Power . How much do we need...

It all reinforces my jaundiced view of the engineerless engineering of mix and match synergy seeking and makes me happier than ever that I discovered actives, the ultimate engineer-integrated system.
Tim

In my own experience, in finance, as well my family background with a number of physicians in the family, there is no absolute science in the things humankind does. Most anything humankind does is a mixture of 'science' and 'art'. Often times physicians understand that certain things happen...but they dont know why. Great investors often are known as being expert at finance/math...but ultimately are best known for their 'instincts' about good investments.

Audio, in my own experience and observations, is no different. There is an alchemy in designing products...and in designing systems. So whether i chose a system that was comprised of amp and speaker...or source to cable to all-in-one speaker, i think all systems are ultimately about 'art' and alchemy with science as a guide. Sometimes a strong guide...othertimes, not so much. There is no perfect product, and all systems are inherently flawed in some way...so you pick your poisin, or you pick the areas which you enjoy the most, and try to limit the compromises. SS, Tube, Active, Passive, digital, vinyl, tape, (even amplified live)...all have strengths and weaknesses.

And the ultimate reference is the ear...because that's what most of us are doing this for...to hear music. I admit to not understand how to read technical graphs enuf to tell what a component sounds like...but i suspect even their own designers/manufacturers ultimately listen to a product before they finalize a design.
 
Amir-It's my humble opinion that speakers that have built-in powered subs still are influenced by the amp that drives the speakers. The built-in sub amp is getting its feed from the speaker cables attached to the amp driving the main speakers. I would be surprised if MikeL said he can hear no difference in his bass when he uses his 3 watt amps vice his big SS amp.
 
Mark, I didn't say the amp is not impacting it. I am saying if we are discussing how much *power* it needs clearly that can't be a topic that we discuss when a speaker has its own very high power amplifier built-in. 99% of the people don't have such speakers and as such, it is not an interesting test case.

Inverted, I am confident that if the speaker doesn't have an amp like this, the SS will clean its clocks relative to 3 watts of power for Tube amp. I will be open to such a challenge even sighted! The 3 watt amp will surely clip in size speakers and room that Mike has.
 
Audio, in my own experience and observations, is no different. There is an alchemy in designing products...and in designing systems. So whether i chose a system that was comprised of amp and speaker...or source to cable to all-in-one speaker, i think all systems are ultimately about 'art' and alchemy with science as a guide. Sometimes a strong guide...othertimes, not so much. There is no perfect product, and all systems are inherently flawed in some way...so you pick your poisin, or you pick the areas which you enjoy the most, and try to limit the compromises. SS, Tube, Active, Passive, digital, vinyl, tape, (even amplified live)...all have strengths and weaknesses.
I would beg to differ with that, Lloyd. It's all science, or engineering to be more precise, the trouble is that the designers have fallen into ruts with assumptions (where have I seen that word before ...) about how various elements and parts of the circuit operate and interact at a deeper and crucial level, and while that persists it will always be relatively hard to get better sound. Just take this current debate, we've finally arrived at the point of looking at a critical arbiter of correct working, the "stiffness" or imperturbability of the voltage rails after many, many pages, but in general it is rarely mentioned in audio circles. When I did a DIY gainclone a good 3/4's, no, on reflection make that 7/8's, of the effort was on getting the power supply "right", which meant that it had excellent dynamics -- the actual amplifier part of the whole contraption was almost irrelevant, a throw-in at the last moment ...

So art and intuition will get you a decent way, but unless there is a concerted effort to truly understand what the physical processes are that affect the sound in subtle ways this will be a long, drawn out battle, fighting the forces of "bad" sound. Yelling out for more measurements and DBT's is all very well, but unless there is a willingness to accept that seemingly minor issues can play a huge role in getting a system to sound "right" then there will always a level of frustration in the whole exercise ...

Frank
 
Last edited:
(...) I live local to him. I would be happy to accept the challenge you put forward with our Mark Levinson NO 53 amplifiers. We would bring them to his house and take them back, free of charge. The problem I have is how to do the evaluation. A sighted test won't do from my point of view. And a blind test won't from his vantage. Do you have an idea of how we would do an honest evaluation of the Mark Levinson against his current amp?

BTW, I don't know that the ML will win the race here. I am simply willing to do the experiment and gather some data if we can figure out how.

Amir,
Challenge? Win the race? I must be missing something.

First a few technical details - if you will be using the Dartzeel preamplfier it will be almost impossible to use the same volume levels with both amplifiers unless you do individual calibrations each time. Second, as the Darzeel has a 50 ohm impedance and proprietary 50 ohm cables and the XLR has a different circuit you will be also evaluating a different preamplfier with each amplfier.

I am sure you will have a great time and many envious WBF members, myself included, who would have loved to assist :), reading about your findings, but what do you want to conclude about this listening session?
 
Oh, I had not considered any complications regarding his pre-amp. I thought Keith challenged someone to take a Krell to Mike's house and see if it does better than his current (tube?) amp. I don't have a Krell but do have Mark Levinson so I assumed that would do. That was what I was responding to.

As I noted, I think this is a challenging experiment to put together but if it is possible, I will bring in the resources from my company to make it work.
 
I would beg to differ with that, Lloyd. It's all science, or engineering to be more precise, the trouble is that the designers have fallen into ruts with assumptions (where have I seen that word before ...) about how various elements and parts of the circuit operate and interact at a deeper and crucial level, and while that persists it will always be relatively hard to get better sound. Just take this current debate, we've finally arrived at the point of looking at a critical arbiter of correct working, the "stiffness" or imperturbability of the voltage rails after many, many pages, but in general it is rarely mentioned in audio circles. When I did a DIY gainclone a good 3/4's, no, on reflection make that 7/8's, of the effort was on getting the power supply "right", which meant that it had excellent dynamics -- the actual amplifier part of the whole contraption was almost irrelevant, a throw-in at the last moment ...

So art and intuition will get you a decent way, but unless there is a concerted effort to truly understand what the physical processes are that affect the sound in subtle ways this will be a long, drawn out battle, fighting the forces of "bad" sound. Yelling out for more measurements and DBT's is all very well, but unless there is a willingness to accept that seemingly minor issues can play a huge role in getting a system to sound "right" then there will always a level of frustration in the whole exercise ...

Frank

Absolutely not. If we say that it is 100% science...then we assume we know everything. Clearly we dont...in many cases, we are guessing or making no better than 'educated assumptions'. And once we are doing that, then that is the 'art' element. Once we don't have the answer, dont know the correct measurement to use, or dont have exact enough instrumentation, or there are too many variables to consider...then we end up using 'our judgment'...that is art, instinct and not pure raw fact. Science is a good guide (as is art)...but ultimately, it is always a blend.
 
Keith, I don't know what Mike has had in the past but I visited him this summer. His current speakers have a powered low-frequency driver. In that sense, he doesn't need a lot of power anymore.

I live local to him. I would be happy to accept the challenge you put forward with our Mark Levinson NO 53 amplifiers. We would bring them to his house and take them back, free of charge. The problem I have is how to do the evaluation. A sighted test won't do from my point of view. And a blind test won't from his vantage. Do you have an idea of how we would do an honest evaluation of the Mark Levinson against his current amp?

BTW, I don't know that the ML will win the race here. I am simply willing to do the experiment and gather some data if we can figure out how.


Again, he has a speaker that is mostly powered by its own amplifier so the 3 watt number is not a fair number to use here :).

if we are looking for some sort of measured 'best' then count me out. i have no interest in 'data' as it might pertain to overall performance of a system. not that numbers don't tell you things, or not that numbers don't have any value. only they are not any final arbiter of better and worse music reproduction.

bringing the big ML#53's over and pitting it against the dart stereo amp or even the 2a3'S would only be useful for subjective perspectives. and entertainment value. and fun. and an excuse to listen to music.

works for me.

and the fact that i can choose modestly powered amps to optimize the mid and upper frequency performance while retaining superlative deep bass performance and room/speaker adjustablity is the whole reason for my choice of this system philosophy. of course it's not fair to high powered amplifiers, they are not as good at mids and highs as modestly powered amps (in similar price ranges).....and when you remove their advantage in the low frequencies they get exposed.

which is my whole point!!!!!

why not actively power the deep bass, and then use more modest power on the mids and highs? the only challenge is integration.

oh and Keith, thank you for the kind words.
 
Absolutely not. If we say that it is 100% science...then we assume we know everything. Clearly we dont...in many cases, we are guessing or making no better than 'educated assumptions'. And once we are doing that, then that is the 'art' element.
Disagree. Going back to an earlier part of your post:

there is no absolute science in the things humankind does. Most anything humankind does is a mixture of 'science' and 'art'. Often times physicians understand that certain things happen...but they dont know why.
There are things where there is absolute science, and the path of mankind is to progress from doing things using "art" to doing it using "science". Unless you are deliberately being creative, you're not trying to find a solution to something, but rather spawning new forms of whatever, using intuition and technical skills as a artistic endeavour. Like Tim bending the notes and playing with all the tone enhancements at his disposal to create the right sound, he's not worrying about hitting the "right", scientific note.

When you say "we" don't know what gives good sound, what you are really saying is that there isn't a general, easily available knowledge base out there which anyone can tap into, to get the right outcome every time. There are many people out there who have parts of the "knowledge", not "art", to make it happen, the job is really to coordinate those elements of understanding to form a solid, cohesive picture which gives a success every time.

When I get into a plane, I want 100% science, engineering, to have decided how that craft was bolted together: the art adds the decorative bits, the colour of the seats, the type of meals, etc. With audio the same approach should, and can be used, otherwise people will continue to pay silly money to get together an audio solution that pleases them ...

Frank
 
Disagree.
When I get into a plane, I want 100% science, engineering, to have decided how that craft was bolted together: the art adds the decorative bits, the colour of the seats, the type of meals, etc. With audio the same approach should, and can be used, otherwise people will continue to pay silly money to get together an audio solution that pleases them ...

Frank

I disagree on the plane bit completely. i have spoken at length with one of the engineers behind one of the new flagship jetliners...i wont mention which one. He specifically stated he would not fly on one for at least 2 years...because no matter how much quality control, how much proofing, there are always bugs. in some cases, they dont figure out why until later.

The same is true for audio...many times, even the owners of major audio manufacturers cannot explain why teflon capacitors act in a certain way...they just do.

Plus, an audio component has to be designed in a lab...and used by someone they dont know, in a system they cannot guess, in hundreds if not thousands of different rooms all over the world. There are too many variables...so inevitably the manufacturer is forced to make judgment calls on what they think will make the product the most saleable...that is an art not a science.
 
I disagree on the plane bit completely. i have spoken at length with one of the engineers behind one of the new flagship jetliners...i wont mention which one. He specifically stated he would not fly on one for at least 2 years...because no matter how much quality control, how much proofing, there are always bugs. in some cases, they dont figure out why until later.
You're talking about a process of "debugging" which forms a finite stage of any engineering endeavour; once that's passed through you have extremely high reliability, not perfect(!), but the key functionality is fully in place. As has been said many times, hardly anyone has the key functionality of audio reproduction working right, it still doesn't sound like the "real" musical event every time when the track starts playing!

The same is true for audio...many times, even the owners of major audio manufacturers cannot explain why teflon capacitors act in a certain way...they just do.
But people who have rigorously examined capacitors and their construction have excellent explanations for their behaviours: Ben Duncan comes to mind. There are precise technical reasons why different constructions have different non-perfect behaviours, no mysteries here ...

so inevitably the manufacturer is forced to make judgment calls on what they think will make the product the most saleable...that is an art not a science.
Trouble is, at the moment either the cheapest component that basically works is used, OR some hideously expensive item that has great status; very little in the middle of the range of capabilities. Which comes back to the saleability as you mentioned: either it just does the job, as cheaply as possible, or a whole lot of "jewellery" boxes have been ticked ...

Frank
 
and the fact that i can choose modestly powered amps to optimize the mid and upper frequency performance while retaining superlative deep bass performance and room/speaker adjustablity is the whole reason for my choice of this system philosophy. of course it's not fair to high powered amplifiers, they are not as good at mids and highs as modestly powered amps (in similar price ranges).....and when you remove their advantage in the low frequencies they get exposed.

which is my whole point!!!!!

