AVS Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Looking at these two speakers specifications, which one of these would be easier for a receiver to drive:

Typical In-Room Frequency Response 37Hz - 27kHz ± 3dB
In-Room Sensitivity 92dB @ 2.83v / 1 meter
Frequency Response (Anechoic) 41Hz - 28kHz ± 3dB
Sensitivity (Anechoic) 90dB @ 2.83v / 1 meter
Impedance compatibility: 8,6 and 4 ohm rated amps and receivers.
or
Frequency response: 90 Hz - 35 kHz +/- 2db
Sensitivity: 89dB at 2.8 volts, 1 meter
Nominal Impedance: 6 ohms


Thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,773 Posts
In general, the higher the sensitivity of the speaker the easier it is to drive. However, the impedance is also important with 4 ohms or lower being the more difficult to drive. Many low to mid-range AVRs will struggle with a true 4 ohm speaker. From your list and the limited information provided the top speaker looks to be the easiest to drive.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,491 Posts
Insufficient data. You'd have to see SPL and impedance charts to be sure. But the second speaker would absolutely need to be run with subs, while the first goes a lot lower, and therefore is probably larger and than you need if you do use subs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
I changed my speakers a while back from an older model Infinity (Crescendo Series) to the Ascend towers. The pic below is of the horizon center channel that will be installed this week. The first set of specs in the original post is for the Horizon. My reciever is an older model Yamaha RX-V2500. 130wpc. I m wondering if I need to change receivers to get the most out of all 3 Ascends.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,773 Posts
Possibly. However, Ascend states that most receivers should be able to handle the speakers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,866 Posts
Possibly. However, Ascend states that most receivers should be able to handle the speakers.
Well they're not going to say "you need a very expensive high end amplifier with a high rated power supply and hundreds of watts of clean power into 2ohm, a better idea is to buy another brand that are easier to drive and an easier load. We don't mind not making a sale"
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,773 Posts
Lol, I suppose not. However, having had experience with Ascend I think there's a pretty good chance they've actually tested their speakers with both receivers and separates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zieglj01

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,013 Posts
My friend Ray drives Ascend Acoustic CMT340s with a yamaha rec that has 75 wpc and has no trouble making them play LOUD!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,866 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,049 Posts
They're NOT 4 Ohm speakers. They're nominal 6 Ohm speakers with a MINIMUM impedance of 4 Ohms. They should be a relatively easy load for most any decent amp to drive.



http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRT/srtmeas.html

The Sound and Vision measurement of 65 watts per channel for that Yamaha receiver was an "all channels driven" measurement. There is NEVER a "real life" situation where all the channels are driven to full output simultaneously. NEVER! It's a meaningless measurement. Here are the more pertinent measurements;
This graph shows that the RX-V2500's left channel, from CD input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1% distortion at 158.8 watts and 1% distortion at 178.2 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 198.1 watts and 1% distortion at 242.6 watts.
His receiver is fine for his application with the Ascend speakers. If he's using Bass Management, he's even better off, as the bass re-direction with bass management relieves the amps of their maximum power delivery requirements.

Craig
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,866 Posts
"There is NEVER a "real life" situation where all the channels are driven to full output simultaneously. NEVER!"

Stop making excuses for poor quality amplifiers, that fail when all channels are used.

His receiver is fine for his application with the Ascend speakers. If he's using Bass Management, he's even better off, as the bass re-direction with bass management relieves the amps of their maximum power delivery requirements.
He may use it in pure direct for 2 channel, or use a lower crossover ie small 60hz.

Go and borrow a power amplifier and see what you think.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,049 Posts
"There is NEVER a "real life" situation where all the channels are driven to full output simultaneously. NEVER!"
Stop making excuses for poor quality amplifiers, that fail when all channels are used.
"Making excuses?" I'm not making excuses for anything. Show me a soundtrack where all 5 or 7 channels have a full range, (3 Hz to 20 kHz), full scale, (105 db for speakers, 115 dB for LFE), signal in them at the same time. If you can show me that, I'll put some credibility into the "all channels driven" measurement performed by S&V. But even then, I would only care about that measurement if the system were run without Bass Management. If the channels are Bass Managed, the need for "full range" output is significantly reduced. With Bass Management invoked, the applicability of the "all channels driven" measurement is virtually completely discredited.

