How much power do you need?

[eddantes]

Right. So the power needed is highly variable and based on the music more than anything. So why bother with the 1 watt exercise at all?

Because - it still illustrates important things: most of the time we listen at fairly low power levels; and that big power is nevertheless needed to catch the transients.

So - when you see a 1watt tube amp - you can be sure that it will drive most speakers in a satisfactory way; however, you can also be sure that at even moderate loudness that thing will distort quite a bit. However, because tube amps don't really clip; like solid state does - they are embued with magical powers .

In short - get a decent amp with power to spare (100W and up; 200W to be 100% sure) and never think about it again.

 

[Oddball]

I run a set of Gallo Reference 3.2's.... the tweeter is a capacitive load, and drops down to around 1.6 ohm - the rest of the frequency range the load is relatively benign.

I have run these speakers using 140W/Channel (8ohm RMS) Quad 606 amplifier - and it sounded good... I have run it from 140w AVR's and it didn't sound as good ... my assumption is that the power supply in the AVR is more constrained, so when the load gets difficult the Amp can't quite stretch up to it...

I talked to the speaker designer (Anthony Gallo) - he recommended substantially more power, and loads of current - ie ability to handle the low impedance without stress. He demoed the speakers using the 500W/channel Spectron class D amps.

The Spectron was well beyond my means at the time, but there were discussions about the Crown XLS series of Drivecore amps.... the XLS2500 puts out an easy 440W / channel into 8ohms.... and is available quite cheaply on the used market.

So I went from a well regarded (albeit "classic" now) audiophile amp, to a pro class D amp with almost 3x the power.

It worked - the XLS2500 sounds substantially better than the Quad 606 or the AVR.

Does it make any sense? not really.... I tend to listen to movies at reference -15db ... so not overly loud, I run music at the same level

The Speaker sensitivity is 88db/w@1m.... it shouldn't require that much power... and I certainly am NOT using that much power!

The Quad is a great amp, and sounded absolutely fabulous driving Quad ESL988 electrostatics - but on the Gallo's the Crown sounded better.

A number of people have mentioned that their Valve amps of sub 30w work well with the Gallo's... - perhaps they have a better ability to provide high current into the demanding tweeter load?

Either way - the number of watt's an amp provides, does not necessarily provide a relevant indication of how well it will drive a specific speaker.

Some good indicators of an amps ability with "difficult" speaker loads might be, whether the amp can double down into 4 ohm and then again into 2 ohm..... so a 100W amp @8ohm should be 200W @4ohm and 400W@2ohm... and one would hope 800W@1ohm.

Most amps won't do that.... most amps simply won't drive 1ohm loads (!) - and perhaps 1ohm is asking too much - but given my Gallo CDT tweeter does indeed drop down below 2 ohm....

So yeah - in theory a 100W amp should be more than ample for my needs... in fact most likely a 50W amp would do the job! It just has to be the right kind of 100W.... alternatively a 440W pro amp, capable of driving 1200W into 2ohm loads seems to do the job just fine.

I am with you in Gallo Reference fan camp, but theses are a bit different speaker design that unfortunately does not exist any more. Nowadays people praise speakers with triple the distortion at 50hz that are 4 times the size and weight and call them reference.

I have abused my Gallo's 3.1 with various amps, but in normal listening conditions up to say -5dB reference did not really had issues driving them with relatively modest Rotel 1070 which is 130W/200W into 8/4ohm per channel. They were also driven by same amps only bridged and yes, they could go a bit louder and a bit cleaner, but not by much. Or they were driven by Bystons 4B SST which is 300/500W into 8/4 ohm, or 1kW bridged. They could go much louder and again bit cleaner with this kind of wattage. Then there is the second bass coil requiring second amp (and all the combos above), so in all they were just able to accept as much power as you could give them if you wanted to go louder or lower (second bass coil).

Not sure what kind of protection they have in them, but they did well even with 2.5kW pro amps that we managed to hook up to them at one point playing at full volume (for hours), since that volume was clipping both Rotels and Brystons, but was apparently needed for the special occasion.

While above has not much to do with the thread, from my experience, sizing it right based on your expectations is probably not the best decision if you can allow for the contingency in your budget. There might be unforeseen circumstances when you will want to let it all out, which might not turn optimal either for the amps or speakers if you are "right sized". When my AB amps go to waste, I will definitively entertain only 200W/8ohm options for surrounds and 500W or more /8ohm Ohm for the LCR. Once you turn up the volume, it really needs watts, and it's sometimes difficult to keep it cool when occasion calls for it.

 

[pablolie]

All good points have been made... with one exception: in my opinion, the audiophile mindset has not yet accepted the big potential advantage of having subs to help the main speakers with better bass delivery in a real-world room. Big speakers with big bass reach require big power, but that doesn't mean the bass will behave well in real world rooms - subs provide both the reach as well as the flexibility of being placed optimally (orat least semi-optimally), which is hard with power hungry big speakers unless you own palatial rooms.

When using sub-crossover, your amp can be lower power, and finesse is more important.

 

[Oddball]

Definitively agree with you on the subs as most of the mainstream tower offerings will not hit the sub levels in the low end. But then, there are many other bass management options where you could actually put your mains to really hard work, even with the subs - and up to their capability.

 

[pablolie]

Definitively agree with you on the subs as most of the mainstream tower offerings will not hit the sub levels in the low end. But then, there are many other bass management options where you could actually put your mains to really hard work, even with the subs - and up to their capability.

Sure you can. But why pay (often very dearly) for a capability you can't effectively exploit? If you're going to use subs, you might as well cross over at 70Hz and many great (and less expensive) "bookshelves" may be a better choice.

 

[Beershaun]

In short - get a decent amp with power to spare (100W and up; 200W to be 100% sure) and never think about it again.

Exactly.

 

[Beershaun]

Sure you can. But why pay (often very dearly) for a capability you can't effectively exploit? If you're going to use subs, you might as well cross over at 70Hz and many great (and less expensive) "bookshelves" may be a better choice.

Yes to this as well. Also, if it's a speaker that Amir or Erin have measured and you can see the low frequency distortion range, you can adjust your crossover to eliminate that low frequency distortion.

 

[Oddball]

Using a traditional bass management is definitively a cheaper choice. That is why it was invented. But if you towers really don't distort that much down low, and happen to have the amps sitting in the rack doing nothing much, I guess one could explore the more advanced bass management? My speakers are not exactly as below, but pretty close.

Revel F328Be Speaker Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Revel F328Be floor standing speaker. I purchased a single unit through our company (Madrona) with kind discount from Harman Sales (I asked for a review sample from the PR group but was told "don't call us, we will call you."). The retail cost...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Anthony Gallo Acoustics Reference 3.5 Speakers - HomeTheaterHifi.com

In 2007, I reviewed the Gallo Reference 3.1 speakers along with Gallo’s Reference AV center, A’Diva rears and the Reference SA subwoofer amplifier. I liked them so much I bought the entire system. Recently, Gallo has released the new Reference 3.5 speaker, replacing the venerable Reference 3.1.

hometheaterhifi.com

Difficult to tell if one has actually not tried.

 

[dlaloum]

Definitively agree with you on the subs as most of the mainstream tower offerings will not hit the sub levels in the low end. But then, there are many other bass management options where you could actually put your mains to really hard work, even with the subs - and up to their capability.

Most devices labelled "subs" in the marketplace, are in actual fact external woofers.... as they do not extend into the subsonic region.

Probably 90% of the market are using subs that simply aren't.

Here in the rarified atmosphere of the cognoscenti, the porportions are different, but still - Many (most?) Ful Range speakers can match the frequency reach of most "subs".

True subs are a different beast.

 

[Punchrulle]

What is the reach and range of a ”true subwoofer”?

