On Feb 17, 7:59=A0am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Joe" <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:4qUtj.5736$fZ3.866@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Way back in '86 I purchased a decent sound system
> > including the JBL L80T speakers and the amp was a
> > Parasound DR65.
>
> Not a bad system, in the day.
>
> > The amp finally died so now I'm looking for a new amp but
> > I don't think I want to spend as much as I did on that
> > Parasound. I've been told by the store (an audio store
> > run by an electrical engineer not a department store ) I
> > bought it originally that I really should get a high end
> > amp to match those speakers- and then told the same by a
> > tech at Circuit City.
>
> Hardly authoritative sources.
>
> > The speakers' brochure says, "power handling 150 watts
> > continuous, 600 watts peak". The specs on the Parasound
> > claim, "Continuous RMS power per channel, 20Hz-20KHz with
> > both channels operating into 8 ohms with no more than
> > rated Total Harmonic Distortion: 65 watts". Now to me,
> > that doesn't seem like a match, but I trusted the
> > engineer who put this system together.
>
> The JBL speakers are a little more efficient than average, and
therefore,
> you don't need the biggest power amp in the world to get good sound of
the=
m.
>
> > So, when I looked at amps at Circuit City- the better
> > ones, in the $600-$800 range offer around 100 watts per
> > channel.
>
> No doubt you were looking at receivers. =A0Circuit City does have a few
> amplifiers on their web site, even a monoblok. But, they are all
consumer =
or
> consumer-ish products.
>
> > =A0But, I saw a Sony for $250 that also offered the
> > same wattage. The tech said, "but the wattage of the more
> > expensive models is better wattage". No, he didn't say
> > that way- he used more technical language which I didn't
> > understand but which sounded reasonable. He also said
> > that the better models (not Sony) were tested for
> > wattage- that is, each and every item was tested- whereas
> > Sony doesn't do this - it just estimates the wattage for
> > each model implying that the wattage may be lower than
> > claimed.
>
> Power ratings are the subject of considerable gamesmanship. For example,
t=
he
> same power amp can be rated at 80 wpc at 0.02% THD or 100 wpc at 0.08%
THd=
> or 120 wpc at 1% THD or maybe as much as 200 wpc at 10% THD.
>
> You don't have power-hungry speakers and you've been happy with a 68 wpc
> amplifier for 22 years.
>
> > Both the original store guy and the CC tech said that a
> > cheaper model will give inferior sound- which I don't
> > doubt, but where to draw the line?
>
> Do doubt it. The weakest link in any audio system is either the
recording =
or
> the room, with the speakers not far behind. This will gross you out, but
I=
> would compare the sound of your speakers driven by a good $80 100 wpc
> receiver to the same speakers driven by an $24,000 pair of Halcro
> monoblocks.
>
> I've done *crazy* things like that in the past, and as long as the
levels
> were carefully matched and nobody could peek at what was playing at any
> particular instant, everybody is fooled, and I'm talking about a room
full=
> of over 20 experienced audiophiles, some of whom were quite sure they
had
> very picky ears.
>
> > I only have 2 speakers
> > so I don't need a fancy amp with numerous channels and I
> > don't need any fancy features at all- I don't need a
> > radio and I don't need compatibility with Blue-Ray or any
> > other modern tech- I just need an amp that will play
> > reasonably well my JBL speakers. I'm somewhat fussy about
> > the sound quality but I don't consider myself a true
> > audiophile who will notice great subtleties between one
> > good sound system and another.
>
> Nothing wrong with being fussy about sound quality, after all it got you
t=
o
> invest in a pretty good sounding system 22 years ago. Thing is, there is
a=
> lot of bragging by people who think they are fussy, but all that is
really=
> fussy is their egos and their obsession with things that don't determine
> sound quality.
>
> > I'd prefer to get by with the Sony for $250 (which is a
> > sale item, not sure of original price and I didn't note
> > the model) but if that will result in really bad sound,
> > I'll spend more.
>
> The $250 Sony (no model given so its a pig in a poke as far as I'm
> concerned) is probably already overkill. If I was shopping Circuit City
fo=
r
> a power amp, I'd check to see what they are doing with the lowest-price
> Sherwood stereo receiver, which should be under $100. If they had no
stock=
> of that, I'd probably check out the $150 Onkyo.
>
> And actually, about 2 years ago, that's exactly what I did. I was in
luck
> and got the $80 Sherwood.
Compare the rms watts rating when shopping for amps. That's the only
rating that is fairly consistently measured across the board. Beware
of ratings that seem outlandish because they probably are. When the
salesman tells you a surround sound receiver has something outlandish
like 5 or 600 watts he is talking about some sort of "peak" power.
Just look at the power cord, is it the size of a lamp cord? Or does
it look like the cord on a power tool? To get 500 watts out you have
to put at least 500 watts in. Look at any decent top end amp. Even
the ones with less that 100wpc rms will have a hefty power cord. Also
you want a class ab amp. Not one of those "switching" amps.
|
