Min. watts per speaker?

[codyaaron2]

When I purchase a receiver what is the Min. watts per channel I should get?

I was thinking at least 100 watts per channel, is this enough?

If a receiver says 100 Watts x 7 Channels Power Output (8 Ohms, 20Hz to 20kHz, .08 THD)

will you get more watts if you only have a normal 5 speaker surround sound system?

Would you get 140 watts per channel?

Thanks

[DizRotus]

Much more information is necessary for a meaningful reply. Some questions might include, but are not limited to, the following:

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

How efficient are the speakers you intend to use;

How large a space is involved;

What decibel levels would you like to achieve; and

What type of music do you listen to?

Ive played Cornwalls and La Scalas to ear bleeding volumes with 17 watts/channel of Dynaco tube power and 25/watts/channel of Harman Kardon SS power. For those speakers 100 clean watts is way more than enough.

On the other hand, Ive used 200 watts/channel of Dynaco SS power with Bose 901s and Speakerlab Skhorns and Klipschorns. In each case 200 watts/channel was neither too little nor too much.

If you are considering efficient speakers (Klipsch for instance), then quality is more important than quantity. Ten clean (low distortion) watts are better than 100 dirty (high distortion) watts. The ability to play loud does not mean much alone. Its the ability to play well, whether loud or not, that matters.

[Islander]

That 100 watts x 7 = 700 watts is an advertising fiction that many manufacturers feel obligated to perpetuate. In one test that I read (in Audioenz, IIRC), the receiver being tested (rated at 100wpc x 7) put out 132 watts per channel when driving 2 channels, but only 55 watts per channel when driving 5 channels. They didn't try driving 7 channels, but I'm guessing the output would have dropped to 45wpc or so.

The limiting factor may have been the power supply, since it seemed to keep adding up to less than 300 watts total, however many channels were driven. When listening to the tuner (or any source, but I usually just listen to the radio in 7 channel stereo), though, 7 channel stereo is louder than 2 channel stereo, so the extra channels aren't going to waste. The test was of the Yamaha RX-V750, and I have one that I'm pretty happy with.

Some higher-end receivers actually put out their advertised power when driving all channels, but they do cost quite a bit more than the mid-range units.

If you're using Klipsch speakers, you don't need a great deal of power, unless of course you have a really big room and like to listen to music at really high volume. 100wpc is certainly not too much in most cases, though. If you get a really powerful amp, that doesn't mean you have to turn it all the way up. Some high-power amps sound great at low volume and the extra power can make the music sound more life-like on musical peaks.

[DrWho]

What speakers do you have, how big is your room, and how far away from the mains will you be sitting?

[JohnA]

When I purchase a receiver what is the Min. watts per channel I should get?

I was thinking at least 100 watts per channel, is this enough?

If a receiver says 100 Watts x 7 Channels Power Output (8 Ohms, 20Hz to 20kHz, .08 THD)

will you get more watts if you only have a normal 5 speaker surround sound system?

Would you get 140 watts per channel?

Thanks

This

isn't really enough info. However, if the amp is typical

AND it is rated at 100 wpc ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN, it might give you a few

more than 100 watts if you use only 5 channels, but you will not be

able to hear the difference and it will not be 40 more watts, maybe 5

more.

As one other said, the cheaper amps today

are rated at xx watts/channel, but with only one channel driven.

That lets the maker scrimp on the power supply. You don't want

one of these amps/receivers if you can afford better.

[WMcD]

What people have said, or questions posed have merit. But in my view, it is worrying about nothing. 100 watts per channel is going to keep you happy. 140 watts is not going to improve things very much.

There are issues with HT receivers. This arises because they are now used as the central control unit for the video system too. So there are issues about how many HDMI inputs or composite or component inputs they can handle.

Also, people want the self aligning audio systems to balance the system, etc.

Picking out what works best for you, and within your budget, requires a lot of self eduction or an honest, informed salesman. The watts per channel is your last problem.

Gil

[colterphoto1]

it takes DOUBLE the wattage to make a 3 db difference. buy something between 80 and 150 wpc and you'll be fine. the more reputable manufacturers are closer to 'real' ratings than the big box stores, that is why some guys here pay much higher ticket prices for top brands and separates.

I have a 1972 20 wpc HK receiver that will SPANK my modern Yamaha gear.

it's about power supply, as an astute writer above noted.

[Roc Rinaldi]

General guideline: 100 - 200 rms wpc is sufficient.

I have 200 rms wpc and I can't get over 6 on a volume scale of 1 to 10. ( my 6 measures 105 - 110 decibels at the listening position with rock music. I am driving 4 Forte IIs & 2 KG-4s, plus a powered sub, of course. All in a room 23 x 22 x 7.3.

Hope this helps.

[Roc Rinaldi]

Watts quality AND quantity are both important with quality first and quantity second.

[Duke Spinner]

what does Terry say ..??

"it's the first clean 100 watt's that count's " ....[] []

[Roc Rinaldi]

what does Terry say ..??

"it's the first clean 100 watt's that count's " ....[] []

Sounds good to me. Most of the time we operate with about 2 to 20 wpc anyhow.

[Duke Spinner]

Roc ...

the Silent Majority here ....

know the's a Huge difference between an amp, say 100 - 200 w,

and a 30 watt amp .......

Ask .." Stormin " what happened when he went to the 200w QSC .....[]

Want .... Bass ...??

Want ... Slam ..??

takes .. Real Watt's