Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Watts

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 8:14:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
speakers are Athena AS-f2.

Can anyone recommend a good $450 or under amp for these speakers ? I
already have the CD player.

More about : watts

Anonymous
September 17, 2004 9:09:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 17 Sep 2004 16:14:42 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:

>Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
>watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
>this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
>speakers are Athena AS-f2.

That is the maximum power handling for the speakers and, at 93dB
sensitivity, more than you need. Read the reviews and see what
is recommended:
http://www.athenaspeakers.com/modelASF2Reviews.php

Kal
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 2:10:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jiyang Chen wrote:

> Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
> watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
> this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
> speakers are Athena AS-f2.

Provided that you don't intend to drive the amplifier into clipping (
distortion ), generally accepted advice is to consider an amplifer with
twice the rms rating of the speaker. Check the impedance at which this is
delivered.

That doesn't mean that you * have* to have a 500W / channel amplifer since
that would obviously be very LOUD ! It would be the largest suggested size
to use however.


> Can anyone recommend a good $450 or under amp for these speakers ? I
> already have the CD player.

Is your CD player the only source - or are you looking for an AV type
solution ? More info would help.


Graham
Related resources
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 2:10:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:414B52D5.929B9341@hotmail.com...
> Is your CD player the only source - or are you looking for an AV type
> solution ?

CD player is a Sony DVD player. Should I look into an A/V receiver
then?

I've heard good things about the NAD C350, around $400, and supplies 60
watts per channel, but don't know if it's enough. I don't know much
about this since I'm new to this, but I think more watts are needed to
drive the bass in a floor-standing model?

Thanks
Jiyang
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 2:14:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jiyang Chen wrote:

> Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
> watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
> this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
> speakers are Athena AS-f2.

Correction.

Having seen the spec, I think they are suggesting a 250W / channel
amplifier. They call it 'power handling' which is a bit ambiguous - but
looking at the speaker - I can't believe it would take 250W rms.


Graham
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 2:14:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:14:09 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>Jiyang Chen wrote:
>
>> Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
>> watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
>> this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
>> speakers are Athena AS-f2.
>
>Correction.
>
>Having seen the spec, I think they are suggesting a 250W / channel
>amplifier. They call it 'power handling' which is a bit ambiguous - but
>looking at the speaker - I can't believe it would take 250W rms.

I get the opposite impression. However, there are a number of
published reviews of the speaker and one can get an idea of what power
levels are needed by reading these.

Kal
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 4:39:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 17 Sep 2004 16:14:42 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:

>Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
>watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
>this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
>speakers are Athena AS-f2.


There are watts, and there are watts. Marketing-speak watts are only
distantly related to electrical-engineering watts. Get an amplifier
that sounds loud enough with the speakers. I know that isn't
terribly helpful, but it's the best I can do ;-)
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 4:39:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Laurence Payne <l@laurencedeletepayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2004 16:14:42 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
>>watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
>>this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
>>speakers are Athena AS-f2.
>
>
> There are watts, and there are watts. Marketing-speak watts are only
> distantly related to electrical-engineering watts. Get an amplifier
> that sounds loud enough with the speakers. I know that isn't
> terribly helpful, but it's the best I can do ;-)

Y'know, we should be able to come up with a W*sens/m^2 sort of calculation.
For speakers with sensitivity "x," you need "n" watts per square metre.
Add in a multiplier for carpeted surfaces and base it on some 'average loud'
volume of fairly dynamic music. Hmm...the possibilities are intriguing.

Colin
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 5:32:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jiyang Chen wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:414B52D5.929B9341@hotmail.com...
> > Is your CD player the only source - or are you looking for an AV type
> > solution ?
>
> CD player is a Sony DVD player. Should I look into an A/V receiver
> then?

If you want those facilities !

I was trying to establish if your budget was purely for a good spec amp -
or you required an AV unit ( which tend to include compromises ).


> I've heard good things about the NAD C350, around $400, and supplies 60
> watts per channel, but don't know if it's enough. I don't know much
> about this since I'm new to this, but I think more watts are needed to
> drive the bass in a floor-standing model?

I would say 60 watts would be considered underpowered for that speaker -
unless you have a small room. But it all depends on how loud you want it
to go at the end of the day. :-) A 250W/ch ampflifer would actually go 6
dB louder, which is significant but also not a huge margin.


Graham
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 5:32:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:414B823A.13A5037A@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jiyang Chen wrote:
>
> > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> > news:414B52D5.929B9341@hotmail.com...
> > > Is your CD player the only source - or are you looking for an AV
type
> > > solution ?
> >
> > CD player is a Sony DVD player. Should I look into an A/V receiver
> > then?
>
> If you want those facilities !
>
> I was trying to establish if your budget was purely for a good spec
amp -
> or you required an AV unit ( which tend to include compromises ).
>
>
> > I've heard good things about the NAD C350, around $400, and supplies
60
> > watts per channel, but don't know if it's enough. I don't know
much
> > about this since I'm new to this, but I think more watts are needed
to
> > drive the bass in a floor-standing model?
>
> I would say 60 watts would be considered underpowered for that
speaker -
> unless you have a small room. But it all depends on how loud you want
it
> to go at the end of the day. :-) A 250W/ch ampflifer would actually
go 6
> dB louder, which is significant but also not a huge margin.
>
>
> Graham
>
Any good 250w ones that go for about $400? Stereophile's recommended
Creek one is 1500.
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 8:08:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jiyang Chen wrote:

> Any good 250w ones that go for about $400? Stereophile's recommended
> Creek one is 1500.

Yeah. I read that ! Funny !

I wouldn't worry too much. As any experienced audio guy knows - the
loudspeaker is the weakest link in the chain and you seem to have bought
some nice ones for presumably sensible money.

