don't seperates kill even the best receiver?

[guitz]

Picture a 5.1 system, with large , 2 or 3 way Klipsch speakers and matching center/surround speakers....with each speaker pumped with any good 100 or 200 watt power amp BRIDGED, to provide 4-500 watts...per speaker....as you already know, 1 major advantage of this, is your amps would barely break a sweat even at loud volumes ,because it wouldn't take much to get loud, with that much total power on hand, resulting in a very BIG sound with no distortion......agree?

[DonoMan]

Power capability has nothing to do with distortion. There is absolutely no advantage to having 500 watt amps, absolutely none, short of actually USING 500 watts. Unless you have a special requirement for the separates, IE the power requirement or needing more channels (for, say, using an active crossover) or something, then there's no benefit.

Our ears can't detect the difference between .1% and .001% distortion. Yes, this includes you, #3, even if you tell us otherwise

[JOHNnDENVER]

Your asking if external power amps are better than power amps in the AVR? Yes they are.

Now you can generally switch to external amps if your AVR has pre-outs.

[MLKstudios]

The general rule is to have 1.5x what the speaker is rated to have that bit extra headroom. But I don't think 2x-5x over will add any benefit.

BTW Klipschs are considered to be very efficient speakers and shouldn't need a lot of wattage.

ETA to get BIG sound you also need to move a lot of air. There are small speakers that can pump more volume than what used to be required but you still need some speakers with substance to get high SPL in a large room.

[guitz]

Originally Posted by DonoMan

Power capability has nothing to do with distortion. There is absolutely no advantage to having 500 watt amps, absolutely none, short of actually USING 500 watts. Unless you have a special requirement for the separates, IE the power requirement or needing more channels (for, say, using an active crossover) or something, then there's no benefit.

Our ears can't detect the difference between .1% and .001% distortion. Yes, this includes you, #3, even if you tell us otherwise

I'd agree in principal that wattage doesn't relate to distortion...what I was thinking , was along the lines of listening really, really loud...the capacity of a larger total wattage output system , seems like it would hit harder, the transient spikes from the music have much more headroom in a large wattage system, resulting in cleaner sound....would you agree that a 2000 watt total system will let you get really, really loud quicker than , say, a 500 watt total system...which to get the same db leve, would require opening the amp section of your receiver nearly wide open, making it work harder, and potentially distorting, if you run it wide open to get the comparitive loudness of the 2000 watt seperates.....


edit: in both 2000watt and 500 watt examples, I'm assuming your using high quality stuff

[ChickD1]

Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER

Your asking if external power amps are better than power amps in the AVR? Yes they are.

Now you can generally switch to external amps if your AVR has pre-outs.

Interestingly, my Krell Power amp blew its top recently, so I was forced to switch back to using the amps in my Receiver, which is normally used as a preamp/control center. Much to my surprise, I was only disappointed to a very small degree. Me thinks the gap is closing, or has been partly closed in this regard.

On a similar note, I picked up the AVR for preamp duties, fully EXPECTING it to be an underachiever, trounced by the McCormack 5.1 Analog pre in the system.
Either the McC is junk, or, the AVR is really quite good, besting a few pre/pros that have been used in this system.

I've learned that the conventional wisdoms of the past need to be continuously checked to see if they still apply. Sometimes they don't.

I am not here to hawk the benefits of any particular receiver, hence I do not name names. I was quite taken aback, however, that what I had always presumed to be true is now apparently not the case.

Happy listening, whaever you use

[littlesaint]

Originally Posted by DonoMan

Power capability has nothing to do with distortion. There is absolutely no advantage to having 500 watt amps, absolutely none, short of actually USING 500 watts. ...

Especially with Klipsch speakers. You could run those with 15 watts (tube watts). In fact, I do

I will say that if you have a particularly power hungry speaker, you could potentially run into clipping at high volumes if you don't have a beefy amp, but those situations are rare unless you plan on going deaf at a young age.

[Nuthed]

Its going to have more to do with SQ than outright power. But yes, even moderate, well built separates will trounce a "high end" receiver.

High end receiver? Thats an oxymoron.

