# Myth? XXX watts will really "wake up" Y speakers



## ceri23 (Aug 10, 2012)

I hear this discussed even with higher caliber equipment. Wattage at any given moment is based on the volume level you're playing it at. It's a signal amplitude increase. So why do I hear people use this phrase, even at a more advanced level? I assume this will bring about a discussion about headroom. Won't most installations fly into bad dispersion when you keep piling on the power, thus having the opposite effect of "waking them up"?

Along those same lines, the phrase "I'm giving them XXX watts" which is generally well above their rated RMS power rating. Are the RMS ratings on speakers complete garbage not worth even looking at due to the inconsistencies in testing environments, or are these people really only giving their speakers something around rated power with that much extra headroom because the volume is already adequate for them? Is the RMS power rating (aka continuous or nominal rating) derived from any specific set of parameters? Is it possible to extrapolate RMS ratings for a given impedance from anything included in theile small parameters (xmech, Bl, Cms, etc.)? I guess the shorter version of this would be: What's the math/science governing RMS power handling?


----------



## trumpet (Nov 14, 2010)

"RMS" power ratings are not a scientific measurement. There are other, "real", ways to rate power handling of speakers that for reasons I can't explain the industry has not adopted. I equate RMS power ratings to hand-holding. Most people don't take the time to research exactly what happens with the signals going in and out of their sound systems, and it works reasonably well to connect the dots and get XX Watts RMS speakers with XX Watts RMS on your amplifier.


----------



## Patrick Bateman (Sep 11, 2006)

The answer is simple. People like the sound of distortion. When u pour a lot of power into a speaker, it gets louder, and distortion goes up.

A few years back I heard one of the Thigpen rotary subwoofers, and it's lack of distortion made it sound quite odd.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I see this written about Dynaudio all the time. What I've noticed as I've quadrupled power on the midbass and doubled power on the mids is the dynamics are better, giving them a more open sound even at roughly the same output. They seem a little "sharper" on the peaks (in a good way) with more power. 

For what its worth I've upgraded power in about 3 increments, not all at once and I've gone back to lower power a couple times with the same setup.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

Is it not also a common misnomer that at X volume level you are only getting Z wattage? 

Music is VERY dynamic and within a 3 second clip the signal could range from 5 watts to 200 watts (arbitrary numbers, I know). So at any given volume level wouldn't the extra power help out when the signal hits those peaks?

The thing I don't get is when you hear people say things like "these speakers don't really open up until you give them more than XXX wattage." What is the magic going on inside said speaker that makes it sound so much different @ 150 watts opposed to 200 watts?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Fricasseekid said:


> Is it not also a common misnomer that at X volume level you are only getting Z wattage?
> 
> Music is VERY dynamic and within a 3 second clip the signal could range from 5 watts to 200 watts (arbitrary numbers, I know). So at any given volume level wouldn't the extra power help out when the signal hits those peaks?
> 
> The thing I don't get is when you hear people say things like "these speakers don't really open up until you give them more than XXX wattage." What is the magic going on inside said speaker that makes it sound so much different @ 150 watts opposed to 200 watts?


I think that last part stems from people thinking they're using every available watt when in reality they're just creating more headroom.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

I'll try to give my take on this subject. 

Most people do not realize a very simple fact - they listen to daily music and not test tones. (well there are a bunch of crazy people out there he he ) 

Loud Speaker manufacturers are torture testing the speakers and they are testing it tone after tone, from a certain distance, in a certain room/enclosure and many other certain characteristics such as temperature for example and they simply see what is the best response and what is the most the speaker can handle it. 

When you listen to music the speaker does not even act remotely the same.

As well as in any "protocol" usually what you get as DATA or Information is perhaps 33% of what ever goes on that line, the other 33% is usually garbage and the other 33% is wasted as heat (when speaking of motors and speakers) on the magnet and voice coil. 

It is not exact I know, but it is the basic idea.

The values you see that a speaker is declared to handle 200 watts does not make you question? 

1. At what frequency range? 
2. At what distorsion level? 
3. which enclosure size?
etc

So what that happens is that the factory drops a bomb on you and you do not know how you should really handle the explosion. 

A speaker has a sensitivity value.
A speaker has a maximum membrane movement range - XMAX 

Would a 200Watts speaker with 1mm xmax and 89db sensitivity act and sound the same as a 200watts speaker with 0.8mm xmax and 91db sensitivity?

Knowing that on daily music all you mostly hear is peaks, normal level and as well a lot of quiet - does it means that if your amp amplifies the signal by 200watts it would always make the speaker consume its maximal current draw? of course not! in fact, most of the time it would not go anywhere near it!

Try to differentiate between the speakers mechanical parts and motor sustenance to the speakers requirement for normal working conditions (daily music right?) 

Not only that - for short range and on a given safe frequency range your speaker could probably consume much more than what the factory had declared on. 

And as well - the question which should interest you most is, does the speaker really require the whole wattage it was declared for in order to move its full xmax range under full control? -> the answer is of course, no. 

So what does it mean? 

It means that on daily music your speakers would consume much much less than what ever wattage value they were delcared for and it would not be constant. 

Now - if we start to speak about test tone play back -> that is a whole different ball game. 

*Don't show up on a football court with a basketball in your hands. *


Yet there are always exceptions - I have seen some unexplained "thirsty" speakers like most Morel's high lines. 

The Elate - it would eat up what ever you can dish out, don't know exactly why but the more you give them the better they sound -> I speak about woofers ONLY, I guess these are very insensitive speakers and probably the maker is much to cautious with its declarations. 

They have a wider sound coil then most competitors I know, perhaps it is related as well -> but this is definitely an exception I have a lot of experience with.


----------



## Fricasseekid (Apr 19, 2011)

He ain't lying, I once sat a pair of Morel Elates on the the table and proceeded to talk about their mom in the most obscene ways for hours. They didn't cry once, in fact they laughed on occasion.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

Yup, they sound good already when you provide them about 80 watts though when you give them about 120 you find out that it only tickles them :laugh:

at 120 north they really start to sound like they should, I gave them about 180 watts when they were in a seald enclosure of 5 lits and all I can say is 

Focal's K2P are also acting very much alike but not like this. 

Yet for almost any other speaker I've used I found out that in most cases providing them only with third until half of the wattage they where declared for would be totally enough. 

The only speakers I really like to provide more than half of what they are declared for are sub woofers but as well only for the insensitive ones which have a real current draw requirement.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

So in essence are you saying only certain drivers benefit from extra power while the rest you are doing nothing more than just keeping upper volume limits outside of amp clipping?


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

I'm not sure if it is keeping volume levels or gain level from amp cliping rather than speaker cone breaking, voice coil over heating in addition. 

If you get to a level in which the amp is clipping while the speaker is still able to consume more current then you need a stronger amp but how many times have you really found your self in such situations? probably almost never right?

In most cases it is the speaker which is starting to distort way before the amp was even near being saturated - why is that? 

mostly because the speaker reaches its xmax or its magnet over heat as well voice coil way before the amp even has to deliver the requirement. (or maybe because it delivered it and the speaker can not convert it fast enough to heat so it over drives).


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

The only way to know would be to throw more power at the driver and test the results I imagine. However, at some point you would come into diminishing returns as far as wasting good use of a bigger amp. You also must be able to distinguish the difference between breakup vs clipping. Without hearing the driver bottom out I'm not so sure it will be apparent in a car compared to home environment which I can tell the difference. Interesting enough to try though.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

This is exactly the point in which system topology and life experience come in equation. 

For example - 3way frontal component set on a full active system, active amplification and active cross overing. 

In parallell to 3way frontal compnent set on a passive xover 

TW is declared to sustane up to 100 watts for example
MD is declared to sustane up to 100 watts as well
WF is declared to sustane up to 100 watts as well :laugh: 

On the active system I would probably use a four channel amp of 50*4 on the tweets and mids as they are usually smaller amps, cheaper and easier to find. 

But for the woofers I would use at least a 75*2 amp just to be sure I will not clip it for normal and a bit of loud hearing daily music <- pay attention to this remark, this is the key here. 

However, if I used the passive system I would take a monstreous amp about 300 watts per channel as I need to take in mind as well watt consumption loss on the passive x-over it self and that the amp is running the FULL spectrum and on three elements all together at the same time!!! 

So it is not just a simple as saying naaah you don't need that much power as you must take in mind WHAT are you trying to amplify and not just HOW. 


Most systems I know are full active mesh as most people do not have the power or balls to mess around with passive components (that is a bit of a shame but technology is just wonderful these days ah?) 

