Yamaha RX-Z9 - av_phile hijacked thread

<font color='#000000'>I am planning on purchasing the new Yamaha RX-Z9 in the next month. I have done a lot of research on it but never have I spoke with any owners. Please post any reviews or experiences you might have on the RX-Z9.</font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>I too am in the proccess of getting it 2nd week of November so only then I can post my experience with it. Yamaha is taking their merry time tormenting us with its delayed release.</font>

<font color='#000000'>Are you planning on getting it straight from Yamaha or a private source? I can't remember how much but I have seen it alot cheaper.</font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>I need a general multi-voltage model so I am getting it from Germany, it is costing me apprx. US$4300.</font>

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Yama,
At the price point you are paying I was wondering if you had considered the Denon 5803.

I'm Not suggesting that theres anything wrong with the Yammy, their great units but if your planning to use it for hirez music and are not yet prepared to take the jump to a combi player with a digital connection. &nbsp;I just thought I'd point out that the Denon has 2 sets of analog ins.

Personally (until the dust settles on the digital connection issue) I've gotten a couple of entry level mltidisc players which make the 2 sets of inputs a very handy feature.

Also I don't know if you do any latenite movie viewing but DolbyHeadphone is another feature that in my house is a necessity.

From a Power perspective I use 4ohm Totem Model1's with 87sensitivity and the 170w perch (bench tested higher by HIFI Choice) and they run beautifully.

The Yamaha is a fine unit and worth every penny, but I just thought I'd point out these differences which you may have already considered.

Peter m.</font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Peter m,

Thanks for your advice, IMHO the Yamaha is a way better unit and being a previous owner of the Z-1, I can tell you that the amp section is much heftier, also the Yamaha Cinema DSP modes are unmatched. I intend to connect them to my Yamaha NS-300 speakers which are 6ohm units rated for 91db sensitivity so the Z-9 would give me plenty of db, plus for my main channels I intend to use my venerable MX-1 260wpc amp.

On the analog input issue, I fully agree but I am using a CDP, a SACD with coaxial out so for me at least for now it is a non-issue.

Lastly, I have always adored the sonic character of Yamaha in general and find them to be articulate, clear and revealing, attributes the Denon cant match and only the Marantz can come closer to, all this IMHO.

I am not saying that the Denon isnt a good amp, it is a really formidable unit but Denon doesnt develop their own propiretary DSP like Yamaha, if there was no Yamaha then the Denon would certainly be my number 2 choice after Marantz.

Many thanks again, much appreciated.</font>

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Yama,
Wow, love the idea of bi-amping the fronts. I was thinking of (at somepoint) getting Totem Man-2's instead of Model 1's for the front which would necessitate more juice, but for the size of my room it might be overkill.

I'm not quite sure what a cdp is and how it allows you to get sacd from a coax output but if it works great.

Anyway, obviously you've done your homework on the Z-9 and I look foward to reading your thoughts about it once you've put it through it's paces.

enjoy,
Peter m.</font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>CDP=cd player. I use the digital out on my DVD-S2300 and let the Z-1 do all the decoding work.</font>

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Yama,
Now I understand so your presently just playing the redbook layer of your sacd and dsp'ing it through dpl2 or dtsneo6 so far.
The coax is for movie sound tracs and will not play the dsd portion of an sacd disc

Well when you get mltich sacd player and make use of the sophisticated dacs in the new Yamaha your going to hear a world of difference. &nbsp;

If the new Reciever has a digital connection for dvd-a and sacd (this would be like a firewire input not coax or optical) it would be wise to make sure that your player works on the same protocol or youll have to stick to the six cables for each player. they would be marked something like ext. or mltich. inputs

So If the Yamaha only has one set of analog ins it's probably best to get a combi player or you'll need an external analog switcher if you have separate dvd-a and sacd players.

Peter m.</font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Hi Peter M,

When I play an SACD through my DVD-S2300, the display on my Yamaha Z-1 shows 96KHz and it only works in 2 channel mode so I guess the SACD stream is getting decoded. Correct me if I am wrong.

The built-in d/a on the Z-1 are of real high standards and I have a Accupahse CDP to compare them with and can tell you that the Yamaha compares quite favorably.

BTW: The silent cinema mode in the Yamaha receivers are fantastic for watching movie through headphones, Yamaha r&amp;d did some serious biological research to come out with this mode which gives realistic surround through headphones.</font>

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Yama,
I'm sorry but its wrong. &nbsp;You have a dvd player that upsamples standard cd's to 96. &nbsp;mine upsamples to 88.2.which flashes on the face of the denon when i put in a disc. Also if I had the 6 analog cables connected, it wouldn't work. &nbsp; it makes the cd portion of the disc sound very good. &nbsp;BUT you are not listening to the sacd portion of the disc unless you have a player capable of decoding the dsd stream.

Check out the specs of your player. &nbsp;Unless it says dvd-a or has the sacd logo and the 6 cable out ports, it may upsample redbook cd's which is good but it's nothing like true sacd or dvd-a.

Peter m.</font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Hi Peter M,

The Yamaha DVD-S2300 is a DVD/SACD player capable of handling DVD-A alongwith SACD format, take a look at this link at
http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win....D-S2300 (http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gCLD00010DVD-S2300)

<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Yama,
That's great. So in order to hear the best possible rez from your sacd or dvd-a discs the coax or opt cable won't do.

You have to connect the 5.1 cables that the specs talk about to the mltich or ext inputs on the back of your reciever.

You probably have to turn off the re-master or upsampling feature that it provided for redbook cds. &nbsp;That's what it suggested in the setup of my rp82 but even though mine plays dvd-a, I only use it as a video player because its sdi modified and used with the HOLO3D vid scaler..

I use 2 separate mltidisc dvd-a and sacd players for those discs. &nbsp;Thats why I appreciate the 2 sets of analog ins that I mentioned the Denon has. &nbsp;Since you have a great combi player you only need 1 set.

