How Loud is 1 Watt?

[fas42]

51 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Perhaps too heavy handed , eh ? 😋

 

You may recall, Alex, that the quality of connections is paramount, IMO 😉  - considering the importance of that link, the bare finger tightness of the screws was not good enough ... I played with trying to optimise the metal to metal contact, but I was never happy with it - the long term solution was to completely redo the smoothing cap setup

 

Quote

Your often posted choice of music also suggests that you frequently exceed these levels, with the associated high risk of hearing damage.

 

Wrong impression ... I never play music for loudness, no matter what it is; it's always for hearing the subtleties, and interplay of the textures of the instruments - as a good guide, consider what a live piano sounds like, a few feet away; and have someone do a crashing chord - something that every pianist regularly does - no more than that type of SPLs.

 

Quote

BTW, you have told the same story several times before over the years .😜

 

Just like to emphasise that what gets tweaked is totally dependent on the worst, most obvious weaknesses - so, case 1: below par power supply design; case 2, the NAD combo: far too many junky switches and pots; case 3, current Edifiers: too sensitive to mains power noise.

[Confused]

On 12/5/2020 at 11:50 PM, fas42 said:

The benefit is that the PS is way within its comfort zone, to be able to deliver the energy needed for normal listening levels - an analogy is a high performance car, driven around on normal streets, roads, and speeds: absolutely nothing would faze it; because it's operating way below its theoretical capabilities - in audio, this is what gives one the "effortless listening" experience ...

 

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

The reality is that a 500cc engine is good enough ... in audio, 😉. Do the maths, as Peter would say - getting 105 dB in the room is not hard, from the measurement POV

 

Thank you, your analogy is much clearer now.

[phusis]

Seems to be a lot of dodging the importance of dynamic headroom here, coming down to how this and that decibel level will obliterate one's ears. Protecting our ears is indeed paramount in these affairs, but there's a substantial difference between blasting away with 105-110dB's of your typical compressed music material (which is damn loud, I'd say, though perceived less so when reproduced cleanly), and a dynamically uninhibited recording with 105-110dB peaks (with much lower average SPL's). Now read that again and mark the distinction. 

 

What it truly comes down to here is having these dynamic peaks rendered effortlessly and cleanly, and that requires headroom - loads of headroom not least in the bass where hearing acuity and sensitivity diminishes radically the deeper we go. That is to say (redundant it may appear to some): by headroom is meant that our amps and speakers run wholly cool and "suave" at the desired max SPL we want them to; not that they're just capable of doing that where distortion and the laws of thermodynamics would come into audible play. 

 

They're only so many ways achieving large amounts of headroom, and that involves a combination of surplus of displacement area, sensitivity, and power delivery + handling. Power requirements (and handling ability) may be limited with very efficient speakers, but down into the lower midrange and bass there's no way around added power requirements and large(r) displacement area, period - not if what we're after is realism, anyway. 

[Confused]

A brief interlude for some humour:

 

[Confused]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

Do the maths, as Peter would say - getting 105 dB in the room is not hard, from the measurement POV

 

Mathematics is good, so lets look at some numbers that we can use in known formulas.  I would like to refer back to the Harbeth video, which is in post five on the first page of this thread.  What is clear from this video is that the CH Precision amps were routinely showing 400 to 750w peaks.  (RMS would be about half of this, I presume)  So how loud do we think the Harbeth's were playing in that room?  There are some clues, from 5min 50 seconds to 7 minutes in the clip you can clearly hear the voices of the attendees in the room over the music.  Furthermore, in the same time frame you can see three people approaching to within a foot of the speakers.  I think this gives us a good idea.

 

My estimation, based on the above, is that the music was running at about 88dB, with maybe peaks to no more than 95dB.  For comparison, I tried running my own system with the same track used in the video.  (Pansonic Laptev Sea)  With a dB meter running an average of 90dB, with some higher peaks to maybe 97dB max, this was about as loud as I would want to go, pushing higher to get peaks over 100dB was not comfortable due to shear volume, it still sounded clear, it is just the SPL's that were unpleasant, and I certainly would not want to stand within a foot of the speakers "having a chat" at this volume.  I am as certain as I can be that the SPL's in the video are lower than when I was listening with 90dB average, to with 95dB peaks, 97dB max.

