What's with the Watts

[canuck1995]

I'm pretty new with home theater and I need some expert opinions. I bought a Yamaha HTR-5760 which has 95W per channel. My speaker specs are as follows:

Front speakers - Pioneer S-H453F (3-Way) Maximum Input is 160W
Presence Speakers - RCA 50W
Center Channel - Quest Q (2-Way Dual 5.25") - 100W
Subwoofer - JBL PB8 - 100W
Surround - JBL E20 - 120W
Rear Back Surround - Sony 100W

I've been reading a lot and I'm confused some would say that underpowering your speakers is good but some would say otherwise. I'm not that much worried about the 100W speakers as there is not much difference with the receiver. But I'm concerned about the 120W Surround, 160W Front and the 50W presence. Can anyone enlighten me on the consequence of this setup? Thanks.

[RGA]

Well watts are indicators of almost nothing by themselves. the speaker ratings are the supposed maximum number of watts the speaker can handle.

Most people probably don;t get their systems past 15 watts anyway even at pretty loud levels.

I run a 10 watt amp - it is more then enough to get complaints from neighbors. Volume is more about speaker sensitivity - the higher the sensitivity the louder you can play with less watts.

So if a speaker is 93db sensitive 1 watt/1 meter it means it will be 93decibals at a distance of 1 meter with just 1 watt of power. A 90db sensitive speaker well yuo can see witll be 90 decibals at 1 meter with 1 watt.

So what's the big deal -- well the 90 db speaker to play as loud as the first one needs DOUBLE the amplifier power -- so 2 watts. to get to 93db.

Now say you play really loud what the above leads to is that if I own a 93db sensitive speaker and a 50 watt amp I will get the same volume level you get with 90db sensitive speakers but you need DOUBLE the power so a 100 watt amp.

A better example is say you own 85db sensitive speakers you would need TEN times the power to get the same volume I can with 95db sensitive speakers. You can work the math yourself

85db speakers (120 watt max)

85db -- 1 watt
88db -- 2watt
91db -- 4 watts
94db -- 8 watts
97db -- 16watts
100db -- 32watts
103db -- 64watts
106db -- 128watts (the speaker can not play louder than this)

now lets say you have 95db sensitive speakers (120 Watt max)

95db -- 1 watt
98ddb--2 watts
101db -- 4watts
104db -- 8 watts
107db -- 16 watts (so this speaker is now about equal volume with JUST 16 watts while the speakers above need 128 watts.

110db -- 32 watts
113db - 64 watts
116db 128 watts (now we are at that same watt rating but as you can see this speaker is playing at 116db while the speakers above are at 106db.

What's the difference in 10decibals -- well this is DOUBLE the PERCEIVED volume level.


There are audiophiles who run 115db sensitve speakers with 3 watt amplifiers -- consider that with that 3 watts they can hit 118decibals --- while the first speaker can't play anywhere near that and the second system needs 128 watts and still falls short.

Watts are the BIG LIE in the ndustry started mainly by cheap receiver makers in America and Japan to sell to people who know nothing aboyut audio equipment -- it is far easier to sell a person watts than quality. You will notice receiver makers with one model at 70 watt then the more expensive one at 90 and so on -- it's so bogus but it's easy and cheap to sell it this way.

[canuck1995]

Thanks RGA but I'm still confused, let me put up some straight question, will a 95 Watts receiver blow up a 50W speaker? Will a 160 W speaker damage a 95 watts receiver?

[kexodusc]

Watts are the BIG LIE in the ndustry started mainly by cheap receiver makers in America and Japan to sell to people who know nothing aboyut audio equipment -- it is far easier to sell a person watts than quality. You will notice receiver makers with one model at 70 watt then the more expensive one at 90 and so on -- it's so bogus but it's easy and cheap to sell it this way.

Well, I have to agree with you except I think "BIG LIE" is a bit harsh, and mega-watt marketing exists in Europe as well, not just Japan and America. Audiophiles around the globe never bought into this, but pretty much every average Joe did.

But I don't blame the companies. People are too eager to accept the first bit of information they see as all they need to know. Watt's and THD. Maybe ignorance is bliss?

Canuck1995: Speaker watt rating tend to refer to the maximum input the speaker could tolerate electrically. Problem is mechanically, most woofers and tweeters, even the ones in RGA's Audio Note's, will reach their mechanical limits at frequencies below 40 Hz well below the maximimum electrical power rating of the speakers. You need either big woofers (10" or bigger) or a long excursion (which makes the speaker sound worse the longer the throw) to maintain power handling at lower frequencies. Lucky for us, most music doesn't play info below 40Hz very often, very loud, or very long. You'd need T/S parameters of the driver to predict when the mechanical limit occurs.

I wouldn't worry about it. Set the presence speakers to the "small" setting (if it's available, it probably assumes small anyway). If you're worried about power handling, set them all to small.

[GMichael]

Thanks RGA but I'm still confused, let me put up some straight question, will a 95 Watts receiver blow up a 50W speaker? Will a 160 W speaker damage a 95 watts receiver?

No, you should have no problems.

[RGA]

You can run that amp fine and it should not hurt anything -- you will hear distortion -- when you hear distortion, most noticable in the treble, turn it down -- distortion is a kind of early warning system before your tweeter fries. I have only blown one speaker in my life a Fisher speaker that could only take 20 watts. I was young and the speaker as it turned out didn;t like Aerosmith at top volume.

Some speakers have protection circuitry like Cerwin Vega so none of the watt issues matter.


Kex come now you know how AN bass works -- the E's tuning port point is 29hz the woofers are not piston firing and not long throw - they radiate and use cabinet reinforcement which means that their woofer is never under serious duress even with heavy bass content. The cabinet relieves the woofer from heavy work - and there is no need to relieve the cabuinet of anything.The woofer itself rolls off at around 60hz in the J and it's the same woofer in the E so I assume it's identical.

[kexodusc]

Kex come now you know how AN bass works -- the E's tuning port point is 29hz the woofers are not piston firing and not long throw - they radiate and use cabinet reinforcement which means that their woofer is never under serious duress even with heavy bass content. The cabinet relieves the woofer from heavy work - and there is no need to relieve the cabuinet of anything.The woofer itself rolls off at around 60hz in the J and it's the same woofer in the E so I assume it's identical.

RGA, you've just described how pretty much every reflex system works. I've never taken apart an AN woofer, but I assume it has a voice coil, a magnet, and a cone...Maybe it doesn't, in which case I apologize.

Point is, pump infinite power at 40 Hz (well, any Hz) into the AN E, and she's gonna blow. Now, you can decrease that power to a certain level where it won't blow...I don't know what that is...but it's there.

"Long throw" BTW, is a marketing term I'm really getting sick of hearing...

[Woochifer]

Watts are the BIG LIE in the ndustry started mainly by cheap receiver makers in America and Japan to sell to people who know nothing aboyut audio equipment -- it is far easier to sell a person watts than quality. You will notice receiver makers with one model at 70 watt then the more expensive one at 90 and so on -- it's so bogus but it's easy and cheap to sell it this way

Sheesh, and you were doing so well up to this point! You just can't resist the urge to conjure up with these conspiracy theories, can you?

If you read up on the history of audio equipment, you'd know that wattage specs have been used for marketing purposes pretty much all the way to the beginning of the audio industry. And before the FTC stepped in and enacted its amplifier rule in the early-70s, there was no consistently reported way of identifying the output on an amplifier. If anything, the manipulation and gross misinterpretation of the wattage specs was far worse before the FTC stepped in. You think receiver makers right now are perpetuating BIG LIES (WTF is it with you and this all caps emphasis?)? Even more ridiculous were the wattage ratings getting quoted with the "hi fi" amps that were sold in the 60s and early-70s. The way that wattage is sold has nothing to do with "cheap receiver makers in America and Japan," it's just how it's always been.

Wattage is what it is. There's no BIG LIE about it when you read the specs. If consumers don't know how to interpret the specs or attribute inordinate value to the wattage that doesn't exist, it's not the industry's fault. The big problem right now is that the FTC rules have loopholes galore with multichannel amps, and do not require that the wattage get reported using an all channels driven test.

Sound quality is more elusive to differentiate and define because it is completely subjective. With a SS amplifier, you're not going to get much differentiation with the frequency response, but you will get plenty of differentiation with the wattage. Plenty of other specs that can be used to define one amp over another, but wattage is the most commonly reported one. All of the others are less common place and more difficult to explain.


Kex come now you know how AN bass works -- the E's tuning port point is 29hz the woofers are not piston firing and not long throw - they radiate and use cabinet reinforcement which means that their woofer is never under serious duress even with heavy bass content. The cabinet relieves the woofer from heavy work - and there is no need to relieve the cabuinet of anything.The woofer itself rolls off at around 60hz in the J and it's the same woofer in the E so I assume it's identical.

You really need to get up to speed on the characteristics of ported speakers. Unless the woofer or amp have a subsonic filter inserted into the signal path, the woofer will be under VERY severe duress for sounds that go below the tuned port frequency. That's just the nature of ported speakers. At 29 Hz, the woofer will not move at all, and all of the bass output will go through the port. But, below 29 Hz, the driver will physically unload because the back pressure from the port that normally dampens the driver movement will no longer be there. If the source signal has ANY content below the tuned port frequency, then the mechanical limits of the driver are very much at issue. In addition, as the frequencies go above the tuned frequency, then the cone movement is again a factor.

[RGA]

RGA, you've just described how pretty much every reflex system works. I've never taken apart an AN woofer, but I assume it has a voice coil, a magnet, and a cone...Maybe it doesn't, in which case I apologize.

Point is, pump infinite power at 40 Hz (well, any Hz) into the AN E, and she's gonna blow. Now, you can decrease that power to a certain level where it won't blow...I don't know what that is...but it's there.

"Long throw" BTW, is a marketing term I'm really getting sick of hearing...

Sorry maybe I was not clear - yes of course An has a wattage limit -- on the E it's about 80 watts. Cerwin Vega's D9 has a limit as well but it was advertised as a no blow speaker with protection circuitry -- their claim and demonstration was that you could stick the speaker wire into the walll outlet and you were not gonna blow the speaker -- I never did it so who knows.

The E on the tweeter at least does have a similar thing because Constantine Soo drove the E in review too hard and the tweeter shut down -- there is no protection circuitry so one would need to know how the tweeter shuts off under duress but isn't protection circuitry??

The E achieves its bass respionse and independantly measured by three different magazines at 18hz-6db and two measure it at 22hz -3db and 12hz at -10db.

You'll have to ask Peter about the way the driver works because he makes it a point to stress that it does not operate as a piston but as a radiating pattern - he gets into trouble with his English as it is his 6th language so figuring out his lingo versus regualr lingo sometimes are exactly the same thing with different wording - sometimes it is not.

I don;t really care because I just listen to his speaker the kind of bass it offers and then listen to say the B&W and Paradigm slim lines -- it ain't the same bass. No one talks about the kind of bass as if it is all the same -- it is not all the same lots of speakers claim 40hz -3db and don't sound at all alike...and i'll happily put my money where my mouth is -- bring any Paradigm Standmount to my apartment that claims 40hz and we'll run it up against my Wharfedales which also claim 40hz -- winner gets to keep the other guys speakers. We play at 100decibals.

[kexodusc]

I'll take you up on the offer. The only Paradigm's I have left are the Studio 40's. Not really doing anything with them these days. You however, have to cover the flight from NB to BC. :D (by my math, even via WestJet, that'd be more than the fair market value of my Studio 40's).

I don't know what Peter is talking about when he refers to radiating...all speakers radiate. That's sound for ya. I'm not doubting him, I just don't know what it could be. Woofers don't operate like a piston at all, I'm not sure where you or he came up with that.

I know the AN's are a step up in bass on my Studio 40's. Wide cabinets are known for better bass sound and this is certainly reflected in the AN models I've heard. The trade-off is diffraction and loss of imaging to a degree, not that it isn't still good (driver quality will help remedy this). Keep in mind though, the cabinet size of the AN-J's is more than 50% larger than Studio 40's, too. I wouldn't really compare them to any standmount speaker. I wouldn't consider bass to be one of Paradigm's strongpoints.

[Woochifer]

I don;t really care because I just listen to his speaker the kind of bass it offers and then listen to say the B&W and Paradigm slim lines -- it ain't the same bass. No one talks about the kind of bass as if it is all the same -- it is not all the same lots of speakers claim 40hz -3db and don't sound at all alike...and i'll happily put my money where my mouth is -- bring any Paradigm Standmount to my apartment that claims 40hz and we'll run it up against my Wharfedales which also claim 40hz -- winner gets to keep the other guys speakers. We play at 100decibals.

Once again, creating a strawman argument and strutting about more macho posing with your big bad Wharfedales. Tell me, what Paradigm or B&W standmount claims 40 Hz in its frequency response? Go ahead and look them up. Sure, you'd win this challenge, but only because the premise behind this little bit of machisimo is false.

For the Studio series standmounts, Paradigm has never claimed a frequency response measurement (+-2 db) below the 50 Hz range. The low frequency extension that they quote using the DIN 45 500 spec, which accounts for "typical" room boundary effects, is nothing more than an estimate. In my current room, I have measured my Studio 40s down to 35 Hz, which matches Paradigm's frequency extension spec. In other rooms, they did not reach 40 Hz.

So, in your proposed legion of boom pissing match, your Wharfedales of course would sound different. But, whether or not that bass output qualitatively sounds better or if it's more accurate or more even or less boomy is an entirely different question, and one that the room will have a great role in determining.

[RGA]

Sheesh, and you were doing so well up to this point! You just can't resist the urge to conjure up with these conspiracy theories, can you?

If you read up on the history of audio equipment, you'd know that wattage specs have been used for marketing purposes pretty much all the way to the beginning of the audio industry.

Then how is it a conspiracy? You have just said the exact same thing differently. Watts are used as advertsing to help sell products how is that different? The article Leonard wrote is not untrue when it comes to watts and the industry. In fact even posting the watts on amplifiers and speakers is not really necessary since my amp will drive every speaker on the planet -- will it drive it loud that is another issue but it WILL drive it. The fact that aspeaker has been designed with huge impedence swings and low sensitivty isn;t the fault of the amplifier and there is zero need to make a speaker like that - thus best avoided IMO.


And before the FTC stepped in and enacted its amplifier rule in the early-70s, there was no consistently reported way of identifying the output on an amplifier. If anything, the manipulation and gross misinterpretation of the wattage specs was far worse before the FTC stepped in. You think receiver makers right now are perpetuating BIG LIES (WTF is it with you and this all caps emphasis?)? Even more ridiculous were the wattage ratings getting quoted with the "hi fi" amps that were sold in the 60s and early-70s. The way that wattage is sold has nothing to do with "cheap receiver makers in America and Japan," it's just how it's always been.

Well I was referring to receivers then as well not the ones the last 3 years. As the article noted about 70s amps. It is not a lie top post the watt figures sure if it is 70 watts it is and if the other is 90 it is...I'm not blaming Denon or Sony for that -- but the industry as a whole for perpetuating the NOTION that watts are gonna = louder. They may but they certainly may not. It is not dissimilar to cables sold at Future shop where these people are telling the uninformed that their cable will make more of a difference than upgrading speakers...they say the same thing -- well you should get the 90 watt receiver over the 70 watt receiver which in itself is inaudible and a LIE to gouge the customer of more money. Now the higher watt receiver because it is a higher up model may in fact sound better because it may be using a superior power supply so the ends may be true but the means(reasoning) is not. That's my gripe that I don't want to see people get sucked into - well get the all discrete amplifiers 120 watts per channel at $5000.00 becuase it's better than the other brand's 95 watter at $750.00.

You're basically getting on me for advice you give and many others give. Back in my day of buying receivers people in the know would warn me about getting those 120 watt Sonys over the 80 watt Yamaha (you know Yamaha the gutless wonder compared to the Sony). Only it isn't partially because of the no standard standards.



Wattage is what it is. There's no BIG LIE about it when you read the specs. If consumers don't know how to interpret the specs or attribute inordinate value to the wattage that doesn't exist, it's not the industry's fault. The big problem right now is that the FTC rules have loopholes galore with multichannel amps, and do not require that the wattage get reported using an all channels driven test.

Sure it is the industries fault. Manufacturers put the number first and are as much dreamt up by marketers than engineers. I'm notinterested in multichannel amps so I don't care about what they advertise as their watts. I know a flagship denon claimed a number a while back that it's own intenal circuitry could not mathematically handle -- this was some years ago but it was something like 1400 watts 170 per channel and whatever regulator is inside the amplifier could not handle more than 2/3 the figure - There is such a thing as a lie of omission --- oh we meant just one channel at a time -- but that;s not mentioned -- If I buy a H/T amp and it says 100 watts per channel -- and the thing has 5 channels then it is very reasonable to expect that this amp will put out 100 watts to all 5 channels simultaneously across the entire frequency band. That is not the case though as it is usualy at one frequency with only 2 channels and only when the moon is full. I don;t really care if they fiddle with it all and the amp that claimed 100 watts is really only 75 - no one is gonna likely hear it as such anyway. It's wehn those rear channels are claimed 125 and really are 20 where I would gripe a bit.



Sound quality is more elusive to differentiate and define because it is completely subjective. With a SS amplifier, you're not going to get much differentiation with the frequency response, but you will get plenty of differentiation with the wattage. Plenty of other specs that can be used to define one amp over another, but wattage is the most commonly reported one. All of the others are less common place and more difficult to explain.

Well I agree and I don't think receiver buyers really much care - given a certain price range most of the big reciever makers are going to be in the ballpark of eachother - I also don't think most people take the time to audition. It's tough to argue this point because Future Shop and major department stores (with no dedicated listening rooms) I am willing to bet sells more Receivers in Canada than all other stereo outlets combined in the rest of Canada -- and I would bet it's the exact same scenario in the United States but Circuit City and Best Buy and their ilk along with Costco. So you can't sell sound - you can sell features but even here there is a limit where features become more of a nuisance than anything else I suspect and with all the terminology most average buyers either don;t truly understand it or just don't care. So I agree this one has 70 watts this has 90 more is better so I'll get that one. Trouble is more is not better.




