Understanding acclaim for certain amplifiers

[Broner]

It’s something I’ve been wondering about for some time. Little less than a year ago I bought the NAD C356BEE (80wpch). If I look at how much it costs, it’s about 750 euros right now. From what I’ve read on this forum it’s really important that an amplifier can deal with the loads that speakers pose on them and they need some power to really get the best out of the speakers. Now, one of the amplifiers often recommended and discussed here is the Creek evo 50a (55wpch) which currently costs about 900 euros.

Now, I wonder, what it is that the Creek 50a does, that it is so highly recommended and regarded and able to drive speakers, while the NAD, even though it is recognized to be good, isn’t perceived in the same way, even though it’s power output per channel is significantly higher. How is it, that the Creek could - and probably according to several here actually is - be better than the NAD. Is there any objective way in which one can say that the technics behind the Creek are superior to that of the NAD?

 

[plastic penguin]

AFAIU it is more about current than just power. So for instance, the Leema is 80 watts per channel, and this is likely to drive a speaker easier than a £400 80 watter.

Same goes with the Creek amps, they generate an immensely powerful sound for the power quoted. Same can be said about Naim: That is quoted at 50 watts per channel, but it has always sounded far gutsier than the paper spec, hence why I take little notice of specs, measurements etc.

Pretty sure others will give you a more technical run down.

 

[philipjohnwright]

Its probably down to better marketing than technical differences. That and fashion - some things are in vogue, some not. Although I agree that power ratings are only one part of the story.

 

[Native_bon]

Its probably down to better marketing than technical differences. That and fashion - some things are in vogue, some not. Although I agree that power ratings are only one part of the story.

VERY WELL SAID

 

[Broner]

AFAIU it is more about current than just power. So for instance, the Leema is 80 watts per channel, and this is likely to drive a speaker easier than a £400 80 watter.

Same goes with the Creek amps, they generate an immensely powerful sound for the power quoted. Same can be said about Naim: That is quoted at 50 watts per channel, but it has always sounded far gutsier than the paper spec, hence why I take little notice of specs, measurements etc.

Pretty sure others will give you a more technical run down.

There is a little bit of an ambivalence in your answer. On one hand, you say it’s more about current which is measurable, but on the other hand you say you take little notice of specs, measurements, etc. Not to be mean or anything, just pointing out that measurements according to your our criterium should be able to give you important information (unless I made some sort of a conceptual error).

And then I still wonder, would the Creek 50A at 50wpch be able to drive speakers better than the NAD. I can understand that a certain level of build quality and engineering is necessary and I would happily accept that the rated wpch is only part of the story, but is there any objective way in saying that Creek is doing something much better than NAD?

 

[plastic penguin]

AFAIU it is more about current than just power. So for instance, the Leema is 80 watts per channel, and this is likely to drive a speaker easier than a £400 80 watter.

Same goes with the Creek amps, they generate an immensely powerful sound for the power quoted. Same can be said about Naim: That is quoted at 50 watts per channel, but it has always sounded far gutsier than the paper spec, hence why I take little notice of specs, measurements etc.

Pretty sure others will give you a more technical run down.

There is a little bit of an ambivalence in your answer. On one hand, you say it’s more about current which is measurable, but on the other hand you say you take little notice of specs, measurements, etc. Not to be mean or anything, just pointing out that measurements according to your our criterium should be able to give you important information (unless I made some sort of a conceptual error).

And then I still wonder, would the Creek 50A at 50wpch be able to drive speakers better than the NAD. I can understand that a certain level of build quality and engineering is necessary and I would happily accept that the rated wpch is only part of the story, but is there any objective way in saying that Creek is doing something much better than NAD?

Not ambivalent at all. As started the post AFAIU (as far as I understand), or what I've read on here over the years, it is more about current...

The only way to find out whether a Creek will power your speakers better than the Enn - Aye - Dee, book a dem. I've heard the 356 and the Creek Evo2 but with a 5 year gap, so I wouldn't like to guess.

 

[Jota180]

To make an audible volume difference (3db difference) an amp would have to be double the 50watts of the Creek. ie 100 watts. The sound pressure level between the two you quoted is negligible therefore the NAD is not in any way significantly more powerful.

It's not simply a case of looking at those numbers and thinking the 80 watts NAD has 50% more power than the Creek.

 

[ID.]

I think there are also issues regarding manufacturer's quoted measurements because of how they measure the power, so it can be hard to take the rated watts at face value, but as others have mentioned, there is more to it than more watts means a better amp. Not all measurements are released, so you may not be able to find the current of the amp. There may be other issues such as the damping factor, which I rarely see but has a big impact on bass. Interestingly, I know of a headphone amp which has a switchable damping factor. No idea whether it would be possible, but I'd love to see that on a full size amp.

 

[bigfish786]

I always thought that the reason some amps were favoured over others regardless of power output was to do with the musicality of the amplifier, its ability to make the music from the source sound the best it can.

power output has a relevance, but its surely not the be-all and end-all.

valve amplifiers are often low figure outputs, but sound just as musical and powerful as their solid state companions. (some may say more musical)

its more about Quality not quantity.

 

[Native_bon]

Ther are no rules as far as I am concerned. Some items does excatly as it says on the tin.. Some Hifi items are just well marketed. I say listen & hear for your self... There are some very good reviewed items out there that fail to impress me, & others that do.

Like some one mentioned its sure to be more about quality than qauntity. DO I trust the HIFI industry? NO. just like I dnt trust politicians.

Most claims are just money grabbing technical rubbish. Few & far inbetween are the real deal.

Cosmetics of a produce can be influential or perceived to sound better & it has been proved time & again.

 

[steve_1979]

The number of watts only tells you part of the story.

How much continuous and peak power does it have? How many volts and how much current can an amp supply? How much distortion does it have and how do these distortion characteristics change under different loads? How does it react when pushed into clipping for a tiny fraction of a second during the big dynamic peaks of music (low powered budget amplifiers clip more often and at lower volume levels than most people realise).

 

[drummerman]

Power (and how it is delivered) is one aspect of an amplifiers design. The Nad uses a sufficiently sized transformer and supply capacitance to just meet its continuous output specification but has high dynamic headroom. I remember reading a test but don't have the figures.

The Creek has a relatively large torroidal transformer (for its power rating) and reasonable supply capacitance. It is said to be quite stable into lower loads (more so than its bigger brother the 5350) but doesn't have the power or headroom of the latter (or the Nad).

There is a difference between current supply and voltage swing. How this works out in practice is also speaker dependant.

To give another example of 'power isn't everything' ... Roksan's K2, now in BT form, is substantially 'more powerful' on paper than its bigger Caspian stable mate yet the latter delivers a 'more powerful and muscular' sound according to its makers. Other similar examples include Musical Fidelity's huge Class A amplifiers which, compared to it's own KWrange has a 'puny' power rating but could be used as tig welders (and completely fly in the face of Michaelson's 'belief' that any amplifier needs huge power to sufficiently deal with transients and peaks). On the other hand there are high voltage swing amplifiers such as the ones built in into AVI's active ADM's who's makers used to say you need at least a hundred watts/channel for adequate musical reproduction and who now make a 50w/channel 'digital' amplifiers for their latest DM5 ... (no offense to anyone over there, I haven't heard the speakers, I'm sure they sound just fine).

Then there's the quality of circuit design, especially the pre-amp, power filtering and component choice.

regards

 

[steve_1979]

...On the other hand there are high voltage swing amplifiers such as the ones built in into AVI's active ADM's who's makers used to say you need at least a hundred watts/channel for adequate musical reproduction and who now make a 50w/channel 'digital' amplifiers for their latest DM5 ... (no offense to anyone over there, I haven't heard the speakers, I'm sure they sound just fine).

I thought the DM5's were 100 watts per speaker. 50 watts for the mid/bass and 50 watts for the tweeter. I could be wrong though.

 

[drummerman]

...On the other hand there are high voltage swing amplifiers such as the ones built in into AVI's active ADM's who's makers used to say you need at least a hundred watts/channel for adequate musical reproduction and who now make a 50w/channel 'digital' amplifiers for their latest DM5 ... (no offense to anyone over there, I haven't heard the speakers, I'm sure they sound just fine).

I thought the DM5's were 100 watts per speaker. 50 watts for the mid/bass and 50 watts for the tweeter. I could be wrong though.

In which case I take my ill informed stab at the nice two blokes in a near Bristol small factory back.

regards

 

[Vladimir]

As PP said its just about delivering current, not just general watts.

During musical listening speaker impedance drops and phase shifts occur. Lower the speaker impedance, higher the power the amp will try to fill in. If the amp drives speakers to a point where the PSU can't deliver current to maintain voltage, the voltage rail will sag and the amp will clip. Sort of all horse power but no torque for the uphill.

Ohm's law V = I*R.

Now why 50 Naim watts are better than 100 Yamaha watts? Well, its not more powerfull, it just feels that way within the first 50W of listening, and bare in mind we rarely chuck out more than 5W to the speakers during normal listening. The regulated PSU will be more linear, faster, more agile during your musical listening. There is never hesitation, there is never current lacking, its always there, for the 50W available.

What you will notice when you visually inspect a Naim under the skirt is that it has large transformer and caps, too large for its power rating when compared to the Japanese competition. Naim makes heftier PSU's and regulates the voltage rails so they never sag up to the declared power limit. Regulated PSU is very linear and consistent in delivering the goods within operational margins. Anywhere outside those margins it cuts out. This means where the 50W Naim will cut out, the Yamaha will deliver yet more power. However, the Yamaha will not sound so fast and agile as the Naim within the first 50W.

A regulated PSU is a pumped pipeline of power compared to the brook of normal amps.

Great review of the Creek Evo 50A http://creekaudio.com/reviews/Evolution_50A_Reviews.pdf

Apparently they did the trick of lowering the amps output impedance by using several caps in parallel instead of single large ones. Lower the amps impedance, the more responsve and imune it will be to speaker impedance variations. Whatever works then.

"This Evolution 50A will replace the Evolution 2, and although it’s rated at a slightly lower 55W/8ohm it still delivers a full 2x64W/8ohm and 2x100W/4ohm with momentary increases to 85W, 155W, 245W and 295W into 8, 4, 2 and 1ohm loads under dynamic, music like conditions."

Now some people consider the Evo's 200VA transformer and 100W in 4 ohms as powerfull (hifi journalists?). I certanly don't. If you need power in absolute terms and you enjoy listening to loud levels, the Creek will fail to deliver the SPL. If you want a satisfying listen from a gitty amp and don't need loads of power, then you would prefer a smaller amp with regulated PSU.

Best of both worlds at affordable price? >>> Roksan.

 

[Native_bon]

Power (and how it is delivered) is one aspect of an amplifiers design. The Nad uses a sufficiently sized transformer and supply capacitance to just meet its continuous output specification but has high dynamic headroom. I remember reading a test but don't have the figures.

The Creek has a relatively large torroidal transformer (for its power rating) and reasonable supply capacitance. It is said to be quite stable into lower loads (more so than its bigger brother the 5350) but doesn't have the power or headroom of the latter (or the Nad).

There is a difference between current supply and voltage swing. How this works out in practice is also speaker dependant.

To give another example of 'power isn't everything' ... Roksan's K2, now in BT form, is substantially 'more powerful' on paper than its bigger Caspian stable mate yet the latter delivers a 'more powerful and muscular' sound according to its makers.

Then there's the quality of circuit design, especially the pre-amp, power filtering and component choice.

regards

No disrespect dummerman.. But the reasons you have given above is just so many ways for the industry to make stuff up & make it easy for people to get more confused & always unsure of what is right or wrong. Better or superior components does not guarantee good sound quality.

We our at the mercy of technical jargon that does not make much difference in the real world.

 

[drummerman]

Power (and how it is delivered) is one aspect of an amplifiers design. The Nad uses a sufficiently sized transformer and supply capacitance to just meet its continuous output specification but has high dynamic headroom. I remember reading a test but don't have the figures.

The Creek has a relatively large torroidal transformer (for its power rating) and reasonable supply capacitance. It is said to be quite stable into lower loads (more so than its bigger brother the 5350) but doesn't have the power or headroom of the latter (or the Nad).

There is a difference between current supply and voltage swing. How this works out in practice is also speaker dependant.

To give another example of 'power isn't everything' ... Roksan's K2, now in BT form, is substantially 'more powerful' on paper than its bigger Caspian stable mate yet the latter delivers a 'more powerful and muscular' sound according to its makers.

Then there's the quality of circuit design, especially the pre-amp, power filtering and component choice.

regards

No disrespect dummerman.. But the reasons you have given above is just so many ways for the industry to make stuff up & make it easy for people to get more confused & always unsure of what is right or wrong. Better or superior components does not guarantee good sound quality.

We our at the messy of technical jargon that does not make much difference in the real world.

None taken but circuit design and component choice does of course affect the end result. This has less to do with the 'quality' (or price) of such than with implementation.

regards

 

[drummerman]

Best of both worlds at affordable price? >>> Roksan.

You are starting to read more and more like a Roksan spokesman ... apart from the fact that the Caspian is less powerful then the K2 but higher up in the range ...

regards

 

[Native_bon]

Best of both worlds at affordable price? >>> Roksan.

You are starting to read more and more like a Roksan spokesman ... apart from the fact that the Caspian is less powerful then the K2 but higher up in the range ...

regards

Well drummer man does this not prove my point?

 

[Broner]

@Jota180 It seems that many people are of the opinion that the power the amp has is not just about how load it can drive the speakers, but how well then can handle them. I’m consequently questioning why it is that a well-known 50 wpch amplifier is usually higher acclaimed than another well-known 80 wpch amplifier. I’m definitely not suggesting that wpch are the best indication (otherwise I wouldn’t have started this thread).

@bigfish786 ‘Musicality’ is an extremely subjective criterion. How shiny an amplifier is, might have a big influence on one’s experience of it. My enquiry is therefore more directed as to what objective difference one can discern between two amplifiers to justify the differences in acclaim. I reckon that it’s about quality over quantity, but how does that translate in an objective way?

@Native_bon Marketing plays an obvious role, but it doesn’t exclude that real differences may exist. I sort of want to understand how real those differences are, how they occur and consequently also try to get a grasp on how big the role of marketing, reviews, etc, are. (I’m pretty sure you already understand this, but I feel it’s important to be absolutely clear about my intentions)

@ ID, Steve_1979 & @drummerman: Thanks, for the informative replies. To continue, hearing about qualities of an amplifier, such as damping factor, distortion dynamic headroom, stability into lower loads, and the like, how can a potential buyer compare these aspects of the amplifiers and how should they value those differences? Are these factors all objective or should terminology such as ‘dynamic headroom’ and ‘stability into lower load’ be taken with a grain of salt? Isn’t there something like a 10-points checklist on the basis of which you should be able to compare amplifiers, and if so, to which degree does the information supplied by manufacturers give an indication?

@all I’m happy to admit that I don’t yet understand amplifiers. I hope you will forgive me if I say something stupid. I can only do my best to take this question of mine with analytical and verbal clarity. Anyway, thanks for all the replies so far.

 

[steve_1979]

...and bare in mind we rarely chuck out more than 5W to the speakers during normal listening.

You may only use an average of less than 5 watts for most of the music but the short burst dynamic peaks that only last for a tiny fraction of a second are likely to need 10 times that amount of power.

For example you may get a short burst dynamic peak every time a snare drum is hit and it requires a 50 watt spike even though it only lasts for less than a hundredth of a second. You still need an amp that can cleanly supply that 50 watt peak or the amp will be clipping. The average power requirement may still be less than 5 watts but if that snare drum plays once a second your amp will be clipping one a second if it doesn't have the required dynamic headroom.

 

[drummerman]

@ ID, Steve_1979 & @drummerman: Thanks, for the informative replies. To continue, hearing about qualities of an amplifier, such as damping factor, distortion dynamic headroom, stability into lower loads, and the like, how can a potential buyer compare these aspects of the amplifiers and how should they value those differences? Are these factors all objective or should terminology such as ‘dynamic headroom’ and ‘stability into lower load’ be taken with a grain of salt? Isn’t there something like a 10-points checklist on the basis of which you should be able to compare amplifiers, and if so, to which degree does the information supplied by manufacturers give an indication?

Use you ears but I personally do take interest in what the designers/developers put into a product, be that design or parts and do read tests as the results often give an explanation on why something works the way it does.

Where it gets confusing is when two seemingly identical products produce completely different subjective results but then that is hifi for you. Some say amplifiers all sound the same.

regards

 

[GCE]

Nad and Creek have just

the same alimentation power : 350 W

..........................................................

:cheers:

 

[Vladimir]

You are starting to read more and more like a Roksan spokesman ... apart from the fact that the Caspian is less powerful then the K2 but higher up in the range ...

regards

 

[the record spot]

I tend to look for power rating, current, and damping factor.