As a side note, its becoming obvious that fewer and fewer people are able to hear the difference that quality components make.

[guitz]

Originally Posted by Nuthed

Its going to have more to do with SQ than outright power. But yes, even moderate, well built separates will trounce a "high end" receiver.

High end receiver? Thats an oxymoron.

i'm arguing (maybe wrongly ) that an enormous amout of power on hand CAN translate into better SQ, if you enjoy listening LOUDLY as I do ....more power = amps working less hard = cleaner transients = a bigger, cleaner sounding listening experience at loud volumes with good quality components...

[Nuthed]

Originally Posted by guitz

i'm arguing (maybe wrongly ) that an enormous amout of power on hand CAN translate into better SQ, if you enjoy listening LOUDLY as I do ....more power = amps working less hard = cleaner transients = a bigger sounding listening experience at loud volumes with good quality components...

Okay then. You're correct, at higher volumes the bigger amp will sound better, assuming you're approaching the limits of the smaller amp.

[ChickD1]

Originally Posted by guitz

i'm arguing (maybe wrongly ) that an enormous amout of power on hand CAN translate into better SQ, if you enjoy listening LOUDLY as I do ....more power = amps working less hard = cleaner transients = a bigger sounding listening experience at loud volumes with good quality components...

I would tend to agree, depending on several factors, including room size and others.

Additionally, most class A/B amplifiers sound better at low output where they operate in the Class A realm. Most only operate there at 0 -20% of their rated output.

[JOHNnDENVER]

Originally Posted by ChickD1

Interestingly, my Krell Power amp blew its top recently, so I was forced to switch back to using the amps in my Receiver, which is normally used as a preamp/control center. Much to my surprise, I was only disappointed to a very small degree. Me thinks the gap is closing, or has been partly closed in this regard.

On a similar note, I picked up the AVR for preamp duties, fully EXPECTING it to be an underachiever, trounced by the McCormack 5.1 Analog pre in the system.
Either the McC is junk, or, the AVR is really quite good, besting a few pre/pros that have been used in this system.

I've learned that the conventional wisdoms of the past need to be continuously checked to see if they still apply. Sometimes they don't.

I am not here to hawk the benefits of any particular receiver, hence I do not name names. I was quite taken aback, however, that what I had always presumed to be true is now apparently not the case.

Happy listening, whaever you use

Well no difference if you don't ever push your system and volume levels hard. It's the only way I know to gauge how strong an amp is. Crank it, you should be able to tell where the amps(s) start to become strained. External amps usually go much higher before one starts to percieve straining, compression, and loss of dynamics in general.

[thehun]

Originally Posted by guitz

Picture a 5.1 system, with large , 2 or 3 way Klipsch speakers and matching center/surround speakers....with each speaker pumped with any good 100 or 200 watt power amp BRIDGED, to provide 4-500 watts...per speaker....as you already know, 1 major advantage of this, is your amps would barely break a sweat even at loud volumes ,because it wouldn't take much to get loud, with that much total power on hand, resulting in a very BIG sound with no distortion......agree?

You can drive most of the big Klipsch horn loaded speakers with a single ended triod tube amp to ear piercing level.
2 Power ratings of amps alone doesn't mean anything. The speaker's load requirement, listening distance and room size determines far more.

[JOHNnDENVER]

Just keep in mind, ear piercing levels are much lower once straining and compression start to kick in.

Those horns are crazy effcient though for sure, so point taken.

[guitz]

Dare I even propose that larger capacity amplification make a difference in sound quality at more modest volume levels?...assuming high quality components in the 500 watt example and equally high quality components in the 2000 watt seperates example?....I don't know the mathematics behind sound/amp performance, and any given amp sections optimum operating range versus 'perceived' sound quality with two such strikingly different systems....surely someone has tried this....or...maybe you could just compare the 'bigness' of sound from a really good PA from your favorite pub/club , where you'd have to assume their using a large wattage system....but then your getting into room size, dynamics, etc,etc

[Zen Traveler]

Originally Posted by MLKstudios

...
BTW Klipschs are considered to be very efficient speakers and shouldn't need a lot of wattage.

