How much power (wpc) is more than enough for most speakers and systems?
- Thread starter bluegrassphile
- Start date
bluegrassphile
Member
- Thread Author
- #22
Thanks for bringing that up, mep. I've watched that video before and it's very interesting and revealing. In fact that video is what got me taking a close look at minimum power requirements for my amp. I would much rather error on the side of excess power than not enough. Those amps in the video are really cooking...~ 500 wpc x 2 into 6 ohms...continuous!! With peaks to 1000 wpc? Yeow!! The one reviewer said people with low powered amps "are missing out". I'm sure those people would disagree or they wouldn't buy the amp in the first place. However...it's my guess if they could be shown what they're missing out on they just might change their minds on output power requirements. Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not sure how this squares with Dan's post. And that's what has me somewhat confused. I can understand how a high end 7 wpc amp might sound wonderful at low volume levels...until you start to push it.
And it might sound great but, according to the video, could sound much greater if it had a LOT more power. Just when I think an amp needs to output 300 wpc to produce clean transients at "elevated" volume levels, I read where 100 wpc x 2 into 8 ohms will adequately cover the transient peaks. I want to reiterate, I know there may be other factors at work here. But remember, I'm speaking in generalities. Keep the posts coming. I'm learning things.
I'm not sure how this squares with Dan's post. And that's what has me somewhat confused. I can understand how a high end 7 wpc amp might sound wonderful at low volume levels...until you start to push it.
And it might sound great but, according to the video, could sound much greater if it had a LOT more power. Just when I think an amp needs to output 300 wpc to produce clean transients at "elevated" volume levels, I read where 100 wpc x 2 into 8 ohms will adequately cover the transient peaks. I want to reiterate, I know there may be other factors at work here. But remember, I'm speaking in generalities. Keep the posts coming. I'm learning things.
jdandy
New member
Tom.......I have owned my PMC EB1i speakers for 11 years, and in that time I have powered them with an MC275 at 75 watts per channel, a pair of MC275's strapped for mono at 150 watts per channel, a MC300 at 300 watts per channel, a MC352 at 350 watts per channel, a MC452 at 450 watts per channel (currently in the system), a pair of MC501 mono amplifiers at 500 watts per channel, and a pair of MC601's at 600 watts per channel. In all cases with each amplifier the PMC EB1i's sounded wonderful. I typically do not listen above about 95dB peaks, and that's plenty loud in my living room. Each of the amplifiers listed all had sufficient reserve power on tap to produce clean dynamics. The reason I cycled so many different amplifiers through the living room system centered more on curiosity than on need, a desire to experience the different McIntosh amplifiers in that sound system.
Just today I made a deal with my McIntosh dealer to trade my MC452 for a pair of McIntosh MC75 MkII mono tube amplifiers rated at 75 watts per channel. They have a measured output of 90 watts within factory specs. That will provide me with ample power to listen at whatever volume level I find satisfying and still provide sufficient reserve power for peaks. The new MC75 mono tube amps use the same power supply and transformer that McIntosh uses in the MC275 stereo tube amp. That means the power supply is considerably more robust powering the 75 watt mono amp than it is powering both channels of the 75 watts per channel stereo amp. I expect the dynamic capabilities of the MC75 mono tube amps to be superior to the MC275 stereo tube amp. Owner testimonies and reviews have supported the MC75 power supply improvements. The PMC EB1i speakers are 89dB efficient with one watt at one meter. 8 watts output will produce an average music level of 98dB, allowing well over 10dB of dynamic headroom reserve power without clipping the amps. 64 watts of output power will deliver 107dB of sound pressure, far more than my listening criteria requires. I am stepping down from 450 watts per channel currently in use, and from an all time high of 600 watts per channel in the living room system to 75 watts of mono tube power. I expect the sound to be fabulous.
Here is a photo I took one afternoon while listening to my MC601 amplifiers driving the PMC EB1i speakers. I had the meter set to Peak Hold. As you can see, the dynamic headroom of the MC601 is substantial. The McIntosh Power Guard lights weren't even flickering, and the PMC's were rocking the house at concert level. That is not a typical listening scenario for me, but it was an enlightening experience to know the speakers could handle that kind of power and sound good doing it. That's nearly twice the power we saw used in the Harbeth video. The PMC's were producing approximately 120dB of sound pressure. Seriously though, who wants to listen at that volume level without wearing earplugs. Hearing damage takes place at much lower volume levels.
The point I want to make, it's easy to get caught up in the notion that high power amplifiers are an absolute necessity, even for relatively efficient speakers. Sure, there are some difficult to drive speakers with wildly swinging impedance curves and phase relationships that require amplifiers with plenty of reserve current capability, but by and large that is not all that common. 75 watts to 100 watts per channel is a comfortable place to be for many home audio applications. Naturally, there are variables that come into play that revolve around specific applications, listening habits, and personal satisfaction. It's all part of what makes hi-end audio so interesting and fun.
