Compairing Hi-Fi speakers to PC speakers

Soldato
Joined
6 May 2009
Posts
20,428
I used to own some Megaworks 550 speakers. These were rated at "500 Watt (Total) 75 Watt RMS (per satellite) 150 Watt RMS (Subwoofer)" I sold them on and moved to a Cambridge A1 and Mission M71. The M71 are rated "25 to 75 watts / channel amplifier" with the A1 rated at 30 wpc.

Why did they seem to be about 10 times louder than the megaworks? I could run the megaworks on 100% volume and they wernt that loud.

I now run a NAD C352 (80 wpc) and B&W 603 (120wpc) on 7 notches out of 21 they are stupidly loud.

Something doesnt stack up with the ratings between PC speakers and Hi-Fi gear. Surely if it was a 150watt sub and 5 * 75 watts RMS satellites the amp would need to be huge, about 20 kg and require huge heatsinks/vents/fans to keep it running. It used to run warm on the back but not hot. All the electronics were also packed into the sub :confused:
 
The NAD is rated at a minimum W per channel at a very low THD. Whereas the Megaworks will be rated at a RMS at a stupidly high THD <1%?

The true RMS will be much lower on the PC speakers.
 
Makes sense. However if that is the case there is no point in rating (PC) speakers because its all just advertising rubbish to sell things. That or Hi-Fi gear be rated at 6000 watts RMS with a higher THD

There should be a standard that should be legally abided to for all speakers, regardless of all other factors. Similar for car audio, its laughable that car products are rated "1000 watts rms" the amp would need to be as big as the car!
 
Get the same with tvs and their imaginable contrast ratios of millions to 1, 100/200.eleventy hz rocessing and especially samsung and others making out their new thin LCD sets are actually LED tvs, when they clearly arn't.

Not something to get too worried about as we know better and can help others out. Although sometimes you feel like banging your head into a wall!
 
Was in 'the purple pc store' the other day and an old guy was buying some pc speakers for his son. The worker said, "these are 300 watts rms, so are really loud" I looked at them and felt like saying something as there was no way they could be 300watts rms. Was a 2.1 set, each satellite speaker was about 2" with a small sub

Sure he meant pmpo, or he was just lieing
 
bigger numbers = better, innit.

For all intensive porpoises, whoops, intents and purposes the numbers mean nothing.

A small 5 W amplifier is can be just as 'loud' as a 500W amplifier if paired with sensitive enough speakers that can shift enough air. You can't just take a figure and say this number is bigger so it must be better/louder. You have to consider the system as a whole. Also, different 'setups' will provide different things, is it just loudness/volume you want, or do you want a quality sound.

The wattage numbers on the speakers are 'like' the wattage on PC PSUs in that it's a rated maximum, and also you amp won't actually be outputting it's maximum wattage unless you have it up very loud and play a large signal through it. Some amps can handle that constantly, and some are only geared up for transients, some can't do that and will distort when a transient hits and it's 9 time from 10 that, which damages speakers and amps .
 
Also, different 'setups' will provide different things, is it just loudness/volume you want, or do you want a quality sound.

From my current setup I seem to have both (well on value for money wise anyway) I just wanted to know how some speaker setups can be rated at 500watt and sound crap next to something rated at 30
 
I used to own some Megaworks 550 speakers. These were rated at "500 Watt (Total) 75 Watt RMS (per satellite) 150 Watt RMS (Subwoofer)" I sold them on and moved to a Cambridge A1 and Mission M71. The M71 are rated "25 to 75 watts / channel amplifier" with the A1 rated at 30 wpc.

Why did they seem to be about 10 times louder than the megaworks? I could run the megaworks on 100% volume and they wernt that loud.
Hi, just because a speaker uses more watts does not mean it generates more SPL.

I suggest you read up about speaker sensitivity/efficiency.

A horn is a nice way of getting a lot of sound with a few watts... Or an obscene amount with more watts, which is why the PA guys use them. :)
 
Why are horn speakers not used generally for home audio? Is the quality reduced on them compaired to other speaker types?

I'm sure Amnesia nightclub uses horn speakers. They sound amazing, but probably also come with an amazing price tag
 
Why are horn speakers not used generally for home audio? Is the quality reduced on them compaired to other speaker types?

I'm sure Amnesia nightclub uses horn speakers. They sound amazing, but probably also come with an amazing price tag
Nail, head, nearly! ;)

To mass produce a box with a hole or two in it is cheap and fast.

To make a folded horn is complex, and many parts of the assembly process are often not automated, so they cost a lot normally, take a look a Funktion 1 pricelist if you're sitting down... :eek:

They are also big, they can often exceed the size of a washing machine, so are not very practical... You can build them yourself tho, if you don't mind cutting and gluing a few bits of ply, which is what I quite like doing when it's not raining.

I guess you could say it's overkill for home listening, a bit like a V8 lawnmower, but some people still use them, as higher efficiency speakers can often have less distortion if the design is good.

You're best off setting hi-fi speakers really, a nice step up from computer speakers, and still small and affordable - horns are high efficiency but they have drawbacks. :)
 
Last edited:
Mike, where do you do your research for building speaker cabs and horns? I'd like to have a go at some point.
www.speakerplans.com is a pretty good resource.
Yep speakerplans is a good site, check out the forum too, lots more free designs on there.

Many of the designs are geared towards PA however, so 40Hz is is a common goal with many of the designs, but there are a few with offer extension down to 30 and even 20Hz tho.

DIYaudio is awesome too, they've recently upgraded their forum code which makes it a lot easier and faster to search.

My first horn I built was an Autotuba, a horn designed to (just about) be small enough to fit into a car. I had to pay for the plans, but as it was my first try, I wanted the odds in my favour. Look here for more info:

http://www.billfitzmaurice.com/

After building and hearing a horn, I then wanted more, so I built a tapped horn which is the latest development in horn design from Tom Danley. Horns have a distinct sound, they seem to have a lot of dynamic range which you don't get from other speakers...

Hornresp is a great tool, once you learn how to use it. I can be a little tricky at first, but once I got my head round it, I managed to build a bass horn that was pretty flat down to 30Hz, and was close to 100db/w... The driver is rated for 600 RMS, but I find that even with 200W the sound of things rattling around the house is too much, but as it's around 120Db I'm not really suprised.

It's not all about SPL tho, some people over at DIYaudio have found that because the cone moves less in a horn enclosure, there is less distortion, up to a certain point. I think a poster called 'Patrick Bateman' was doing some experiment with various driver configurations, and you don't just have to build bass horns either... I've built the MT121 from the speakerplans site which is designed to cover 150Hz+, but this was a pretty complex design due to the amount of angles involved.

If I were you, I'd start out with a plan for a certain driver and box, and if you like the sound of that then you can go on to designing your own horns with HornResp.

Finally, it's best not to spend too much time researching and simming designs, whenever you get some decent weather and free time, be sure to try and make some sawdust as real world and simulation often differ! :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom