No. He didn't leave anything out. His question is plain and simple. And very good. What was it that you didn't understand about the O.P.?
It's too simple, thus my somewhat vague answer to match.
No. He didn't leave anything out. His question is plain and simple. And very good. What was it that you didn't understand about the O.P.?
I don't claim to undestand the PE technology, I remember reading about it in my youth when my brother was considering adding a NAD PE power amp to his 3020a.
Wasn't that called Dynaharmony or some such name by Hitachi?The first big brand to successfully market Class G was Hitachi, with their monster HMA-8300 in 1977.
Wasn't that called Dynaharmony or some such name by Hitachi?
Today's speakers are garbage.
There are hundreds of vintage speakers with sensitivity of 94 or higher.
That and an 80 / 100w AB amp is all it takes.
100W can easily clip during peaks in dynamic recordings with mainstream loudspeakers.
I bought my 1st NAD amp back in 1979? while in college and it was wonderful for its time-a 3140. Now have a 2nd one as a spare. Still sound pretty good for ancient technology. Has the old "soft clipping" and "speaker lead compensation" circuits as well.Commutating power supply rails basically. Switches in a 2nd, much higher voltage rail to provide for increased voltage swing when needed. Not designed for continuous high power operation, but effective and results in a lower disipation in normal conditions. The switching occurs at a high level, so any non-linearities around the action are insignificant. Fell out of favour due to many spectacular failures with all the main brands (NAD, Kenwood, Pioneer, Yamaha etc) and issues around diode glitching.
Power Envelope (PE) was NAD's second name for the design. It was originally marketed as Power Tracker.
There is a high res original NAD 2200 brochure I uploaded to HiFi engine which goes into detail on the design here:
https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/nad/2200.shtml
The first big brand to successfully market Class G was Hitachi, with their monster HMA-8300 in 1977.
The NAD 7240PE is a nicely constructed amp. I'm not into this kinda gear myself but for the price range and the dynamic power it's OK. It is sensibly priced in that they designed for a market and they achieved that in the pricing. I'm more the linear power output kinda shopper if I where looking at practicality. I consider a practical amp to be ~70W to 100W plus dynamic peaks and linear output with impedance and power changes. In brief I think a linear outputting 75W@8R, 150W@4R and 300W@2R is a very good size amplifier while keeping the amplifier price down and the power bill down too.Doodski
Interesting.
Out of sheer curiosity, do you think that old NAD receiver is sensibly constructed?
There is no receiver I intend to buy but I am curious.
The 25A peak spec seems optimistic at best.
A NAD 7240PE, or someone similar I can think would be ok to have in a second system. I think it's better to use old stuff than to throw it away.I bought my 1st NAD amp back in 1979? while in college and it was wonderful for its time-a 3140. Now have a 2nd one as a spare. Still sound pretty good for ancient technology. Has the old "soft clipping" and "speaker lead compensation" circuits as well.
In brief I think a linear outputting 75W@8R, 150W@4R and 300W@2R is a very good size amplifier while keeping the amplifier price down and the power bill down too.
The thought had crossed my mind that they must be really pushing the "envelope" no pun intended.The single cycle means you won't blow fuses, OPTs, vaporize PCB tracks or generally have a bad day.
Maybe this applies to recap?
If it ain't broke, do not fix it
Yes, a 75W/ch amplifier power supply must be hefty like a 1KVA transformer and 40,000 microFarad/ch smoothing would do it. I still think if a amp can be rated linearly even if it is derated to nurse the numbers together that it is a pretty good amp. I suppose I'm thinking of stuff like Krell, Threshold, Perreaux and Kinergetics Research etc etc. For a linear lower output class A amp they start at about $1000.00 USD nowadays on the used market.But as you know, such an amplifier will be very expensive. To get an amplifier to even approach doubling down needs a phenomenally large well regulated PSU and a huge number of OPTs along with extreme attention to any voltage drop, anywhere.
Most of the advertised "doubling down" ratings are just derated 8R and 4R numbers to tie in with the 2R and look good on paper.
Putting my favorite video about this topic here. "It's all about that bass." If you want to move some big woofers and make loud low notes, you need more power than moving small tweeters to make loud high notes.
It is a very sensible solution to use a active crossover before the amp stages. That makes for some great sounds and lotsa power for each driver.I know that it is possible to do that, but the question is whether it is a sensible solution?
Aha! Got an idea (it has probably already been up for discussio on this forum). I think is probably the case that we are less sensetive to distortion in the lower regions, say between 20-100 Hz. Or how about that? To then let some big ass powerful cheap PA amplifier take care of the amplification for one or more subwoofers? Go for a hell of a lot of power/watts where that is.It is a very sensible solution to use a active crossover before the amp stages. That makes for some great sounds and lotsa power for each driver.
EDIT: ... and then there is the amplifier sizing that peeps argue about. I'm all for using the biggest baddest amps available for a active crossover system. Some peeps argue that small amps are required for tweeters and midrange etc.