Just today I made a deal with my McIntosh dealer to trade my MC452 for a pair of McIntosh MC75 MkII mono tube amplifiers rated at 75 watts per channel. They have a measured output of 90 watts within factory specs. That will provide me with ample power to listen at whatever volume level I find satisfying and still provide sufficient reserve power for peaks. The new MC75 mono tube amps use the same power supply and transformer that McIntosh uses in the MC275 stereo tube amp. That means the power supply is considerably more robust powering the 75 watt mono amp than it is powering both channels of the 75 watts per channel stereo amp. I expect the dynamic capabilities of the MC75 mono tube amps to be superior to the MC275 stereo tube amp. Owner testimonies and reviews have supported the MC75 power supply improvements. The PMC EB1i speakers are 89dB efficient with one watt at one meter. 8 watts output will produce an average music level of 98dB, allowing well over 10dB of dynamic headroom reserve power without clipping the amps. 64 watts of output power will deliver 107dB of sound pressure, far more than my listening criteria requires. I am stepping down from 450 watts per channel currently in use, and from an all time high of 600 watts per channel in the living room system to 75 watts of mono tube power. I expect the sound to be fabulous.
Here is a photo I took one afternoon while listening to my MC601 amplifiers driving the PMC EB1i speakers. I had the meter set to Peak Hold. As you can see, the dynamic headroom of the MC601 is substantial. The McIntosh Power Guard lights weren't even flickering, and the PMC's were rocking the house at concert level. That is not a typical listening scenario for me, but it was an enlightening experience to know the speakers could handle that kind of power and sound good doing it. That's nearly twice the power we saw used in the Harbeth video. The PMC's were producing approximately 120dB of sound pressure. Seriously though, who wants to listen at that volume level without wearing earplugs. Hearing damage takes place at much lower volume levels.
The point I want to make, it's easy to get caught up in the notion that high power amplifiers are an absolute necessity, even for relatively efficient speakers. Sure, there are some difficult to drive speakers with wildly swinging impedance curves and phase relationships that require amplifiers with plenty of reserve current capability, but by and large that is not all that common. 75 watts to 100 watts per channel is a comfortable place to be for many home audio applications. Naturally, there are variables that come into play that revolve around specific applications, listening habits, and personal satisfaction. It's all part of what makes hi-end audio so interesting and fun.
Mr Peabody
Well-known member
generally I'm with Mike CH, can't have too much power.
However, Harbeth are typically very easy to drive though not so efficient. Vinnie Rossi drives them with little watts and some of his amps have battery power supplies.
My friend drives various Harbeth with Leben tube integrated. When switching to Totem, then, we have to break out the Naim.
So minimum really depends on several factors as members have brought to the table thus far.
I had 100 watt CJ monoblocks that drove my Dynaudio fine at 86dB but strubbled to bring Revel F52's alive at 88dB. Fed the F52's some current and they began to dance. The CJ made a set of Zu Audio at something like 100dB rock the house.
fun hobby
However, Harbeth are typically very easy to drive though not so efficient. Vinnie Rossi drives them with little watts and some of his amps have battery power supplies.
My friend drives various Harbeth with Leben tube integrated. When switching to Totem, then, we have to break out the Naim.
So minimum really depends on several factors as members have brought to the table thus far.
I had 100 watt CJ monoblocks that drove my Dynaudio fine at 86dB but strubbled to bring Revel F52's alive at 88dB. Fed the F52's some current and they began to dance. The CJ made a set of Zu Audio at something like 100dB rock the house.
fun hobby
We have every Harbeth in the store. Every model. I would say 150 watts or more is ideal on average. The 40’s are closer to 200 watts or more ideally. I wouldn’t go less than the Luxman 509x, but to be fair, I haven’t got our SN3 yet. The Pass INT-60 isn’t enough. We have a video posted of the C7’s with the INT-60 at full volume. They need more.
In the $10k ish range, the Hegel 590 man. It has the balls and neutrality and grip a warm speaker needs. And it’s DAC is excellent.
The house favorites with Harbeth are Luxman 509x and Hegel 590.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the $10k ish range, the Hegel 590 man. It has the balls and neutrality and grip a warm speaker needs. And it’s DAC is excellent.
The house favorites with Harbeth are Luxman 509x and Hegel 590.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Randy Myers
Well-known member
If we all needed crazy level power, 400-500-600 wpc; and assuming we all do not have one percenter budgets then we would all own class D amplifiers. Obviously many of us prefer the sound of other types of amplifiers; tubes, class A, class a/b, SET, etc. Therefore for many of us quality is more important then quantity. My 80 wpc amplifier, in my view, is the finest sounding amplifier I have ever own.
bluegrassphile
Member
- Thread Author
- #29
It sounds like 100 to 125 wpc x 2 into my 6 ohm Harbeths would be a pretty safe minimum. It also gives me a few more amps to pick from. However, like Mike, I'm anxious to hear the NAIM Supernait 3 that's rated at 80 wpc x 2 into 8 ohms. That's the same power rating as the Supernait 2 and I've only heard glowingly positive comments regarding the Supernait 2. Regarding minimum power requirements, I just don't want to be one of those who are "missing out". But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't sound like I will be with the amps I have in mind to audition. Thanks again, Dan.
Shadowfax
Well-known member
What were those Amps in the video? I thought I saw Pan Sonic, but can't seem to find them in a search. A Band named Pan Sonic comes up.
Spectral, errr, I mean CH. I wonder if the meters are accurate. The reason I ask is that if you press most manufacturers with meters, they say they are not. Not saying the CH aren’t, but I’m curious.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jdandy
New member
Brian.......Here is a screen capture from the Harbeth demo video. The amplifiers appear to be CH Precision A1 stereo amps that are being used in bridged mode for 350 watts mono output.
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,083
The reason I posted this video is because it's a Harbeth video which is trying to demonstrate how much peak power is needed on dynamic music in order to play it cleanly with Harbeth speakers. The lower the sensitivity your speakers have combined with speakers that present a difficult load to drive due to impedance issues, the more power you need.
Personally, if I was shopping for Harbeth speakers and Mike was my dealer, I would certainly listen to his recommendations because Mike has experience with the entire Harbeth line.
Personally, if I was shopping for Harbeth speakers and Mike was my dealer, I would certainly listen to his recommendations because Mike has experience with the entire Harbeth line.
bluegrassphile
Member
- Thread Author
- #35
Luxman is still very much on my radar. Both the 509x and 590axii. Along with Gryphon, Hegel, Simaudio/Moon, Pass, and NAIM. For a tube amp I'll be auditioning VAC. Trying to keep an open mind.
Shadowfax
Well-known member
NorthStar
New member
Wow, 1,200 watts should suit a lots of speakers.
I've written a longer post but accidentally it went ...
I know that price (budget) is only important to some.
I've read the full thread, every post, Mep's video, Dan's post on the specs of the Harbeth, etc.
I'd say from 100 to 200 watts (8 Ohms).
E.g.; http://www.bryston.com/products/power_amps/3B-3.html
Good for Organ music, Electronica, Classical Orchestral, ...
...Large rooms, clean power, high level, all that music Jazz.
Bryston have several models; this is only an example of adequate range ... IMO
Mr Peabody
Well-known member
I don't doubt what you are saying, even Klipsch came out a while back saying their speakers would benefit from higher power amps. Why do you suppose Harbeth has such a huge following with tube amp users? Is it true what they say about Harbeth being easy to drive, or stable, though not so efficient?
Mr Peabody
Well-known member
Randy, there seems to be some error in your perceptions here. Class D is not the only way to buy or achieve high power. Nor, is there any truth that lower power amps necessarily sound better. I personally think the opposite is true as the less hard you drive an amp the further away you are from distortion and other nasties.
With that being said, traditional amps need hardy power supplies and to be able to produce ample current.. This is how Naim is such a power house yet lists not so high watts per channel.
My speakers are 94dB, 6 ohms, my amp is 300x2 into 8 ohms. I love having extra throddle
With that being said, traditional amps need hardy power supplies and to be able to produce ample current.. This is how Naim is such a power house yet lists not so high watts per channel.
My speakers are 94dB, 6 ohms, my amp is 300x2 into 8 ohms. I love having extra throddle
They are easy to drive from an impedance standpoint. No wild swings or crazy stuff like when you look at the measurement called EPDR (equivalent peak dissipation resistance). Speakers like the Wilson Audio Alexia 2 have a 1.3 EPDR. Wilson DAW are 1.1 ohm. Focal Sopra have EPDR of 1.1 ohm, Magico S3 0.5 ohm, Sonus Faber Amati is 1.7 ohm, Wilson Sabrina 1.1 Ohm, Martin Logan Neolithic 0.4 ohm, Focal Grande Utopia 1.1 ohm, Wilson Audio Alexx 0.7 ohm, Martin Logan Renaissance 0.3 ohm . The 800D3 are 1.3 ohm and easier to drive than some Wilson’s, Magicos, Martin Logan’s, Focal and the B&W 802D3 and harder than Sonus Faber. I don’t have the exact EPDR measurement for the Harbeth’s, but in stereophiles review, they didn’t dip below 4ohms.
That being said, they like watts. The 40’s especially. 250+ IMO. Girly tube amps need not apply.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk