matt49
Well-known member
Pistol Pete1 said:
I had the same thought. The problem is that the OP would then need even smaller speakers, because of tilting the speakers up at an angle within a very confined space.
Matt
I had the same thought. The problem is that the OP would then need even smaller speakers, because of tilting the speakers up at an angle within a very confined space.
Matt
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Ambrose said:
I'm not being funny but have you actually read any of my posts? They're not exactly... technical.
No he doesn't and he freely admits that in almost every episode of Top Gear or are you going to call him a liar as well?
Yes I expect he does but he still hasn't answered my question.
The point that you, dear Ambrosia, and others seem to have missed is that I'm not arguing with the idea that the Connect:Amp can't handle decent speakers, I just want to know WHY it can't handle them. That's all the question is. People have taken it to mean disagreement but it isn't and never was.
Ideally what I'd like is for an amplifier designer to look at the specs of the Connect:Amp and explain, in technical detail, why it doesn't hold up under the scrutiny of better speakers. Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen, not least, as Spursgator points out, because Sonos don't publish the specs of the Connect:Amp in any detail.
BigH
Well-known member
matt49 said:
The other problem is they are only the width of the amp apart so he will effectively only get mono unless he is quite close.
The_Lhc said:
Yes I know JC isn’t technically minded like Captain Slow / Hampster, but he sure knows how to drive a car and what forms the basis for a good car. You don’t need to know all the fine detail to understand a concept.
Surely you must have built up some knowledge over the years on the forum here?
What’s wrong with the AMP in Sonos? Nothing for the price I would guess, they are market leaders are they not? Never heard one myself.
I used to have a NAIT 3 (30watts) which drove Spendor S5/e in an enjoyable manner, but certain a bigger amp like supernait would have had them singer far better still.
I am not technically minded, but I would have thought things such as Transformers (Naim use large ones), Preamp (active/passive), Power Supply, interference, isolation, quality of components used etc etc have an impact on sound. The R&D cost, engineering and increased production costs would increase cost no doubt.
All the above affects how an amp controls speakers in a given environment, the noise and how quiet background for details to shine through. How Music flows, the attack (Nait 5i-2 = great attack) how rhythms are handled, transients etc. Small details make a big difference to me. Perhaps we do not all hear the same or have the same set of requirements.
Higher quality speakers are more likely to exaggerate any limitation in a cheaper AMP and show up any weaknesses. Hence why it is not generally [/b]such a good match.
Without knowing what kind of system you use / have used, it is difficult to form a point of reference where you are coming from.
Finally, it is one thing sounding detailed & clear, another feeling connection with music/emotion/dynamics.
I have happily had a SBT which was very good indeed. It just doesn’t have the Naim sound that I personally love so much.
ATB
Ambrosia Custard
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Ambrose said:
Exactly my point, I know how to switch an amp on, select the source I want to listen to and turn the volume up (drive the car), but Clarkson's "basis for a good car" is typically "POWEEEEER!!!" and, as we've mentioned briefly in this thread Watts aren't the be all and end all of amplifiers, hence the comment about a 50Q Naim being "good" but the 55W Connect:Amp being "bad".
I'm not interested in the concept, it's the fine detail I'm specifically after. I understand that some amps work better with some speakers than other amps do but for the life of me I've never seen a decent explanation as to WHY that's the case.
High level ideas, sure, but in this case it's the detail I want to get to grips with and I don't have that level of understanding to work it out for myself.
Sure, I get that, I'm just trying to get a handle on what causes those limitations and weaknesses.
BigH
Well-known member
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Ambrose said:
I really don't understand what the issue is, I've just asked for technical reasons why the Connect:Amp won't run decent/expensive speakers properly, why does everyone have such a problem with that?
Have we actually reached a point where asking for any technical detail at all is frowned upon? That would be very sad as it would suggest that is now a place where faith takes precendence over scientific/engineering reasoning. If I wanted that I'd start going to church...
The_Lhc.
I think the issue here is a lack of information.
Sonos chooses not to make much in the way of technical details available, even to dealers and installers. Hi-fi magazines and other media do not, generally, offer independent measurements, neither do they discuss technical matters in any details.
I have managed to glean the following information. Sonos spec the amp a 55wpc into 8 ohms (0.02% THD and Noise) they give no indication of power into other impedences. It describes the amplifiers as digital but gives no further information.
Digging deeper, maximum current drawn is 1 amp so the whole unit, runs on 230va. Given that no power supply is 100% efficient and that the other functions of the unit will require some power, doubling of output power into 4ohms is unlikely. That said, the power supply capability of the forum favourite integrared amplifier is 155va, ie roughly comparable to the Connect Amp given the extra functionality of the Sonos.
We also know the price of the unit and can reasonably interpret the general levels of performance that this sort of money buys, but the lack of precise information means that this is just that, an interpretation.
If we equate the performance of the Sonos with that of a decent budget amplifier, as the limited figures suggest, then it is fair to say none of these amplifiers will drive 'the very best' small loudspeakers.
In this instance clear evidence of this is difficult due to lack of information, so a 'judgement call' is made based on the figures we do have and many years experience.
I think the issue here is a lack of information.
Sonos chooses not to make much in the way of technical details available, even to dealers and installers. Hi-fi magazines and other media do not, generally, offer independent measurements, neither do they discuss technical matters in any details.
I have managed to glean the following information. Sonos spec the amp a 55wpc into 8 ohms (0.02% THD and Noise) they give no indication of power into other impedences. It describes the amplifiers as digital but gives no further information.
Digging deeper, maximum current drawn is 1 amp so the whole unit, runs on 230va. Given that no power supply is 100% efficient and that the other functions of the unit will require some power, doubling of output power into 4ohms is unlikely. That said, the power supply capability of the forum favourite integrared amplifier is 155va, ie roughly comparable to the Connect Amp given the extra functionality of the Sonos.
We also know the price of the unit and can reasonably interpret the general levels of performance that this sort of money buys, but the lack of precise information means that this is just that, an interpretation.
If we equate the performance of the Sonos with that of a decent budget amplifier, as the limited figures suggest, then it is fair to say none of these amplifiers will drive 'the very best' small loudspeakers.
In this instance clear evidence of this is difficult due to lack of information, so a 'judgement call' is made based on the figures we do have and many years experience.
I have some sympathy for The_Lhc here. This is somewhat unusual for me. But still... I can't really see how he can be expected to have an opinion on the Connect:Amp based purely on the fact he hangs about here a bit too much!
I don't think anyone who hasn't heard something can say how it compares to something else. I don't think you can take anything for granted, and you don't know if an amp is good or bad based on its price, manufacturer, 'system matching' or whatever else. You need to get yer lugholes near it.
I'm not one of the "All (whatevers) sound the same" brigade, but I to tend to think many of the opinions people (in general) have about components are based around presumption and what they're led to expect/believe by others, the old 'house sound' stuff: Arcam is dull, MA is bright, Cyrus is thin, Naim is pacy, AVI is orgasmic, etc.
When a cheap amp sounds better than a pricy amp with a certain pair of speakers it's usually put down to system matching or whatever else, but sometimes it's just that the cheap amp is actually better/no worse or the real-world performance is so similar it's not worth worrying about. The Sonos could easily sound as good as some pricier amps, or it could sound awful.
There are similar preconcieved notions in the line of work I'm in, I used to have them myself. However, having now experienced the manufacturing and marketing sides of things, I now think somewhat differently. But then, I must be a raving eejit anyway - I use MA speakers with silver-plated cables.
I don't think anyone who hasn't heard something can say how it compares to something else. I don't think you can take anything for granted, and you don't know if an amp is good or bad based on its price, manufacturer, 'system matching' or whatever else. You need to get yer lugholes near it.
I'm not one of the "All (whatevers) sound the same" brigade, but I to tend to think many of the opinions people (in general) have about components are based around presumption and what they're led to expect/believe by others, the old 'house sound' stuff: Arcam is dull, MA is bright, Cyrus is thin, Naim is pacy, AVI is orgasmic, etc.
When a cheap amp sounds better than a pricy amp with a certain pair of speakers it's usually put down to system matching or whatever else, but sometimes it's just that the cheap amp is actually better/no worse or the real-world performance is so similar it's not worth worrying about. The Sonos could easily sound as good as some pricier amps, or it could sound awful.
There are similar preconcieved notions in the line of work I'm in, I used to have them myself. However, having now experienced the manufacturing and marketing sides of things, I now think somewhat differently. But then, I must be a raving eejit anyway - I use MA speakers with silver-plated cables.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
davedotco said:
Ok, so what is it about "the very best" speakers that makes them difficult to drive? Why can't good speakers have 8 Ohm impedance and high sensitivity (say more than 88dB/W) for example? I've never really understood why good speakers have to be a difficult load. Not least when you go back to my earlier example of low power tube amps that can only really be used with speakers with sensitivities in the 90s. Typically those systems are never cheap, so you'd hope the speakers are reasonably good at what they do?
EDIT: Just found this on Wikipedia:
"It is typically not possible to combine high efficiency (especially at low frequencies) with compact enclosure size and adequate low frequency response. One can, for the most part, choose only two of the three parameters when designing a speaker system. So, for example, if extended low-frequency performance and small box size are important, one must accept low efficiency. This rule of thumb is sometimes called Hofmann's Iron Law after J.A. Hofmann, the "H" in KLH."
Unfortunately the link Hofmann's Iron Law doesn't go anywhere. That mostly answers my question though, so presumably you need large enclosures if you want decent sensitivity (from a traditional loudspeaker anyway).
Yes, it's unfortunate there's so little technical detail available on the Connect:Amp. Hey-ho...
The_Lhc said:
Speakers are strange devices, particularly small ones. The relationship between driver, cabinet and bass extension is well understood but in essence small speakers with sufficient bass extension to be useable will be inefficient. You can use a ported enclosure to help the bass response but, in a small speaker, you throw away mid band output such that the relative output in the bass is increased.
Ie if a 1khz signal produces 90dB and a 50hz produces 84dB then the bass response is, obviously enough -6dB at 50hz. Use the crossover to reduce the 1khz output to 87db and the bass is now -3db at 50hz, much better!
All of this adjustment requires a more complex crossover, one that might often be more difficult for the amplifier to drive, requiring substantial voltage and current output simultaneously. Better amplifiers will, almost by definition, handle these complexities better, hence the suggestion that 'better' speakers require 'better' amplifiers.
At the other end of the scale large drivers are more sensitive than small ones and when used in reasonably large enclosures the bass extension is naturally quite deep. There is no need to 'throw' away midband sensitivity so the overall sensitivity remains high, crossovers can be simpler so the speakers are 'easy' to drive, so a few watts from a nice valve amplifier will do nicely.
Highly simplified of course but the principles are sound.
And of course you can go a far better, less complicated and cheaper route and simply power each driver with its own amp and get rid of the over-complicated passive crossover.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
davedotco said:
Aha, ok that makes a lot of sense. I don't think I've ever seen anyone explain that on here before (or if they have I missed it, I haven't read every post that's been made here in six years after all). Excellent, thank you very much!
This is further complicated by the fact that few manufacturers of 'complete' louspeakers manufacture their own drive units.
High end manufacturers, Sonos Faber, for example use Scanspeak components and many manufacturers simply pick the drive units most suited to their project. In effect the drive units are 'modified' for the job in hand by elements of the crossover, which in this case does more than just 'crossover' the drive units.
Adding extra 'elements' can make the impedence more complex, and as impedence varies with frequency it is possible that these variations will cause less compedent amplifiers to opperate close too, or even beyond their designed limits. It is these variations that make amplifier/speaker matching so difficult, failure to cope with large impedance changes in the bass region may cause bass boom or complexities around the crossover region may well be the cause of unwanted brightness.
One of the most inovative loudspeakers in recent times was the early Epos ES14, in this case the frame of the speaker was integral to the baffle so the designer was able, in effect to specify the cone and coil assemblies to suit and do the same with the choice of magnet assembly. The bass diver was so nicely optimised that it needed no crossover to augment it's natural rolloff and the metal dome tweeter only needed a simple ist order 6dB/octave filter.
The result was one of the most transparent and natural speakers of its day, though even this simple design had complexities that upset some amplifiers, in this case leading to a degree of brightness often attributed to the metal dome tweeter when in fact it was primarily an amplifier issue.
High end manufacturers, Sonos Faber, for example use Scanspeak components and many manufacturers simply pick the drive units most suited to their project. In effect the drive units are 'modified' for the job in hand by elements of the crossover, which in this case does more than just 'crossover' the drive units.
Adding extra 'elements' can make the impedence more complex, and as impedence varies with frequency it is possible that these variations will cause less compedent amplifiers to opperate close too, or even beyond their designed limits. It is these variations that make amplifier/speaker matching so difficult, failure to cope with large impedance changes in the bass region may cause bass boom or complexities around the crossover region may well be the cause of unwanted brightness.
One of the most inovative loudspeakers in recent times was the early Epos ES14, in this case the frame of the speaker was integral to the baffle so the designer was able, in effect to specify the cone and coil assemblies to suit and do the same with the choice of magnet assembly. The bass diver was so nicely optimised that it needed no crossover to augment it's natural rolloff and the metal dome tweeter only needed a simple ist order 6dB/octave filter.
The result was one of the most transparent and natural speakers of its day, though even this simple design had complexities that upset some amplifiers, in this case leading to a degree of brightness often attributed to the metal dome tweeter when in fact it was primarily an amplifier issue.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram