Tube Watts vs. Solid State Watts - Any credence?


I've heard numerous times that Tube watts are not the same as Solid State watts when it comes to amps running speakers. For example, a 70 watt tube amp provides more power than a 140 watt solid state amp. Is there any credence to this or just sales talk and misguided listeners? If so, how could this be? One reason I ask is a lot of speakers recommend 50 - 300 watts of amplification but many stores have 35 watt tube amps or 50 watts tube amps running them. More power is usually better to run speakers, so why am I always hearing this stuff about a tube watt is greater than a solid state watt?
djfst
Thanks Al ... the problem is my misuse of terminology.

Perhaps a better way for me to think about my amp's performance window is that it does not appear to choke when asked to deliver power. Perhaps that is because I am not really tasking the amp all that much during "normal" operations.

In my layman's way of thinking, what I think of as "headroom" is my perception that if the amp is making say 25 to 50 watts of power during "normal" operations, a transient peak that pushes the amp out to 100+ watts is well within its rated power capability. Not headroom in the technical sense, but headroom insofar as the amp can produce a lot of power at reasonably low distortion numbers and remain stable.

Another fine point from the Atkinson report is that my amp will produce rated power in those cases where the load impedance matches the nominal tap value, i.e., an 8 ohm load plugged into the 8 ohm tap; or a 4 ohm load plugged into the 4 ohm tap. However, the amp will not produce rated power where there is an impedance mismatch between load and nominal tap value.

That said, in my case, my speakers have a 4 to 6 ohm saddle in a good part of the low frequency range, say 70 to 500 Hz. Impedance goes vertical past 700 Hz.

I surmise that most of the power demands placed on my amp fall within those goal posts. Given the foregoing, the 4 ohm taps make the most sense from a impedance and power matching perspective. And as an aside ... my rig sounds the best to my ears off the 4 ohm taps too.
Yes, that all sounds right to me, Bruce. It's a very powerful, robust, and undoubtedly dynamic sounding amp. Despite, and in a sense because of, the fact that it has essentially no dynamic headroom in the technical sense.

Best regards,
-- Al
Makes sense. I hadn't really given the term dynamic headroom much thought of late with the realization that underbuilt amps that claim to be able to do great things for brief periods of time historically tend to not pan out that well.

But Al, how to reconcile Class D amps? I've seen headroom mentioned with them but not really a focus there either given the radically different way Class D operates. Its almost exclusively about delivering a large amount of power and current only at the times the music requires it as I understand the technology.
Hi Mapman,

In your last sentence you probably meant to say "drawing" rather than "delivering," the former (referring to AC **input** power) being consistent with class D's very high efficiency. While dynamic headroom, of course, has to do with the difference between short-term and long-term **output** power capability.

I don't have a great deal of familiarity with class D designs, so I'm hesitant to comment. But I seem to recall reading that some class D modules have limitations (measured in minutes) with respect to how long they can sustain their rated maximum output power. And also that amplifiers from different manufacturers using the same class D module will often have considerably different max power specs. So it seems to be a different ballgame when it comes to class D, that may be hard to pin down with respect to dynamic headroom. Not surprisingly, given the radically different technology.

Best regards,
-- Al
Geofkait,
You are either autistic(which happens to many Americans for known reason) or didn't grow up yet.