I would *never* pay more for an amplifier than the speakers - that's upside
down priorities. If you had the budget to spend 1500 on an amp it would be
mad to spend only 1/2 or 1/3 of that on the speakers. It's normally the case
that spending more on speakers will give a better return on investment so to
speak.

The reason is that the electronics in an amp are far more predictable and
'reliable' to design well. Hence they don't cost a fortune, since they're
easy to manufacture. Speaker design is still rather more of an 'art' -
although CAD ( computer aided design ) modelling is improving this. It's
actually quite hard to design an amplifier badly these days !

Do you have a 'short list' of candidate amps that you're considering ?

If so pls post.

A list of required features would be useful too - e.g. do you want a remote
for volume control ? Often found on even cheap AV amps - but often missing
maybe from high end - even a Creek ?


Regds, Graham
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 8:08:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:414BA6BF.C4662D86@hotmail.com...

> Do you have a 'short list' of candidate amps that you're considering ?
>
> If so pls post.
>
> A list of required features would be useful too - e.g. do you want a
remote
> for volume control ? Often found on even cheap AV amps - but often
missing
> maybe from high end - even a Creek ?
>
>
> Regds, Graham
>
>
>

Features aren't of great importance, as long as the quality is decent
and holds up well over time. I assume they all have treble and bass
adjustments...

Not too familiar with any amps (except the NAD I mentioned previously,
and Cambridge Audio ones at audioadvisor). Any recommendations?

Thanks,

Jiyang Chen
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 10:22:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 17 Sep 2004 23:27:48 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:

>Features aren't of great importance, as long as the quality is decent
>and holds up well over time. I assume they all have treble and bass
>adjustments...
>
>Not too familiar with any amps (except the NAD I mentioned previously,
>and Cambridge Audio ones at audioadvisor). Any recommendations?

If you really do want a powerful amplifier at reasonable cost, the NAD
C370 has both excellent sound quality and very high 'bang for the
buck'. Why on earth would you want treble and bass adjustment? Why pay
a lot of money for high quality speakers if you're then going to mess
with the sound balance? The C370 does have tone controls, but I'd
advise leaving them flat. Note that almost *no* 'high end' amplifiers
have tone controls.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 10:24:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:10:45 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Jiyang Chen wrote:
>
>> Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
>> watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
>> this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
>> speakers are Athena AS-f2.
>
>Provided that you don't intend to drive the amplifier into clipping (
>distortion ), generally accepted advice is to consider an amplifer with
>twice the rms rating of the speaker. Check the impedance at which this is
>delivered.

Whaaaaat? Which general was dumb enough to accept *that* advice? You
should never use an amplifier which has more power than the speakers
can handle, in fact you usually don't need as much power as the
official rating. In particular, these speakers are unusually sensitive
at 93dB/w/m, so a good 60 watt amp will be more than adequate for most
rooms.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 11:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote in message
news:cifgji$e7p@dispatch.concentric.net
> Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at
> 250 watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher
> than this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look
> for? The speakers are Athena AS-f2.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good $450 or under amp for these speakers ? I
> already have the CD player.

If all you want to do is play that CD player loud and clean, and can hide
the amp away so that its cooling fan won't bother you, here's a radical
alternative:

Behringer Europower 1500 power amp 260 wpc @ 8 ohms, 0.1% THD

http://www.behringer-download.com/EP1500_EP2500/EP1500_...

If a fan is a problem, I pick up a QSC USA 400 off of eBay for a closing
auction price well under $200.

Behringer DEQ 1024 equalizer as your tone controls and volume control.
There's more function than you need here, but because its digital, if you
don't use it, it does not garbage up the signal.

http://www.behringer.com/DEQ1024/index.cfm?lang=ENG

Total in the US for the two Behringers is just over $500.
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 2:12:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:22:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 17 Sep 2004 23:27:48 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Features aren't of great importance, as long as the quality is decent
>>and holds up well over time. I assume they all have treble and bass
>>adjustments...
>>
>>Not too familiar with any amps (except the NAD I mentioned previously,
>>and Cambridge Audio ones at audioadvisor). Any recommendations?


>. Why on earth would you want treble and bass adjustment? Why pay
>a lot of money for high quality speakers if you're then going to mess
>with the sound balance?

I nearly always agree with what you say, Stewart, but now I must
disagree. Tone controls are not, a priori, for adjusting the frequency
response of bad spaekers, they are for adjusting recordings, and to a
lesser degree, misplaced speakers. I myself have the Quad tilt tone
control and although my ESL 63 is reasonably flat, I do use the tone
control!

>The C370 does have tone controls, but I'd
>advise leaving them flat. Note that almost *no* 'high end' amplifiers
>have tone controls.

Since when did you trust high-end manufacturers for good sense in this
deaprtment? :-)

They (the manufactures) tells us that tone controls is a bad thing
because they colur the sond even when in the flat position! A good
tone control cost next to nothing to design in and can be out of the
way when not in use. I vote for them!

Per.
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 9:11:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:68knk0t5n4209k2trg8na0uka6o8iuau5l@4ax.com...
> Whaaaaat? Which general was dumb enough to accept *that* advice? You
> should never use an amplifier which has more power than the speakers
> can handle,

That would be equally as stupid advice.

>in fact you usually don't need as much power as the
> official rating.

Since there is no common rating standard among speaker manufacturers (unlike
amplifiers) this can be either true, or wrong.

>In particular, these speakers are unusually sensitive
> at 93dB/w/m, so a good 60 watt amp will be more than adequate for most
> rooms.

Depending on what sort of music you listen to, at what SPL and how large
your room is, you are probably right. More so when you consider the actual
SPL increase going from that 60W amp to a 250W amp. And you could still blow
some or all of the drivers up with either amp if you want to.

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 11:41:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:10:45 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jiyang Chen wrote:
> >
> >> Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
> >> watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
> >> this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
> >> speakers are Athena AS-f2.
> >
> >Provided that you don't intend to drive the amplifier into clipping (
> >distortion ), generally accepted advice is to consider an amplifer with
> >twice the rms rating of the speaker. Check the impedance at which this is
> >delivered.
>
> Whaaaaat? Which general was dumb enough to accept *that* advice?

It's pretty much universal practice in pro-audio when using rms continuous
rating figures.

> You should never use an amplifier which has more power than the speakers
> can handle,

A 100 W rms amplifer ( for example ) will *not* deliver 100 W continuous into a
load when driven with *music* . Only sine wave testing delivers the rated power
- which is irrelevant to music listening.

A higher power amplifier also has more headroom before clipping.

> in fact you usually don't need as much power as the
> official rating. In particular, these speakers are unusually sensitive
> at 93dB/w/m, so a good 60 watt amp will be more than adequate for most
> rooms.

Depending how loud you want it to go - which is what I stated. Since you don't
know that - then you shouldn't make vague generalisations.

Graham
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 11:42:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<deidnWYXXrd5iNHcRVn-ig@comcast.com>...

> If all you want to do is play that CD player loud and clean, and can hide
> the amp away so that its cooling fan won't bother you, here's a radical
> alternative:
>
> Behringer Europower 1500 power amp 260 wpc @ 8 ohms, 0.1% THD
>
> http://www.behringer-download.com/EP1500_EP2500/EP1500_...
>
> If a fan is a problem, I pick up a QSC USA 400 off of eBay for a closing
> auction price well under $200.
>
> Behringer DEQ 1024 equalizer as your tone controls and volume control.
> There's more function than you need here, but because its digital, if you
> don't use it, it does not garbage up the signal.
>
> http://www.behringer.com/DEQ1024/index.cfm?lang=ENG
>
> Total in the US for the two Behringers is just over $500.

Now you've done it. Behringer is going to clean up in the hi-fi market
as well as the music market. Now all they need to do is design a car.
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 1:29:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"reasonable" is $900? As I stated before, around $400 is the limit.

Thanks.


"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ljknk097ebigba55ms34v8p7tugs6m65pc@4ax.com...
> On 17 Sep 2004 23:27:48 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:
>
> >Features aren't of great importance, as long as the quality is decent
> >and holds up well over time. I assume they all have treble and bass
> >adjustments...
> >
> >Not too familiar with any amps (except the NAD I mentioned
previously,
> >and Cambridge Audio ones at audioadvisor). Any recommendations?
>
> If you really do want a powerful amplifier at reasonable cost, the NAD
> C370 has both excellent sound quality and very high 'bang for the
> buck'. Why on earth would you want treble and bass adjustment? Why pay
> a lot of money for high quality speakers if you're then going to mess
> with the sound balance? The C370 does have tone controls, but I'd
> advise leaving them flat. Note that almost *no* 'high end' amplifiers
> have tone controls.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 11:07:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 18 Sep 2004 21:29:34 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:

>"reasonable" is $900? As I stated before, around $400 is the limit.

Reasonable for your other stated requirements, yes. Within your
budget, try a 100 watt/channel Yamaha, the AX-592 should be available
for that price.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 11:13:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:12:17 +0200, Per Stromgren
<per.stromgren@telia.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:22:33 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 17 Sep 2004 23:27:48 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:
>>
>>>Features aren't of great importance, as long as the quality is decent
>>>and holds up well over time. I assume they all have treble and bass
>>>adjustments...
>>>
>>>Not too familiar with any amps (except the NAD I mentioned previously,
>>>and Cambridge Audio ones at audioadvisor). Any recommendations?
>
>
>>. Why on earth would you want treble and bass adjustment? Why pay
>>a lot of money for high quality speakers if you're then going to mess
>>with the sound balance?
>
>I nearly always agree with what you say, Stewart, but now I must
>disagree. Tone controls are not, a priori, for adjusting the frequency
>response of bad spaekers, they are for adjusting recordings, and to a
>lesser degree, misplaced speakers. I myself have the Quad tilt tone
>control and although my ESL 63 is reasonably flat, I do use the tone
>control!

If you are adjusting the tone controls for this reason, then you have,
a priori, a bad recording! I prefer to avoid those, and I have never
found tone controls to be of any use in that regard. YMMV.


>>The C370 does have tone controls, but I'd
>>advise leaving them flat. Note that almost *no* 'high end' amplifiers
>>have tone controls.
>
>Since when did you trust high-end manufacturers for good sense in this
>deaprtment? :-)

A fair point, but 'genuine' high end amplifier makers such as Musical
Fidelity, Meridian, ARC, C-J, and Krell also avoid tone controls.

>They (the manufactures) tells us that tone controls is a bad thing
>because they colur the sond even when in the flat position! A good
>tone control cost next to nothing to design in and can be out of the
>way when not in use. I vote for them!

Fair enough, so long as there is a bypass option. Since I never use
them, I don't want to pay for them - and a well-made one puts about
$200 on the retail cost of the amplifier, mostly due to the rotary
controls.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 11:30:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Detector195" <Detector195@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6213f73a.0409181842.4ddd7b89@posting.google.com

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:<deidnWYXXrd5iNHcRVn-ig@comcast.com>...

>> If all you want to do is play that CD player loud and clean, and can
>> hide the amp away so that its cooling fan won't bother you, here's a
>> radical alternative:

>> Behringer Europower 1500 power amp 260 wpc @ 8 ohms, 0.1% THD

>> http://www.behringer-download.com/EP1500_EP2500/EP1500_...

