advertisement


Upgrading from NAP135

You did the right thing - the newer stuff is poor and 500 in particular is gutless junk. Dumbo here bought 552/500 and quickly sold. And anyone who thinks the DR upgrade is some sort of magic wand is living in propaganda cuckoo land, in my opinion.

ok so can you explain what it is about the New Naim you don't like.

And what did you replace it with?
 
Surprised at the suggestion equating lower power amps with better sound. My experience has been the opposite, and seeing mention of the Lavardin, I recently heard an integrated (55w per channel?), into Harbeth 30.1s on orchestral and other classical. My perception was that at the volumes I wanted, which were subjectively ‘appropriate’ to the music, but not that high, it was running out of steam. Same with a 30w Nait 3 into the 30.1s, but more so.

I thought the Lavardin SQ was fine at a moderate volumes (not my intention to knock it), so would be okay if I wanted to listen quietly, or had to restrict volume levels for other reasons. However, where dynamic range and transients are important, I’d want a more powerful amp to do justice to the music, and my experience is that such an amp delivers SQ just as well. IMO 100watts in a domestic hifi amp is arguably not excessive and is a perhaps a useful benchmark. There are even more powerful options out there e,g, Quad, Rotel, at 200watts come easily to mind.
 
Well I had a 552/500 on loan some time ago to compare it to my 52/135s. Sent them back as I much preferred the 52/135s. They just sound different and have lost that 'NAIM' sound.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about the power amplification here, but the 552 is/was such an obviously better pre-amp. than the 52. I didn't appreciate its (unnecessary)complications, but no question about its 'open window' c.f. the 52. This would have a significant effect on the power amp. side of things too, with consequential improvements in s.q. Something strange there.
 
Surprised at the suggestion equating lower power amps with better sound. My experience has been the opposite, and seeing mention of the Lavardin, I recently heard an integrated (55w per channel?), into Harbeth 30.1s on orchestral and other classical. My perception was that at the volumes I wanted, which were subjectively ‘appropriate’ to the music, but not that high, it was running out of steam. Same with a 30w Nait 3 into the 30.1s, but more so.

I thought the Lavardin SQ was fine at a moderate volumes (not my intention to knock it), so would be okay if I wanted to listen quietly, or had to restrict volume levels for other reasons. However, where dynamic range and transients are important, IÂ’d want a more powerful amp to do justice to the music, and my experience is that such an amp delivers SQ just as well. IMO 100watts in a domestic hifi amp is arguably not excessive and is a perhaps a useful benchmark. There are even more powerful options out there e,g, Quad, Rotel, at 200watts come easily to mind.

Yes thats probably the case. There have been many discussions about power amps on pfm but my guess is that they are just ignored perhaps because some may not understand the discussion as is the case in this thread.

You need an amp that can drive a speaker that is suitable for your room. Today many people go for the smaller box speakers that will fit in our rooms and these tend to be difficult to drive. I believe that most people grasp that speakers with lower impedances require more current = more power. However how many understand speaker phase angle? This as with impedance changes with frequency. At certain frequencies some speakers phase angle approaches 45 degrees i.e. the current either leads or lags behind the voltage. Lets say you have a 50w amplifier that will happily drive that much power into a resistor but how much of that 50w is available for a speaker? If the speakers phase angle is at 45 degrees 80% of the output power is wasted as heat in the output transistors i.e. at the full rated output of 50W you get 10W into the speaker and the rest cooks the output stage. If you then turn the wick up you'll drive the amp into clipping provided the protection circuits haven't activated by then.

Uncompressed recorded music will have a wide dynamic range lets say 20dB peaks above average spl. What this means is if someone is listening at 10W average spl (loud) the short lived transients require 1000W! Of course if someone only ever listens to highly compressed 'pop' type stuff then these transients will be missing and a lot less power would suffice.

A well designed powerful amplifier will be able to drive any loudspeaker with any type of recording but these will be big, heavy and expensive and will thus not suit everyone. Therefore cutbacks have to be made for smaller, lighter and cheaper models.

Cheers,

DV (1600wpc into 4 Ohms, 84Kg total weight)
 
Surprised at the suggestion equating lower power amps with better sound.
When driven within their limits, why not?

I've personally witnessed jaws dropping when I pitched vintage Pioneer C-21/M-22 (30W Class A) against modern Densen B-250/350s (125W Class A/B), and not in favour of the bigger amps either.

In the context of a pair of 90dB/W/m loudspeakers in my 4m x 5.7m x 2.7m room, 30W is more than ample for sane listening levels. I reserve my more powerful amps when I use my pair of 83dB/W loudspeakers, which admittedly don't sound as good with the 30 watters.
 
I was fortunate enough to have bought a pair of Witch Hat monos Mark Slade’s take on M130 drives my Linn DMS Isobariks effortlessly.

Regards,

Martin
 
I was fortunate enough to have bought a pair of Witch Hat monos Mark Slade’s take on M130 drives my Linn DMS Isobariks effortlessly.

Regards,

Martin

I can vote for the M130's or the Teddy MB100's both lovely so long as the speakers are not too demanding... Both are fine with Wilson Watt/Puppy8's or sophia's but need help with Shahinian Hawks but that's a rather extreme use case.

So kinda depends on the speakers. For what it's worth Naim DR is night & day in noise floor and is rather different. Currently running an old school 500 on the Hawk bass modules but might get it tweaked (not sure if it's worth it).
 
James (Post 45) - no issue with your experience, but I was picking up on what appeared to be a generalisation that there was a relationship between power and fidelity in terms of low power amplifiers being better for fidelity. That’s not my experience, and neither was it, on a recent hearing with one of the amplifiers quoted. (Though I should maybe make it clear that the Lavardin I heard sounded absolutely fine at the volumes lower than I wanted.)

I don’t consider that I listen at excessively high volumes. I use an SPL meter on occasions to check that. I want to avoid taking risks with my hearing!

I’m a bit late to the party on this, but for some time I’ve been coming to the conclusion that the extra watts in more powerful amplifiers are not about just cranking up listening to higher volume levels, but much more to do with bringing music with wide dynamic range to life. To feel the energy and exhilaration in performances. Also, as I understand things, extra power would potentially mean that an amplifier will match successfully with a wider range of speakers.

My technical knowledge is limited, but recent listening experience and reading around indicates to me something like DV was getting at in relation to power requirements for transients (Post 44). Additionally, I don’t see why it should follow (i.e. as a generality) that a more powerful amp will have less fidelity than a lower powered amp. At least not if the amplifier is well designed, and the design brief is aimed at neutrality (‘straight wire with gain’!). Of course, it seems that many amplifier manufacturers attempt to endow their amps with a certain presentation or character, and there lies scope for variation (and unpredictability). That’s just a general observation - I’m not making any inference about the Densen/Pioneer amps referred to, neither of which I know anything about.
 
It all boils down to how sensitive the speakers being used are and how reactive the load they present to the amplifier. If you use speakers that are both very sensitive and offer an even, benign load, then you can achieve high SPLs and a large dynamic range with very low powered amplifiers.
 
Okay, but would it be reasonable to think that if an amplifier is plenty powerful (I’m thinking 100w pc into 8 ohms and upwards) then there will be less issues to consider in speaker matching?
 
There may indeed be fewer issues (or really, problems) with speaker matching using higher powered amp's, but surely it's not just the quoted power that's relevant. I'm told that valve watts are different in many cases to s/s watts, and remember feeling that the 70 W/ch of my Naim 135s was the same as the 70 (or 75?) W/ch of the 250 which preceded them. Bigger difference in control of the speakers from the 135s.

I can see how a fairly powerful amp. into efficient large floor-standers could actually have negative connotations. Taking s.q. into consideration, is the new Statement amp. not an improvement on the 500? The point being that designing for more power, it is possible to either keep or improve s.q.

Too many variables here, methinks, to make an accurate generalisation.
 
When driven within their limits, why not?

