Pass tunes his amps for high second order distortion and his fans love it.
I have not heard the amps you mention but I do generally seem to prefer amplifiers that use Bi-Polar output devices, such as Clayton's M300 monos. One possibly meaningful comparison I have made was when I owned both the M300s and Lamm's M1.2 Reference amplifiers for an extended period of time (i.e., months). I ended up keeping the Claytons and selling the Lamms but I cannot rule out that my preference may have been due to the difference in power between those amplifiers.
Generally, there is a small difference between FET type devices and bipolar devices. Sometimes FET devices can have a colored texture to the sound - more of a warm and fuzzy type sonic signature. This is not always the case, but FET does lean this way. The warmth of Pass Labs (and possibly Accuphase) definitely leans this way. I would not say Pass is very warm, but it’s a nice controlled easy listening sound.
Bipolar is usually a lot cleaner sounding (without that warmth influence). Gryphon is an example of this. Sometimes the high bias Class A bipolar devices can present a very smoothed over and liquidy sound (this is also an extreme coloration, but it’s different than the FET warmth). The new Krell sliding bias Class A amps are like this. New Mark Levinson are also very liquidy sounding. There are many others, but I can’t remember them.
Your description is pretty much what I hear between MOSFET and bipolar or BJT output stages. BAT solid state amplifiers are another that to me have that soft/warm/fuzzy sound. The effect is less noticeable in the Lamm hybrid amplifiers I have owned, but still perceptible as a fuller, less distinct and slightly boomy bass presentation, at least to my ears.
High biased push/pull Class-A sound when all is correct, has an ease to it, almost like you need to turn it up.
Complementary output transistors like Bi-Polar’s generally will punch far more current than complementary Mosfets can.
If both are used in push/pull high biased Class-A like these amps you mentioned, you’ll find the Bi-Polar output amp able to drive far more taxing speaker loads, and therefore sound have a lot more punch when needed into those speakers.
Pass and Accuphase use Mosfets and a Gryphon uses Bi-Polar output transistors, on speakers like most all Wilsons ect ect, I would suggest watt for watt the Gryphon’s
BS Kosst, you can’t get complementary mosfets to do current like complimentary bi-polars can into low impedances! End of story!!
That’s why power amps that are crowned "amperage masters", are all bi-polar.
And "if" one owns say a pair of Wilson Alexia (0.9ohm EPDR), there you will see the advantage that bi-polars can give.
EG: Gryphon Anitllion Evo mono
175w Class-A into 8ohms
1400w into 1ohm
7500w peak into 1/4ohm
Sorry Kosst, there is no way complementary Mosfets can do these sort of figures.
I have a re-capped Krell KSA-200S and was wondering if it was bi-polar?
I also have a Krell KSA-250 (OLDER MODEL) & was wondering if that had bi-polar transistors (I think it does).
I like the sound of the old Krells, but some say that some of the newer amp designs are better. I need stability to 1 ohm (Martin Logan ESLs).
I’ve heard diverse opinions on “pure” (non-bridged) class A monoblock amplifiers (Such as Antileon Evo Monoblocks and others) vs bridged class A Monoblocks (like Clayton M300 bridged internally by the designer or Luxman A600 in BTL mode (bridge tied load)
Many feel the non bridged Monoblocks are better sounding, when output devices from the two channels are summed in Parallel vs Bridging the two channels. Thoughts or technical explanations?
You have no idea, what constitutes current ability into low impedance loads with complementary Mosfets vs Bi-polars.
If memory serves, BTL usually raises the total output impedance. Perhaps that's a contributing factor in liking it or not?
Otherwise, the discussion about current/power delivery in MOSFETs vs bi-polar transistors is silly. Parallel devices, driver stages and feedback are all able to create any amount of current and power with either device type.
Which brings me to another point: Feedback, and lack thereof, can have a profound effect on the amp sound and characteristics. Luxman amps rely heavily on global feedback in their Class A amps, and they are fabulous. Some other Class A makers use local or no feedback at all. I suspect that speaker matching, and what sound you like lies largely here.
The classic comparison is between Pass And Boulder Warm VS Dry, Tubish vs Transistorish. I am not totally sure about this but there is something about Class A bipolar amps which causes the designers to want to use fans and fancy bias tracking schemes. Do they generate more heat or require higher bias voltages. Pass seems to always avoid this but he does not run his power higher than 300 watts whereas Boulder will go much higher. JC simply switches over to AB which you can hear in the JC 1. Push it into steady AB and it loses its effortlessness. It still gets as hot on low impedance loads as a Pass amp.
