Thanks for all the detailed information!
I do have an external Kinergetics sub/amp on the system which xover at 100 Hz, relieving some of the power requirements of the Spicas. From what I understand, the lower resistance (ohm ratings) (and more demanding voltages) occur at the lower frequencies. Thus if I'm taking these away 100Hz and below from the Spica, I'm not requiring as much from the receiver's amp.
Here's an old Stereophile quote about the Spica's impedience curve and power tolerance (http://www.stereophile.com//loudspeakerreviews/446/index.html):
___
"The woofer is acoustic suspension and the impedance varies from a low of 3.7 ohms to a high of 15 ohms. The impedance curve is smooth in the midrange, but the dip to under 4 ohms rules out poorly designed receivers or integrated amps anything not rated for 4 ohms. It is with relatively inexpensive receivers, by the way, that most TC-50s are sold, according to the manufacturer. Unlike the Dayton Wright, power handling is comparatively limited. Stick with 100 watts or less, and a really good 40-70W amplifier will be far better than a less transparent high-powered unit.
"
____
I remember when I originally got the HK, one of the things I was thinking about was not to get TOO powerful of a receiver because you can overload the Spica's.
On the other side of things, the HK will also "shutdown" if it is trying to run too much current. I've never had this happen even at very loud volumes. I've never noticed any distortion at the high volumes either. It appears that the HK is handling the Spicas OK. Maybe because the Spica's average higher than 4 ohms for most of the spectrum.
I like what I've read about the NAD T762. It's rated at 100W continuous 4/8 ohm or 230W dynamic at 4 ohm. (not sure what the difference is... 6 vs 2 channel?!).
1. Do you think the NAD would provide more "umph" at low volumes (my main objective)?
2. Would the NAD possible be TOO much for the Spicas?
Thanks again for any input!
.
I do have an external Kinergetics sub/amp on the system which xover at 100 Hz, relieving some of the power requirements of the Spicas. From what I understand, the lower resistance (ohm ratings) (and more demanding voltages) occur at the lower frequencies. Thus if I'm taking these away 100Hz and below from the Spica, I'm not requiring as much from the receiver's amp.
Here's an old Stereophile quote about the Spica's impedience curve and power tolerance (http://www.stereophile.com//loudspeakerreviews/446/index.html):
___
"The woofer is acoustic suspension and the impedance varies from a low of 3.7 ohms to a high of 15 ohms. The impedance curve is smooth in the midrange, but the dip to under 4 ohms rules out poorly designed receivers or integrated amps anything not rated for 4 ohms. It is with relatively inexpensive receivers, by the way, that most TC-50s are sold, according to the manufacturer. Unlike the Dayton Wright, power handling is comparatively limited. Stick with 100 watts or less, and a really good 40-70W amplifier will be far better than a less transparent high-powered unit.
"
____
I remember when I originally got the HK, one of the things I was thinking about was not to get TOO powerful of a receiver because you can overload the Spica's.
On the other side of things, the HK will also "shutdown" if it is trying to run too much current. I've never had this happen even at very loud volumes. I've never noticed any distortion at the high volumes either. It appears that the HK is handling the Spicas OK. Maybe because the Spica's average higher than 4 ohms for most of the spectrum.
I like what I've read about the NAD T762. It's rated at 100W continuous 4/8 ohm or 230W dynamic at 4 ohm. (not sure what the difference is... 6 vs 2 channel?!).
1. Do you think the NAD would provide more "umph" at low volumes (my main objective)?
2. Would the NAD possible be TOO much for the Spicas?
Thanks again for any input!
.