You really need to get up to speed on the characteristics of ported speakers. Unless the woofer or amp have a subsonic filter inserted into the signal path, the woofer will be under VERY severe duress for sounds that go below the tuned port frequency. That's just the nature of ported speakers. At 29 Hz, the woofer will not move at all, and all of the bass output will go through the port. But, below 29 Hz, the driver will physically unload because the back pressure from the port that normally dampens the driver movement will no longer be there. If the source signal has ANY content below the tuned port frequency, then the mechanical limits of the driver are very much at issue. In addition, as the frequencies go above the tuned frequency, then the cone movement is again a factor.

Yes maybe you can explain this to me then. I just put on my Sound & Vision test disc which has the usual array of phase channelpink noise separation checks. It also has a Spot frequency check and Logarithmic Frequency sweep.

Now it starts at 4hz and goes to 20khz I turned the volume up a fair way and you just do not see the woofer move AT ALL yet you hear the bass depth (and the J is no doubt tuned higher than the E but even if the same then what you say when I run the 25hz tone I should be see huge movement of the driver and at 32hz there is none -- there is audible bass on both frequencies in my room the 25hz is obviously less loud.

My Wharfedales also ported move like the dickens and have less bass. If I read what you wrote correctly the J's woofer below it's tuning point should be flapping away under that point which would have to bethe same or higher than the E. I don't pretend to be an engineer in the least but I have put what you wrote to the test and so maybe you have an explanation --- I try and give info on AN speakers as best as I can but to be honest I don't really get what Peter is talking about with radiating drivers versus piston drivers (they both go out and in) and I don't feel I have been able to discuss the cabinet competantly. To tell you the truth I'm not really interested in all of that "techno-stuff' but I do try and find the techno-stuff out so that I can pass it aliong to people who just have to know it before they audition it.

My second hand info on the E was that they played and measured at a show organ work to 16hz with a turntable at room shaking levels and the woofers barely move. My Wharfedales will really vibratewhen pressed so I know what it looks like and I've seen Cerwin Vegas look like they were going to fly out of the box they moved so far. Interesting. I also don;t really get what they mean when the Cabinet is providing the bass - cabinets also don't move and yet if the J gets 20hz -3db and the driver rolls off at 60hz as Hi-fi Choice suggest then that is quite significant cabinet reinforcemnet -- and it's significantly over my head I concede.

[RGA]

Once again, creating a strawman argument and strutting about more macho posing with your big bad Wharfedales. Tell me, what Paradigm or B&W standmount claims 40 Hz in its frequency response? Go ahead and look them up. Sure, you'd win this challenge, but only because the premise behind this little bit of machisimo is false.

For the Studio series standmounts, Paradigm has never claimed a frequency response measurement (+-2 db) below the 50 Hz range. The low frequency extension that they quote using the DIN 45 500 spec, which accounts for "typical" room boundary effects, is nothing more than an estimate. In my current room, I have measured my Studio 40s down to 35 Hz, which matches Paradigm's frequency extension spec. In other rooms, they did not reach 40 Hz.

So, in your proposed legion of boom pissing match, your Wharfedales of course would sound different. But, whether or not that bass output qualitatively sounds better or if it's more accurate or more even or less boomy is an entirely different question, and one that the room will have a great role in determining.

That is quite true and I left out the sound quality and gutteral feel of bass in my proposition. So the living room in my apartment can support 40hz so what I am seeking is totally uncompressed sound with full range music to 40hz playing at a baseline of 100db so running a 1khz test tone at 100decibals and then putting the Saint Saens and other organ work or heavey trance music from delerium or Madonna Kind of deep synth bass. The one that compresses and folds up first loses. We will limit it to whatthe 40 can handle in terms of watts. So if it can handle 120 watts then we wil pump that into both speakers -- let's see how 40hz sounds from both at realistic levels.

[Woochifer]

Then how is it a conspiracy? You have just said the exact same thing differently. Watts are used as advertsing to help sell products how is that different? The article Leonard wrote is not untrue when it comes to watts and the industry. In fact even posting the watts on amplifiers and speakers is not really necessary since my amp will drive every speaker on the planet -- will it drive it loud that is another issue but it WILL drive it. The fact that aspeaker has been designed with huge impedence swings and low sensitivty isn;t the fault of the amplifier and there is zero need to make a speaker like that - thus best avoided IMO.

The point is that you once again choose to blame "cheap receiver makers" for something that even "hi fi" separates manufacturers have perpetuated from the beginning.

That article that you posted has so many false generalizations in it. It's written from the vantage point of someone's preference for SET amps, and trying to sweep everything along to fit that perspective, even if the evidence under more thorough scrutiny is wraught with exceptions and situations that do not fit the pattern that the author is trying to conjure up. His presumptions about sealed speakers and digital audio are laughable at best, because he's trying to fabricate a technical argument around nothing more than a personal preference.


Well I was referring to receivers then as well not the ones the last 3 years. As the article noted about 70s amps. It is not a lie top post the watt figures sure if it is 70 watts it is and if the other is 90 it is...I'm not blaming Denon or Sony for that -- but the industry as a whole for perpetuating the NOTION that watts are gonna = louder. They may but they certainly may not. It is not dissimilar to cables sold at Future shop where these people are telling the uninformed that their cable will make more of a difference than upgrading speakers...they say the same thing -- well you should get the 90 watt receiver over the 70 watt receiver which in itself is inaudible and a LIE to gouge the customer of more money. Now the higher watt receiver because it is a higher up model may in fact sound better because it may be using a superior power supply so the ends may be true but the means(reasoning) is not. That's my gripe that I don't want to see people get sucked into - well get the all discrete amplifiers 120 watts per channel at $5000.00 becuase it's better than the other brand's 95 watter at $750.00.

The wattage specs are not BIG LIES as you say they are. They are what they are. Like I said, it's the interpretation of what it all means that consumers need to get up to speed on. What sales reps at Future Shop say, and what the manufacturers put on their spec sheets are two entirely different things. One is an objectively verifiable specification, while the other is pure salesmanship. Just like sound quality is something that cannot be verified, since it's entirely subjective.


Sure it is the industries fault. Manufacturers put the number first and are as much dreamt up by marketers than engineers. I'm notinterested in multichannel amps so I don't care about what they advertise as their watts.

What a load of horsecrap. How is it the "industries"[sp] fault when the wattage output is something that can be verified? Where's your information that the marketers are involved in the design process of the amp section just as much as the engineers?