ETA to get BIG sound you also need to move a lot of air. There are small speakers that can pump more volume than what used to be required but you still need some speakers with substance to get high SPL in a large room.

I feel it prudent to mention that the power requirements for Klipsch's Heritage line is different than for their upper end Reference line of speakers--They are a completely different design.

[DonoMan]

Originally Posted by thehun

You can drive most of the big Klipsch horn loaded speakers with a single ended triod tube amp to ear piercing level.

Powering a Klipsch speaker at all is automatically ear piercing if you ask me.

[Zen Traveler]

Originally Posted by DonoMan

Powering a Klipsch speaker at all is automatically ear piercing if you ask me.

Given your (edit: repeated) recommendation to underpower them I can see why;-)

[DonoMan]

Originally Posted by Zen Traveler

Given your (edit: repeated) recommendation to underpower them I can see why;-)

Please:
1) Point out where I recommended to "underpower" them
2) Explain what "underpowering" would have to do with what I said.

[littlesaint]

Originally Posted by Zen Traveler

I feel it prudent to mention that the power requirements for Klipsch's Heritage line is different than for their upper end Reference line of speakers--They are a completely different design.

Can you elaborate on this?

I've heard both the Reference line (what I own) and the Heritage line (what I'd like to own) and both were powered by no more than a 15w push-pull tube amp with out any problems. I use a SET amp with my RFs no problem, and I've talked to others that use the same with speakers form the Heritage line.

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by guitz

Dare I even propose that larger capacity amplification make a difference in sound quality at more modest volume levels?...assuming high quality components in the 500 watt example and equally high quality components in the 2000 watt seperates example?....I don't know the mathematics behind sound/amp performance, and any given amp sections optimum operating range versus 'perceived' sound quality with two such strikingly different systems....surely someone has tried this....or...maybe you could just compare the 'bigness' of sound from a really good PA from your favorite pub/club , where you'd have to assume their using a large wattage system....but then your getting into room size, dynamics, etc,etc

IMO, cannot really be answered in such generic terms as sound quality.

If one assumes an average power of 1wpc using 90dB speakers positioned near a wall, you will get about 91dB SPL at a listening distance of 6ft.

Now, 91dB isn't exactly ear-splitting volume, but it's fairly loud for an average level.

Seems I've read that musical peaks are about 10dB to 20dB about the average. Taking the worst case, +20dB, you are now 100x the power of the average level. If the average level is 91dB and takes 1 watt, now the peak is 111dB and requires 100 watts peak power.

If the amp in question is capable of delivering 100w peak unclipped into the speaker load, having more power than 100w should not provide any additional benefit as long as the other parameters don't change.

[4DHD]

Originally Posted by Nuthed

Its going to have more to do with SQ than outright power. But yes, even moderate, well built separates will trounce a "high end" receiver.

High end receiver? Thats an oxymoron.

As a side note, its becoming obvious that fewer and fewer people are able to hear the difference that quality components make.

The receiver that is considered the best of the lot is the Lexicon RV-8. It is, in reality, MC8, or the MC4 pre/pro and a CX-7 power amp in one box. And it would be better than a few lower priced separates.
One the other hand, a pre/pro's outputs should be better than most, if not all receiver preouts. I think most receiver's preouts are more of an after thought. So using a receiver as a pre/pro, as I do,(H/K635) won't be as good as if I were to use a MC4 pre/pro.

[dlouw]

Originally Posted by Nuthed

Its going to have more to do with SQ than outright power. But yes, even moderate, well built separates will trounce a "high end" receiver.

High end receiver? Thats an oxymoron.

As a side note, its becoming obvious that fewer and fewer people are able to hear the difference that quality components make.

Ahh! that explains it. The receivers are not getting any better. It is our ears that are getting worse.

[MichaelJHuman]

This is exactly the type of reasoning I have tried to use on these forums before, but some people don't seem to agree with it. I have a math background though, so I see things in terms of math. As long as those 100 watts aren't at %10 THD, I totally agree with your reasoning.

Originally Posted by whoaru99

IMO, cannot really be answered in such generic terms as sound quality.

If one assumes an average power of 1wpc using 90dB speakers positioned near a wall, you will get about 91dB SPL at a listening distance of 6ft.

Now, 91dB isn't exactly ear-splitting volume, but it's fairly loud for an average level.

Seems I've read that musical peaks are about 10dB to 20dB about the average. Taking the worst case, +20dB, you are now 100x the power of the average level. If the average level is 91dB and takes 1 watt, now the peak is 111dB and requires 100 watts peak power.

If the amp in question is capable of delivering 100w peak unclipped into the speaker load, having more power than 100w should not provide any additional benefit as long as the other parameters don't change.

[Nuthed]

Originally Posted by dlouw

Ahh! that explains it. The receivers are not getting any better. It is our ears that are getting worse.

That could be precisely correct. Your hearing does degrade with age, especially high frequencies. It could be that people want all the bells & whistles that most receivers have in spades. It could be that it is easier to achieve adequate sound with a receiver due to the auto set-up functions, and their arguably lower resolution. However if one were to take the time to properly set-up and calibrate a high quality system built from separates, they'd be amazed and wonder "why didn't I do this years ago?".

Like I said before, if you're happy with what you got, so be it. Just don't try and tell me there is no difference. I'll just tell you what you're missing out on.

BTW, I use a receiver as a pre/pro. I also think it sounds better using the built-in amps. I just wanted more power.

[DonoMan]

Originally Posted by dlouw

Ahh! that explains it. The receivers are not getting any better. It is our ears that are getting worse.

He's always like that, quick to say that separates have "quality components" and receivers do not, but he will not back up his statements.

[oztech]

coming from separates to flagship rec i can say imo that the difference is not night and day
on the units in the last couple of years in the past i would agree good quality separates still
sound better its just that margin is closing fast unless you use low efficient speakers in a large
room playing at high levels then an amp is very much needed but to make a statement that
the flagships some not all will never compete with separates of the same price tells me someone
has not ab this in their home.

[4DHD]

Originally Posted by DonoMan

He's always like that, quick to say that separates have "quality components" and receivers do not, but he will not back up his statements.

Lets look at a particular brand of gear, H/K, Lexicon, both part of Harman International. And the L7 processing.
The H/K635 receiver and all Lexicon pre/pros and the RV-8 receiver all have Logic 7 surround processing. And the L7 is very good, which is why I have the 635. But in no uncertain terms, do I think the L7 in the H/K635 is as good as the L7 in any of the Lexicon gear. The L7 in the 635 is a step down from what is used in the Lexicons.
Receivers are very good, for the most part, but in the case of the H/K635 compared to the Lexicon RV-8 receiver, the RV-8 is better and the Lexicon MC12 pre/pro is much better.

[4DHD]

Originally Posted by oztech

coming from separates to flagship rec i can say imo that the difference is not night and day
on the units in the last couple of years in the past i would agree good quality separates still
sound better its just that margin is closing fast unless you use low efficient speakers in a large
room playing at high levels then an amp is very much needed but to make a statement that
the flagships some not all will never compete with separates of the same price tells me someone
has not ab this in their home.

As long as one buys a receiver at the top of the line, then there is not much difference, compared to, at least, the cheaper separates of that line.
Its the receivers people buy from Costco, or Walmart that fall far short of the separates.

I cruised thru Best Buy, yesterday, for the first time in months. Good HDTVs, but what they sell for audio is a total disgrace.

[Nuthed]

Originally Posted by DonoMan

He's always like that, quick to say that separates have "quality components" and receivers do not, but he will not back up his statements.

What do you need as backup? Don't you have a receiver? An NAD? Thats a good brand. Surely better than a BB or CC special Yamaha or Denon.

I own a receiver as well. A Rotel RSX-972. I just happen to want more power than the built-in 75wpc. So I use the receiver as a pre/pro. I actually think the receiver sounds better by itself minus the outboard amps. Does that surprise you.

I just get a kick out of the people who claim that their box store receiver is audibly the same as a component from a maker like NAD, Rotel, B&K and on and on. Dream on.