| Author |
Thread: RMS watts |
    
New member Username: Lyndal34
Brisbane
Australia
Post Number: 1
Registered: Aug-06
|
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 06:33 am: |
|
Hallo, complete novice here. Iam selling my teac floor speakers, and was asked how many RMS watts they are? Doesn't that depend on the amp being used? The only info I have about them as there are no stickers, is that they are 8-16 ohms, have tweeter, s.woof and woof, are 2 feet high and have a massive sound. My amp is apparently 185 watt consumption, and on a volume scale of 1 to 10, 3 is massively loud, but clear in bass, medium and treble. Can anyone help me? |
|
|
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 9049
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 09:23 am: |
|
.
The amp has the watts, the speakers use those watts. The person asking the question is probably used to car audio, where massive numbers are desired. The numbers mean nothing, but they are desired. The electrical wattage consumption of your amplifier also means nothing in regard to how many watts it produces into a loudspeaker load.
Since there are no numbers which adequately describe what you've been asked to provide, I would suggest three possible answers. 1) My amp does 185 watts and they play loud. 2) How many watts are you planning to use? The speakers should handle that if you don't distort the amplifier. I've played very loud and they aren't damaged in any way. 3) I've been told there is no proper answer for that question. Would you like to bring some music over and listen to them play?
. |
New member Username: Lyndal34
Brisbane
Australia
Post Number: 2
Registered: Aug-06
|
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 08:55 pm: |
|
Thank you for your help Jan, much appreciated.Your recommended answers are just what I should do, so thanks again. This question has sparked an interest to understand more about these things.
Cheers! |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1785
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
The electrical wattage consumption of your amplifier also means nothing in regard to how many watts it produces into a loudspeaker load.
To quote[1] someone on the forum:
When taken literally, you are quite literally incorrect, sir.
[1] http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/256379.html |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3938
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
I see no direct coorelation between consumption and output, Peter. Certainly nothing linear. If you are going to the way outer limits, well ok, an amp consuming 400w is not likely to deliver 5000.
Can you expand on that? |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3939
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/261981.html
Thats a 50 amp breaker, folks! |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1789
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 01:17 pm: |
|
I see no direct coorelation between consumption and output, Peter. Certainly nothing linear.
And I agree with you on that.
well ok, an amp consuming 400w is not likely to deliver 5000.
That would be correct too. So you see, saying that it means nothing is incorrect.
I also find it funny when a receiver's specs claim 7x100W and yet the same receiver's back cover also claims a power consumption below 350W. Averaged over time, the energy output must be equal to the energy input. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3946
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 01:41 pm: |
|
Whether the ratings are continuous or peak as well. 100x7 may be achievable peak(with caps donating the voltage to achieve 700 on paper), once every few seconds or so. |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1792
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 02:07 pm: |
|
Yup. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3949
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 03:54 pm: |
|
Averaged over time, the energy output must be equal to the energy input.
Actually it must be much less.
Thermal losses and all.
Wattage calculation must also be considered.
Input is va, output is so variable. |
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 9067
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 04:55 pm: |
|
.
My statement is absolutely correct. This, however, is not the place to argue the fact, particularly with pg. If someone wants to dispute my logic, you can place a reasonable argument to the contrary, not just a statement that I am incorrect, on another thread and not hijack this thread. I'm not about to engage in another p!ssing contect with anyone who cannot argue the message and wishes only to attack the messenger.
. |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1795
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 07:43 pm: |
|
.(This space intentionaly left blank; I'm not too sure why.)
Nuck, I was talking thermodynamics when I said equal. The energy drawn from the electrical outlet must be equal to the sum of the energy sent to the speaker (or dissipated in the speaker cables) and the energy dissipated as heat by the receiver.
My statement is absolutely correct.
Of course you think that your statement was correct, otherwise why would you have said it. But the fact that you think it so doesn't make it so.
you can place a reasonable argument to the contrary
I already have, as requested by nuck. See above. The mere fact that one is limited by the other implies that your statement was incorrect. But it's not a big deal Mr Vigne. I don't think that anyone is going to think any less of you for thinking otherwise, but arguing against basic thermodynamics isn't likely to make you look better to your public. Have a good night! |
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 9068
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 08:52 pm: |
|
.
You can neither read nor think logically, pg. That's too bad.
. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3960
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 08:58 pm: |
|
just another day in paradise.
Tell ya what, kids.
When I hook up the BIG BAD AMP tomorrow, I will fill y'all in on the in's an' out's, k?
I can tell yer hearts' are all a twitter. |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1797
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 09:43 pm: |
|
. (This space intentionaly left blank; I'm not too sure why.)
After I only posted about what he said, rather than what he is, Mr. Vigne said:
I'm not about to engage in another p!ssing contect with anyone who cannot argue the message and wishes only to attack the messenger.
and then he attacks me, rather than my argument:
You can neither read nor think logically, pg. That's too bad.
It would be great if you lived by your own rules.
It's strange that I actually make a living in science using those skills. But perhaps I don't make out as well as your lucrative career in sales.
Have a good night Mr. Vigne!
. (This space also intentionaly left blank; I'm not too sure why.) |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3967
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 10:02 pm: |
|
I know why.
No advertising! |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1798
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
.
Is
this
more
readable?
.
Or
is
it
simply
better
when
my
posts
take
up
more
screen
space?
.
.
. |
Gold Member Username: Petergalbraith
Rimouski,
Quebec
Canada
Post Number: 1799
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 10:23 pm: |
|
What we need is a truly invisible character.
Maybe the font size can be made tiny and accomplish the same end? Unfortunately, the minimum required font size is greater than zero. (inside joke!) |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 3970
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 10:25 pm: |
|
The shadow knows... |