With the two-channel output ratings, they are accurate and typically do not deviate from what the manufacturer claims when using the FTC spec (which is required to be posted for at least one of the published measurements if the manufacturer chooses to disclose the output).


I know a flagship denon claimed a number a while back that it's own intenal circuitry could not mathematically handle -- this was some years ago but it was something like 1400 watts 170 per channel and whatever regulator is inside the amplifier could not handle more than 2/3 the figure - There is such a thing as a lie of omission --- oh we meant just one channel at a time -- but that;s not mentioned -- If I buy a H/T amp and it says 100 watts per channel -- and the thing has 5 channels then it is very reasonable to expect that this amp will put out 100 watts to all 5 channels simultaneously across the entire frequency band. That is not the case though as it is usualy at one frequency with only 2 channels and only when the moon is full. I don;t really care if they fiddle with it all and the amp that claimed 100 watts is really only 75 - no one is gonna likely hear it as such anyway. It's wehn those rear channels are claimed 125 and really are 20 where I would gripe a bit.

The simple fact is that nowhere does the manufacturers' specs say that the output ratings are all channels driven, because that's not what the FTC rule requires. And that's the loophole with multichannel amps. The manufacturers are free to post a single frequency test output rating, but they would have to simultaneously have available a spec that uses the FTC test, which uses a full spectrum tone into an 8 ohm load. Look at any receiver's specifications. Typically, you will find one set of output ratings done with the FTC test, and another one using a nonstandard method. Both of them are accurate for those conditions, but one of them obviously more closely approximates real world conditions than the other.


Yes maybe you can explain this to me then. I just put on my Sound & Vision test disc which has the usual array of phase channelpink noise separation checks. It also has a Spot frequency check and Logarithmic Frequency sweep.

Now it starts at 4hz and goes to 20khz I turned the volume up a fair way and you just do not see the woofer move AT ALL yet you hear the bass depth (and the J is no doubt tuned higher than the E but even if the same then what you say when I run the 25hz tone I should be see huge movement of the driver and at 32hz there is none -- there is audible bass on both frequencies in my room the 25hz is obviously less loud.

If the driver does not move with the extreme low test tones below the port frequency, then that's simply the physical limitation of what the driver will reproduce. THAT'S what Kex has been telling you about the Thiele/Small (T/S) parameters. With DIY drivers, the T/S parameters are provided, and with those you can project the frequency response for any number of box volume/port diameter combinations. With prefinished speakers, the manufacturers typically do not make the T/S parameters available to the public.


My Wharfedales also ported move like the dickens and have less bass. If I read what you wrote correctly the J's woofer below it's tuning point should be flapping away under that point which would have to bethe same or higher than the E. I don't pretend to be an engineer in the least but I have put what you wrote to the test and so maybe you have an explanation --- I try and give info on AN speakers as best as I can but to be honest I don't really get what Peter is talking about with radiating drivers versus piston drivers (they both go out and in) and I don't feel I have been able to discuss the cabinet competantly. To tell you the truth I'm not really interested in all of that "techno-stuff' but I do try and find the techno-stuff out so that I can pass it aliong to people who just have to know it before they audition it.

Below the tuned port frequency, you no longer have the back pressure of the port dampening the driver movement. However, a bass blocker or filter can attenuate the signal such that the frequencies below the tuned frequency do not cause excessive driver movement. Also, with dual voice coil drivers, one of the coils can be wired to serve as a resistive dampener. Or the driver simply stops responding below a certain frequency because of its physical limitations.


My second hand info on the E was that they played and measured at a show organ work to 16hz with a turntable at room shaking levels and the woofers barely move. My Wharfedales will really vibratewhen pressed so I know what it looks like and I've seen Cerwin Vegas look like they were going to fly out of the box they moved so far. Interesting. I also don;t really get what they mean when the Cabinet is providing the bass - cabinets also don't move and yet if the J gets 20hz -3db and the driver rolls off at 60hz as Hi-fi Choice suggest then that is quite significant cabinet reinforcemnet -- and it's significantly over my head I concede.

It's not really the cabinet reinforcement, it's the port output working in conjunction with the interior volume of the speaker cabinet. Any kind of vibration or resonating by the cabinet is an artifact that colors the original source signal. That's why you have so many advocates for sealed speakers/subwoofers, because they minimize the opportunities for interactions with the cabinet and don't need a precise match between the interior volume and the port diameter. If the E has a port frequency of 29 Hz, then it will still have some output below that frequency, but getting down to 16 Hz means that the room is providing a lot of reinforcement because the natural drop off at the low end (not accounting for physical limitations on the driver) on a ported speaker is 24 db/octave.

[Woochifer]

That is quite true and I left out the sound quality and gutteral feel of bass in my proposition. So the living room in my apartment can support 40hz so what I am seeking is totally uncompressed sound with full range music to 40hz playing at a baseline of 100db so running a 1khz test tone at 100decibals and then putting the Saint Saens and other organ work or heavey trance music from delerium or Madonna Kind of deep synth bass. The one that compresses and folds up first loses. We will limit it to whatthe 40 can handle in terms of watts. So if it can handle 120 watts then we wil pump that into both speakers -- let's see how 40hz sounds from both at realistic levels.

Like I asked, what Paradigm or B&W standmount has a frequency response that's rated at 40 Hz? You're making a rather nonsensical challenge here because nobody has made that claim. This whole macho posturing that you get into with "gutteral feel" of bass is pretty laughable. If your Wharfedales are rated down to 40 Hz and the Paradigm Studios are rated down to the mid-50 Hz range, then what's your point, other than more pointless self-aggrandizing?

With the room reinforcement, my speakers can go down to 35 Hz, but that same room reinforcement also creates nonlinearities and peaking throughout the bass range. Why would I want that? With my speakers, I don't even use them for bass, precisely because these nonlinearities detract from the sound quality. For gutteral bass and impact, that's what a subwoofer is for. With an equalized subwoofer, that combination produces bass that's more even and accurate than any floorstanding speakers that I can drop into the same spot.

[RGA]

The point is that you once again choose to blame "cheap receiver makers" for something that even "hi fi" separates manufacturers have perpetuated from the beginning.