From the spec it looks like its a great video player also with the Faroudgia chip which is why you will also need the coax attached to use the dd5.1 or dts versions of &nbsp;film. ( i tried using the 5.1 inputs for everything but dd5.1 and dts are dsp modes themselves so its best to revert to the coax or opt for film)

So as per the spec you would use the inputs for the fronts center and rears for the 5 and the sub input for the .1 and then attach the sub cable from the preout on the reciever to your sub. &nbsp;Any time you want to play a dvd-a or sacd you hit mltich or ext on the remote and the reciever will recognize the signal. On the players remote you decide if you want to play in 2ch or mltich.

Sounds great, enjoy.

Peter m.</font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Many thanks Peter M for your wonderful inshight into the world of SACD. The Yamaha DVD-S2300 is indeed a really good SACD player but it's video performance is fantastic compared to it's run of the mill audio performance, one of the reasons I am keen on using the onboard Z-1 d/a but from what I understand, the onboard d/a has to be bypassed in this case to fully tap SACD potential, I tried that before by using the 6-ch out on my SACD player but preffered the sound of the Z-1 d/a compared to the one on the DVD-S2300.</font>

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Yama,
Ya know this is where others with your specific equipment might want to comment on specifically how your setup can best take advantage of sacd and dvd-a.
&nbsp;
The reason I say this is because I feel that the reciever's dacs have all the sophistication needed for these formats and that it a combination of the two machines that make HIREZ work best.

Anywho it's a great pair, enjoy.

Peter m.</font>

[jkosanke]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>ssgtkay : <font color='#000000'>I am planning on purchasing the new Yamaha RX-Z9 in the next month. I have done a lot of research on it but never have I spoke with any owners. Please post any reviews or experiences you might have on the RX-Z9.</font>
<font color='#000000'>Hi, &nbsp;

Anybody know what date the RX-Z9 will become available and who online will be offering it for sale?

Thanks for your help,

Jack</font>

[stiletto pat]

<font color='#000000'>Yamahaluver,

Have you received and/or set up your new RX-Z9 Receiver yet? &nbsp;I anxiously await your review of your new purchase... <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':cool:'></font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>I am equally anxious as I have sold off my DSP-AZ1 and am have nothing here except my 2 channel system. Have contacted my brotehr in Germany and according to him, would be two more weeks before anything happens, it is a real bummer for me.</font>

<font color='#000000'>Hi:

I have heard so much and at this moment I can't find anyone with yamaha RX-Z9 for selling. To the best of my knowledge there is only one businesss and it is requesting to charge you card immediately wihout having the equipment in stock. Therefore I told him thanks, that I won't take chances like that.
Does anyone know where in this this piece of equipment selling.</font>

<font color='#000000'>Well after waiting for months I have in my possesion (1) Yamaha RX Z-9 Reciever.


Going to set it up today. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'> &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'> &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></font>

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Hi

Still nobody has done a review of Yamaha RX-Z9.

Why Yamaha does not send test version? To nobody?

Everybody seems to promise a review of RX-Z9.</font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Hi PM,

I have had the Z-9 in possesion for the last three months or so but unfortunately my work has kept me really busy for the last three months and looks like it would be two months more before I would get some freedom to write a review.

All I can say is that when this unit is pumping, it is really powerful and only a fool would go for an external amp as this would serve most needs really well, the good thing is that unlike Yamaha's previous offerings, the Z-9 has so much power that nothing comes close to bringing it to its limits and the clarity therefore remains better on the average.

There is too many adjustments in this unit and one needs to sit down and do a serious study of the manual before getting into the setup. YPAO helps in this case for novices but it isnt up to my taste.

Yamaha hardly has any extra units to send for testing and this is according to a Yamaha insider I talked to recently, all Z-9 is being lapped up by the dealers in a jiffy.</font>

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Hi

What I would like to see is a formal review by this site or any other site/magazine.</font>

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Pam;

Ask and you shall receive. &nbsp;Yamaha will be shortly shipping me a Z9 to review. &nbsp;Stay tuned...</font>

[footman]

<font color='#000000'>The new issue of Sound and Vison has a review of the Yamaha RX-Z9.</font>

[Ross]

<font color='#000000'>In S&amp;V? &nbsp;Is it a regular in depth product review? &nbsp;

If so, then sweet!

thanks,</font>

[Ross]

<font color='#000000'>Indeed, today my question was answered. &nbsp;The latest S&amp;V does have an in-depth product review of this unit. &nbsp;It tested out at 140 watts across all seven channels at clipping, with low distortion, and at an impressive 21.5 dbw's. &nbsp;This thing is potent!

best,</font>

[pam]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>footman : <font color='#000000'>The new issue of Sound and Vison has a review of the Yamaha RX-Z9.</font>
<font color='#000000'>Hi

I went back to Sound and vision site and I also have the magazine at home and I could not find it. THe latest issue for me is the one who talks about Voum.

Please confirm which month you are talking about.</font>

<font color='#000000'>hy guys..i have a question for you...i'm interesting in buying an a/v processor to use with separate final amplifier ( parasound A21 &nbsp;for front speaker and A52 for surround)..which do you suggest between DSP-Z9 and Parasound HALO C2? my two final amplifiers are next to the processor...so i think that the balanced output are not so necessary for the purity of the sound..but anyone knows what is the signal/noise in the digital input of the yamaha? thank you so much for your answer (i hope you'll do so).
Sorry for my english...i'm italian &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></font>

[pam]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>pam : <font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (footman @ April 08 2004,2:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The new issue of Sound and Vison has a review of the Yamaha RX-Z9.
Hi

I went back to Sound and vision site and I also have the magazine at home and I could not find it. THe latest issue for me is the one who talks about Voum.

Please confirm which month you are talking about.</font></td></tr></table>
<font color='#000000'>I have just bought the new issue of S&amp;V (May). It contains a three page review of RX-Z9.</font>

<font color='#000000'>thanks but....i live in italy &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':;):'> could you tell me how they speak about it?and if is written the signal/noise ratio using a digital input...or just wich are the pros and the cons if is possible.
thank you very much Pam</font>

[pam]

Hi

Finally was able to get it. It arrived but it was not a very usefull review. You can learn more by getting the RX-Z9 brochure on the internet.
It seems that they have listened to it but I did not get a critical tool for comparing (with AVR-5803 for example).

[JAB]

Ditto on Sound & Vision review on Z9. I was in a hurry and made the mistake of buying it. I should have known better when I saw the author's name, David Ranada, who has never done a review with any substance I have ever read. Should have spend 3 minutes reading it at the mag display and put it back on the shelf!!

So I'm stuck with the magazine and read the article "Sounds Terriffic" by one John Sciacca who places Bose Acoustimassive Disaster Series II speakers in the recommended $1000 to $2,499 class along with names such as Atlantic Technology, NHT, B & W, Mirage, etc. The reason - they will look very appealing to the wife!! I hope this was put in the article with tonque-in cheek. If not, Mr. Sciacca should go for an ear check, although I doubt he even listened to them. Reminds me of all these music reviewers who heap praise on the latest CD for realistic sound who have never been to a live concert.

But hey, Mr. Bose had the last laugh on me - purchased a new Miata Mazdaspeed and every time I drive it I have to look at his logo plastered on the radio/CD player and door speakers. Arrrgh!

Al

[Clint DeBoer]

Just wanted to interject that I posted a Yamaha RX-Z9 "First Look" thread over here (http://www.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12242):

http://www.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12242

[av_phile]

The Z-9 is without doubt one of the heftiest receiver in its class, in term of size and weight. It's certainly as flexible, feature-laden and as future-proof as can be(What will i do with 9 channels at the moment?).

But let me just state my criticsm of it. Not so much on the receiver, much less from listening to one, as I am sure it's impressive alright. What follows is my distress at reading its technical specification on power rating. I hope i am wrong, but based on what little I know, the Z9's technical write on power is anything but candid. It appears to be more a marketing hype than anything.


(1) Overstated output power

Downloading the Z9 brochure, I was disappointed by some of its misleading and useless power rating. The brochure claims a 300w/channel power using 4 ohm loads at 1Khz. I really find this spec a product of dimwits. Why would anyone bother to listen to music at only 1khz???? What's the point of this spec? And measured at 4ohms? Check the back panel of the receiver just beside the speaker terminals. It has this very revealing caution: MIN Speakers: 6 ohms. So why measure at 4ohms when you can't listen to it with 4ohm loads???? Totol BS.

After measuring at 4 ohms and 1 khz, there another section that says it delivers only 170w/channel into 8 ohms 20h-20kz. That would seem more realistic. But check again.

Looking at the electric power consumption, it says 1,000 watts. How a 7-channel 170 watt/channel amp plus 2 channel 50watt presence channels, plus preamp circuit (say 50watts) can give out a total of about 1300 watts when it consumes only 1,000 watts is so beyond me that any technology behind it must be worthy of a Nobel prize for Physics!! :confused:

(2) Inadequate and Misleading Dynamic Headroom

The receiver is supposed to give an instantaneous peak power of 210 watts into 8 ohms. That's rather pathetic. If the continuous is 170 watts, you get less than a 1db headroom. A piano or drum being struck requires around 1.4 times the continuous power rating during the first few milliseconds, assuming your volume setting is already in that continuous power level. If the amp can't hack it, the drum or the piano at that level will sound muffled and constrained. But i am sure the receiver can hack it at much lower volume levels.

Lastly, those other dynamic headroom figures apart from that in the 6-ohm load are totally useless. The receiver cannot handle loads below 6 ohms as cautioned at the back. This is NOT a high current amp as blatantly advertised. The fact that the user is cautioned against using any load lower than 6ohms betrays this. NO high current amp has such a caution. NAD can drive 2-ohm loads, Rotels and Harman kardon, likewise, though 4-ohm loads are stated minimum.

I have nothing against the receiver. In fact, I wouldn't mind having one.

Most likely this amp can give no higher than 120 watts CONTINUOUS into 8 ohms cleanly, ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN. That should fall within the ambit of its electric power consumption. But there's be very little power left from which to drive instantaneous peaks CLEANLY. Still an adequate power for the average listening room.

The suspicious rating used by Yamaha seeems to be no different from most other Japanese brands like Pioneer and Onkyo which have no qualms overstating their power with gusto. Using DIN or JETA standards is a nice way to overstate a rating. Nothing in the tech spec states that the rating was measured with ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN. It is very easy to extract the most numbers when only ONE channel is driven. Which is probably what Yamaha did for the Z9.

My caveat is not with the receiver. But with those marketing gurus at Yamaha who must have muscled into the technical guys' better judgement to make an impressive amp unnecessarily more impressive by overstating power ratings. What for? The better to mislead unwary and uninformed customers? Seems these people have no confidence in their otherwise excellent products.

[3db]

Manufacturer's specs are not very accurate and like statistics, have a way of twisting the truth in their favour.

Sound And Vision did a review of the new Z9 . In its lab tests, they tested it for 2 channel and then 7 channels loaded and according to them, output power dropped by a mere 2db, hardly a significant drop. (if I recall this right as I glanced thru this quickly while at the grocery store) .

The rest of the review IMO was poor as it went on and on about features but said next to nothing about tehe quality of the sound.

Hope thie helps

[Yamahaluver]

The rear printed rating is for nominal consumption figure only and not peak. The max power rating is much higher as the S&V tests would indicate.

BTW: not all amps need to be heavy to produce wattage, take a look at this D-MOSFET beauty for around $5000 from Yamaha. It specs clain 500Wx2rms but the Deutshce Audio magazien tested it and found it delivered around 535Wx2 continous, not bad for a amp weiging in a under 20lb with no high power caps, of course this a different concept in amplification but the tests also found it to be a superb audio performer.

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/components/mxd1.htm

[av_phile]

Sound And Vision did a review of the new Z9 . In its lab tests, they tested it for 2 channel and then 7 channels loaded and according to them, output power dropped by a mere 2db, hardly a significant drop. (if I recall this right as I glanced thru this quickly while at the grocery store) .




A 3db decrease in power output is equivalent to halving the rated power spec. So I would agree that the Z9's real CONTINOUS power output would be somewhere in the 120 watts range. Not 170 as claimed.

[av_phile]

The rear printed rating is for nominal consumption figure only and not peak. The max power rating is much higher as the S&V tests would indicate.

BTW: not all amps need to be heavy to produce wattage, take a look at this D-MOSFET beauty for around $5000 from Yamaha. It specs clain 500Wx2rms but the Deutshce Audio magazien tested it and found it delivered around 535Wx2 continous, not bad for a amp weiging in a under 20lb with no high power caps, of course this a different concept in amplification but the tests also found it to be a superb audio performer.

