I have a Denon 3805 and was wondering which speakers would be easier to drive?
Axiom:
M60ti at 8 ohms, 93dB, 250 max watts
VP150 at 6 ohms, 95dB, 400 max watts
QS8 at 6 ohms, 95dB, 400 max watts
Polk:
RTi8 at 8 ohms, 90dB, 250 max watts
CSi5 at 8 ohms, 90dB, 200 max watts
FXi3 at 8 ohms, 88dB, 150 max watts
I know that Polks are power hungry and the Axioms are efficient, but 3 of the 5 Axioms are 6 ohms and need a lot of watts. I've read that the Denon's are not too stable below 8 ohms. The Polks are all 8 ohms, power hungry, but don't require a lot of watts.
The 3805 won't have any problem with either setup. The efficiency make Axioms easy loads. Lots of Denon users on this forum.
I was driving my 4 ohm 80's with no problems with the 3805.
Efficiency is the key. The power rating is a max power, but the Axioms don't require more power to run. They are just rated for handling more power, but sound great with 100 Watts/channel from a quality receiver.
I agree in that the Dennon should have no problems with either, the Axioms should play a little louder (3-5 dB) with the same receiver due to the efficiency specs.
As John and others have mentioned before, most efficient speakers will use about 1 watt at a comfortably loud average listening level and even brief peaks would be unlikely to use 100 watts except in a very large room. Don't be overly concerned with power ratings.
I think I'll trade my Rotel for one of those flea powered 3 watt per channel amps. I hate to see all that power go to waste with only needing 1 watt
. How about you guys claiming the one watt rule give that a try and see how you enjoy your system.
I was talking about 1 Gigawatt
It's 1.21 Gigawatts and a Flux Capacitor...
WhatFurrer
jiggawatts, if you follow Doc's pronunciation.
93, welcome. One thing to note is that your Polks aren't any more "power hungry" than any other speakers of similar sensitivity. Also note that the numbers that you give for the Polks are sensitivities measured anechoically while the Axiom numbers that you quote are in-room. Typically, room reflections can add 3dB to the overall sound level at a certain "critical distance" and you should add 3dB to the Polk numbers to use a comparable standard. Doing that indicates that there's no appreciable difference in the sensitivities.
In any case, as Randy pointed out, this isn't something that requires great ooncern; clean power is plentiful and cheap these days. Those sensitivity figures that you quoted are of course using 1 watt, which is the standard. It's unlikely that most would be listening at at even the 90dB average level, which is quite loud indeed. Depending on the dynamic range of the program material(e.g. many classical compositions have a wider dynamic range than most pop recordings), brief peaks will hit about 20dB higher than the 1 watt reference level of around 90dB and would need about 100 watts for that instant. Even low cost units are widely available which have no problem with this.
Are we not taking into account that most don't listen to our systems at one meter? For every doubling of distance from the speakers do we not loose 6 db of output?
No, Rick, the 6dB decrease with doubling of distance would only apply in an anechoic environment and then only to an omnidirectional source where the sound would spread in a spherical manner. Since the surface area of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius(4piR(squared))doubling the radius increases the area by a factor of four, which implies a decrease in sound level of 6dB at the surface of the expanding sphere. More directional sounds lose less direct level with distance. But the major factor that leads to far less than a 6dB actual loss of sound level with doubling of distance is the reflected ambient sound field in actual listening rooms(rather than an anechoic chamber)which becomes equal to the direct sound at the "critical distance"(about 3-4' in typical rooms)and makes the loss relatively small at the distances typically involved in the home.
An illustration of this can be found in fig. 10.4.1 in
this discussion . Also see Linkwitz's explanation on his site; especially scroll down to reverberation distance and
amplifier power calculation sections. The bottom line on all this is that a lot less power is required than the 6dB with doubling figure would imply.
I was going by
this spl calculator which was showing the 6 Db decrease I had mentioned.
Here is another article writen by Alan that says there is a 6 db loss when doubling the distance from the loudspeaker.
Amazing how men can argue forever about things that are so easy to measure
Ok, pink noise on one M60, RS on slow, C-scale
1m 82db
2m 78db
4m 75 db
Result - in a 'typical' room (basement, 18x28x9, carpeted floor, drywall) the sound attenuated at about 3-4db with doubling of the distance at 'typical' listening distances.
Somewhat slower than the open space rule of 6db. This is the room effect that John was talking about.
I measured my own room and found similar results.
Here is another site that states the same.
I’m with Rick. Starting to get tired of all this “one meter” referenced BS.
When listening to stereo music, I rarely have mine UNDER 90 db and I sure in the hell don’t sit three feet away from the speakers. I’m usually wandering around with a nail gun or tape measure.
To be real blunt, I don’t understand you folks that like to listen to music any quieter. Hell, it take 80 db before one can even hear all the instruments.
Movies on the other hand I listen to at much lower volumes.
I have better than average hearing for a human being too. Good enough to get weird looks from the doc every year when I get a physical.
Gee, I'm sorry I offended you by listening to my music on my system at less than ear bleeding levels. <rollseyes>
