The main reason for my question is I’m really enjoying watching movies and 2.1 stereo but sometimes I feel my older 40 W per channel NAD is trying a little too hard. I’ve heard people say that when they got a more powerful amp their speakers really “woke up”. I’m watching a NAD 216, may try to make a lowball offer and see if I get it. There’s also a NAD 902 with similar specs to my NAD 705 but I e read people feel the 902’s specs are more than conservative. I can buy the 902 for $72.50
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Purchases of new equipment are often followed by claims of wondrous new capabilities like "waking up" my speakers. Its an audiophiles way of justifying the purchase, or, trying to fill in the void when nothing especially noteworthy occurred after spending several thousand dollars.
Basically, watts is watts. When I replaced my old 70watt per channel AVR with a 200 watt per channel one, I didn't expect much change and lo and behold there was zero change in the sound. The number on the knob was the only difference between the two.
Most people, me included, have no idea how much power they are actually using. A previous poster mentioned 2 watts is the ballpark, which is good enough ballpark number. Except I would say its mostly less than or equal to 2 watts for a normal 76db SPL at the listening position. The brethren here helped me do a ballpark test a few years ago and I was stunned to learn I was doing less than 1 watt to sit and listen at that normalish db level to music.
That makes most of these high horsepower arguments largely just an academic exercize. Now that
@PENG has weighed in, whatever he says is probably good as gold. Several other qualified posters have also kicked it. Once you have enough, adding more is just heating the room. Although, I love the idea you can never have too much horsepower or too many output watts. It doesn't have to make sense. Its audio.
