Jeff Matthews Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 It's obvious you're using me to jab at Paul. Everyone knows I don't know what I'm doing.... Actually, Craig (NosValves), had me take a reading with my crappy little volt/amp meter. He said the reading equated to 60 watts. Then, he asked about the model of volt meter I had, and said it was such a cheesy little model, it would not necessarily be reliable, but, if I recall, somewhere in the ballpark. Reading the dB meter at LeMay's, along with the blown fuses episode, confirm that my little meter was probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Let me see. Average 60 watts into a pair of Khorns is approximately 125 dbs average. So Jeff is listening to music in a house (I presume) at sound levels equivalent to a jet plan taking off on a runway while he is standing 200 ft. away or standing next to an air raid siren. If Jeff is accurate, Jeff will be deaf before long... if his house doesn't fall in on him first. I think the chart says 115dB average. And yes, it will hurt the ears. And no, I don't spend much time listening to those volumes. But on occasion, a few songs, like YYZ or Karn Evil 9, are really cool to let blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 What sort of music were you listening to at 120db? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I don't remember re: the meter. It was in amps out of the amp's outputs. Music? Lots of music. That day where we had the dB meter, I believe it was "Babylon Sister" by Steely Dan. But I listen to all kinds of mainly classic rock - not too much into metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 64 watts into a single Khorn will produce 122db. The second one will add another 6 db. Room acoustics and your actual seating position will drop that value by a bit... but you would be exceeding 120 most likely. In any case, listening at a steady 115db will permanently damage your hearing within 15 minutes according to OHSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 One can't determine actual average Watts used while playing music. You definitely can't do it by calculating back from a MIDBAND chart that Klipsch supplied in Dope from Hope. You can't use the 104dB/M/W figure, and then take a measurement with a sound level meter, and work the math. That's pretty much useless, or even worse than useless since it's inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Jeff, Have you ever listened to a 1.5W SET amp or a 3W SET amp? If so, I'm interested in hearing about your impressions of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Parrot is correct here... For those left that still think PWK knew a thing or two about music reproduction, he notes that the PEAKS read on a SPL meter will be 13dB lower than the actual peaks in the room because the meter is too slow. Example, (from DFH; when the meter reads 102dB peaks, you are actually hitting 115dB peaks. This is full concert volume sound and is as loud as I think the Klipsch were ever meant to be played. They are well constructed and engineered to allow a generous margin of safety (to the speaker) above that, but playing them louder should not be confused with music appeciation. That's not music anymore. In the DFH where PWK mentions a 20W minimum for amplification he frequently adds that for stereo this is acheived uing a pair of 10W amps. His toleration of higher power amps is based on the acceptance of the search for clean first watts by some folks using higher power amps (higher quality amps) to get the clean low watts (playing them at low level). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 . I am reporting your horse abuse to the ASPCVA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 In the DFH where PWK mentions a 20W minimum for amplification he frequently adds that for stereo this is acheived uing a pair of 10W amps. His toleration of higher power amps is based on the acceptance of the search for clean first watts by some folks using higher power amps (higher quality amps) to get the clean low watts (playing them at low level). Nope, it's 20W per channel. Look at what PWK wrote here: http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/thread/714743.aspx He talks about 60W of amplification spread over a three-speaker array, 20W per channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Jeff, Have you ever listened to a 1.5W SET amp or a 3W SET amp? If so, I'm interested in hearing about your impressions of them. That's not fair, Parrot! I suspect Jeff experiences a personal noise floor of about 85dB - not the best candidate for evaluating SETs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I see 10W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 About intent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Notice that in the "Power" article PWK says 20W peak, 10W sine average. In the "Destruction" article he says 10W peak (for full concert level in the home) which by inference is 5W sine average. I think this means 5W rms for home listening is considered more than adequate, but for large venue or small theater 10W amps are fine. Maybe for trade shows and circus events 20W amps. In other DFH papers he suggests dealers recommend holding it down to 25-35 watt amps, but I think this is because there are so many high power amps for non-horn systems and he was attempting to push the power levels DOWN from what the market was selling to get the best sound and satisfaction from customers. This is why he said. "What this country needs is a good 5W amp". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Jeff, Have you ever listened to a 1.5W SET amp or a 3W SET amp? If so, I'm interested in hearing about your impressions of them. That's not fair, Parrot! I suspect Jeff experiences a personal noise floor of about 85dB - not the best candidate for evaluating SETs. I never have (at least to my knowledge). I would doubt they would sound bad. If I had to guess, I bet they'd give a pretty decent sound, and even be louder than what you might expect. Something tells me they'd be great for a light jazz brunch in a big room, but you can't jam with them. I could be proven wrong, though. I'd be willing to bet that as far as I turned up the music to get deafening volumes at 60 watts, when I play drums to the stereo, I'm probably only driving 15 watts or so average out of the amp. That's why I like having a touring amp with gobs of power. In the 20 years I've had it, it has never even gotten warm. It will last forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I want to add that there is still something there that is more than watts. I can play a 30 watt Marantz receiver through my Klipsch and go nowhere near the authoritative sound that I get from my Crown. Yet, it is doubtfully because of watts. I still think it's damping factor. "What the world needs is a good 5-watt amp" - i.e. a 5 watt amp with a >1000 damping factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Here's a question for the SET-sayers.... To stop all this debate, why don't they just make them 100 watts or more as well? Do the extra watts cost that much more? Or is it the idea that it is classier to feed your speakers with flea power? Why not just build them with higher wattage? .... if you use the extra power, great, and if you don't need it, great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 100 watt single ended triode? Well, here's a nice 50-watt SET, only $10,000 http://www.dehavillandhifi.com/GM70_2003.htm Here's a true 100 watt SET (200 watts into 4 ohms!)--these will set you back $30,000 for the pair: http://www.vongaylordaudio.com/product_html/protri200se.htm And then there are these--not sure if they're still in production, but they put out a whopping 150 watts of SE triode power! Of couse, this set up will set you back $350,000 if you can find them! http://www.wavac-audio.jp/sh833_e.html http://www.vongaylordaudio.com/legend_files/amplifier/tri200sea/tri200SEa.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Dang, Allan! Is the cost per watt ratio in SET really high like that? What is it about SET that makes it harder to get a watt? Are they more prone to breaking if you run power through them, or is a creation issue - like you can easily get 1 HP out of a horse, but you can't get 1 HP out of a hamster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts