Amplifier v Speaker Wattage

[niceshoes]

I've been looking into getting a new amp and my speaker's brochure tell me that they are recommended to use with amplifiers up to 175W per channel.

Now, the guy at the AV shop tells me I should get a more powerful amp (200+ watts) because it would give a better sound and as long as I dont crank it to max volume it should be ok.

But I have read elsewhere that a reciever with 80 Watt channels will be fine for my speakers and will play them louder than my ears could tolerate anyway.

so what's the deal... is more watts better? Should i stay below 175 watts like my manufacturer tells me? Should i just stick with my current 65 watt Yamaha receiver?

If it makes any difference, my speakers are Energy's RC-10s.

 

[TLS Guy]

I've been looking into getting a new amp and my speaker's brochure tell me that they are recommended to use with amplifiers up to 175W per channel.

Now, the guy at the AV shop tells me I should get a more powerful amp (200+ watts) because it would give a better sound and as long as I dont crank it to max volume it should be ok.

But I have read elsewhere that a reciever with 80 Watt channels will be fine for my speakers and will play them louder than my ears could tolerate anyway.

so what's the deal... is more watts better? Should i stay below 175 watts like my manufacturer tells me? Should i just stick with my current 65 watt Yamaha receiver?

If it makes any difference, my speakers are Energy's RC-10s.

Probably your current receiver will be fine. However though your speakers are nominally 8 ohm, the minimum impedance is 4 ohm, therefore to all intense and purposes those speakers are 4 ohms. Is your receiver able to put out 120 watts or so into a four ohm load? If not then a beefier amp might be in order. The speakers are not all that sensitive, so some more power might not hurt.

I would try you current receiver first. If you have enough power and it is clean leave it. If you feel you need more power, then get an amp that will deliver around 100 to 150 watts into 8 ohms, and 200 to 300 watts into four ohms, then you should know you have sufficient current reserve.

 

[mouettus]

I've been looking into getting a new amp and my speaker's brochure tell me that they are recommended to use with amplifiers up to 175W per channel.

Now, the guy at the AV shop tells me I should get a more powerful amp (200+ watts) because it would give a better sound and as long as I dont crank it to max volume it should be ok.

But I have read elsewhere that a reciever with 80 Watt channels will be fine for my speakers and will play them louder than my ears could tolerate anyway.

so what's the deal... is more watts better? Should i stay below 175 watts like my manufacturer tells me? Should i just stick with my current 65 watt Yamaha receiver?

If it makes any difference, my speakers are Energy's RC-10s.

Just so you know, I power my RC-10s with a 50wpc NAD integrated amp and it kicks in my small room (computer setup). Nothing to make the roof fly off but enough output so I can feel the bass while I shave in the bathroom Numbers isn't the only thing to look at.

200w is way overkill btw.

 

[Adam]

Numbers isn't the only thing to look at.

Excellent, excellent point.

200w is way overkill btw.

Maybe, maybe not. When I went from the 120W/channel (I think) power of my Pioneer receiver to a 200W/channel outboard amp with my NHT 1.5s (85 dB sensitivity versus the more efficient 88 dB RC-10s), I noticed a large improvement in the sound when I played material loud. At normal everyday listening levels, there was no noticeable difference. Granted, I was going from powering using my receiver (which was also powering three other speakers in a 5.1 set-up) to a dedicated amp. So, I can't say if it was just that the amp was dedicated to my mains, that it was because it had a higher rating, or that it was just a better amp.

 

[jamie2112]

Excellent, excellent point.



Maybe, maybe not. When I went from the 120W/channel (I think) power of my Pioneer receiver to a 200W/channel outboard amp with my NHT 1.5s (85 dB sensitivity versus the more efficient 88 dB RC-10s), I noticed a large improvement in the sound when I played material loud. At normal everyday listening levels, there was no noticeable difference. Granted, I was going from powering using my receiver (which was also powering three other speakers in a 5.1 set-up) to a dedicated amp. So, I can't say if it was just that the amp was dedicated to my mains, that it was because it had a higher rating, or that it was just a better amp.

More power cleaner signal......

 

[mouettus]

Excellent, excellent point.



Maybe, maybe not. When I went from the 120W/channel (I think) power of my Pioneer receiver to a 200W/channel outboard amp with my NHT 1.5s (85 dB sensitivity versus the more efficient 88 dB RC-10s), I noticed a large improvement in the sound when I played material loud. At normal everyday listening levels, there was no noticeable difference. Granted, I was going from powering using my receiver (which was also powering three other speakers in a 5.1 set-up) to a dedicated amp. So, I can't say if it was just that the amp was dedicated to my mains, that it was because it had a higher rating, or that it was just a better amp.

Yes but now you are comparing apples (receiver wattage rating) to oranges (dedicated amp wattage). Often the receiver companies just boost their numbers to impress you. That or they just might not have the same way of calculating. eg: full range vs 1khz tests. My 5740 is supposed to boost 100w per channel. I upgrated to a 6190 that has 130w per channel. There shouldn't be very much difference between the two but dang the dynamics exploded with the new receiver. Better, tougher, stronger power.

Now I am presently struggling to see if my 130 yammie watts could be improved by 100 rotel watts.

If the op is looking for an outboard amp, it is very likely that the number of watts he'll see on the spec sheets will be true wattage ratings. Anything from 80 to 100 would be awesome. Maybe you should have a look at something like the RB-1072 Digita class D amp from Rotel. 1K$ for 100 watts.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...Nothing to make the roof fly off ....

You need a very good sub for that

 

[mtrycrafts]

More power cleaner signal......

One should be getting clean signal to its rated continuous power output. And, today's well designed gear will be below detection at that point.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

But I have read elsewhere that a reciever with 80 Watt channels will be fine for my speakers and will play them louder than my ears could tolerate anyway.

so what's the deal... is more watts better? ...

