Quote:
Originally Posted by
hopkins_student 
Say you have a 120 W/Ch Sony ES receiver and a 5.1 setup with B&W 600 series speakers (very good but far from the B&W top end). How much better off would a person be with a dedicated amplifier in place at the same power output if not even slightly less power output?
Thanks, HS.
Since others brought up buying speakers instead, I'll start there.
It kind of depends on how you listen. If you're listening for the full sweep of an orchestral passage, you might want beefier speakers. If you're listening for the subtle bowing of the Bach cello suites, a better amp.
I have a basic 5-channel system that I watch for movies, but my serious listening is on a 2-channel system, so I really don't have a ton of advice on 5-channel amps. I'd try to find an Arcam to listen to as I really like that brand.
As to your particular question about wattage: strangely enough, a watt on, say, a Pioneer receiver is not (in real world use) the same as a watt on, say, a Cary Rocket 88. On an engineering sheet yes, with music, no. Has to do with heat sinks, ability to drive speakers as the load varies, lots of other stuff.
If you're concerned about going from, like, a 150 wpc Sony to a 120 wpc amp, don't worry, as there is sonically no difference that we could tell (this is because each 3 decibel increase in sound requires a doubling of amp power, therefore a 30 wpc difference between those two amp would be meaningless on real music).
As to wattage, keep in mind that your neighbors start complaining at about 1 or 2 watts (87-93 decibels with average speakers).
All of this is a summary that engineers will pick apart, but basically true.
Generically, on a 2-channel system, I'd upgrade the source, then the amp/preamp, and only last the speakers. Most people would do the opposite.
