I guess my quesion would be which amp is cleaner while delivering the required power. I had heard some crcowns that were powerful but were not a clean as a lower powered amp.
-
Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
Which amplifier is stronger?
Which amp is stronger, the NAD C272 or the Rotel RB-1050?
The Rotel specifies 2*70W in 8 ohms, while it says it draws a maximum of 250W, on the back of the machine. NAD specifies 2*150W in 8 ohms. They both cost the same. Which is stronger / more powerful?
Another question; when I maxed out my crap speakers (Dynavoice M65, cheap as hell but damn well worth their money) with my Harman Kardon 635, I managed to pump out 400 watts to them, according to the wattmeter in the wall. The HK draws 89 watts while idle (stereo, mute), so that means (in a perfect world) (400-89)/2 155,5 watts per channel. But that isn't correct, is it? (Not all power goes to the speaker, some becomes heat)
The Rotel specifies 2*70W in 8 ohms, while it says it draws a maximum of 250W, on the back of the machine. NAD specifies 2*150W in 8 ohms. They both cost the same. Which is stronger / more powerful?
Another question; when I maxed out my crap speakers (Dynavoice M65, cheap as hell but damn well worth their money) with my Harman Kardon 635, I managed to pump out 400 watts to them, according to the wattmeter in the wall. The HK draws 89 watts while idle (stereo, mute), so that means (in a perfect world) (400-89)/2 155,5 watts per channel. But that isn't correct, is it? (Not all power goes to the speaker, some becomes heat)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Quote:
You didn't put 400 watts to the speakers. H/K amps have a conservative rating, but not that much. Most of the current draw is wasted in conversion and heat. You can get an idea by looking at the Rotel rating. 140 watt output but 250 watt input.
By the rating, the NAD is twice as powerful as the Rotel. Their actual outputs will be different than advertised. But the NAD is still likely to be more powerful than the Rotel.
| Originally Posted by Fackamato Which amp is stronger, the NAD C272 or the Rotel RB-1050? The Rotel specifies 2*70W in 8 ohms, while it says it draws a maximum of 250W, on the back of the machine. NAD specifies 2*150W in 8 ohms. They both cost the same. Which is stronger / more powerful? Another question; when I maxed out my crap speakers (Dynavoice M65, cheap as hell but damn well worth their money) with my Harman Kardon 635, I managed to pump out 400 watts to them, according to the wattmeter in the wall. The HK draws 89 watts while idle (stereo, mute), so that means (in a perfect world) (400-89)/2 155,5 watts per channel. But that isn't correct, is it? (Not all power goes to the speaker, some becomes heat) |
By the rating, the NAD is twice as powerful as the Rotel. Their actual outputs will be different than advertised. But the NAD is still likely to be more powerful than the Rotel.
another way is to look at the current draw one may only draw 5 amps while the other may draw 10 amps hence the term high current amp, would still chose the one with high current for instant headroom and dynamics.
Quote:
The amplifier power supply is (roughly, and likely generous) 50% efficient, so take your result of 155,5/2=77,75. You see it works out about right and is a close approximation.
I would agree with the previous poster that the NAD is a stronger amp. However, neither amp will make the overall volume significantly louder. The NAD amp could improve the overall sound as it relates to headroom available to reproduce momentary peak levels.
| Originally Posted by Fackamato Which amp is stronger, the NAD C272 or the Rotel RB-1050? The Rotel specifies 2*70W in 8 ohms, while it says it draws a maximum of 250W, on the back of the machine. NAD specifies 2*150W in 8 ohms. They both cost the same. Which is stronger / more powerful? Another question; when I maxed out my crap speakers (Dynavoice M65, cheap as hell but damn well worth their money) with my Harman Kardon 635, I managed to pump out 400 watts to them, according to the wattmeter in the wall. The HK draws 89 watts while idle (stereo, mute), so that means (in a perfect world) (400-89)/2 155,5 watts per channel. But that isn't correct, is it? (Not all power goes to the speaker, some becomes heat) |
I would agree with the previous poster that the NAD is a stronger amp. However, neither amp will make the overall volume significantly louder. The NAD amp could improve the overall sound as it relates to headroom available to reproduce momentary peak levels.
Quote:
Power supplies are quite efficient. It is the power ampitself (the linear ones anyway) that is not as efficient, Mr. EE 101.
| Originally Posted by whoaru99 The amplifier power supply is (roughly, and likely generous) 50% efficient, so take your result of 155,5/2=77,75. |
Quote:
Thanks for the correction - should have been amplifier is roughly 50% efficient....
In any case, the point was conveyed and the math works, yes?
Didn't really see the need for the "Mr. EE 101" part though.
| Originally Posted by tlf9999 Power supplies are quite efficient. It is the power ampitself (the linear ones anyway) that is not as efficient, Mr. EE 101. |
In any case, the point was conveyed and the math works, yes?
Didn't really see the need for the "Mr. EE 101" part though.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
WilliamR
975 Replies
BASSAHOLIC
508 Replies
bass addict
394 Replies
Recommended Communities
