• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

How many watts is your Amplifier @8ohms

How Many Watts is Your Amplifier @8 ohms

  • Total voters
    426
where are the options for multiple votes... anyway, I have three and they're all 100w+

Pioneer SX-1250: 170w/ch
Pioneer SX-1050: 110w/ch
Cambridge 851A: 120w/ch
 
SkyLounger said:
where are the options for multiple votes... anyway, I have three and they're all 100w+

Pioneer SX-1250: 170w/ch
Pioneer SX-1050: 110w/ch
Cambridge 851A: 120w/ch
Click to expand...
Clarification, multiple votes for the different range selections.
 
On my main rig I have 1000wpc on tap from my strapped Mac mc2500's rated by Mac's conservative standards into any load from 1/2ohm to 8ohms. My lower powered 2500 (clipping lights always flash first on this one) has been bench tested at 650 wpc so 1300 wpc would be more truthful.
 
My power amps at 8 ohms -
3 Acurus A200 - 200 watts each
Quicksilver M60 mono blocks - 60 watts each
Quicksilver Mini-Mono mono blocks - 30 watts each
Regards,
Jim
 
whoaru99 said:
Not sure I agree with capacitance being the main consideration here. It provides filtering for sure, but it's only a very short term temporary buffer. It's up to the transformer to supply the primary grunt.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the 'mark-space' ratio of 'usual' music. Normally brief high output moments are alternated with relatively long intervals of quite lower power. (I realise that this is an approximation, quite dependant on the style of music!) Yes, 'short term buffer', but the above are short-term occurrences. In that sense the filter output cap can provide, at least better than a low value capacitance. Not ignoring the transformer resistance, but I see matters more, or at least also, as the approximately 30% depletion value between a low power load and the lowest voltage such an arrangment can provide under high current. (On the graph of filter output, going from almost 100% for low current demand to near 70,7% for a high demand. Rather theoretical, but basis of my viewpoint.)

Then, the SOA, yes impedance is an important factor but I think phase angle is really what makes the "amp killer" speakers. The higher dissipation that it creates in the outputs at 45-deg is twice that of a purely resistive load.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I did include the phase angle, thus the term 'impedance', if not clear from my description.
 
Djcoolray said:
That's a nice amp you have and it's THD is 0.05%...

Though your amp has the best signal to noise response of 100db together with a decent THD gives you a pretty good sound.
Click to expand...
Old Bob Carver made some great amps. Not positive, but I think he was the first in Audio to develop the Down Converting Tracking Amplifier.
 
Audiovet said:
I must confess to a personal weakness. I get somewhat irritated at loudspeakers with funny impedance/frequency plots. There is little reason to have loudspeakers sinking to rediculously low impedances with modern simulator programs. As a design EE I object to have to sort out impedance problems in amplifier design which should have been dealt with at the loudspeaker design end. (Not talking of 'normal' to be expected kind of spreads, but a nominal 8 ohm loudspeaker taking a quick dip somewhere to below say 3 ohms ... 'no-no'.) I have not viewed that many brands' frequency characteristics, but wonder how many "good" loudspeakers there are out there dipping off the graph here and there. (Perhaps some members can advise a website where such is shown?)

As said, this has mainly to do with power supply 'extra' capacitance. But if frequently having to go there semiconductor safe operating area also comes into the picture.
Click to expand...


I can think of a number of good speakers that dip below 2 ohms, and they were built by very creditable engineers. Why they choose to build them that way I can't tell you but I own a few and I know of a few others as well that were some of the most sought after speakers of the time.
 
Ken Boyd said:
I can think of a number of good speakers that dip below 2 ohms, and they were built by very creditable engineers. Why they choose to build them that way I can't tell you but I own a few and I know of a few others as well that were some of the most sought after speakers of the time.
Click to expand...
This was my response to this member:
Some of what your stating has validity. However, Speaker component geometry has its limitations. Some impedance variations can be addressed by the topology of the passive crossover and the driver design itself, magnetic flux density & linearity, voice coil / pole gap geometry, damping factor, etc. Given music is comprised of a multitude of AC Sinusoidal waveforms at a multitude of frequencies, it would be next to impossible to design a driver (say woofer) with a stated frequency response of say 20Hz to 150Hz and maintain perfect impedance of, let's say 8 ohms. To the amplifier, a driver and its' enclosure (even a tweeter) behaves like an LRC network, with impedance being an AC component, that will vary with frequency.

I do agree that some designs are way out-of-bounds, and this is due to some the items I've outlined above - poor designs. Clairify: meaning less than 1 ohm

Amplifier designers take this into consideration and for most descent amplifier designs, it's a non-issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom