|
|
Post by teaman on Feb 16, 2016 23:24:19 GMT -5
As of yet, no. I don't think my Polks would change much with that kind of power though. If I had some Martin Logan panels I would have nothing other than monoblocks. I have yet to hear a speaker that does not benefit from that kind of power. The added headroom and bass punch is amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 16, 2016 23:29:09 GMT -5
I have always been curious why people think they need 1000 watt monoblocks when they might only use 1/8 of that power. Well as a person who has heard 50 watt, 125 watt, 500 watt and 1000 watt (@ 4 ohms) amps. I can say it's not about the 1/8th power. Well it kind of is. But I digress. First you'd be surpised at how much power an amp can use on dyanmics. Second. It's about fantastic sound. I can't actually get very loud in my small house with shared walls. But boy these XPA-1 gen 2s are sweet. Having said that the XPA-2s are darn good! The difference I heard was enough for me to hear the weak point of the mighty and still quite fine XSP-1 and be able to differentiate between it and a different preamp! if you want resolution the XPA-1 can bring it. however your other gear has to be up to the task including your room and room treatments. If not the XPA-2 is still a very good choice. emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/44968/garbulkys-xpa-1-gen-review |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 16, 2016 23:33:44 GMT -5
As of yet, no. I don't think my Polks would change much with that kind of power though. If I had some Martin Logan panels I would have nothing other than monoblocks. I have yet to hear a speaker that does not benefit from that kind of power. The added headroom and bass punch is amazing. I am pretty sure the bass punch of his SVS SB 13 Ultra Subwoofer is also amazing!  |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 16, 2016 23:37:02 GMT -5
In truly believe there are a lot of people here with damaged hearing! I wouldn't trust anybody's ears but mine. Especially if they are over 20 which is mostly everybody....  |
|
|
|
Post by 509Paul on Feb 16, 2016 23:53:11 GMT -5
Haha! I grew up in the hay day of car audio. If the bass was not rattling the bolts that hold your car together loose you were doing it wrong. Luckily my car stereo was on the mild side and my hearing is still pretty good. I know all about bass though!
|
|
|
|
Post by 509Paul on Feb 17, 2016 0:40:53 GMT -5
Dang it! Now I am considering buying a second XPA-2 to run them in bridged mono mode while they are on sale and I still have my e-club membership...
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Feb 17, 2016 2:29:25 GMT -5
In truly believe there are a lot of people here with damaged hearing! I wouldn't trust anybody's ears but mine. Especially if they are over 20 which is mostly everybody.... I sure am glad I have 20-20 hearing and my vision is -6 dB!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 3:23:39 GMT -5
I have always been curious why people think they need 1000 watt monoblocks when they might only use 1/8 of that power. Oh no, we have to go thru this again!  These are estimates here to the half decibel but very close. Let's say you have a Polk Audio RTi a9 (sound familiar?) which S&V tested out at 90dB's sensitivity. That's 90dB's at one meter with one watt/8 ohms. Let's also say you play back a movie at reference max level of 105dB's (very loud but quite common with today's sound tracks). To attain the 105dB level at one meter you would need 32 watts. No need for that 1000 watt amp, right? But nobody listens at one meter. Some think you have to add some output for two speakers but Audioholics says: Throw in your room’s absorptive characteristics, any open walls that lead to the next room, etc, and what you’re left with is that the raw sensitivity figure for one speaker is a pretty decent number to work with as to how loud two speakers will sound from your listening position. . How about at 3 or 4 meters, 9-12 ft prox.? With two speakers at 9-10 ft distance one needs about 256 watts to output 105 dB's. With two speakers at 12-13 ft distance one needs about 512 watts to output 105 dB's. If you have a huge room with somebody back 16 or more feet you need about 1024 watts or more. I hope that explains why one might need 500-1000 watts (or even more on rare occasions) to avoid clipping. Polk themselves recommends up to 500 watts. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 17, 2016 5:05:58 GMT -5
I never want to hear 105 db sound levels in my home.
