Vintage Power Vs. New Power ?
- Thread starter numerique
- Start date
I was not attempting to extract 50 watts per channel from a 7 watt per channel unit.
Just attempting to determine if there was a difference in design philosophy related to why someone would distinguish between the two audio eras.
As far as I am concerned, purple1 's comment: " That is because no definitive answer exists. It is all in the methods used to determine (power) watts output." answered my question about "vintage vs. new" .
I wouldn't be surprised.
Buying any thrift item is a gamble.
I won't know anything definitive until I can connect the MCS unit to known good speakers,
Unfortunately, that model speaker is no longer in production so a comparison with the exact same model is not possible.
the skipper
Professional Curmudgeon
I believe i said that in my first post. Or, perhaps I was unclear in my first post, or maybe it was too verbose to get the point across.
Well, I think it may have been more a case of being at cross purposes.
in my initial post and the post from 8:35 am , I was attempting more to relate the comment from the Audiokarma thread:
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/sx-2300-question.56733/page-2
to a practical level such as design.
The thread sort of became side tracked by concentrating more on my experience with the MCS 3207 and Radio Shack speakers and less on whether there was
any real difference in circuit design philosophy when comparing the two eras.
the skipper
Professional Curmudgeon
That post concerns running two sets of speakers from one amp. What's that got to do with anything you've discussed here. I believe several of us here said we couldn't see what new vs old watts had to with that. So I went for the question you actually asked, which was:
"Can the distinction be made delineating a difference between "vintage power" vs. "new power"?".
I believe that was answered. Here's a snippet from my first post:
"Basically, before this ruling, watts ratings was the wild west. Any manufacturer could use whatever method they chose for stating their amp's power rating They could use RMS, peak, PMPO or whatever else they chose. This means that a lot of advertised watts were well let's just say "overinflated".
The FTC ruling in 1974 specified what method b used to get power ratings to keep everyone on a level playing field. A lot of 100 watt amps were now 20 watts. Is this what you're referring to?
But, as for that 7 watts sounding remarkably loud, most speakers use only a watt or two to play at room filling levels on music. It's only when played painfully loud that more are needed on a steady basis. It's the musical peaks that demand the extra watts. Of course, speaker sensitivity has a lot to do with this."
What, exactly was the confusion here?
Oh, while we're at it, this is a statement from one of your recent posts:
"I was not attempting to extract 50 watts per channel from a 7 watt per channel unit."
Speakers don't "extract" watts like vampires suck blood. They can only take what the amp offers.
"Can the distinction be made delineating a difference between "vintage power" vs. "new power"?".
I believe that was answered. Here's a snippet from my first post:
"Basically, before this ruling, watts ratings was the wild west. Any manufacturer could use whatever method they chose for stating their amp's power rating They could use RMS, peak, PMPO or whatever else they chose. This means that a lot of advertised watts were well let's just say "overinflated".
The FTC ruling in 1974 specified what method b used to get power ratings to keep everyone on a level playing field. A lot of 100 watt amps were now 20 watts. Is this what you're referring to?
But, as for that 7 watts sounding remarkably loud, most speakers use only a watt or two to play at room filling levels on music. It's only when played painfully loud that more are needed on a steady basis. It's the musical peaks that demand the extra watts. Of course, speaker sensitivity has a lot to do with this."
What, exactly was the confusion here?
Oh, while we're at it, this is a statement from one of your recent posts:
"I was not attempting to extract 50 watts per channel from a 7 watt per channel unit."
Speakers don't "extract" watts like vampires suck blood. They can only take what the amp offers.
Last edited:
purple1
Well-Known Member
That is because we want to help here. Even though you ask about the difference in old vs new power ratings, you also talked about an issue with the MCS and the speakers. We can debate power ratings till we are all blue in the face, but if we can help with a problem then we can be done with it and move on.
goodolpg
Just an old fart trying to help.
I understand why the OP asked about "new" vs. "old" watts.
I've seen those terms while surfing the internet and I assume he has too.
Hopefully his question is answered now.
The thread took a turn which happens often and the good AK members tried to offer help and knowledge in that direction.
I've seen those terms while surfing the internet and I assume he has too.
Hopefully his question is answered now.
The thread took a turn which happens often and the good AK members tried to offer help and knowledge in that direction.
No worries.
I obtained an answer to my query about new vs vintage watts and some insight into just what I can expect to experience when driving both an amp and speakers too hard.
Two for one!
And I thank you for the help.
Last edited:
SteveS in VA
Active Member
I'm confused. This seems to me a pretty clear case of an over driven amp, which will make any speaker sound bad. The speakers are book shelf sized speakers, not the large horns that are highly efficient. My bet is that the speakers would sound better with a 35 watt amplifier that would push the speakers to very! loud before running out of gas. It's just the same problem where it is low powered amps that damage speakers.
I want to go on record as the first to declare 10 degrees Fahrenheit as "barely" noticeable. I would appreciate everyone parroting me from here on out regarding temperature. I've always though it curious why we would have something as silly as "1 degree". Pish.
the skipper
Professional Curmudgeon
Huh? I really don't see where this relates to anything I said in that post.
the closest I can see is where I said this:
"as for loudness and watts, it's not as simple as it seems. Three decibel change in loudness is barely noticeable. To achieve a three decibel change in loudness requires twice the power. An apparent doubling of loudness requires ten times the power. Here's a link to help explain it"
And, even then, that's a bit of a stretch.
darkblue94
The Devil made me do it.
Nonsensical gibberish completely unrelated to the skipper's post, or anything else for that matter.
Should I lessen my sarcasm in my above post to 3 degrees Fahrenheit so as to be "sensical" gibberish?
Point being there are single units of decibels for a reason just as there are single degrees.
3db's.... barely noticeable? I contend a difference of 3db in loudness are easily discernible. I have been tested to discern a 3/4db change w/80% reliability.
Point being there are single units of decibels for a reason just as there are single degrees.
3db's.... barely noticeable? I contend a difference of 3db in loudness are easily discernible. I have been tested to discern a 3/4db change w/80% reliability.
Last edited:
QRanc
Well-Known Member
Are you a robot?
purple1
Well-Known Member
Really? 80% huh? I wonder how those test were performed?
I would bet if we let you listen to a system, then remove you from the room, make a change (or not) and bring you back in, you would score more like 50-50 because you would be guessing. I call BS.
purple1
Well-Known Member
Lets see if I got this strait. You come in this thread without a reply to the OP or any of the issues being discussed. And you post some gibberish about temperatures. Then proceed to bash some ones reply that is based on clear documentation. Then post some more about being almost super human with your superior hearing abilities, again not being helpful to the topic or the OP. Sorry my BS meter went off deflected to full at that point. Now if you truly can prove what you say I will gladly apologize. But I stand by saying your replies have not been helpful to this thread.