How can you listen to anything under 200 watt per chnl?

g7trader

In my living room i now have 230WPC amps before i use to listen to alot of amp/speakers beovox beolab Rotel Yamaha beomaster etc now I look back and think how could I have been an audiophile listening to 30WPC? At that level its all treble and background sounds missing.

Now my Yama P2201 is 230WPC it is room filling vocals, room filling bass guitar full strong midrange can hear alot of intruments in the background speakers are Pioneer HPM 110.

FestYboy

Get more efficient speakers and all you need is 10w of high current power to drive you out of the room... I also suspect your room is fighting your speakers...

mlistens03

FestYboy’s comment in another thread, regarding my Lafayette receiver and Crown amplifier.

FestYboy wrote: »

Justin, you need to get your learn on... That Lafayette, may be rated at "only" 22 watts, but it has headroom... and more than the crown (comparatively). So let's do the math: you have a pair of speakers rated at 90 dB/w/m. So at typical listening distance (calling it 9' for ease of math), the pair will net about 88 dB at the listening position. Given this, for every doubling of power, you net 3dB of gain. So, 2 watts comes to 91, 4 = 94, 8 = 97, 16 = 100. So as you can see, the Lafayette can only reach about 102 dB if you go with their rated power (this isn't true, but stick with me here). In order to double the output of the Lafayette, you need to gain another 10 dB (112 dB total output), the amp needs to put out approximately 210 Watts. Keep in mind, 102 db is loud, 112 dB is typical concert levels. This will also get the police called on you for disturbing the peace...

My point is: you don't need the power you think you need, and you don't use the power the amp is capable of except through transiants. And to answer the first question, going from a 120w amp to a 300w amp will only gain you 3.5dB... which is nothing.

kharp1

I've heard a couple of watts fill a room. Perhaps you're doing something wrong.

mhardy6647

If one has loudspeakers with triple digit sensitivity (i.e., > 100 dB SPL per watt at 1 meter), it might be easy. Depends on the nature of the loudspeaker load, though (to wit, mostly the impedance curve).

3.5 watts per channel at my house using loudspeakers with ca. 100 dB per watt @ 1 meter sensitivity. No complaints.


DSC_9976 (3) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Most consumer & "audiophile" loudspeakers today tend to have low sensitivities. For example 20 dB lower sensitivity would mean that one hundred times as much power is required to drive a loudspeaker to the same SPL output. Realistically, many loudspeakers today are. ca. 85 dB sensitivity; 3.5 watts into 100 dB speakers, in terms of sheer SPL, would equate to about 111 watts into 85 dB speakers.

motorstereo

I've used a 10 wpc t-amp on my 105db efficient klipschorns and that combination will get loud enough to drive you right out of the room. At the other end of the spectrum I also use 1200 wpc monoblocks on my 92db efficient Polk speakers and that combination won't drive you out of the room but they will get your toes tapping with 120 watts showing on the meters. 2 totally different systems and both enjoyable.

g7trader

motorstereo wrote: »

I've used a 10 wpc t-amp on my 105db efficient klipschorns and that combination will get loud enough to drive you right out of the room. At the other end of the spectrum I also use 1200 wpc monoblocks on my 92db efficient Polk speakers and that combination won't drive you out of the room but they will get your toes tapping with 120 watts showing on the meters. 2 totally different systems and both enjoyable.

But does the 10wpc system sound weak and trebly where as the other 1200wpc sounds bassy and warm full of midrange?

treitz3

No. There is wattage and then there is current.

Tom

tonyb

g7trader wrote: »

motorstereo wrote: »

I've used a 10 wpc t-amp on my 105db efficient klipschorns and that combination will get loud enough to drive you right out of the room. At the other end of the spectrum I also use 1200 wpc monoblocks on my 92db efficient Polk speakers and that combination won't drive you out of the room but they will get your toes tapping with 120 watts showing on the meters. 2 totally different systems and both enjoyable.

But does the 10wpc system sound weak and trebly where as the other 1200wpc sounds bassy and warm full of midrange?

Nope, just a matter of matching amps to speakers. Some speakers require a heavier dose of current, some don't, to reach the same loudness.

Should also add, it depends too on the type of music one listens to. Music with faster transients need some more power to reproduce to make it believable and life size.

motorstereo

But does the 10wpc system sound weak and trebly where as the other 1200wpc sounds bassy and warm full of midrange?[/quote]

Tonyb answered the question very well. In my case I greatly prefer the Polks over the Khorns mainly because I find horns and long term listening not to my liking.

mhardy6647

It's not just about current capability, though -- current capability of a power amplifier will be a key factor for amplifiers with brutal impedance curves... in particular those with dips to extremely low impedance, and especially when those dips occur in a frequency range that corresponds to significant amounts of the signal.

There was a time when loudspeakers were designed to be acoustically sensitive and electrically efficient (efficiency is the measure of the percentage of electrical power delivered to the speaker which is transduced to acoustic output power). In those days, power was expensive. Now, it is cheap, and the philosophy of loudspeaker design reflects that reality (for better or for worse).

The development of the acoustic suspension "alignment" by Villchur/Acoustic Research in the 1950s was, arguably, the driver for the popularity of low sensitivty loudspeakers. In the case of the classic AR loudspeakers, the Devil's bargain was to give up gobs of sensitivity (and thus amplifier compatibility, in those days) to get good LF performance (qualitatively and quantitatively) in a small (by the standards of that time) package.

But I digress...

Jstas

My hand built 8W x 2 11BM8 powered tube amp and a set of Klipsch Heresys beg to differ....loudly. Very loudly.

mhardy6647

Heresys are very sensitive and very easy to drive

They're also not exactly paragons of low frequency extension, though (nor are my Altecs,
despite being in much, much larger enclosures).

For the OP's benefit (if he or she is still hangin' around this thread), there's a fairly unavoidable loudspeaker design concept that's widely referred to as Hoffman's Iron Law.

1) Bass Extension

2) High Sensitivity

3) Small Enclosure

You can have any pair of those parameters in any given loudspeaker design -- but you cannot have all three.

Jstas

I dunno, my Heresys dig deep enough me.

They're Heresy II's, though and they have revised crossover and driver designs from the original.

mhardy6647

I couldn't find a "published" frequency response curve for any of the Heresy morphs, but this one, for a Hersey 2, looks roughly "right":



source: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?4624-Will-cane-grill-cloth-block-highs/page2

The use of a senstive woofer with accordion suspension in a small close enclosure (technicaly, I think, an infinite baffle) limits the LF extension.

mhardy6647

Yes the newer ones are better than the earlier ones -- and there's nothing at all wrong with what Heresys do... but there is a price paid for their size and sensitivity compared, to, say, the Cornwalls. The latter are ahem rather larger, with concommitant extension in bass output at lower frequencies.

I had a pair of Cornwalls for a decade... used mostly with single-ended 2A3 amplification (ca. 3.5 watts per channel; same kind of amplifier I currently use with "FrankenAltecs").

kharp1

Anyone that was in the Volti room when Greg bumped the volume from a scant couple of watts to maybe 20 or 30 watts (think he was running a 35-40 watt Raven) thought the hotel was coming down from an earthquake. Maybe the most intense bass I've ever experienced.

ZLTFUL

Those who don't know, don't know that they don't know.

I am content with 3.5wpc from the ACA Monos, 35wpc from my hybrid EL34 AMC and 100wpc from the VTLs I am fostering for Russ.

DSkip

I'm pretty much stuck in the world of high powered SET - high powered meaning anything double digits.

delkal

The OP needs to find an amp with the volume displayed in DBs and experiment some. I doubt he rarely used more than 10 watts.

For a reality check think of this. It takes10 times the power to get an increase of 10 DBs. So lets assume you have a 100 watt amp. Most DB displays max out at +10 to +15 DBs but lets assume your amp maxes out at +10DB.

That means when you play music at 0DBs (very loud) you are only using 10 watts.

At -10 DBs (still loud) you are only using 1 watt.

and at -20 DBs (listening level where you can still talk) you are only using 0.1 watt.


And another random thought........going from 100 watts to 200 watts will only get you an extra +3DBs. This is the amount that can usually be heard as being louder but usually this is with a text tone. I doubt anyone could really tell while listening to music. Check it out yourself. Listen to some music and increase the volume by 3DBs. Hear any difference? Maybe / maybe not but you just doubled the amount of watts you were using.

One more......anyone who claims a 100 watt amp is louder than an 80 watt amp is full of it.

BlueFox

If your amp doesn't make a 1000 watts per channel with 4 ohm loads then it isn't squat.

F1nut

So lets assume you have a 100 watt amp. Most DB displays max out at +10 to +15 DBs but lets assume your amp maxes out at +10DB.

That means when you play music at 0DBs (very loud) you are only using 10 watts.

That's a poor presumption.

And another random thought........going from 100 watts to 200 watts will only get you an extra +3DBs. This is the amount that can usually be heard as being louder but usually this is with a text tone. I doubt anyone could really tell while listening to music.

I can hear a .5dB increase listening to music.

One more......anyone who claims a 100 watt amp is louder than an 80 watt amp is full of it.

You've got a lot to learn.

pkquat

mhardy6647 wrote: »

concommitant

Adj. "accompanying especially in a subordinate or incidental way"

My new word for the day. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concomitant

And short story regarding efficiency. I was helping out in an old theater that was getting refurbished. They had two big Electro-voice speakers for the sound. I think they had 15" or 18" woofers and a horn. A small battery operated FM radio easily drove them directly and filled the theater. Then I brought in my old generic walkman style tape player that was designed for old not very sensitive headphones. Setting the volume at 2 is max. or more on today's devices, and I think 3 would destroy most of today's small headphones. With that it was like a small rock concert in the theater. As I recall the original theater amp was about 10W and was told that was more than enough. That was a big lesson in efficiency.

delkal

F1nut wrote: »

So lets assume you have a 100 watt amp. Most DB displays max out at +10 to +15 DBs but lets assume your amp maxes out at +10DB.

That means when you play music at 0DBs (very loud) you are only using 10 watts.

That's a poor presumption.

And another random thought........going from 100 watts to 200 watts will only get you an extra +3DBs. This is the amount that can usually be heard as being louder but usually this is with a text tone. I doubt anyone could really tell while listening to music.

I can hear a .5dB increase listening to music.

One more......anyone who claims a 100 watt amp is louder than an 80 watt amp is full of it.

You've got a lot to learn.

What is the correct assumption then? I did try and simplify the numbers some to make my description clear but it is a close approximation. How far off am I?

I am glad you think you can hear a 0.5 DB increase but I will call BS. Especially if this is listening to music and not a pure test tone. Plus or minus 3 DB's is generally regarded as the level which MOST people can hear a change with a test tone. I know some peoples hearing is better and I am sure there are some 18 year olds that might be able to hear a 1 DB change (with a test tone). But you are not 18 anymore.

Everyone can try this for themselves. Close your eyes and start listening to music. Then have someone else turn the volume up and down 1 DB. You won't notice any change. Experiment how far they have to go till you can reliably hear a difference and report back.

The power ratio between an 80 and a 100 watt amp is 1.25x. Coincidentally a 1.26 increase in power gets you 1 DB more sound. So I guess your ears are so sensitive you can not only hear the difference but you also consider it a louder amp?

mlistens03

I can't hear 1 DB louder. I can barely hear 2.
With test tones, maybe, I never thought to try, I'll give that a try later, but definitely not with music.

mhardy6647

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Those who don't know, don't know that they don't know.

I am content with 3.5wpc from the ACA Monos, 35wpc from my hybrid EL34 AMC and 100wpc from the VTLs I am fostering for Russ.

I thought the ACA was closer to six watts...

mhardy6647

pkquat wrote: »

mhardy6647 wrote: »

concommitant

Adj. "accompanying especially in a subordinate or incidental way"

My new word for the day. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concomitant

And short story regarding efficiency. I was helping out in an old theater that was getting refurbished. They had two big Electro-voice speakers for the sound. I think they had 15" or 18" woofers and a horn. A small battery operated FM radio easily drove them directly and filled the theater. Then I brought in my old generic walkman style tape player that was designed for old not very sensitive headphones. Setting the volume at 2 is max. or more on today's devices, and I think 3 would destroy most of today's small headphones. With that it was like a small rock concert in the theater. As I recall the original theater amp was about 10W and was told that was more than enough. That was a big lesson in efficiency.

1. I hope I spelled it right!

2. The ol' demo dealers liked to do for Klipschorns was to drive one with the earphone output of a transitor radio. The result (with a loudspeaker with 104-ish dB sensitivity) is pretty striking.

Jstas

If by "pretty striking" you mean like a 2x4 with a rusty nail in it to the face then I would tend to believe you.

motorstereo

I am glad you think you can hear a 0.5 DB increase but I will call BS. Especially if this is listening to music and not a pure test tone. Plus or minus 3 DB's is generally regarded as the level which MOST people can hear a change with a test tone. I know some peoples hearing is better and I am sure there are some 18 year olds that might be able to hear a 1 DB change (with a test tone). But you are not 18 anymore.

Count me in as being able to hear .5 db increases. My Mcintosh C100's volume control is calibrated in .5 db steps and a .5db change up or down is quite noticeable even to these 62 year old ears. 3db would be 6 steps on the volume control and that is a huge change in the sound. I'm betting there's not a single member here that can't easily hear either of those changes.

Viking64

motorstereo wrote: »

I'm betting there's not a single member here that can't easily hear either of those changes.

FestYboy

motorstereo wrote: »

Count me in as being able to hear .5 db increases. My Mcintosh C100's volume control is calibrated in .5 db steps and a .5db change up or down is quite noticeable even to these 62 year old ears. 3db would be 6 steps on the volume control and that is a huge change in the sound. I'm betting there's not a single member here that can't easily hear either of those changes.

This raises the question: is that .5 dB shift on the pre amp stage or the power output stage? I suspect it makes a difference.