2. amps-preamps
  3. 1244027822

Is too much power in an amp really a problem?

As recently as 8-10 yrs. ago, I maintained my card carrying residence in the ‘lots o’ watts’ camp’ regularly. I’ve since held only a casual attendance to that group, and since departed with the acquisition of higher eff speakers, and lower powered tube amps.

Now I’m debating the future and appropriateness, of that perception and considering another SS, or a non tube amp. This time a digital amp… such as a class D or ICE configuration… as in a Bel Canto, PS Audio, Spectron, Wyred 4 S, etc., to use for both music and HT with my current Silverline speakers.

Several of these amps profess IMO rather high ratings for output power. 250, 300, and 500 wpc into 8 ohms, as your ‘oh by the way’ choices, and then doubling up should the impedance drop off to 4 ohms!

1000 wats per!

E frekin' Gad!

Truth be told, I’ve never put together a high eff speaker & high powered amp combo, nor felt the need, so I’m in a whole new ball game now, or am I?

I understand immense power reservoirs on tap, (like with my former BAT vk500) is a good thing, as well as are other attributes like a good input impedance, and control or damping figures. that amp ran VR4 JRs though, and both have since departed la casa Sunburn.

Additionally, my current tube mono blocks (120wpc) handle my 93db Sonata IIIs quite well IMO. My Odyssey Stratos SE also does a good enough job too rated at about 160 wpc. Between the two amps, the Dodds are the better sounding, and appear to have better control and more ease with the Silverliness.

In making a choice on one of these Digital or ICE amps, should the power numbers be regarded as something other than what they are? I mean more likely, do 250 wpc into 8 ohm rated ICE amps provide likewise results or the same feel, of an SS amp having the same output? Ie., control, power reserves, etc?

I do feel a good match between the speakers and amp is a prime consideration now, and do not wish to buy far too much or too little an amp, given these thoughts.

There too is the thought of the amps actual 'voice' itself to consider.

I sure wouldn’t want to smoke the speaks with too little or too much power on tap. Or have the amp ()s) always loafing. Or is that loafing bit just nonsense?

Any experiences and insights here on the digi power front is more than appreciated as I'm trying to get a 'feel' for this 'new to me' amp topology and not over or under buy.

Thanks much.
blindjim
blindjim OP
2,837 posts
 
As much rhetoric is being cast about here with regard to Rowland, it's merits and perhaps some suspicious intents, which I've dismissed completely from my mind, would anyone care to compare any of these Lillyputian Giant killers to other more well known topologies and/or brands of amps by way of sonic diffs?

I should think that would glean certainly myself, and any other's on the digi ICE fence more palpable insights on what to expect.

Like for example: my xxx was as dynamic as my Krell, but sweet as my Carrisa on the top end.

or ... My xxx was as warm and musical as my SET mono's in the mids but far greater slam in the lower regions... etc.

guido, among others here has already seen in this instance anyways, I'll not be diving into a pair of Spectron Musician s, rowland 312s, or BC 500 - 1000 monos, anytime soon.

had I that sort of duckets to spend I'd be looking at Pass' XA 60.5 or 100.5 amps probably first... then the Spectron's & Rowlands thereafter. Maybe.

Thanks eternally.
blindjim OP
2,837 posts
 
Better yet...

How many high powered ICE users here have high eff speakers with dubious impedance loads? Like the sonata IIIs ... 93db & approx. 4 ohms -/+ ?
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
Raquel seems to question Guido's motives, yet he has purchased the very same equipment. Is that an endorsement of Guido or of Ill-Will-Bill??

I suspect, like me, Guido likes his Rowland/VA equipment very much. He also wrote about it. Like the rest of us, Guido invested in his own equipment. I personally know that he had no financial interest in Rowland when he wrote those reviews, other than the cost of buying the equipment, which he actually owns.

He's since reviewed Bel Canto and others on loan, but, like most reviewers, he owns his reference equipment and makes comparative reviews in order to provide some value to the reader. I also personally know that he spends a lot of time seeking out other systems to compare with his and listens to other equipment every chance that he gets.

I value his contributions here. Like any contributor, we come to know his likes and dislikes and take them into account when we read his writings. Whether I'm reading Stereophile, Audio Critic, A'gon or TAS, I take those preferences into account when evaluating the information for my own use. Conflict is unavoidable, othewise all reviewers wouldn't love music enough to own their own systems and would switch from one loaner to another month after month in a dismal pursuit of musical nothingness. I want my reviewers to love music, own their own systems and tell me what's in those systems so that I can then consider that as I read their writings.

Dave
raquel
841 posts
 
I did not purchase the "very same equipment" - I own a Coherence II preamp (since 2003), a Cadence phono stage (since 2000), and owned the battery-powered Model 6 monoblocks. I owned the original version of the Mahlers - I do not know which version Guido owns.

Read Guidocorona's contributions to Rowland threads and judge for yourself.

His review of the Vienna Acoustics Mahler in the Absolute Sound was curious because he did not discuss that a new version of the speaker (the "V1.5") was being reviewed and that the price had increased from $9,800 to $12,800. The review:

http://www.avguide.com/review/tested-vienna-acoustics-mahler-v15-loudspeaker

Maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that Harry Pearson edited this information out.
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
3,575 posts
 
Raquel - I read review and could not find any reference to $9800. It states clearly in product description that it is v1.5 and MSRP is $12800. Are you saying that reviewers have to mention MSRPs of previous versions. For what purpose? Am I missing something?
More to discover