Cerwin Vega! FE12" 300 watts, need receiver suggestions. (1 Viewer)

[MarvinJr]

Yeah I read it, that's why I posted my post. He didn't explain much.

Originally Posted by David Willow





Did you read John's post above? The numbers mean something and John explained it better than I ever could.

 

[MarvinJr]

Now.....the next thread or 2 EXPLAINED it......as a GENERAL rule. Not as I seem to see alot.....people saying the number mean NOTHING.

They do have some relevance for the basic to midlevel people, maybe not to the top level people.

Like I said the reciever states 100w per channel.....I understand they underrate, and some overrate....but you still want to match the numbers to some degree, right.

 

[JohnRice]

Dean, if you saw 114 dB on something, maybe the maximum output of the CVs, that is probably at 1 meter. Sound dissipates logrithmically (for the life of me, I can't remember how to spell that) meaning it is cut in half (-3dB) when your distance from the speaker increases by 40%. (Guys, let's not get into an argument over whether -3dB is half the volume. It is measurably half, even if it doesn't seem half subjectively.) Still, I understand it is generally believed to be risking permanent hearing damage to be exposed to constant sound over something like 85dB for only a few minutes.

MarvinJR, what I said was "Dean, you'll help yourself if you stop looking at numbers so much". Some numbers, such as the power handling of a speaker, are almost completely meaningless. Some manufacturers use them for exactly the reason you have seen here, so people will say "WOW, these have 500 Watts!". Power ratings of amps are of some use, but depending on the manufacturer and your needs. For instance, if you are looking to power a set of esoteric, low sensitivity, low impedance speakers, the power ratings can tell you a couple important things. I'll take my main speakers as an example. Low (84 dB) sensitivity and low impedance (3 to 4 ohm nominal, depending on how they are rated) so I know there are a couple things needed to properly handle them. One, lots of amperage is good, but stability into low impedance is a must. If an amp doubles power from 8 to 4 ohm, and again from 4 to 2 ohm, that is an amp that won't melt down with these particular speakers. VERY few amps have that capability. Those specs are pretty much unnecessary for the CVs being discussed, because they present a very "easy" load, so those specs aren't important. That doesn't mean the amp will sound great, just that it can physiclaly handle the speakers. There are PA amps with these specs which I doubt would sound good. They are built for output and abuse first, not so much audio quality. Read a bit more, and more closely.

 

[JohnRice]

Originally Posted by MarvinJr

but you still want to match the numbers to some degree, right.

Not in most cases. If you are building a DIY sub, there are some mathematics where you can determine you need a certain amount of power to fulfill the sub's capabilities, but in most real world situations that is rarely the case. The most comon exception is the impedance of the speakers. Most speakers are roughly 8 ohm, but if it is lower, it can be important that the amp can handle them without overloading. Again, that has nothing to do with sound quality, just that the amp is designed to handle the load.


EDIT: Nobody can say I didn't try.

 

[MarvinJr]

See......that's more realistic.....rather than the broad statement that people like to say here that numbers mean NOTHING. They do have some relevance.


EDIT, btw......nice that you can go back and change your response to say that the numbers are FLUFFED!....instead of the original " NUMBERS MEAN NOTHING".

Originally Posted by JohnRice




Not in most cases. If you are building a DIY sub, there are some mathematics where you can determine you need a certain amount of power to fulfill the sub's capabilities, but in most real world situations that is rarely the case.


EDIT: Nobody can say I didn't try.

 

Marvin Jr. troll?

 

[Stephen Tu]

Marvin, a lot of people, especially on the basics forum, can perfectly go on with their lives & equipment picks with merely knowing "ignore wattage specs as they are basically irrelevant".

You are more curious & want to understand more deeply, so why don't you just ask politely for more detail, instead of slamming people? We don't necessarily want to write long essays about everything if the original poster is satisfied with the first answer. If you slam people like that, they aren't going to be particularly inclined to help you out. Go do you own web research if you have that attitude.

 

Yep Marvin is a troll. That confirms it. Theres one on every thread isnt there. What a shame. I feel bad for people like that.

 

[JohnRice]

FWIW, I never changed my wording. I did add some elaboration to my most recent post. Beyond that, saying any more on that particular topic is pointless.