It all comes down to the way the amp sounds into a specific speaker and the only way to know that is to hook them up and have a listen. You can make assumptions all day long and many of them will prove right. But, assumptions are the mother of all f--k ups. A less expensive amp may sound just as good as a more expensive amp into a specific speaker and we are all price sensitive to one degree or another.
Mijostyn: I enjoyed your Under Seige II reference to assumptions.
As a close alternative to large class A SS amplifiers, the GamuT series of class AB amplifiers with 1 large industrial
size mosfet per phase (2 large NPN mosfets per channel) also provides a full organic sound.
Thanks to all respondents!
Kosst I think Ralph would give you a huge argument on that one. It has to do with the relationship between sensitivity and efficiency which are not the same. Anyway, he says his amps drive low impedance loads just fine. He has several amps on Wilsons and the owners love them.
The best way to buy an amp is to listen to it in your system which highlights the value of local outlets. We use to take amps to peoples houses all the time and leave them for up to a week. We would install them in the system and make sure all was OK then pick it up a week later. We would do the same with smaller speakers. Larger speakers you had to listen to at the store but we would hook up whatever electronics you wanted to the system. This was all by appointment. It is a travesty that most of these stores have failed. They had to become theater outlets for wealthy people but many of them were in areas where there were not many wealthy folks or the theater thing did not catch on in time to save them. But, you can't listen to an amp on the internet. Some manufacturers understanding this allow 30 day in home trials gambling that the customer will keep the amp.
Ralph if you are listening I think you should build one of each model for in home trial purposes with a full deposit on the amp which will cut off people who are really not interested. Also make the customer responsible for return shipping. Granted tossing MA-3s around would be.........difficult. But, I think MA-2s would give them a solid idea of what they would get. People who are looking at the MA-3s are power hungry
They won't settle for a measly 220 watts. That would be me:) That would make the decision to plop $147k on amps easier. I also have another idea. You should have customers with your amps in acceptable and presentable systems bird dog for you. Have people interested in your equipment make appointments with your "bird dogs" to listen to the amps. If they capture the customer give them a fixed fee for their involvement or a percentage of the sale. That might be cheaper than shipping amps all over the country. Just a thought. The Atma-Sphere mini dealer program:)))
kosst I am not saying that Atma-spheres are the absolute best amp for those speakers but if someone were using a sub woofer and liked the other attributes of Ralph's amps. Why not? Damping factor is not everything. There are those (mostly Mcintosh owners) who say that a damping factor of 50 is more than enough. I certainly do not think that is the case with sub woofers. You can get damping factor way up there by cranking up the negative feedback resulting in a rather harsh sounding amp. Read this http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/atmasphere_ma2iii_followup.htm
My point is that although you can draw some good assumptions about how an amp will perform on a given loudspeaker you do not know for sure until you pair them up. I draw assumptions all the time but usually when I have overwhelming evidence. I am a SoundLabs fan. The MA-2 is the pet amp for SoundLabs users. These speakers have a rising impedance in the bass. I have heard figures up to 30 ohms. Perfect for these amps. I would also never have a system without a sub woofer array and I always use a very powerful SS amp with high damping to drive it usually a rather inexpensive commercial AB amp. Using an MA-2 for this would be rather silly from a cost and performance perspective. But, you can see why I have a strong interest in these amps.
Atma-Sphere does push high impedance loudspeakers because his amps work better on them as you suggest and most people can only afford his smaller amps. High impedance does have it's advantages in terms of efficiency. Klipsch Heresys on stands with two sub woofers can put on a surprisingly good performance. Personally when I see Wilson Loudspeakers the first thing that pops into my head is R2D2. If I were to buy dynamic loudspeakers, which will never happen I would go for a large set of Magicos.
I have not had a tube amp since 1969. I have blown a couple of SS amps, a Fuzz Linear and a Krell KMA 100. Tubes do have a major advantage in that they are easy to change. Transistors not so easy. I only care about what sounds better. If I have to change a tube once in a while that is no big deal. You settle on speakers and build the rest of the system around them. Since the Krells I have stuck with class A amps.
