Phono cartridge sound quality

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by DriveHard
I said it wouldn't do what they claim...but it is still cheap power

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Z2fNcGGDI

~1200 watts at 8 ohms, ~2000 watts at 4 ohms.


At 1% THD.

Now drop the THD ceiling to 0.005%.

 

[OVERKILL]

Just found this thread which goes into THD for the iNuke 6000:
https://forum.speakerplans.com/behr...d7200-bench-tested_topic69202_page2.html

iNuke 6000:
50W 8Ohms - 1kHz - 0.009%
380W 8Ohms - 1kHz - 0.0217%
380W 8Ohms - 31Hz - 0.0616%

So they are likely quite good for driving a sub? But you can't really compare them to the incredibly low THD audiophile units, so it's a matter of knowing your application, which I believe DriveHard does.

 

[Alfred_B]

The power consumption is 1,300 Watts according to the label in the back. Quite crazy for its size

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Alfred_B
The power consumption is 1,300 Watts according to the label in the back. Quite crazy for its size


Yeah, and it's only that low because it is Class D. The 4B Cubed will draw 1,000W pushing 300W/channel, 1700W when bridged to 900W.

 

[DriveHard]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Just found this thread which goes into THD for the iNuke 6000:
https://forum.speakerplans.com/behr...d7200-bench-tested_topic69202_page2.html

iNuke 6000:
50W 8Ohms - 1kHz - 0.009%
380W 8Ohms - 1kHz - 0.0217%
380W 8Ohms - 31Hz - 0.0616%

So they are likely quite good for driving a sub? But you can't really compare them to the incredibly low THD audiophile units, so it's a matter of knowing your application, which I believe DriveHard does.


That is precisely what they are good at...I have two ;-)

I would never use them to run the mains, that isn't what they are built for. If you have good quality subs, and your system is properly set up, I can't imagine ever needing more than 100 watts or so. I know I never feel like I am lacking in power with my receiver.

 

[DriveHard]

I appreciate good gear as much as the next guy (probably even more than most), but I don't buy that you could really hear a difference between 0.05% and 0.005%...you just can't tell.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by DriveHard
I appreciate good gear as much as the next guy (probably even more than most), but I don't buy that you could really hear a difference between 0.05% and 0.005%...you just can't tell.


It's more about absolute clarity at the power limits of the amplifier which, as noted, is completely irrelevant if you are using it to drive a sub, but would be important if you are driving a pair of full-range towers and were able to somehow approach that limit and do so in an environment where that could be heard. My 4B has no problem pushing sound levels beyond comfortable with absolutely clarity so I'm not really sure how that would play out in the real world with something like those massive monoblocks, which offer a similar level of THD but with FAR more power available

I'm thinking for home listening it would be more about just the level of awesome, not really the benefit, which I doubt would be tangible.

Here's the spec sheet for my old girl, as you can see, at rated power, THD levels are all ridiculously low, regardless of frequency tested. She produces a bit more than that now after I had it refreshed by Bryston, IIRC, it is 274 and 272 now.

 

[DriveHard]

Quite impressive, Overkill! Mine has only half that much power, but I have never thought I needed more...

This graph shows that the RX-A3060's left channel, from A1 input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1% distortion at 159.0 watts and 1% distortion at 186.4 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 228.7 watts and 1% distortion at 294.3 watts.

There was no multichannel input to measure. THD+N from the A1 input to the speaker output was less than 0.008% at 1 kHz when driving 2.83 volts into an 8-ohm load. Crosstalk at 1 kHz driving 2.83 volts into an 8-ohm load was -79.34 dB left to right and -79.41 dB right to left. The signal-to-noise ratio with an 8-ohm load from 10 Hz to 24 kHz with "A" weighting was -106.84 dBrA.

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/yamaha-aventage-rx-a3060-av-receiver-review-test-bench

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by DriveHard
Quite impressive, Overkill! Mine has only half that much power, but I have never thought I needed more...

This graph shows that the RX-A3060's left channel, from A1 input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1% distortion at 159.0 watts and 1% distortion at 186.4 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 228.7 watts and 1% distortion at 294.3 watts.

There was no multichannel input to measure. THD+N from the A1 input to the speaker output was less than 0.008% at 1 kHz when driving 2.83 volts into an 8-ohm load. Crosstalk at 1 kHz driving 2.83 volts into an 8-ohm load was -79.34 dB left to right and -79.41 dB right to left. The signal-to-noise ratio with an 8-ohm load from 10 Hz to 24 kHz with "A" weighting was -106.84 dBrA.

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/yamaha-aventage-rx-a3060-av-receiver-review-test-bench

 

[y_p_w]

I always just used an Audio-Technica moving magnet cartridge. I remember one I needed a new needle, which just pulled out. I went to a store and asked what they sold that would work. I wasn't sold a completely new cartridge, but they pulled a needle from an existing one and then sold it to me for $25. I guess they then ordered a new needle to replace the one they pulled.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
I always just used an Audio-Technica moving magnet cartridge. I remember one I needed a new needle, which just pulled out. I went to a store and asked what they sold that would work. I wasn't sold a completely new cartridge, but they pulled a needle from an existing one and then sold it to me for $25. I guess they then ordered a new needle to replace the one they pulled.


My record player is an old Aurex (Toshiba) SR-Q200 direct drive unit that appears to be equipped with what I believe to be a Rega R100 cartridge.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I wonder if it's like car audio amps that on paper claims to be megawatts but realistically puts out around 25 wpc.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I wonder if it's like car audio amps that on paper claims to be megawatts but realistically puts out around 25 wpc.


Class D amps are more efficient, but yes, there's also some marketing in play here citing "peak" wattage versus what the amp is able to deliver on a continuous basis. Kind of reminds me of the PC speakers and cheap stereos that were marketed with ridiculous power spec's in the late 90's because they went by peak wattage.

 

[DriveHard]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I wonder if it's like car audio amps that on paper claims to be megawatts but realistically puts out around 25 wpc.


Class D amps are more efficient, but yes, there's also some marketing in play here citing "peak" wattage versus what the amp is able to deliver on a continuous basis. Kind of reminds me of the PC speakers and cheap stereos that were marketed with ridiculous power spec's in the late 90's because they went by peak wattage.



There is some hype in the claims...but they do put out some healthy power. A good rule of thumb for those Behringer amps is to divide the claim by the square root of two...that usually gives you a realistic RMS value. I have one of the iNUKE NU3000 for each of the subs. They claims 3000 watts in bridged mono into 4 ohms, and it bench tests right around 2000 watts.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by DriveHard
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I wonder if it's like car audio amps that on paper claims to be megawatts but realistically puts out around 25 wpc.


Class D amps are more efficient, but yes, there's also some marketing in play here citing "peak" wattage versus what the amp is able to deliver on a continuous basis. Kind of reminds me of the PC speakers and cheap stereos that were marketed with ridiculous power spec's in the late 90's because they went by peak wattage.



There is some hype in the claims...but they do put out some healthy power. A good rule of thumb for those Behringer amps is to divide the claim by the square root of two...that usually gives you a realistic RMS value. I have one of the iNUKE NU3000 for each of the subs. They claims 3000 watts in bridged mono into 4 ohms, and it bench tests right around 2000 watts.


Yup, I'd say that's a reasonable position on the matter.

I have a pair of old Yorkville professional amps here (made right here in Ontario) that I used to use to drive some speakers before I bought the Bryston. They are Audiopro 3000 units, pretty beefy but I think actually weigh less than the Bryston. They, like the iNuke's, are actively cooled. The manual has a date of January 1990

These quotes are pulled from it:
Originally Posted by Yorkville
All amplifiers with ratings above 1400 watts rely on the fact that the average power required to reproduce music is considerably below the maximum power the amplifier is capable of providing. Some amplifiers are capable of actually delivering their rated power continuously, but these may consume as much as 50 amperes in doing so. To get around this problem, many high power amplifiers are shipped with either a special high current plug on the line cord or with two line cords. In practice, the user is often forced to find some way to connect these products to standard line outlets. Due to the lower average power required by music, this will sometimes work, but there is the possibility that circuit breakers in the concert hall will trip in the middle of a performance. The AUDIOPRO 3000 is internally capable of delivering its rated power on a continuous basis. However, rather than leaving the question of energy management to chance, the AUDIOPRO 3000 incorporates active energy management circuitry which continuously monitors the actual power consumed from the AC line. Should that exceed an average of 12 amperes over a sustained period, the AUDIOPRO 3000 will reduce its output power and therefore its power consumption accordingly.


Originally Posted by Yorkville
The AUDIOPRO 3000 is a high efficiency amplifier which is capable of delivering a greater percentage of its input power to the speaker load than most other amplifiers. Under actual operating conditions its power conversion efficiency approaches that of digital switching amplifiers. However, digital switching amps are still plagued by poor specifications and cumbersome operating constraints. The AUDIOPRO 3000 provides the superior transient response and low distortion figures associated with the best and most reliable analog designs.


Originally Posted by Yorkville
Historically, bridged mode operation was a means of getting high power from medium power amplifiers. The AUDIOPRO 3000 delivers more power from one channel than most other amps deliver when fully bridged. Bridging the AUDIOPRO 3000 will reproduce music with a headroom of about 4500 Watts into a 4 ohm load! We don't know of any subwoofers that can handle such power. We recommend that you carefully check the ratings of your speaker system against the power specifications listed in this manual before you consider bridging the AUDIOPRO 3000.


It also includes this (very honest) spec page that lists actual output figures including THD.

You can see that they will produce 425W/channel at 8ohms under the same conditions as the Bryston, but with more THD.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Reminds me of my friend's 60s vintage McIntosh amp that's rated at only 25wpc and that thing is LOUD!!

 

[Quattro Pete]

To put things in perspective, you need 10 dB increase in volume for it to be perceived as twice as loud. All else equal, you need 10x the power to achieve that volume increase. So, you would need to increase your amp power from 25 Watts to 250 Watts for it to sound twice as loud.

