• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Any good budget stereo amps?

ta240

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
1,358
Likes
2,656
True, but the 2x100 watt of the Yamaha AS701/801 are true and honest watts.

And unfortunately, they are stuck competing with other amps where that isn't the case. For those in the know that makes that amp a good buy; for the rest of the people it is the same as all the other 2x100 amps.
 

escape2

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
883
Likes
944
Location
USA
That is my thinking; it is a nice round number that for years has been hardwired into people's minds as what they need.
Very few shoppers will look at the distortion numbers or how the 100 was measured it just has to have 100 watts per channel and they are happy.

Imagine being the R&D guy that tries to get a manufacture to make a mainstream A/B amp of 150 or 200 wpc. Marketing would shoot them down saying that is pro territory and they don't need to waste their money on that when people just want 100.
On top of that, going from 100 Watts to 150 Watts nets you not even a 2 dB gain, although probably even fewer shoppers understand that.
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,658
Likes
5,276
Sure, but more is almost always better, particularly in largish rooms and with dynamic music like a symphony orchestra. Anyway, I am all in favour of a few hundred watts.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
Speaker sensitivity was often much higher few decades ago.
I have seen loads of people write this but with the exception of horns they were not much different to today, and some of the high quality ones were both not very efficient nor had, with the materials of the day, much in the way of power handling capacity.
My first speakers were built using Wharfedale drivers which were around 90dB/watt with power handling of 6-watts.
The low colouration speakers had heavier damped cones with much less breakup but were markedly less sensitive.
The Spendor BC1 is around 85dB watt and is the first really low colouration speaker I know but could only take about 15 watts before the voicecoil was torn off the cone :)

Basically one had the choice of loud(ish) and brash or low colouration at a limited volume.

Much better now IMO.
 

ta240

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
1,358
Likes
2,656
...Basically one had the choice of loud(ish) and brash or low colouration at a limited volume...

I wonder if the definition of 'loud' for home audio has changed over the decades too. Back in the 70's the average person didn't seem to listen with the walls rattling as much as now.
 

Colonel7

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
616
Likes
875
Location
Maryland, USA
Sure, but more is almost always better, particularly in largish rooms and with dynamic music like a symphony orchestra. Anyway, I am all in favour of a few hundred watts.
Good point. I clipped my "100 watt" amp with the opera Carmen--unintentionally of course. My 8-year old son wanted to hear Seven Nation Army loud before his soccer game and I forgot what was queued up behind it.
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,658
Likes
5,276
My old Quad ELS57s were inefficient and really needed the 2x45 watt of the only amplifier that you could safely use with them (the Quad 303). My current Quad 2805s are even less efficient, and really need the 2x140 watt of my Quad 606-2 (and cannot cope with much more). My old 11 Ohm LS3/5a desktop speakers were inefficient and could not handle much power. My modern Harbeth P3ESRs are also inefficient, but at least they can handle quite a bit of power (about 100 watt), even though they are still not suitable for largish rooms. So the dilemma still exists, but fortunately to a lesser extent.
As for listening levels, I think that at least in the Netherlands we often have much larger living rooms in which we listen, so that alone demands far more power. The sound proofing of our mostly modern housing stock has also improved enormously, so we can actually use the power.
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,658
Likes
5,276
With digital sources, there is also the increased power requirement to reproduce deep bass that was non existent in the vinyl era. Hence, I guess, the increased allure of powered subwoofers.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
I wonder if the definition of 'loud' for home audio has changed over the decades too. Back in the 70's the average person didn't seem to listen with the walls rattling as much as now.
Because we couldn't, not because we didn't want to :)
I have always liked to listen at a similar volume to the concerts I went to, of course the rock music concerts were nowhere near as loud as now but I listened to a lot of folk music (I still do) which was entirely feasible to have at the same level as in the folk clubs I frequented.
Now I can listen to a Bruckner symphony with a similar dynamic range and loudness to a concert - in fact it is the recording more than the equipment which is the limitation IME.
 
Top Bottom