Which hi-fi separates makers? I don't disagree that they are not culpabale as well. but if you read the article their point was that many good makers making very and powerful enough 20 watt and 30watt BEASTS were being confronted with more and mopre speakers 10 - 25 db LESS sensitive. many higher end amp makers crumbled -- see the history since Sugden's -- the A21a is widely noted as being one of the high end makers that is in some ways given credit for saving the high end from the onslaught of crappy high watt recievers. They rode out the pendulum -- even the history of my Wharfedale the 70's E70 illustrates what it offered versus what most speakers at the time were about and moving toward. Klisph was probably the prime American counterpart. As the article mentioned there was no need for low sensitive speakers it was a marketing strategy and a cheaper way to build GOOD loudspeakers -- sure lots of atrocious high sensitve speakers too. I do not go back to stereo buying from the 70s as I'm merely 31 years old. So I am in the hearsay group because I was not there to hear what the best 1940 loudspeaker sounded like. So people like Peter Qvortrup I admit i put some "faith" in on his recounts -- not a particularly objective move but he is not the only one and certainly I check with non sellers.



That article that you posted has so many false generalizations in it. It's written from the vantage point of someone's preference for SET amps, and trying to sweep everything along to fit that perspective, even if the evidence under more thorough scrutiny is wraught with exceptions and situations that do not fit the pattern that the author is trying to conjure up. His presumptions about sealed speakers and digital audio are laughable at best, because he's trying to fabricate a technical argument around nothing more than a personal preference.

It's most certainly written from a SET lover's perspective that however most certainly does not mean it's laughable. Incidentally he makes a sealed cabinet. I think he was pretty clear with specifics and generalities in his article. there are no doubt fantastic exceptions and if there was any he likely owned it and used some of it in his own work.



What a load of horsecrap. How is it the "industries"[sp] fault when the wattage output is something that can be verified? Where's your information that the marketers are involved in the design process of the amp section just as much as the engineers?

You are not understanding what I am talking about -- I am not talking about whether the amp meets 50 watts like they claim -- or meets 800 watts like some claim -- I don;t give a rat's ass whether the amp makes the claim that is on the spec sheet -- they play with the numbers all the time and independant measurements often show up the results as different anyway -- Bryston does better often than spec -- they provide the measurement with their amps -- so the spec says 120 watts on the 3BST but his 3B measured 168 watts.

Marketers tell em to put the biggest number up they can because watts SELL. I am talking about watts in a general term as watts not how many who claim can do what. As that article notes early on whole theaters have been powered very well by 8 watts...we don;t need 100's of watts and we got to needing them for no good reason...I may not have been around then -- but I am around now and I can hear these high senstive speakers and the low sensitive ones with those 8 watters and IMO the wrioter is correct -- the fat that many 70s speaker may or may not have sucked dokey balls is probably true but then IMO most speakers today also suck. Cheap speakers are better than cheap speakers then -- well I heard an early 1980's Diamond from Wharfedale and it is in league with any Titan B&W 303 and the Diamonds were cheap then -- so I dunno about the generality that all cheap speakers today beat all cheap speakers of decades past.



The simple fact is that nowhere does the manufacturers' specs say that the output ratings are all channels driven, because that's not what the FTC rule requires.

Look I know I'm not American but must everything have to have government intervention for it to be adhered to in a honest way. Manufacturers know full well average people who are buying an amplifier to drive 5 speakers will see the watt rating of 5x100 stickered all across the receiver and believe that they are buying an amp that will power all 5 of their speakers at 100 watts each for 500 watts all at the same time. I mean because some third world doesn't care if their people are abused by slave labourers does not mean NIKE should take advantage of that because they can. It's called the super ego. Even if my Id tells me to kill and my ego says i can do it and get away with it and no possible way I could get caugh does not mean I should do it.

It's at the very least intentially misleading to imply 5x100 when in fact it is not 5x100. That implies that I will get 500 watts at the same time with all my speakers on.



And that's the loophole with multichannel amps. The manufacturers are free to post a single frequency test output rating, but they would have to simultaneously have available a spec that uses the FTC test, which uses a full spectrum tone into an 8 ohm load. Look at any receiver's specifications. Typically, you will find one set of output ratings done with the FTC test, and another one using a nonstandard method. Both of them are accurate for those conditions, but one of them obviously more closely approximates real world conditions than the other.

Right -- Ok but again as a reminder my gripe isn't with all of this it is with higher watts equating to better or necessary.



If the driver does not move with the extreme low test tones below the port frequency, then that's simply the physical limitation of what the driver will reproduce. THAT'S what Kex has been telling you about the Thiele/Small (T/S) parameters. With DIY drivers, the T/S parameters are provided, and with those you can project the frequency response for any number of box volume/port diameter combinations. With prefinished speakers, the manufacturers typically do not make the T/S parameters available to the public.

The driver does move it just does not move any more so than it does any other time -- so whether it is 25hz or 40hz or 500 hz to my eye it moves no different -- If I put my hand on the actual woofer I can feel it moving. Just now I'm playing some Elton John and I put a flahlight on the woofer and there is no movement of the driver to the eye. It's late so I can' crank it right now to see what happens.



It's not really the cabinet reinforcement, it's the port output working in conjunction with the interior volume of the speaker cabinet. Any kind of vibration or resonating by the cabinet is an artifact that colors the original source signal. That's why you have so many advocates for sealed speakers/subwoofers, because they do not interact with the cabinet If the E has a port frequency of 29 Hz, then it will still have some output below that frequency, but getting down to 16 Hz means that the room is providing a lot of reinforcement because the natural drop off at the low end (not accounting for physical limitations on the driver) on a ported speaker is 24 db/octave.

My understanding is that they shift stored energy to another frequency and dissipate rather than attempt to store and damp it. Remember also they say it meets any of these numbers when placed in the corner as it was designed for that spot -- so it will likely lose 3db off the corners - Hi Fi Choice has no corners and get the E at 22hz instead of the 18hz Martin Colloms got in corners so that's about right.

I'll have to track Peter down at the CES in Vegas in January and get a proper report which can be scrutinized instead of piece meal hearsay second hand stuff -- I can not reply to the technical aspects where he and more importantly his designers (since he is not) can discuss it in maths. Peter just direct you to the books where his cabinets are located and to snell who designed the Wave Launch method.

lastly I was attempting to avoid AN discussion as much as possible so i would like to get this thread back to where it was and just address what was asked that the amp in question will drive the guys speakers LOL.




People interested in Audio Note's design can read this old link. His equipment has come far since that time and he has managed to wrestle quite a bit more bandwidth than his early versions It goes over their 30 year history the founder (not Peter) and where they come from. I have opened up my e-mail here and will accept questions so I don't get accused of advertising -- I am trying to get away from that but unfortunately my esxperience with low watt high sensitive leads me to what I own, my experiences. Audio Note happens to be where msot of this experience comes from so it's exceedingly difficult not to reference what I know. And they are one of the world's biggest SET maker so it would be like talking about the history of Cars without mentioning Henry Ford. So I sorry for takling the thread off track. http://www.republika.pl/mparvi/audionote.htm

[PAT.P]

RGA I notice the difference of the power know that I bought a Yamaha to replace a Sony .My Dalhquist are rated at 93db@ 2.83v,1m in average room and 90db@2.83v,1m in free field with this receiver Im only using 25% of power and its louder than the Sony was at full volume.Sound comes out way cleaner too.Pat.P

[kexodusc]

RGA: I plugged a few numbers. It never clicked in to me that the cabinets were tuned so far below the Fs of the drivers, I've read it before, just never paid attention. Anyway, I think I understand what's going on.

The AN woofers are very efficient because of their high Fs. (well, the cause and effect might be backwards, but still...).
The tuning point at 3/4 octave or whatever below the Fs (frequency of resonance of the woofer) creates a bass slope that is very gradual in nature, not unlike a sealed cabinet until an incredibly fast roll-off just below the tuning point of the box (29Hz?)
Sure the cabinets are integral part of the "wave launch" design. You'll getmore forward radiating sound instead of omnidirectional loss. The shorter cabinet depth wel help some too. This is especially good for midbass. The downside is loss of imaging. The drivers are spaced so far apart IMO likely to prevent tweeter diffraction issues.

An 8" woofer of light weight, with a very high Fs would be extremely efficient, and my guess is that it's of even higher sensitivity than the finished speaker, and that the real magic, as I've suspected all along, is not the cabinets as AN's marketing would have you believe, but the crossover itself.

But what's really happening is the use of padding on the tweeter and probably a network of resistors on the woofer to attenuate level of the speaker to the same level as the extended bass of the cabinet.

Do you have a picture of an AN crossover, or a summary of it's components? This would help me verify my suspicions.

I've seen subwoofers do something similar.


Nonetheless, your woofer is still moving at some frequencies well above the tuning point. As you increase power, sure, the woofer will move more. Feed it so many watts and it'll reach it's maximum travel distance. I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure it's less than the electrcial capability of the woofer.

[N. Abstentia]

Thanks RGA but I'm still confused, let me put up some straight question, will a 95 Watts receiver blow up a 50W speaker? Will a 160 W speaker damage a 95 watts receiver?

Yes. No. Well, maybe. It depends. It's not that simple.

Under normal conditions you should be fine. If you hear distortion or see smoke, turn it down.

Basically...use common sense.

[RGA]

kexodusc


Here are some links to the AN E but there is no big picture of crossover but they are int he pictures --

http://audionotekits.espyderweb.net/loudspeaker.html
http://audionotekits.espyderweb.net/an_e.html
http://audionotekits.espyderweb.net/glue.html
http://audionotekits.espyderweb.net/price.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/359469.html

main page of kits http://audionotekits.espyderweb.net/

What I have discovered though is that the crossover IS different in various versions. And they are moving to external crossovers on on some of them and they're gigantic so they are different as well.

If you want to ask about it specifically as to db rolloff you can ask Peter Directly at http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/audionotekits/bbs2.html

[RGA]

Here is something from one of their early less sensitive versions http://www.8ung.at/triode/00002.html

[Woochifer]

Which hi-fi separates makers? I don't disagree that they are not culpabale as well. but if you read the article their point was that many good makers making very and powerful enough 20 watt and 30watt BEASTS were being confronted with more and mopre speakers 10 - 25 db LESS sensitive. many higher end amp makers crumbled -- see the history since Sugden's -- the A21a is widely noted as being one of the high end makers that is in some ways given credit for saving the high end from the onslaught of crappy high watt recievers. They rode out the pendulum -- even the history of my Wharfedale the 70's E70 illustrates what it offered versus what most speakers at the time were about and moving toward. Klisph was probably the prime American counterpart. As the article mentioned there was no need for low sensitive speakers it was a marketing strategy and a cheaper way to build GOOD loudspeakers -- sure lots of atrocious high sensitve speakers too. I do not go back to stereo buying from the 70s as I'm merely 31 years old. So I am in the hearsay group because I was not there to hear what the best 1940 loudspeaker sounded like. So people like Peter Qvortrup I admit i put some "faith" in on his recounts -- not a particularly objective move but he is not the only one and certainly I check with non sellers.

Prior to the FTC rule coming in, everybody was free to pump up their wattage numbers, using any number of doctored up test methods. Even well regarded companies of that era like Scott, Marantz, and Dynaco, used different tests to obtain their output ratings. Once the FTC stepped in, then everybody had to publish their specs using standard methodology, and that put an end to a lot of the nonsensical specs that had crept into the audio business by the late-60s.

I don't know where you get your info about Sudgen "saving" the "high end" from the "onslaught" of receiver manufacturers. The terminology "high end" didn't even exist when the great Marantz tube amps were made. The "hi fi" stores of that era sold everything, from portable 8-tracks to pre/pro separates. Keep in mind that in today's dollars, the midlevel receivers of that era sold for the equivalent of about $2,000USD, and we're talking about two-channel stereo receivers. They took over the market because they provided better functionality and provided high performance for a lower price.

The point about low sensitivity speakers in that article is pure nonsense. The vintage ARs and Advents were some of the best sounding speakers of that era, and I generally preferred that sound to most of the Klipsch models of that era (except the K-horn). They became feasible precisely because higher powered solid state amps had become widely available, and the lower efficiency of the acoustic suspension design was not an issue. The author simply does not like those speakers and fabricated all the tangental nonsense to discredit those designs. He ignores the many design advantages of sealed speakers (easier to design, quicker transient response, deeper bass, less cabinet interaction, more flexible placement options, etc.) for sake of his preference for SET amps, which work best with high sensitivity speakers. And for high sensitivity, you're left with horns and ported designs, which have their own flaws to overcome.


You are not understanding what I am talking about -- I am not talking about whether the amp meets 50 watts like they claim -- or meets 800 watts like some claim -- I don;t give a rat's ass whether the amp makes the claim that is on the spec sheet -- they play with the numbers all the time and independant measurements often show up the results as different anyway -- Bryston does better often than spec -- they provide the measurement with their amps -- so the spec says 120 watts on the 3BST but his 3B measured 168 watts.

For two channel receivers, the actual output routinely exceeds the specs. All you gotta do is flip open an old issue of Stereo Review and look at how their lab measurements compare to the rated output. This is because of the FTC amp rule. Multichannel amps only have to follow the FTC spec for one channel, which is why they routinely fall short in the all channels driven tests (for two channel playback, most of them do meet their rated output).


Marketers tell em to put the biggest number up they can because watts SELL. I am talking about watts in a general term as watts not how many who claim can do what. As that article notes early on whole theaters have been powered very well by 8 watts...we don;t need 100's of watts and we got to needing them for no good reason...

Which company's marketers are telling "em" to put up the biggest numbers? The RMS full frequency 8 ohm test is the most valid test, and the most telling one. All components that publish wattage output have to include that spec, but they are also free to include any of the other tests. The receivers are not the ones who pump up their wattage specs. The compact systems are far worse in that area.

That author's points about only needing 8 watts for a movie theater system is also laughable. Have you ever tried playing a vintage theater speaker? Sure 8 watts can drive them to extreme high SPL, but it's certainly not the type of sound that I would want to hear day in and day out. Those old horn loaded movie theater speakers are designed play LOUD, not necessarily to sound good.

With modern acoustic controls, active crossover networks, baffle wall construction behind the screen, surround speaker arrays, and subwoofers, good luck powering one of today's better movie theater systems with an 8 watt amp.

This author just sounds like a bitter luddite, with a VERY selective interpretation of history. In his article, he says that "The designers needed to bring sound quality back to where it was in 1960." HUH?! In 1960, the majority of people could NOT AFFORD hi-fi components. In inflation adjusted terms, the most basic component systems of that era would cost many thousands of today's dollars. The majority of households back then still owned console tube radios with one speaker stuck in the middle, and most record players getting sold were those models with the stack spindles and spherical sapphire needles. Yeah, THAT'S the sound quality I want to go back to! He can complain all he wants about digital, but I'll take a $20 portable CD player over what the average consumer listened to back in 1960.

He also talks about how all these classic movies played in theaters driven by 8 to 30 watt Western Electric amps. Just because 2001 and Clockwork Orange originally played in those theaters during their original release does not mean that I would want to watch those same movies today played through one of those primitive sound systems! A couple of years ago, I saw the 70mm re-release of 2001 at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, which had a brand new state-of-the-art sound system installed and it sounded and looked superb. And I grew up with old neighborhood theaters that had the old Western Electric/Altec VOT sound systems. Does this author actually think that we're better off going back to those old theater sound systems that could barely make the dialog intelligible?


I may not have been around then -- but I am around now and I can hear these high senstive speakers and the low sensitive ones with those 8 watters and IMO the wrioter is correct -- the fat that many 70s speaker may or may not have sucked dokey balls is probably true but then IMO most speakers today also suck. Cheap speakers are better than cheap speakers then -- well I heard an early 1980's Diamond from Wharfedale and it is in league with any Titan B&W 303 and the Diamonds were cheap then -- so I dunno about the generality that all cheap speakers today beat all cheap speakers of decades past.

And this is where your version of history gets overly selective and rosy-eyed. All that you hear about right now is the good stuff from that era. If you're going to judge the best from that era versus the run-of-the-mill from today, then of course, the older speakers will measure up. I'm older than you and heard plenty of the not-so-good speakers from that era. Plenty of entry level speakers in the 70s were emulating the JBL L100, which was a wide profile floorstanding speaker that required a floor stand for optimal positioning. Most of these imitators sounded horrendous, and you don't find too many of them around nowadays. But, back in the day, they were sold by the thousands. Today, even the worst speakers on the market generally do not approach the mediocrity that was the norm 20-30 years ago. Of course you'll always find exceptions, but by and large, today's speakers offer far better value and superior accuracy compared to what you typically found 30 years ago. Complain and nitpick all you want about today's speakers, but I doubt you'd want to go back to the 70s and get stuck with what was generally available back then.


Look I know I'm not American but must everything have to have government intervention for it to be adhered to in a honest way. Manufacturers know full well average people who are buying an amplifier to drive 5 speakers will see the watt rating of 5x100 stickered all across the receiver and believe that they are buying an amp that will power all 5 of their speakers at 100 watts each for 500 watts all at the same time. I mean because some third world doesn't care if their people are abused by slave labourers does not mean NIKE should take advantage of that because they can. It's called the super ego. Even if my Id tells me to kill and my ego says i can do it and get away with it and no possible way I could get caugh does not mean I should do it.

Spare me the notes from your latest Psych lecture! Geez! WTF does any of this have to do with third world slave laborers and Nike?!

This has nothing to do with being an American. You give businesses the leeway and the loopholes to make wild claims, then they will take every advantage of that. The FTC stepped in because the claims being made by the early-70s had spun out of control, and the tests being conjured up were far removed from normal playing conditions. Sure the 5 x 100 watts claim is misleading, but it's perfectly legal because nobody has stepped in and mandated that the test be done all channels driven.


My understanding is that they shift stored energy to another frequency and dissipate rather than attempt to store and damp it. Remember also they say it meets any of these numbers when placed in the corner as it was designed for that spot -- so it will likely lose 3db off the corners - Hi Fi Choice has no corners and get the E at 22hz instead of the 18hz Martin Colloms got in corners so that's about right.

Frequency shifting on a driver or cabinet? Sounds to me more like simply the physical limit of the driver at the low end.

Unless Hi-Fi Choice is conducting the test outdoors or anecholic chamber, then it's impossible for them to do a measurement without some kind of boundary gain, regardless of whether corners are present or not.