That alone would be intriguing to me. Preamp issues aside, seeing how the sound changes between the SET and the ML, used just as midrange/high amps, would be an interesting listen. Does the SET mop the floor with the big amp, or are they comparable in this system? Even not blind I would love to try that, even better with an AP unit to measure the distortion at the output of the amps while driving a few test tones. The overtone series should be drastically different between the two amps, even at 1 W. If nothing else it might lead to an interesting test of what we like to hear, and maybe some measurements to help explain why.
 
The overtone series should be drastically different between the two amps, even at 1 W. If nothing else it might lead to an interesting test of what we like to hear, and maybe some measurements to help explain why.
They would be different, but my guess is that they would be inaudible, in both cases. Again, driving with static test tones is never going to "prove" anything, it may yield some clues, but nothing definitive -- IMO.

Frank
 
Mike, there was no talk of using numbers. Not sure how that would be an outcome of bringing the amps to your place.

And to be clear again, I am not pushing for a challenge. I am just responding to Keith saying no one would want to do it. I am saying I am happy to do it if we can figure out what data we can get that someone could use. Data is not always number but something people didn't know the day before the experiment.

As to why not active power bass, I gave the answer that vast majority of speakers are not that way and people are not about to adopt them tomorrow either. So if we want to go through all of this work, we need to have it produce applicable data to everyone else.

And oh, listening to music at your wonderful house is a reward and motivation :). But then again, I am not the one who has to haul around 135 pound amplifiers. :D
 
And oh, listening to music at your wonderful house is a reward and motivation :). But then again, I am not the one who has to haul around 135 pound amplifiers. :D

So who is going to haul around those 135 lb amps?
 
My crew at Madrona will. I just need to be able to explain the reason with a straight face :). Saying I just want to shoot the breeze with Mike might be a stretch :).
 
Amir,
Challenge? Win the race? I must be missing something.

First a few technical details - if you will be using the Dartzeel preamplfier it will be almost impossible to use the same volume levels with both amplifiers unless you do individual calibrations each time. Second, as the Darzeel has a 50 ohm impedance and proprietary 50 ohm cables and the XLR has a different circuit you will be also evaluating a different preamplfier with each amplfier.

I am sure you will have a great time and many envious WBF members, myself included, who would have loved to assist :), reading about your findings, but what do you want to conclude about this listening session?

the dart pre does have RCA single ended output that is optimal as it's a single ended design. i would assume that the ML#53 has RCA inputs. not only that, but my guess is that they likely sound better than the XLR inputs. so the ML#53 would not be under any sort of handicap using the dart pre.

i have a high quality 6m set of RCA cables or you could bring your own.
 
Unless Mike's built-in subs have a line-leval input that is fed directly from his preamp, I can't imagine how the amp won't have an influence on the sound of the subs. If his 3 watt amp clips, the signal fed to the speakers will be a clipped signal for both the mains and the sub.
 
Mike, there was no talk of using numbers. Not sure how that would be an outcome of bringing the amps to your place.

And to be clear again, I am not pushing for a challenge. I am just responding to Keith saying no one would want to do it. I am saying I am happy to do it if we can figure out what data we can get that someone could use. Data is not always number but something people didn't know the day before the experiment.

As to why not active power bass, I gave the answer that vast majority of speakers are not that way and people are not about to adopt them tomorrow either. So if we want to go through all of this work, we need to have it produce applicable data to everyone else.

And oh, listening to music at your wonderful house is a reward and motivation :). But then again, I am not the one who has to haul around 135 pound amplifiers. :D

i did not intend to point my measurement comments at you personally. the knee jerk reaction of 'measure it' to my perspectives caused me to include that. one of these days i'd like to have one of the 'measure it' guys visit and we can have some fun.

i have a set of piano dollys made for these crazy moments. so moving the amps around will not be a big problem. i've had many heavy amps in and out of there. as you know we can back your car up to my door, everything the same level.

the ML#33's were 375 pounds each. now those took some planning and i hired guys to move those. but i never had to worry about anyone walking off with them.:)
 
of course it's not fair to high powered amplifiers, they are not as good at mids and highs as modestly powered amps (in similar price ranges).....and when you remove their advantage in the low frequencies they get exposed.

Another statement that would gain a good bit of credibility by the simple admission that it is a personal opinion.

Tim
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu