‘HEAD-ROOM” In response to: 'Another amp for AR-3's

[frankmarsi]

"HEAD-ROOM"

 

The thread “Another Amp for AR 3’s” sounds like a needle-point club for seniors. Where's 'owlsplace', did he start knitting yet?

 

But please, don’t get me wrong as I believe what’s correct for one person, may not be for another. But, this is an AR site, not an JBL one.

However, progress in the last forty plus years has afforded us the good graces to allow us to hear music more accurately that is sounding more natural and with a higher degree of 'you-are-there' qualty to it.

 

Lower power amps can ‘clip’ mildly and one not even notice it while ruining the realism of the music’s flow and accuracy during play-back. Tube amps have a characteristic about them that smooths out and even cover up a mild degree of clipping and like I said a moment ago one may not even notice it.

Whereas when solid-state amplifier clips, you'll notice it but, if it does it's more your fault than the amps.

I say forget the clipping and buy into the inescapable reality which is if you want 'real' you buy real, 'real' wattage that is, so you never actually have any clipping. Cause if you do, you're driving it beyond it's operable limits. So, in this case there's such a thing as more is better, watts that is!

 

Check out this amp below, I'd love to have this but, I realize that some of the SAE amps are difficult to work on. Not so much individual electrical components such transistors, diodes, resistors, IC's  etc. but, I have learned that their actually construction is pretty involved. Not that I took one apart but Ive seen them on the bench.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-SAE-P500-PRO-SERIES-POWER-AMPLIFIER-500-WPC-at-8-OHMS-EXCELLENT-EXAMPLE-/282177028799?hash=item41b30fc2bf:g:nkMAAOSwAuZX2cfP

 

I mean why put oneself on a skinny man’s diet when you could load up on all the pasta and protein plus dessert?

 

Once more please, let me be frank, after all, that is my name.

 

This starving diet of low watts compared to high watts makes no  sense in light of the fact that AR’s (excuse me, big AR’s desire and actually demand so much more in terms of watts). And to think, here with many lovingly stroking their cabinets to have great finishes and the like to make so perfect, skimping on power seems to be so anti-productive, doesn’t it?

 

 It’s like years ago, would you put regular gas in your Caddy or Vette or any high performance car of today? Ditto for musical details, transients and transparency, you simply need high-power for smoothness and effortlessness of sound reproduction.

The old big Caddy had a 500C.I. engine for effortless and smoothness whether it was at take-off or running at 65+MPH.

 

AR speakers, excuse me, big AR speakers, need high power to convey all the delicacies of the musical piece, using low power the whole listening experience is struggling to sound realistic.

This misconception of, “well it’s enough for my situation”, and stuff like, “my room is small and high power is not the correct for me”  or  “Not in my stereo system because I only listen at low levels” is actual bull-shit and an act of self denial.

 

In 1974 I was using my AR-3a’s in a 9’ by10’ room powered with my PL-400 and I still felt that more power would afford me more detail and realism.  I had worked up from my tubed ‘Dynaco’ ST-35 to a SS ST-120, and when I purchased a PL-400 for that same room, I became- convinced that high power was the key and answer to ultimate musical enjoyment. It’s not only about wattage or how loud the rig can go, it’s the amps ability to present detail thru the speakers, while providing a more realistic amount of bass.

 

This is why I use two PL-700 Series II amplifiers in a 12’ by 25’ room with my four LST’s. The PL-700 Series II can easily put-out over 550+ RMS watts at 4 ohms per-channel. So, I’m listening with 2200 watts RMS at any listening level, playing at whisper levels or making the house fall down is always effortless and more satisfying. 

 

This crazy notion I read around here and other sites filled with self-proclaimed ‘know it alls’ and self-professed 'reviewers' about their volume knob set at 9 o’clock or 11 o’clock or 12 o’clock is not any method of measurement by any stretch. Why is that used or spoken of as if it’s a standard method of power? I know most amps start giving forth their power near those positions, but it's not a true method as other matters come into play regardless.

 

Regarding using a tube amp; AR speakers of any size are very inefficient, and that is a well known fact.

By their very nature, AR’s present a warm somewhat soft sound rendering across the entire frequency spectrum, coupling them with tubes is only magnifying that aspect.

 

Back in the later sixties and very early seventies in the ‘Golden-Era’ of hi-fi when mostly everyone was still using tube amps like myself, a change was soon coming. In the very early ‘70s when solid state components made their debut those who were inclined to buy SS amps were finally rewarded with a new perception of what a Hi-Fi system was supposed to sound like. That ‘soft’ and muted, that ‘wet blanket over the speaker’ sound was finally gone and AR speakers finally showed what they were really capable of because finally these speakers were being driven with more watts. Hungry little bastards that they are.

‘You’re gonna need a bigger boat’, or just a bigger amp in this case.

 

In reality, the more watts one can have, the better music reproduction will approach reality, hands down. No ‘ifs’,’ands’, or ‘buts’ about it.

 

The design of an amp should be able to produce high watts is most important for the sake of being able to reproduce the highest of the highs to the lowest frequency extremes of an actual musical event. It’s not just about volume, it’s clarity, transparency, depth, fluidity and every other HI-Fi requirement that’s calling out for all of us to embrace.

You know back in the day we use the term ‘HEAD-ROOM’ which indicated that an amp had the ability to handle those extremes and everything in between, effortlessly with out stress or strain. Call it an envelope in which the amp was able to operate cleanly and not lessen the musical experience.

 

Pul-ease. if you’re not listening to music at realistic levels, or close to it, then just use headphones when you’re in that boogie-woogie mood, probably tripping over the headphone’s wire and falling into the couch or smashing your coffee table and forgetting all those discos and live concerts, and clubs you probably didn’t go to anyway because you have welt on your head from the fall.

Let us not forget, "Power to the people and our speakers, right on!”.

 

Many fellows like myself are progressing in age, who doesn't and maybe after us, no more old AR speakers? I suggest listening to music in a realistic way now, or deal with some degree of deafness later on anyway, regretting that when you had a chance to listen to it correctly, ya just didn’t take that chance and pissing in your pants now is easier but, still regretful. 

 

I say, go for the realistic sounding music levels now cause tomorrow will probably be a very quiet time, if you’re lucky.

Sort of like all of the stupid times I didn’t say anything to a beautiful woman on the subway station or in the street, when I had the chance to, because I stupidly thought I’d see her again when my testicles were more ripe. Thank goodness I spoke with many and I have none of those regrets now! Well, maybe some.

 

To finish here, I’m going to sleep with the thought of maybe purchasing this amp tomorrow.

Likely, I may back out but, only because I already have a number of high-power amps.

Yes, I still have my 1967 Dyna ST-35 and ST-120 along with a PAS-3X but, I know they could never satisfy me today. They did back then, but not today

 

So look, I am not going to make age a point of contention in this discussion here so, I will not use your youth and inexperience against you. 

FM

[samberger0357]

Hey babe more power to ya if you want more power. I've gone down that route more then once, and as I said previously, I have 2 and 300+ watts at my disposal. Your dissertation is a good one, but one solid fact for me remains. I can't hear the difference between using a minute fraction of what my Crown puts out vs. what my Fisher 400 puts out. There is no skinny man's diet here. I have , gobs and gobs of head room, more then I'll ever use. Unless I want to start WWIII with the neighbors. I'm simply choosing what sounds best to me. I long ago gave up things that are so important to so many audiophiles like accuracy and detail in favor of what's pleasing to my set of rather large ears. Because this is a hobby for me. I long ago left behind the notion "am I doing it right"? and replaced it with "does this sound good to me"? That's all I really care about. If you need/want gobs and gobs of power to drive your wall of speakers, go for it brother. That's what makes this country great, right? Freedom of choice. 

There will come a day, and it might be tomorrow, when the Fisher will come out and the big tanks will come in. I always have them at my chubby fingertips. But at the moment the Fisher is the new toy in the arsenal, and I plan to gorge on it until my belt buckle pops. 

But I do very much enjoy your opinion and writing Professor Marsi, and gleefully look forward to the next installment. 

Now back to Roswell Rudd. 

[frankmarsi]

Good response, good response,  but I'm not turning it down!

In other news; my new to me but used PL-700 Series II and those confounded AR-9's are seeming to become better friends lately.

Played some "Miles Davis" through them two days ago and they sounded very nice. Yesterday played some "Ahmad Jamal" original records from mid-sixties I guess, but the record quality was lacking somewhat.

Just purchased late last week this guy who indicates he doesn't really like the 'New' country music and I agree as I much prefer the older more traditional stuff. His namer is, AARON LEWIS , and the album is "Sinner". 

Spinning in the 'ole CD player is an album that I had to pass by  (because of X-wifey probs and the resulting down head-space) in the early 1990's by Sting, called "Ten Summoner's Tales' by Sting (CD, 1993, A&M) 

A good album and although it almost pains me to admit it about CD, the quality is very good. However, to spite myself and everyone else I know, I decided to order the LP on pee-bay tonite. And although in 1981 when I bought several 'Police' albums because they were cool then, I lost my feelings for his talent or lack thereof. I'm 50/50 with them and him all these past days, though there have been a few good tunes out of it all.

This week it's been another older vinyl album re-release that's decent quality in terms of the music and pressing and that's "Tool's" 'Under Tow" album and "Joy Divison's" 'Closer'. I measure my life's times by the women I've been with and when but, when but it breaks-up, I go down real hard and end up missing some good music because of it.

I have maintained my musical tastes to be pretty diverse since I was a kid, I attribute that to being the youngest of four children, the others all female and each with a different taste and generation than the other, so in turn, I benefitted greatly from it.

Again, a good response from you samburger, that I didn't expect.

Be well. 

P.S. I'm expecting some real fire-bombs to follow though.

FM

 

 

[samberger0357]

You had me until you mentioned Sting, but I'll overlook it this one time. 

You're an enjoyable wordsmith and fun to spar with. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go watch exhibition hockey. It's 98 degrees here in the Bay Area, so watching men play on ice provides it's own set of mind over matter cooling. In fact, that's the reason I should be finding an alternative method of driving the 3's today, but I'm a sucker for self directed torture. 

[Sonnar]

You 're right, Frank , Big AR speakers are very inefficient, difficult , power-hungry beasts. And that is the reason why my fathe switched ( damn it ) from Marantz 7/8b to SS amps in late '60s , and in 1974 he had a PL 400 and then 700B to drive his LST . And for the same reason I have a very powerful QSC professional power amp to drive my AR , and I said it' s more dynamic , transparent, extended than low wattage old tubes . But I remember when I was a kid boy in early '60s, those fascinating tubes in a big DuMont  TV and in radios and hi-fi amplifiers , there is something magic in the luminous and warm tubes . Surely my LED Samsung TV and the QSC power amp doesn' t have that kind of fashionable way to work. You 're right, Frank , high power SS amps are the better way to free AR's full potential, but I am a nostalgic old man and sometimes I like to recall the past through vintage , familiar objects. Unnecessary things as the giants WE/Altec 1005b multicellular horns I bought three months ago , obsolete, but it's history.      Cheers, Adriano from a sunny day in Rome, Italy 

[samberger0357]

That, Adriano, is a gorgeous picture. I just returned from a 2+ week visiting Florence, Milan and Venice. Greatest trip of my life. 

 

As to big amps freeing the potential of AR speakers, again I must partially disagree. If you, or Frank, or anyone else interested could visit my listening room, I think you would find that 28 tube watts does the job just fine, given my SPECIFIC listening parameters, which are most certainly different then your's or Frank's. Everything, from the size of my room, to the volume I play music, to the type of music, all of it allows me to utilize a smaller tube amp with results that are no different at the volume I listen to then my Crown XLS1000 or Yamaha M4. Listening to a 1962 recording of Sonny Rollins and Don Cherry at the Village Gate, and gosh darn it if those cats are not performing a private show for little old me as I type this. 3D is a real thing, evidently. 

And yes, as was confirmed yesterday, I have headroom. Boy, do I have headroom. I know describing where a gain control is in relation to a dial on a clock is a poor way of describing how loudly or softly I'm listening, but I have no other way to provide a visualization of my specific situation, so I take the lazy way out. On my Fisher, the gain hardly goes up past 9 o'clock, meaning simply that I have a whole lot more flexibility if i choose to use it to give me more volume, more dynamics, etc. 

Let me provide this final analogy. When I used to go see the Rolling Stones back in the 80's at one of their small club dates, they had a few amps with them, and that was it. They didn't need, or want, walls and walls of amps and speakers for the tiny club because it wasn't necessary. This, in a nutshell, is where I'm at. I have 300 watt amps, but they don't provide any greater dynamics or open the speakers any further then my 28 watt Fisher 400. And the 400 provides a flavor that brings a nuance and personality from the speakers that the 300 watt amp, at least up until now, has never been able to duplicate. 

Choice is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

 

 

[Sonnar]

Thank You, samberger. I don 't like to play music loudly , even with my very high sensitivity Altec/JBL horn system, so I use a very few power , and that is the reason why sometime I 'd like to use low powered tube amps with its musical, liquid mid-range . But I have noticed that the best qualities of AR's woofer come up with high power SS amps , even at low levels . Bass notes becomes more solid, nitid , powerful and clean , faster and  deeper than in any other speaker . With modern high power amps designed to erogate high current and stable on 2 ohms loads the AR 3 / 3a bass seems to have no limits. On the other hand, AR 3 / 3a are very difficult speaker to drive: when I had the marvelous Crown PSA-2 I was surprised that after half an hour of playing the fan started with high speed . The QSC runs very quiet and doesn 't have problems , and it sounds very better , but the PSA-2 is a 36 years old power amp: when this amp appeared on the market , around 1980 , it was a real outsider , 600 watt per channel on 2 ohms and stable on every kind of load . 

[samberger0357]

Just for laughs I have my 300 watt Crown amp in there now, and will leave it in for the afternoon since it's in the 90's here so reducing the room temp anyway possible isn't necessarily a bad thing. But honestly, at low to medium levels, I cannot detect much, if any, difference in woofer/bass response between it and the Fisher 400.  I'm not trying to start any range wars here, simply passing along my non scientific observations. The bass is nice and rich and deep. Things sound great. But at my comfortable listening level, the difference is minimal at best. The biggest change might be with the kick drum, which is a bit more prominent through the bigger amp. 

The Crown hasn't been in the system for a bit, so I'll give it some time to warm up and see if I can detect any changes, and report back. 

[Sonnar]

Sure, differences are minimal and only with excellent recordings , dynamic and with extended frequencies , are probably audible. In my opinion, only modern SS amps sounds very clean, early vintage amps are very harsh sounding and unstable with capacitive and reactive low impedance loads. 

[samberger0357]

Are you referring to vintage tube amps like the Fisher that I've referred to, or early solid state amps? I've heard early SS amps that sound wonderful(I'm thinking early Mac's, Sony's, Sherwood's, etc) and not harsh at all. 

 

Anyway, you're kind of making my point for me that the idea that one needs an amp of XXX watts to bring the 3's alive is ultimately in the ears of the beholder, and then any changes evident will be subtle at best. I'm not suggesting that a 3 watt amp is going to get the job done, but certainly something 25-40 watts(and I'm talking tubes) given a small to medium room and reasonable listening levels should be plenty to drive the 3's to a performance that would satisfy all by the most critical listener. 

Now excuse me while I turn the volume down. 

[frankmarsi]

And I quote: ""Anyway, you're kind of making my point for me that the idea that one needs an amp of XXX watts to bring the 3's alive is ultimately in the ears of the beholder, and then any changes evident will be subtle at best. I'm not suggesting that a 3 watt amp is going to get the job done, but certainly something 25-40 watts"".................

I'm not sorry to do so, but I will respectfully disagree with you about your above sentence.

Especially when we're speaking about a AR twelve inch woofer. It has much 'travel' and can and does require some wattage to move it to level where the bass is heard, not to mention felt.

Not looking to argue with you, I just want to "splain to you Lucy".

Case in point is with my LST's. Not to mention that most who are very familiar with the AR 12 inch woofers who know that they require a certain amount of power/volume AKA clean watts to represent themselves properly and realistically. And not rank pull here but, I've been listening, enjoying and dealing with its design for over 44 years now so, this is what you're up against. I also have some experience from when I was younger than that.

Regarding the "Fisher" product, yes they were much heralded when they made their first debut but, "Avery Fisher" himself probably wasn't aware or, at least I don't think he did know where the audio world would extend itself to, though perhaps he did. True, 'The Fisher' was a status product when I was a kid in the late fifties into the early sixties but (I could only dream about owning such a magnificent component back then), only until and later on did other manufacturers start to flood the market with more powerful amps mostly due to the availability of transistors that had the capability, stability, and hearty-ness.

And, even he himself, the wonder-man, Bob Carver was relegated to using early high SOA intended for automotive ignition transistors, which for the most part were themselves only a recent item at the time. There was not much else to chose from in terms of transistors, it was a 'new-world' and a electronic designer didn't really have much to chose from in terms of a suitable replacement for 'tubes'.

Look, when I was in the USN in 1969 and 1970, we were taught mostly the circuits that used tubes, it was mostly WWII gear but, just the same great stuff and war-fighting worthy. The NAVY electronic schools I attended only skimmed across the new world of transistors unless one was lucky enough to have electronic aviation training, which I did not.

This is all pretty academic, and going on in this discussion is almost pointless. Nonetheless, there really isn't any comparison.

If you're  OK with low volume playback, so be it, but there's no denying the fact that bigger AR speakers with out a doubt sound better with as many watts (RMS) as you can feed them.  And, I don't think there's a person who would disagree once they've experienced what my point has been on this site since I got here in 2004.

Music for me can be a 'background thing but, I rather have it all as if I were there for the 'performance'!

And, I'll extend my home to you for a listen. I assure you that you will have an additional opinion to what you are pressing for here presently.

P.S. You've mentioned that you're not noticing any differences with either of your amps, although that sounds somewhat strange to me. Then perhaps it's a matter of components further back in the line of input sources. One could have the best and biggest amp but, if the 'program-source' or input sources are deficient (T.T. cartridges, pre-amps. cables, are not good), then it won't matter either way. One would just be magnifying shit, hoping and thinking it will sound good and settle for that.

What are you using as your input sources? Also, beyond what many 'non-cognecenti' may clamor against, cables do make a big difference regardless. Even if the person who disagrees falls to the floor and starts kicking and screaming, cables do matter.

I must add that I don't solely speak because I follow the herd, I've learned this on my lonesome during the course of close to fifty years of building, assembling, learning and enjoying myself with electronics and especially the beauty of music appreciation. I'm certainly not as knowledgeable as some on this site or other sites, but I can hold my own in some areas.

P.S. Then we have another sad but, very prevalent aspect of todays life in this so called modern world.

Most folks are not listening to music in the way or the amount of music listening that was done up to these modern days.

Gone are the big magnavox, GE's, Philcos', Motorolas, Zenith's, etc., and every man made music listening device that dominated the scene years ago, is just that, gone for the most part, not many folks these days can appreciate, much less know that history. It's why we have books, not hard-drive, to further teach on into the future. Fuck the grid, cause once it goes, we're all but lost. Hopefully, we'll still have books somewhere , I hope!

Most of those folks unfortunately utilizing earplugs, shit down-loads and any other device lacking a higher quality source of reproduction one can mention is not in my mind the way to go and be!

It's a sad realization that the world is not concerned with music as it once was. and it was seemingly all those years before my time.

Ironic thing is that, after all  the technology and advancements in electronics, music (good music) seemingly has all but fell off the radar for many people on this planet, a pity and most definitely a big shame!

A damn shame!

FM

Hey amico a Roma, state ottenendo che cosa sto dicendo?

[samberger0357]

You make all good points Professor. I suppose the long and short of it is that I simply don't listen very loudly, I have a small room, the speakers are up against a wall so I get more then adequate bass response, and damn it I like tubes better then SS. 

As far what I'm using for sources, it's a mish mash of stuff. I use several turntables(Dual, AR, Garrard, Elac), carts that range from Shure's, Pickering and Stanton's, etc.,  and a couple of good Sony CD players. No, I'm certain my sources are in line. I really think it boils down to volume. At the levels I listen to, having 300 watts means nothing, since I'm using the smallest part of those watts. Believe me, if I wanted to rock the house, I have the artillery to do it. But I don't. And so therefore it all comes back to listening preferences and needs. I'm not arguing that larger amps will do a better job at moving that big ol' woofer better then my teeny weeny Fisher. But at what level of volume. At the level's that i'm happy to listen to, I'm just saying that a 300 watt amp is overkill and for my needs a 28 watt tube amp mates up  exceedingly well with the 3's. 

No arguments to your points at all. Just stating my preferences. Again. 

Always a pleasure. 

[Sonnar]

10 hours ago, samberger0357 said:

Are you referring to vintage tube amps like the Fisher that I've referred to, or early solid state amps? I've heard early SS amps that sound wonderful(I'm thinking early Mac's, Sony's, Sherwood's, etc) and not harsh at all. 

 

Anyway, you're kind of making my point for me that the idea that one needs an amp of XXX watts to bring the 3's alive is ultimately in the ears of the beholder, and then any changes evident will be subtle at best. I'm not suggesting that a 3 watt amp is going to get the job done, but certainly something 25-40 watts(and I'm talking tubes) given a small to medium room and reasonable listening levels should be plenty to drive the 3's to a performance that would satisfy all by the most critical listener. 

Now excuse me while I turn the volume down. 

I 'm referring to some early SS amps, old circuitation, primitive transistors, unable to drive low impedance loads. Tubes are real better sounding than these old SS amps. One of the first SS amp designed to drive difficult loads without protections was BGW 500 and 750 in 1975 , still excellent and well sounding today. Their best was the GTA/GTB series, a tank that goes like a Rolls-Royce. Early '70s Mac are smooth sounding but not dynamic, and the same for Marantz 250; early SAE are powerful but sometimes a litlle bit harsh ( with the exception of low powered 2200 and 2300 ) . I have no experiences with Sony and Sherwood . In my small room, 20 - 30 watts by a good tube amp are enough to satisfy my usual needs with AR speakers, and 10 watts are enough for Altecs horns, but in very rare occasions I like to have more power by a good sounding, solid , modern, well designed SS amp just like our Crown or QSC . Cheers, Adriano

[Sonnar]

8 hours ago, frankmarsi said:

Hey amico a Roma, state ottenendo che cosa sto dicendo?

Yes Frank, Thank You.

 

8 hours ago, frankmarsi said:

Most of those folks unfortunately utilizing earplugs, shit down-loads and any other device lacking a higher quality source of reproduction one can mention is not in my mind the way to go and be!

It's a sad realization that the world is not concerned with music as it once was. and it was seemingly all those years before my time.

I totally agree with You. My sources are a very early  Thorens TD 125 first series , the ones with Papst-motoren and made by EMT, a Grace G-707 tonearm and a Grado pick-up, and an early '87 Marantz CD 75 with twin Philips TDA 1541 DAC, I prefer this old DAC for its general smoothness. I don 't use pc downloads or MP3 to listen music , but many people use this kind of sources in their hi-fi installations. Young people like my daughters listen music through their iPhones, portable music, everywhere,  despite they have a lot of real hi-fi equipments available . The so called modern world , streaming on pc instead of TV, MP3 files instead of LP or CD, digital files instead of Kodachrome colour slides, it' s not so fascinating to me. The password to the future seems to be speed and quantity , not quality.       Cheers, Adriano

[samberger0357]

4 hours ago, Sonnar said:

I 'm referring to some early SS amps, old circuitation, primitive transistors, unable to drive low impedance loads. Tubes are real better sounding than these old SS amps. One of the first SS amp designed to drive difficult loads without protections was BGW 500 and 750 in 1975 , still excellent and well sounding today. Their best was the GTA/GTB series, a tank that goes like a Rolls-Royce. Early '70s Mac are smooth sounding but not dynamic, and the same for Marantz 250; early SAE are powerful but sometimes a litlle bit harsh ( with the exception of low powered 2200 and 2300 ) . I have no experiences with Sony and Sherwood . In my small room, 20 - 30 watts by a good tube amp are enough to satisfy my usual needs with AR speakers, and 10 watts are enough for Altecs horns, but in very rare occasions I like to have more power by a good sounding, solid , modern, well designed SS amp just like our Crown or QSC . Cheers, Adriano

And this gets to the heart of the matter. As with you Adriano, 20-30 tube watts in a small room(mine) satisfies my AR speaker needs as well. Sure, it's nice to have extra juice when I want the option, but my full enjoyment of my AR3's are not dependent on it. I think it's really important for folks making the big amp argument to at least consider that some of us aren't listening in large spaces at concert hall volumes and don't require that boat anchor woofer to move huge amounts of air to enjoy these wonderful speakers. Kinda like folks enjoyed them back in 1964 when my 3's were born.

[owlsplace]

The problem with SS amps was always clipping and subsequently the amount of odd harmonic power sent to the tweeters that invariably led to their early demise. The problem with tube amps was low damping factor which wasn't able to control those large woofers that well. Seems like if you were looking to max out your listening experience with these speakers you would drive the woofers with a SS amp and the upper range with tubes. The arguments for or against usually parallel the arguments for or against analog or digital ... Just sayin' ...

Roger

[samberger0357]

54 minutes ago, owlsplace said:

The problem with SS amps was always clipping and subsequently the amount of odd harmonic power sent to the tweeters that invariably led to their early demise. The problem with tube amps was low damping factor which wasn't able to control those large woofers that well. Seems like if you were looking to max out your listening experience with these speakers you would drive the woofers with a SS amp and the upper range with tubes. The arguments for or against usually parallel the arguments for or against analog or digital ... Just sayin' ...

Roger

Good points Roger.  Too much hassle for my listening enjoyment, but good points nonetheless. Presently I've rotated in my Adcom GFA5400, a very nice little amp that puts out 200 watts at 4 ohms, which should satisfy the elusive head room demands that have become key in this discussion. Again, at the volumes that I'm listening at(currently some mid 60's Paul Bley combo stuff while the wife is out, so louder then normal, but not concert hall levels, or near that) the point seems almost moot. I just don't think the 1or 5 watts that I'm using off this monster is going to drive those alnico's any more then what the tube watts from the Fisher does, but I'm not inviting more debate, just thinking in print. Anyway, it's a beautiful day here in the Bay Area, temps finally cooling off from the 90's to the 70's. The dog has his favorite tennis ball, I have my first cup o' joe for the AM, and so very little, if anything, to complain about Hope all is going well for everyone else. Thanks all for your continued support and feedback. 

[frankmarsi]

Yes, the desert fox, aka birdman, aka owlsplace has indicated some very valid points and I stand in agreement with him for the most part, however it's subject to further incoming information.

And so, in his almost horned toad way has put me in a peaceful mood of quiet agreement.

A mood that I can utilize to go into the next room and continue exercising my new/used PL-700 II along with another appreciation lesson of the AR-9's.

Because of all the strong and yet valid opinions given here, inevitably have led me to say; "These proceedings are closed!"*

Any further discussion will be at the individual's own risk and or enlightenment.

For me, this internet attention giving is taking away from my listening time with my 9's and LST's, something I shouldn't be doing.

I will rest my case and joyfully go on dancing through the tulips of my record collection and continue to enjoy my systems.

""I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together""*

Birdman might be the owlsplace, but I am the walrus.

FM

P.S. I do wish that I could have each of you here on this site to enjoy the systems with me. But thankfully, I guess you probably won't and I won't have to shell out for accoutrements and cocktails which in turn will allow me to save some money to buy more phono cartridges and records. So, no, we won't be getting together, sorry.

Well, there are couple of members that I need to come here and help me out restoring all of my speakers.

* "Macarthur" at the surrendering on the battleship Missouri.

*"Beatles".

[samberger0357]

With all due and deserved respect, your honor, I would humbly ask the court if we might see clear to continuing the proceedings open. I personally delight and am enlightened by the various opinions on the subject, and feel others may too, once they discover our little knitting group. And I can listen and read at the same time. Perhaps there might be an opening for me at the next carnival?

As for me, I think with the introduction of my Adcom GFA5400 into the fray I've finally started to hear more of what the AR3's have to offer, and a bigger difference then when the Fisher 400 is in there. They both certainly offer different flavors. After all, who can live on chocolate alone when butter crunch is in the next container over? 

BTW, I don't drink, so if I was to come over Professor Marsi I'd be a cheap date. Some clam dip on a Ritz and I'm all set. 

[owlsplace]

Well, we didn't get into the reason for using high-current amps but this article by Steve Munz on impedance curves and power factor may be of some interest:

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/understanding-impedance-electrical-phase/page-2

I jumped in late on this thread and missed Frank's Ampzilla/SAE amp which looks pretty amazing. I do miss my old 70s SAE amp sound. It is sitting upstairs waiting for me to rebuild it. The current Adcom 555II that I rebuilt has its merits of course but my memories of the SAE are like mother's milk. Isn't that the great thing about memory though

While searching the archives for the impedance curves for the AR 12-inch woofer, which eluded me, I did run across a mention of the low-Q of this design actually responding better to tube amps with low damping factors. That would shoot down my high damping factor argument. Check back with me after I read up on loudspeaker design.

Roger

[frankmarsi]

You might stand corrected as I have read that a woofer like the AR 12" does much better with an amp that has a higher damping-factor in order to offer it more control henceforth less 'ringing'. Of course one shouldn't believe everything they read. This makes sense though.

PL amps have one of the highest damping factors at 1000. A typical tube amp and most other amps can only offer 200 to 300 if that.

I'll wait for more information before I start sparing with you and others. Besides, I'm tired because earlier I was out locating the folks out here who still have beehives in certain locations.

Yes, it's true I must admit it, I was stealing some bee's wax to try and duplicate your 'special-formula' wood finish.

I'm sort of burnt from all of the rapid fire that occurred earlier before you came along.

It's 10:30 here on the east coast and already very dark outside, so it's probably dark where you are too, it's a 3 hour or so difference, correct?

I assume owl hunting season is still open?  

I know those horned toads are hiding. But, watch out for dem-der rattlers cause when I hiked across the Grand-Canyon in '73 I was almost bit by one while I was walking thru the canyon by moon light, you would know better than I because I believe you offered me a rattle-skin belt, didn't you?

FM

[owlsplace]

Yeah, it's dark here and not many snakes out and about this year for some reason but they are ever present. Here is one from last year that got caught up in some garden mesh and I had to cut it free.

You need a special license to hunt with raptors

Probably shouldn't have opened up the damping factor can of worms. This wiki article is actually a very cogent discussion -- would be interesting to find out who wrote it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_factor

Roger

[iso]

7 hours ago, frankmarsi said:

You might stand corrected as I have read that a woofer like the AR 12" does much better with an amp that has a higher damping-factor in order to offer it more control. Of course one shouldn't believe everything they read. Makes sense though.

PL amps have one of the highest damping factors at 1000. A typical tube amp and most other amps can only offer 200 to 300 if that.

7 hours ago, frankmarsi said:

 

DF is only figure where nominal speaker impedance is divided by amplifier source impedance. High DF-figures are a bit a myth when there is crossover between amp output and woofer terminals.

Maybe Tom, Carl, Roy or Pete can clarify things, but it seems to me that #9 AR coil does have 0,75 ohm impedance at 42 Hz due to the 2,85 mH inductance and 0,8 ohm DCR totaling 1,5 ohm at 42 Hz resonance. Figure is higher at higher frequencies ie 2,6 ohms at 100 Hz, 4,4 ohms at 200 Hz. So, if this is true... 4 ohm woofer does have 1,55 ohm source impedance at 42 Hz when driven by amplifier with 0 ohm source impedance  (ie infinite or 1000+ DF) and when using tube amp like MC275 with 0,33 ohm source impedance (ie. 12 DF)  12" AR-woofer does see 1,88 ohm source impedance... I do not know how high the AR woofer impedance is at 42 Hz in the cab, but it might be something like 20 ohms.  If you re calculate DF at woofer terminals with real world figures at 42Hz, you will see that real world DF-figures are 12,9 (=20/1,55) for SS PL and 10,6 (=20/1,88) for MC275 with tubes. Even SE  tube amp with very high 2 ohm output impedance will get 5,6 DF at 42 Hz... so in the real world, ratio between these two extremes at 42 Hz is 12,9 vs 5,6 compared to advertised 1000 to 2 ratio.

If we can assume that woofer impedance is 4 ohms at 200 Hz, figures at woofer terminals are 0,9 DF (= 4/4,4) for PL and 0,6 DF (=4/6,4) for no feedback SE tube amp ... difference is not even close to 1000 to 2 ratio.

This is certainly not the whole truth, but one should think about it when discussing about DF...

Kimmo

[samberger0357]

Kimmo this is, I'm afraid, very interesting, and unfortunately very much over my head. Perhaps you can dumb it down and let me know if this means that in the real world there shouldn't be much difference between using a solid state amp with a high damping factor(my Adcom has a 500 DF) and a smaller watt tube amp like my Fisher 400, which I assume has a very low damping factor with AR3's(everything else being equal, ie room size, listening levels, etc.) 

Or is it telling me completely the opposite?

[frankmarsi]

Oh, early morning riser in the glorious digs of Oakland, CA. huh?

I don't buy your understanding of what "Kimmo" is saying, although it reads well. Not that I know any better but, look at "owlspalce" link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_factor

Not that I'm a numbers wiz but, from what I've learned 'damping-factor' does matter and it's obvious when hearing the iron-fisted control my woofers enjoy with PL amp's high damping factor. With the very high power I utilize it's very easy to hear my woofers aren't flapping in the wind but portraying a very well controlled and chest crushing control.     I base this on my history of intense listening since I was a little kid listener. Actually, I still do listen with a very critical ear and monitor what my system's bass response is offering up to me everytime I listen.

P.S. watch out for owlsplace because it's apparent my fearful suspicions of his behaving like 'Rama, King of the Jungle' are clearly evident. I mean who else is so fearless to be able to handle what appears to be a baby Diamond Back rattler as he is doing.

No doubt I imagine for a very brief moment he pondered using its skin as a modified woofer surround. Go on owlsplace you know you did.

P.S. where are the first responders like RoyC., PeteB and others? This is becoming like the one-eyed man is the king in the town of blind people, except I don't see the one-eyed man anywhere.