You know, every time I have powered a very high efficiency speaker with a relatively high power amp, my reaction has always been "YUCK". These speakers just sound better with an amp that is putting out a higher percentage of it's total power, rather than just idling along near it's noise and 'grundge' floor. I think the lower power of the 1050 amp might sound better than a much higher power one. If you need the features and sound processing modes of the 950, you might try to find a lower power amp, SS or tube to use with it. I bet you'd be happier with the sound.

As Paul Klipsch was fond of saying: "What the world needs is a good 10 watt amplifier!"

An analogy I just thought of with SH's comment: I work in the semiconductor industry, but that doesn't even matter. We have these high tech tools that do etching, deposition, rapid thermal processing, etc, of wafers. One of the "rules of thumb" you learn, is that equip is much more comfortable running in the 15% to 85% range of any particular setting (gas flow, power, pressure, etc.). Less than 10% or more than 90% is asking for trouble. I never even thought of that for power amps in a home theater!

I guess that rule of thumb is applicable to a lot of things: my motorcycle is a lot happier running near the upper 15% of the speedometer's range

That's one reason I wouldn't consider using anything more than my 5 watt amp for the HF horns. I'm actually considering trying an alternate tube in the output (2A3 vs 300B) which will lower the power to about 2.5 watts, but will put the amp even more into the meat of it's range at normal to loud listening levels.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited January 22, 2003).]

my motorcycle is a lot happier running near the upper 15% of the speedometer's range

Yes but just think of that poor officer who has to run in Kevin's "more than 90%" range just to say hello to you.

It's a Harley so it's probably still under the limit.....

[kidding, kidding....]

A Harley will blow a head gasket and start leaking mass quantities of oil before the engine goes that fast: they call it a "rev limiter"


BTW: I have a Kawasaki and a Suzuki

For some reason I thought you were a Harley guy - probably the Mac & Tube stuff got me confused. I'm not anti-Harley, I recognize their place as an American Icon and respect what they do, I just don't see them as purveyors of high quality machinery (like these guys http://www.titanmotorcycles.com/showroom/ ) or certainly not high performance machinery, although they're trying to do something about that I guess.

I got rid of my street machines, hanging onto the dirt toys a while yet. What bikes do you ride?

Charlie:

I wouldn't touch a Harley - they seem to me like a Rolex watch that can't keep time worth a damn. Besides, Macintoshes (especially using UNIX-based OS X) and tubes perform!

My bikes are:

Kawasaki Nomad (heavily modified)

and

Suzuki V-Strom


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited January 23, 2003).]

“You know, every time I have powered a very high efficiency speaker with a relatively high power amp, my reaction has always been "YUCK". These speakers just sound better with an amp that is putting out a higher percentage of it's total power, rather than just idling along near it's noise and 'grundge' floor.”

You learn something new here every day!….More please Soundhound (if you have time and are in the mood) …although I can vaguely grasp the theory or commonsense behind this…(that it’s a very valid effect).

I’m very curious…and how do I put pen to paper to figure out power needed for channels run (2 Vs 7) so if I can expect a possible short draw out to all at any given time depending on source, including speaker eff. Etc. And be sure of enough to handle the hard hitting and sometimes loud transients of HT action DVD’s etc. which can hit all speakers at once occasionally on DTS ES discrete etc.

I was just swinging so firmly to ‘more power’ in fact was placing myself in the mentality that lots of excess power ideling(in reserve) was a good thing. . Because of some real world differences I heard in demo’s of speakers which had pretty good amperage (or well known amperage) but did not sound like the ‘most’ was being got out of them, in fact they felt anemic and power starved….
These were specifically Sonis Fabers, Martin Logans, Vienna Acoustics, and a few others with B&K separates and top of the line Pioneer receiver

Let me restate…your sentence has the ring of ‘validity’ to me but I’ve never run into (the thought) before. How do I cut the mustard? (never clip and stay out of running on average play in grunge range??)

PS. Nice bikes! I went to visit the distant relatives in very tiny town in Missippi many years ago with my Grandmother. Only time I had non-parental acess (mine forbid "riding on those things!"). I chased a cousin into some farm field at full throttle and suddenly discovered I was in 4 feet of nettles (I was bleeding ouch!) ...trying to get back out at practicly idle with shorts on!. But sans nettles it was a great time having access to those for the only time in my life!

[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited January 24, 2003).]

Not sure how good your grasp of this is, so if you already know this don't think I'm trying to send you back to pre-school or anything.

Anyway, db's are kinda crazy things, and at 106 db/1 w 'hounds speakers are roughly 40 - 50 times more efficient than 'average' speakers. So when he has 10+ watts driving them, well, he's still got lots of poop in that system where it matters, at the human ear.

Very roughly, every:

10 db, x10
5 db, x3
3 db, x2