harman kardon

[glemay]

I have a pair of rti70 and a psw 202. Would the hk 3375 with 75 watts a channel be enough or should I up to the hk 3475 with 110 watts a channel?

[wlrandall]

I'd go with the 3475 personally. When I origianally purchased my 800s, which are "last year's model" to the 70s, I was driving them with an AVR25 MKII. Not until I bought an AVR7000, which outputs 110W/ch in stereo, did I realize the potential of these speakers. Took it a step higher down the road and biamped with a PA2000. They sound really good with moderate power, adding more only "opens them up".

[Ceruleance]

buy refurbished and you can get the 3475 for less than a new 3375

http://www.harmanaudio.com/search_browse/product_detail.asp?urlMaterialNumber=HK%203475-Z

[RuSsMaN]

So exactly what IS the difference in 75 and 110 wpc? Anyone? Bueller?


More or less db than you have fingers?

Cheers,
Rooster

[dthomps]

The increase in wattage will only give you a .68 decibal boost, right?
I think you need to double the wattage in order to gain 3db.
Is that correct?

[Ceruleance]

Regardless of wattage, the 3475 likely has higher current power supplies in reserve.

I doubt he'll ever push 110 watts, but at 70 watts I will be the 3475 with higher current and more headroom will sound better than the more taxed 3375.

Sure, you can disagree with me, but in the end you are fighting a losing battle, as its real tough to convince me or anyone that in the same manufacturer's line, a higher rated power and higher price don't equal a noticable performance gain.

[RuSsMaN]

Originally posted by Ceruleance
Sure, you can disagree with me, but in the end you are fighting a losing battle, as its real tough to convince me or anyone that in the same manufacturer's line, a higher rated power and higher price don't equal a noticable performance gain.

Likely?

I guess there isn't really anything to discuss then, esp if the manufacturers specs and *price* is that great an influence on you. Forgive me if I read that wrong as a general statement, but if *they* say it's better (wattage specs), and *they* charge more for it ($$), it MUST be true?

I'm not trying to disagree just to disagree, simply trying to lay the facts down.

Actually, the 3375 has 42amps headroom, and the 3475 45amps. How big is that difference exactly?

As far as power consumption, they both idle at 72 watts, and max output on both is 332 watts (2ch). Sounds like, outside of bells and whistles, the 3475 has slightly larger capacitors, and that's about it.

Cheers,
Rooster

[Ceruleance]

the day when a well reputed company can get away with producing products with the exact same performance but for different prices is the day when you can lecture me on the problems with using price relationships to rank products within a manufacturer. Please include all examples of the above anomoly, within the last 50 years.

audio has become somewhat of a boutique industry, but the cost to make a good still governs for the most part the price of that good. The important thing here is that this is within a manufacturer. The way overpriced bose system still sounds better than the overpriced bose system, regardless of the absolute merit of these products.

[RuSsMaN]

Read above, edited for content, check out the *facts*. You are killing me here, what was my initial post on the subject?

Links to procducts here:

3375:

http://www.harmankardon.com/specifications.asp?cat=REC&ser=&prod=HK%203375&sType=C

3475:

http://www.harmankardon.com/specifications.asp?cat=REC&ser=&prod=HK%203475&sType=C

I feel my input here is going nowhere, so this will be my last post on the topic, both rec's seem dandy.

Cheers,
Rooster

[Ceruleance]

Alright Glemay,
Here is the "right" answer. Go listen to both of them and see which you like more. If you buy from a brick and mortar store, why dont you check out a 3375 and take it home, and if its not enough power go return it and try the 3475.

Although, there are no guarantees that you will be able to tell the difference between the two. I mean, besides being different products, with different rated outputs in several aspects, they could very well be the exact same receiver. </sarcasm>

I love you Russ. :D

[faster100]

Originally posted by Ceruleance
</sarcasm>

I love you Russ. :D

We "ALL" love Russ, But in a different way ;)

[Tour2ma]

dt,
You're correct... double the power every 3 db increase.

Cer,
Hell the auto industry does it all the time, e.g. Toyota vs. Lexus... why shouldn't audio?

Many times by accident a "lesser" model; will outperform its bigger, more expensive brother. The Denon DCD-1500 was a prime example. It's performance beat out the half-again more costly DCD-1800 by a good margin when both were simultaneously released many moons ago. And the 1800 was discontinued post haste.

At thread start I would have automatically chosen the 110 W model 3475 as well. But after reading the specs behind the specs, the choice is not as obvious. Care to go deeper?

Only three specs differ in the entire list:
- Continuous average power rating (75 vs 110 W)
- HCC (+/- 3 or 6 total amperes difference)
- Weight (24.6 # vs. 26.8# - likely means a bigger transformer yielding the higher continuous power rating, but the max power draws are the same???).

Either the 75 or the 110 is overkill on a continuous basis. These are into 8 ohm so the continuous current ratings are 3.06 and 3.71 per ch respectively. Both have the identical peak power consumption, but not quite the same output (see HCC above). Russ the HCC includes the continuous output and peak capability for both channels, so I would not say they have 42 and 45 amps “headroom”. They do not spec the load for the HCC discharges, but they must be fractional for the power output numbers to make any sense at all. Anyway I estimate that the 3475 should have about 0.4 db more peak output vs. the 3375… not significant.

Issue I have is while the 3475 has more peak output, likely due to bigger caps as mentioned (but are they blue?), but given the identical maximum power draw, it obviously cannot recharge/ recover any faster than the 3375.

I dunno… as you say, go listen to them I guess. I'd have to do some serious auditioning to choose between them and I doubt I’d be able to tell the difference.

[Ceruleance]

Originally posted by Tour2ma
And the 1800 was discontinued post haste.


That's exactly my point


Originally posted by Tour2ma
Issue I have is while the 3475 has more peak output, likely due to bigger caps as mentioned (but are they blue?)


Who cares what color they are! What really matters is if they are badass or not ;)

I love how glemay hasnt posted again yet

[burdette]

Geez... like a bunch of bickering old women.

The retail price difference is $100. You can bet actual cost difference will be less.

For the increased money, you get a little more power and you get a *learning remote*, rather than just a system remote.

Don't underestimate the emotional power of product characteristics. There are guys out there who would never consider a receiver with less than 100 watts, they just wouldn't, so HK makes one for them.. and JUST IN CASE Joe Public needs a little more justification for more expense, he gets a learning remote to boot. You know as well as I do that some guys **need** certain things.. like being able to say they have over 100 watts...

There are also guys out there who want a higher-end receiver (i.e. HK), but are perfectly happy with a 'measly' 75 watts and a plain old remote. They are pushing their budget just to get an HK, and the bottom unit in the line is just fine.

FYI... going from 75 to 110 watts per channel gets you about a 1.66 dB increase in SPL. Most people cannot discern a difference in volume of less than 3dB.

HK is putting out two receivers that are, for all practical purposes, identical. The higher power one does NOT have double the power, which means power differences are negligible. I firmly believe HK's only purpose is to snag the guys who just have to have over 100 watts.

[Tour2ma]

Originally posted by burdette
Geez... like a bunch of bickering old women. Watch that "old women" stuff or we'll smack you with our bustles... :D

[glemay]

by what i've read so far I will probably go with the hk 3375.

thanks for the input

[Ceruleance]

Am I mistaken or is 3 db at least double the volume? are you saying most people cant tell whats louder unless you make it twice as loud?

[glemay]

ceruleance,

i think what they meant is that the human ear cannot notice a diffrence in volume unless it is 3db louder, and to obtain 3db louder you need to double the power. so if u have a 50 watts amp you will not notice a diffrence unless the other amp is somewhere near 100 watts.

Not sure but that is what i think they mean.

[glemay]

anybody know how many db the hk3375 will play with a pair of rti70's? what about the hk 3475?

