Brian
An Old Geezer
I have gone back to my roots, so to speak. My first serious amp was 15 watts rms and the Wharfedale speakers were rated at min of 5 and max at 20 watts. My main system for decades ran with 50 watts.
Then upgraded to new speakers and seemed to need more power so went with 105 watts per channel. At a point of time, I picked up an amp of 200 watts per channel. I found by using a fast response LED power meter my average power level for all 3 was the same and the peak power was the same for the 105 and 200 watt amps. There was no evidence of compression I could hear. So, the bigger amp did nothing for the system.
As I downsized speakers changed as did amps. I am now running an older version of my first Wharfedales with similar specs as the ones I originally had. The amp now used is 20 watts and my average listening level and peaks have not been reduced from those attained when I had the big amps. The key is speaker efficiency. Putting the power meter on the 20 watts Sherwood amp shows I am using some .01 watts for the average listening level and 10 watts on peaks. I have had 60 watt amps on the speakers but nothing changed. I have sold off the big amps and contemplating dumping the remaining big ones.
I jist learned a lesson. One receiver, a Sony STR6120 I thought from the lit, etc. was 60 watts. I never measured it. Sounded great on my speakers and physically is almost exactly the same size and weight as a 60 watt rms ftc receiver on my great receiver list. I just happened to look at the repair manual and the actual ftc rms power rating is about 30 - 35 watts. The receiver predates the ftc so I worked with the music and ihf power ratings.
Needless to say, my jaw dropped. Because of other receivers nd amps in the 60 watt range I own, I was thinking of selling but now it is a keeper for sure. Its Music power is what makes the difference, it is quite high and recovery time very fast. In fact it is is higher than almost all my 60 watt receivers and amps.
Then upgraded to new speakers and seemed to need more power so went with 105 watts per channel. At a point of time, I picked up an amp of 200 watts per channel. I found by using a fast response LED power meter my average power level for all 3 was the same and the peak power was the same for the 105 and 200 watt amps. There was no evidence of compression I could hear. So, the bigger amp did nothing for the system.
As I downsized speakers changed as did amps. I am now running an older version of my first Wharfedales with similar specs as the ones I originally had. The amp now used is 20 watts and my average listening level and peaks have not been reduced from those attained when I had the big amps. The key is speaker efficiency. Putting the power meter on the 20 watts Sherwood amp shows I am using some .01 watts for the average listening level and 10 watts on peaks. I have had 60 watt amps on the speakers but nothing changed. I have sold off the big amps and contemplating dumping the remaining big ones.
I jist learned a lesson. One receiver, a Sony STR6120 I thought from the lit, etc. was 60 watts. I never measured it. Sounded great on my speakers and physically is almost exactly the same size and weight as a 60 watt rms ftc receiver on my great receiver list. I just happened to look at the repair manual and the actual ftc rms power rating is about 30 - 35 watts. The receiver predates the ftc so I worked with the music and ihf power ratings.
Needless to say, my jaw dropped. Because of other receivers nd amps in the 60 watt range I own, I was thinking of selling but now it is a keeper for sure. Its Music power is what makes the difference, it is quite high and recovery time very fast. In fact it is is higher than almost all my 60 watt receivers and amps.
The only thing I don't like about the 555 is that it doesn't have any protection. At least the 5400 does. Maybe the 555II does? I'll have to look into that.
