advertisement


Upgrading from NAP135

Turns into heat.

Julf, you are a spoilsport. On more than one occasion now I have set the class a question hoping that some may ponder the answer and maybe do a bit of research. Then you come along into the classroom and tell them all the answer.

It reminds me of the philosopher Majikthise complaining about Deep Thought "whats the use us sitting up half the night arguing that there may or not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding telephone number the next morning?"

Cheers,

DV
 
Post 53 by DV - Sure, I meant fewer issues whichever way one approached the speaker amplifier matching, so if the speakers were already a given, my thoughts on more power were the same.

I too am now of the view that ideally speaker choice should be made first, but like some other things, that’s come with hindsight. Also, the absence of the money tree meant compromises as to what I bought and in which order. Including compromises in other areas to prioritise hifi e.g. my 12 year old focus/astra class car purchased second hand has now done 167,000 miles and I hope it will last me a few more years yet. (Get the violins out.)

High power need not be at too high a cost (comparatively), thinking of amps around the 100 watt mark from Japanese brands. Above 100w is certainly pricier, say Cambridge Audio 851W tested at 240watts pc £1500; Rotel 1582 200w pc £1350; and Rotel’s ’statement’ the 1590 at 350w pc claimed (490w tested!!) £2400. These are of course just the power amps. Compared to some easy to name offerings, more power at much lower cost. However, they are made in China which is a factor, for me at least, to consider. I’ve always tried to buy British made hifi. Now, if only that 200w pc amp designed by Jim Audiomisc for Armstrong back in the 1980s had taken off!

Cheers
 
Mike’s Post 51 - would there be an issue over too much power for a given speaker sensitivity? On the one hand, the user controls the volume level, so provided sufficient care is taken? On the other hand, I can see that it might well be difficult to exercise that care if combined with excessive amplifier gain due to unrealistically high input sensitivities for digital sources (and don’t nearly all amps have this), with consequently very limited volume control adjustment.
 
Mike’s Post 51 - would there be an issue over too much power for a given speaker sensitivity? On the one hand, the user controls the volume level, so provided sufficient care is taken? On the other hand, I can see that it might well be difficult to exercise that care if combined with excessive amplifier gain due to unrealistically high input sensitivities for digital sources (and don’t nearly all amps have this), with consequently very limited volume control adjustment.

This is what I was alluding to, though having a powerful integrated and separate pre. plus high power amp's may well have different consequences for control of volume. Anyway, rather silly to have a behemoth driving large folded horns, e.g. 'Orses for courses.
 
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.
The main difference here is the audibility of proper class-A operation. Having heard monster Mark Levinson ML-2 monoblocks put out *only* 25W but sounding sublime, there must be something inherently right about that topology - if used within its power envelope, including transients.

I accept that bigger and more powerful amps from the same stable should sound better, and they mostly do. I've done the full Naim olive range from NAP90/3 to NAP135s. The only hiccup in that hierarchy was a dud NAP250 that failed to convince me it was better than NAP180.

Turns into heat.
Class-A amps do an even better job of that.
 
Post 53 by DV - Sure, I meant fewer issues whichever way one approached the speaker amplifier matching, so if the speakers were already a given, my thoughts on more power were the same.

I too am now of the view that ideally speaker choice should be made first, but like some other things, that’s come with hindsight. Also, the absence of the money tree meant compromises as to what I bought and in which order. Including compromises in other areas to prioritise hifi e.g. my 12 year old focus/astra class car purchased second hand has now done 167,000 miles and I hope it will last me a few more years yet. (Get the violins out.)

High power need not be at too high a cost (comparatively), thinking of amps around the 100 watt mark from Japanese brands. Above 100w is certainly pricier, say Cambridge Audio 851W tested at 240watts pc £1500; Rotel 1582 200w pc £1350; and Rotel’s ’statement’ the 1590 at 350w pc claimed (490w tested!!) £2400. These are of course just the power amps. Compared to some easy to name offerings, more power at much lower cost. However, they are made in China which is a factor, for me at least, to consider. I’ve always tried to buy British made hifi. Now, if only that 200w pc amp designed by Jim Audiomisc for Armstrong back in the 1980s had taken off!

Cheers
You can get a 559 for around £1300 - 1500 and you really get your monies worth. They are ridiculously cheap for what you get. If you can find one.

Cheers,

DV
 
Julf, you are a spoilsport.

I am painfully aware of that. But in this case I did actually halt for half a second, thinking "there has to be something more to this question that I am not seeing", but then thought the easiest way to find out is to blurt out the obvious, factual answer.

There is a reason I describe myself as the evil brother of Mark V Shaney.

Cheers!
 
How does the hypex sound?

Great - very transparent, and drives difficult loads very well.

Did you ever compared to Naim especially compared to NAP135?

No - my wife would not be happy with a pile of 4 NAP135's in our living room, and I would consider it rather wasteful. I would only be able to justify it if I had 4 NAP135's spare anyway.
 
The main difference here is the audibility of proper class-A operation. Having heard monster Mark Levinson ML-2 monoblocks put out *only* 25W but sounding sublime, there must be something inherently right about that topology - if used within its power envelope, including transients.

I’d be curious, if the opportunity ever arose, to hear how these 25 watt Mark Levinson amps perform.

Similarly, it would be interesting to hear a Nait 2 which seems to have considerable reputation and following, despite it only putting out 15 watts. As mentioned, I heard a Nait 3 Harbeth 30.1 combination and the 30 watts there weren’t enough for classical music. Sounded okay at a modest volume (low level listening), but each time I went higher I ended up backing it down to the lower level. As suggested, perhaps it would have been fine with appropriately spec'd speakers.
 
You can get a 559 for around £1300 - 1500 and you really get your monies worth. They are ridiculously cheap for what you get. If you can find one.

Cheers,

DV

Thanks for the interesting info on the Meridian 559. I didn’t know of that amp, or for that matter, anything much about Meridian. I was aware that they were around during the late 70s and into the 1990s as a premium brand, but haven't taken much notice of their fortunes since. The 559 certainly does look like a good vfm proposition for that power output.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard/seen anyone referring to a Meridian ’house sound’, so would it be reasonable to think of the 559 as ‘neutral’ sounding?

I note that your 559 set-up giving 1600wpc into 4 ohms (1000w into 8 ohms) exceeds the output of the Naim Statement!
 
Thanks for the interesting info on the Meridian 559. I didn’t know of that amp, or for that matter, anything much about Meridian. I was aware that they were around during the late 70s and into the 1990s as a premium brand, but haven't taken much notice of their fortunes since. The 559 certainly does look like a good vfm proposition for that power output.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard/seen anyone referring to a Meridian ’house sound’, so would it be reasonable to think of the 559 as ‘neutral’ sounding?

I note that your 559 set-up giving 1600wpc into 4 ohms (1000w into 8 ohms) exceeds the output of the Naim Statement!

Same here! I was looking for a pair of HX1.2 when I accidentally found a thread on pfm about the Shahinian Hawks where the 559s were mentioned. I too knew about Meridian from the past and then forgot about them. It happened that I found one for sale that day and the rest as they say is history. I eventually bought two.

The 559s are based on the Meridian flagship DSP8000 speaker technology and the company has just released a newer version the 857 reference. However it is not quite as powerful and whats more it is not a dual mono amp in a case unlike the 559s. One of the reasons the 559s are so heavy is that being a true dual mono amp there are two 1.2KVA xformers = very heavy plus a steel case that can support them hence very very heavy and then a large heatsink for 20 pairs of output transistors that = very very very heavy at 42Kg. They are a steal at s/h prices if you can find one.

Go on treat yourself to a pair of DSP8000:-

http://www.audioaffair.co.uk/meridian-dsp8000-se-dsp-active-speakers-pair

If I had the room I would at least audition them but alas I don't.

Cheers,

DV
 
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.

Coming back to DV’s post 44 above
,
Last week I went to a live orchestra and recorded some SPL measurement.
During the normal part of the music the SPL was 70-85db, on the soft passages it was 68 db, and during the loud part of the music it was 102db at the peak.
So out of ccuriosity I searched for power amplifiers calculator and found crown audio website:
https://www.crownaudio.com/en/tools/calculators

Here we can plug in the numbers and found out the power requirement for a given SPL. So my numbers at home are as follow:
Listening position: 3.25m
Desired level at listening position 72db
Loudspeaker sensitivity rating (1W/1M) : 88db
Amplifier headroom: 3 db
Power required: 1 watts
Listening position: 3.25m

Here is the power required @ 102db for an 88db efficient speakers
Desired level at listening position 102db
Loudspeaker sensitivity rating (1W/1M) : 88db
Amplifier headroom: 3 db
Power required: 529 watts

Looking at the power numbers I am not sure if an NAP135 can produce 529 watts even for a brief period. If that is the case, does the NAP135 goes into clipping at loud passages? And therefore I always felt that the transient is just a bit lacking?
 
Many times on this board I have recommended Roger Sanders' white paper on Tubes vs. Solid State. Some of the posts on this thread have picked up on the fact that, for heavy, highly dynamic peaks, you need the ability to dump a LOT of power into your speakers, which is very nearly the point of the white paper. Basically, what Sanders says is most audiophiles would be surprised at how often they are listening to an amplifier that is clipping. Under such circumstances, tube amps will sound better, because they'll soften the edges of the waveforms. But we're all better off to listen to amplifiers that never clip. His Mark II Electrostatic amplifier can deliver 2000 volt amps per channel into an electrostatic load. Mine (which is, unfortunately not a mark II) sounds great.
 
,
Last week I went to a live orchestra and recorded some SPL measurement.
During the normal part of the music the SPL was 70-85db, on the soft passages it was 68 db, and during the loud part of the music it was 102db at the peak.
So out of ccuriosity I searched for power amplifiers calculator and found crown audio website:
https://www.crownaudio.com/en/tools/calculators

Here we can plug in the numbers and found out the power requirement for a given SPL. So my numbers at home are as follow:
Listening position: 3.25m
Desired level at listening position 72db
Loudspeaker sensitivity rating (1W/1M) : 88db
Amplifier headroom: 3 db
Power required: 1 watts
Listening position: 3.25m

Here is the power required @ 102db for an 88db efficient speakers
Desired level at listening position 102db
Loudspeaker sensitivity rating (1W/1M) : 88db
Amplifier headroom: 3 db
Power required: 529 watts

Looking at the power numbers I am not sure if an NAP135 can produce 529 watts even for a brief period. If that is the case, does the NAP135 goes into clipping at loud passages? And therefore I always felt that the transient is just a bit lacking?

Hi Naim2 - interesting. As you may have picked up from my posts on this thread, I’ve been having similar thoughts and been doing some reading around the subject. Two questions if I may.

Firstly, just out of interest, what was your seating position at the concert?

Secondly, using the Crown calculator (thanks for the link) I’m wondering whether another way of approaching the figure to be entered in the amplifier headroom box would be to enter the allowance for peaks? I may be barking up the wrong tree, but if that were so, then using your first set of figures showing 72dB, and entering a 30dB headroom figure for the 102db peaks, the ’Required amplifier power’ calculation comes out at 265 watts. What is then interesting (to me at least) is that increasing the headroom figure to 33dB which is effectively your second set of figures, produces the 529 watts figure which you also obtained. So that an the additional 3dB equates to an extra 264 watts!? (Unless I'm missing something?)

If the figures are okay, and we really did want 102dB peaks in a domestic setting - which I would have thought would be unrealistic (certainly in my setting!), but let’s say we did - then a higher margin of safety than the minimum 3db for avoidance of clipping, say 5dB, would mean 839 watts!!

Perhaps DV will chip in again on this.

Cheers

Edit : I should add, belatedly, that I appreciate that by entering 72dB and 102dB separately in the Crown calculator, you were making the same observations about the increase in power needed, in illustration of DV’s points. From merely 1 watt for 72dB to 529 watts for 102dB.
 
Many times on this board I have recommended Roger Sanders' white paper on Tubes vs. Solid State. Some of the posts on this thread have picked up on the fact that, for heavy, highly dynamic peaks, you need the ability to dump a LOT of power into your speakers, which is very nearly the point of the white paper. Basically, what Sanders says is most audiophiles would be surprised at how often they are listening to an amplifier that is clipping. Under such circumstances, tube amps will sound better, because they'll soften the edges of the waveforms. But we're all better off to listen to amplifiers that never clip. His Mark II Electrostatic amplifier can deliver 2000 volt amps per channel into an electrostatic load. Mine (which is, unfortunately not a mark II) sounds great.

Thanks for the reference to Roger Sanders. I found the paper on his website - interesting reading and makes sense.
 
Check out site on 'Geoff the grey geek dot com'.

Fantastic amplifier gain , loudness, watts, acoustic power information.
 
What is then interesting (to me at least) is that increasing the headroom figure to 33dB which is effectively your second set of figures, produces the 529 watts figure which you also obtained. So that an the additional 3dB equates to an extra 264 watts!?

Yes, it is a logarithmic relationship. Every extra 3 dB requires a doubling of the power.
 


advertisement


Back
Top