Why do Studio 100s need more than 100 watts?

**SiliGoose** · 22 February 2003, 11:27 Saturday

By that logic they certainly shouldn't require tons of wattage. However, now that you mention it I do see lots of users at HTF claiming Paradigm Studios need lots of power.

Perhaps they're just trying to justify their mega-buck amp purchase?

-Sili

**dsmith** · 22 February 2003, 13:12 Saturday

Large transients in music, and especially movie soundtracks, can require a 20X increase in power, so that a 10W ambient level would suddently need 200W for a brief moment. Few 100W amps will handle that without sever clipping, which can damage speakers and sound really bad also. Most EEs agree that the more power the better, both in terms of speaker safety and also sound quality. Running speakers as "small" will reduce their power demand considerably, of course, but IMO, music sounds best run full-range in large capable speakers W/O a sub.

Don

**Kevin_McC** · 22 February 2003, 14:30 Saturday

If we calibrate our systems at 75 db and let's say that's the zero setting on the volume control. Then that means that the person driving the 91db sensitive speakers with 1 watt is +16 above reference? 8O Right?

I don't know about the rest of you but I don't play my system anywhere near reference. If reference level is 75db then that means that a 91db speaker would be using roughly less than 1/2 a watt right? If it needed 20 times power reserve then wouldn't that only require 10 watts headroom for dynamic peaks?

Please correct me or straighten me out if I'm completely off base here. I've pondered this very subject many times with my setup.

**Michael Mohrmann** · 22 February 2003, 15:01 Saturday

Originally posted by Kevin_McC

If we calibrate our systems at 75 db and let's say that's the zero setting on the volume control. Then that means that the person driving the 91db sensitive speakers with 1 watt is +16 above reference? 8O Right?

Not exactly. You are actually calibrating to 105 dB at reference (0 dB on the volume control). The internal test tones are set -30 dB below reference level because it is easier on your system (and ears!) to calibrate at the lower level. Some external test discs are set to -20 dB below reference level, so with some of these discs you calibrate to 85 dB at 0 dB on the volume control.

Michael

**Chas_T** · 22 February 2003, 16:10 Saturday

Perhaps they're just trying to justify their mega-buck amp purchase?

Heck no. I hate spending money!!! I need to purchase more cables from Lex. 8O

I have the 100's in my system and just want to add a few thoughts here.

For the record, I am not a techie when it comes to this stuff. You guys are over my head when it comes to the audio world. I am humble in your presence when it comes to logic and technical knowledge. I am just a listener who has experimented with different amp combinations and power ranges with the 100's.

Some of the amps I've driven these 100's with are a receiver, the Sony STR-DA777ES 105 watts per channel, Aragon/Modial 8002 125 watts - 2 channel, Parasound 855A 85 watts x 5 and a Sherbourn 5-1500A 200 watts and soon to be replaced with a 7/2100.

Whenever I made these switches while increasing power level, the highs, mids seemed more focused and detailed. The bass seems much tighter and did not have a sloppy sound. Also, I did these UNscientific tests running in two channel and then using surround fields with the AVM-20. The receiver of course, is a receiver.

For example, my Sherbourn just went to the shop for repair due to an internal hum. That amp was PASSIVE bi-amped (2 x 200) with the 100's. I popped in the 855A as a replacement and it's difficult to listen to anything above 65 db. The Parasound is also bi-amped (2 x 85). The bass is sloppy, the sound stage seems thin and the mids and highs when it starts to hit the 65 db and above, just sound weak.

I also found that with the 855A, the 100's are fatiguing as heck to listen to when the db's increase. I never had that experience with the Sherbourn.

Also, I find it difficult to listen to SACD with the Parasound where the Sherbourn is pleasure to listen to. Since I put the Parasound in the system, my CD listening is minimal because I could not take it anymore.

Of the above listed amps besides the Sherbourn, the only one that I'd consider usable for long term driving the 100's is the Modial/Aragaon 8002. It's only a 2 channel amp with 125 watts per.

However, even when you are above the 65 DB level, it holds it's own, but it does not have the same reproduction quality as the Sherbourn with the 100's. The Modial does not have that clean, crisp and tight bass as the Sherbourn does at 65 db and above, but it does a nice job and would be acceptable for most. It is an amp that I would keep in my system if I could not afford the Sherbourn.

I understand that these components are not high end amps. Ricky brought up a point on the HTF site in one of his comments that it's not about the power amount, but the quality of power you are putting into the speakers.

I would agree with him and firmly believe this would be a determining factor too. For example, the 855A has more power in theory when bi-amped versus the Modial.

However, the Modial is a much better source of power/output then the 855A when the DB's are raised and it has less power. Is it the type of power, rather then the watts itself? My suspicions tell me that is correct but I think a balance of both is ideal..

I'd truly like to place a high end amp in my rack and connect the 100's with moderate power and see what the difference would be versus something like the Sherbourn, a high powered Parasound or Rotel, which seem to be the amps of choice for most Paradigm owners. There is always the exception of course.

Paradigm/Rotel/Sherbourn/Parasound - mid-hi fi and seems to be a good cost/performance ratio?

From a technical perspective, I can't prove any of my observations. I don't do double blind testing nor do I say take my word for it. I only know that after mixing and matching these particular amps with the 100's, my order of choice from top to bottom would be: Sherbourn 5/1500A (2 x 200 passive bi-amped), Modial/Aragon 8002 (2 channel 125), Parasound 855A (2 x 85 biamped) and the the Sony STR DA777ES (110 per).

So, again, from a technical perspective, I can't contribute. I can only add my real life experience with this combination of amps powering the 100's. Maybe you guys can take something from my experience.

Charles

**Kevin_McC** · 22 February 2003, 16:17 Saturday

Michael,

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

**Ricky** · 22 February 2003, 16:53 Saturday

dsmith,

20X as much power in transients? Ok, so you go from 3-4 watts to 60-80 watts for peaks. Why wouldn't a 100 watt amp be able to handle this?

chas,

Your sherbourn 200x7 should be very good. When comparing it across amp brands to the parasound 885 you are comparing an entry level 5 channel amp to 200 watt monoblocks...could be more a comparison of quality than watts. Within the same amp brand, it possible that the mfg also uses better quality parts and designs for their bigger, more expensive models (and not just increase the output).

You should be glad that you have a 91dB, 8 ohm speaker. That means you can seriously look at 80-120 watt amps from highend companies regarded at least as highly as Aragon.

**Lex** · 23 February 2003, 12:07 Sunday

Nice post Charles. Perhaps what we have here is a fact that a lot of 3 way speakers demand more than 100 watts for peak performance? My Kappa 7.1s did not perform optimally with 100 watts, especially in the bass region. 100 watts just could not drive the speakers 10" woofers with optimal performance. Increasing to 250 watts proceed power was like getting new speakers! Interestingly, 30 watts of tube power, can drive the Kappas fairly effectively though. Very interesting.

Lex

Cable Guy DVD Collection

**brucek** · 23 February 2003, 13:26 Sunday

Paradigm Studio 100s are 91dB sensitivity and 8 ohms; on paper, one of the easiest speakers to drive

I believe the Studio 100's exhibit a 'minimum' impedance of 4 ohms and a 'nominal impedance' of 6 ohms. Some Paradigm speakers are 8 ohms nominal, but I believe most are 6 ohms.

This no doubt raised a lot of confusion and questions from potential customers (read loss of sales), and in that regard some time ago I noticed Paradigm spec'ing all their speakers' impedance as 'compatible with 8 ohms'. Mmm, that was an easy fix.

I use a set of 100's for my surrounds and I find they do indeed require a bit more push to get them to output the same level as my other speakers. My original specification sheet on them says 6 ohms with a sensitivity of 91dB. Not the newer fuzzy spec of 'compatible with 8 ohms', but the more conventional 'nominal' rating..........

Harder to drive? Well, the math would say that for a given output voltage from an amplifier, if you lower the load impedance (frequency sensitive resistance), you will draw more current and increase the input power to the load.

That may indicate that perhaps the 100's do require a slightly better amp to drive them. The question to be asked would then be, "does Paradigm stick to the conventional method of measuring sensitivity which uses 2.83 volts input to the speaker or do they use one watt input?

2.83 volts is one watt of power into an 8 ohm load (2.83 squared, divided by the impedance). That's the standard spec; but 2.83 volts into 6 ohms will produce a result of 1.33 watts. Into 4 ohms it would be twice the power at 2 watts. Since I believe most manufacturers stick to the standard sensitivity measurement of using 2.83 volts and not one watt, it is usually a good idea to subtract dB's from a sensitivity specification if the speaker has a nominal impedance less than 8 ohms (like the 100's). For instance, you would subtract 3 dB from the spec of a 4 ohm speaker to obtain a truer more apples and apples sensitivity comparison to 8 ohm speakers.

This is just what was rolling around in my head. Others may disagree......

brucek

**Ricky** · 27 February 2003, 10:07 Thursday

bruce,

What comparison/experiment helped you conclude that studio 100s are harder to drive than other speakers? What speakers?

And why do you think your studio 100s use more than 100 watts? What does your spl meter show when listening in stereo? continous and peaks.

My NHT 1.5s are 6 ohms and 85dB. Even if Studio 100s are 6 ohms, they are still 91dB and need only 25% as much power as the NHTs. If you think you are using 200 continuous watts, then wouldn't I "need" 800 watts for the same sonics? Right......

**brucek** · 27 February 2003, 11:49 Thursday

What comparison/experiment helped you conclude that studio 100s are harder to drive than other speakers? What speakers?

No experiment, just an unscientific observation.

When I removed my Studio 100's and substituted my ProAc Response 3.8's in their stead, I had to turn my processor output down when I re-calibrated. Since the 8 ohm ProAc's have a published sensitivity of 88dB, it gave me pause, and I concluded the 100's are harder to drive and maybe their sensitivity wasn't as listed. I chalked it up to the 100's being a lower impedance and so the measured spec for the 100's were slightly misleading. This led me to pontificate on the method of measurement for sensitivity and the observation that 1 watt and 2.83 volts aren't interchangeable unless you're using an 8 ohm speaker.... I guess you can draw your own conclusions from my math.

And why do you think your studio 100s use more than 100 watts?

Don't think I said that.... Just raising some discussion on sensitivity measurements.

Even if Studio 100s are 6 ohms, they are still 91dB

Really? Using a 2.83 volt input to this speaker, it dissipates 'more' than 1 watt in the load.... Which is it to produce 91dB, 1 watt or 2.83volts? I certainly don't know. I'm willing to learn. It's not that a 4 ohm speaker is any more or less sensitive than an 8 ohm speaker, it's the method of sensitivity measurement I'm questioning. :?:

brucek

Why do Studio 100s need more than 100 watts?

Why do Studio 100s need more than 100 watts?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Related Topics