>> If a fan is a problem, I pick up a QSC USA 400 off of eBay for a
>> closing auction price well under $200.

>> Behringer DEQ 1024 equalizer as your tone controls and volume
>> control. There's more function than you need here, but because it's
>> digital, if you don't use it, it does not garbage up the signal.

>> http://www.behringer.com/DEQ1024/index.cfm?lang=ENG

>> Total in the US for the two Behringers is just over $500.

> Now you've done it. Behringer is going to clean up in the hi-fi market
> as well as the music market. Now all they need to do is design a car.

LOL!

I can see it now. A 21st century Yugo, made in China but actually a very
good but cheap car. Only question - how long will it last and under what
kind of abuse?
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 12:16:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:41:02 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:10:45 +0100, Pooh Bear
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Jiyang Chen wrote:
>> >
>> >> Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
>> >> watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
>> >> this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
>> >> speakers are Athena AS-f2.
>> >
>> >Provided that you don't intend to drive the amplifier into clipping (
>> >distortion ), generally accepted advice is to consider an amplifer with
>> >twice the rms rating of the speaker. Check the impedance at which this is
>> >delivered.
>>
>> Whaaaaat? Which general was dumb enough to accept *that* advice?
>
>It's pretty much universal practice in pro-audio when using rms continuous
>rating figures.

This would be the industry which regularly destroys speakers, yes? :-)

>> You should never use an amplifier which has more power than the speakers
>> can handle,
>
>A 100 W rms amplifer ( for example ) will *not* deliver 100 W continuous into a
>load when driven with *music* . Only sine wave testing delivers the rated power
>- which is irrelevant to music listening.

Utter garbage! A 100 watt amplifier is perfectly capable of delivering
close to 200 watts when the klutz on the sounboard winds it up to 11 -
or the domestic listener is in 'party mode'. It's called a square
wave, and heavy clipping on rock music can get pretty darned close.
Besides which, you'll notice that the speaker power rating is *also* a
music rating, as no conventional speaker with a pair of 1-2" voice
coils is capable of handling the 250 watt rating of the Athenas on a
continuous basis.

>A higher power amplifier also has more headroom before clipping.

Yes, and even more power when *in* clipping.............

>> in fact you usually don't need as much power as the
>> official rating. In particular, these speakers are unusually sensitive
>> at 93dB/w/m, so a good 60 watt amp will be more than adequate for most
>> rooms.
>
>Depending how loud you want it to go - which is what I stated. Since you don't
>know that - then you shouldn't make vague generalisations.

Nothing vague about it - 60 watts/channel into 93dB/w/m speakers will
generate around 110-112 dB peak SPL in a normally furnished reasonably
large 2500 cu.ft. room, which is as I said, more than adequate for
realistic listening levels.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 12:18:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:11:26 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:68knk0t5n4209k2trg8na0uka6o8iuau5l@4ax.com...
>> Whaaaaat? Which general was dumb enough to accept *that* advice? You
>> should never use an amplifier which has more power than the speakers
>> can handle,
>
>That would be equally as stupid advice.

Nope, it's a reasonable safety precaution. It won't protect your
tweeters if the amp is heavily clipped, but then nothing aside from a
flea-power SET will do that!

>>in fact you usually don't need as much power as the
>> official rating.
>
>Since there is no common rating standard among speaker manufacturers (unlike
>amplifiers) this can be either true, or wrong.

Which part of 'usually' did you not understand? Especially when
qualified as I did below.

>>In particular, these speakers are unusually sensitive
>> at 93dB/w/m, so a good 60 watt amp will be more than adequate for most
>> rooms.
>
>Depending on what sort of music you listen to, at what SPL and how large
>your room is, you are probably right. More so when you consider the actual
>SPL increase going from that 60W amp to a 250W amp. And you could still blow
>some or all of the drivers up with either amp if you want to.

Indeed so. There is no defence against a Spinal Tap fan!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 3:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f4cqk01146r7vqr0huhmtecca8d8ji3okl@4ax.com...
>
> If you are adjusting the tone controls for this reason, then you have,
> a priori, a bad recording! I prefer to avoid those, and I have never
> found tone controls to be of any use in that regard. YMMV.
>
>


Sometimes they are old recordings, and they are certainly not of great
quality. Avoiding CDs because of poor recording can be corrected with
these tone controls.
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 3:38:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:60cqk0lc2t7vadn69p0ideh7eruhs7tjg9@4ax.com...
> On 18 Sep 2004 21:29:34 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:
>
> >"reasonable" is $900? As I stated before, around $400 is the limit.
>
> Reasonable for your other stated requirements, yes. Within your
> budget, try a 100 watt/channel Yamaha, the AX-592 should be available
> for that price.
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Thanks for the recommendation. What is a cheap and reliable place
online to get amps such as the Yamaha and NAD?

Thanks
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 11:09:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k2gqk0p5gldq1pj6uu56ud05v80pdlqfv5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:11:26 +1000, "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:68knk0t5n4209k2trg8na0uka6o8iuau5l@4ax.com...
> >> Whaaaaat? Which general was dumb enough to accept *that* advice? You
> >> should never use an amplifier which has more power than the speakers
> >> can handle,
> >
> >That would be equally as stupid advice.
>
> Nope, it's a reasonable safety precaution. It won't protect your
> tweeters if the amp is heavily clipped, but then nothing aside from a
> flea-power SET will do that!

Funny you didn't recommend that then.

> >>in fact you usually don't need as much power as the
> >> official rating.
> >
> >Since there is no common rating standard among speaker manufacturers
(unlike
> >amplifiers) this can be either true, or wrong.
>
> Which part of 'usually' did you not understand?

What part of "Since there is no common rating standard among speaker
manufacturers
(unlike amplifiers) this can be either true, or wrong." didn't you
understand?

