How much power and SPL's do people actually need in their homes?

[Beershaun]

Who is Michael Larsen and why would I watch this particularly?

Because he demonstrates with the same set of speakers and same amplifier how much power it uses playing chamber music and how much power it uses playing electronic music.

 

[Chrispy]

Because he demonstrates with the same set of speakers and same amplifier how much power it uses playing chamber music and how much power it uses playing electronic music.

That helps, maybe later I'll give it a shot. Is it measured or just mic'd?

 

[Beershaun]

That helps, maybe later I'll give it a shot. Is it measured or just mic'd?

It's a real time power measurement of the amplifier instantaneous output.

 

[DonR]

That helps, maybe later I'll give it a shot. Is it measured or just mic'd?

The video compared content with a lot of bass with content that had very little bass. The results are not surprising.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

The video compared content with a lot of bass with content that had very little bass. The results are not surprising.

I think it surprises a lot of people. Given the amount of questions and misunderstandings about power that comes up on a weekly basis.

 

[DonR]

I think it surprises a lot of people. Given the amount of questions and misunderstandings about power that comes up on a weekly basis.

Fair enough.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Fair enough.

You're not fooling me. I know you wrote "enoguh" and corrected it..

 

[dlaloum]

Interesting, but I have to wonder what proportion of people have homes in which they can play audio at average SPL's of 93dB whenever they want, or who would want to for that matter (at least, when they're sober).

I listen at average levels of 72db SPL (c weighted).... and yeah - everage power is 4W@8ohm, with max peaks never ever surpassing 16W@8ohm on my relatively inefficient 86db SPL/w speakers.

 

[dlaloum]

Some years ago I asked Peter Aczel, a man I learned much from, the same question. That is, about necessary amplification. This is what he told me:

The dynamic range of the human ear is more than 120 dB. The dynamic range of 16-bit digital recording is theoretically 98 dB. The difference between the absolute softest audible music in a concert hall and the loudest climaxes is of the order of 60 to 70 dB because of the ambient noise floor. Let us say you need 1 milliwatt of amplifier power, in a given installation, to play the softest passages (I am just guessing), then 70 dB above that would come to 10,000 watts. Any domestic loudspeaker would go up in smoke with that kind of input. With extremely high-efficiency horn-type theater speakers the numbers change; it is actually possible to produce levels of 110 or 115 dB or even more in a single installation, and here’s the remarkable thing—you can tolerate it because the distortion is low. We tend to judge loudness by the amount of distortion we hear, not by SPL! You wouldn’t adjust the volume control if you heard no distortion. So, you could have your “too good” 98-dB balls-to-the-wall digital recording without compression, if the efficiency and power-handling capability of your system were adequate—which they generally are not.

I believe Peter was influenced anent his 'distortion v SPL' from his interaction with the late Drew Daniels, JBL applications engineer. In any case, the idea of power handling has always been a 'problem'. In the early days of hi-fi, watts were expensive. So downstream product made the difference. Paul Klipsch (among others) worked within that reality. And for his purposes the minuscule (by today's standards) Brook amplifier did the trick.

However by the mid '70s all of that was forgotten. SS was the answer to the question. In the '60s an AR3 was approachable using the Dyna ST-70. More or less. However ten years on, the AR LST challanged people's existing perceptions of what was necessary for 'modern' hi-fi amplification. Playing at 'realistic' SPL, Bob Carver's Phase Linear 700 routinely clippled on the LST--not as severe as the Crown DC-300, but still... By the time we got to the 1 ohm Apogee ribbons, no amount of amplifier power was unrealistic. This seems to be our legacy, today.

They key is to match your loudspeakers to your amplifier, along with your listening SPL preferences. I've always been an advocate of high sensitivity loudspeakers. Especially horns. Because they don't tax the amp..., but mostly because they don't sound like a box (which is another topic, altogether). But few ASR cognoscenti would probably be happy with that route.

An alternative I find compelling is the Linkwitz open baffle design. Especially using their Hypex N-core modules. If I was to beam into the 21st century, I'd probably go that route.

Totally agree with the "don't sound like boxes" selection criteria - this led me down the elctrostatic panels route for years, and more recently the Gallo Nucleus speakers.... never got hooked on horns.

 

[pogo]

If you are honest and know the exact impedance curve of your loudspeakers, the result can be quite astonishing : Link

 

[Deleted member 48726]

If you are honest and know the exact impedance curve of your loudspeakers, the result can be quite astonishing : Link

I want to be able to have peaks in the bass of 115 dB at 3.5 m distance with 87 dB sens. speakers which dip to below 3 ohm in the low frequency range.

