Power: Good or Bad

Pauly, I suspect you are right - more power = more stuff = stuff deteriorates the signal. That is my basic reasoning; although, I do think a great designer can minimize the "damage" and provide adequate power for today's tougher speaker loads and inefficient sensitivities. I started thinking about this because I own Merlin VSMs that are fairly efficient at 89db, and have a very smooth, tube friendly impedance load. I've been using the CAT JL2s, and beleive me I have no complaints, but one - the 22 tubes running Class A act as a heater in my room and in the summer time (I turn the AC off to listen)the heat can be a problem. I started thinking something with less power and less tubes would be a good idea for summer listening. I decided on the 30 Watt Ars Sonum Integrated. I was sceptical that such a low powered integrated could do the trick. Well, I heard it at NYC Stereo Show - it does the trick. It seems that, at least with the easy to drive Merlins, 30 watts of tube power is all the power I need for my tastes and listening levels. And, the idea of fewer tubes, fewer parts, less heat, just seems to appeal to me as a concept. It got me thinking, how much power is enough, and doesn't power inherently corrupt. I'm no longer looking for speakers, but if I were, it would seem to me I would want speakers that are easy to drive with relatively low power because it seems low power has a signficant advantage - IF it can drive the speakers adequately (the amp/speaker interface has to match).

FatParrot, I agree with you about rooms. I threw out that 115db, because I was calculating how load 30 watts could drive my speakers. I listen to 82-87dbs on average so I should be more than fine, but I did not want to "short change" those that need loud and louder.

Hi Pubul57

I think the real Achilles heel for low powered single ended tube amps are (the lack of) appropriate speakers.

Having been active on this BB (an a few others) for a few years now, it is very clear to me that the vast majority of listeners do not have appropriate speakers for their medium to low powered tube amplifiers. Sadly they miss what their amplifiers can deliver. Even more sad (quite shocking actually), are the number of folks that not only listen to sound with a high degree of colorations due to speaker mismatch, but actually consider that to be “tube sound” and actually enjoy it! Clearly they have little experience with what music actually does sound like.

Given the above, a bigger amplifier, be it tube or transistor, will give a much more accurate and natural reproduction on the source material.

To me, the small tube amp (single ended variety with single digit outputs) presents the most accurate and most natural reproduction of music humanly possible. Speaker choice is more than crucial though, although I always listen to moderate levels. I tend to save my ears for the times I get near front row seats for orchestra/opera or jazz ensembles.

Regards
Paul

Hey, Paul, who appointed you the arbiter of meaningful information here on Audiogon? You completely missed the point and are mistaken about Wilson speakers, of which I have owned many. Wilson speakers are not that hard to drive, particularly the Sophias. My 15 wpc Cary SET amp easily drove them, but as always, there was a tradeoff in sonics from a powerful solid-state amp. The SET amp threw a bigger soundstage, was more warm and full, and had a more ripe bass. The big SS amp had far more bass impact, was more transparent and detailed, and had better dynamics. Which was better? You tell me. I preferred the big SS amp but maybe someone else might have preferred the SET amp presentation. The choice of music also had a lot to do with it. The main point here is that the original poster asked if high powered amps were better or worse than low-powered amps. I think it is patently ridiculous to make generalizations on amplifier power sonics when there are so many variables that cannot possibly be kept constant, not least of which is personal tastes. If it were that easy, only one type of amp would be manufactured. There is a place for all types of amps, and as always, listening is the final judge.

+++ Hey, Paul, who appointed you the arbiter of meaningful information here on Audiogon +++

I did.

+++ The SET amp threw a bigger soundstage, was more warm and full, and had a more ripe bass +++

Yes, you're describing the coloration I mentioned in my previous posts. Ripe bass = distortion.

+++ Which was better? You tell me +++ and +++ I preferred the big SS amp but maybe someone else might have preferred the SET amp presentation +++

Your SS amp is better. (Refer to my prefer post) We both would prefer your SS amp. And yes, there are folks who prefer music with colorations. I distance myself from those folks and their so called “tube sound”; their sound is not tube sound, it is simply distorted sound.

+++ The main point here is that the original poster asked if high powered amps were better or worse than low-powered amps +++

Yes. High powered amps are worse than low power amps. Much worse. However, very few low powered amps are better because they are not deployedcorrectly.

+++ I think it is patently ridiculous to make generalizations on amplifier power sonics when there are so many variables that cannot possibly be kept constant, not least of which is personal tastes +++

That is your opinion and I respect it as such. I do disagree with it.

+++ If it were that easy, only one type of amp would be manufactured. +++ and +++ There is a place for all types of amps, and as always, listening is the final judge.+++

If what was so easy?

1.) Small amps are the very best. That is easy. No black magic in electronics. The more components in the signal path, the less lower level detail. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. That is a fact and it can be measured quite easily.

2.)Deploying small amps to get the best out of them is difficult. Therefore, small amps for the folks that know how, big amps for the folks that don't or couldn't be bothered.

Regards
Paul

As I said earlier, clearly inefficent speakers or/and those with difficult impedance profiles must have lots of power to sound good, and a low powered amp will not perform well. But, a better way of positioning the issue is to assume that we start with an efficient speaker and one with a benign, easy to drive load (my Merlins for example, which "require" 18 watts); under these circumstances I posit that a 30 watt amp will always sound better than a 100 watt amp of similar design and quality parts for the very reasons Pauly states - to create more power, requires more complexity and this will always create more distortion and/or loss of information. I'm not doctrinaire about this (I could be wrong) but it just seems to me that this position makes sense. But there is no doubt that many speakers sound better, indeed require, lot's of power to sound good, some indeed reuire SS to sound good because their impedance curves are so irregular and dip so low that no tube amplifier can handle them. It raises the question as to why some speaker designers build inefficient, impedance challenged speakers. I'm sure there are good reasons because all designs are a selection of tradeoffs. What I am coming to think however, is that these speakers can never take advantage of the very best amplification (i.e., low power, simple circuits).