>Especially when
> qualified as I did below.

Especially when I answered that below. And agreed with it. Why pick over
nits?
Do you disagree speaker power ratings are not always a good guide to
anything?

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 11:12:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> If you are adjusting the tone controls for this reason, then you have,
> a priori, a bad recording! I prefer to avoid those, and I have never
> found tone controls to be of any use in that regard. YMMV.

That's being rather picky.

You mean you would rather not listen to something rather than adjust bass or
treble to make a poor recording sound a little better.

Blinkered view IMHO.

> Fair enough, so long as there is a bypass option. Since I never use
> them, I don't want to pay for them - and a well-made one puts about
> $200 on the retail cost of the amplifier, mostly due to the rotary
> controls.

You have a mythical idea of the cost of controls ( even well-made ones ).


Graham
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 11:34:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:41:02 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> Whaaaaat? Which general was dumb enough to accept *that* advice?
> >
> >It's pretty much universal practice in pro-audio when using rms continuous
> >rating figures.
>
> This would be the industry which regularly destroys speakers, yes? :-)

No actually, it doesn't.


> >> You should never use an amplifier which has more power than the speakers
> >> can handle,
> >
> >A 100 W rms amplifer ( for example ) will *not* deliver 100 W continuous into a
> >load when driven with *music* . Only sine wave testing delivers the rated power
> >- which is irrelevant to music listening.
>
> Utter garbage! A 100 watt amplifier is perfectly capable of delivering
> close to 200 watts

Only when so clipped as to be unbelievably distorted.

When unclipped - you would be hard pressed to get more than an 'average level' of
50W from a 100W amp. Since most speaker damge is due to thermal overload of the
voice coils(s) then a 50W rms ( rms ratings are normally 'thermally limited' ratings
) rated speaker is safe with a 100W amp in this example.


> when the klutz on the sounboard winds it up to 11

'Soundboards' don't have controls marked 1-10 or even 11. Being pros we use dB
markings.


> or the domestic listener is in 'party mode'. It's called a square
> wave, and heavy clipping on rock music can get pretty darned close.

And a good way of avoiding clipping is to use a more appropriately rated ( higher
powered ) amplifier compatible with the average power level dissipation of the
speaker.


> Besides which, you'll notice that the speaker power rating is *also* a
> music rating, as no conventional speaker with a pair of 1-2" voice
> coils is capable of handling the 250 watt rating of the Athenas on a
> continuous basis.

The speaker has 2 x 8" LF drivers that will handle most of the power dissipation.

The way I read their spec - they are suggesting a maximum 250W amp.

What is a ' 1-2" voice coil ' btw ? 1 inch - 2 inch - 1/2 inch ?


> >A higher power amplifier also has more headroom before clipping.
>
> Yes, and even more power when *in* clipping.............

You're suggesting that listening to clipped music is good ?

Are you suggesting that you should use an underpowered amp just so you can benefit
fom hearing the subtlety of clipping ?


> >> in fact you usually don't need as much power as the
> >> official rating. In particular, these speakers are unusually sensitive
> >> at 93dB/w/m, so a good 60 watt amp will be more than adequate for most
> >> rooms.
> >
> >Depending how loud you want it to go - which is what I stated. Since you don't
> >know that - then you shouldn't make vague generalisations.
>
> Nothing vague about it - 60 watts/channel into 93dB/w/m speakers will
> generate around 110-112 dB peak SPL in a normally furnished reasonably
> large 2500 cu.ft. room, which is as I said, more than adequate for
> realistic listening levels.

Do you know how loud even an unamplified orchestra actually peaks ?

It's a lot more than 110-112 dB.

Your idea of 'realistic listening levels' sounds to me like 'mummy knows best'
advice. Ppl do like to party sometimes - and clipping does more hearing damage than
high SPL but you would have to know something about the issues involved to
understand why.

Graham
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 11:54:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I can see it now. A 21st century Yugo, made in China but actually a very
> good but cheap car. Only question - how long will it last and under what
> kind of abuse?

Curious. Reminds me of something I heard recently.

I think it was Renault - licenced on if its former models for manufacture in
one of the former 'Soviet Bloc' countries - Romania or Bulgaria IIRC.

A perfectly acceptable car - and local price was something like £3500 !

Ok, no power steering. alloys, sunroof, velour upholstery or a/c. OTOH if you
just want a cheap car *new* it takes some beating.

Incidentally, 'Yugo' still seem to be around in some form despite the
troubles in Yugoslavia and NATO bombing the factory.

http://www.zastava.net/


Graham
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 1:35:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:414DD5DE.2CCD2FF4@hotmail.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> I can see it now. A 21st century Yugo, made in China but actually a
>> very good but cheap car. Only question - how long will it last and
>> under what kind of abuse?
>
> Curious. Reminds me of something I heard recently.
>
> I think it was Renault - licenced on if its former models for
> manufacture in one of the former 'Soviet Bloc' countries - Romania or
> Bulgaria IIRC.
>
> A perfectly acceptable car - and local price was something like £3500
> !
>
> Ok, no power steering. alloys, sunroof, velour upholstery or a/c.
> OTOH if you just want a cheap car *new* it takes some beating.
>
> Incidentally, 'Yugo' still seem to be around in some form despite the
> troubles in Yugoslavia and NATO bombing the factory.
>
> http://www.zastava.net/
>

I like the part of this web site where I pressed the "English" button and
got the following message:


"Stranica u izgradnji. Da se vratite na prethodnu stranu kliknite ovde"

