Parasound A51 vs Anthem MCA 525 Gen 2

Parasound A51 or Anthem MCA 525 Gen 2

  • Parasound A51

  • Anthem MCA 525 Gen 2


Results are only viewable after voting.
R

RickyG512

Enthusiast
But also that calculation of 95 decibels, is that with certain frequencies? These JTRS are rated down to 30 hz, and I know many tower speakers are and it's always recommended to crossover at 80hz for numerous and various reasons and let the subs do the heavy lifting, but there are towers with 6" drivers rated down to 30hz, and then there's JTRs with dual 12" drivers rated down to 30hz, surely it'll be good to use those 12" drivers and not waste them, I have a MiniDSP to smoothen out response and integrate them with subs, but will 400 wpc be enough for the lower frequencies, surely lower frequencies use more power than that calculator would suggest?

Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Those are some pretty kickass speakers. I'd love to hear them.
 
R

RickyG512

Enthusiast
It is a slightly more capable amp it seems. Whether that's worth the change to you, don't know. While it's always nice to have the more capable amp, is it necessary? I'd just use the A51 and not worry about it. What subs are you going to use with the 212s? More JTR? Or is this a full range system without subs?
Capable in what sense would you say? Planning on using dual Captivator 2400s. So not exactly full range

Speaking of full range, any reason why there is this common trend to use full range with 2ch but subs with movies within the same system?
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
The sensitivity does vary with frequency (and sensitivity measurements don't generally include lower bass), and lower frequencies could well demand a bit more power. JTR 215/212s are some of the few speakers I might consider without using subs, but that would only be with all 5ch with the same speaker (okay, maybe a mix of 215s up front and 212s for surround :) ). You don't "waste" speaker capabilities using subs necessarily, in many cases it simply augments them. You're going to use a minidsp to establish crossovers with speakers/subs?

Just saw the Cap 2400s being used, I wouldn't worry about losing some of the lower end from the speakers as the subs are much more capable....

Much music doesn't extend into lower bass but I still use my subs with fairly capable towers. 2ch people can be just weird :)
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
But also that calculation of 95 decibels, is that with certain frequencies? These JTRS are rated down to 30 hz, and I know many tower speakers are and it's always recommended to crossover at 80hz for numerous and various reasons and let the subs do the heavy lifting, but there are towers with 6" drivers rated down to 30hz, and then there's JTRs with dual 12" drivers rated down to 30hz, surely it'll be good to use those 12" drivers and not waste them, I have a MiniDSP to smoothen out response and integrate them with subs, but will 400 wpc be enough for the lower frequencies, surely lower frequencies use more power than that calculator would suggest?

Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
Those are close to full range speakers, but I would still use a sub with them. Rule of thumb for crossing over to a sub is twice your speakers' f3 I believe? So with a f3 of 30, 60 would be the suggestec crossover point for yours.

Even with a higher crossover it's not a brick wall. Your speakers will be playing content well below the crossover still. It's a gradual roll off and there's overlap.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Capable in what sense would you say? Planning on using dual Captivator 2400s. So not exactly full range

Speaking of full range, any reason why there is this common trend to use full range with 2ch but subs with movies within the same system?
Oh man, you're hitting us with all the audiophile myths! Ha ha.

It depends on what you prefer. Some purists won't use a sub for 2 channel listening but I'm not one of them. I have a lot of music with deep enough bass that I can tell something is missing when my subs are off. Even when I had my Ultra towers, and their f3 was 28 hz. Even at that I still used a crossover of 100 hz because of room modes.
 
T

TankTop5

Audioholic General
So what are you asking for the Parasound? If it’s available in a month or two I’ll probably be interested.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
It might mean one amp is more capable than another, whether that's better would depend on whether your speakers are of such a design that need it. Pro amps are often capable of 2 ohm, it's a bit unusual in consumer amps, tho.
Pro amp for sure, but a 61 lbs class AB amp you and I both know there is something fishy about this one.:D
 
R

RickyG512

Enthusiast
So it seems like all things considered the general opinion is A51 is the better amp, even though its 18 years older in design? Some say they don't build amps like they used to, but technology has improved exponentially over time too.

Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
 
T

TankTop5

Audioholic General
I found something from Anthem last night that said special circumstances required for 2ohm test. So they’re not quite telling the whole truth.
Parasound on the other hand claims the A51 is capable of 60A 5 channels continuously. It was probably plugged into a modified Delorean when that test was performed.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Pro amp for sure, but a 61 lbs class AB amp you and I both know there is something fishy about this one.:D
You're saying the heat sink is too light? Or the transformer needed? Or? Beyond my paygrade....
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I deleted my post because of the comments WRT using the power but I hadn't looked at the specific models. I was thinking of the pro-style compression drivers with extreme sensitivity. I had forgotten about these.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I deleted my post because of the comments WRT using the power but I hadn't looked at the specific models. I was thinking of the pro-style compression drivers with extreme sensitivity. I had forgotten about these.
I agree with you on the high levels they might achieve and your hearing....but there are many compression drivers used in home audio, I am right now using a set of speakers with such.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I agree with you on the high levels they might achieve and your hearing....but there are many compression drivers used in home audio, I am right now using a set of speakers with such.
What are they? Do you find them fatiguing? What is the diaphragm made of?
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
What are they? Do you find them fatiguing? What is the diaphragm made of?
Pretty sure HD has the JBL Studio 5** series speakers.

 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
What are they? Do you find them fatiguing? What is the diaphragm made of?
Yep JBL Studio 5 series. I wouldn't use them if they were fatiguing (especially my typical 12 hours a day using them). Teonex.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
You're saying the heat sink is too light? Or the transformer needed? Or? Beyond my paygrade....
No, what I am saying is, its power supply does not look big enough for a 2 Ohm rating. It looks like it has 2X10 A slow blo fuses, that indicate it has two transformers with VA rating up to 750 VA each but not larger. Also, the spec says power consumption is 550 W typical and 1200 W high output. That sort of collaborate with 2X750 VA transformers. From available pictures it looks like it has 10X8,200 uf or 82,000 uf filter capacitance total. That's a lot being shared but not very much compared to the likes of the Monolith, Outlaw and Parasound amps that don't share or at least not to the same extent for all channels (Anthem claimed "the new MCA525 shares its two power supply between all channels. The result is full bursts of power – instantly – without affecting channel separation.") The fact that each channel can in fact suck from the two mother pig, 600 W into 2 Ohms is theoretical possible, though I would still maintain that the "continuous" rating claim is not creditable, not literally continuous anyway, but I'll edit my previous post, now that I remember the unusual power supply sharing scheme.

I think the main difference between the MCA and the Halo 5 channel amps power output it that the Anthem could do very well in 1,2 channel driven conditions and the Halo amp will do better in 3,4,5 channel driven conditions. The Halo amp should have much higher truly "continuous" rating as well. So in practice, I think the MCA amp is more efficient, and that's why it is so much lighter, while rated only 25 W lower per channel. I am just unsure about its channel separation, regardless of their claim of "not affected" by the shared PS. It also has relatively low input impedance, only 10 kOhm for RCA inputs.

I would love to see one bench measured.
 
R

RickyG512

Enthusiast
What are they? Do you find them fatiguing? What is the diaphragm made of?
If a speaker is naturally fatiguing by nature and design (the Klipsch RF-7 III's come to mind, seemed to have lots of bass and highs but no mids) then can EQ'ing adjust for this? I guess you can make the highs softer but will that work to reduce ear fatigue?

Also if you've got 2 speakers that measure 100% the same on a graph, but they've both been made by 2 different speaker manufacturer, and different design philosophy, such as 2 way vs 3 way and dome tweeter vs ribbon tweeter vs compression driver, will they still sound the same to the ear due the matching measurements even though different build design?

Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
No, what I am saying is, its power supply does not look big enough for a 2 Ohm rating. It looks like it has 2X10 A slow blo fuses, that indicate it has two transformers with VA rating up to 750 VA each but not larger. Also, the spec says power consumption is 550 W typical and 1200 W high output. That sort of collaborate with 2X750 VA transformers. From available pictures it looks like it has 10X8,200 uf or 82,000 uf filter capacitance total. That's a lot being shared but not very much compared to the likes of the Monolith, Outlaw and Parasound amps that don't share or at least not to the same extent for all channels (Anthem claimed "the new MCA525 shares its two power supply between all channels. The result is full bursts of power – instantly – without affecting channel separation.") The fact that each channel can in fact suck from the two mother pig, 600 W into 2 Ohms is theoretical possible, though I would still maintain that the "continuous" rating claim is not creditable, not literally continuous anyway, but I'll edit my previous post, now that I remember the unusual power supply sharing scheme.

I think the main difference between the MCA and the Halo 5 channel amps power output it that the Anthem could do very well in 1,2 channel driven conditions and the Halo amp will do better in 3,4,5 channel driven conditions. The Halo amp should have much higher truly "continuous" rating as well. So in practice, I think the MCA amp is more efficient, and that's why it is so much lighter, while rated only 25 W lower per channel. I am just unsure about its channel separation, regardless of their claim of "not affected" by the shared PS. It also has relatively low input impedance, only 10 kOhm for RCA inputs.

I would love to see one bench measured.
Yeah but, does that mean the MCA is better then? :p :p :p
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top