[RuSsMaN]

10db = doubling of volume

[Tour2ma]

I was thinking 3 db, Russ.

http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Decibel.html


The result of this logarithmic basis for the scale is that increasing a sound intensity by a factor of 10 raises its level by 10 dB; increasing it by a factor of 100 raises its level by 20 dB; by 1,000, 30 dB and so on. When two sound sources of equal intensity or power are measured together, their combined intensity level is 3 dB higher than the level of either separately. Thus, two 70 dB cars together measure 73 dB under ideal conditions. However, note that when the AMPLITUDE of a single sound is doubled, its level rises 6 dB.

[Ceruleance]

glemay, I know what he was saying, I was interpretting it, not restating it.

On your question about the volume, it depends on many factors. anyone whose taken physics 101 should be able to use the wattage and efficiency ratings and give you the anechoic SPL, but this neglects room factors. Im sure you know, the larger your room, the more power you need to reach the same SPL.

Tour thanks for taking the time to look it up and cite your source

[RuSsMaN]

I've heard a lot of people say 10, and a lot of people say 6, which is it? I guess the key word is 'perceived' doubling.

Double the (unclipped) amp power to increase 3db, a perceived doubling of spl is 10db.

Interesting note on the 'combining' of 2 equal components.

[Tour2ma]

Cer,
I think I can hear 1 db changes and am sure I can hear 2 db… of course that is with my own hand on the volume knob, which makes it less than scientific proof… even if I close my eyes.

Russ,
I think it’s 3 db. As the quote says, “two sources of equal intensity”, i.e., SPL, 3 db is the bump you get. But agree that the amplitude doubling does muddy it up a bit. I think it’s owed to the +/- nature of amplitude???

glemay,
Since I’ve been having some fun in your threads and you’ve been a sport about it, let me see if I can pay my dues by being useful here, and answer your max output question. I’ll to try to state all my assumptions, etc. in case I have some part wrong along the way that someone can point out.

Here are the pertinent spec’s for your RTI70’s:
Electrical
Nominal Impedance 8 ohms
Recommended Amplifier Power 20-250 w/channel
Efficiency 90 dB
So at 1m distance 1w of power carrying a 1000 Hz signal will produce 90db. I will assume anechoic room for now, but mention potential impacts later.

SPL diminishes exponentially with increasing distance. I’ll assume your listening position is 4 meters (~13 feet) away so your spl should be ½ to the 4th power or 1/16th of this level. Takes us down to 78 db at your listening position. But you have two 70’s so add 3db back for a 1 w spl of 81 db, which is comfortably loud for a continuous listening level. This will be our baseline. From here we know that for every doubling of the power yields a 3-db increase in spl is yielded.

First, let’s deal with the continuous ratings. For the 3375’s 75 wpc, which is 2 to the 6.23 power (also expressed as 2**6.23), the db rise will therefore be 3 x 6.23 = 18.69. In round numbers it will push your 70’s to 99.7 db continuous. Similarly the 3475 at 110 wpc (2 to the 6.76 power) should push out an added 3 x 6.78 = 20.34 db or 101.3 db. BOTH ARE VERY LOUD LEVELS that you will likely never listen to on a continuous basis, which is a good thing for both your ears and your speakers, as clipping will likely occur during louder passages.

As I said in an earlier post I am having a bit of trouble applying the HCC ratings of the amps in calculating the amps’ “headroom”. They cannot be quoting them into an 8-ohm load or the power output is on the order of (21)**2 x 8 = ~3500 wpc… a ridiculous number… Maybe it applies to a nanosecond of output, but it’s not a useful spec as far as I can see.

Due to the above, and the fact that my brain is now tired from doing logarithms, I’d assume that they have the nominal headroom of around 1.5 db, a fairly typical “mid-Fi” number, and say 101 db for the 3375 and 102 db for the 3475. Not enough to prevent clipping at full continuous output as I mentioned above. But when you back off to the more “reasonable” level of 93 db, you now have on the order of 8 and 9 db headroom respectively. This is more than adequate for rock and most types of music. Classical may be the lone exception.

Do note that at the 70’s spec’d power max (a continuous rating) they’d pump out 105 db to your ears. But, as I said, this is continuous and they can likely handle transients on the order of double their continuous rating. So their absolute maximum is likely around 108 db.

