| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy these used Polks?
Hi all, thanks again for the advice so far.
Haven't listened to them, haven't even gone to a store to test drive anything. But Polk's own advertising for these mid-90's speakers sure sounds good: http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/specs/rt16/ Should I tell the guy I want them? (reminder: I don't know lots about home audio, but I'm trying to be picky about "very real sound," and only spend ~$400 on receiver and speakers. And can I use them with a Yamaha RX-397 receiver, or an Onkyo TX-8222, both of which have been recommended to me here? Oh, and one other question I haven't been able to answer on my own: Provided the speakers are made to handle it, does more wattage coming from the receiver generally mean more sound *quality*? I do know it generally means more volume, but what about how "clean" it sounds? I know, you're all thinking, "has the boy learned nothing?" |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Should I buy these used Polks?
wrote in message ... Hi all, thanks again for the advice so far. Haven't listened to them, haven't even gone to a store to test drive anything. But Polk's own advertising for these mid-90's speakers sure sounds good: http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/specs/rt16/ Should I tell the guy I want them? (reminder: I don't know lots about home audio, but I'm trying to be picky about "very real sound," and only spend ~$400 on receiver and speakers. And can I use them with a Yamaha RX-397 receiver, or an Onkyo TX-8222, both of which have been recommended to me here? Oh, and one other question I haven't been able to answer on my own: Provided the speakers are made to handle it, does more wattage coming from the receiver generally mean more sound *quality*? I do know it generally means more volume, but what about how "clean" it sounds? I know, you're all thinking, "has the boy learned nothing?" Either receiver would be adequate for normal usage. If you like to shake the walls and/or if the room is larger than normal, you should look elsewhere, both for speakers and amp. More available power does not mean more volume, it just means more available volume prior to clipping the amplifiers. Anything over say 50 watts per channel ought to give adequate volume with these speakers, but a higher powered unit might well be nicer generally, and may have somewhat better sound for other design-related reasons. I can't tell you how many customers bring in their stuff with blown amp channels, bad power transformers, bad speaker drivers, etc because they just didn't understand the electrical and mechanical limitations of consumer receivers and speakers. Healthy volume, yes. Extreme volume, no. Common sense goes a long way. Enjoy your new stuff! Mark Z. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Should I buy these used Polks?
wrote in message news:96552531-3f7d-415f-8257- Oh, and one other question I haven't been able to answer on my own: Provided the speakers are made to handle it, does more wattage coming from the receiver generally mean more sound *quality*? I do know it generally means more volume, but what about how "clean" it sounds? I know, you're all thinking, "has the boy learned nothing?" The answer is "possibly". For a particular volume level, you need a certain amount of power to drive speakers of a given sensitivity or efficiency. If the speakers are significantly underpowered, you won't get the volume you want/need. If they're overpowered they may be overdriven and potentially damaged. The actual "quality" of sound has nothing to do with power... in fact there are some single-ended tube amps out there that put out 1 watt RMS and which cost thousands of dollars. These require high-efficiency speakers and are, by and large, not designed to "rock the house". Consider this: if you've got a pair of big old 70's Cerwin Vegas with the 15" woofer rated at 86 db/w/m, to get to ear-splitting 104 dB sound (jet take-off loud) at your listening position 3m away, that would take, uh, 640 watts. That's one big-ass expensive amp. To get the same sound level out of a high-efficiency 97 db/w/m speaker you'd only need about 40 watts. As you can see speaker efficiency plays a big role in determining power requirements, as does required volume level. What you want, ideally, is a high-CURRENT capacity amp, not necessarily high power. When playing music, it requires high "bursts" of current to play what they call "dynamic peaks". These are the crescendos, the cymbal crashes, etc. which are much higher amplitude than the average amplitude of the audio signal. It's not necessarily how much POWER your amp can put out, but whether it has INSTANTANEOUS current capcity to deal with the peaks. Amps without this "reserve capacity" sound lacking. The really bottom-end amps sound crappy. There are any number of factors which can contribute to bad sound such as number and type of capacitors in the signal path, amp design (feedback, etc.) RF interference due to component/board layout, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Most amps that cost, say, $150 or more new will sound pretty good. The amps that you've been recommended fall into this category. ** Disclaimer** Half of what I've noted above is probably wrong, and I'm sure I'll be corrected, but it's a starting point. Dave S. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Should I buy these used Polks?