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/components/mxd1.htm

Yamaha's rear panel is silent on whether their power consumption figures are average, nominal or max. Most likely max. The heft of the torroid looks it. For an amp to deliver true 170 wpc into 7channels with at least a 1.5 db dynamic headroom will require a power consumption in the 1.5KVA range.

Pls check if the CONTINUOUS power rating is across all audible frequencies from 20Hz to 20Khz and WITH ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN into 8-ohms. It is very easy to extract the most numbers when rating CONTINUOUSLY at only 1Khz and with only ONE chanel driven and into 4-ohm load. The maximum power that the transformer gives is routed to only one channel at only one frequency. This spec is totally useless, unless one likes to listen to his stereo set-up with only one channel and at 1Khz only.

[gene]

AV_Phile;

I feel I need to interject here for a moment as many of your statements are a bit misplaced. Yamaha never claimed the Z9 will deliver 170watts x 7 simultaneously. I know it may seem a bit misleading but welcome to the audio world where marketing rules! The truth is there really is no standard for multichannel power claims. Most manufacturers rate their amps on a per channel basis. They test at 1kHz because that does yield a slightly higher #. What you may also not realize is most reviewers make all channels power measurements while holding the line voltage constant (yet they don't usually state that). IMO a bogus test, far from real world. The majority of receivers and even power amps use unregulated power supplies (for a variety of reasons I won't expand upon here). Thus as the line voltage drops, so do the rails on the amps, especially when the Xformer saturates and the power supply caps run out of gas.

The all channels driven test is a bit of a misnomer. When do we actually listen to all channels driven simultaneously at full bandwidth continuously? If you do, you should get your hearing checked and your speakers to make sure nothing is blown.

The reality is the average power consumption of the receiver is much lower than you would expect, especially in todays home theater realm where all speakers are about 90dB SPL sensitive or higher, set to small, crossed over at 80Hz and have dedicated powered subwoofers (where the real power is needed!).

What amazes me is how people squabble over a few watts for an unrealistic test and forget all of the technical merits, features and quality of the product. I agree playing the power game can get annoying, but Yamaha is far from being the first at doing this. Would you rather have a product with a substandard digital amp that claims even higher power (incidentally much higher distortion and noise) with much less processing power, features, and fidelity simply because it will deliver more power?

I see now more than ever I need to slow down on writing cable articles and start writing articles on amplifier power :)

[av_phile]

AV_Phile;

I feel I need to interject here for a moment as many of your statements are a bit misplaced. Yamaha never claimed the Z9 will deliver 170watts x 7 simultaneously. I know it may seem a bit misleading but welcome to the audio world where marketing rules! The truth is there really is no standard for multichannel power claims. Most manufacturers rate their amps on a per channel basis. They test at 1kHz because that does yield a slightly higher #. What you may also not realize is most reviewers make all channels power measurements while holding the line voltage constant (yet they don't usually state that). IMO a bogus test, far from real world. The majority of receivers and even power amps use unregulated power supplies (for a variety of reasons I won't expand upon here). Thus as the line voltage drops, so do the rails on the amps, especially when the Xformer saturates and the power supply caps run out of gas.

The all channels driven test is a bit of a misnomer. When do we actually listen to all channels driven simultaneously at full bandwidth continuously? If you do, you should get your hearing checked and your speakers to make sure nothing is blown.

The reality is the average power consumption of the receiver is much lower than you would expect, especially in todays home theater realm where all speakers are about 90dB SPL sensitive or higher, set to small, crossed over at 80Hz and have dedicated powered subwoofers (where the real power is needed!).

What amazes me is how people squabble over a few watts for an unrealistic test and forget all of the technical merits, features and quality of the product. I agree playing the power game can get annoying, but Yamaha is far from being the first at doing this. Would you rather have a product with a substandard digital amp that claims even higher power (incidentally much higher distortion and noise) with much less processing power, features, and fidelity simply because it will deliver more power?

I see now more than ever I need to slow down on writing cable articles and start writing articles on amplifier power :)

Thanks for responding, Gene. Let me respond to your points which are kinda surprising for me.

(1) Firstly let me again point out that I am not cirticizing the Z9 receiver on it own. I am posting my distress at the technical write-up on the power specs. This applies not just for Yamaha but for most other new japanese models. Let me put on record that I am in fact astounded by the Z9 preamp's audio and video features as truly awesome and virtually future-proof. I am sure, the reciever will sound excellent under normal listening conditions. But in posting my critical comments on the specs, I just want to point out its overstated power features so as not to mislead users to expect something it cannot deliver, nor make any user wonder why it wouldn't sound as powerful as one similarly rated but conservatively measured. And I welcome most openly discussions to this end and to prove me wrong.

(2) The Z9 is a multi channel equipment and as such, when its power spec tells you it has 170 wpc, it cannot but be interpreted as a 170 wpc amp SIMULTANEOUSLY for ALL channels. (Let's talk about its 7 identical channels and forget about its lesser powered 8th and 9th channel) The consumer expects THAT and when he talks about it with his fellow audiophiles, he uses that spec to say he has a 170 wpc multi-ch amp. How can such a spec be interpreted as "not to claim...simultaneously" for all channels??? Pls enlighten me. The spec is quite clear, let me quote:

Front channels: 170w + 170w
Center Channel: 170w
Surround Channels: 170w + 170w
Surround Back Channel: 170w + 170w

Here the Z9 did measure it as "Minimum RMS Ouput" for all audible frequencies 20hz - 20Khz at 0.015% THD, using FTC standards. FINE. But it says nothing about ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN, unlike some amps I know. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But look at the power consumption figures at the back: 1000 watts. It looks the part, the heft of the torroid suggests it's a 1KVA similar to that in some amps i've seen but with smaller ratings. With an extensive preamp circuit and another 8th and 9th channels beside, where will the amp get extra power to deliver 1,190 watts for its 7 channels when it eats only 1,000 watts?
OK so I can concede Japanese amps are more efficient. Someone should nominate them for a Nobel prize in Physics for overcoming that immutable law that says you can't give more than what you took in.

So it's a nominal electric power rating. So is the "minimum RMS output." Still not congruent. More so if its a maximum electric power rating. I strongly suggest you compare this with a Rotel or an Aragon multi-channel amp electric power specification vis-a-vis their audio output power specification and see what I mean.

(3) I am surprised to learn there is "no standard" for measuring multi-channel amps. True, they're a recent phenomenon (albeit, 10 years don't seem to make it new is it?) relative to the more than half-century evolution of the modern audio industry. But let's face it, when there is this EIAA, FTC, RIAA, etc etc standards specifying how to measure an amplifier's power output, it beggars the mind to accept the notion there is no standard. What have I been reading all along in amp specs?

Let me say that the standards we have known regarding a conservative measurement of a stereo 2-ch amp's power should likewise be observed when rating a 100-channel amp. Using a 20hz-20khz test tone sweep or pink noise while driving ALL the channels to extract power from its transformer and into an 8-ohm load (resistive or real) at an audiophile grade distortion of no more than 0.05% or lower, we can expect a conservative audiophile power rating that is consistent across many brands and models and a prudent basis for comparison in terms of what can be expected as its power out. Just that.

Now if a manufacturer devitates from that and measures his baby's power only at 1Khz driving only ONE channel and into a 4ohm load at a clipping distortion of 1% or some other, boy, you can expect a really high power figure there.

(3) There is nothing unrealistic about having ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN as the basis for real-life expectation. Do you listen to your Stereo amp with only one channel? Do you listen to your multi-channel amp with only one channel?

Further, there is nothing unrealistic about expecting all audible frequencies to have the same power available to them than just at 1Khz. Do you listen to music at only 1Khz? While it is true that in real musical passages, not all frequencies are reproduced at any instant of time, my goodness, they're definitely a lot more than just 1Khz. To state your power at that point as if to imply or suggest that THAT is the power the consumer can expect when listening to music smacks of deception. In my school days in a true-or-false exam, if a statement is partly true, it is still false. Half-truths are still lies. They're more insiduous as they mislead the unwary. It's not even an inidcation of the power available to all the frequencies. 1Khz is the easiest with which to measure power rating. But the power available at 1khz can be so much more than the power available at 100hz. Much less when all the frequencies are being worked on by the amp at the same time. And much less if all the channels are driven at the same time.

(4) "The reality is the average power consumption of the receiver is much lower than you would expect," True, so what is so wrong about telling it as it is. NAD, Harman-Kardon, Rotel, Acurus, Aragon, they tell it as such. They state their power output as CONTINUOUS with ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN into conservative 8-ohm loads and across all the 20hz-20khz audible spectra.

Now if a manufacturer comes along and states his amp has 300wpc based on 1Khz with only ONE channel driven and into 4-ohm load, is the would-be owner correct in claiming he's got a more powerful amp than someone else's NAD conservatively rated at 120 wpc across all audible frequencies with All channels driven into 8 ohms? I can understand if he does, he's been mislead by an overstated specs.

(5) Yamaha is certainly not the first to play the annoying "power game." I've seen Pioneers and Onkyos do the same. All, in the obvious effort to get more customers who, rightly or wrongly, believe that the higher the power the better. What is more galling is the first part of the Z9 power specs that read and I quote:

DIN standard output power (4 ohms, 1khz, 0.7% THD)
Front channels: 300w + 300w
Center Channel: 300w
Surround Channels: 300w + 300w
Surround Back Channel: 300w + 300w

What is Yamaha thinking about? Is this a 300 watt multichannel amplifer or a 170 watt multi-channel amplifer? This is a totally USELESS and utterly misleading specification. Look at the back panel again and read the very revealing SPEAKER IMPEDANCE Caution: MINUMUM 6-ohms/8-ohms. Does Yamaha expect the user to use 4-ohm speakers and expect it will last an afternoon delivering 300 watts per channel?

With such DIN conditions as I've stated above, you can really extract the most numbers. But what for?

If the objective is to capture more customers to buy their products, it would seem to me that these overstated specs are no different from the P.M.P.O. specs of most HITBs. Let me close by saying, i probabaly won't be the last word on this. But if this forum is interested in TRUTH the way I staunchly believe it does with cables and other myths, then talking about overstated specs would go a long way to unmasking the truth behind many japanese brands that so enthusiastically overstate their power specs.

[av_phile]

Here is a nice quote from the website of NAD to bolster my point on conservative power rating which Yamaha and other japanese brands might have missed: (underscoring mine)

On the C352 integrated stereo amp:

NAD also takes a stand against the meaningless “brochure power” touted by many of our competitors by offering Full Disclosure power specs. We specify minimum continuous power, across the entire audible range of frequencies, at rated distortion, for both 8 and 4 ohms with all channels driven simultaneously.

Now if only all ampflier specification conformed to this....

[Yamahaluver]

Here is a nice quote from the website of NAD to bolster my point on conservative power rating which Yamaha and other japanese brands might have missed: (underscoring mine)

On the C352 integrated stereo amp:

NAD also takes a stand against the meaningless “brochure power” touted by many of our competitors by offering Full Disclosure power specs. We specify minimum continuous power, across the entire audible range of frequencies, at rated distortion, for both 8 and 4 ohms with all channels driven simultaneously.

Now if only all ampflier specification conformed to this....

Every Yamaha amp brochure states its minimum bandwidth power as well if you care to look, for instance the MX-1 power is quoted at 200+200, 8ohms 20Hz-20KHz at 0.008% THD. Now what more can you specificaly ask for.

Talking about NAD( capacitor blow in one year), isnt this the same company which would put a little green sticker in the front fascia of its amps advertising 440W PMPO, WOW! and I thought that PMPO was for comapct NO-FI music systems.

It seems your quest is to totally belittle Japanese amps, past and present and this is meaningless, if you are happy with your flabby NAD sound, or non musical, mechanical ROTEL, so be it. Why go about a crusade against Japanese products when it seems you hardly even care to read the manual or even care to own one. We love our false claim Japanese amps and even though I have been a Krell, B&K, Creek owner in the past, wouldnt go back to them even if they were offered free to me.

