Pictures Of Your High End System (Please see the first pages for examples of what should be posted here)
Nov 3, 2012 at 7:47 PM Post #3,046 of 3,551
Quote:
 

 
Pics.....of RECORDS.......
evil_smiley.gif

hopefully records you dont like much if you are storing them on their side...
 
Nov 3, 2012 at 8:17 PM Post #3,047 of 3,551
The ones on their sides are all polkas......inherited.....
 
Nov 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM Post #3,048 of 3,551
An album is a collection of music, and can be released on vinyl, optical disc, tape, download etc.
 
Nov 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM Post #3,049 of 3,551
Quote:
 
235 watts for 96 db per channel?! Why? (Are those KT88 or 66 btw?)  I'm running Jensen P15LL with Altec 802b Horns with a combined efficiency of 98 db and only using about 10 watts at max and can certainly drive them past ear bleeding volumes.  Had a vintage pair of Tannoy Super Reds before the Jensens, so I definitely share your appreciation of those speakers.  Those are absolutely gorgeous cabinets!!!!

 
Absolutely beautiful system. I can only imagine how great it sound 
 
Nov 3, 2012 at 11:34 PM Post #3,050 of 3,551
Quote:
 
235 watts for 96 db per channel?! Why? (Are those KT88 or 66 btw?)  I'm running Jensen P15LL with Altec 802b Horns with a combined efficiency of 98 db and only using about 10 watts at max and can certainly drive them past ear bleeding volumes.  Had a vintage pair of Tannoy Super Reds before the Jensens, so I definitely share your appreciation of those speakers.  Those are absolutely gorgeous cabinets!!!!

 
Wattage doesn't go as far as you may think. I seriously doubt anyone ever uses more than 1 watt on speakers that are more than 85 db efficient. 96 db is close to a constant jackhammer, 85 over a long period will give you permanent hearing damage.
 
Sometimes a good design can output heaps of power while being really good at low wattage as well eg. ncore.
 
Nov 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM Post #3,052 of 3,551
Quote:
 
Wattage doesn't go as far as you may think. I seriously doubt anyone ever uses more than 1 watt on speakers that are more than 85 db efficient. 96 db is close to a constant jackhammer, 85 over a long period will give you permanent hearing damage.
 
Sometimes a good design can output heaps of power while being really good at low wattage as well eg. ncore.


What about taking the listening distance into consideration, transients, etc... 
 
Nov 3, 2012 at 11:54 PM Post #3,053 of 3,551
18.7k in that pic. Retail of course. Plus another 10k+ in headphones.

I hate talking about prices but this hobby is evil. I feel like I should record a PSA for my 10,000th post. Lol.
 
Nov 4, 2012 at 1:05 AM Post #3,054 of 3,551
Mmmm...Lateralus. I love that picture disc. I have it too. Still trying to hunt down a legit copy of Aenima under 300 bucks.

 
I emailed my mom to have her check if I still have Aenima in a box at home. Haven't been there for a few years and there have been more than a few garage sales. If I have it still, I'll drop a PM with a great price. Still sealed as I never even owned a turntable.
 
Nov 4, 2012 at 1:09 AM Post #3,055 of 3,551
PLEASE GOD YES.
 
Quote:
 
I emailed my mom to have her check if I still have Aenima in a box at home. Haven't been there for a few years and there have been more than a few garage sales.If I have it still, I'll drop a PM with a great price. Still sealed as I never even owned a turntable.

 
Nov 4, 2012 at 1:19 AM Post #3,056 of 3,551
Quote:
What about taking the listening distance into consideration, transients, etc... 

 
Hadn't thought about that actually... I still highly doubt you would use more than 1 watt.
 
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html is giving me 85 db at 15 ft not considering positioning. (using 96 db efficiency)
 
85 db efficiency gets about 75 db at 15 ft which is quite loud but not unfeasible for some people here to listen to.
 