I get a feeling it means that "This page does not exist".
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 7:03:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:414DD5DE.2CCD2FF4@hotmail.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> I can see it now. A 21st century Yugo, made in China but actually a
> >> very good but cheap car. Only question - how long will it last and
> >> under what kind of abuse?
> >
> > Curious. Reminds me of something I heard recently.
> >
> > I think it was Renault - licenced on if its former models for
> > manufacture in one of the former 'Soviet Bloc' countries - Romania or
> > Bulgaria IIRC.
> >
> > A perfectly acceptable car - and local price was something like £3500
> > !
> >
> > Ok, no power steering. alloys, sunroof, velour upholstery or a/c.
> > OTOH if you just want a cheap car *new* it takes some beating.
> >
> > Incidentally, 'Yugo' still seem to be around in some form despite the
> > troubles in Yugoslavia and NATO bombing the factory.
> >
> > http://www.zastava.net/
> >
>
> I like the part of this web site where I pressed the "English" button and
> got the following message:
>
> "Stranica u izgradnji. Da se vratite na prethodnu stranu kliknite ovde"
>
> I get a feeling it means that "This page does not exist".

LOL ! Something like that.

I found a site in English that may be more helpful.

http://www.inet.hr/~bpauric/enovi.htm


Graham
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 9:40:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 19 Sep 2004 11:38:06 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:

>
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:60cqk0lc2t7vadn69p0ideh7eruhs7tjg9@4ax.com...
>> On 18 Sep 2004 21:29:34 EDT, "Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote:
>>
>> >"reasonable" is $900? As I stated before, around $400 is the limit.
>>
>> Reasonable for your other stated requirements, yes. Within your
>> budget, try a 100 watt/channel Yamaha, the AX-592 should be available
>> for that price.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
>Thanks for the recommendation. What is a cheap and reliable place
>online to get amps such as the Yamaha and NAD?

Google
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 9:44:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:29 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> If you are adjusting the tone controls for this reason, then you have,
>> a priori, a bad recording! I prefer to avoid those, and I have never
>> found tone controls to be of any use in that regard. YMMV.
>
>That's being rather picky.

That's what high end audio is all about.

>You mean you would rather not listen to something rather than adjust bass or
>treble to make a poor recording sound a little better.

Better for you is not necessarily better for me. I have some poor
recordings of great performances, I don't feel that they're improved
by messing with tone controls.

>Blinkered view IMHO.

Back at ya.........

>> Fair enough, so long as there is a bypass option. Since I never use
>> them, I don't want to pay for them - and a well-made one puts about
>> $200 on the retail cost of the amplifier, mostly due to the rotary
>> controls.
>
>You have a mythical idea of the cost of controls ( even well-made ones ).

I have more than 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture
of high quality industrial electronics.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 10:21:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:34:16 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:41:02 +0100, Pooh Bear
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >
>> >> Whaaaaat? Which general was dumb enough to accept *that* advice?
>> >
>> >It's pretty much universal practice in pro-audio when using rms continuous
>> >rating figures.
>>
>> This would be the industry which regularly destroys speakers, yes? :-)
>
>No actually, it doesn't.

Yes actually, it does, regularly.

>> >> You should never use an amplifier which has more power than the speakers
>> >> can handle,
>> >
>> >A 100 W rms amplifer ( for example ) will *not* deliver 100 W continuous into a
>> >load when driven with *music* . Only sine wave testing delivers the rated power
>> >- which is irrelevant to music listening.
>>
>> Utter garbage! A 100 watt amplifier is perfectly capable of delivering
>> close to 200 watts
>
>Only when so clipped as to be unbelievably distorted.

Some people seem to love unbelievable distortion levels - heck, some
people even love SETs!

>When unclipped - you would be hard pressed to get more than an 'average level' of
>50W from a 100W amp.

So what? In fact, in domestic listening, an average level close to 1
watt would be more like it.

> Since most speaker damge is due to thermal overload of the
>voice coils(s) then a 50W rms ( rms ratings are normally 'thermally limited' ratings
>) rated speaker is safe with a 100W amp in this example.

When was the last time you saw a domestic loudspeaker with an rms
power rating? Certainly not the Athenas in question.

>> when the klutz on the sounboard winds it up to 11
>
>'Soundboards' don't have controls marked 1-10 or even 11. Being pros we use dB
>markings.

You don't have +11dB on your mixer? Hammerchewer!

>> or the domestic listener is in 'party mode'. It's called a square
>> wave, and heavy clipping on rock music can get pretty darned close.
>
>And a good way of avoiding clipping is to use a more appropriately rated ( higher
>powered ) amplifier compatible with the average power level dissipation of the
>speaker.

Didn't you just say that most damage is caused by thermal overload of
the voice coils? So now you're recommending a much more powerful
amplifier which will sound nice and clean while it's frying the voice
coils? Try to bring some faint glimmer of common sense to your
argument..............

>> Besides which, you'll notice that the speaker power rating is *also* a
>> music rating, as no conventional speaker with a pair of 1-2" voice
>> coils is capable of handling the 250 watt rating of the Athenas on a
>> continuous basis.
>
>The speaker has 2 x 8" LF drivers that will handle most of the power dissipation.

Bullshit. I seriously doubt that they can handle even 50 watts rms
each.

>The way I read their spec - they are suggesting a maximum 250W amp.
>
>What is a ' 1-2" voice coil ' btw ? 1 inch - 2 inch - 1/2 inch ?

Between 1 and 2 inches, as anyone familiar with standard notation
would be aware.


