Hey! The amps I have some level of comfort with - I love that Yamaha receiver, so I'm sure I'll like the new(er) one.Well, he seems very impulsive regards amp buying, same can't be said about speakers
Speakers I have less experience with, and they are expensive, require running in, and are then non-returnable.. so the making the correct decision is a burden! Also buying them secondhand is dicey in my limited experience, where amps seem to be less risky.
Dave, I'll only be using the 2 channels on the 2nd amp. Which will likely actually be my current amp, and the newer one (since it's got slightly better surround sound bits) can be the new main amp running 5.1.
So in stereo, I'd have a full 80wpc on the old one and 85wpc on the new one.
For HT in 5.1, I'd have 80wpc on the old one (2 channels only) and maybe a de-rated 85wpc on the surround channels.
Maybe it makes sense to put the woofers on the "dedicated" 2 channel (of 5) amp then, and the Full Rangers on the new amps front L/R?
This is going to be fun to hook up! I need cables galore!
Use th ebest amp on the top. Do note that it is often the case that the accounting department will sometimes have a role as margins get tighter — ie the amps in the new one may be somewhat compromised vrs the old ones, or it may be the case that the engineers figured out how to make a cheaper amp that sounds better. You’ll have to try it both ways.
dave
I have/am as well. But that's off a bit in the future, perhaps with a dedicated listening room by then in a future house. For now, lack of time, kids, and more want of "big" sound (aka party sound as heard 'round these parts) on occasion.
This is what I take it to mean as well, I've never seen a receiver that had an amp for the sub - though I'm guessing there are some that probably do.
I have never seen an HT receiver with a built-in 0.1 amp in it. They all expect to see a powered subwoofer (but ideally without an XO since the receiver’s bass management does that)
dave
Fair enough, I'm just saying that for us old farts, simpler -as in fewest number of boxes and cables, etc - is better - and for my money there's nothing much simpler in that regard than the most recent generations of HT receivers. I guess I'll leave the nerdy McGivering to those so inclined.
The particular model of Onkyo cited has more than enough flexibility for me, far more sophisticated bass management and individual channel crossover and EQ settings than the earlier Denon AVR1601 and 1610, and once you assign the speaker configuration and plug in the Odyssey mike, the calibration takes less than 10 minutes.
As for the nice clean class AB watts, - have you actually heard any of the recent class D amps? Most of them are far from hurtful, and well suited to bass portion of bi-amped speakers and certainly LFE / sub channels.
The particular model of Onkyo cited has more than enough flexibility for me, far more sophisticated bass management and individual channel crossover and EQ settings than the earlier Denon AVR1601 and 1610, and once you assign the speaker configuration and plug in the Odyssey mike, the calibration takes less than 10 minutes.
As for the nice clean class AB watts, - have you actually heard any of the recent class D amps? Most of them are far from hurtful, and well suited to bass portion of bi-amped speakers and certainly LFE / sub channels.
If u get 40 W a channel all channels driven u r lucky. The receiver power consumption is only 310w. With about 65% efficiency u do the math.From the manual:
Note that it does not say all channels driven, so if one is using more than 2 channels then a power derating is likely to be needed. One could probably say 50w/channel if all of them were used at once.
dave
"85 watts" is probably based on the rail voltage and that represents the loudest output possible before the power supply poops out. With all channels running sine waves, Imagemeister is right in what was said. But with music - esp natural music - 85 is what the amp is good for before clipping under any foreseeable signal.
And score another point for multi-amping.
B.
Last edited:
The amplifier - I hadn't realized efficiency was that low, this sort of thing is not my background.
RE: The total wattage consumed vs. what goes out to each channel, seems like that has a lot of assumptions in it that may not reflect real world stuff.
310 watts consumed x .65 = 201.5
201.5 / 5 channels = 40.3 wpc available
In the case of stereo listening, 201.5 / 2 channels = 100.75 wpc available
Perhaps, if each channel was loaded fully (I guess with a sine wave at 40w it would be fully loaded?). But we don't listen to sine waves, usually. Actual music has peaks and lows with spaces in between where there is nothing on one channel, but maybe something on the other, etc, plus that's only 2 of the 5 channels being used so there seems to be 100 wpc available anyway in the case of stereo. HT listening, some channels may have a lot of energy being sent to them while others are nearly silent, since there's probably more "quiet" time in a given movie than most music. There's much more dynamic range in a movie vs. music, so there may be moments where if all the channels are peaking simultaneously you might see reduced output overall... but it seems like this wouldn't be a big deal. (many more assumptions, and I'm undoubtedly oversimplifying things)
Last edited:
Agreed, this would be ideal... but sticking to a budget requires sacrifice somewhere; I'm just choosing to spend that extra $ on the drivers & cabinet construction vs. on a fancier amp. Or, more accurately, if I bought that Onkyo you mentioned (new anyway, used might have been more reasonable), there'd be no money left over at all for the speakers..
Thanks all for your help, this part of the project makes sense and should work well, given some tinkering!
D'ya mean you've missed out on all the fun here? Full Range Build, 12" driver... Maybe Dave can fill you in......
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.