Supercharger?

[Gliding Dutchman]

This is a little matter that bothers me from the day I saw the adverts for this new "big boy toy"...

I cant see any merit in using Musical Fidelity's new "Supercharger" amplifier.

My reasons are:

Why want to "supercharge" a crappy $300 X-Brand Integrated Amplifier with a set of $4998 power amps when you can chuck the crappy integrated amp and also get a nice (and new) pre amp?

Am I missing something here?

If you love the sound of your 12 watt QUAD tube amps stick to high-efficiency speakers.

Any comments? Any users here driving ML speakers with these Superchargers?

GD

 

[risabet]

This is a little matter that bothers me from the day I saw the adverts for this new "big boy toy"...

I cant see any merit in using Musical Fidelity's new "Supercharger" amplifier.

My reasons are:

Why want to "supercharge" a crappy $300 X-Brand Integrated Amplifier with a set of $4998 power amps when you can chuck the crappy integrated amp and also get a nice (and new) pre amp?

Am I missing something here?

If you love the sound of your 12 watt QUAD tube amps stick to high-efficiency speakers.

Any comments? Any users here driving ML speakers with these Superchargers?

GD

I agree, for $5500 dollars if you want more power buy a new amplifier. The other side of the issue is that all the reviews and comments say that you can maintain the sound of the amp you own with a vast increase in power. So if you love the sound of your $35,000 Lamm monos you can boost the power and still have the sound you love. The idea isn't for me but I can see how it might be a good choice for some.

 

[David Matz]

This is a little matter that bothers me from the day I saw the adverts for this new "big boy toy"...

I cant see any merit in using Musical Fidelity's new "Supercharger" amplifier.

My reasons are:

Why want to "supercharge" a crappy $300 X-Brand Integrated Amplifier with a set of $4998 power amps when you can chuck the crappy integrated amp and also get a nice (and new) pre amp?

Am I missing something here?

If you love the sound of your 12 watt QUAD tube amps stick to high-efficiency speakers.

Any comments? Any users here driving ML speakers with these Superchargers?

GD

I think it's for guys who own expensive, low powered tube amps and have difficult to drive speakers. I am sure they would well with something like the 55 wpc BAT VK 55. That amp has everything going for it, except it does not sound "alive".

 

[aliveatfive]

I don't understand how you can maintain the sound of a well-designed, low power tube amp by changing the output stage (speaker interface) to transistors. This doesn't make sense to me. If I'd wanted solid-state, I would've bought it in the first place. BTW, 55 watts tube can sound great (and dynamic) when coupled with the right speaker. (That means earlier MartinLogans need not apply.)

 

[amey01]

Yes - I totally agree with you - strange marketing, because thesethings are power amplifiers no more as far as I can ascertain - they just happen to have a speaker level input as well as line level input.

Now why would anyone do that to their signal? I just don't understand. By all means run them as a power amplifier with their line level inputs (and they're probably quite reasonable power amplifiers too), but why run two power amplifiers in series - that's just asking for signal degradation!! And sorry Risabet, but I wouldn't trust the $USD5,000 "Superchargers" to "Maintain" the sound of $USD35,000 Lamms!

 

[JohnA]

I don't think you can run the superchargers on their own as power amps and expect them to sustain their power rating for long.
Most of the time a power amp operates below a tenth of it's max output and only occassionally does it tap on the high power reserves. From what I've read, the superchargers are meant to be just those reserves - so if they are consistently fed the full signal, they wouldn't be able to dispose of the accumulated heat properly.
Not enough heatsink capacity.

I'd still love to have a pair running my panels, I bet they'd sound better than the XA-200s I've got now.

 

[amey01]

I don't think you can run the superchargers on their own as power amps and expect them to sustain their power rating for long.
Most of the time a power amp operates below a tenth of it's max output and only occassionally does it tap on the high power reserves. From what I've read, the superchargers are meant to be just those reserves - so if they are consistently fed the full signal, they wouldn't be able to dispose of the accumulated heat properly.
Not enough heatsink capacity.

I'd still love to have a pair running my panels, I bet they'd sound better than the XA-200s I've got now.

So what you're saying is that the superchargers just let the power amp signal through, pure and unaldulterated, and only "cut in" when required?

I didn't think this was possible, how would it work? - I was under the impression they are amplifiers/gain stages in their own right - that is, your signal is passing through another few gain stages when one of these is used. ie. there is no point to them, unless used as a regular power amp.The Superchargers are purely getting thier signal from your power amp - it is not being used to provide any power of its own.

Any technical types want to clarify?

 

[JohnA]

So what you're saying is that the superchargers just let the power amp signal through, pure and unaldulterated, and only "cut in" when required?..

Not exactly - they are on the signal path all the time, so any 'character' that they add would be added no matter what the volume is.

What I said is that their heatsinks will only get to work when the power requirements exceed those of the 'small' amplifier, which would be the exception and not the rule. So if you try to used them as stand-alone 550W monoblocks they won't cut it

Mr Michaelson makes a logical point regarding the steady and easy load the 'small' amplifier will now be seeing, leading to better operation from it.
I'm still not convinced of the wisdom or transparency of such a setup, but then again I'm not into small tube amps (not yet anyway)

 

[JonFo]

While I’ve yet to look into the tech of the ‘supercharger’ it does seem like a rather pointless exercise. Maybe in the case of ultra-low powered tube amp, it might be beneficial. But will indeed alter the character of the output to a degree, as for one, it’s removing the capacitance and reactance of the load, both of which will significantly interact with the ‘colorations’.

In any case, one would be much better served by investing the $5K in a Sanders ESL amp and just be done with it.

 

[amey01]

While I’ve yet to look into the tech of the ‘supercharger’ it does seem like a rather pointless exercise. Maybe in the case of ultra-low powered tube amp, it might be beneficial.

But what's the point in having the "Ultra low-powered tube amp" even in your system if you are just going to connect this thing to the end of it?

You would have the valve amp in the first place not so much because you like the sound of it, but because you dislike the sound of high-powered SS amplifiers - but oh-oh, that's exactly what this supercharger thing is!

The other reason might be because you like the sound of tubes, in which case you can use a tube pre, DAC, buffer - anything, but connecting two amplifiers in series? - get real!

It's like connecting two DACs with a ADC in between because you like the sound of the first one, but think the second has better preamp-driving capabilities. Stupid.

 

[Gliding Dutchman]

But what's the point in having the "Ultra low-powered tube amp" even in your system if you are just going to connect this thing to the end of it?

You would have the valve amp in the first place not so much because you like the sound of it, but because you dislike the sound of high-powered SS amplifiers - but oh-oh, that's exactly what this supercharger thing is!

The other reason might be because you like the sound of tubes, in which case you can use a tube pre, DAC, buffer - anything, but connecting two amplifiers in series? - get real!

It's like connecting two DACs with a ADC in between because you like the sound of the first one, but think the second has better preamp-driving capabilities. Stupid.

BRAVO - great post!! :bowdown:

GD

 

[David Matz]

In any case, one would be much better served by investing the $5K in a Sanders ESL amp and just be done with it.

JonFo, only if it were this easy! I think that the people who would be investing in this product own very expensive tube amps. They would not sniff in the way of Sanders. Sanders is a wonderful amp, but it does not have the rich midrange the tube lover is looking for. In fact it is the opposite - clean, neutral, crisp, dynamic, musical. It is a straight wire with gain if I ever heard one.

I don't think any of us commenting on the product in this thread have heard it. From the reviewers who have, the thing does do what it claims, while leaving a small Musical Fidelity sonic signature. One Australian reviewer describes the added sonic signature as "crisp, clean and clear. The sound is rock solid and a bit forward in nature with a slightly dry character in the bass and plenty of extension." This reviewer and Mickey Fremer of Stereophile both say that this product greatly increased the dynamics of the system and made it sound more "real".

I do agree that in terms of a cost/ benefit analysis, one could pick up a used CJ 350 for $5K and have that tube-like midrange, while having crystal clear highs, the bass slam, and dynamics of SS.

 

[Diamonds]

I agree, for $5500 dollars if you want more power buy a new amplifier. The other side of the issue is that all the reviews and comments say that you can maintain the sound of the amp you own with a vast increase in power. So if you love the sound of your $35,000 Lamm monos you can boost the power and still have the sound you love. The idea isn't for me but I can see how it might be a good choice for some.

The Lamm 2.1 would be my next amplifier of choice. But at 30K they are a bit more than I am willing to spend.

I think it would be ludicrous to put another amp on the Lamm's. I would recommend hearing them if ever the chance comes up.

I have heard them twice on very large speakers Wilson Maxx II and on some Avalons and they were simply amazing.

I am not a big fan of Wilson speakers and they still sounded great!

 

[Spike]

BTW, 55 watts tube can sound great (and dynamic) when coupled with the right speaker. (That means earlier MartinLogans need not apply.)

Alive, you need to clarify this statement a bit more. I have a 50watter driving the ReQuest panels just fine. In this case "the right speaker" means the 'static panels of earlier Logans!

JonFo, only if it were this easy! I think that the people who would be investing in this product own very expensive tube amps. They would not sniff in the way of Sanders. Sanders is a wonderful amp, but it does not have the rich midrange the tube lover is looking for. In fact it is the opposite - clean, neutral, crisp, dynamic, musical. It is a straight wire with gain if I ever heard one.

I strongly disagree here. The people who own very expensive tube amps made the conscious decision to get the tube amps for their simplicity in order to maintain the purity of the original signal. Let's take SET for example, the SET owners are after the purity of the FIRST watt to be delivered at the speaker terminal. Now, what's the point of maintaing the first watt through the expensive amp, just to get everything mucked up in solid-state jungle of the supercharger? Sorry, but I don't see the point of the supercharger at all.

Spike