As others have said, meters, even digital ones, are s-l-o-w. Even on digital recorders, the meters are too slow to see "transient peaks", which is one reason manufactures recommend recording with the "peaks you do see" topping out at -12dB. This allows enough headroom for those transients such that no clipping or compression takes place.
So yes, having more watts can be a good thing - as long as the slew rate of the amp is capable of keeping up with the music and offering those louder transients that might last less than 1/100th of a second, such that the music sounds as "real" as possible.
So, when you are looking at meters, you are more or less looking at what the continuous output power is, averaged over a significant fraction of a second, therefore yes, you will see that most of the time the amp is putting out 1W to 10W at even "loud" volumes.
Watts! How many do we need?
Got a new amp. Accuphase P-4600. It’s great. I love it.
150 watts into 8 ohms, 300 watts into 4 ohms and it has meters so I can see wattage. Have them set on freeze so I can see the highest wattage during the session.
My Harbeth speakers are not very efficient. Around 86db. Their impedance is an even 6 ohms dipping no lower than 5.8 ohms.
Playing HiRes dynamic classical recordings ( Tchaikovsky , Mahler) at room filling volumes I have yet to exceed 1watt..
Amps today offer a lot of watts some going to 600 even 1200 watts. Even if you have inefficient speakers with an impedance that dips down to 2 ohms do we need all this wattage or should we be focusing on current instead?
- ...
- 110 posts total
- 110 posts total