On Nov 23, 1:34 am, wrote:
Hi all, thanks again for the advice so far. Haven't listened to them, haven't even gone to a store to test drive anything. But Polk's own advertising for these mid-90's speakers sure sounds good: http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/specs/rt16/ Should I tell the guy I want them? Um, no offense, but if this is the way you intend to go about choosing audio equipment, it probably doesn't matter what you buy. Cripes, at least look for an independent review or something. Better yet, hit the stores and start listening to things. You might find something you like, and then you wouldn't have to ask us. (reminder: I don't know lots about home audio, but I'm trying to be picky about "very real sound," and only spend ~$400 on receiver and speakers. And can I use them with a Yamaha RX-397 receiver, or an Onkyo TX-8222, both of which have been recommended to me here? Oh, and one other question I haven't been able to answer on my own: Provided the speakers are made to handle it, does more wattage coming from the receiver generally mean more sound *quality*? I do know it generally means more volume, but what about how "clean" it sounds? It potentially means more volume, but only if you're going to turn it up that high! What it really means is more power for transient peaks, which will therefore be cleaner. But how important that is depends on a lot of factors. In your price range it doesn't matter, however. The differences in rated power among entry-level stereo receivers is too small to matter. bob |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Should I buy these used Polks?
"Dave" wrote in message news:JqC1j.9345$Ji6.4485@edtnps89... wrote in message news:96552531-3f7d-415f-8257- Oh, and one other question I haven't been able to answer on my own: Provided the speakers are made to handle it, does more wattage coming from the receiver generally mean more sound *quality*? I do know it generally means more volume, but what about how "clean" it sounds? I know, you're all thinking, "has the boy learned nothing?" The answer is "possibly". For a particular volume level, you need a certain amount of power to drive speakers of a given sensitivity or efficiency. If the speakers are significantly underpowered, you won't get the volume you want/need. If they're overpowered they may be overdriven and potentially damaged. The actual "quality" of sound has nothing to do with power... in fact there are some single-ended tube amps out there that put out 1 watt RMS and which cost thousands of dollars. These require high-efficiency speakers and are, by and large, not designed to "rock the house". Consider this: if you've got a pair of big old 70's Cerwin Vegas with the 15" woofer rated at 86 db/w/m, to get to ear-splitting 104 dB sound (jet take-off loud) at your listening position 3m away, that would take, uh, 640 watts. That's one big-ass expensive amp. To get the same sound level out of a high-efficiency 97 db/w/m speaker you'd only need about 40 watts. As you can see speaker efficiency plays a big role in determining power requirements, as does required volume level. What you want, ideally, is a high-CURRENT capacity amp, not necessarily high power. When playing music, it requires high "bursts" of current to play what they call "dynamic peaks". These are the crescendos, the cymbal crashes, etc. which are much higher amplitude than the average amplitude of the audio signal. It's not necessarily how much POWER your amp can put out, but whether it has INSTANTANEOUS current capcity to deal with the peaks. Amps without this "reserve capacity" sound lacking. The really bottom-end amps sound crappy. There are any number of factors which can contribute to bad sound such as number and type of capacitors in the signal path, amp design (feedback, etc.) RF interference due to component/board layout, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Most amps that cost, say, $150 or more new will sound pretty good. The amps that you've been recommended fall into this category. ** Disclaimer** Half of what I've noted above is probably wrong, and I'm sure I'll be corrected, but it's a starting point. Dave S. Not certain of the Cerwin model mentioned above - but the Cerwin Vega models I saw in the '70s were of the very HIGH efficiency type, thus compatible with lower powered amps. The 86 dB mentioned sounds more like the larger Advents of the day... Mark Z. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Should I buy these used Polks?
Mark D. Zacharias wrote:
.................................................. .. Consider this: if you've got a pair of big old 70's Cerwin Vegas with the 15" woofer rated at 86 db/w/m, to get to ear-splitting 104 dB sound (jet take-off loud) at your listening position 3m away, that would take, uh, 640 watts. That math is broken. The pair has two amplifier channels driving them, and sum somewhat better than pure random due to the correlation between the channels, which is to say that we get 90 db at a total of 2 watts. Next we are in a room, and even leaving bass range room gain out we do not have a 6 dB drop off with doubling of distance because of the restricted angle or radiation, so three meters distance does not mean a 10 dB spl loss compared to 1 meter. 6 dB is a better guess, but it is a guesstimate. This means that we have 84 dB at two times 1 watt in the listening position, and thus 104 dB are reached with two times 100 watts. Not certain of the Cerwin model mentioned above - but the Cerwin Vega models I saw in the '70s were of the very HIGH efficiency type, thus compatible with lower powered amps. Yes, but with some of the smaller ones that efficiency relied on room gain to also apply in the lower range. The 86 dB mentioned sounds more like the larger Advents of the day... Reasonable middle of the road, easy on the budget and modest in terms of liters of cabinet for any given range. Mark Z. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
Linear Mode
