AR 3 Speakers

The relationship is power needed to achieve a given SPL, and it isn't usually very much for practical listening levels. What gives AR speakers their LF capability is the large excursion the diaphragm can make. I recall a debate between Paul Klipsch and Edgar Villchur at an Acoustical Society meeting in which Klipsch said something to the effect he didn't care if you push it (the diaphragm) with a broom handle you still have to move the air. IME, well designed powerful amps do a superior job of controlling diaphragm excursions.

Dbphd, your earlier statement was that the speakers the ARs would replace are more efficient than the ARs. That fact has nothing to do with the maximum power handling of either speaker. The AR is spec'd at 100 watts max. Using them with an amplifier 4x their rated max probably won't cause them damage, but then again it might. There's only one way to truly find out and to quote Clint -- "do you feel lucky?"

Onhyw61, the AR3a speakers have been sitting in my closet for years and are likely to remain there. I use the 400 watt/channel amps with a pair of KEF 107/2 mains and a pair of 102 surrounds, speakers much more efficient than the ARs. The danger you envision could happen I suppose if a noise were sent over the system inadvertently, from a short, for example, but not by listening at the levels most folks use. I can't imagine using anywhere near 100 watts into an AR. I never cranked the 40 watts/channel Marantz 18 anywhere near its peak even in the days of playing Let It Bleed while smoking a substance common on college campuses at the time.

db