What speakers do you have? Impedance? Sensitivity? Your listening levels?
If you listen at comfortable levels, you should be fine.

 

[niceshoes]

What speakers do you have? Impedance? Sensitivity? Your listening levels?
If you listen at comfortable levels, you should be fine.

The speakers are Energy RC-10's, read the first post

It seems like people are split between "more power = cleaner sound" and "power doesn't matter"

Now I'm even more confused

 

[skizzerflake]

The speakers are Energy RC-10's, read the first post

It seems like people are split between "more power = cleaner sound" and "power doesn't matter"

Now I'm even more confused

Don't sweat it too much. Speaker ratings generally refer to the continuous power a speaker can take, but in real music, unless you're into pink noise, you rarely listen to music at top power all the time. Unless your loudness level is really demonic, you generally lope along at a couple watts, with louder peaks. The main thing you want to avoid is underpowering a speaker. If your amp clips, you can damage a speaker with square waves well below its ratings. If you have to err, it's better to have too much power than too little. The main thing is to not drive your amp into distortion. And... recall that the difference between 100 watts and 200 is only 3 decibels, which means that a 200 watt amp won't be much louder than 100. The main thing is have good available power and don't crank it into distortion.

 

[MDS]

It seems like people are split between "more power = cleaner sound" and "power doesn't matter"

Everyone is correct so far and so is the salesman but as usual there are subtleties.

- The salesman recommended a higher power amp than the speaker's recommendation because the higher power amp will be operating in its linear range and not stressing at all. An underpowered amp will be working overtime and may clip, distorting the waveform and possibly damaging the tweeters. Many people simplify this to 'more power is better than less' but you can blow the speakers just as easily by sending them far more power than they can handle. Usually speakers are very conservatively rated so 100 wpc max isn't necessarily a hard and fast absolute top end.

- It's true that an 80 wpc receiver/amp will be able to drive the speakers to ear-splitting levels. The vast majority of the time, the receiver will be putting out only a few watts, but you need headroom to be able to reproduce the peaks which can require 10x the power, if only for a fraction of a second. A larger amp will not struggle with that requirement.

- 'More power == better sound' only applies in the case where you are playing things very loud and the amp can deal with the reserve power requirements for peaks. A 200 wpc amp will also be delivering very few watts the majority of the time which is why Adam says that at 'normal' listening levels there isn't any sound quality difference but he does notice it at higher levels. So again...it's the transients and the higher listening level where an external amp can add some value.

The simplistic analogy I use all the time is your car engine. It can handle 3000 RPM for hundreds or thousands of miles on a long distance trip on a continuous basis but how long can you rev it on the red line? A receiver with shared power supply is working its butt off at high levels (revving on the red line) while the external amp is just cruising.

Do you absolutely need a high power external amp? No, but it can still be useful. I haven't owned one for many, many years and don't feel the need to ever buy one again. Put it this way, my lowly Onkyo 502 is calibrated to reference level and it does show some signs of strain at those levels...but my ears can't deal with that level anyway.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The speakers are Energy RC-10's, read the first post

It seems like people are split between "more power = cleaner sound" and "power doesn't matter"

Now I'm even more confused

Yes, thank you, right in the last line, last words

those are about 86dB spl/2.83V/1m, not the greatest but your 85 watts of continuous power will deliver almost 105 dB spl.
What you need to worry about is the speaker's distortion in the 500Hz-1kHz range as you dump more power into it.
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/energy_rc_10/
At 90dB spl it has a 3%-7% THD
At 95dB spl, it gets worse.
So, a higher powered amp will not eliminate those THD numbers.

 

[Midcow2]

I've been looking into getting a new amp and my speaker's brochure tell me that they are recommended to use with amplifiers up to 175W per channel.

Now, the guy at the AV shop tells me I should get a more powerful amp (200+ watts) because it would give a better sound and as long as I dont crank it to max volume it should be ok.

But I have read elsewhere that a reciever with 80 Watt channels will be fine for my speakers and will play them louder than my ears could tolerate anyway.

so what's the deal... is more watts better? Should i stay below 175 watts like my manufacturer tells me? Should i just stick with my current 65 watt Yamaha receiver?

If it makes any difference, my speakers are Energy's RC-10s.

The speakers have about average sensitivy = Anechoic Sensitivity: 88 dB; 2 speakers in a typical room: 91 dB at a nominla impedance at 8 ohms.

Always stay below the recommended speaker wattage, 175 RMS is actually pretty high for sunstained RMS wattage.

Alos remeber power is logrithmic So going from 65 watts (1.81) to 175 watts (2.24) is only an gain of about 24%

Some AVRs begin to distort at their maximum power settings, which is maybe why the guy in teh store said 200 watts RMS But 200watts RMS is a very very powerful amplfier mych more than you need.

You should be fin with your current Yamaha. If the sound is not loud ennought and you have pre-out your coulsd always add a pwer amp later. If you don't have preouts then you would need to upgrade AVR, but many of the higher end AVrs are stil lin the 100-125 RMS range, not 200.

 

[niceshoes]

Thanks for all the advice.

To be honest all the tech speak (impedence, Anechoic Sensitivity, THD, spl, clipping) confuses the hell out of me but if most of you think my 65 watt/channel Yamaha is adequate then I'm happy with that

 

[niceshoes]

By the way, is there a beginner's guide somewhere that explains what all these graphs mean?

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me.../energy_rc_10/

 

[mtrycrafts]

By the way, is there a beginner's guide somewhere that explains what all these graphs mean?

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me.../energy_rc_10/

This should help
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm

 

[TLS Guy]

This should help
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm

That's a nice simple guide to steer people to. I will keep that in my bookmarks.