The only reason we use 100W amplifiers and listen to average power levels of a few hundred milliwatts is to avoid clipping of transients.
If one starts from the premise that ~20dB of overhead is required to avoid most of the clipping incidents, then when one has to listen at a few watts of average level then 1kW amplifiers would probably be necessary.
If one starts from the premise that ~20dB of overhead is required to avoid most of the clipping incidents, then when one has to listen at a few watts of average level then 1kW amplifiers would probably be necessary.
Last edited:
A lot of amps have LED power meters with a switch to make 'em flash along at 1/10 instead of full power (otherwise you'd never see any action on the meter). Anybody ever seen such a display set to full power? Not mine even with my power-mad ESLs.
On the other hand, I wonder if "tube sound" is related to tube amps typically having little peak headroom?
As Pano suggests, we really need to know how much power is needed for peaks... or if music sounds better (to some people) without those pesky peaks. Now into which closet did I put my oscilloscope?
Ben
On the other hand, I wonder if "tube sound" is related to tube amps typically having little peak headroom?
As Pano suggests, we really need to know how much power is needed for peaks... or if music sounds better (to some people) without those pesky peaks. Now into which closet did I put my oscilloscope?
Ben
Last edited:
How much power is needed for musical peaks seems like it should be fairly easy to answer, just have to know the sensitivity of the speakers, the distance from them and the person's listening habits.
It might get even easier if the person has almost their entire collection of music on a hard drive, as I do. I'd imagine it would be fairly trivial to write a piece of software that scans all your files (after being supplied with a 2.83v frequency response graph measured at the MLP), then presents a slider bar which represents the volume you like to listen at, with a little jogging-numerical display showing how much power would be required to hit it without clipping, and shows a little list of the most demanding tracks.
*shrug*
Edit: Too early in the morning.
It might get even easier if the person has almost their entire collection of music on a hard drive, as I do. I'd imagine it would be fairly trivial to write a piece of software that scans all your files (after being supplied with a 2.83v frequency response graph measured at the MLP), then presents a slider bar which represents the volume you like to listen at, with a little jogging-numerical display showing how much power would be required to hit it without clipping, and shows a little list of the most demanding tracks.
*shrug*
Edit: Too early in the morning.
I can answer that! The answer is 111111111111 or something like that. That's the loudest sound on your hard drive.
Semi-kidding aside, problem is getting theory to resemble practice. First of all, we have all been blithely assuming that there are no occasional peaks needing 10,000 watts (at least really really brief for women's choirs). In other words, judgment is needed about how big or how brief a peak we are keen to reproduce.
In turn, that is a judgment or trade-off that changes with many personal preferences (such as liking "tube sound" and soft clipping). Anybody have trustworthy research to cite? What does Toole say?
On the acoustical side, outside of your local park or inside an anechoic chamber, no practical way to convert horsepower into ear power except empirically (which is feasible enough at least for average loudness) but quite meaningless as, for example, a speaker spec.
Ben
Sorry, just take the train here so sorry if OT :
Does an amp with first watts in class A then class AB for the higher power- say 100 W or more_ is valid and keeps the best quality of each class when used in an unique hybrid amp ? Does especially a unique shematic of PS can be good enough for both class in such amps ?
Does an amp with first watts in class A then class AB for the higher power- say 100 W or more_ is valid and keeps the best quality of each class when used in an unique hybrid amp ? Does especially a unique shematic of PS can be good enough for both class in such amps ?
Thanks for that list!
Page 3: Talking Heads Speaking in Tongues
(always felt that was a slamming album ever since I heard it in 1983!)
In the Loudness Wars battle, this little mp3 recording has to win some sort of award for being probably the "loudest" digital file I've heard. Maybe someone might like to convert to .wav and analyze it (even though the mp3 conversion surely has an effect). I have to wonder if the loudness level was part of the joke. It's a remake of the hit song "What If God Was One Of Us?" featuring new lyrics and the original singer.
What If God Smoked Cannabis?
Here's a slightly more general comment, though I do make it a bit toungue-in-cheeck: Despite the available dynamic range, for many instances it "makes sense" that a CD would have a smaller dynamic range than an LP, as you (meaning A Regular Consumer) would never play an LP in an automobile where a reduced dynamic range would be appreciated, or at least less annoying.
About measurements, peak is peak (sorry for the tautology), but RMS is a measurement over time (the M is mean as in arithmetic average), and different measurements may be over different time intervals. I suspect "RMS for apparent volume" would be closer to apparent loudness if it were frequency-sensitive, using something like A-weighting (which looks a good bit like an inverse of the Fletcher-Munson curve):
A-weighting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What If God Smoked Cannabis?
Here's a slightly more general comment, though I do make it a bit toungue-in-cheeck: Despite the available dynamic range, for many instances it "makes sense" that a CD would have a smaller dynamic range than an LP, as you (meaning A Regular Consumer) would never play an LP in an automobile where a reduced dynamic range would be appreciated, or at least less annoying.
About measurements, peak is peak (sorry for the tautology), but RMS is a measurement over time (the M is mean as in arithmetic average), and different measurements may be over different time intervals. I suspect "RMS for apparent volume" would be closer to apparent loudness if it were frequency-sensitive, using something like A-weighting (which looks a good bit like an inverse of the Fletcher-Munson curve):
A-weighting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Status
- Not open for further replies.