Thanks for the nice words, Lewinski. I agree with all of your comments, aside from a minor typo in no. 2 (you meant to say "2 watts" instead of "3 watts").
Re "is this 95 dB peak or RMS," that would be "peak" in the sense of "maximum," if that makes sense.
The 3 dB added to reflect two speakers is indeed conservative, given your centered listening position, and room effects will help also, with 3 dB perhaps being a conservative assumption as well.
So as I indicated in my previous post I suspect you would do well with most recordings, but not necessarily with all recordings. For example, I have in my collection a goodly number of classical symphonic recordings on audiophile-oriented labels such as Telarc, Sheffield, Reference Recordings, etc., that were subjected to minimal or no dynamic compression when they were engineered and mastered. When those recordings are played at average levels of perhaps 75 db at the listening position, some of them will reach brief peaks in the area of 100 to 105 db (measured at the listening position, with a Radio Shack digital SPL meter set to "fast" and C-weighting).
On the other hand, though, as you've probably seen in past threads here some members report surprisingly good results using low power SETs with speakers that are considerably less efficient than 94 dB. But FWIW my own bias is that I don't want to be marginal when it comes to power.
So the bottom line would seem to be that it comes down to an individual judgment call, with the most significant variable probably being the kinds of recordings that are listened to. Re-doing your SPL measurements with the meter set to "fast," and using recordings you may have which have particularly wide dynamic range, would probably be helpful in making that call.
Best regards,
-- Al
Re "is this 95 dB peak or RMS," that would be "peak" in the sense of "maximum," if that makes sense.
The 3 dB added to reflect two speakers is indeed conservative, given your centered listening position, and room effects will help also, with 3 dB perhaps being a conservative assumption as well.
So as I indicated in my previous post I suspect you would do well with most recordings, but not necessarily with all recordings. For example, I have in my collection a goodly number of classical symphonic recordings on audiophile-oriented labels such as Telarc, Sheffield, Reference Recordings, etc., that were subjected to minimal or no dynamic compression when they were engineered and mastered. When those recordings are played at average levels of perhaps 75 db at the listening position, some of them will reach brief peaks in the area of 100 to 105 db (measured at the listening position, with a Radio Shack digital SPL meter set to "fast" and C-weighting).
On the other hand, though, as you've probably seen in past threads here some members report surprisingly good results using low power SETs with speakers that are considerably less efficient than 94 dB. But FWIW my own bias is that I don't want to be marginal when it comes to power.
So the bottom line would seem to be that it comes down to an individual judgment call, with the most significant variable probably being the kinds of recordings that are listened to. Re-doing your SPL measurements with the meter set to "fast," and using recordings you may have which have particularly wide dynamic range, would probably be helpful in making that call.
Best regards,
-- Al