Dean, this brought to mind something. How you look at many things depends on the level of discussion. Sometimes something is true at one level and false or at least debatable at another level. Think about this. You can get a surround receiver for $200 that has 100-110 watts per chanel. Jump up to the $2,000 level and that rating typically only goes up to around 135, maybe 170 at the most. That is a miniscule increase, 1 to 2 db, for 10x the cash. There must be other things at work here, and there are. It gets very complicated.

I'll add one thing. I actually have not paid a lot of attention to the other specs on speakers for a long time, mainly because they don't tell you much. What DOES tell you something is when no specs are published, as with Bose. That usually means something is horribly wrong. The one frequency spec I think is useful is the low frequency limit. It can be helpful in setting up a subwoofer. I typically use the -3dB level as a reference for the crossover of the sub, and set it to at least double whatever that frequency is, for starters anyway.

 

[David Willow]

The problem I have with marketing is they make certain numbers seem as if they are the only thing to look at. A good example are many home theater in a box systems. How many times do you see in HUGE LETTERING 500 watts? 750 watts? 1000 watts? Each time the watts goes up, so does the price. They omit the important details. Things like 100 watts per channel into 4 ohm or less. Of course then the speakers are tiny little paper junk that are horribly inefficient.

I consider the Watts game and BOSE in the category. They are both about bragging. You can brag to your uniformed friends that you have more watts or look how rich I am, I have BOSE. Its all pure marketing BS and it really, really irritates me. That's one of the reasons I choose to get all internet direct brands (Axiom, SVS). NO BS MARKETING DEPARTMENT!!!

There, now I feel better


PS - Marvin, if the best you can do is swear like an idiot, you are in the wrong forum. We are adults here.

 

I think I have a clearer picture of what I am looking for. And through this forum have dispelled the be-all-end-all 300 WATTS!!! whoppie! SInce I just need a 2 channel receiver I am getting the Sony - 200W 2-Ch. Audio Receiver. That will do what I need it too correct? 2 channels, 2 speakers.

I was seriously considering another recommended receiver on this forum the Pioneer that cost $300 but was 5.1. And if I am understanding it right I don't need 5.1 Even though it does come with an iPod dock. But the bottom line, if i have understood everything i have learned here is that the cheaper one has the ability to do what I need it to do with my Cerwins.

 

[David Willow]

Dean,

There's no reason to not get the Pioneer. It can run 2 channels just fine. In fact, I'd recommend it over the Sony (better quality).

 

You know what I did change my mind, I am reading all that the Pioneer does and for a few more bucks I can have a very modern, up to date receiver that will hopefully serve my needs for years to come AND it has HDMI for if I decide to get a home theater. Yea the Pioneer it is. Plus it's gorgeous. I like that piano black look.

 

[AudioENG]

Pioneer sounds like a good choice. It's got plenty to use down the road if you ever upgrade, and it's probably a little better quality amp than the 2ch sony. Let us know how it sounds!

 

Would I hook the Cerwin's up to the "Front" speakers or "Speakers B" connections? I am looking at the back of the Pioneer 550 watts. or 110 x 5. whereas the Sony AND yamaha is 105 x 5.

 

AudioEng, yes I will def. let you guys know tomorrow how the whole thing sounds when hooked up. I can't overstate how much I appreciate the help you all have given me. Thank you all again.

 

[David Willow]

Hook them up to the fronts. In the menu you can tell the receiver you have only left and right fronts (or mains). Make sure to turn off all other speaker (including the sub).

Not sure I understand the watts statement. Are you asking if there will be a difference?

 

I was just making a comparison between the Sony and the more suggested Pioneer, that's all. Thanks for clearing up the Front/Main question. Also you said to turn off my sub. I only have two speakers. Two Cerwin Vega E12's.

 

[gene c]

I'm going to give my opinion on a few things brought up in this thread. Take them for what they are worth. But remember, they were free.

Hope this helped.

 

[AudioENG]

Right Dean when you get your receiver it will have a few steps that you can go through to set it up for your specific speaker configuration. Since you only have 2 speakers you want your receiver to know that so it can route everything properly. This means make sure you turn off the output to a center channel, rear channel, and sub channel...that way it is definitely routing the bass to the front speakers and not a sub you don't have. Also some receivers have a setting for speaker size where they will determine a cutoff frequency based on the speakers you have, I didn't look at the manaual for the pioneer but if it has this setting you want to make sure it knows you have LARGE speakers so it doesn't place a high pass filiter on the output to your speakers. Hope this all helps.