I said I’d at least mention non-anechoic, echoic (?), impacts. For certain frequencies it is likely that you will experience both boosts and drops at your listening position. These will range from a fraction of a db to 3, and even some to 6 db. Room reflections occur and the degree to which they reach your ears in or out of phase with the direct sound from your 70’s will either cancel or reinforce that direct signal. This is a characteristic of your room and your speakers’ position in that room. This effect can be pleasing or aggravating or both. We all have to deal with this phenomenon to some degree.

Last thought, for now… Consider the 3375 and put the $ saved towards a nice sub-woofer. If you let a sub handle the < 80 Hz material, where a lot of the power demands reside, I doubt you’ll ever use all the 3375 can put into its share of the signal.

[Ceruleance]

Ahh tour, so helpful. I can't believe you did all those logs, I never do them, even when they are assigned for homework. Glemay: I will sometimes listen at 91-93 db for an entire album or set, but never much louder than that for more than a song or two. Oh, and consider my listening habits slightly masochistic. (although i am sure there are others here whose listening habits are equal or worse than mine)

So anyways, I agree with the 3375, make sure you get it refurbished straight from harmanaudio.com, if you are into saving money and all. I don't know your listening habits or your room size, so I can't say for sure, but I know the 3375 would probably not be enough power for me. But, I dont think upgrading to the 3475 is your answer, if you dont like the 3375. Check out the 3375 and if you really need more power, you need to look into seperates, because there are really no integrateds that have that much more power the h/k line for reasonable prices.

so in conclusion, check out a 3375, and if you dont like it, come back for more advice

[Ceruleance]

by the way, do you have a wife or kids or family or neighbors or anything? All these will severely impede the volume of your system, much more than the power of your receiver will... Sigh, nobody else understands.. I need thicker walls. Much thicker walls..

[RuSsMaN]

Tour, I think it's 10 db. Putting 2 identical amps on top of each other is not the same as doubling the power inside an amp.

http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/voltageloudness.html

http://www.audio-logic.com/html/power.html

http://www.audiovideo101.com/dictionary/dictionary.asp?dictionaryid=476

Cheers,
Russ

[Tour2ma]

Geez, Russ, I didn't mean for you to stay up all nite worrying about this...

[RuSsMaN]

Actually, I have no idea why it says "10 whatever pm", that last post was genuine night shift, 3:30 am if I recall correctly.

Woke up, took a leak, checked the forum, back to bed.

[Tour2ma]

File that under "a little more than needed to know"...

For your time stamp, we all had to go to GMT -6 or something to get it right after Justin did his last upgrade.

Started to read through your links and suddenly realized how tired I was. Will take another crack at it this evening... maybe with a wee nip of a single malt...

[Tour2ma]

Ok, back at this... no single malt yet, but the night is young...

Here's where I am so far:

By definition 3 dB is double the SPL, therefore it is double the "volume". I am still cranking on a exercise with the equation, SPL = 10 log (i/ i*) where i* is a reference sound intensity, to prove this.

Try as I might I cannot get my ears around the concept of "sounds twice as loud" put forth in the links. I can't envision me having the ability to answer the question, "OK, tell me when this sounds twice as loud" as I just don't have that kind of calibration chart in my bean.

To me it's kind of like, "OK, tell me when this odor is twice a strong" or "... when this tea is twice as sweet". I can say it's stronger or sweeter, but to quantify it... nah...

Anyway will be pouring soon... may be able to tell when I am twice as "bagged"... :D

[RuSsMaN]

Tour,

Where is 3db defined as 'double the spl, volume, double anything?'

The only 'double' with 3db associated to it, is it takes DOUBLE the power to increase by 3db.

10 db is a perceived doubling of spl, period.

Burdette? Anyone? Am I THAT high?

Cheers,
Rooster

[George Grand]

Freakin' kids.

We, as humans, PERCEIVE a 3db increase in SPL as "twice as loud". That is (or was) the big deal about efficiency ratings. If realistic rock was your bag, an 84 required a lot more amp than an 87.

Now, the 10x part comes in here. Because us, and SPL are EXPONENTIAL, it takes 10 times the amplifier to actually MAKE something twice as loud.

Don't bother me about this anymore.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grand's)

[Tour2ma]

Geez George, it's getting so a day with you is like a day without sunshine... :rolleyes:
I have not a clue as to what you mean by the “us” half of your “us, and SPL are EXPONENTIAL” statement.
The only reason that the SPL, or any other log scale, is created is to yield figures that are easier to manage, e.g., 0.0 to 120.0 dB audible range rather than 0.0 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000.0 dynes/ cm2 (or watts/ m2). Count the zeroes if you like, there are 120 of them… Even 1.0 x 10**102 is cumbersome compared to the log scale.


Originally posted by RuSsMaN
Tour,
Where is 3db defined as 'double the spl, volume, double anything?'
... Am I THAT high? The Magic 8-Ball says, “Decidedly Yes.”

I had the equation wrong that I posted earlier. Corrected the earlier post and now repeat it here in another quote from the link I listed earlier. The subscripts are messed up in copying them over to the post, but should give the idea.

A unit of a logarithmic scale of power or intensity called the power level or intensity level. The decibel is defined as one tenth of a bel where one bel represents a difference in level between two intensities I1, I0 where one is ten times greater than the other. Thus, the intensity level is the comparison of one intensity to another and may be expressed:
Intensity level = 10 log (I1 /I0) (dB)

So to get the dB result of a doubling of sound intensity, i.e., volume, all we have to do is state that I1 is twice the intensity of I0, or I1 = 2 x I0. Then we can substitute 2 I0 for I1 in the equation yielding:
Intensity Level = 10 log (2 I0/ I0) = 10 log (2) = 10 x 0.301030 =~ 10 x 0.3 = 3.0 dB
And there’s the numerical answer you seek…

BTW, if you strip away part of the earlier link’s URL, you get to the index page, here:
http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/
Awesome looking little reference there, complete with audio to demo certain points.
For example, here’s a link to a 6 db declining scale event followed by same with 3dB steps: http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Sound/Decibel_Ramp.aiff

After listening to the 3 dB, would I say that each succeeding beep is half as loud as the prior one? No. Would a say for the 6 dB tones each is 1/4th as loud as the one before it? No. But in neither case, is it because I can’t hear the decline, it’s that ears aren’t calibrated that way. At least mine aren’t…

[Dr. Spec]

Hi tour:

Tons of good work here.

1) A 3 dB increase is exactly double the sound pressure. The dB scale is log base 10, and it is fairly straight forward math to prove that, as you just did below.

2) The crux of the matter at this point is how does the human ear perceive increases in sound pressure. And while that may at first sound subjective, it can indeed become objective if enough statistical population data sampling is conducted.

This is exactly what Fletcher and Munson did in their landmark 1933 (and STILL 100% valid) study. This study eventually led to the development of standardized ISO Equal Loudness Countours which are still used today.

You will note after studying this chart, that a 10 dB increase in sound pressure level is perceived as being twice as loud, with loudness being measured in units of "sones".

This general rule holds true at most frequencies above 250 Hz at normal volumes. As shown in the chart, the human ear is less sensitive to volume increases in bass frequencies, especially at low volumes. Hence the development and popular use of the "loudness" switch on hi-fi gear in the 70's and 80's.

Hope this helps. Read all about it here:

http://ceae.colorado.edu/~muehleis/classes/aren4020/handouts/lecture7/loudness.pdf

Doc

[Tour2ma]

Thanks Doc, another nice link for the reference library. Now I even know what A and C weighting mean.

Let me see if I can summarize the preceding technical discussions:
- I got the sound energy part right, it doubles every 3 dB.
- Russ got the "what we perceive as double" part right, 10 dB.
- When George said our hearing is “calibrated” logarithmically, he was correct given the 10 dB doubling.

Should about cover it.

I'd like a read of the Fletcher and Munson work. Anyone have a link?