Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Splitting preout
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Splitting preout - Page 2

post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

The Yamaha supports 4 ohm. I'm running it biamped into two sets of speakers and there's power to spare.

 

At what RMS all channels driven into 4 ohms with onset of clipping?

post #17 of 27

Never been able to get that far.

post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Never been able to get that far.

 

In other words, you don't know - which means you don't know if every speaker will work or not in every situation.

post #19 of 27

My speakers take a lot of power to drive. No problems with them. Honestly, 100 watts a channel should be enough to drive most speakers.

post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

My speakers take a lot of power to drive. No problems with them. Honestly, 100 watts a channel should be enough to drive most speakers.

 

Which speakers?  What's their nominal impedance, lowest impedance, phase angle, sensitivity, and distance?

post #21 of 27

They're JBL studio monitors from the 1970s.

 

Feel free to obfuscate, but I can't be trolled into joining you in techno blather.


Edited by bigshot - 12/3/12 at 4:41pm
post #22 of 27

They're JBL studio monitors from the 1970s.

 

Feel free to obfuscate, but I can't be trolled into joining you in techno blather.

 

It's not trolling - I'm not looking for an emotional reaction but rather making a point.

 

Quit simply you don't know OP's amp requirements and the capability of the HT receiver you recommend.  There's cases where 200W isn't even enough.  There's speakers out there that only put out 80dB1m/1w, have 4 ohm impedance if not dipping a bit lower, and phase up to 45 degree angles.  These are worst case and not common, but at 10 feet take a massive amount of power (well beyond 200W per channel).

 

As for your JBL's, if they're the L100 or similar they are about average to drive from what I've seen.  They're hardly a case of "hard to drive" compared to numerous ribbon speakers for example.

 

When advising about an amp the questions generally should be:

 

What speakers?

Distance from?

What listening levels?

 

This allows one to figure out what is and is not enough power to a fairly reliable number.

post #23 of 27

One of the big problems with "audiophilia nervosa" is that it is very difficult for anybody to get a straightforward answer. As soon as someone offers a suggestion, someone else comes in saying that if the person asking the question lives on the planet Venus, the atmosphere won't allow sound waves to permeate the membranes around the cochlea of the eardrum making the suggestion invalid. It's absurd to say that anyone putting a set of speakers in their living room really *needs* 200 watts per channel. We both know he doesn't need a system like that.

 

In 99.9% of all home stereo applications, 100 watts per channel is MORE than enough. Most people can get along with half that. The receiver I pointed to would sound exactly the same as doing it the hard way with separate amps and preamps and would be a darn sight more convenient when it came to features and remotes. It would cost considerably less.

 

What's the point of making things hard on him by just confusing him with a bunch of irrelevant exceptions that probably don't apply? Let's do the guy a favor and just suggest something that probably works, shall we?

post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

One of the big problems with "audiophilia nervosa" is that it is very difficult for anybody to get a straightforward answer. As soon as someone offers a suggestion, someone else comes in saying that if the person asking the question lives on the planet Venus, the atmosphere won't allow sound waves to permeate the membranes around the cochlea of the eardrum making the suggestion invalid. It's absurd to say that anyone putting a set of speakers in their living room really *needs* 200 watts per channel. We both know he doesn't need a system like that.

 

In 99.9% of all home stereo applications, 100 watts per channel is MORE than enough. Most people can get along with half that. The receiver I pointed to would sound exactly the same as doing it the hard way with separate amps and preamps and would be a darn sight more convenient when it came to features and remotes. It would cost considerably less.

 

What's the point of making things hard on him by just confusing him with a bunch of irrelevant exceptions that probably don't apply? Let's do the guy a favor and just suggest something that probably works, shall we?

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know what system he needs.  I know what's likely, but I don't assume.  As for the 200W per channel comment - some seriously do need it to reach 90dB at ten or so feet.  They are rare and usually "exotic" such as ribbons, but that's why I don't assume regardless.

 

Equally, the three questions are not unreasonable or confusing.  What speakers does he have, how far does he sit from them, and average listening level (maybe using a SPL comparison chart if he doesn't know) . . . how is that confusing?  These are really easy questions that can actually tell you pretty quick whether your recommendation makes sense or not.

 

As for me, I rather recommend something I KNOW works rather than "probably" works.  I agree that power requirements are usually over-estimated, but why bother risking it?

 

As for your 100W comment, Yamaha specs are rather misleading.  Their power rating changes based on how many channels are running for example, they will include a 4ohm rating when only one channel is running, and generally are not reliable measures considering such.

 

EDIT:

 

Either way, I'm going to go on agree to disagree at this point.  If you still disagree with this that's fine, but there is definite reasoning behind not outright recommending the Yamaha and various HT receivers.


Edited by Shike - 12/3/12 at 6:42pm
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know what system he needs.

 

When you have an idea for a suggestion, feel free to offer it.

 

Since he wants to do 5:1, I think it would be a lot easier for him to just get a receiver designed to do just that. Dennon and Yamaha both make good ones.


Edited by bigshot - 12/3/12 at 7:25pm
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

 

When you have an idea for a suggestion, feel free to offer it.

 

Since he wants to do 5:1, I think it would be a lot easier for him to just get a receiver designed to do just that. Dennon and Yamaha both make good ones.

 

I won't recommend without knowing the system it's being used with.  It would be like recommending a Fiio E5 to everyone and having the ortho camp get peeved, and then recommending a HiFiMan EF6 to everyone then wondering why the IEM users are angry.

 

There are cases when a receiver will do quite fine - medium to small rooms with very easy to drive speakers (sometimes large rooms depending on how easy).  NHT Super Zeros come to mind, where the originals never dipped below 8 ohms and had a negligible phase angle - you pretty much had all the power available at all times with ease.

 

Regardless, the topic of even buying a new A/V is off-topic now that I read the op again.  OP seemed to want a simple yes/no answer in relation to their hardware.

post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

I won't recommend without knowing the system it's being used with.

Yes. I'm aware of that.

 

I'm using that Yamaha receiver in a very large room pushing 7 big speakers. It works fine. I can't picture a system that would require more, but then I'm not as up on audio esoterica as you are.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Splitting preout