He may use it in pure direct for 2 channel, or use a lower crossover ie small 60hz.

Go and borrow a power amplifier and see what you think.
What??? This is not about my own personal experience or priorities. I have power amps capable of 2,400 watts per channel for my L/R's and 650 wpc for my CC and surrounds. I have 7,200 watts of power available for my subs, all of these power amps are on separate electrical circuits. I believe in amplifier "overkill" for my own system. However, I am realistic enough to know that my system is massive overkill, and that much lower targets would work just fine. The amps in the OP's receiver should be more than adequate for his application.

Craig
 
  • Like
Reactions: dsrussell

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,013 Posts
Funny, when "blind" studies are done, even trained professionals have trouble picking out expensive amps from budget ones, except at high volume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Yeah, I knew my amp wasn't all channels driven. I would have to put up a hefty sum to get an amp with 100wpc all channels driven. My listening is mostly two channel in Straight or Pure direct. I crank it once in a while, but normally I listen to music at not much louder the -30dB, sometimes low to mid -20dB. Same with movies. My current sub is a cheap model from Energy (S.8) I believe. I plan to purchase a Rythmik F12, but that's down the line for sure. My older receiver can do only one crossover point for all speakers, so I experiment between 60hz and 80hz. I can't see running the Ascends small, considering my sub.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,340 Posts
"Making excuses?" I'm not making excuses for anything. Show me a soundtrack where all 5 or 7 channels have a full range, (3 Hz to 20 kHz), full scale, (105 db for speakers, 115 dB for LFE), signal in them at the same time. If you can show me that, I'll put some credibility into the "all channels driven" measurement performed by S&V.
Thanks for that Craig, I was going to post similar. It's an irrelevant specificaton and I've been asking people to post a spectrogram of program material for all channels simultaneously for even a couple of seconds. Not so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,341 Posts
Thanks for that Craig, I was going to post similar. It's an irrelevant specificaton and I've been asking people to post a spectrogram of program material for all channels simultaneously for even a couple of seconds. Not so far.
Is there handy software to do that? In stereo, yeah, but in surround?

I'd be very curious to see the levels on that one crash scene in Terminator Umpteen, where a semi comes sliding sideways.

The point of the measurement is robustness of power supply, as a proxy perhaps for when some funny part of a complex speaker impedance takes transistors out of their Safe Operating Area and protection circuitry may do funny stuff to the sound. Also that the bias points or whatever remain stable, not moving about slightly and possibly coloring the sound when other channels are driven at once. Like many (most?) audio measurements, it might not be meaningful or real life by itself, but is *thought* to correlate to something we hear. I find it odd that so many people want to give receivers a pass on this spec, whereas power amp buyers seem to want the more ideal the better. I think a "5x150W" receiver that droops to 5x50W with all channels driven is likelier to clip and exhibit transient funniness than a receiver that only drooped to 5x120W or whatever.

Anyway, back to the OP, the speakers do seem like an easy load, and pretty sensitive, so hard to improve on. I think there was no sub? If so, adding a sub could free up dynamic range in the receiver by (as noted previously) reducing the load on the receiver amp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
They're NOT 4 Ohm speakers. They're nominal 6 Ohm speakers with a MINIMUM impedance of 4 Ohms. They should be a relatively easy load for most any decent amp to drive.



http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRT/srtmeas.html

The Sound and Vision measurement of 65 watts per channel for that Yamaha receiver was an "all channels driven" measurement. There is NEVER a "real life" situation where all the channels are driven to full output simultaneously. NEVER! It's a meaningless measurement. Here are the more pertinent measurements;


His receiver is fine for his application with the Ascend speakers. If he's using Bass Management, he's even better off, as the bass re-direction with bass management relieves the amps of their maximum power delivery requirements.

Craig
Thanks clarifying that Ascends are NOT 4 ohm speakers. Not sure where the poster got that from.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top