200 Watt or 125 Watt amp

[Bruinsrme]

What advantages would a 200 watt amp be over a 125 watt amp.

Is it necessary to adequately drive RF7s?

Thanks,

Scott

[Jef]

Purely on the numbers you will have 2 dB more headroom - inaudible at those levels (125 dB SPL at 1 meter or 123 dB SPL with your RF7's). These are ear damaging soundlevels.

Better to check the current delivery capabilities, the more the better - gives a nice neat controlled bass.

Best regards ... Jef

[mmiles]

IMHO and I am sure there is some science here too (twice as loud = 10X power, 2x increase is only 3dB, does that "sound" right) that 200wpc will not be "loader" than 125wpc expecially with a speaker as effecient as the RF-7.

However the "dynamics" of the sound and "responsiveness" (headroom, speed, slew rating, freq. response etc) to the demands from your source material will be noticealbe. This is were terms like: warmth, detail, articulation, sound stage, presence etc. come to play with ones opinion to sound quality.

Also keep in mind what if you god forbid use another brand of speakers with that amp in the future say like; B&W, Def.Tech or Mirage? All great sounding speakers but not near as effecient and with different accoutical goals as your RF-7's. Then what?

Regards,

Mike

[Frzninvt]

It depends on the quality of the amplifier in question. The 200 watts will give you additional headroom if you intend on running the system at higher levels as it will not work as hard to achieve the same volume level. While the 200 watt amp will not be alot louder there will certainly be a difference.

[Colin]

might be no advanatge, since the super-sensitivity of the horns requires only a few watts, if the 125 watt is better built, it could sound better, the low powered (20 watts) vintage receivers I have sound better than the cheap crap they sell today, which is rated much higher!

[marksdad]

if bothamps are equally built the difference in headroom will really show during loud passages, funny but the longer a person listens to quality gear the more a person picks up on those things

[arthurs]

all things being equal go with more as you may need it for later changes...outside of that you may not notice any remarkable differences other than those noted above.

[RickB]

I agree with Marksdad and Arthurs, if all things are pretty equal and I could afford it I would go with the more power. It might help keep the upgrade bug in check a little longer.

[Bruinsrme]

RickB. you could have shared that in your PM.

Back to the ithinking board.

[RickRichardson]

With speakers as efficient as yours, I would think the additional power be itself will not make a big difference. Since there are differences in the sound of amps that is not related to power, but design/parts quality/construction, so the question is, "What kind of changes are you looking for?" I switched from a 125 watt Denon 4800 to a B& K Reference 7270 with 200 watts per channel and got a warmer sound more than anything else.

I am interested in your switch from the Pioneer to the Hafler, if I read your system info correctly. What is the difference in sound between them? I am very interested in your experience, as I have been asked by a friend to suggest a system for a very large room (40 X 38 X 17) and was thinking of the exact speakers, subs and receiver that you have. How large is your listening room? He wants a system that will be primarily HT with only occasional music, wants to make sure his 60 year old ears can hear the dialogue, and wants it easy to set up/maintain.

[Strabo]

Will they let you listen to them at home first? If so try it out and let us know what you think.

I was going through this last week when I missed out on a Bryston but the dealer offered me a great deal on a Sherbourn (new, but same as what I've seen them used on Audiogon). Problem was I had my heart set on the 125 watt Bryston because I knew what it could do. The Sherbourn is 200 watts with 50% less reserve capacitance but 50% more VAmps available from the transformer than the Bryston so it should equal out. And it showed because it outweighed the Bryston by 13 pounds.

Which way do you go? I don't know. I'm still sitting on the sidelines, but if you figure it out let me know.

[MrMcGoo]

Two hundred watts versus 125 watts? Some of the ratings are not accurate. Some stand alone amps are underrated, while receivers are usually overrated.

One way to get a handle on the ratings is to look at the 4 ohm and 2 ohm performance, if listed. A 125 watt amp that can double down into both 4 and 2 ohms is probably underrated at 8 ohms. Some manufacturers do this because they know that customers know Ohm's law.

The RF-7s are nominally rated as 8 ohm speakers, but Sound & Vision's tests showed that they are actually 6 ohm speakers. The impedance dips as low as 3 ohms in the bass frequencies. Hence, the low impedance capability is very important. A good amp at low impedance should do a better job at low frequencies.

The B&K was mentioned as running hot; this happens because the B&K runs as class A at low wattage and only converts to class AB as wattage increases.

In the final analysis, the amp that sounds best to your ears and has the best dynamics should win regardless af nominal wattage ratings.

Bill

[Bruinsrme]

Rick,

A room that large deserves RF7s all around, and a strong consideration for the SVS pB2 Ultra.

the Hafler was a hand me down, it was actually sitting in a friends HT collectong dust.

The pioneer is somewhat bright to me and my family. The hafler improved the low end in music play back and took some of the exaggeration out of the highs. it was very evident in stereo mode.

What I want to do is two fold.

1. prep myself for a future seperates set up

2. to bring out the sound of the klipsch the pioneer can not seem to do compared to a seperate amp.

well 3 fold - learn why more watts is better.

Scott