 

[dlaloum]

What is the reach and range of a ”true subwoofer”?

By definition - the Sub - audible range ie: below 20Hz

 

[Punchrulle]

I see. Well it could just be sub the speakers woofer and all woofers don’t reach 20hz. Actually not many at all reach that low in 2-way or 3-way speakers.
Hence ”sub woofer”

infra sub= Infrasound is sound that is below the range of human hearing. The infrasound range includes all sounds below 20 Hz.

 

[Ropeburn]

By definition - the Sub - audible range ie: below 20Hz

Lol no. A subwoofer is supposed to do subbass - which is generally defined as 60Hz and below. Under that what "conventional" speakers can usually do, by a somewhat outdated definition.

Many modern speakers, even larger bookshelf models, can do 50-40Hz sufficiently. It's still "subbass" that a subwoofer can usually do better.

 

[Chrispy]

What is the reach and range of a ”true subwoofer”?

Most describe it as having 20hz capability (at least f3). You can go lower but likely will be more about tactile effect than audible....

 

[dlaloum]

Lol no. A subwoofer is supposed to do subbass - which is generally defined as 60Hz and below. Under that what "conventional" speakers can usually do, by a somewhat outdated definition.

Many modern speakers, even larger bookshelf models, can do 50-40Hz sufficiently. It's still "subbass" that a subwoofer can usually do better.

A typical "full range" speaker will go down to somewhere between 20Hz and 30Hz (few will go down to 20Hz)

They won't (for the most part) do it at the SPL's a true sub does.

You sort of made my point when you stated : "Many modern speakers, even larger bookshelf models" - well there inherent within your comment are the current assumptions.... a Bookshelf speaker is unlikely to ever be full range, and they aren't meant to be, in today's market, they are satellite speakers, and require an external woofer to fill out the bass properly.

A floor standing (full range) speaker that does 50-40Hz sufficiently, is a floor stander that has limited bass.

My Gallo Ref 3.2's are spec'd to do 24Hz (although by the time they get down to 24Hz they are down quite a bit in SPL.... a more realistic range with full SPL is 35Hz... which is what Dirac tends to show as their "lower limit")

Yes today's market is dominated by bookshelves - which universally need a "sub" (more properly, an external woofer) to provide the full audible range.

And most of todays "subs" are designed to cater to that market, and provide the missing bass from circa 80Hz down to circa 20Hz - most of them don't even go down to 20Hz!! eg: (first sub that popped up on a google search) Jamo C910 - 32Hz to 125Hz... it covers mid bass to lower bass... but sub? (or Definitive Technology DN8 - 35Hz to 200Hz)

So yeah you pair them with bookshelves, and the result is a full range audio system in the traditional meaning of "full range"

If you want the subsonic spectacular, you need to get a "true" sub.... something that is likely to be frequency limited to sub 40Hz and extending down to circa 15Hz.... and which would be pretty useless with your bookshelves, as its performance in the audible lower bass range is likely to be sub par...(higher distortion is very very common... the levels of distortion considered acceptable in subs are really quite remarkable! - but then the ear is less sensitive to bass distortion.... on the other hand the harmonics are well up in the midrange - so will be muddying things... )

 

[Punchrulle]

A typical "full range" speaker will go down to somewhere between 20Hz and 30Hz (few will go down to 20Hz)

They won't (for the most part) do it at the SPL's a true sub does.

You sort of made my point when you stated : "Many modern speakers, even larger bookshelf models" - well there inherent within your comment are the current assumptions.... a Bookshelf speaker is unlikely to ever be full range, and they aren't meant to be, in today's market, they are satellite speakers, and require an external woofer to fill out the bass properly.

A floor standing (full range) speaker that does 50-40Hz sufficiently, is a floor stander that has limited bass.

My Gallo Ref 3.2's are spec'd to do 24Hz (although by the time they get down to 24Hz they are down quite a bit in SPL.... a more realistic range with full SPL is 35Hz... which is what Dirac tends to show as their "lower limit")

Yes today's market is dominated by bookshelves - which universally need a "sub" (more properly, an external woofer) to provide the full audible range.

And most of todays "subs" are designed to cater to that market, and provide the missing bass from circa 80Hz down to circa 20Hz - most of them don't even go down to 20Hz!! eg: (first sub that popped up on a google search) Jamo C910 - 32Hz to 125Hz... it covers mid bass to lower bass... but sub? (or Definitive Technology DN8 - 35Hz to 200Hz)

So yeah you pair them with bookshelves, and the result is a full range audio system in the traditional meaning of "full range"

If you want the subsonic spectacular, you need to get a "true" sub.... something that is likely to be frequency limited to sub 40Hz and extending down to circa 15Hz.... and which would be pretty useless with your bookshelves, as its performance in the audible lower bass range is likely to be sub par...(higher distortion is very very common... the levels of distortion considered acceptable in subs are really quite remarkable! - but then the ear is less sensitive to bass distortion.... on the other hand the harmonics are well up in the midrange - so will be muddying things... )

Yes a LOT of the subwoofer on the market are ment to complement tiny satelite speakers that really can’t do midbass. The subs therefor has to cover that midbass range, Bose & Jamo amongst others.
But they are not ment ro be ”high fidelity” reproducers. There Will allways be bad compromises due to meet massmarket needs.
The stuff we discuss here are not massmarket stuff, rather niche products.
For example a fiat 500 wouldnt do very well att Indy 500.

 

[Sokel]

Yes a LOT of the subwoofer on the market are ment to complement tiny satelite speakers that really can’t do midbass. The subs therefor has to cover that midbass range, Bose & Jamo amongst others.
But they are not ment ro be ”high fidelity” reproducers. There Will allways be bad compromises due to meet massmarket needs.
The stuff we discuss here are not massmarket stuff, rather niche products.
For example a fiat 500 wouldnt do very well att Indy 500.

Very few cover true mid-bass (up to 250Hz or so) and we probably don't call them subs,they are really woofers,in the likes of W371A.
Plus,going over 80-100Hz or so are full localize-able and can't be mono.
Down to real 20's only a full 4-way (at least) makes sense.

 

[Oddball]

Very few cover true mid-bass (up to 250Hz or so) and we probably don't call them subs,they are really woofers,in the likes of W371A.
Plus,going over 80-100Hz or so are full localize-able and can't be mono.
Down to real 20's only a full 4-way (at least) makes sense.

Not sure how low in 20's this one could go, but interesting 4-way design. I have the newer Heco design that is 3-way and is flat to 30hz in room (off the wall). Posted in another thread but got no traction. Perhaps more luck here?

Are "non-conventional" speaker designs worthwhile, or just gimmicks?

I don't think there is a blanket answer. We have conventional speakers (happen to be KEF) in our main system in a multichannel setup. If I had a separate 2 channel system, I think I'd get the D&D 8c for the cardioid pattern, room correction, and plugins.

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Punchrulle]

Well this one in the link below goes down to 20hz according to the manufacter. And I do beleave that statement. Owned standmounts from Ino audio before, Ino is the ”loudspeaker construction brain” behind Guru audio.

Guru QM60 | The Ear

‘Man suffers most from the suffering he fears’. That quote came to mind when I left the Dutch distributor for Guru loudspeakers. I had

the-ear.net

 

[Punchrulle]

Very few cover true mid-bass (up to 250Hz or so) and we probably don't call them subs,they are really woofers,in the likes of W371A.
Plus,going over 80-100Hz or so are full localize-able and can't be mono.
Down to real 20's only a full 4-way (at least) makes sense.

A few xo around 200hz (200hz is midbass).
Never stated going over 80-100hz is a good or bad idea.
But you could discuss that with Earl Geddes and se what he has to say about that.
Think some of Earls sub(s) cover up to 120~150hz mono if I’m not misstaken.