They have a way of sounding more powerful than they actually are. Perhaps they handle transients better. The Atma-Spheres drew my attention because SoundLabs owners love them and they are for sure my next and probably last loudspeaker. The Atma-Sphere and Pass amps are the only amps in the running. Xs300s VS MA-3s. I seem to be always dreaming about the next system usually without regard to the price tag:)
In term of drive, everything else being equal, BJT usually has more output current output so it should be able to drive better vs. FET. Therefore BJT sound tends to have more dynamic compared to FET.
With respect to output impedance, I suspect most amplifier output stage uses push-pull config which is a combination of N and P devices either they be BJT or FET. BJT usually uses common-emitter config, whereas FET would use common-source, so either FET or BJT they should have fairly low output impedance so driving difficult speaker loads probably shouldn't be a problem. The rest depends on how many devices is being used in parallel and how feedback is used to control the output impedance.
With respect to the sound, the FET is known to have a more tubey kind of sound whereas BJT has a cleaner, more solid state sound. I think it may have to do with the FET device being a square device. That is the FET output current is the square of the input voltage proportionally. So FET tends to have mostly second order distortion just like tubes hence it having similar sound to tubes.
BJT on the other hands is an exponential device that is the BJT output current is exponentially proportion to the input current. Therefore the BJT will have a lot more higher order distortion. Higher distortion usually is associated to the sound being a bit lean, more analytical, and hence being more solid states.
Some amplifier designs use FET as input stage and BJT as output stage just like a hybrid amp that uses tubes as input but the output state is solid state.
In term of drive, everything else being equal, BJT usually has more output current output so it should be able to drive better vs. FET. Therefore BJT sound tends to have more dynamic compared to FET.https://i.pinimg.com/originals/06/dc/05/06dc051c6d6f1fe3645a7ded30f559c7.png
George is just a VERY sore looser when he’s proven wrong.
Your talking to yourself, and you have proved nothing, others have told you also, and you still don’t believe it.
You’ve built couple diy Pass amps kits, big deal, half the members here can also.
I also noticed you were outright rude to wolf_garcia, have another one sunshine.
To say it once again for the last time, complementary pair for complementary pair, you’ll get more amperage (current) from a BJT (bi-Polar) output stage than you will a mosfet output stage, end of story.
Nothing you say can change this, give up!.
Pass Labs declines to spec their amps into 2 Ohms. Stereophile’s measurements of Pass Labs amps into 2 Ohms have resulted in a mixed bag of results. Interestingly (well at least to me) some of these "objective" results might be deemed either positive or negative depending on one’s perspective.
Pass Labs has a somewhat unusual way of specifying their amplifiers. They are not unique in that they like others before them underrate their output into higher impedances that in turn makes their output into lower impedances appear perhaps more academically elegant. On the other hand they seem to spec their amps to reflect their "Class A" output when it appears as though these seem to be more like some Pass’s earlier "Class A/AB" labeled amps (albeit with perhaps greater 4 Ohm "Class A") in that that above a certain output they can produce more power in "Class AB" mode.
Never mind, that there exists some skepticism regarding Nelson Pass’s use of "Class A" "Class A/AB" "Class AB" labels. Depending on one’s choice of criteria, the results might be perceived differently. IMHO, they are not generally especially qualified for 2 Ohm duty.
NPN mosfets used by GamuT
N channel mosfets (not npn) can generate larger amounts of current, but it’s the "complimentary" P channel that has the problems.
To build a push/pull a/b amp that has just N channel top and bottom, the design has to be compromised to a degree, compared to when doing to same using N and P channel mosfets in class-A/B configuration.
MOSFET transistors used in industrial welding, using only one or two per rail. Eventually, GamuT sold these N-channel MOSFET amps to high-end devotees across Europe.GamuT Di150 LE
250Wpc into 8 ohms
400Wpc into 4 ohms
As you can see in the Stereophile test, the Gamut even with the N channel mosfets top and bottom couldn't quite do a close to doubling act like a BJT could, and they didn't do a 2ohm test load for reasons you can only wonder about.
you’re moving the goal posts! I’m calling you on that fallacy.
Really!! Goal posts haven’t moved, still where they were, have another one.
"To say it once again for the last time, complementary pair for complementary pair, you’ll get more amperage (current) from a BJT (bi-Polar) output stage than you will a mosfet output stage, end of story. Nothing you say can change this, give up!."