the trial and tribulation in trying to upgrade amps

yotems

Well-Known Member
have you ever bought a piece of gear that you expected to outperform your current gear and it wasnt quite what you expected based on age and reputation as well as theoretically technological advancements in amp and circuitry design in general?

i always wonder just how much further along technology actually has come to improve the way stuff sounds, for instance; the 27-29 year old pioneer a-717 can possibly/probably edge out the 5-8 year old marantz pm-8004, but its also 43 lbs vs 26 lbs for the 8004 and the 8004 does almost te same thing with a remote so yeah i do see that as technological progress..

probably the most damning difference is the pioneer is entirely class A non switching and uses over 700 watts vs the marantz 200 watt consumption rating... i do doubt the marantz is stopping at a mere 200 watt consumption but hey who knows.

both have that japanese sound though with a hint of american

this isnt necessarily about me, just a little example of what im talking about. im interested in hearing about other peoples experiences similar or different
 
Last edited:
For me, "the heavier the better" rule of thumb has always served me well. I suppose there is a loose correlation between age and weight so I tend to stay with older amps.
 
700-200 is a good indication of dynamic performance. I don't buy ss amps anymore. I have several LSR&D Leach amps, both mono and stereo. They are my reference. They were actually Stereophile's reference also back in 1980 fwiw. Every time I rotated them back into the fray from another great amp I acquired, I breathed a sigh of relief. They are simply transparent, period, in every way. The most natural, uncolored, unmanipulated, lacking in nothing sound I've experienced in ss. So I've given up. Enter the great tube challenge:)
 
For me, "the heavier the better" rule of thumb has always served me well. I suppose there is a loose correlation between age and weight so I tend to stay with older amps.

ill tend to agree the heavier the gear the more it may have sound wise as well, but ive heard some pretty crispy “lightweights” in my audio ventures and dont discount lightweight stuff based on its weight alone. and hey! new amps can be heavy too and their weight is usually made up of less by chassis and faceplate than older amps. the yamaha a-s1000 and a-s2000 are perfect examples.

700-200 is a good indication of dynamic performance. I don't buy ss amps anymore. I have several LSR&D Leach amps, both mono and stereo. They are my reference. They were actually Stereophile's reference also back in 1980 fwiw. Every time I rotated them back into the fray from another great amp I acquired, I breathed a sigh of relief. They are simply transparent, period, in every way. The most natural, uncolored, unmanipulated, lacking in nothing sound I've experienced in ss. So I've given up. Enter the great tube challenge:)

i feel the same way about the pioneer a-717 but as a strictly non switching class A amplifier, its eating up some electricity to do what it does.

the marantz seems to be just as dynamic as the pioneer but a good bit brighter and maybe slightly more laid back. i have a rotel ra-971 60wpc integrated rated at 300w consumption and it doesnt have the bass extension and power this 200w consumption 70wpc marantz does so im not sure what to think about the consumption ratings of class ab amps. ive got two nec a-910 integrated amplifiers with one rated at 400w consumption and the other at 600w consumption so i just dont know.

i havent compared the marantz+pioneer back to back yet though, i try not to do that anymore. i try to give an amp some time for my ears to warm up to it and ill know after a few days how it stacks up to what ive already heard. for instance, its very easy to remember if an amp was too bright to listen to for long periods or not.
 
Last edited:
ill tend to agree the heavier the gear the more it may have sound wise as well, but ive heard some pretty crispy “lightweights” in my audio ventures and dont discount lightweight stuff based on its weight alone. and hey! new amps can be heavy too and their weight is usually made up of less by chassis and faceplate than older amps. the yamaha a-s1000 and a-s2000 are perfect examples.



i feel the same way about the pioneer a-717 but as a strictly non switching class A amplifier, its eating up some electricity to do what it does.

the marantz seems to be just as dynamic as the pioneer but a good bit brighter and maybe slightly more laid back. i have a rotel ra-971 60wpc integrated rated at 300w consumption and it doesnt have the bass extension and power this 200w consumption 70wpc marantz does so im not sure what to think about the consumption ratings of class ab amps. ive got two nec a-910 integrated amplifiers with one rated at 400w consumption and the other at 600w consumption so i just dont know.

i havent compared the marantz back to back yet though, i try not to do that anymore. i try to give an amp some time for my ears to warm up to it and ill know after a few days how it stacks up to what ive already heard. for instance, its very easy to remember if an amp was too bright to listen to for long periods or not.

Generally speaking, using the back panel power consumption rating as some sort of key performance indicator is ineffectual. There is no guarantee the figures are taken under the same test conditions brand to brand or even model to model.

It is even dependent on the certifying agency of the respective market region. For example, the service manual for Yamaha M-80 power amp has no fewer than four different back panel ratings for the same amp. The only difference is the intended market region. The USA model is listed as 600W, the General model lists 850W, the Canadian model lists 1100W, and the Australian & European models list 1700W.
 
Last edited:
Generally speaking, using the back panel power consumption rating as some sort of key performance indicator is ineffectual. There is no guarantee the figures are taken under the same test conditions brand to brand or even model to model.

It is even dependent on the certifying agency of the respective market region. For example, the service manual for Yamaha M-80 power amp has no fewer than four different back panel ratings for the same amp. The only difference is the intended market region. The USA model is listed as 600W, the General model lists 850W, the Canadian model lists 1100W, and the Australian & European models list 1700W.

why the need for market dependent ratings? they seem to vary quite a bit!
 
why the need for market dependent ratings? they seem to vary quite a bit!

I guess you'd need to ask the certifying agencies of each region why they have different electrical listing requirements for a definitive answer.

I presume it's because some regions require devices to be listed at the maximum possible draw (e.g. bench test at max power into lowest rated load) and other only require listing at more conservative/more normal operating points.
 
Another interesting case is something like the Crown XLS 1000 I occasionally play with.

It is rated 215wpc @ 8 ohms, yet back panel consumption rating is just 175 watts. Clearly it cannot put out 430 watts while taking in only 175.

So, how do they arrive at 175 watts consumption on the back panel? Either they are lying about 215WPC or the 175 watts isn't at full rated power.

And, guess what?

During my testing the 215wpc rating is not a lie (measured 227), nor is the 175 watts. The 175 watts on the back panel reflects 1/3 rated output (indicated 179 watts on my gauge at 1/3 rated power).

If I crank the amp to full rated output at 4 ohms per channel it draws 1248VA (roughly 1000W considering power factor); far beyond the back panel listing.
 
Another interesting case is something like the Crown XLS 1000 I occasionally play with.

It is rated 215wpc @ 8 ohms, yet back panel consumption rating is just 175 watts. Clearly it cannot put out 430 watts while taking in only 175.

So, how do they arrive at 175 watts consumption on the back panel? Either they are lying about 215WPC or the 175 watts isn't at full rated power.

And, guess what?

During my testing the 215wpc rating is not a lie (measured 227), nor is the 175 watts. The 175 watts on the back panel reflects 1/3 rated output (indicated 179 watts on my gauge at 1/3 rated power).

If I crank the amp to full rated output at 4 ohms per channel it draws 1248VA (roughly 1000W considering power factor); far beyond the back panel listing.

pretty interesting, thats a class d amplifier and it uses 1000w to produce 430w into 8 ohms? im guessing into 4 its more but wouldnt it draw more amps at 4 ohms?
 
pretty interesting, thats a class d amplifier and it uses 1000w to produce 430w into 8 ohms? im guessing into 4 its more but wouldnt it draw more amps at 4 ohms?

The 1000W draw is at 700W output (350wpc @ 4 ohms).

If I crank the amp to full rated output at 4 ohms per channel it draws 1248VA (roughly 1000W considering power factor); far beyond the back panel listing.
 
I know my L-09ms are rated at an 1190 watt draw at full power, and 60 at no signal. I would be surprised if they pull 5 or 600 watts at my normal fairly loud listening levels because the meters are hardly moving.
 
Back
Top Bottom