While playing out with a Fender Twin Reverb loaded with JBL D120F speakers, maybe, but not at home.
Here are some examples of just 100 db:
Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck. Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (106 dB); jet flyover at 1000 feet (103 dB); Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft (100 dB).
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Feb 17, 2016 6:30:50 GMT -5
With two speakers at 9-10 ft distance one needs about 256 watts to output 105 dB's. In this specific example I would get the XPA-2 instead of a pair of XPA-1 monoblocks, as doing that would allow me to spend the extra money on better speakers instead, i.e. better than the Polk. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 17, 2016 7:45:48 GMT -5
No one ever thought in terms of 105 db before this "THX Standard" was promulgated.
I do suppose you need it once your hearing is destroyed from listening at those levels very long.
"About 26 million Americans between the ages of 20 and 69 have lost the ability to hear high-frequencies from overexposure to loud noises at work or during leisure activities, like turning up their music too loud, according to the NIDCD"
|
|
|
|
Post by bluemeanies on Feb 17, 2016 8:17:37 GMT -5
My speakers are calibrated for HT with a radio Shack SPL digital meter at 75dbs...and that is plenty load given my room dimensions, and placement of my speakers in relation to my seating position. At 105db my speakers would become WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
A similar measurement is given to my music listening
Extended exposure, noises that reach a decibel level of 85 can cause permanent damage to the hair cells in the inner ear, leading to hearing loss. A typical conversation occurs at 60 dB – not loud enough to cause damage. The sound of an ambulance siren at 120 decibels is about 1 trillion times more intense than the weakest sound our ears can hear.
A rock concert is between 110 dB and 120 dB, and can be as high as 140 dB right in front of the speakers.
Headphones at maximum volume are 105 dB.
Listening to music at 80db is considered safe. The National Institutes of Health notes that prolonged exposure to sounds over 85 decibels can cause hearing loss.
Peter Towsend has severe hearing loss and his claim is the severity of his loss of hearing is due to his use of headphones in the recording studio.
As a young man I did not give it a second thought of "cranking it up" but from pass history I have learned more does not mean better. At lower volumes I have really appreciated the essence of well recorded music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 8:45:47 GMT -5
No one ever thought in terms of 105 db before this "THX Standard" was promulgated. I do suppose you need it once your hearing is destroyed from listening at those levels very long. "About 26 million Americans between the ages of 20 and 69 have lost the ability to hear high-frequencies from overexposure to loud noises at work or during leisure activities, like turning up their music too loud, according to the NIDCD" The idea is not that we turn up music or movies so that there is a steady volume at or near 105dB's. The average volume would be way below that. It might hit 105 on instantaneous dynamic peaks and need the reserve power to prevent clipping which many folks mistake as too loud rather than loud distorted sound. I am very careful of my hearing and have walked out of one concert in Seattle It was a Japanese pop singer with an American back up band but the sound guys were all young college guys. I asked if they would turn it down some and they laughed at me. We left. I also have argued at our local community center where they have summer concerts on the lawn. Many of the audience are over 50 or under 10 and I have talked to the sound guys several times. I even took my sound meter with me one night and the peaks were nearing 110dB's at times. They had some line arrays that were very loud, bright and edgy. He blew me off with a smart ass comment, pretty sad. Movies and classical music frequently have very short but loud peaks. I actually heard some rock concerts where the level was in the 115-120dB's, that is insane and very damaging as would even a steady 105dB or lower volume for very long. I like amps that have clipping indicators. My brother had one years ago that was driving some power hungry KEF 104-2's. We put on some Telarc rap like 1812 overture at fairly loud levels, but not excessively so and the red clipping lights were going off like a Christmas tree (not sure how precise they were). IMO most folks underestimate the power requirements of dynamic music. It is common for a speaker to be loafing along fairly loud and suddenly take 25 or quite a bit more times the power to reproduce a dynamic peak. For example say a pretty loud selection is playing at a average of about 85dB's with 5 watts and suddenly has a 15dB peak up to 100dB's now requiring 32 times as much power with 160 watts or 64 times with 320 watts to hit 103dB's. I agree that sustained loud volume even 70-80dB's can be damaging to ears but too many folks underestimate the amount of power they need for several seconds or much less. |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Feb 17, 2016 8:52:20 GMT -5
Huh? What did he say?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 8:56:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 17, 2016 9:06:10 GMT -5
I think is all about listening habits. When I listen to music the peaks are no louder than 76db so basically average listening is less than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 17, 2016 9:18:31 GMT -5
Like Pedro, my typical listening levels are around 72 db or so, and the quality of the sound is so high I don't feel the need or want to "crank it up" to enjoy music.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,283
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2016 10:36:36 GMT -5
Not exactly!
