From: ich@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Ing-Chin Hwang)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Do I really need 200W?
Summary: No. 100W is enough
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:36:53 GMT
Followup-To: ich@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Thanks to all for your notes on this specific subject (i.e. excluding the
general discussions of how RMS is computed, etc.).

The net.wisdom is 
"No, I don't need 200W. 100 of clean W is plenty, provided I'm not
going to drive difficult speakers."

So my search of a decent amp. continues.
So far front runners are (in random order)
NAD 2400X,
B&K 140, 
Sumo Polaris II, and 
Parasound 800.

To me, Adcom is too bright, Acurus A250 is out of my price range unless I
can find a used one with decent price. The A100 is not out yet.

Excerpts are appended. 
Thanks to all for the replies.
Happy Holidays. I know I'll be busying auditioning and ennjoy my new
NAD 5000 CD player :-)

>>>>>>>>>>
You don't need 200wpc to be happy. In my opinion 60 to 100 is plenty for most 
people. Where you really need the extra power is in driving big inefficient 
speakers. If you will eventually buy a pair, than definitely consider it.

>>>>>>>>>>
In rec.audio you write:
>For an ordinary person with ordinary ears, can I live with the Acurus 
>100 (as opposed to 250) just fine? 
  the 200Watts may give you tighter bass...  If you can't hear the difference
  and you don't turn it up that loudly, don't worry about it....  just make
  sure you like what you hear.

>I hate to make the mistake like buying a 486/33 with 400M drive and 16M
>ram sitting there running Windows and terminals doing dialups.
  but not if you later on plan to run Coreldraw or Excel or...  (analogous
  to getting harder to drive speakers)...

>>>>>>>>>>
In rec.audio you write:

>I'm thinking of replacing my NAD (40W) receiver with a pair of
>separates. I've narrowed down to NAD 1600/2400, Adcom545, and Acurus.
>I've auditioned a pair of Acurus (for $1250 discounted) and I LOVE it.
>Since my budget is limited, the real question is do I really need
>200W?

I have the same Receiver and I am thinking about going the amp/preamp
as well (I also posted a question this morning regarding 100w amps).
So I would greatly appreciate any replies or a summation of replies
that you might get.

>For an ordinary person with ordinary ears, can I live with the Acurus 
>100 (as opposed to 250) just fine? 

I agree; I too have a small living room and my musical tastes are
mostly Jazz and Classical (doesn't require loudness).

>I hate to make the mistake like buying a 486/33 with 400M drive and 16M
>ram sitting there running Windows and terminals doing dialups.

Exactly! I know just what you mean...except my example would have been
a Mac LC vs. Quadra...

Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>From your post it looks like the 100Wpc Acurus is your ideal
quality/quanity tradeoff. Go for it!

>>>>>>>>>>
100 wpc is typically enough for anyone.  Sure if you want to run
a big party in your back yard, you may want extra power.  How
many of us need that.  A good 100wpc will do wonders.  I know
plenty of people with around 50wpc and rarely push even those
smaller power amps.  Sure I have 200wpc.  Why?  I don't know.
It's rare that I push it past 10% to 15% on the volume knob.
My next power amp wil not have more than 100wpc.
>>>>>>>>>>
Not really; it depends - what are your musical tastes and how
sensitive are your speakers.  If you have very sensitive speakers,
you may not need a lot of power.  For example, my speakers are
rated at 200 Watts RMS, with 96dB of sensitivity (measured at
1 Watt, 1 Meter, SPL), and I'm running them only with an NAD 40 
watter, also.  However, if I had more power, I think they would 
be more musical and more detailed.  I'm probably going to upgrade
to 100W.  Too little power is more dangerous than too much power,
too little power can fry either the amp or the speakers or both.
Don't confuse that wqith turning up the volume to the point where
the amp clips, which is a different situation.  A general rule
of thumb is tha vyou can't really have too much power, as long as
you know enough not too push your drivers beyond the allowable \
excursion.
What are you going to do with your 7240 when you upgrade?

>>>>>>>>>>
In rec.audio you write:

>I'm thinking of replacing my NAD (40W) receiver with a pair of
>separates. I've narrowed down to NAD 1600/2400, Adcom545, and Acurus.
>I've auditioned a pair of Acurus (for $1250 discounted) and I LOVE it.
>I've also tried NAD and Adcom. They all sound fine.
>So I guess going either way is good.
>Since my budget is limited, the real question is do I really need
>200W?

>The NAD 7240 I'm using with Snell E is rated 40W. 99% of the playing
>time I see the dial on 1/4 and the windows are rattling.  
>Granted it's a small room, Snell is efficient, NAD has 6 db headroom,
>etc. But I'm happy with the Snell and my living room already has a set
>of A/V. So future upgrade is not a factor.  

>For an ordinary person with ordinary ears, can I live with the Acurus 
>100 (as opposed to 250) just fine? 

Well, it depends on how loud you like to listen, and how much power the
Snells can handle.  You say they're effi200W.  The only time you would is if you think you'll need to drive them
with over 100W, which should be never.  However, should you ever change
speakers, you might need the extra power.  But that's for you to decide.

Go for the Acurus;  you can't go wrong.


>>>>>>>>>>
-- 
Ing-Chin Hwang, ich@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Xref: sparky rec.audio:16580 sci.electronics:20552