>> >A higher power amplifier also has more headroom before clipping.
>>
>> Yes, and even more power when *in* clipping.............
>
>You're suggesting that listening to clipped music is good ?
>
>Are you suggesting that you should use an underpowered amp just so you can benefit
>fom hearing the subtlety of clipping ?
>
>
>> >> in fact you usually don't need as much power as the
>> >> official rating. In particular, these speakers are unusually sensitive
>> >> at 93dB/w/m, so a good 60 watt amp will be more than adequate for most
>> >> rooms.
>> >
>> >Depending how loud you want it to go - which is what I stated. Since you don't
>> >know that - then you shouldn't make vague generalisations.
>>
>> Nothing vague about it - 60 watts/channel into 93dB/w/m speakers will
>> generate around 110-112 dB peak SPL in a normally furnished reasonably
>> large 2500 cu.ft. room, which is as I said, more than adequate for
>> realistic listening levels.
>
>Do you know how loud even an unamplified orchestra actually peaks ?

Yes, typically 100 to 105dB SPL in the mid stalls.

>It's a lot more than 110-112 dB.

No, it isn't, it's *never* been recorded at more than 110dB in the mid
stalls. Don't be confused by the kind of ludicrous levels that clubs
and stadium performers prefer - although legislation is thankfully
cutting back on those. I haven't been to a club without using earplugs
for about ten years.

>Your idea of 'realistic listening levels' sounds to me like 'mummy knows best'
>advice. Ppl do like to party sometimes - and clipping does more hearing damage than
>high SPL but you would have to know something about the issues involved to
>understand why.

I've known about the issues involved for some forty years, and I'm
very familiar with the deleterious effects of percussive and high
intensity HF noise.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
September 20, 2004 12:54:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote in message
news:cifgji$e7p@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at 250
> watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
> this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
> speakers are Athena AS-f2.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good $450 or under amp for these speakers ? I
> already have the CD player.


http://www.hometheatermag.com/poweramplifiers/112/
>
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 6:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Why not consider the amplifier used with the speakers when you auditioned
them? You could at least try to duplicate the power rating. My personal
experience tells me that the absolute power rating is relatively unimportant
in sound quality for a home music system. I would think that anywhere from
about 40 watts up might work for you depending on the design of the amp and
your personal tastes. Keep in mind that the power rating of the speakers is
the limit before damage - not distortion. The speakers will probably be
unlistenable at sustained drive levels anywhere near 250 watts.

If you already bought the speakers I would suggest narrowing your search to
a few of the more respected brands such as NAD, - oops, that's about the
only budget integrated amp that comes to mind at the moment, but I'm sure
there are more. Find a dealer who will let you return the amp if you are
unhappy - this is where a local dealer is invaluable - and do a little trial
and error. Remember, you are the one who has to listen, not some "expert"
who may have different tastes and priorities.

Just my $.02
John

"Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote in message
news:cig9vk$4r1@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:414BA6BF.C4662D86@hotmail.com...
>
> > Do you have a 'short list' of candidate amps that you're considering ?
> >
> > If so pls post.
> >
> > A list of required features would be useful too - e.g. do you want a
> remote
> > for volume control ? Often found on even cheap AV amps - but often
> missing
> > maybe from high end - even a Creek ?
> >
> >
> > Regds, Graham
> >
> >
> >
>
> Features aren't of great importance, as long as the quality is decent
> and holds up well over time. I assume they all have treble and bass
> adjustments...
>
> Not too familiar with any amps (except the NAD I mentioned previously,
> and Cambridge Audio ones at audioadvisor). Any recommendations?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiyang Chen
>
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 10:57:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:29 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> Fair enough, so long as there is a bypass option. Since I never use
> >> them, I don't want to pay for them - and a well-made one puts about
> >> $200 on the retail cost of the amplifier, mostly due to the rotary
> >> controls.
> >
> >You have a mythical idea of the cost of controls ( even well-made ones ).
>
> I have more than 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture
> of high quality industrial electronics.

Hmmm - well ok but I have 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture of
pro-audio.

Withe kind of mark-ups common to my industry, that bass and treble circuit would
have to cost about $60 in materials to translate to a $200 retail cost.

Given that even conductive plastic pots can be had for a few dollars each - what
had you in mind ?


Graham
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 10:12:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:57:41 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:29 +0100, Pooh Bear
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> Fair enough, so long as there is a bypass option. Since I never use
>> >> them, I don't want to pay for them - and a well-made one puts about
>> >> $200 on the retail cost of the amplifier, mostly due to the rotary
>> >> controls.
>> >
>> >You have a mythical idea of the cost of controls ( even well-made ones ).
>>
>> I have more than 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture
>> of high quality industrial electronics.
>
>Hmmm - well ok but I have 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture of
>pro-audio.
>
>Withe kind of mark-ups common to my industry, that bass and treble circuit would
>have to cost about $60 in materials to translate to a $200 retail cost.
>
>Given that even conductive plastic pots can be had for a few dollars each - what
>had you in mind ?

Penny & Giles rotary faders, like I use in my own passive controller,
with ruthenium-tipped Pickering relays providing the tone bypass
circuit.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 12:28:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f4cqk01146r7vqr0huhmtecca8d8ji3okl@4ax.com

> If you are adjusting the tone controls for this reason, then you have,
> a priori, a bad recording! I prefer to avoid those, and I have never
> found tone controls to be of any use in that regard. YMMV.

Agreed, tone controls are pretty blunt instruments for correcting the tonal
quality of recordings.

OTOH a good 5 or 7 band parametric equalizer or better yet a 24,000 point
FFT-based equalizer can be in the right hands, a pretty fine tool. Even 30
band graphic equalizers can be pretty darn useful.

I have a prefab 24k point FFT equalization curve I call "Anti-SM-57". It's
pretty much the inverse of Shure's published curve for that mic. It's
amazing how many amateur and mediocre professional recordings it seems to be
able to transform into listenable events, almost magically.
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 12:28:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> I have a prefab 24k point FFT equalization curve I call "Anti-
> SM-57". It's pretty much the inverse of Shure's published curve for that
> mic. It's amazing how many amateur and mediocre professional recordings it
> seems to be able to transform into listenable events, almost magically.