Granted, if you listen to marketing, anything less than 100 Watts per channel is considered "weak" these days. Going from 75 Wpc to 125 Wpc seems like a big jump on paper, but in reality it only gives you 2dB increase in volume which is barely perceivable to our ears.

25 Watts per channel is actually plenty of power for casual listening at moderate volumes. Very large rooms and inefficient speakers will raise your amp power requirements, obviously.

At my desk, I'm using a 15 Wpc amp, and it's more than enough because I sit very close to the speakers.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
To put things in perspective, you need 10 dB increase in volume for it to be perceived as twice as loud. All else equal, you need 10x the power to achieve that volume increase. So, you would need to increase your amp power from 25 Watts to 250 Watts for it to sound twice as loud.

Granted, if you listen to marketing, anything less than 100 Watts per channel is considered "weak" these days. Going from 75 Wpc to 125 Wpc seems like a big jump on paper, but in reality it only gives you 2dB increase in volume which is barely perceivable to our ears.

25 Watts per channel is actually plenty of power for casual listening at moderate volumes. Very large rooms and inefficient speakers will raise your amp power requirements, obviously.

At my desk, I'm using a 15 Wpc amp, and it's more than enough because I sit very close to the speakers.



Yep. My B&W's are noted as being not very efficient and thus requiring significant amounts of power.

 

[bachman]

I worked around the big fancy expensive gear years ago but always managed to keep my hobby in perceptive with systems of affordable caliber. It's easy go nuts at .50c on the dollar. Currently I have a simple 5.1 set up; Marantz AV receiver 50 x 5 channel, Polk floor standing speakers, Polk center, a powered sub and Klipsch rear chan. set up for easy listening music, outdoor sound and home theater.

When I sold sound equipment, my appreciation was mostly for the simple and efficient stuff.
In sales, this can mean 'value' when you're really hankering for a Doctor to waltz in and drop $15,000 to get a better system than their neighbor or colleague. Most of our speaker line was pretty efficient so the 'need' for tons of power was rarely justified. That didn't mean cheap, lower-end gear though.

I loved the fancy impressive looking equipment but there was something very fun and special about educating customers on a simple set up that could deliver with smaller bookshelf speakers or on stands as with 3 pc sub satellite system. With Yamaha and Boston Acoustics or Polk, it could be a receiver, t table, cassette or CD player, small cabinet and speakers for $1200 to $1500. - This was early 1980's, just shy of $4000 in current dollars. At that time, we had a few speakers selling at or above $4000 and that made for some challenges. As more a boutique 'audio shoppe' , we were working against the mass market and appliance stores. Big volume, big advertising, decent equipment but marketed as better deals.

First impressions of our store were off their charts to many of those shoppers. What they thought they had to spend to get good stuff was a tad misleading so we had to win them over. One thing we did to help the gap of a few hundred dollars on a system was offer a trade up policy. The last place to cut corners is on speakers so we'd let them trade up within a year for 100% value to a step up speaker system. Most used that option.

As for specs, the typical listening environment and many other variables aside from human hearing , perception and typical homes make the numbers and stat sheets a great conversation item. Some of the specs are just the sizzle the sales folks live (and earn $) for.
The aren't too many rules for catering to the ego of the "audiophile" but letting them leave with money in their pockets is just plain Mean !

The drive, feel, handling, experience and sound of an impressive car isn't boiled down to digits on a spec sheet any more so than sound equipment - for the most part. If you give that equipment a good listen or 'test drive', that's not a bad way to make some choices. It's tough to go wrong these days.

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
To put things in perspective, you need 10 dB increase in volume for it to be perceived as twice as loud. All else equal, you need 10x the power to achieve that volume increase. So, you would need to increase your amp power from 25 Watts to 250 Watts for it to sound twice as loud.

Granted, if you listen to marketing, anything less than 100 Watts per channel is considered "weak" these days. Going from 75 Wpc to 125 Wpc seems like a big jump on paper, but in reality it only gives you 2dB increase in volume which is barely perceivable to our ears.

25 Watts per channel is actually plenty of power for casual listening at moderate volumes. Very large rooms and inefficient speakers will raise your amp power requirements, obviously.

At my desk, I'm using a 15 Wpc amp, and it's more than enough because I sit very close to the speakers.



Well said, you must be a little bit schooled in audio or from the older days.
The public has no idea what power ratings mean and the manufacturers know that.
Anyway you nailed it but I will expand a tiny bit for others, even though you said the same thing.

You have to double amplifier power to increase the sound level 3db. A 3db increase in sound level raises the volume to where it is slightly louder.
So going from a 75 watt per channel amp 20khz-20hz @ 01% THC to a 150 watt amp with the same rating will only sound slightly louder.

More or less 3db increase is the min needed for the human ear to pick up sound that is a bit louder and it takes 100% more amplifier power to achieve that 3db increase.

The power ratings on consumer equipment are garbage now and the public has no idea what they are buying, except people in this thread of course.