However, from time to time, I get to try out stuff. Sometimes a different piece just sounds better within my rig...it's got better synergy with the rest of my stuff...or...I can call it something else, mo' betta'.