Why you need 500Wpc for good sound

[wpines]

Tigerwoodkhorns, I would be interested in your system profile. Would you share it here? Thanks

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Tigerwoodkhorns, I would be interested in your system profile. Would you share it here? Thanks

This is no surprise but Musical Fidelity front end with Classe amps and B&W sepakers.

From your avitar I see that you have the midrage horn upgrade on your Belles. I should add that my Belles and K Horns had the stock exponential horns.

I re-read my response above and it looks harsh. But the earlier replies are attacking someone for making a valid comment about speakers that are about 15 db less efficient than what is used here and everyone attacks him and says he has no clue what he is doing. He has been making very well respected equipment since the 1970's.

[artto]

Here's an interesting opinion from Anthony Michaelson of Musical Fidelity, a well-respected audio company. Keep in mind that he considers most high quality speakers to have a sensitivity of around 87dB.

First of all Antony Michaelson DID NOT say “that he considers most high quality speakers to have a sensitivity of around 87dB”.

What he said was “I strongly believe that with an ordinary high quality loudspeaker of about 87dB sensitivity you’ll need bout 500 watts to avoid any clipping or limitation”.

Keyword: ordinary

I can only speak for myself, but I didn’t buy Klipschorns because they were “ordinary” anything.

Second Keyword: believe

He “believes” ? Yeah right. That tells me he doesn’t actually KNOW.

The problem with his “beliefs” is that by the time a speaker of this low sensitivity approaches life-like sound levels in any reasonably good sized room with proper acoustical treatments, the speaker literally can either no longer absorb the amount of power required to produce the louder sound levels without destructing, and/or cannot do so with low distortion. And this is not to mention the “compression” that normally occurs as the speaker plays louder and louder.

He obviously does not recognize “the FACT that distortion is approximately inversely proportional to efficiency and that uniform efficiency relates to flatness or uniformity of output with respect to frequency or so-called flat response”. (PWK’s words not mine).

If you’re using something reasonably efficient, say around 100dB/w/m or so, and inserting a high powered amplifier makes a positive difference to you, then I aver that something else other than the available power is the cause of the so-called “improvement” in sound quality.

And I have to wonder what does Michaelson mean by “ordinary high quality”? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

You guys tend to get very upset when other use non-horn speakers. Clause, no offense but not many people have speakers in their living room that are bigger that refrigerators.

To everyone, you may find this hard to believe, but there are people out there who have speakers that are not horns. Actually, high quality speakers, lots of them, all over the place. There are many out there that are less efficient than 100 db 1W/1M. I know, hard to believe.

Anthony Michealson is known for boasting a lot about his equipment, but that said, he makes OUTSTANDING equipemnt that is typically less expensive that others of the same quality (mass production, use the same case for many pieces of equipment, etc).

He is also british and speaks differently than Americans, and the attempt to make arguments on his word choice is just plain silly. To turn the table, your statement that a "reasonably efficient speaker" is around 100 db is simply wrong. An extremely small percentage of speakers are 100 db efficient and almost all are horns. So are all speaker unreasonable because they are less efficient?

Lets try another one:

"He obviously does not recognize “the FACT that distortion is approximately inversely proportional to efficiency and that uniform efficiency relates to flatness or uniformity of output with respect to frequency or so-called flat response”. (PWK’s words not mine)."

Musical Fidelity (Michaelson's company) does not make speakers, so how do you come to this conclusion? He is making a product to drive speakers that have normal efficiencies. He cannot control how much power a speaker needs to hit a required volume, he just makes amps to drive them. It is also commonknowledge among owners of "inefficient speakers" like B&W, Wilson, etc. that you need very big amps. Check out audiogon and count how many amps are over 300 wpc, quite a few. I also guess that speaker manufacturers do recognize the above and have worked around it as most high end speakers are in the 87 to 92 db range and have much less coloration than K Horns and more detail.

"ordinary high quality" is not incorrect either. I read this as a high quality speaker that has an expected imedence and load. Many high quality speakers have very difficult loads and require a lot of power. I assume that this is what he means.

