Amp/Reciever to Power Monitor 70s?

Yahzi

Habanero Monk wrote:

I'm telling you that the while the cost for doubling up my output wattage is not much, neither was the improvement for my seating position and room. Most likely because the 70 isn't a difficult speaker to drive given my circumstances.

So... you don't need 300 watts for "much better sound"? I'll be damned!

Geoff4rfc

Yahzi wrote: »

but making ridiculous claims like "oh, you really need 300 watts for much better sound" is unfounded.

Once again, no one said needed. You're fabricating your own argument.

Yahzi wrote: »

The odds are your comparisons were about as reliable as the average Joe. You also don't strike me as a technical person.

Your gambling habits are vague and shallow, come to think of it, that's the kind of person you strike me as.

Habanero Monk

Yahzi wrote: »

So... you don't need 300 watts for "much better sound"? I'll be damned!

No, just a better speaker. The 70 is entry level and affordable but certainly not the top tier. Neither are my LSi 9s' but they were a very good improvement. The sub took it to another level. The nice thing about having an amp with some grunt is that even though the 70's may not use it, well it's there, and if the OP upgrades speakers they will most likely be good to go.

I don't think a little expectation management is remiss here and my experiences are simply my experiences. I liked the 70's on the Yammy, I liked them on the Marantz.

Habanero Monk

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

70's on 300w is even better......by far

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

Once again, no one said needed. You're fabricating your own argument.

I don't think the word 'intimating' would be far off the mark. While you didn't use the word 'needed' I can't help but think by your use of the term 'by far' to say it in another way. You're beginning the back peddle here.

Yahzi

Geoff4rfc wrote:

Once again, no one said needed. You're fabricating your own argument.

But you said 300 watts would be better "by far", or do you deny ever claiming that? Tsk..tsk.

nguyendot

Yahzi wrote: »

But you said 300 watts would be better "by far", or do you deny ever claiming that? Tsk..tsk.

Seriously dude, quit trolling. If that is your only goal here instead of actually giving decent advice then you just need to leave.

Habanero Monk

nguyendot wrote: »

Seriously dude, quit trolling. If that is your only goal here instead of actually giving decent advice then you just need to leave.

He's not wrong though. Quite technically he is correct. Sorry if it is felt unreasonable to challenge the 300 watts is better than 200 watts 'by-far'. It's a grandiose claim and I'm not surprised it's being questioned.

Yahzi

nguyendot wrote:

Seriously dude, quit trolling. If that is your only goal here instead of actually giving decent advice then you just need to leave.

And how exactly am I trolling?

nguyendot

Yahzi wrote: »

And how exactly am I trolling?

The fact that you've been confrontational instead of being friendly on just about every one of your replies.

nguyendot

Habanero Monk wrote: »

He's not wrong though. Quite technically he is correct. Sorry if it is felt unreasonable to challenge the 300 watts is better than 200 watts 'by-far'. It's a grandiose claim and I'm not surprised it's being questioned.

He was wrong on his reply to my post. He said no amps are "high current". That depends on what you consider high. Perhaps he's used to 10 amps of current whereas I am used to 50; that said 50 would be "high" compared to 10. I also stated that most understand "high current" as doubling down from 8 to 4 ohms. Usually this is the mark of a good amplifier with the ability to shell out power if need be.

Also he stated I had no proof. As if I had no idea how an AVR1700 would sound with M70s. I've used the setup, it was underwhelming - as I stated in my first response. I believe first hand knowledge and usage of it is enough proof for my first statement alone - would you argue? He did.

Habanero Monk

nguyendot wrote: »

He was wrong on his reply to my post. He said no amps are "high current". That depends on what you consider high. Perhaps he's used to 10 amps of current whereas I am used to 50; that said 50 would be "high" compared to 10. I also stated that most understand "high current" as doubling down from 8 to 4 ohms. Usually this is the mark of a good amplifier with the ability to shell out power if need be.

Also he stated I had no proof. As if I had no idea how an AVR1700 would sound with M70s. I've used the setup, it was underwhelming - as I stated in my first response. I believe first hand knowledge and usage of it is enough proof for my first statement alone - would you argue? He did.

What I understand is that he mentioned power as it relates to seating distance. That is not an improper point to make. Most amps don't double down and certainly none that the OP could reasonably afford.

I guess if you want there can be a discussion as to high current vs high voltage power sources.

tonyb

Yahzi wrote: »

The logic around here is that more wattage equals better sound quality.

Ridiculous....actually the opposite. We strive for quality power over number of watts around here. Your taking someone's "300 watt" comment to the extreme meaning. Better power is beneficial in almost all circumstances....up to a point of course, which is limited by your speaker and it's design. There's lots more to audio than massive watts and that we may agree on. Drop it down a notch or two, if making friends here is of any importance to you.

Yahzi

nguyendot wrote:

The fact that you've been confrontational instead of being friendly on just about every one of your replies.

I can offer constructive criticism and be bold headed, and I still wouldn't fit the description of a troll. A troll is someone who intentionally tries to stir - to cause chaos. Thus far my contributions have not fit that description.

He was wrong on his reply to my post. He said no amps are "high current". That depends on what you consider high. Perhaps he's used to 10 amps of current whereas I am used to 50; that said 50 would be "high" compared to 10. I also stated that most understand "high current" as doubling down from 8 to 4 ohms. Usually this is the mark of a good amplifier with the ability to shell out power if need be.

Dude, "high current" - yes, the claim is that an amplifier can deliver high current. What I said was true - current is not high by default. It's not as if the amplifier is delivering more current at any given moment. More current is on demand assuming there are demands to be had.

If your listening levels, source, speaker impedance/phase angle do not require "high current" then it does not matter how "high current" your amplifier is, because it will simply never deliver it. Amplifiers have to obey the laws of physics, you know.

Also he stated I had no proof. As if I had no idea how an AVR1700 would sound with M70s. I've used the setup, it was underwhelming - as I stated in my first response. I believe first hand knowledge and usage of it is enough proof for my first statement alone - would you argue? He did.

You have no evidence outside of a subjective anecdote. You said :

nguyendot wrote:

Yes that HK is not high current. It will power your speakers but you will be lacking.

Your claim is that because the HK is not high current that it is not good enough. A claim based on no sound evidence whatsoever other than an unreliable subjective comparison. You also made a global statement of fact that is, quite frankly, not based on any facts. Basically what you said was your opinion and your opinion only.

Yahzi

tonyb wrote:

Better power is beneficial in almost all circumstances....up to a point of course, which is limited by your speaker and it's design.

Sure, up to point, which I am in complete agreement with.

nguyendot

Yahzi wrote: »

I can offer constructive criticism and be bold headed, and I still wouldn't fit the description of a troll. A troll is someone who intentionally tries to stir - to cause chaos. Thus far my contributions have not fit that description.



Dude, "high current" - yes, the claim is that an amplifier can deliver high current. What I said was true - current is not high by default. It's not as if the amplifier is delivering more current at any given moment. More current is on demand assuming there are demands to be had.

If your listening levels, source, speaker impedance/phase angle do not require "high current" then it does not matter how "high current" your amplifier is, because it will simply never deliver it. Amplifiers have to obey the laws of physics, you know.



You have no evidence outside of a subjective anecdote. You said :



Your claim is that because the HK is not high current that it is not good enough. A claim based on no sound evidence whatsoever other than an unreliable subjective comparison. You also made a global statement of fact that is, quite frankly, not based on any facts. Basically what you said was your opinion and your opinion only.

Current and wattage go hand in hand. That receiver cannot provide the full amount of power (e.g. current) to those speakers per channel. It will be lacking... technically true. 100w < 275w handling power of those speakers. Did I mention anything about how loud he listens or what demand will be put on them? No. If you want pick apart only exactly what was said then you need to stay within the same context.


Can you prove that the HK is not lacking? It can't provide what I would consider enough power for those speakers to get full enjoyment - they sounded as if they did not have enough power. Power, current, wattage are all related. Technically what I said...true.

Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 96.7 watts
1% distortion at 108.9 watts

Perhaps we want more power should we want to push the speakers past the 108.9 watts this receiver is capable of at 1% distortion? It will be "lacking" in current to do so. So it doesn't have high enough current. I never argued if it was necessary or wanted - I simply stated it will be lacking. As you said, it still has to obey the laws of physics. If I want to consider it high current or not is not for you to say, because honestly I can believe so... that is subjective and you are in no place to say otherwise.

Yahzi

nguyendot wrote:

Current and wattage go hand in hand. That receiver cannot provide the full amount of power (e.g. current) to those speakers per channel. It will be lacking... technically true.

Based on what testing? How did you determine that there was not enough power? Was the amplifier clipping on dynamic peaks? Did you measure the signal?

Can you prove that the HK is not lacking?

This is a fundamental logic error. You can't prove a negative, and someone who asks you to do that does not understand Logic 101. You can't prove the tooth fairy exists or doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean the tooth fairy exists, or even might exist.

It can't provide what I would consider enough power for those speakers to get full enjoyment - they sounded as if they did not have enough power. Power, current, wattage are all related. Technically what I said...true.

Sure, wattage and current are related, but I'm not convinced that you tested your own claim in any technical sound way - what you did was listen to a piece of music, at some unspecified volume level, compared to another amplifier, at some unspecified volume level, then jumped to conclusions and there could have been plenty of variables unrelated to power that could have given you the subjective impression of too little power.

Perhaps we want more power should we want to push the speakers past the 108.9 watts this receiver is capable of at 1% distortion? It will be "lacking" in current to do so.

First of all, testing amplifiers on a test bench using pure sine waves is anywhere between 5-10x more stressful than actual music. The other issue is that amplifiers are using resistive loads - again, an unrealistic situation for an amplifier.

The other issue is how loud do you want to go? 100 watts is a lot of power. If a speaker has a sensitivity of 90 dB, 1 watt, and you're seated 3 meters away, you'll achieve over 105 dB at the seats for dynamic peaks. You'll be idling at a few hundred milliwatts.

105 dB is incredibly loud. Who listens to their music at that type of volume level? The next question is : can the Polk's sustain 105 dB and can your ears sustain 105 dB? I highly doubt it. The next question is : if you want to jump up in perceived volume you need a lot more than a doubling of amplifier power - you would need to quadruple it. 3 dB increase from a double of power is no great shakes.

I'm pretty sure those Polk's have mechanical limits - they can't accept unlimited power nor have unlimited excursion.

nguyendot

Dude if we have to bench test every statement we made on this forum it would be a very quiet forum. That is a very unrealistic expectation.

Second, how do you know I haven't tested in said manner... once again you're being a **** for assuming otherwise.

Yahzi

nguyendot wrote:

Second, how do you know I haven't tested in said manner... once again you're being a **** for assuming otherwise

Oh come on now, I think it is very clear that you have not tested your own claim. You expect me to believe you're a technical whiz kid, who has a scope handy and is technically qualified to run the appropriate tests?

Do you realise a simple level imbalance could have given you the impression of too little power? There are a number of factors that could have led to the same conclusion - ie too little power - that had very little to do with power per se, and everything to do with how you set up the comparison.

If the amplifier was clipping then I can understand - clipping can happen. But you have given me no reason to believe your claim thus far based on what you have told me, and so I remain skeptical of your results.

ZLTFUL

Translation: I have a multi-meter, I know more than you. And your claim is invalid if you say you own more accurate and elaborate test equipment than my multimeter.

Yahzi

Pot meet another Kettle. :razz: Perhaps you should stick to the topic instead of attacking me personally. Might be more constructive.

[Deleted User]

Easy gentlemen, leave the personal comments out of this if you want it to remain open.

F1nut

Nah Ken, shut it down, delete it and ban the new troll.

txcoastal1

F1nut wrote: »

Nah Ken, shut it down, delete it and ban the new troll.

Ding, Ding, Ding....winner on all 3 counts...already ready ran off the OP

Geoff4rfc

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I don't think the word 'intimating' would be far off the mark. While you didn't use the word 'needed' I can't help but think by your use of the term 'by far' to say it in another way. You're beginning the back peddle here.

Yahzi wrote: »

But you said 300 watts would be better "by far", or do you deny ever claiming that? Tsk..tsk.

Seriously boys? Is that the best you can do? I've owned M70's powered with 200wpc. Then powered with 300wpc. The difference at higher volumes (still well below ref) produced a new level of depth. The "sound" made all the difference in the change of power.

After these remarks from the both of you, I doubt you'd know the difference from bobbing for apples from a barrel or an out house.

Habanero Monk

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

Seriously boys? Is that the best you can do? I've owned M70's powered with 200wpc. Then powered with 300wpc. The difference at higher volumes (still well below ref) produced a new level of depth. The "sound" made all the difference in the change of power.

After these remarks from the both of you, I doubt you'd know the difference from bobbing for apples from a barrel or an out house.

You're the one going gaga over another 1.5 dB of headroom. I'm with you in that I will take what I can get. I would just want to temper the OP that they may not get the same result as you did going from 200 to 300 watts.

And just like you I'm not even running the 70's any longer. We both have a high power amp driving our mains. So I would say there is more in common than not.

I never had the chance to get the 70's on the P2500S. The were sold to get the LSi's (and I got like 90% of my purchase price out of them) and then after I believe they may have pushed the Marantz into failure.

I heard the CBT Line Arrays at MWAF and if I had the correct room for those they would be my next speaker. You should check them out in addition to your future LSiM 703's if you have some space for proper placement.

F1nut

This is from our newest troll who thinks he knows all, yet had to ask this.

04-09-2013, 08:03 AM #352
Yahzi
Member

Member since:Apr 2013

---

Greetings everyone,

Just a few questions for the gurus. If I select all speakers to Large then my subwoofer will only handle the LFE? So there is no low-pass filter that I can set for the sub in this configuration? I understand this is not an optimal set up. Just want to know how this works.

Then there's this gem.

07-06-2013, 06:31 PM #3807
Yahzi
Member

Member since:Apr 2013

---

Thanks GAWD. I've participated in a number of these "all amps sound the same" discussions and I also agree that for the most part, amplifiers that are well designed and are working within clean operating limits will sound the same.

I'm buying a Denon X4000 receiver soon, which includes Audyssey XT32 and has more power than I'll probably ever use, especially in a flat. Pity you can't send me pics of your J29 stands, but I'll do some measurements.

Sometimes it's nice to see the stands as well, especially with the same speakers, but I'll do the measurements and see which might suit be better. Thanks again for all your advice! Much appreciated.

So, the guy that has tried more amps then he can list is actually talking about AVR's. I mean after all, he lives in a flat.

"Hang down your head, Tom Dooley, hang down your head and cry"

B Run

^Hahaha that's funny right there :twisted:

nguyendot

It's all so clear now. Book smarts vs real world experience... Some people just will never understand the difference.

tonyb

nguyendot wrote: »

Book smarts vs real world experience... Some people just will never understand the difference.

Amen to that.

Anyway, what say we move on. I think the young lad had enough tongue lashings for one day. Tomorrow we can start all over again.:cheesygrin:

Tornado Red

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

Seriously boys? Is that the best you can do? I've owned M70's powered with 200wpc. Then powered with 300wpc. The difference at higher volumes (still well below ref) produced a new level of depth. The "sound" made all the difference in the change of power.

After these remarks from the both of you, I doubt you'd know the difference from bobbing for apples from a barrel or an out house.

I like what Geoff said here. I have the Monitor 70t as fronts in a 7.1 set up. They're the best...in the new Monitor series, for the price I paid I have no delusions about them. I was running everything with a Pioneer SC-61 and then added a 3 channel amp (xpa-3) for the 70s and a 25c center channel. Seems to be lots of talk about loudness and DBs with the higher watts. I didn't really buy the amp for that, I was hoping I'd get a better quality sound, at the same listening (loudness) level. And it certainly did, the improved sound stage and nuances from instruments in some high quality source material made me very pleased with the purchase. Don't own any meters, just picked up some tips from CP, made a few purchases then sat back with my eyes closed and listened. Perhaps ignorance is bliss, but I'm pretty happy