How many Watts is your system?

[emorphien]

mine has enough watts that I wouldn't dare turn it up all the way... or anywhere close to that

 

[Ampdog]

What are we "talking" about here??

I rather think I should not have read this thread - still, one advantage of starting late is that one can take all contributions under consideration.

Greenjelly started with one of his more frequent sweeping statements, that watts do not mean a thing. (He/she seems to have fried a loudspeaker with 1W or some such nonsense. His/her kind of logic has been dealt with elsewhere, so I will not expand. I believe he/she is no longer with us.)

But some other contributions between then and now are cause for concern. The basis of my contribution is that because misuse/abuse exists, one cannot simply glibly condemn the use/usefulness of something as basic as a watt or whatever other parameter. But this is what I occasionally read!

Very certainly it matters to me how many watt an amplifier is! Just because there are folks that misunderstand this either from being honestly misinformed, gullible about promotional fodder, having their own agenda or whatever, or because of downright arrogant stupidity; or because there are manufacturers who do not hesitate to misinform - that does not make basic concepts valueless.

I do think that most members here will agree that when I want an amplifier, I need to start with whether 20W stereo will do (if I am a student in a small room) or whether I am an affluent member of the community with a large listening room needing perhaps 400W/channel or more. How can one say this is immaterial? (- just because specs are sometimes not true? ... and I do not believe anyone will be bluffed by PMPO. Even there one could get an idea of reality by looking at the power consumption at the back of the device, etc.)

Weight-wise? If I may use those Thule and Kenwood pictures on page 2 as an example (and I am not referring to the makes, just the pictures): Yes, they could both be giving what was specified! Sure, the Thule impresses with substantial toroids - but I am sure members have heard of switching power supplies? Several things in the Kenwood picture could suggest that there might indeed have been such a supply, in which case it could provide the same power as hefty 60 Hz toroids, plus in fact better regulation. (Again I am not suggesting this was the case, just judging by what I noticed in 2 pictures). In such a case the weight would be no measure, etc.

Furthermore we have taken notice of the "new" generation of switching amplifiers (Tripath, etc.). I saw a picture just yesterday of such a 50W unit measuring only 5 x 3cm and weighing not more than an ounce or 2, I am sure, but I dare not state that it cannot do the job.

Bottom line: I would simply caution that one must be careful of this or that concept (urban legend?) especially when seen in isolation. As said, "when all else failed", the mains power spec. on the chassis remains as a rough indication of what the device might be capable of, and indeed some experience or advice will be of immense value. But "wise" (sic) sweeping statements that this or that basic spec. is meaningless per se because it sometimes is - yes, it could come from ignorance of audio technology, but in a very different way that G-J was "trying to teach " us.

Regards!

 

[Seth=L]

I agree with what you are saying, Ampdog. I agree that different amplifier topoligies can do different things in different sizes using different parts to more effectively power speakers. In the case of the Kenwood it was rated at 100 watts @ 8 ohms 1Khz one channel driven. The Thule, same number of channels can dish out 100 watts x 5 @ 8 ohms 20hz-20khz all channels driven simultaneously. They are definitely not comparable in power or clean amplification.

Wattage is important, but many specifications are just plain misleading. In any case if you have some speakers that are say 90db @ 1 watt and you are using a 40 watt amplifier you can get some decent volume out of them.But say you have some speakers that are 85db @ 1 watt you would need at least 100 watts or so to attain the same volume. This is why my bedroom system has a Magnavox receiver powering some BICs, because the speakers are efficient and the room is small I don't need large quantities of powering. I probably don't hardly ever use even 10 watts per channel in the bedroom listening to music at decent volumes.

In the living room I am using the Yamaha with the much less efficient NHTs, not so much because of the power, but it remains a factor.

 

[dave1490]

Awesome thread mindchild, I hate it when people do that too. "My stereo has 900 watts man". My response, " I have a 400 watt setup that will make two of your 900watt setups cry". People just don't understand that efficiency is key, and not only that but most amplifiers especially receivers are extremely overrated or just plain misleading.

I feel ya, all the way man.

ah seth i love this topic alot of people just dont understand that volume is a combination of thing,s efficiency is a key and peak rating,s are s**t.i went for 110db jbl,s for top and mid with 800 watts of brighed bryston power.per side.as a side thought, most recievers have 100watts but thats total per side if you have 4 speakers thats 50watt,s into each and less if you have a center channel.they take the 100 a side and splite it into 5 channels.but considering you dont use it at full power all the time it seems efficent, carver did something like this with thier m1.5 that "borrows"150watts from the other channel.ie 300 per side 300 headroom 150 borrowed =750 aside 1.5 total=1.500watts i think any company that sells this way is misleading the public.should be sold as m.3 although it has more headroom then most.

 

[Ampdog]

No exactly, Seth=L.

I hope I did not mislead. There are obviously many factors, each of which could come with a certain -er, latitude. I hope you also understood that I in no way compared the two amplifiers; simply used the "images" in front of me to illustrate a point.

Not wishing to belabour, but what scratched me was that to G-J it was of more importance to say how it sounded and how loud it is. So how does your system sound? Airy, excellent, laid-back, warm, cool, "man, its sends tickles down my spine" .... That means exactly - what? Etc.

I think you know what I mean!

 

[Seth=L]

No exactly, Seth=L.

I hope I did not mislead. There are obviously many factors, each of which could come with a certain -er, latitude. I hope you also understood that I in no way compared the two amplifiers; simply used the "images" in front of me to illustrate a point.

Not wishing to belabour, but what scratched me was that to G-J it was of more importance to say how it sounded and how loud it is. So how does your system sound? Airy, excellent, laid-back, warm, cool, "man, its sends tickles down my spine" .... That means exactly - what? Etc.

I think you know what I mean!

Yes, I do understand. G-J hasn't posted in a long time. He has a red chiclet.

 

[dave1490]

The numbers most manufacturers give you don't mean a thing. I wouldn't be surprise if the power consumptions are skewed to meet the consumer's eye for an efficient or energy compliant piece of hardware. I have noticed the power consumptions fall sharply. Many think that the amps have become more efficient, while I feel they are just cutting corners to lower the consumers' costs. So a consumer wants a 100 watts perchannel and isn't willing to pay $1000 dollars to get it, so you get Sony receivers that are less than $400 that claim they have 100watts per channel. Word of advice, do not ever put budget receiver watts up against seperate amplifier's watts. Seperate amps that claim less power than their not so close relatives the budget receivers will most likely beat them out every time.

Thule amp:

Kenwood receiver:

Each one claims to have 100 watts per channel 5 channels. Which one do you think really has 100 watts x 5 channels, well you tell me?

get a 5 channel amp not 2.the 2 will put out 100watts per channel 1 channel driven,the 5 will put out 100watts 5 channels driven.as he says it wont be cheap.

 

[NYyankeeboi]

Am I correct in assuming then that wattage in home audio different in car audio systems?

Is it something to do with 12 v instead of 120 v? not sure because in my car I run 1100 watts to my subs, and 450 watts to my interior speakers.

Granted, it sounds really good, but I doubt this would fill my house the way 600 watts do with my home system.

 

[Seth=L]

get a 5 channel amp not 2.the 2 will put out 100watts per channel 1 channel driven,the 5 will put out 100watts 5 channels driven.as he says it wont be cheap.

Not sure that I understand completely

 

[emorphien]

Not sure that I understand completely

I don't either.

 

[dave1490]

I don't either.

just read how 2 channels are split into 5.a 5 channel dont do that,their about 2.5x more powerfull.

 

[MDS]

just read how 2 channels are split into 5.a 5 channel dont do that,their about 2.5x more powerfull.

Ok, add me to the list of those that are confused. A 2 channel signal is 'split' into 5.1 channels by a matrix decoder like PLII. What does that have to do with having a 5 channel amp vs having a 2 channel amp that will only amplify the front channels?

 

[jonnythan]

This is getting good.

 

[highfihoney]

When someone ask's me how many watts the stereo is... I just smile and say, Enough

Love your website,i was looking at the pink floyd poster on your wall & it reminded me that i bought the same poster with the intention of getting it framed but it ended up in the attic with the rest of my unused crap,i gotta dig that puppy out & get it framed.

 

[no. 5]

Am I correct in assuming then that wattage in home audio different in car audio systems?

Is it something to do with 12 v instead of 120 v? not sure because in my car I run 1100 watts to my subs, and 450 watts to my interior speakers.

Granted, it sounds really good, but I doubt this would fill my house the way 600 watts do with my home system.

a watt is a watt, it does not matter if it's in your car or house.

 

[emorphien]

OK, raise your hand if you're confused.


*raises hand*

 

[emorphien]

a watt is a watt, it does not matter if it's in your car or house.

Well perhaps he's asking it as a perception of how much power is being used. Which could depend on impedance or volts. 100 watts for a 2 ohm setup isn't the same as saying 100 watts for a 8 ohm setup.

 

[MDS]

Sorry Dave, I still don't understand your rant but I'll say this, you are seriously mistaken.

- First of all, real music doesn't EVER drive all channels at the same time.
- Second, most receivers are rated driving 2 channels at the same time, not one.
- No you do not sum the per channel rating. Only 'boombox' type systems rate that way - it's called Peak Music Power Output (PMPO) and yes that is misleading.

Most importantly people are obsessed with large numbers and automatically think 200 wpc will sound better than a receiver or amp rated less. The reality is that the receiver/amp will almost NEVER be required to deliver that much power. Your 200 wpc amp will be delivering a few watts to your speakers the vast majority of the time - it's only the transients that require a lot of power and that only comes into play if you have a huge room and are listening at extremely loud levels. Even still they are brief moments in time.

By the 'more is better' logic everyone should buy Pro amps capable of delivering 500 wpc even though it will rarely be called upon to supply more than a dozen watts.

 

[no. 5]

Well perhaps he's asking it as a perception of how much power is being used. Which could depend on impedance or volts.

oh, yes... did'nt really think of that.

100 watts for a 2 ohm setup isn't the same as saying 100 watts for a 8 ohm setup.

yeah, that would be a good sized voltage difference, for one thing.

 

[dave1490]

Sorry Dave, I still don't understand your rant but I'll say this, you are seriously mistaken.

- First of all, real music doesn't EVER drive all channels at the same time.
- Second, most receivers are rated driving 2 channels at the same time, not one.
- No you do not sum the per channel rating. Only 'boombox' type systems rate that way - it's called Peak Music Power Output (PMPO) and yes that is misleading.

Most importantly people are obsessed with large numbers and automatically think 200 wpc will sound better than a receiver or amp rated less. The reality is that the receiver/amp will almost NEVER be required to deliver that much power. Your 200 wpc amp will be delivering a few watts to your speakers the vast majority of the time - it's only the transients that require a lot of power and that only comes into play if you have a huge room and are listening at extremely loud levels. Even still they are brief moments in time.

By the 'more is better' logic everyone should buy Pro amps capable of delivering 500 wpc even though it will rarely be called upon to supply more than a dozen watts.

i agree with everything you said.but i from the old school were continuse power was the norm and each signal had a amp.