"The problem with his “beliefs” is that by the time a speaker of this low sensitivity approaches life-like sound levels in any reasonably good sized room with proper acoustical treatments, the speaker literally can either no longer absorb the amount of power required to produce the louder sound levels without destructing, and/or cannot do so with low distortion. And this is not to mention the “compression” that normally occurs as the speaker plays louder and louder."

Just plain wrong. My "inefficient" speakers play very loud if required (not 118 db like my old K Horns but I never listened that loud as I like my hearing). I have 700 wpc monoblocks driving them ( I had 900 wpc channel before) and they simpyl get louder. The soundstage does not break up or get bigger, and they do not have an extreme change in tone as K Horns do (and Yes, I had K Horns and Belles and they change tone with increased volume). You also assume that speakers are not designed to dissipate heat and handle the power expected to be driving them. My speakers are rated at 1000 wpc and the woofers have huge magnets and look more like aircraft parts than home audio. I think that the engineers knew what they were doing, and these woofers are definately not $150 EV woofers. My subwoofer is a JL Audio F113. That driver also does not fall into your description and it is built like a tank.

Not intended to be a personal attack here. If he said that horn speakers need 500 wpc I would say he is incorrect, but his assumptions do appear correct.

Well Tiger, I guess I'm going to have to make it short ~ You are wrong on all counts. Michealson is either not an engineer, or not a very good one, like Bob Carver ~ also a dimwit.

Same goes for Mr. Wilson. An idiot. He makes contraptions. And as far as coloration goes, I'll put my system up against anyone's. Its the room. I've been through the big amp route and its for *******. If all you want to do is make loud noise, fine, get yourself a big amp. The acoustics of the room can't tolerate those high levels anyway. And if one cannot hear that ~ you're already deaf.

Low effieciency speakers suck, they've always sucked. and they're for people who want consistently "pretty sounds", not accurate sound reproduction capability.

Even in real "live" music, there is one thing that separates the virtuoso from those not quite so good. It's called Dynamic Range. It's no coincidence that the most accurate speakers also have the widest dynamic range.

And for those of you who still insist that all that grunge power is necessary, it tells me that your playback system also has very poor low level resolution. Until you can get things right at the most quiet levels, you'll never get it right at the loudest ~ regardless of what you're using.

And as far as your comments about the Khorns being more colored than inefficient "whatever", you have not done your due diligence. "Its the Room (*******)". Until you've taken it as far as yours truely, you don't know what Khorns sound like.

If you're using a megawatt amp and it makes a difference for the better to you (even though you're not using the watts), then what I said still stands. It's something else that you're hearing, and its not the result of the extra power.

To me, ALL ineffiecient speakers sound dull, dark and compressed.

[oldtimer]

Where do you draw the line at efficient vs. inefficient artto?

[seti]

Where do you draw the line at efficient vs. inefficient artto?

You didn't ask me but I consider efficient as anything over 100db @ 1w 1m but for me I prefer speakers over 100.

[oldtimer]

Right seti, so 99db is inefficient?

[Islander]

Some posters have said that if high-powered amps sound better, it's not just because of the power. That could well be. With pro sound gear, it seems as if within a given model line, the design, features and performance are almost the same, you just choose how much power you need to do the job.

With home audio gear, it's a bit different. In a most product lines, the higher-powered amps are the premium units and have better designs and components. This makes it difficult to compare low-powered and high-powered amps from a single manufacturer based simply on power differences. In some cases, to get the high-end performance, you have to take the high power that the marketing department insisted on, in order to increase the product's perceived value.

Also, while it's true that most listening, especially with ultra-sensitive speakers like some Klipsch models, calls for only a few watts or less, all that headroom does not go to waste. If the music has a big dynamic range, it will sound more realistic with more headroom available.

[seti]

Right seti, so 99db is inefficient?

YES IT IS INEFFICIENT IT PAILS IN COMPARISON TO FULLY HORN LOADED SYSTEMS WITH EFFICIENCY OVER 100.

Ok that was a bit extreme of course there is some grey in this black and white world. I was just being a PITA. Personally I prefer the fully horn loaded systems and I am completely biased.

[SWL]

Artto,

I see that you're in the Chicago area. I'd love to hear your system someday........actually I'd love to hear your room. Looks like you did an awesome job.

These pro-amps are just a learning experience for me. I've been listening to other guys systems and have yet to hear one that really impressed me. I'm not talking just spl......I'm talking about the whole two-channel listening experience. []

[oldtimer]

Seti, I got it. Maybe you didn't figure that. I was merely filling time waiting for artto's (definitive) answer. I still am. And I am serious about wanting to know where he draws the line.

[artto]

Where do you draw the line at efficient vs. inefficient artto?

Right now, where ever I want to.

The arguement about "more power is better" is retarded. There too many other considerations of which hardly anyone is taking into consideration, FIRST.

105 dB/w/m sensitivity is substantially more efficient than 85dB. There is no "line". It's a continuous transition. Frequency range, size, distortion, polar response, and sensitivity are all interrelated.

Take an RC7. 45-20KHz & 98dB/w/m. Compare to a Chorus. 45-20KHz & 101dB/w/m

The Chorus is much larger, same frequency range, 3dB more efficient. Nearly the same "performance"? I don't think so! In fact, I KNOW it's NOT SO (I own both & have used both in the same system/room). There's more at work here than efficiency. In this case it's a trade-off of more distortion with the smaller size (RC7) to maintain efficiency that will still require twice the power. The RC7 are no match for Chorus even though they are "only" 3dB less efficient.

[oldtimer]

Thanks artto. Very interesting as well.

[artto]

In a most product lines, the higher-powered amps are the premium units and have better designs and components. This makes it difficult to compare low-powered and high-powered amps from a single manufacturer based simply on power differences. In some cases, to get the high-end performance, you have to take the high power that the marketing department insisted on, in order to increase the product's perceived value.

Also, while it's true that most listening, especially with ultra-sensitive speakers like some Klipsch models, calls for only a few watts or less, all that headroom does not go to waste. If the music has a big dynamic range, it will sound more realistic with more headroom available.

I agree with your first point and it is one of my most virulent pet peeves. Just because the amp or reciever has less power shouldn't mean that it should be of any less quality. But that seems to have become the norm, which probably one of the reasons why this subject is on the rise again.

Your second point is outright wrong. Unused watts cannot be "heard". I dare you to hear the power that's not being used to drive the speakers. It's a completely illogical argument. You cannot hear something that's not producing anything. That my friend is called silence.

[artto]

Artto,

I see that you're in the Chicago area. I'd love to hear your system someday........actually I'd love to hear your room. Looks like you did an awesome job.

Thanks. Consider yourself invited! All I ask is to give me a headsup in advance.

Also, the room is "down" at the moment. My office stuff is moved down there as we're putting in new flooring upstairs (the bathrooms are done remodeling [] ). I don't see this getting back to normal until after the holidays.

[SWL]

Thanks. Consider yourself invited! All I ask is to give me a headsup in advance.

Thanks.......After the holidays works best for me also. [Y]

[artto]

And here's another thing to consider. When you take a device, a component, a transitor, a 741 integrated circuit, a KT88 valve, whatever, if you use only one of them to produce "something", do you really believe that using two of these devices will result in lower distortion with a musical (or any dynamic) signal? How about four? Or twelve? Twelve devices in the output stage, yeah, that should reduce the inherent distortion, lowering it to less than that of a single device. NOT.

Every component, every inch of wire, every connection break & every connector have their own inherent distortion and therefore add distortion to the entire chain. So using more them will reduce this? Maybe in a laboratory under "test" conditions with "test" signals, but not with something as dynamic as music in real time.

[Islander]

Your second point is outright wrong. Unused watts cannot be "heard". I dare you to hear the power that's not being used to drive the speakers. It's a completely illogical argument. You cannot hear something that's not producing anything. That my friend is called silence.

Of course unused watts cannot be heard. The point is that the power in excess of what's needed for most of the music does come into play during musical peaks. Dr. Who can provide actual numbers, but sharp transients like drum rimshots and other percussive-type sounds like piano notes (I'm sure you're aware a piano is a percussion instrument, what with its hammers hitting its strings) need surprisingly high power to reproduce them accurately. That's when those watts are being used and can be heard, making the music sound closer to "live".

If the amplifier does not have enough "excess" power available to reproduce musical peaks as they were recorded, the music will sound compressed. Since most people are accustomed to compressed recordings, especially CDs made in the last decade, the effect is not always obvious, but once you hear a system with adequate headroom, the difference is hard to miss.

Not only that, the attack of sharp notes will be "rounded off", since the amp didn't have enough power to kick the speaker's diaphragm as hard as the drumstick hit the skin or the piano's hammer hit the string, making notes sound dull compared to live music.

High-sensitivity speakers let lower-powered amps do the job more easily, so Klipsch owners usually don't need 500Wpc, but certain models, like RF-7s, seem to work best with lots of watts available, in spite of having very high sensitivity ratings.

[SWL]

High-sensitivity speakers let lower-powered amps do the job more easily, so Klipsch owners usually don't need 500Wpc, but certain models, like RF-7s, seem to work best with lots of watts available, in spite of having very high sensitivity ratings.

Someone please comment on that......because that has been exactly what I've experienced with my 7's. Higher wattage amps with the gains/attenuators turned down to about 25%.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

I guess I'm going to have to make it short ~ You are wrong on all counts. Michealson is either not an engineer, or not a very good one, like Bob Carver ~ also a dimwit.

Same goes for Mr. Wilson. An idiot. He makes contraptions. And as far as coloration goes, I'll put my system up against anyone's. Its the room. I've been through the big amp route and its for *******. If all you want to do is make loud noise, fine, get yourself a big amp. The acoustics of the room can't tolerate those high levels anyway. And if one cannot hear that ~ you're already deaf.

Low effieciency speakers suck, they've always sucked. and they're for people who want consistently "pretty sounds", not accurate sound reproduction capability.

Even in real "live" music, there is one thing that separates the virtuoso from those not quite so good. It's called Dynamic Range. It's no coincidence that the most accurate speakers also have the widest dynamic range.

And for those of you who still insist that all that grunge power is necessary, it tells me that your playback system also has very poor low level resolution. Until you can get things right at the most quiet levels, you'll never get it right at the loudest ~ regardless of what you're using.

And as far as your comments about the Khorns being more colored than inefficient "whatever", you have not done your due diligence. "Its the Room (*******)". Until you've taken it as far as yours truely, you don't know what Khorns sound like.

If you're using a megawatt amp and it makes a difference for the better to you (even though you're not using the watts), then what I said still stands. It's something else that you're hearing, and its not the result of the extra power.

To me, ALL ineffiecient speakers sound dull, dark and compressed.

You seemed angry in yoru first thread and now even more angry. Your other comments seem like person attacks.

Here, how about a joke to cheer you up. I learned this when I was getting my engineering degree (graduated number one). "What do you call a person who flunked out of engineering school? An architect." [6]

[DrWho]

And here's another thing to consider. When you take a device, a component, a transitor, a 741 integrated circuit, a KT88 valve, whatever, if you use only one of them to produce "something", do you really believe that using two of these devices will result in lower distortion with a musical (or any dynamic) signal? How about four? Or twelve? Twelve devices in the output stage, yeah, that should reduce the inherent distortion, lowering it to less than that of a single device. NOT.

What about using a more efficient transistor, or a transistor with a more efficient package, etc etc...? More efficient amplifier designs natually allow for way more power handling, even though that might not be the main performance goal. It's just like a more efficient speaker....generally they can go way fricken louder, but the goal is the lower distortion...

It can also be said that a power supply that can supply a lot more power will generally be "stiffer" at lower output levels - which will naturally correlate to less undesired sounds.

Every component, every inch of wire, every connection break & every connector have their own inherent distortion and therefore add distortion to the entire chain. So using more them will reduce this? Maybe in a laboratory under "test" conditions with "test" signals, but not with something as dynamic as music in real time.

I understand your viewpoint in making this claim, but I don't agree with using the word 'distortion' since it would not apply to things like wire and connectors. Also, tests are only as good as the operator and interpretation of the results. In other words, for one to imply that tests are inherantly invalid requires a lack of experience with correlating tests to that which is audible. I think we are agreeing though that many people way over emphasize the meaning of marketing specs or single measurements. You can't just point to any one magic number and expect everything to sound amazing. At the same time, however, bad numbers are bad because those numbers correlate to an audibly negative impact on the sound.