 

We also know the sensitivity and impedance curve for the Harbeth's, see link below for data.  (84.5dB / 2.83V/m)

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/harbeth-m401-loudspeaker-measurements

 

So to do the math, we need to agree on the numbers.  I would be interested in the consensus view of anyone posting in this thread, what do we collectively think the SPL's in the room were during this clip?  Maybe others do not agree with my estimation above, if so I would be very interested in what others estimate.  In addition, I would estimate that size of the room indicates a listening distance of about 4 meters / 12 to 14 feet maybe?  (mindful that SPL drops with distance)

 

Are we agreed on these numbers?  If so, we can "do the math".

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, phusis said:

but down into the lower midrange and bass there's no way around added power requirements and large(r) displacement area, period

 

1 hour ago, phusis said:

Power requirements (and handling ability) may be limited with very efficient speakers

 

No difference in the low-end that I can see / notice / measure / (stomach) feel.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, phusis said:

but there's a substantial difference between blasting away with 105-110dB's of your typical compressed music material (which is damn loud, I'd say, though perceived less so when reproduced cleanly), and a dynamically uninhibited recording with 105-110dB peaks (with much lower average SPL's). Now read that again and mark the distinction.

 

Good post, if I may say so. It makes me think of an other phenomenon, not discussed that I can see:

 

First off, what you are saying there relates to the average SPL overly compressed music exhibits much (much !) higher than more normally compressed music (a bit of compression is mandatory in the digital environment). This means that the SPL indeed is higher, since SPL is always an average over time. Thus, this already tells us it is not about the peaks really.

 

From the above follows that any amplifier would have much (much) more trouble to sustain that average SPL. I mean, the average level is much (much) higher, and this now is exactly my little subject again (see my last posts).

But wait, because outside of my posts, the subject changed somewhat to what we (humans) can bear ...

 

And now the thing: For us humans the same would apply; we can stand a peak of say 110dBSPL all right but we would not be able to stand a continuous 110dbSPL. Aha ...

 

From the latter follows that the better the reproduction, the less smear occurs (it is *always* about that when we talk accuracy), which also implies more difference between peaks and valley's (same as more dynamic range).

 

I could also bring to attention my ever (and ever) "good measure" of sound: no standing waves in the room (and not by room treatment by by means of better quality);

When we transfer this to "less room loading" you see the same thing happening. Because there's no sustained (illegal) sound pressure, the room gets the chance to unload and make room for the next (50Hz etc.) wave cycle.

 

Trust me; I work with this for over 10 years now as a sheer measure. But what's new to me today is that our ears and brain too need "unloading". And this should be the reason why I play at a level of 90dBSPL the family in the room reading a book etc., for 3-4 hours in a row each day, the whole year long. And this too is a sheer measure: when people start to close their ears or start to )fake) wear headphones, I know I am doing something wrong opposed to yesterday. Usually I feel that coming myself (unhappy about today's sound).

In this realm don't underestimate what I am going through at testing new configurations of ^2 or ^3 cables or whatever next year's novelty will be.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

I would be interested in the consensus view of anyone posting in this thread, what do we collectively think the SPL's in the room were during this clip?

 

All right. I am reporting live at listening to the video from post  #5.

 

After 3 seconds I notice this : A very (much too) hollow sound/space.

 

The fact that this is Dutch, already makes me shiver (sorry guys).

 

Garmt (the one with the glasses) only estimates the peak power the amps can deliver. Estimating does not help anyone here.

 

The question about the power meters is answered with "a. over a period of time" and b. "It shows it instantly".

Yeah, sure. The interviewer digs it.

 

The question on the 7W ampflifier is answered regardless the efficiency of the speaker (with the nasty given that this could be about the Harbeth speakers only ... but this is not (the context) how we observe the video).

 

Luckily he doesn't play Yello. But I am already confident that this (sh*tty) electronic music sounds completely different in my system, as the guy(s) don'r recognize the difference between distortion and what can be rendered. I will report later about *that* as I first have to find the music in the first place (hopefully he will tell what it is).

 

Garmt (et al ?) clearly thinks that if those lows are rendered without distortion, the remainder works "as well" (this can be explained two-folded, both in a negative).

 

The amount of excursion of the woofers (this is what you hear them talk about at 6:05) shows a very low SPL to me (the driver looks to be a 15"). Mind you, this is not a virtue, this is math (but includes damping capabilities of the system). Thus, no visible excursion tells me maybe 70dBSPL and it indeed includes you hear them talking at a not exaggerated level at all.

Then the guy with the blue shirt feels the diver at its edge (the suspension in my poor English). It does not work like that ...

 

 

OK, caught that one. :-)

 

After playing the track, the interviewer starts to draw various conclusions on things like "it is clear that the more power you are giving the better it sounds". ... As if there has been an other test with a lesser amplifier.

I start to sense a commercial here.

 

The sonata sounds terrible to me. So notice that the solo instrument there will be the most difficult to render, which is related to speed (you can call that damping as well).

 

OK, done.

Tbh, it took me 22 minutes to cover this 12 minute video, so I hope it was with sufficient attention.

 

Main conclusion : I reckon we listened to 70-dBSPL or so. Maybe 2 more.

Another conclusion : The video is awkward to the sense of that they show Watts, but not SPL. Same as with the OP video (which I did not watch in full).

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

So, fasten your seat belts.

 

The one at the top (see below) is where the music starts in that video.

The one at the bottom is a direct YouTube. Notice that obviously both are YouTubes (don't ask me about the bitrate). Let's regard the inherent quality of YouTube equal in this case (undoubtedly @sandyk is going to tell us.

 

A few remarks in advance:

- I have the album at hand so I will play it tonight through my main system.

- My beloved music *is* this kind of music, but with more (up/down)beat and more intelligence.

- I think I know when electronically based muslc sounds completely wrong (which I kind of announced in my previous post).

- Now see what happens here, and *know* that without the experience you can be told anything. OK ?

 

So my subjective judgment after listening to no more then when the higher pitched sounds start of the direct YouTube (but knowing what to expect):

 

1. The lows seem to render better BUT watch my remark on the hollow space (!! previous post).

2. Listen to the highs at the very start of the track. The "Garmt" one is one pile of distortion (but did you know that when you listened to that *wihout* listening to the direct YouTube version ?!?

3. The higher pitched sounds a but more into the track are 100% exactly what I expect from them, in the direct YouTube.

 

Ad 3. No (electronically generated) sound sounds "as is"; it always requires a source, so to speak. Listen to the direct YouTube and observe the envelope and frequency within the sound of a synthesizer. Compare the both now, and you will easily determine that the Habeth posted one is distortion only.

(and I know, this is recorded through a microphone, but hey, I wasn't the one posting this as a commercial ...)

 

What were we at ?

Ah, right. How 1W would ... etc. Well, that 1000W whatever isn't going to cut it. Or the speakers won't. Or the amplifier itself will not. Or the source. Or ...

Frank's response we can predict:
   See ?

But that's fine.

 

 

 

 

 

[Confused]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

All right. I am reporting live at listening to the video from post  #5.

 

After 3 seconds I notice this : A very (much too) hollow sound/space.

 

The fact that this is Dutch, already makes me shiver (sorry guys).

 

Garmt (the one with the glasses) only estimates the peak power the amps can deliver. Estimating does not help anyone here.

 

The question about the power meters is answered with "a. over a period of time" and b. "It shows it instantly".

Yeah, sure. The interviewer digs it.

 

The question on the 7W ampflifier is answered regardless the efficiency of the speaker (with the nasty given that this could be about the Harbeth speakers only ... but this is not (the context) how we observe the video).

 

Luckily he doesn't play Yello. But I am already confident that this (sh*tty) electronic music sounds completely different in my system, as the guy(s) don'r recognize the difference between distortion and what can be rendered. I will report later about *that* as I first have to find the music in the first place (hopefully he will tell what it is).

 

Garmt (et al ?) clearly thinks that if those lows are rendered without distortion, the remainder works "as well" (this can be explained two-folded, both in a negative).

 

The amount of excursion of the woofers (this is what you hear them talk about at 6:05) shows a very low SPL to me (the driver looks to be a 15"). Mind you, this is not a virtue, this is math (but includes damping capabilities of the system). Thus, no visible excursion tells me maybe 70dBSPL and it indeed includes you hear them talking at a not exaggerated level at all.

Then the guy with the blue shirt feels the diver at its edge (the suspension in my poor English). It does not work like that ...

 

 

OK, caught that one. :-)

 

After playing the track, the interviewer starts to draw various conclusions on things like "it is clear that the more power you are giving the better it sounds". ... As if there has been an other test with a lesser amplifier.

I start to sense a commercial here.

 

The sonata sounds terrible to me. So notice that the solo instrument there will be the most difficult to render, which is related to speed (you can call that damping as well).

