Karan Acoustics Master Collection POWERa Mono power amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

I measured one of the Karan POWERa Mono amplifiers that JVS auditioned, serial number 005. Because the amplifier was too wide to fit through the door from my listening room to the corridor that leads to the test lab, I performed the measurements in my listening room. To ensure that this very powerful amplifier wasn't starved of wall current, I ran two long, heavy-duty extension cords to the Karan from the 20A circuit in the test lab. I measured the amplifier using my Audio Precision SYS2722 system, plugged into one of the extension cords. Following distributor Wynn Wong's recommendation, I performed the measurements with the DC filter on the amplifier's rear panel switched on; however, I didn't measure any differences with this filter on or off. (I live in a lightly populated—for New York City at least—residential neighborhood, and DC is rarely present in the mains voltage here.) Other than voltage gain, polarity, and input impedance, all the measurements were performed using the balanced input. When testing the single-ended input, I followed the manual's recommendation of shorting pins 1 and 3 of the XLR jack.

Out of its crate, the amplifier was ice-cold from its air trip from Washington State, so I ran the Karan at a few watts into 8 ohms for two hours before examining its measured performance. I then followed the CEA's recommendation of operating it at one-eighth the specified power of 2.1kW (!) into 8 ohms for 30 minutes. At the end of that time, the ventilation holes on the top panel over the internal heatsinks were very hot, at 124.4°F (51.4°C). The side panels were even hotter, at 144.6°F (62.6°C). However, when I repeated some of the tests the next day without the preconditioning, I noted that amplifier ran very cool to the touch even after driving 1W into 8 ohms for an hour.

The POWERa Mono's voltage gain was 34.7dB for both the balanced and unbalanced inputs, which is higher than usual. The Karan preserved absolute polarity (ie, was non-inverting) with both input types. (The XLR jack is wired with pin 2 hot.) The specified input impedance is 30k ohms for both input types. I measured 29.6k ohms from 20Hz to 20kHz for the balanced input, half that value for the unbalanced input.


Fig.1 Karan POWERa Mono, frequency response at 2.83V into: simulated loudspeaker load (gray), 8 ohms (blue), 4 ohms (magenta), 2 ohms (red) (1dB/vertical div.).


Fig.2 Karan POWERa Mono, small-signal 10kHz squarewave into 8 ohms.

The Karan's output impedance was 0.5 ohm at 20Hz and 1kHz increasing to 0.67 ohm at 20kHz. (These figures include the series impedance of 6' of spaced-pair loudspeaker cable.) These impedances are higher than I expected from a solid state design, presumably because the output comprises two amplifier stages in series, a topology used to obtain the POWERa's very high specified power. The modulation of the amplifier's frequency response, due to the Ohm's law interaction between this source impedance and the impedance of our standard simulated loudspeaker, was ±0.25dB (fig.1, gray trace). The response into an 8 ohm resistive load (fig.1, blue trace) was down by 3dB at 81kHz, a lower frequency than the specified –3dB at 300kHz. The increased output impedance at 20kHz means that the –3dB frequency was somewhat lower into 4 ohms (magenta) and 2 ohms (red). However, the POWERa Mono's reproduction of a 10kHz squarewave into 8 ohms (fig.2) was superb, with no overshoot or ringing.


Fig.3 Karan POWERa Mono, spectrum of 1kHz sinewave, DC–1kHz, at 1W into 8 ohms (linear frequency scale).

Measured with either the unbalanced input or the balanced input shorted to ground, the Karan amplifier's unweighted, wideband signal/noise ratio was a very good 71.8dB ref. 1W into 8 ohms. This ratio improved to 79dB when the measurement bandwidth was restricted to 22Hz–22kHz and to 81.3dB when A-weighted. While even-order harmonics of the 60Hz power-supply frequency were present in the Karan's noisefloor (fig.3), these were very low in level, at –94dB and below ref. 1W into 8 ohms.


Fig.4 Karan POWERa Mono, distortion (%) vs 1kHz continuous output power into 8 ohms.


Fig.5 Karan POWERa Mono, distortion (%) vs 1kHz continuous output power into 4 ohms.

When I tested the POWERa Mono's maximum power into 8 ohms, the THD+noise reached 1% (our standard definition of clipping) at 1.85kW into 8 ohms (fig.4, 32.67dBW). While this is lower than the specified 2.1kW into this load (33.22dBW), the AC wall voltage had dropped from 120.6V with the amplifier idling to 114.5V with the amplifier clipping. The Karan's maximum power into 4 ohms is specified as 3.6kW (32.55dBW). I measured 2.5kW into 4 ohms at 1% THD+N (fig.5, 31.0dBW). Again, the wall voltage had dropped by several volts at the clipping power (footnote 1). I didn't test the maximum power into 2 ohms because this would have tripped the wall supply's circuit breaker.)


Fig.6 Karan POWERa Mono, THD+N (%) vs frequency at 12.67V into: 8 ohms (blue), 4 ohms (magenta), 2 ohms (red).

Figs.4 & 5 indicate that actual distortion lies beneath the noisefloor below 1W, rising to a maximum around 20W then dropping again, reaching a minimum value just before actual waveform clipping. I therefore examined how the percentage of THD+N changed with frequency at 12.67V, which is equivalent to 20W into 8 ohms, 40W into 4 ohms, and 80W into 2 ohms (fig.6). The distortion remained below 0.1% into all three impedances and was lowest in level at low frequencies into 2 ohms (red trace). Commendably, the distortion doesn't rise at high frequencies.


Fig.7 Karan POWERa Mono, 1kHz waveform at 100W into 8 ohms, 0.051% THD+N; distortion and noise waveform with fundamental notched out (not to scale).


Fig.8 Karan POWERa Mono, spectrum of 50Hz sinewave, DC–1kHz, at 200W into 4 ohms (linear frequency scale).

I was having some issues with my digital oscilloscope at very high sample rates, so fig.7 shows my analog oscilloscope's screen with the POWERa Mono driving 1kHz at 100W into 8 ohms. This photo reveals that the distortion at high powers occurs at the waveform's zero-crossing points. This will be due to the output stage lacking sufficient bias at this power, perhaps as a result of the sliding bias mechanism. While the third harmonic is the highest in level, at –66dB (0.05%, fig.8), the crossover distortion is, as always, accompanied by higher odd-order harmonics.


Fig.9 Karan POWERa Mono, HF intermodulation spectrum, DC–24kHz, 19+20kHz at 100W peak into 8 ohms (linear frequency scale).

When the POWERa Mono drove an equal mix of 19 and 20kHz tones with a peak level of 100W into 8 ohms (fig.9), the second-order difference product at 1kHz lay at a very low –106dB (0.0005%), though higher-order intermodulation products are higher in level. These products dropped by around 3dB at the same peak voltage level into 4 ohms.

The Karan POWERa Mono amplifier's measured behavior reveals that it copes well with low impedance and offers extremely high power, though the level of distortion at moderately high powers was not as low as I was expecting.—John Atkinson


Footnote 1: Observant folks will notice that even though it's below the amplifier's specified maximum power, 2.5kW is more power than a single 120V, 20A service should be able to supply. But the Audio Precision's procedure raises the input voltage quickly before terminating the input signal the moment the distortion reaches a pre-established target, in this case 3%. It takes a while for a circuit breaker to trip, so presumably, the current from the wall exceeded 20A momentarily—too briefly to trip the breaker.—Jim Austin

COMMENTS
georgehifi's picture

"Quote: each contains two 2700VA toroidal transformers Each monoblock requires two 15A power cables, one for each amplifier stage."

Can JA or JVS confirm if these are bridged amps?

Cheers George

georgehifi's picture

Looks like the Monoblocks are just bridged stereo.
I found the internals are the same as the stereo amp they have.
Karan Acoustics Master Collection POWERa Stereo.

https://ibb.co/9GmQqDL

And if they are bridged stereos, they would not double wattage into 2ohms as claimed from measured 4ohms (JA measured 2500w), if anything it maybe less than that 4ohm 2500 wattage into 2ohm, or worse become unstable also. Pity JA couldn't measure that 2ohm wattage.

Cheers George

a.wayne's picture

Current limit , yes , unstable into 2 ohm doubt that very much....

HighEndOne's picture

To begin with, spending $100K on any product made in a far-away land gives me the jitters. It's not like a BMW or M-B that have local dealers to support it. If it fails, shipping this amplifier anywhere will be a project in itself (not to mention Serbia).

Next, I thought that a product needed some kind of deeper representation before a review would be published, but I could be incorrect. Just 5 dealers for such an esoteric, imported and expensive product seems like a gamble to me. I'll spend my money on a USA built and supported product first.

Finally, when I read that any reviewer has AC power issues in the home where the critical listening is performed, I have to discount the opinion on the sound produced. Has this power problem influenced all the prior reviews somewhat?

jimtavegia's picture

I had 2 dedicated 20 amp duplex receptacles installed for under $150 over 10 years ago, and I bought the cable and supplies. I don't have anywhere the need for such, but thought if one is serious about performance, a small price to pay for knowing there is no current limiting.

The other comments here are right on to me. Spending this kind of money and then maybe needing repair would be a nightmare. I am also concerned that the appropriate sound source material be the best one could get, and not streaming, regardless of popularity. Would you put 87 octane in your Porche or Corvette? I read about this being done for a $150K loud speaker and seems inappropriate for the quality of the speakers. Who does this for such high quality products??

I have had Tidal HiFi and I can tell you that the sound quality of it compared to the same CD disc, the stream is not the same. I have an over 4GHZ machine with a nearly 900MB download speed, and it was easy to pick out the CD.

It is sad that there is trouble in streaming and MQA land, but not surprised. The question we all ask is: How far does one need to go when most music engineering is only 4 out of 5 stars or less? Luckily many releases are better than that which helps.

jimtavegia's picture

I forgot to add that in heavy rotation is the Eva Cassiday/LSO engineering marvel that is great fun and sounds very good to me. In my DAW a nearly -70db noise floor, little or no compression and no peak limiting. Marvelous. A great system should love this. Mine now is a Schiit Asgard headphone amp; Project S2 DAC, and a pair of AKG K701 cans.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

I always respect your comments, Jim. Nonetheless, in my system, the sound of files, whether stored on a NAS, internal SSD, or streamed from Tidal and Qobuz is virtually the same. It also tops CD. I haven't even listened to my dCS Rossini transport in over a year. And it is no slouch. No slouch at all.

Be well,
jason

jimtavegia's picture

You enjoy a very revealing system and I'm sure you are very happy with what you hear. Who couldn't be with the Wilson's at the base of it all. But, as we learned in the follow up with the MoJo Audio Mystique, there may be issues that are just hard to pin-point flaws in the sound. Some may even prefer it. THAT I WOULD NEVER ARGUE WITH. Maybe a system too revealing could be a curse?

I remember a decade old review of a respected engineer's CD player that was loved by a reviewer, but then found to be broken in the "Measurements Section". Did the reviewer's system or speakers cover up hearing the flaw?

I always now view any files in my DAW which not only has the wave form, but an EQ display out to at least 20khz, further for 24/192 files. It also has a spectral display and I can see what has been done in terms of compression and peak limiting. I don't master any of my work, but the clients and my wife who cares little about audio, can tell me if she hears a difference or not. Which one sounds better she can tell.

I can only report about what my tired, nearly 76 year old ears hear, but I can see, and hear some differences through my Spectrum high speed connections. I have also heard other reviewers say that some switches have added coloration to the sound of streaming. That determination might be beyond me. Maybe these new stand alone Music Servers are much better than a good computer?

Since various DACs sound different I remain unconvinced that streaming sounds the same as physical media from what I see. If material is transferred to a HD/server/NAS and the same DAC is used, THAT I can believe should be the same. I have no knowledge of what the streaming services "DO" to the files they store, and then, present to us, anymore that what the mastering engineer does to the mixed files that he chooses to "adjust" to make it "better?". I don't have his/her ears or audio systems to know what "better" really means today.

Now that I am recording again I am paying more attention to what I do and being retired, I have the time to take the time. Some of the recordings I do are audition tapes for music students to enter Grad school so there is some pressure for me to do the best I can with the gear I own, I do these recordings for free and love doing it for them.

I have an album by an artist I admire and the album was engineered by 5 different people and each track by them sounds different and one can see they are different in my DAW. There were recorded in respected studios, yet one track with orchestra and strings sounds more like a synth/string patch than real strings; where others sound as real as I have ever heard. I go back to some '60s Sinatra albums with great orchestrations, Ronstadt/Riddle's 3 big band albums; and the late Al Schmitt's work with big bands and Diana Krall. The Ronstadt albums have great HF energy, more than the Krall's done at Capitol. Mixing and mastering choices someone made.

I am now onto a new to-me artists where tracks 5-9 have much more HF energy than tracks 1-5. I can see that in my DAW. I can hear it as well as added clarity. No mastering credit is given so could it be two different people mastered their part of the tracks?

I also took a writer's advice on an old recording of a European concert by Oscar Peterson. It was for a radio broadcast so I was not expecting superb engineering. The acoustic bass sounded OK. The Drums sounded OK, but then Mr. Peterson on the piano came in the piano sound was nearly the worst I've heard on a commercial disc. Just about anyone with a pair of Shure SM57s over the felts could have done better than this. A tragedy as a potential great concert capture ruined for lack of better attention.

I am convinced that the sound we all seek is always going to be a mixed bag, that some in charge prefer a sound scape different than mine, much of it I do really like, but choices are made in all of this from recording, to streaming, to pressing, to mastering. Many hands in the soup.

All I am after is "real" as much as anyone can achieve it. With Mr. Atkinson's recordings I have studied them, re-read his liner notes over and over to learn, followed his issues with venues and gear placement with great interest to learn. I follow any video I can to see and hear the recording sessions and mic placements, including AL Schmitt's Big Band DVD, and Krall's Live in Paris DVD. There is always something for me to learn as to why things sound like they do. I especially learned much from the Michaelson's K622, JA, and the great Tony Faulkner. It all matters.

I would even bet that the sound differences from streamer brands is as different as the sounds from various DACs, and the improvements there in the last 10 years is remarkable. What I have enjoyed from streaming is to get to preview a reviewer's recommendation before I buy the physical copy, and now with the price of LPs that is a pretty important thing to do these days.

ejlif's picture

CDs played back on my Rossini are easily better than streaming and files played from the drive are better than those. I bought into streaming hook line and sinker a long time ago and wondered why I wasn't connecting with music.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

You mean files played back from an external drive you've connected to the Rossini? I ask because the Rossini has no internal storage.

I don't know how you've implemented streaming. In my case, I convert ethernet to optical and then back to ethernet using a Sonore / Small Green Computer optical converter and an Uptone Audio etherRegen. Both contain the best-sounding Finisar SPFs that I could fine. (Andrew at Small Green Computer can help with this.) Both of those optical/ethernet converters receive power from linear power supplies. There is also an external clock on the etherRegen. That may be far more complex and costly than you or anyone wishes to do and/or is able to afford. (The least expensive part of the set-up is the optical cable.) But the end result is streaming sound that is virtually indistinguishable from files stored on a music server's SSD or on a SSD USB stick.

ejlif's picture

I am running directly from Nucleus Plus to the Rossini via Audioquest diamond. yes files on HD USB stick in the Rossini also sounds better. Streaming is complex and maybe this isn't the best way but honestly my CDs played back in my transport are vastly superior to streams or HD playback. Nucleus plus is out of the equation so maybe that whole unit is the weakness. I don't know but I actually just enjoy playing and owning the CD. I'd rather get one thing I like and learn it than jumping all over all the time. With streaming I don't think I sat and listened to a whole album in years. Now I look forward to buying the product and holding it in my hands. I feel like we have lost our way with the pride of ownership with streaming. Mine sounds way better so I'm pretty content but I have to think something is wrong. It's a thinner sound and just less life to the music. Vinyl is even at a whole other level above CD but that is another topic.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

A few points that may have relevance:

1. The Nucleus + will sound much better if you use an LPS. Not all LPSs sound alike. For example, LPSs from Sonore and Nordost sound much better than the HDPlex. They're more transparent and convey more color. Which is not to say that good dedicated music servers from Innuos, Aurender, and Antipodes may ultimately give you better sound than a tweaked out Nucleus +. I'm using an Innuos Statement Next Gen right now.

Just be careful to ensure that, with an LPS, you use the right voltage and connector with the Nucleus +. Otherwise, you may kill the thing.

2. I expect you know that ethernet is the better-sounding input on the Rossini, and that, as a consequence, you're using AQ Diamond ethernet. Not all music servers allow you to choose between USB and ethernet outputs, but the Nucleus + does.

3. Are you using the same software in all cases? Mosaic has a different sound than Roon.

4. Have you upgraded to Rossini Apex? The sonic change will be far greater than any other change you can make to your network.

5. How you get your signal from your modem and router to the Rossini is critical. A dedicated ethernet switch, especially when powered by an external power supply, is vastly superior-sounding to the ports on a router. I use Nordost's and have not tried others. The Nordost Ethernet Switch is powered by their LPS. I also use ethernet to optical to ethernet to eliminate noise. Every one of these upgrades improves the sound of streaming.

6. The "feel it in your hands" reality is a different one than sound per se. If holding a CD or LP speaks to you, then it speaks to you. It speaks to me far, far less than it once did. Different strokes for different folks.

Deadlines prevent me from continuing. I hope I've been helpful.

jason

ejlif's picture

I might try an LPS for the Nucleus. I had good results getting one for my CD transport.

I was told to use the ethernet input so I never questioned it. I lived for quite a time with the Rossini streaming and only bought a lower cost CD transport to play a few CDs I could not play anywhere or stream them even. I was completely shocked by the sound compared to streaming. I was really missing out on a lot with streaming compared to playing the CD

I haven't messed around a lot with Mosaic, even playing a USB stick sounds pretty good but the interface to play it is very clunky and not a joy to use like Roon. I like the Roon program I mean you pretty much have to have it if you are going to be serious about keeping your music collection all together and it's mostly a joy to use though it sometimes develops a sickness and runs slow or acts up and then magically gets better

No I have not upgraded to Apex. In fact I had the clock and it's useless for my CD playback and I didn't hear much with it for streaming so I got rid of it. I'm a little skeptical of 9K for an upgrade seems pretty steep but I'll look into it more. I think your idea of a nice streamer might be a good way to go and just go AES into the Rossini then I don't have to even deal with any of the ethernet stuff. The switching and router interface is likely the cause of the lesser sound I get via streaming.

Thanks for all the advice.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

If you have the $ for the Apex upgrade, do not pass it up. You will be astounded.

If the Rossini clock did not make an appreciable difference to your sound, then I'd look to your cables. Why? Because the Rossini clock is many times better than the Rossini's internal clock.

The Rossini's ethernet input is highly optimized. I do recommend it. Again, ethernet cables make an appreciable difference.

It's all a matter of time, money, and discrimination. In no particular order, unless money is a major concern. If it is, the order is clear. Rossini Apex will not shelter you from the cold.

jason

ejlif's picture

I should state that the Rossini clock is of no use with the SPDIF input I use for my CD transport and the CD transport sound so much better than streaming with or without the clock I figured I would put 7K back in my pocket. I kept having to go in and change a filter or I was getting digital artifacts with the clock in the circuit. You can't use SPDIF with it.

I was using Audioquest Diamond BNC cables for the clock so pretty good. I use a Synergistic Research Galileo SX on the output from my transport and that cable is definitely better than the AQ diamond, but diamond is still pretty good middle of the road cable.

I think maybe if I want to up my streaming game it's a PSU for the Nucleus first and foremost then look at the ethernet switch

I have heard other mixed reviews of the clock. some say huge upgrade others say they like it better without the clock. Rossini is a complicated beast when you look into all the filters and settings it can do. Makes my head spin. I like the CDs I have a stack sitting here and one thing for sure is, when I stream an album rarely do I make it through. When I get a CD I play it, learn it and enjoy the art and whole package as a statement as the artist intends. I add to my collection on Discogs, I put it on the shelf. I look at my shelves of LPs and CDs and makes me feel like I've really got something. I guess kind of like having a ton of books on kindle and none on the shelf, good comparison. I'll take the books on the shelf all day. A small hard drive just isn't the same.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

I think I've adopted you.

There's only one thing I don't understand. If by SPDIF you mean RCA, there are RCA to BNC adapters. Nordost uses them regularly because they find a BNC cable with an adapter still sounds better than a cable with RCA terminations. Besides, if memory serves me correctly, you can just connect the clock to the Rossini if necessary. So I don't see the problem.

Anyway, yes, a good LPS or, if it sounds as you, Hybrid Power Supply for the Nucleus. Then use the $7000 for Apex. As for the filters, the suggestions in the Rossini manual work pretty well.

Hope to meet you at a show sometime. Munich, Santa Ana (T.H.E.), and Seattle (P
AF) coming up.

ejlif's picture

I mean when you use the spdif input on the Rossini the clock is of no use in fact you have to put the Rossini in a mode that takes the clock out of the loop to make it work without adding digital nasties. The BNC inputs for the clock are something else. So the clock is of no use when using my CD transport via the SPDIF input. CDs sounded so much better, I rarely stream for anything other than convenience so I got rid of the clock.

Thanks for all the advice, I'm going to be on the lookout for a LPS, or as you say maybe even a streamer from Aurilic might be better and get me away from the ethernet hub, just go wireless. seems like a waste because you are paying for a good streamer in the Rossini

ok's picture

I used to be a tidal hifi plus subscriber for two years but after my initial enthusiasm about mqa I now find sound quality seriously lacking compared to redbook cd or locally stored hi-res files (especially of the 24/192 pcm and 128+ dsd kind) let alone vinyl. Reportedly tidal is moving to lossless after mqa's bankruptcy so I'll be checking their progress sometime later.

jimtavegia's picture

I have used JRiver for DSD and found it very good, but here is my problem. I have had a number of USB playback devices with mic inputs for making videos and audio playback. None of them supported DSD, just PCM up to 24/192. DoP has never appealed to me as I love SACDs, but with no players under $1k now it is no wonder the market is slow for SACD except for high end audiophiles. Maybe Schitt will come to the rescue????

Luckily my 2007 Yamaha S1800 still plays like a champ. All of my Sony's have died the SACD playback death (4 of them), but still play 2496 pcm DVD-Vs. I had no interest in MQA regardless of the hype.

I am not about to jump into $2k plus streamer land at 75. It will be nice to see what else comes from the show.

MatthewT's picture

To be more than 300k into a system only to have the next best thing come along. FOMO must be an expensive part of living (and selling point) at that level.

DVA's picture

hello .. can i know the method by which the output impedance of the amplifier is measured and calculated? for amplifiers from this manufacturer, the advertising usually claims a damping factor of more than 10,000 in the audio frequency band, and this somehow does not compare with the measured output impedance of the amplifier

John Atkinson's picture
DVA wrote:
can i know the method by which the output impedance of the amplifier is measured and calculated?

I examine how the open-circuit voltage reduces when the output is loaded with 8 ohms or 4 ohms. As I write in the measurements text, the output impedance that is calculated from the voltage drop includes the series resistance of 6' of spaced-pair cable. (This is approximately 0.015 ohms.)

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

DVA's picture

Thank you... And at what voltage and frequency is the measurement made at idle
?

John Atkinson's picture
DVA wrote:
And at what voltage and frequency is the measurement made at idle?

I estimate an amplifier's output impedance at 3 frequencies - 20Hz, 1kHz, and 20kHz - with an open-circuit voltage just below 1V. This is because the Audio Precision's voltage reading is 4 digits, so with an open-circuit voltage of, for example, 999.9mV, this minimizes the experimental error in the calculated impedance.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

X