Whats the deal with "watts per channel"?

[iceman5]

One salesman tells me the more "watts per channel" the better. The other says more is not better. Whats the deal.

I settled on the Onkyo 573 which is a 7.1 surround sound receiver with 75 watts per channel. My living room is about 20' x 16' and has high ceilings (12' -14' or so).

Is this enough power? Im already wondering if I should return it and get the next model up which has 90 watts per channel. The problem is that its too big for the space I have so it would be a real hassle to move it to another spot.

Im going to be running 2 fairly large JBL front speakers (which I may replace)

2 book shelf type JBLs (which are fairly new so I'll probably keep)

1 Infinity Primus C25 center speaker
http://www.vanns.com/shop/servlet/item/ ... s/54879721

1 Velodyne 12 " subwoofer
http://www.vanns.com/shop/servlet/item/ ... /549349079

and a yet to be determined smallish rear middle speaker.

Im going to hook it ll up tonight and it will probably be fine. I just wonder what you guys think.

[Dumb Snowman]

[NorthView]

Watts/channel is only the power output of the amplifier, and bears no relation to sound quality (all else being equal).

Also, the difference between 75W and 90W amps is very small, as you'd have to double the power output in order to to achieve a reasonable increase in volume (3dB if I remember).

In the real world the volume you get from your speakers is far more dependent on the speakers' efficiency than on the amp's output. Bigger speakers tend to be far more efficient than smaller speakers. Anyway, all speaker manufacturers quote a range of power that a particular speaker can handle, and this takes into account the speaker's efficiency, so that if you match a speaker with an amp whose power output is in the upper half of the speaker's limit, you should be fine.

JBL speakers are known to go very loud, so you may not need such a powerful amp with them. Any good shop should let you try the gear out at home, as the sound you get is so dependent on local variables.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool 2 speaker man, so I'll leave your other queries to someone who knows abut these things!

[Derk]

iceman5, I'm sorry, but the only power source capable of generating 1.21 gigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning!

[iceman5]

So when I paid $14K for the nuclear powered gigawatt booster, I got ripped off?

Damn, it was all chromed out too.

[black_knight6]

And it powers the flux capacitor! Comeon marty...back to the future!

[T-Rod]

I have no idea about watts per channel. I know mine is 1000 watts with 6 speakers. Can you do the simple division and get watts per channel? I dunno?


I'm telling you, you do NOT need this headache. Just buy the Onkyo expensive all inclusive one and play an extra 1/2 hour at Tribeca to make up the difference.

[Dumb Snowman]

Trodgers, there's a difference between total watts and watts per channel. Total watts, iirc, is what powers the actual system, while watts per channel is how many watts go through the actual channel. Example, my guitar amp is 40 watts per channel, but it takes 180w to power it.

[scarface]

From my car stereo days, watts/channel definitely meant something. You need a lot more power to get bass out of a 15" subwoofer than a 2" tweeter, because the larger speaker has to work much harder to displace more air. But, the thing is, that not all amps report their power correctly. For example, if you compared a cheap 1000 watt amp from some crap no-name company and a Kicker (quality brand) 1000 watt amp, the Kicker would sound much better. Why? Because they are reporting their peak wattage, but the Kicker's average wattage is much better than the crap no-name brand. I've never installed a home system (cuz I'm saving up for my plasma), but I would suspect that the moral of the story is the same, buy good quality, name brand equipment to get good quality sound.

[sondring]

[iceman5]

[black_knight6]

[NorthView]