In fact, I'm agreeing that, with many modern recordings, that isn't even possible (since there is no "original physical performance").
HOWEVER, in that case, since the "most original" version we have is the recording itself, I'm arguing for the most accurate rendition of THAT into physical reality. If the only "reality" we have is in fact the one inside the minds of the artist and the recording engineer, and we don't in fact have a "real reality" to use for a reference, then it's even more critical that our equipment render the information that we do have accurately. (Since we can't even potentially VERIFY how our system sounds compared to any actual original, all we can do is to TRUST that it is faithfully delivering what the artist and the recording engineer intended, without altering it or changing what was intended. And the only way we can do that is to do our best to ensure that our system renders whatever we play through it as accurately as possible.)
To use the photography analogy again.... If I were to take pictures of dresses for a fashion catalog, I would, at least potentially, be able to hold up swatches of the original cloth next to my printed catalog to make sure that the colors match, and that nothing has gone wrong along the way. However, if what I'm printing is based on artist's DRAWINGS, created and rendered on a computer, then there are no cloth swatches to use as a reference. In that situation, I need to be even more careful, so that, assuming that the artist has calibrated his or her monitor accurately, and I have calibrated my monitor and printer accurately, I can rely on the fact that the catalog I print shows precisely the same colors as the artist saw when he or she drew those dresses. (There are whole systems of devices, and even whole industries, devoted to this. If that artist tells me that his dress should be "Pantone 280 blue", then we both have a common reference, and, if I display that dress as Pantone 280 blue on my calibrated monitor, I will be seeing it the same as the artist drew it, and, if my printer then prints it in Pantone 280 blue, the catalogs will look exactly like both I and the artist envisioned they would.)
Now, as with anything in real life, nothing is absolutely perfect - but we can still try. If I print those pictures on a certain paper stock, it may alter the colors a little bit, but I can minimize that by calibrating my printer to the specific paper I'm using, and at least minimize that error. This is exactly analogous to the fact that every speaker interacts with every room slightly differently; and, while we can reduce that variation by calibrating our speaker and system to our room, the result may still not be perfect. However, some aspects of how the signal is handled can be controlled quite easily; for example, we can ensure that the amplifier we use has a flat frequency response and the lowest distortion we can manage - or, more precisely, we can reduce those particular errors to a level where we can no longer hear them.
My point in all of this is that there is in fact such a thing as "objective accuracy"; even if you don't have an original performance to use as a reference, then you can reproduce the signal itself as accurately (objectively) as possible. (And, yes, by doing so you agreeing to allow the artist, and the recording engineer, to decide what "reality" is for that particular recording.) To me, this actually makes things easier. If I have an organ recital, recorded at St Albert Hall, I may never have an opportunity to ever experience that performance live, so I may never have "a personal reference", but, if I assume that the recording was done accurately, and then ensure that my system reproduces the recording accurately, then I can infer the the end product is accurate as well... at least accurate to the version of that reality as intended by the recording engineer. (And, by buying that particular recording, I have in fact tacitly agreed to let the recording engineer make that decision for me.)
Keith, I really must object. Do you realize you're arguing for the "accurate" reproduction of a "performance" that never occured in real time?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,283
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2016 10:39:47 GMT -5
Absolutely agreed.... And, since we each are sensitive to various errors to varying degrees, then the obvious goal is to reduce ALL errors to inaudibility and, failing that, to reduce at least the ones that we individually find annoying to that level. (And, yes, sometimes even deliberately introducing an error to distract us from a "worse one" helps; as in running a machine that makes the sound of ocean waves so you don't hear the traffic on a nearby street.) Keith, I really must object. Do you realize you're arguing for the "accurate" reproduction of a "performance" that never occured in real time? If the recorded mix is pretty decent, then if the mastering engineer did a fine job, I see no sensible reason why nobody would want to accurately reproduce the finished product. That is, except perhaps if everyone thinks the music itself just plain sucks. However, speakers and headphones aren't capable of accurately reproducing recorded sounds. So instead, we're dealing with various techniques that can help the listener feel a better connection to the music, as well as can help the listener stay focused on the music itself rather than be distracted by electronic artefacts that are a constant reminder of the fact we are listening to a stereo system. Our brain selectively suppresses impairments, makes them less prominent and or less irritating during our music listening experience. It does this depending on an elastic, time-variant set of criteria not all of which are reasonably well known and understood, and, in the specific case of audio information having gone missing, our brain actually even fills in the blanks (with varying degrees of success). If you had to choose between a large reduction of one type of error a system makes and a small reduction of another type, what would you choose? The true answer to that question is it depends on how sensitive your ears are to this specific type of error under those specific circumstances at that particular point in time, as well as depends on how annoying you find the specific occurrence of it, in that particular context. A highly revealing system can be fatiguing to listen to because it shifts the listener's attention towards the imperfections that are part of the recording, causing the music to be perceived as "uninvolving". |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,283
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 17, 2016 10:57:52 GMT -5
Again, agreed - at least for many people (although, if some surround recordings are to be believed, some people prefer to be sitting inside the orchestra  ). However, there is one huge practical consideration there. Unless you're using headphones, or are willing to turn your living room into a real anechoic chamber, your living room IS going to contribute its own room acoustics to the mix. This puts you in the situation of trying to project a picture, not onto a perfectly blank screen, but onto a wall with a mural painted on it already. Unless you can ABSOLUTELY eliminate every contribution from your living room, and EXACTLY reproduce every contribution from the original venue, then you're stuck with a mix of the two. To pick just one point... If your original was recorded in a huge symphony hall, but your living room is only 20 feet square, then you have two sets of "reflections" - those from your living room walls 20 feet behind you AND those from the back of the concert hall 100 feet away. In a surround sound system, you may seek to MINIMIZE this dissonance by playing the original reflections from your surround speakers loudly enough to audibly overpower the reflections from the back of your living room, and you can use absorbers to reduce the first reflections, and diffusers to make the reflections less "specific", but you will never be 100% successful. Likewise, you have what might be called "second order effects"; not only will you hear that perfectly reproduced reflection from the rear wall of the concert hall, which is 100 feet away, but you'll also hear the reflections OF THAT REFLECTION, from your living room walls, which are only 20 feet away. In short, you're always going to have at least some "information" that doesn't agree with whatever you're attempting to achieve. About the only hope you've got of even a reasonably accurate reproduction of the original is with a well-recorded binaural recording and headphones. Therefore, if you have the choice, it might sound better to "move the orchestra into your living room" rather than listen to the audio equivalent of a double exposure. Note that I'm not suggesting that there is any perfect solution here - other than binaural recordings and headphones - or actually making your listening room into an anechoic chamber. Absolutely. Are you trying to make it sound like that symphony orchestra is playing in your living room, and you're sitting on the conductor's lap, or do you want your living room to magically disappear and you're transported to the concert hall? But of course!!!! I want the living room to magically disappear and be transported to the concert hall. If the recording was in Carnegie Hall, I want to be there. If it was somewhere else, I want to be there. Not sit on the conductor's lap, though - that's too close. The mics would be at a spot which recreates the experience of the orchestra between row E to row H. This has been the Holy Grail of High End audio since the 80's. |
|
).