Nov 4, 2012 at 7:58 AM Post #3,057 of 3,551
18.7k in that pic. Retail of course. Plus another 10k+ in headphones.
I hate talking about prices but this hobby is evil. I feel like I should record a PSA for my 10,000th post. Lol.


It is still a lot cheaper than the big speaker rigs. You could buy a LG for the price of their cables!
 
Nov 4, 2012 at 12:28 PM Post #3,058 of 3,551
http://www.head-fi.org/t/634762/3-musketeer-mini-meet-impressions-11-3-12-austin-texas
 
For those of you wanting impressions. The other guys should be adding their impressions soon as well.
 
Nov 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM Post #3,059 of 3,551
Quote:
 
Hadn't thought about that actually... I still highly doubt you would use more than 1 watt.
 
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html is giving me 85 db at 15 ft not considering positioning. (using 96 db efficiency)
 
85 db efficiency gets about 75 db at 15 ft which is quite loud but not unfeasible for some people here to listen to.

 
Transients are 1 big reason heaps of power might be required. Not nearly so much with 96+ dB/Watt speakers, but speakers which hit that number honestly (e.g. not taking room gain into account, which would be doubled by that online calculator) are rare, and you'd still need well above 1 watt to make "lifelike" levels for music with a healthy crest factor (overly compressed/brickwall'd recordings, e.g. RHCP, need not apply). A continuous/sustained 106dB level is going to be too damn loud for most folks. However, 106dB peaks on music with a 20-30dB crest factor  (i.e. 75dB-85dB average levels) is quite enjoyable, and some would argue it's the proper way to listen to many fine classical recordings (or even higher). Many amps only supply an extra 3dB or so of power for peaks (again, if they're honest) vs. their continuous power rating. So the crest level -- not the continuous level -- is almost always going to be the limiting factor, and thus what we should use in these calculations (which btw are just "good" estimates). So let's do those calculations again with a target of 106dB peaks:
 
1 Watt gives us 96dB @ 1m. Let's assume only 3 meters distance:
=> 6 * log2(1m/3m) = -9.5 dB (loss of almost 10 dB)
=> +6dB for stereo speakers
=> +3dB for estimated room gain
Add them up: now we've about broken even, at 95.5dB for our 1 Watt. We'll need to add power (over 1 Watt) to hit 106dB peaks:
106dB - 95.5dB = 10.5dB
10.5dB = 10 * log10(P/1Watt), where P is the power (in Watts) we're solving for:
P = 11.2 Watts (peak)
 
So we'd need an amp that can provide 11 Watts peak in this situation (btw the requirement would be a stout 87 Watts if our speakers were only an ordinary 87dB/Watt!). That's a lot more than 1 Watt, but still not much. What about 112dB peaks (still well below the levels of some venues)? That would require 44 Watts (96dB speakers) or 348 Watts (87dB speakers).
 
Now here's where audiophile madness comes into play: many stereo amps -- especially tube amps or single-ended amps -- rise in distortion up to their rated power. Also, speakers are not a purely resistive load, and can be much more demanding on an amp than their nominal impedance would indicate. The more headroom you have, the lower your distortion is likely to be -- though obviously this yields reduced gains as your power requirements become so minimal that the noise floor begins to dominate. How much headroom you decide you'll need is a very subjective call -- but this being the summit-fi forum, I assume we'll have plenty of "enough is never enough" kind of guys/gals around here. A modest 10dB of headroom would require 110 Watts of peak power capability in our example (440 Watts for 112dB peaks), or 870 Watts (3,480 Watts for 112dB peaks) with an 87dB/Watt speaker! These multiply out very quickly...
 
Either way: yes, 250 Watts is a LOT for a 96dB/Watt speaker. A stout 60 Watt/ch amp would be unlikely to ever clip audibly in my situation (and you DO want to avoid clipping, even by accident, and even with tube amps), even with my "let's push the volume" tendencies. I'm a big fan of efficient speakers -- I think it's impossible to get back everything by just bludgeoning the speakers with brute power, once you give up efficiency (e.g. heat dissipation issues) -- and just happened to have really powerful tube amps at the time I upgraded speakers. I'd consider less powerful tube amps in the future (the Atmasphere 60 Watt OTL monos look niiice), but for now it sounds superb so I'll ride out this rare streak of contentedness.
 
Nov 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM Post #3,060 of 3,551
Room gain is only at lower frequencies.
 

 
Quote:
 
Transients are 1 big reason heaps of power might be required. Not nearly so much with 96+ dB/Watt speakers, but speakers which hit that number honestly (e.g. not taking room gain into account, which would be doubled by that online calculator) are rare, and you'd still need well above 1 watt to make "lifelike" levels for music with a healthy crest factor (overly compressed/brickwall'd recordings, e.g. RHCP, need not apply). A continuous/sustained 106dB level is going to be too damn loud for most folks. However, 106dB peaks on music with a 20-30dB crest factor  (i.e. 75dB-85dB average levels) is quite enjoyable, and some would argue it's the proper way to listen to many fine classical recordings (or even higher). Many amps only supply an extra 3dB or so of power for peaks (again, if they're honest) vs. their continuous power rating. So the crest level -- not the continuous level -- is almost always going to be the limiting factor, and thus what we should use in these calculations (which btw are just "good" estimates). So let's do those calculations again with a target of 106dB peaks:
 
1 Watt gives us 96dB @ 1m. Let's assume only 3 meters distance:
=> 6 * log2(1m/3m) = -9.5 dB (loss of almost 10 dB)
=> +6dB for stereo speakers
=> +3dB for estimated room gain
Add them up: now we've about broken even, at 95.5dB for our 1 Watt. We'll need to add power (over 1 Watt) to hit 106dB peaks:
106dB - 95.5dB = 10.5dB
10.5dB = 10 * log10(P/1Watt), where P is the power (in Watts) we're solving for:
P = 11.2 Watts (peak)
 
So we'd need an amp that can provide 11 Watts peak in this situation (btw the requirement would be a stout 87 Watts if our speakers were only an ordinary 87dB/Watt!). That's a lot more than 1 Watt, but still not much. What about 112dB peaks (still well below the levels of some venues)? That would require 44 Watts (96dB speakers) or 348 Watts (87dB speakers).
 
Now here's where audiophile madness comes into play: many stereo amps -- especially tube amps or single-ended amps -- rise in distortion up to their rated power. Also, speakers are not a purely resistive load, and can be much more demanding on an amp than their nominal impedance would indicate. The more headroom you have, the lower your distortion is likely to be -- though obviously this yields reduced gains as your power requirements become so minimal that the noise floor begins to dominate. How much headroom you decide you'll need is a very subjective call -- but this being the summit-fi forum, I assume we'll have plenty of "enough is never enough" kind of guys/gals around here. A modest 10dB of headroom would require 110 Watts of peak power capability in our example (440 Watts for 112dB peaks), or 870 Watts (3,480 Watts for 112dB peaks) with an 87dB/Watt speaker! These multiply out very quickly...
 
Either way: yes, 250 Watts is a LOT for a 96dB/Watt speaker. A stout 60 Watt/ch amp would be unlikely to ever clip audibly in my situation (and you DO want to avoid clipping, even by accident, and even with tube amps), even with my "let's push the volume" tendencies. I'm a big fan of efficient speakers -- I think it's impossible to get back everything by just bludgeoning the speakers with brute power, once you give up efficiency (e.g. heat dissipation issues) -- and just happened to have really powerful tube amps at the time I upgraded speakers. I'd consider less powerful tube amps in the future (the Atmasphere 60 Watt OTL monos look niiice), but for now it sounds superb so I'll ride out this rare streak of contentedness.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top