At least 530 W

The calculator can be found via the link in my signature also.

 

[Schollaudio]

Before I offer advice, let me make a few assumptions:

• You are listening to popular genres of modern music with standard modern production techniques

• You are going to listen to music at a rational level (loud but not deafeningly so) as opposed to third-row-at-a-Metallica-concert loud

• You are using a single pair of speakers as opposed to a subwoofer/satellite system

• You must keep in mind that the more base you want to produce from your pair of speakers, the more power you are going to need

Given all of these, you would need a 100W amplifier. That will take a loudspeaker of average efficiency (90dB @1 watt) in an average sized room and easily drive it to average levels around 100dB. This will also provide an good amount of headroom for transients such as drum strikes.

You won’t be wasting money on amplifier power you won’t be using and for those rare times where you really want to crank it, that power will be more than enough.

Even if your speakers are more efficient, having that extra bit of power will certainly not be a bad thing. The same could be said for a subwoofer/satellite system using a powered sub. There is no downside to having a little extra power for your main speakers even with the subs handling the end.

Keep in mind, decibels versus watts are differentiated by a factor of 10. For something to sound twice as loud (10dB louder), you need 10 times more power.

The lower your speakers can play in frequency, the more wattage you may need from your amplifier if you’d like to play your music loud and have a good amount of bass.

Of course, you can go the other route with your speakers, if you’d like to play it loud and use a subwoofer/satellite system. The amplifiers & main speakers will never be taxed by low bass and having that extra power to drive the low end will really pay dividends by giving you a lot more headroom.

If you never play you system at levels louder than 90dB, you can easily get by with 30 watts.

Depending on what you are playing and you were listening habits, there are a lot of variables. And, to be honest, most of the time you are going to be listening to music, your only going to be using a couple of watts.

I agree, however with some of the modern Blu-ray releases like Crime of the Century, Animals and Quebec Magnetic etc. more power is needed maybe even 1000watts. These types of releases still don't sound too loud.
YMMV

 

[dlaloum]

I want to be able to have peaks in the bass of 115 dB at 3.5 m distance with 87 dB sens. speakers which dip to below 3 ohm in the low frequency range.

At least 530 W

The calculator can be found via the link in my signature also.

One of the reasons I chose to experiment with the Crown XLS2500, was its 440W@8ohm power.... Anthony Gallo, used to demo the speakers I own with a ClassD amp capable of 500W@8ohm....

So I thought - what the hell - let's give it a go...

But in reality, in actual use, with my personal preferences of movies and music - there was no noticeable difference when compared to my Quad 606....

So yeah, I think in most cases, most of us have heaps of excess power which we pay for, but don't actually need or use.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

One of the reasons I chose to experiment with the Crown XLS2500, was its 440W@8ohm power.... Anthony Gallo, used to demo the speakers I own with a ClassD amp capable of 500W@8ohm....

So I thought - what the hell - let's give it a go...

But in reality, in actual use, with my personal preferences of movies and music - there was no noticeable difference when compared to my Quad 606....

So yeah, I think in most cases, most of us have heaps of excess power which we pay for, but don't actually need or use.

I know I need that because I clipped a 340 W 8 ohm amp before. I bought a 700 W 8 ohm amp and left it at that.
I listen to a lot af electronic music as well.

What do you mean "in actual use - there was no difference" -Is it because you only cranked the volume with the Crown for giggles or because you actually do not listen so loud you need the power?
A sidenote; you Quad 606 has an abundance of dynamic power. I would not be surprised if the Quad 606 was actually about the same power with music than the Crown.

 

[dlaloum]

I know I need that because I clipped a 340 W 8 ohm amp before. I bought a 700 W 8 ohm amp and left it at that.
I listen to a lot af electronic music as well.

What do you mean "in actual use - there was no difference" -Is it because you only cranked the volume with the Crown for giggles or because you actually do not listen so loud you need the power?
A sidenote; you Quad 606 has an abundance of dynamic power. I would not be surprised if the Quad 606 was actually about the same power with music than the Crown.

Yes - keeping in mind that like many classD designs, the Crowns have little or no headroom - and like many traditional AB designs the Quad has substantial headroom - the actual difference in use is far far less than one might assume from their rated continuous output...

Allso Crown like many pro manufacturers provides a 1kHz rating rather than 20-20k.... so chances are real power is probably 350W@8ohm rather than 440W - with negligible headroom.

And also - I do tend to listen at more than 10db down from reference level (when I measure it, it tends to be around 72dbc) - I occasionally will use more... but it is very very rare, and I never encountered audible degradation with either amp at any listening level I have used.

My back to back testing (subjective only - but level matched using SPL meter) of my old Integra DTR70.4 vs Quad vs Crown, had me thinking that maybe, just maybe the Quad sounded a tad "sweeter", "smoother" - but the difference was so slight that I am fairly certain I would be unable to tell them appart in a blind test....

On the other hand, my current Integra DRX3.4 was a definite audible downgrade when run on its own..... but indistinguishable from the 70.4 when run with either the Quad or the Crown amp.

I have made various guesses as to why the 3.4 amps are not up to handling my speakers - my thinking is that the 3.4 is not designed for low impedance loads - it may be hitting the wall with current out of the PSU (which is relatively small and lightweight for a traditional transformer based PSU) - or the amps are having trouble with the load.... when I run it into 3 channels (L/C/R) the 3.4 does OK running the C while using either the Quad or Crown for L/R - so that indicates that the amp circuits themselves are OK for handling the load, but the power supply is lacking current.
Just my reasoning and guesses on why the 3.4 has flaws, where the old 70.4 didn't - and why I think it likely that the RZ70 would probably handle my speakers OK.... but no way of telling until I get one in house and onto my speakers! (and I am not going there until ART is available)

 

[Jaxjax]

my phone says im listening at 76db ave with 87 peak @ 9' . This is where I'm at most of the time. I do have some moments were I go much louder though. I got enough power to go fairly clean loud, 3-way dsp active at 500=500-250

 

[pjug]

This video helped me understand its more about the actual music than the volume itself. So one volume or SPL number is insufficient to describe your actual power needs.

I would not accept that these numbers flashing on that amplifier, if in fact they are even accurate, represent what you need in your own room. When I saw this video, I tried measuring myself with a scope in my own room with the same track. I only got 20-30V peaks when playing at what I thought was loud. The track doesn't even have an extremely high crest factor; with other more dynamic tracks playing loud I get peaks more like 50V. Of course it depends on room, how loud you like it, speaker sensitivity, etc. The only way to really know is to check on your own. And then IMO it is a good idea to go well above what you determine that you need. Then you can rest easy regarding clipping. At least until some other equipment manufacturer posts another video!

 

[Brian Hall]

The people who think 24 bit audio is superior to 16 bit obviously need a system capable of producing 140db to be able to hear all the extra detail.

 

[restorer-john]

I would not accept that these numbers flashing on that amplifier, if in fact they are even accurate, represent what you need in your own room. When I saw this video, I tried measuring myself with a scope in my own room with the same track. I only got 20-30V peaks when playing at what I thought was loud. The track doesn't even have an extremely high crest factor; with other more dynamic tracks playing loud I get peaks more like 50V.

Why wouldn't you "accept" the numbers? The meters are likely voltage reading, with perhaps (hopefully) some allowance for connected spkr impedance. It's unlikely they are true effective/actual power meters, but it isn't unheard of.

And your 30V peak (60Vpp) represents 225W@4R at the waveform top and 113W RMS. 50V peak (100Vpp) is getting serious, 625Wpk @4R.

Decent power amplifiers have pretty high rails, so they can swing large peak (dynamic) swings. +/-70V is normal for a 150-180wpc (continuous average) amplifier and will mean very high dynamic/clipping headroom over and above the rated continuous power. Plenty of amplifiers have +/-90V-110V rails for even greater dynamics.

 

[pjug]

Why wouldn't you "accept" the numbers? The meters are likely voltage reading, with perhaps (hopefully) some allowance for connected spkr impedance. It's unlikely they are true effective/actual power meters, but it isn't unheard of.

And your 30V peak (60Vpp) represents 225W@4R at the waveform top and 113W RMS. 50V peak (100Vpp) is getting serious, 625Wpk @4R.

Decent power amplifiers have pretty high rails, so they can swing large peak (dynamic) swings. +/-70V is normal for a 150-180wpc (continuous average) amplifier and will mean very high dynamic/clipping headroom over and above the rated continuous power. Plenty of amplifiers have +/-90V-110V rails for even greater dynamics.

I didn't watch the video again, but my memory was that the numbers were more than a Kilowatt. Maybe true, I don't know. But still did not represent my own needs. My point should be that you will never really have a great idea of what you need if you don't do some kind of measuring. If not with a scope, then using the Pano method:

MUSINGS: How much amplifier power do you really "need"? Why not test for yourself?

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Flim and the BBs "Tricycle" is a good track for extreme dynamics, and what I used when I measured ~50V peaks: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sean...n-sound-e01-activity-6891813788467781632-3GJV