2. speakers
  3. 1185092937

Are most budget & mid range amps under-powered?

I've been reading some articles by a speaker manufacturuer about how under-powered most modern amps are for the speakers they have to drive.
The basis was that for "true hifi", a system needs to be able to achieve unclipped peaks of 105dB at the listening position, often about three meters away. For 90dB/Watt @1M speakers like mine, this means I need an amp capable of over 125W per channel, which is a lot more than my NAD 50W/channel amp can manage.
The same peak from 87dB/Watt speakers would need a 250W/channel amp.
Does this sound right to you guys, and does it mean many amplifier manufacturers are under-powering their amps?
carl109
learsfool
1,215 posts
 
Agree that the speakers are the important part of the equation - I use horns myself, so I don't need to worry about not having enough power.
robr45's avatar
robr45
319 posts
 
You reference peaks of 105db but then seem to be loking for an amplifier that can deliver enough power continuously.

A 50wpc amplifier that is well designed should be able to deliver far more power in a short burst than the continuous power rating might indicate.

This is referred to as headroom.
mordante
511 posts
 
I think the whole story 105dB peak is nonsense. It is just a marketing trick to sell you high powered amps. Musical Fidelity uses that trick often. I am not saying they make bad amps. But I do say most of the time you don't need more then 100watt. Even 50watt should be more then enough for most occasions. Unless you use speakers with low sensitivity and a large room etc.

I sit about 2meters from my speakers and my room is about 25square meter. I don't think I will ever need more then 100watt.

I am not sure at what sound pressure I listen at home but I would be surprised if it went over 95dB peak.
More to discover