In Reply to: Re: Excellent document, thanks Michael. Further questions. posted by Christine Tham on December 2, 2005 at 15:04:13:
Chris, you seem to think that I overlooked it, so I'll play your game.
Let's see 8 ohms... 85 dB sensitivity.
1m = 1w.
2m = 4w (Recommended distance in the paper is 2m)
4m = 16wNow let's talk about a 20dB peak...
1m = 100w
2m = 400w
4m = 1600wYep, that's over a thousand watts needed, you're right on the money. Of course the inverse square law works well only if you listen in an anechoic chamber or someplace that's free of echoes. Outside works, assuming you have sufficient space to have an anechoic region. How many of us happen to listen under these conditions? I can't speak for the conditions of your listening room, but I do know that doesn't resemble the conditions of mine.
So let's correct this, by applying a fairly standard 4dB of room gain to these figures to come up with what are much more realistic figures for the actual watts required in a room that is not an anechoic chamber or outside and free of reflections.
1m = 40w
2m = 160w
4m = 640wWait, where did those thousands of watts go? This is what happens in real rooms where people tend to listen at distances much closer to 2m than 4m.
So yes I did think of this when I gave numbers in the "middle hundreds of watts".
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 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)