How much power?

[Retro_Pete]

Bryston 4BST and an Electrocompaniet AW100, if it matters.

It does.
They are both excellent amplifiers with inaudible noise, distortion, separation and needless to say I can't really believe anything other than your mind is playing games and you obviously think you can tell them apart in some way. You haven't really disclosed what you hear.

I suggest blind testing them. Calibrate the outputs with a test tone and a DMM so that they are exactly volume/gain matched. This can be quite humbling.

A random example from my own experience; I hear absolutely no audible difference in sound quality between a Yamaha A-S1000 and a Yamaha P7000S.

 

[Retro_Pete]

Since 1969, 100W RMS to 130W RMS always worked just fine for me and performed and sounded great. 100W RMS is powerful enough - it works. 130W RMS is just perfect!

But you really need to do your homework and know the amp you are buying. Then there is no gamble as to what you will be hearing.

Another old-timer indication - pick the amp up! If it weighs a TON ... that's a good start! Heavy Transformers.

And you know the heat sink capacity is probably alright for continuous high load operation. You can get cheated though. Yamaha A-Sxxx line has crazy thick sheet metal plates. Yamaha MX-1 has a steel weight plate at the bottom. But for a rule of thumb the advice holds up for class A/B amps with "traditional" power supplies.

 

[hopeless]

It does.
They are both excellent amplifiers with inaudible noise, distortion, separation and needless to say I can't really believe anything other than your mind is playing games and you obviously think you can tell them apart in some way. You haven't really disclosed what you hear.

I suggest blind testing them. Calibrate the outputs with a test tone and a DMM so that they are exactly volume/gain matched. This can be quite humbling.

A random example from my own experience; I hear absolutely no audible difference in sound quality between a Yamaha A-S1000 and a Yamaha P7000S.

I used to do the blind testing thing with others during trainings. Sometimes there is very little difference, sometimes the differences are striking. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I've consulted for enough companies and designers to be comfortable with my position. I've been playing with this stuff for 45 years and spent 25 years in the industry. Not exactly what you would consider some sort of flake. At least my cohorts in the industry didn't think so.

I used to tell people that all of those shiny clean numbers on the spec sheet all implode once you hook up a pair of speakers. From that point forward, it's a crapshoot

 

[Retro_Pete]

I used to do the blind testing thing with others during trainings. Sometimes there is very little difference, sometimes the differences are striking. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I've consulted for enough companies and designers to be comfortable with my position. I've been playing with this stuff for 45 years and spent 25 years in the industry. Not exactly what you would consider some sort of flake. At least my cohorts in the industry didn't think so.

I used to tell people that all of those shiny clean numbers on the spec sheet all implode once you hook up a pair of speakers. From that point forward, it's a crapshoot

My experience tells me that people can have been wrong for 45 years and still managed to be succesful.
Seniority does not remove your sighted bias or testing flaws like not having carefully calibrated the volume between two amps. A small mismatch will almost certainly make people prefer the loudest. So you really should do a blind test again if you want to be believed.

I'm still curious to what those striking differences are that you say you hear.
We all get older and the drop-off in high to mid-high frequencies is not negligable.

 

[Akustic]

My experience tells me that people can have been wrong for 45 years and still managed to be succesful.
Seniority does not remove your sighted bias or testing flaws like not having carefully calibrated the volume between two amps. A small mismatch will almost certainly make people prefer the loudest. So you really should do a blind test again if you want to be believed.

I'm still curious to what those striking differences are that you say you hear.
We all get older and the drop-off in high to mid-high frequencies is not negligable.

Give me a pair of Marc Levinson Class A mono-blocks, a planar speaker of your choice, with good cables, and I'll identify your amp every time.
You can let your amp play louder than the Levinson's if you want ..

Your point about level matching is well taken, and it can make a difference, but you're ignoring associated equipment and listener experience and preference.
It's your opinion and I can respect that ..
But then there are always differences of opinion aren't there ??

 

[Retro_Pete]

Give me a pair of Marc Levinson Class A mono-blocks, a planar speaker of your choice, with good cables, and I'll identify your amp every time.
You can let your amp play louder than the Levinson's if you want ..

Your point about level matching is well taken, and it can make a difference, but you're ignoring associated equipment and listener experience and preference.
It's your opinion and I can respect that ..
But then there are always differences of opinion aren't there ??

I won't be that guy that piles on and on about blind tests and measurements and links to studies. There's another site for that kind of exhibitionists.
I will just end with a kind agree to disagree and wish you and @hopeless a nice day and joyful listening. That should be the main goal anyway.

 

[twiiii]

The difference between 100 watts and 130 watts is almost undetectable being around 1 db more. Remember it takes 5 to 6 db for there to be a real change in perception. Back in the day when there was no big power and most people owned 25 to 40 watt amps there were very efficient speakers available. 96 to 104 db at 4 feet not one meter with one watt. So all you needed was 30 watts. That would be 118 db at 4 feet from A Klipschorn or big Altec, EV, Jensen, JBL Hartsfield. A Paragon was a bit less. But then there was the AR-3 with almost 20 db less sensitivity. But they were small and practical and with a MC 275 could fill a room quite nicely with its almost 100 watt per channel peak capability. Bozak was only 6 db less efficient than Altec Klipsch and JBL so 75 watts driving a Symphony was more than most people needed in an average room. And yes we put speakers against the wall for best bass and additional efficiency back then. With large front baffles early reflections weren't an issue. You just moved your listening position for flattest bass response and best imaging and staging which weren't even words back then. You could have one of the best sounding systems in the world that would fill a large room for $4000,00 to 6,000 dollars depending on whether you wanted a tuner or R2R machine. Course back then my college expenses for a semester were less than $500.00 and gas was 23 cents a gallon in the US and 12 cents in OLD Mexico just across the Rio Grande.

Yes, sound systems are better today, but at 100 times better at 100 to 300 times the cost? Not that much better for sure. If they were no one would be restoring and using Mcintosh, Marantz and Citation equipment manufactured in the 60's, with tubes no less. Tubes became obsolete in the early 70's. When Mac and Marantz amps would no longer performed as designed because of poor tube quality.

The words output transformers in fact any type of signal transformer had become dirty words according to SS experts. I guess that is why Mcintosh is still in business making more Tube pre-amps than SS ones. Then there is the issue of the LP. Its doing better than ever and it was supposed to be doomed, too. Even reel to reel with direct copies of masters is making a small come back. Maybe I should have kept two of my studio Ampex. Just so you know I preferred my tube ones over the early AG series SS ones. I would love to have a MR-70-4 with Nuvistor electronics. ( miniature tubes). ATR 104 would even be better. No capstan roller to worry about.

Is a Bentley really that much better than a Duisenberg? Both will get you there in style. Woops poor example. The Duisenberg fully restored costs many times the price of a Bentley. Just ask Jay Leno.

What is it I am trying to say. Well it could be just throwing money away to buy a better sound system isn't the answer. You have to know what your preferences are and you have to know how well you can perceive sound first before dropping money on a sound system. So read, read, read about this hobby, or the love of music. Educate your self mentally and sensitize your hearing capability. Do that first or at least keep a couple of steps a head of your wallet and you will save a fortune.

 

[C Hart]

While I do not want to pile on either, sometimes these threads go way into the weeds. The OP asked about the rating of his amp. For reference I pasted the page from the manual below. Note this is an all-in-one stereo, not a component receiver, and is about as far from an Electrocompienet or McIntosh as can be.

So what am I reading in that spec? The following are the generally agreed upon definitions:

RMS power: Amp output and distortion with a test signal of a wide spectrum sweep over a range of frequencies.

FTC power: RMS power with the additional requirement of defining the frequency sweep as 20-20K Hz, the accepted convention for the range of human hearing. It is called "FTC" based on a mid-1970s regulation by the US Federal Trade Commission.

IHF Dynamic Power: A series of burst tones of 200 milliseconds (1/5 second) are measured. This in theory simulates musical peaks. It is sometimes thought to be an inferior performance indicator because continuous power is more typical of a music signal, and because certain companies used it to increase the ratings of their otherwise lower powered amps.

EIA Music Power: A single 1000 Hz tone is measured. This too is a generally considered an inferior measurement because many amps perform better at 1000 Hz than over the spectrum of hearing.

Distortion or THD is an indicator of how closely the amp can copy the input signal at a given wattage. Typically the rating is at the point where the distortion levels begin to inflect, e.g. at 20 watts distortion is .3% and at 21 watts it's 5%.

The Sony was built in 1972, which is during (pre-FTC regulation) wild and wooly days of marketing claims for amp power. Nevertheless, it is clear from those ratings that this Sony is an entry level hi-fi. The RMS rating is not 20-20K Hz, and the IHF and EIA ratings are far above the stated RMS power, all of which indicate some marketing manipulation of the numbers. However, Sony is a quality brand and probably really did the tests, and therefore the amp section should be a decent performer within its parameters.

So to answer the original question, @BOUXY had it right - RMS power, even with these non-standard frequencies, is the most important rating.

 

[C Hart]

Another thing I just noticed: The "Music power" and "Dynamic power" are not listed per channel, meaning they are likely only 33 watts and 25 watts per channel respectively.

 

[Catmanboo]

10 year old thread, back from the dead!

 

[C Hart]

Dammit!