On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:51:52 GMT, "nappy"
<joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
>news:3ea82d45.23241077@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:08:38 GMT, "nappy"
>> <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >"Neuman - Ruether"
<d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>news:3ea7e853.5588569@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:56:50 -0700,
"Mike Rehmus"
>> >> <mike@no-spam-byvideo.com> wrote:
>> >> >The suggested 1 watt won't do much to
create sound. Acoustic
>Suspension
>> >> >speakers required a lot of power to
create their sound. I'd guess you
>> >won't
>> >> >be happy with less than 60-100 watts
or so.
>> >> >
>> >> >I use 60 watts on a set of bass-reflex
near-field monitors and it is
>more
>> >> >than adequate. But Acoustic Suspension speakers are about
10%
>efficient
>> >> >IIRC.
>>
>> >> Actually, 1 watt goes much further than
most believe,
>> >> assuming it is provided by a stable power
amp...;-)
>>
>> >whew.. sure 1 watt is fine.. ok.. until the
first transient.
>>
>> Restoring the
"conveniently-excised-by-'nappy'" remains
>> of my post does kinda cover this...:
>>
>> "My TV of 10 years ago, with 1 watt/channel,
drives
>> a "2 cubic foot" old pair of Genesis
2-way
>> acoustic-suspension speaker nicely, to satisfying
>> levels with DVD movies, with plenty of clean bass
>> (some top and bottom end EQ applied...), with no
>> signs of clipping. Most people (EXCLUDING teen-age
>> boys!) listen to music at levels going up to
>> satisfying, realistic acoustic-music levels without
>> ever approaching 1 watt power use (regardless of
>> what the meters say on the amps), even with
inefficient
>> speakers. 1 watt will easily produce about 85db
levels
>> in most rooms, with most speakers - and for most
>> people, this is loud. "Earbashing" power
requirements
>> are different, though, and can easily require peak
>> power in the hundreds of watts, even with efficient
>> speakers - but this is different from the
requirements
>> for near-field monitoring of video tracks, where
>> 1 watt/channel is generally quite sufficient. If
>> you do not believe me, try listening at a good
>> "average" monitoring level in your
current
>> monitoring set-up, and measure the voltage across
>> the speaker terminals on peaks. You may be
>> surprised how little power is being
used...;-)"
>>
>> BTW, you do have a penchant for deceptive editing
of
>> posts when quoting them, permitting you to respond
>> with answers that are obviously inappropriate or
>> already answered.......
>blah blah blah.. no I have a disdain for long winded
misdirected hot air.
>Think about it for a minute.. Where the fuck is someone
going to buy a 1
>watt amplifier?.. This ain't a science class. It is the real world. Your
>post is irrelevant.
(Ah, you left in the relevant parts, this time - an
improvement...;-) As I pointed out, my TV (and presumably
many others with built-in amps) has a 1-watt/channel
amp, which successfully drives those "inefficient"
speakers you indicated could not be driven on such small
amps - and does it in a "room" situation, not just
for close-up near-field monitoring... As another pointed
out, computer sound cards also may have low-power amps
on them, and can also successfully drive "home"
speakers used close-up sufficiently well for the purpose
intended (video-editing audio-monitoring). And old, cheap,
used receivers, power-amps, etc. may also be low-powered
by your standards, but quite sufficient (even
"overkill")
for monitoring. I also pointed out the exceptions, for
*your* benefit...;-)