In Reply to: Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. posted by Christine Tham on November 30, 2005 at 19:48:21:
Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect it's because of the inverse square law of amplifier power required to generate a particular sound level which increases exponentially as distance increases.Basically, if the speakers are relatively close, you don't need a lot of amplifier power to generate the recommended average monitoring level of 78-85 dB SPL. If you sit twice that distance, you may find you need hundreds of watts to be able to generate the same sort of levels without clipping. If you sit further still, suddenly you need thousands of watts to generate the same level.
Sure, if you want to overlook a few rather important items and paint with a very broad brush you need thousands of watts...
You haven't considered room gain of 3-4dB which cuts down power requirements, and you haven't made any considerations for speaker sensitivities which can be as low as 80dB (ATC passives are really low in sensitivity) or as high as 100+dB.
So I'd say that the middle hundreds of watts is a better estimate given a typical sensitivity rating in the upper 80s, and a typical room gain of 4dB both of which should be considered.
Regards,
John Kotches
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. - John Kotches 06:05:43 12/01/05 (17)
- Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. - Christine Tham 15:04:13 12/02/05 (16)
- Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. - John Kotches 16:29:42 12/03/05 (15)
- Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. - Christine Tham 16:54:51 12/03/05 (14)
- Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. - John Kotches 03:05:38 12/04/05 (1)
- Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. - Christine Tham 21:44:03 12/04/05 (0)
- Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. - Martin419 01:56:48 12/04/05 (11)
- Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. - Christine Tham 22:41:47 12/04/05 (10)
- Sorry - Christine Tham 22:45:31 12/04/05 (9)
- Re: Sorry - Dave Kingsland 09:33:54 12/05/05 (2)
- Oops :-) you're right - it's watts rather than power (nt) - Christine Tham 11:11:59 12/05/05 (1)
- You don't need 10000W, just 256W - Jack100 16:05:30 12/16/05 (0)
- "Root-Mean-Square" (RMS) versus "peak-to-peak" wattage . . . - Martin419 08:15:29 12/05/05 (5)
- You're partially right - Christine Tham 11:38:07 12/05/05 (4)
- Re: You're partially right - Martin419 12:31:30 12/05/05 (3)
- Re: You're partially right - Christine Tham 15:04:45 12/05/05 (2)
- Re: You're partially right - Martin419 02:31:46 12/06/05 (1)
- Re: You're partially right - Christine Tham 15:39:16 12/06/05 (0)