I've personally witnessed jaws dropping when I pitched vintage Pioneer C-21/M-22 (30W Class A) against modern Densen B-250/350s (125W Class A/B), and not in favour of the bigger amps either.

In the context of a pair of 90dB/W/m loudspeakers in my 4m x 5.7m x 2.7m room, 30W is more than ample for sane listening levels. I reserve my more powerful amps when I use my pair of 83dB/W loudspeakers, which admittedly don't sound as good with the 30 watters.

Those speakers are 0.13% efficient. That means at the full amplifier output of 30W only 39mW is turned into sound. Wonder where the rest goes?

Cheers,

DV
 
Okay, but would it be reasonable to think that if an amplifier is plenty powerful (I’m thinking 100w pc into 8 ohms and upwards) then there will be less issues to consider in speaker matching?

No. The speaker should be chosen to suit the room. If you are lucky that will be one with an efficient and benign load. However lots of people will be unlucky and have a difficult to driver speaker with a tortuous load.

You then have to chose an amp that will happily drive your speakers.

Most of us don't have a money tree in the garden so at the end of the day we compromise.

Cheers,

DV
 
Quoted from DV post 44:
Uncompressed recorded music will have a wide dynamic range lets say 20dB peaks above average spl. What this means is if someone is listening at 10W average spl (loud) the short lived transients require 1000W! Of course if someone only ever listens to highly compressed 'pop' type stuff then these transients will be missing and a lot less power would suffice.

A well designed powerful amplifier will be able to drive any loudspeaker with any type of recording but these will be big, heavy and expensive and will thus not suit everyone. Therefore cutbacks have to be made for smaller, lighter and cheaper models.

Cheers,

DV (1600wpc into 4 Ohms, 84Kg total weight)


I find that DV comment in post#44 (Quoted above) is exactly the reason why I am looking for an amp that is better than NAP135. I find that the NAP135 sounded "strangled" on the short lived peaky transients. I felt that it should be more free or the transients should be much more power full. It was like having a car with 200HP engine but we have the "Eco" button on.

So DV please tell us what amp is this: 1600wpc into 4 Ohms, 84Kg total weight?
 
The Bryston 28B monoblocs will provide 1,800 watts into 4 ohm, but they only weigh 84 lbs - lightweights.
 
The Bryston 28B monoblocs will provide 1,800 watts into 4 ohm, but they only weigh 84 lbs - lightweights.

My hypex class D system does 1600W into 4 ohm, and only weighs something like 1/10th of that.
 
Cool. I guess someone will be about to say the Kii Threes have 2,500 watts available!
 
Quoted from DV post 44:
Uncompressed recorded music will have a wide dynamic range lets say 20dB peaks above average spl. What this means is if someone is listening at 10W average spl (loud) the short lived transients require 1000W! Of course if someone only ever listens to highly compressed 'pop' type stuff then these transients will be missing and a lot less power would suffice.

A well designed powerful amplifier will be able to drive any loudspeaker with any type of recording but these will be big, heavy and expensive and will thus not suit everyone. Therefore cutbacks have to be made for smaller, lighter and cheaper models.

Cheers,

DV (1600wpc into 4 Ohms, 84Kg total weight)


I find that DV comment in post#44 (Quoted above) is exactly the reason why I am looking for an amp that is better than NAP135. I find that the NAP135 sounded "strangled" on the short lived peaky transients. I felt that it should be more free or the transients should be much more power full. It was like having a car with 200HP engine but we have the "Eco" button on.

So DV please tell us what amp is this: 1600wpc into 4 Ohms, 84Kg total weight?

FYI I had at one time both a NAP250 and a pair of NAP135s. Then had the latter upgraded by Avondale to a full stage 3. They worked well with iisobaric type speakers but fell down badly in all areas with the much more demanding Obelisks. Chatting to some helpful peeps on pfm lead me to a pair of these that are configured in bridged mode:-

https://www.meridian-audio.com/media/6795/559-300w-two-channel-power-amplifier-user-guide.pdf

Cheers,

DV
 


advertisement


Back
Top