And yet that unfortunate transducer (and its' cousin, the '58) are
the "industry standard". Which is why I find it dificult to generate
much respect for the pop-music "industry".

I was at the AES in LA when the "Wall of Sound" paper was
presented (by Ron Wickersham?) They revealed that they
were unable to use any of the Shure mics because they couldn't
find any that were consistent enough to use as a differential pair.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 1:13:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Jiyang Chen" <no@no.no> wrote in message
news:cifgji$e7p@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Beginner question, but the speakers that I am looking at is rated at
250
> watts per channel. Do I need to get an amplifier that is higher than
> this watts rating, or is 250 watts the maximum I should look for? The
> speakers are Athena AS-f2.
>
> Can anyone recommend a good $450 or under amp for these speakers ? I
> already have the CD player.
>

I've been looking into some A/v receivers, specifically the Harman
Kardon AVR 330. It says that it'll deliver 55 watts into Surround front
left and right, and 70 watts into Stereo.

What's the difference between plugging the AS-f2 speakers into either
one of the slots?
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 6:06:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:57:41 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:29 +0100, Pooh Bear
> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> >> Fair enough, so long as there is a bypass option. Since I never use
> >> >> them, I don't want to pay for them - and a well-made one puts about
> >> >> $200 on the retail cost of the amplifier, mostly due to the rotary
> >> >> controls.
> >> >
> >> >You have a mythical idea of the cost of controls ( even well-made ones ).
> >>
> >> I have more than 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture
> >> of high quality industrial electronics.
> >
> >Hmmm - well ok but I have 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture of
> >pro-audio.
> >
> >Withe kind of mark-ups common to my industry, that bass and treble circuit would
> >have to cost about $60 in materials to translate to a $200 retail cost.
> >
> >Given that even conductive plastic pots can be had for a few dollars each - what
> >had you in mind ?
>
> Penny & Giles rotary faders, like I use in my own passive controller,
> with ruthenium-tipped Pickering relays providing the tone bypass
> circuit.

Nice - but serious overkill.

Graham
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 6:17:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f4cqk01146r7vqr0huhmtecca8d8ji3okl@4ax.com
>
> > If you are adjusting the tone controls for this reason, then you have,
> > a priori, a bad recording! I prefer to avoid those, and I have never
> > found tone controls to be of any use in that regard. YMMV.
>
> Agreed, tone controls are pretty blunt instruments for correcting the tonal
> quality of recordings.
>
> OTOH a good 5 or 7 band parametric equalizer or better yet a 24,000 point
> FFT-based equalizer can be in the right hands, a pretty fine tool. Even 30
> band graphic equalizers can be pretty darn useful.
>
> I have a prefab 24k point FFT equalization curve I call "Anti-SM-57". It's
> pretty much the inverse of Shure's published curve for that mic. It's
> amazing how many amateur and mediocre professional recordings it seems to be
> able to transform into listenable events, almost magically.

Do you recall the 'Academy Curve' applied to film sound tracks ?

A recording engineer I knew many years ago similarly had his own 'anti Academy
Curve' filter.

His film sound tracks received a number of awards ! ;-)


Graham
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 6:17:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4150D292.194E3B85@hotmail.com

> Do you recall the 'Academy Curve' applied to film sound tracks ?

Yer.

> A recording engineer I knew many years ago similarly had his own
> 'anti Academy Curve' filter.

Fogures.

> His film sound tracks received a number of awards ! ;-)


Probably not a coincidence.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 6:21:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> > I have a prefab 24k point FFT equalization curve I call "Anti-
> > SM-57". It's pretty much the inverse of Shure's published curve for that
> > mic. It's amazing how many amateur and mediocre professional recordings it
> > seems to be able to transform into listenable events, almost magically.
>
> And yet that unfortunate transducer (and its' cousin, the '58) are
> the "industry standard". Which is why I find it dificult to generate
> much respect for the pop-music "industry".

May I suggest that you reserve your disdain more for Shure Brothers and their
apparent inability to make any better mic as a 'standard' ?

There's no shortage of 'pop-music' sound engineers who loathe the SM57/8 along
with its endless promotion. The 57 isn't even robust !

SM57s & 58s are bought mainly by ppl who listen to audio folklore rather than
their ears.

Graham
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 10:37:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:06:10 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:57:41 +0100, Pooh Bear
>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:29 +0100, Pooh Bear
>> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> >> Fair enough, so long as there is a bypass option. Since I never use
>> >> >> them, I don't want to pay for them - and a well-made one puts about
>> >> >> $200 on the retail cost of the amplifier, mostly due to the rotary
>> >> >> controls.
>> >> >
>> >> >You have a mythical idea of the cost of controls ( even well-made ones ).
>> >>
>> >> I have more than 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture
>> >> of high quality industrial electronics.
>> >
>> >Hmmm - well ok but I have 30 years of experience in the design and manufacture of
>> >pro-audio.
>> >
>> >Withe kind of mark-ups common to my industry, that bass and treble circuit would
>> >have to cost about $60 in materials to translate to a $200 retail cost.
>> >
>> >Given that even conductive plastic pots can be had for a few dollars each - what
>> >had you in mind ?
>>
>> Penny & Giles rotary faders, like I use in my own passive controller,
>> with ruthenium-tipped Pickering relays providing the tone bypass
>> circuit.
>
>Nice - but serious overkill.

In the context of a 'high-end' pre-amplifier which could retail for
several thousand dollars? No, just honest use of the best available
components. Check what's *really* inside those megabuck preamps, and
it's usually about thirty to fifty bucks worth of Alps pots and
gold-plated switches - if you're lucky............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
!