 

OK, done.

Tbh, it took me 22 minutes to cover this 12 minute video, so I hope it was with sufficient attention.

 

Main conclusion : I reckon we listened to 70-dBSPL or so. Maybe 2 more.

Another conclusion : The video is awkward to the sense of that they show Watts, but not SPL. Same as with the OP video (which I did not watch in full).

 

 

 

 

Thanks for taking the time Peter, and very interesting that you came up with a much lower estimate of SPL than I did.  Again, it would be interesting if anyone else has a view on this, I am beginning to wonder if my "guesstimate" of 88dB was a little high.

 

I think we can agree that the video is a bit of an infomercial, and yes, it would have been much better if the video had included details of the SPL in the room, and the position of the SPL reading etc.  But they didn't, and there is not much we can do about this.  (I suspect we might also be able to agree on who's best, Pan Sonic or Yello)  🙂

 

In terms of "doing the math" and seeing how the calculated power relates to the measured power as provided by the CH Precision amps, at least we now have a proposed range of SPL's, 7dB0 to 88dB.  That is quite a range, let's see if anyone else chimes in with a SPL estimate.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, Confused said:

7dB0 to 88dB.

 70-88 🙂

(somehow I made the same typo earlier on)

[sandyk]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Deleted. I will attempt to obtain a higher quality audio version.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, phusis said:

 

What it truly comes down to here is having these dynamic peaks rendered effortlessly and cleanly, and that requires headroom - loads of headroom not least in the bass where hearing acuity and sensitivity diminishes radically the deeper we go. That is to say (redundant it may appear to some): by headroom is meant that our amps and speakers run wholly cool and "suave" at the desired max SPL we want them to; not that they're just capable of doing that where distortion and the laws of thermodynamics would come into audible play. 

 

"Loads of headroom" may be necessary for some rigs, because they begin to perform badly once out of their comfort zone - it's no longer the situation, but decades ago when I was taking all of this very seriously, I went around to every demo of an audio system I could muster, to deliberately test how capable the units were in delivering clean sound at even only slightly more ambitious levels ... they were a woeful lot, I'm afraid ... bloody awful, in fact 😜.  I burnt out on doing this - I can only remember a single setup that delivered ...

 

Quote

They're only so many ways achieving large amounts of headroom, and that involves a combination of surplus of displacement area, sensitivity, and power delivery + handling. Power requirements (and handling ability) may be limited with very efficient speakers, but down into the lower midrange and bass there's no way around added power requirements and large(r) displacement area, period - not if what we're after is realism, anyway. 

 

Not true. A normal bookshelf can quite easily deliver realistic dynamics - but this only happens if all the right measures are taken - 30 years ago, a pair of B&W DM10s set up for complete stability, and driven properly did it; currently, the Edifiers I have are doing the same thing - no physics, etc, have changed in that time period; it just means that the right approach has to be used to get the results.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Confused said:

 

Mathematics is good, so lets look at some numbers that we can use in known formulas.  I would like to refer back to the Harbeth video, which is in post five on the first page of this thread.  What is clear from this video is that the CH Precision amps were routinely showing 400 to 750w peaks.  (RMS would be about half of this, I presume)  So how loud do we think the Harbeth's were playing in that room?  There are some clues, from 5min 50 seconds to 7 minutes in the clip you can clearly hear the voices of the attendees in the room over the music.  Furthermore, in the same time frame you can see three people approaching to within a foot of the speakers.  I think this gives us a good idea.

 

Yes, the numbers on the amps were complete nonsense ...

 

12 hours ago, Confused said:

 

My estimation, based on the above, is that the music was running at about 88dB, with maybe peaks to no more than 95dB.  For comparison, I tried running my own system with the same track used in the video.  (Pansonic Laptev Sea)  With a dB meter running an average of 90dB, with some higher peaks to maybe 97dB max, this was about as loud as I would want to go, pushing higher to get peaks over 100dB was not comfortable due to shear volume, it still sounded clear, it is just the SPL's that were unpleasant, and I certainly would not want to stand within a foot of the speakers "having a chat" at this volume.  I am as certain as I can be that the SPL's in the video are lower than when I was listening with 90dB average, to with 95dB peaks, 97dB max.

 

We also know the sensitivity and impedance curve for the Harbeth's, see link below for data.  (84.5dB / 2.83V/m)

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/harbeth-m401-loudspeaker-measurements

 

So to do the math, we need to agree on the numbers.  I would be interested in the consensus view of anyone posting in this thread, what do we collectively think the SPL's in the room were during this clip?  Maybe others do not agree with my estimation above, if so I would be very interested in what others estimate.  In addition, I would estimate that size of the room indicates a listening distance of about 4 meters / 12 to 14 feet maybe?  (mindful that SPL drops with distance)

 

 

12 hours ago, Confused said:

Are we agreed on these numbers?  If so, we can "do the math".

 

Yes, I would be happy to say 88dB average ...

[fas42]

The Harbeth rig is not getting the reverb right - there is a lot of depth to the sounds, and that's been "smeared" in the playback ... fairly typical for setups to do a bad job of projecting pure synthesizer creations - all the acoustic information is poorly conveyed.

 

This is trivially obvious, just listening to those YT clips over my laptop speakers ...

[fas42]

Just came across this clip, by our well known chap, 😉.

 

 

He nails what it's like, listening to competent replay - the majesty, and density, of, say, Led Zep recordings is at a whole different level - now, what he describes I got those decades ago from my bottom of the line B&W bookshelfs ... so, you don't need those "special speakers" to make it happen - it's all about the integrity of the complete playback chain.

 

 

[sandyk]

This is the 529kb/s aac audio of the original video, not the 127kb/s as previously.

Weird things happened when I tried to mix this with the audio, with a redirection back to other music on the website

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jc8mufi1lgqb8mf/How loud is 1 Watt (with an 87db Loudspeaker)-0x0002.aac?dl=0

 

 

[Confused]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

Yes, the numbers on the amps were complete nonsense ...

What (excuse the accidental pun) makes you think that?  

 

In terms of some real data, see link below to Stereophile measurements of the CH Precision M1.1, which includes the same power meter technology.  This indicates that the meters are indeed showing peak power, not RMS, and also that the meters are at least reasonably accurate.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ch-precision-m11-power-amplifier-measurements

[Confused]

OK - Time for some math.

 

If we assume 2 speakers with 84.5 dB / 1W/1m efficiency, measured from 4 meters or so / 14 feet (SPL decreases by -6dB with a doubling of distance), we get the following:

 

For a 95dB SPL peak (my high guess), this calculated at about 100w RMS

For 88dB (my estimate of "average" SPL, and a number Frank agrees with), this needs about 20 watts.

 

Going with the lower numbers

 

For 70dB (Peter's lower estimate), here I calculate just over 0.3watts.

 

Going again with 88dB spl, but assuming you are 1m away from 1 speaker.  (Mindful of when the three guys were near one speaker in the video), you need about 2 watts.

 

So the power meters in the video were routinely showing over 500watts peak (250 watts RMS) what SPL would this give you with 2 speakers at 14 feet?  This calculates at about 99dB SPL.

 

At one point the power meters indicate 740watts?  Using the same basis as above, this calculates an in room SPL at distance of about 101dB.

 

All of this makes me think of Peters earlier comment regarding the clip showing watts, but not SPL.  I have a feeling that "doing the math" here is not going to be conclusive, the actual SPL's matter a lot for the mathematics, as does the distance at which it is measured.  What is interesting is the calculated numbers are much lower than the 100kHz "peak" values shown on the amplifiers. 

 

I am guessing here that those who think that music reproduction needs lots of power to to accurately reproduce transient peaks will conclude that the numbers on the CH Precision amps indicate that you do indeed need far more power than the simple "math" might indicate, mindful that the amps are picking up absolute transient peaks at 100kHz intervals.  Those that think that all you need is a small number of high quality watts will conclude that the CH Precision meters are a gimmick and not showing anything meaningful or accurate.  I have my own view here, but what does that matter, you can draw you own conclusions.

 

It is interesting to play with the numbers though.  With these not particularly efficient Harbeths in a decent sized room, to get a peak SPL of 105dB at a 14 feet listening position you would need about 1000 watts....

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

What (excuse the accidental pun) makes you think that?  

 

How about, if those were "real watts", that the speaker coils would be fried, for a start - so little energy was going into producing sound, meaning the rest had to be dissipated as heat - the inside of the drivers would have been red hot, setting the paper cones on fire ... 😉.

 

What was most likely happening, was that the crossovers were drawing large amps as part of the impedance phase characteristics - which were "wasted", as far as as producing sound was concerned.

 

[fas42]

Does anyone notice how bizarre the situation now looks; comparing what the video in the OP is showing, in terms of apparent volume per the numbers, as compared to the Harbeth clip?

[Confused]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

How about, if those were "real watts", that the speaker coils would be fried, for a start - so little energy was going into producing sound, meaning the rest had to be dissipated as heat - the inside of the drivers would have been red hot, setting the paper cones on fire ... 😉.

 

What was most likely happening, was that the crossovers were drawing large amps as part of the impedance phase characteristics - which were "wasted", as far as as producing sound was concerned.

 

I am sure if they were real continuous watts, then yes, the coils would fail.  This is forgetting the fact that the amps are showing transient peaks measured at 100 kHz intervals.  The heat generated would depend on the average power over a period of time, versus heat loss.  The average power is going to be an order of magnitude less than peak power measured at 100 kHz.  In fact, this kind of average power is exactly what is indicated in the video in the OP when measured with a basic volt meter, indicating that a watt or so is all that is needed when measured on an "averaged" basis.

 

In terms of if it is the crossover wasting power or if the speakers themselves that are inefficient, I am not sure if this is all that significant, because we do know the measured efficiency of the speaker & crossover as a unit.  That is, you could have an efficient speaker with a crossover that uses lots of power, or an inefficient speaker with a crossover that uses little power, but both could end up with 84.5dB efficiency as a unit, leading the same performance in terms of SPL.

[Confused]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Does anyone notice how bizarre the situation now looks; comparing what the video in the OP is showing, in terms of apparent volume per the numbers, as compared to the Harbeth clip?

I mentioned this point in my earlier post.

[phusis]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

"Loads of headroom" may be necessary for some rigs, because they begin to perform badly once out of their comfort zone - it's no longer the situation, but decades ago when I was taking all of this very seriously, I went around to every demo of an audio system I could muster, to deliberately test how capable the units were in delivering clean sound at even only slightly more ambitious levels ... they were a woeful lot, I'm afraid ... bloody awful, in fact 😜.  I burnt out on doing this - I can only remember a single setup that delivered ...

 

As to the context pointed out by me - i.e.: realism - serious amounts of headroom are necessitated when what you need is effortlessly reproduced dynamic peaks of +110dB's, provided the source material is recorded properly to accommodate true dynamic swings. Say there are instances of 115dB's peaks and we need headroom "space" on top of that no lower than 10dB's, and what remains are very few "hi-fi" speakers that would even approach 115dB's at the LP sans headroom to spare. With low to moderately sensitive speakers (with more or less complex and power hungry passive filters) I haven't even mentioned the required wattage yet - clean watts, that is - and the scenario to emulate live dynamics in this typical home setting gets ever more unrealistic. Supplied video by @PeterSt with the Harbeth's is a good indication, it seems. 

 

Quote

 

 

Not true. A normal bookshelf can quite easily deliver realistic dynamics - but this only happens if all the right measures are taken - 30 years ago, a pair of B&W DM10s set up for complete stability, and driven properly did it; currently, the Edifiers I have are doing the same thing - no physics, etc, have changed in that time period; it just means that the right approach has to be used to get the results.

 

Have to completely disagree here; a "normal bookshelf" speaker run full-range can't achieve realistic dynamics - if what you mean is a <90dB sensitivity package with a no larger than 8" bass/mid + a dome tweeter - let alone "quite easily." It's simply out of the realm of any possibility. What miraculous "right measures" do you have in mind to alleviate the physically imposed shortcomings of this type a speaker to achieve what you claim? Because as you say, physics haven't changed.

 

If you were to use a, say, 8" high eff. pro segment bass/mid, high-passed it below 80-100Hz (below which it wouldn't do any good anyway), added a capable compression driver fitted to a horn/waveguide crossed in the 1-1.5kHz region and, preferably, coupled it actively and augmented with a pair of high eff. big subs, you would certainly get closer to realistic dynamics.  

 

No shit, realistic dynamics reproduced effortlessly isn't a walk in the park for all pro segment speakers + amps in a home environment, so lets get real: if what we maintain is realism with dynamics, count out most of the typical "hi-fi" variations of gear. By and large it simply won't do. 

[yamamoto2002]

It seems difference between peak voltage and DMM read voltage becomes larger when music signal is more pulsive, something like the music of OP video

 

Tested with 44.1kHz PCM: Instant peak of the signal maybe larger than the value of the image: there is a Gibbs phenomenon