And in active systems my experience shows me it is correct, speakers would saturate way before the amp in most cases.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

That power ratio should be a general guideline. Mids & highs need no more than about 40-60 watts to get fairly loud, but a midbass in the door is going to need the extra juice to help plant percussions & guitar string up front. It is my belief that in a SQ system that you can actually get away with a less powerful sub stage than most run. It is the midbass that presents the most requirements and is harder to implement solidly especially in a door.

Currently I have a bevy of amps that can make up what I need, but getting extra power to the doors will be evened out with the mids & highs unless I run 3 amps with one of the 4 channels brigded on the doors.  It's a shame they don't have a good selection of staggered amps on the market like they used to. Even most 5 channel amps are inappropriately configured.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

I partially agree 

Yes, I do see a guideline but the guide line is not absolut as the details can change around them. 

In most cases I see that tweeters would not require more than third of the wattage they where declared to absorb, infact, that in most cases is found out to be an over kill. 

For Mids - in most cases 30 to 50% of the declaration of wattage would be enough 

However, if you use a wide band element as midrange for example L3SE then you would require a lot of headroom as both the amp channel and the speaker would require a lot of power. 

Edit: for example - on my wife's car I have mid-tweeter set with L3SE + Midbass Clarus C.5 on a custome built passive xover (my build) 

I chose a DLS RA20 amplifier to run that set 

Though if I was running it active - I would rather put the L3SE on the RA20 and bring a smaller amp to the C.5 as it is only 5.25 inch and it is playing 2 octaves hardly while the L3SE is playing at least 6 octaves. -> so here is another contradicting example for you comming from the same guy who just wrote the above, this is not black and white but in most cases the gray area is very very clear. 

For woofers and subwoofers I tend to provide at least 50% of what they are supposed to endure 

For me, for SQ systems in over 90% of the cases it works like a charm. 


As for five chanel amps, I am not a great fan as well though the Audison LRX 5.1K MT is really a smart choice the way I see it, a bit expensive though but for once this is one amplifier I would pay for with a smile, but this is a different discussion. 

Any way for what I see, the value of watt for which a speaker is measured for is meant to show you the upper recommended threshold, not the required one. 

I wish manufactures whould have provided minimal and maximal channel amp requirement to the element when it is directly connected to one.


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

Oh ok, I got you now. In other words you give the most power percentage to drivers that are handling the most octaves?


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

It is flexible. 

When I have an element which is playing wide band, I would give it extra "juice" 

On normal mode of operation I stick to the normal guidelines. 

And if I am working passive mode then I treat it as a one bigger element with a much wider range + passive xover which needs power as well so then I go way way beyond the required power per element. 

Every topology and its requirements but when we speak about single "naked" element vs amp channel I tend to stick to the normal gray zone I mentioned before. 

This is my "I believe" in speakers, there is nothing wrong with not liking it.


Edit: you know, I think that another major culprit here is that people don't realize that an amplifier works harder when the frequency range that enters it is wider.

The narrow the frequncy range entering the amplifier would be, the more efficient the amplifier will be on the frequency range that entered it - you can test it very easily with a DSP

Take a woofer and let it play from 80hz to 400hz 
now let it play from 80hz to 1500hz 

You will find out that though you get more sound comming out of the speaker, on the same volume it is played lower... think about it...


----------



## Bayboy (Dec 29, 2010)

The same holds fairly true for drivers as well, thus an apparent advantage of a 3-way front stage. Still, the allocation of available amps to handle it is not so great. So far the best combo I've seen to date that is quite economical is to use a 5 channel for highs, midrange, & subs. Then use a 2 channel amp of higher wattage for midbass, that if one was doing a 4-way system.


----------



## eddieg (Dec 20, 2009)

well I guess we are entering another topic here but in short, I think there are multiple and wonderful combinations that can be done today. 

I prefer six chanel amp for the whole frontal set, a good strong and healthy one (I use ZED Leviathan) and a monoblock for the sub. 

You can use two 4 chanel amps as well and bridge two chanels for the sub, in fact for woofers a full class D range is a very smart choice so you can take for example a sundown 125.4 for the sub and woofers and an a/b 4 chanels for mids and tweets 

I find HDP4+HCP5 to be a powerful combination and very price wise.

You have massive audio tiny monstres amps as another example and if you really want to go small you can stack up t-amps in your vehicle - so so many options, it is seems endless with todays technology.


----------