[gene]

AV_Phile;

My time is limited so I will point out a few concerns with your post:

1) Aragon amps at least their 2000/3000 series DO NOT rate with all channels driven. Look at their spec again! Take a look at this article we did awhile back for more info:
Aragon FAQ (http://audioholics.com/FAQs/aragon.html)
Only their old 8008 multichannel amps and Palladiums did infact rate power with all channels driven and again since the power supplies were unregulated, that figure was only valid if the line voltage was held constant.


2) Ok so lets Say NAD and a few others do rate power with all channels driven (again with line voltage held constant, but they don't tell you that) and a NAD flagship does in fact deliver 120wpc X 7, the Z9 for example (never stated all channels driven) will likely do between 120-140wpc x 7 all channels driven at full bandwidth based on the massive 1.2KVA transformer (maybe larger, will look at schematics this weekend).

Again its a matter of semantics how one company rates differently than another. No Where in the Yamaha literature does it state simultaneously. If it did, that would be another story.

I am pretty sure the rating on the back of the Z9 for 1000watts is not a maximum consumption rating. In the past they used to rate all channels driven at 1/8th power on their receivers, not sure how they are rating it now. If you notice the 1200VA rating on the unit, that seems to indicate the true capability of the product. To my knowledge, no current A/V receiver has a larger transformer than that. Also notice they use 80V caps which is about 5V higher than needed to get 170wpc with sufficent margin. More later....

[Unregistered]

http://www.areadvd.de/hardware/bolidencheck.shtml contains a comparison of the current high end amps. There are also comprehensive individual reviews on that site. Use www.systranlinks.com or the free IBM translator to get the gist if, like me, your German is not up to it.

[av_phile]

Every Yamaha amp brochure states its minimum bandwidth power as well if you care to look, for instance the MX-1 power is quoted at 200+200, 8ohms 20Hz-20KHz at 0.008% THD. Now what more can you specificaly ask for.

Talking about NAD( capacitor blow in one year), isnt this the same company which would put a little green sticker in the front fascia of its amps advertising 440W PMPO, WOW! and I thought that PMPO was for comapct NO-FI music systems.

It seems your quest is to totally belittle Japanese amps, past and present and this is meaningless, if you are happy with your flabby NAD sound, or non musical, mechanical ROTEL, so be it. Why go about a crusade against Japanese products when it seems you hardly even care to read the manual or even care to own one. We love our false claim Japanese amps and even though I have been a Krell, B&K, Creek owner in the past, wouldnt go back to them even if they were offered free to me.

You better read my post and let your brain do a little more understanding. ALL Channels Driven. GET That?

For you to say I belittle japanese amps further betrays your deductive abilities. Read again.

And show me a NAD model that has PMPO in it. And I'll show you Emperor Hirohito's cheeky bottoms.

[Yamahaluver]

Read Gene's take on the all channel driven concept and you will see the point if you still have some logic left in you and I am certainly not into bottoms of Hirohitho.

NAD in the 80s and 90s used to sell their amps with the little green sticker with 400W PMPO written, maybe it is way before your time.

I can see that in each and every post in this forum, you are hell bent on attacking Japanese amps in general and it is evident in your advice to others. For me the word of wisdom Gene has spoken and therfore I need to speak no more in this matter. It will be fun when the review comes.

[av_phile]

1) Aragon amps at least their 2000/3000 series DO NOT rate with all channels driven. Look at their spec again! Take a look at this article we did awhile back for more info:
Aragon FAQ (http://audioholics.com/FAQs/aragon.html)
Only their old 8008 multichannel amps and Palladiums did infact rate power with all channels driven and again since the power supplies were unregulated, that figure was only valid if the line voltage was held constant.

Like I said, there can only be one realistic way of measuring an amp's power. And that is to measure it with all channels driven across all audible frequencies driving a load that the consumer commonly uses. Anything less will unrealistically bloat any measured power rating.

I am not interested whether the measurement was done with the voltage held constant. After all I expect the line voltage to remain constant in the same way I expect my home power mains voltage to remain so. Remember that a good amp behaves as a constant voltage source. Almost all US and European amplifers behave as constant voltage sources, that's why they have very good high current capabilities when presented with difficult loads. In contract many Japanese amps behave like constant current sources. That's why they are hard put to deliver high current when called for. Current is what drives the speakers. Not voltage.



2) Ok so lets Say NAD and a few others do rate power with all channels driven (again with line voltage held constant, but they don't tell you that) and a NAD flagship does in fact deliver 120wpc X 7, the Z9 for example (never stated all channels driven) will likely do between 120-140wpc x 7 all channels driven at full bandwidth based on the massive 1.2KVA transformer (maybe larger, will look at schematics this weekend)..

Bull's eye!!!! If i were to make a DIY 7-ch amp with a 120wpc, 1.2kva is perhaps the minimum spec for the transformer I would use. Not only would it take care of my CONTINUOUS power, but PEAK transcient capability as well. But I'd prefer to use TWO 1KVA transformers, for more power reerves to handle peak transients.

Again its a matter of semantics how one company rates differently than another. No Where in the Yamaha literature does it state simultaneously. If it did, that would be another story

Yes and no. This is not just semantics. An uninformed sales guy will take just one look at the Z9 brochure, see the first line on the tech spec, and conclude this is a 300 watt per channel amp. He's not interested in what this DIN standard is or the 1khz or the 4 ohm load used to arrive at 300 watts. Likewise, an uninformed customer will see this first line and gasp at a 300 watt 9-channel amp that for $5000, tuners and preamps included, is a bargain compared to an Aragon 5-ch amp and preamp costing more, but only has a pathetic 200wpc!!!! Totally misleading, the latter is actually 2 db more powerful.

In NOT stating it's all channels driven, they're at least admitting it. They don't seem to want to add further to their hype. Good for them. It reveals that even their Continuous rating at all audible frequencies into 8 ohms is overstated, if measured with only one channel at a time. And you are absolutely right in saying the Z9 's real power is anywhere within 120w to 140w. NOT 170w. Thank you. More likely 120w.

Because i don't have the luxury to do an A/B listening test between various amp makes, nor do all the amps I shortlist make themselves available in one AV shop, i can only rely on their printed and web-loaded technical specs and brochures to try and make an informed decision. It is therefore important that amps be presented on a level playing field, as it were. The manner for doing this is quite clear and runs common across many specs.

I am pretty sure the rating on the back of the Z9 for 1000watts is not a maximum consumption rating. In the past they used to rate all channels driven at 1/8th power on their receivers, not sure how they are rating it now. If you notice the 1200VA rating on the unit, that seems to indicate the true capability of the product. To my knowledge, no current A/V receiver has a larger transformer than that. Also notice they use 80V caps which is about 5V higher than needed to get 170wpc with sufficent margin. More later...

I can find fault on japanese amps hyping their output power ratings to attract customers. But one thing is sure, when it comes to electrical power consumption, they will never compromise the safety of consumer households. Not the japanese. Underating an appliance's power consumption is not only an electrical safety hazard but a clear violation of the rules of local and international regulatory agencies. That 1000 watts and 1kva rating IS maximum. It cannot be otherwise or it risks electrical fires from overloaded household mains.

Even that 1.2KVA rating won't clear it. 170w x 7 is 1190. Just sufficient to cover it. Where will the Z9 get the power to drive the other 2 channels, again overrated at 50wpc. And the preamp circuitry, which i imagine should eat somewhere in the 30 watt point????? And where may I ask, will it get the power to generate the supposed dynamic power that according to spec goes up to 580 watts PER Channel at 2 ohm load? That's a cool 4060 watts!!! Even for a few milliseconds, from a 1.2KVA transformer??? This dynamic headroom is another misleading spec from Yamaha, and like you, I'd say more on this later....

Again, pls check your Aragon power amps and just correlate the 2.5KVA transformer in it that generously gives a really believable 200watts of continuous power from just 5 channels into 8 ohms and 400watts into 4. With enough reserves for instantaneous peak demands that can deliver a 1.5db headroom into either loads. Then compare that to the Z9. Not the power output as they are different, but the relationship between power consumption and output power with dynamic headroom. Check also the Acurus amps, the NADs, Harman Kardons and Rotels. You will see what I am talking about. It's so easy comparing these brands in terms of power rating as they all measured conservatively, properly and credibly.

[gene]

AV_Phile;

I see you still have some preconceived misconceptions about power, ratings, and standards used to test them. After I complete my Z9 review, I will write an article about this using much of your dialog here to clear things up. The Dynamic power Yamaha lists is in fact dynamic based on an IHF standard to deliver large amounts of power to handle brief transients (I will reference this in my article as well). If you consider what THX recommends for a 3,000 cubic foot room based on nominal levels of 75dB with transients of up to about 100dB it would make more sense. If a 90dB SPL speaker requires about 1 watts to achieve 75dB at the listening position (15 feet away, based on the inverse square law of 6dB fall out for every doubling of distance, this assumes no room or boundary gain), you will find that a continuos rating of 100wpc will allow you to achieve the 20dB of dynamic range. I am being simplistic here, but I hope you can see my point. The average power a receiver uses is rather low, say 5-10wpc to achieve average 70-80dB levels at the listening position with reasonably efficient speakers. People fall victim of the power game too often (mostly manufacturers are to blaim for creating the demand, and consumers buying into it because it sounds impressive).

Now,if you were using the old QUAD ESL's or Apogees, then by all means use some 8008 series Aragon amps and end the discussion. But right now you are arguing over a few watts where in most modern home theater configurations with active subs and efficient speakers is a moot point.

Time to get back to work, but thanks for your dialogue here. You have given me good fuel to write a useful article that maybe I can learn some stuff from as well :)

[Ross]

Hey guys, be careful, becuase crack kills...

Lighten up fellas, why all the hostility?

This well seasoned conversation comparing flagship receivers to that of seperate component pre/amp combos is pretty old. Does anyone here have anything new to bring to the table, other than Flagship units are worth the premium price to some, and not to others?

Are ya'll really gonna sit here and argue over the same old stuff?

Does anyone here not believe that most all seperate amps have better capabilities than most all, including "Flagship" receivers...

move on...

best,

[zipper]

No offense,Ross, but I'm enjoying this discussion. I'd like to know as much as I can on this subject. A salesman I banter with on a regular basis 1st brought my attention to power ratings & claims a couple of years ago when I bought my Yamaha 620. He actually recommended a particular Denon model to me that was rated lower on power but was a bit more expensive. If I had to guess I'd say it was probably a 2803 or 3802. He also pointed out that most receivers' claims of power are unrealistic but that they also only need to put out a few watts to achieve a pleasant listening volume. As it is now,I only know enough to be dangerous. I'll be looking forward to Genes' review.

[av_phile]

AV_Phile;

I see you still have some preconceived misconceptions about power, ratings, and standards used to test them. After I complete my Z9 review, I will write an article about this using much of your dialog here to clear things up. The Dynamic power Yamaha lists is in fact dynamic based on an IHF standard to deliver large amounts of power to handle brief transients (I will reference this in my article as well). If you consider what THX recommends for a 3,000 cubic foot room based on nominal levels of 75dB with transients of up to about 100dB it would make more sense. If a 90dB SPL speaker requires about 1 watts to achieve 75dB at the listening position (15 feet away, based on the inverse square law of 6dB fall out for every doubling of distance, this assumes no room or boundary gain), you will find that a continuos rating of 100wpc will allow you to achieve the 20dB of dynamic range. I am being simplistic here, but I hope you can see my point. The average power a receiver uses is rather low, say 5-10wpc to achieve average 70-80dB levels at the listening position with reasonably efficient speakers. People fall victim of the power game too often (mostly manufacturers are to blaim for creating the demand, and consumers buying into it because it sounds impressive).

Now,if you were using the old QUAD ESL's or Apogees, then by all means use some 8008 series Aragon amps and end the discussion. But right now you are arguing over a few watts where in most modern home theater configurations with active subs and efficient speakers is a moot point.

Time to get back to work, but thanks for your dialogue here. You have given me good fuel to write a useful article that maybe I can learn some stuff from as well :)

I look forward to your review. But I don't think my misconceptions about power rating, if they are misconceptions at all, blinds me to the fact that many amps out there ARE over-rated. The Z9 is one of them. And that is simply the point of my posts. Don't get me wrong, the Z9 is already impressive as a receiver. But zealously overstating the power specs, what for???

