Do we really need amplifiers with 100watts per channel?

AVForums

Help Support AVForums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

alphabet

R.I.P.
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
5,959
Reaction score
7
Location
Cape Town
I felt like starting some discussion here, so here are some observations. Before taking everything I say here as gospel, take note of the following:

1. Many manufacturers lie about the output of their amplifiers. Okay they quote the higher figure they could possibly achieve, in many cases it could be 1 channel driven at 1KHz with maximum distortion.

2. Many speaker manufacturers lie about the sensitivity of their speakers, but lets assume the seemingly standard 90Db/1meter/1watt(2.83v)

3. The volume control on AV receivers are not calibrated to anything. THX certified units are meant to be operating at reference levels when the volume control is set to 0Db.

4. The output volume is relative to the input volume.

5. All observations about loudness are just that as I do not own a SPL meter to measure it.

With that out of the way, here are my observations. I read a lab report done by Sound and Vision on the Yamaha RX-V440 and as I owned a RX-V450 previously, I feel that I can draw some conclusions based on the test report.

With 1 watt RMS output the volume setting was at -24Db and although it is not particularly loud(I listened to music between -20 and -15Db and movies at -20Db), it is still fairly loud. Now with my current receiver -25Db is very loud, it is impossible to have a conversation with a person next to you without shouting.

With this in mind, the question would be, do we need amplifiers pushing close to 100 watts RMS(claimed) if in theory you may be generating 90Db at 4-5 watts RMS?

This question brings valve amps to mind, which in many cases deliver between 8 to 15 watts RMS(I know there are more powerful beasts out there!) Why not build a good quality 15-20 watts RMS IC amplifier that can sonically challenge the hig-end gear, but at a lower price?

Let me try and put more perpective on my verbal diarrhea above!

During the past 4 years I have owned 4 different AV receivers, a Sansui(Something) claimed 100w x 5, a Yamaha RX-V450 claimed 85w x 6, a Yamaha RX-V650 claimed 95w x 7 and now CA 540R claimed 80w x 6. Of these units the least powerful sounding were the two Yamahas and the most powerful sounding the CA, but the CA has the lowest power rating! Now does that mean that the other power ratings are the figment of someone's imagination or does a better powersupply, etc give the CA the edge?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the CA is better than the others(or any of the receivers I auditioned), but as mentioned it does appear to have a more powerful sound with a hint of lots of reserve.

Maybe my mind has wandered a bit here, I am getting on in years :) But my main observation is still that we do not need amps delivering 100's of watts, but rather lower specced amps with headroom to deliver dynamics when required.
 
Top