So pls do address the points I've raised when you can find the time, I'd appreciate it.

[av_phile]

Hey guys, be careful, becuase crack kills...

Lighten up fellas, why all the hostility?

This well seasoned conversation comparing flagship receivers to that of seperate component pre/amp combos is pretty old. Does anyone here have anything new to bring to the table, other than Flagship units are worth the premium price to some, and not to others?

Are ya'll really gonna sit here and argue over the same old stuff?

Does anyone here not believe that most all seperate amps have better capabilities than most all, including "Flagship" receivers...

move on...

best,

Ross, i'd like nothing better than to move on. But it's not about comparing flagship recievers and separate amps. It just so happens i used that comparison to drive my point that some amps, whether integrateds or inside recievers, are overstated in their power specification - a condition that could at the least make any judicious comparison based on tech write-up, difficult, and at worst, misleading to unwary or uninformed consumers. What i really find incomprehensible, is why excellent products like the Z9 need to be hyped up at all. I suppose it's for marketing reasons. But I just can't take that sitting down if it's all at the expense of the consumer.

[phara0h]

It is my opinion that the majority of these discussions, with the loquacious AV-Phile, have been mired in talk that takes the circuitious route and does not get to the most significant flaw in his markedly erudite but mostly benign ramblings...

Will he ever use the power? Can he ever tap the power limits? And does he even have an "ear enough" to discern the quality of any sound?... let alone the sonic signatures and output of equipment at this caliber?

Fact is, most boys that can afford these toys aren't blessed with the receptive ability to really discern one from the next.

These discussions are tantamount to George Bush getting into a protracted discussion about the fluid playability of a Paul Reid Smith guitar, because he owns them, but doesn't even possess the manual dexterity to even play them.

He can look at them and appreciate their beauty. He can comment on the aesthetic appeal of the finish; the choice of wood, the inlay, the fret work, the materials used in the finishing of the instrument, but without the ability to wrap his hands around it and make it sing, all of the wonderfully philosophical information he can supply is whittled down to mere filibustering.

Herein lies the problem.

I would venture to bet that the reason AV-Phile is so wonderfully versed in the technical anomalies of various equipment models is because he spends an inordinate amount of time consuming the manual's; which is disproportionate and disparate to the amount of time he spends actually enjoying the equipment. Whatever he really owns.

It is the people who have only a few basic to midrange items, who dream of owning something very specific and very special to them, that become these tech sponges that satiate their inadequacies by regurgitating the sum total of their knowledge--over and over again in these forums.

While I know that I will get a venomous and very entertaining response to this post everyone here should realize, that in just a few short readings of his rantings, I have peered into the very soul of this most passionate individual and nailed his inadequacies with the precision of Robin Hood.

Sad to see someone waste so much knowledge championing a cause for which their experiences are not justly equipped. AV_Phile, you have some value here, you've done your homework well, but it is real-world application that matters in the end. I choose not to get into plastering all I know in these pages or plastering a dissertation on everything I've owned in these pages. But I will say this. If you spend more time listening to equipment, enjoying the texture of sound, integrating your components with your environment, you would ultimately see that the things you focus on become secondary or even tertiary in scope.

Best to all of you. ~Pharaoh

P. S. excuse any typos I'm still training my dictation software!!! ~Peace

[zipper]

Wow. Crossing over with Pharoah.

[Ross]

Zip,
Have you or anyone else really gained anything here?

This thread simply turned into one guy defending yamaha at all costs, and another stating that receivers use misleading numbers in their spec sheets.

Is there anything else thus far in this developing argument that you can foresee as being informative or beneficial?

pharaOh,
That was deep :cool: !

Maybe you guys can just cool off a little until Gene sums up his findings and thoughts on amplifier parameters and capabilities. Then we can have something useful to discuss.

best,

[Unregistered]

My most heartfelt gratitude to you Pharoah for a most eloquent counterpoint to my loquacious but needless arguments.

Let's not be bothered with whatever the manufacturer claims their products have so long as we achieve the sonic nirvanas we so blindlessly pine for from a receiver or amp that can never deliver what was promised. And then we will forever wonder why.

[av_phile]

My most heartfelt gratitude to you Pharoah for a most eloquent counterpoint to my loquacious but needless arguments.

Let's not be bothered with whatever the manufacturer claims their products have so long as we achieve the sonic nirvanas we so blindlessly pine for from a receiver or amp that can never deliver what was promised. And then we will forever wonder why.

[phara0h]

"Sonic nirvana!" I love that.

That is the true essence of what we are all typically after.

I will say this, this forum has some of the most knowledgable consumers I think I have ever run across. And did I mention passionate, witty and abundantly entertaining?

Best,

Pharaoh

[zipper]

Welcome aboard Pharaoh. Enjoy the fruit basket.And if you need extra towels,just ring the front desk.
Actually,since Genes motto is" pursuing the truth in audio", I feel av_philes' beef has a place here. Although I'm not ready to throw out or replace my Yamaha because it's power claims may not be legit,I will file this information away for future reference. If I know me,I'll outgrow what I have pretty quick & be out looking for more.

[av_phile]

Gene,

I've read your excellent but subjective assessment of the Z1. There's so much in it that I can agree with such as the awesome preamp and digital processing attributes that the Z1 shares with many outstanding receivers in its class. But there is one review I think it missed out that other hardware reviewers have allocated sufficient testing. That is the issue of output power.

I couldn't care less if the power is awesome in itself which I have no reason to doubt it is on its own. But what interests professional hardware reviewers found in most serious magz is whether or not the claimed specifications are correct. Distortion figures, frequency responses, floor noise and those in the tuner sections such as capture ratios, etc are often subjected to independent verification. And you know where I am leading at. The output power specs.

I hope your review of the Z9 will not be just an echo of your review of the Z1. But would include a more thorough analytical and dispassionate review based on lab measurements that will confirm or bellie the claimed technical specifications. Without these, I must say any review will remain in the province of subjective personal opinion. Personally, I wouldn't need another subjective review consisting of ooohs and aaahs about it. With due respect, I can pretty well do that myself. Thanks.

[gene]

AV_Phile;

If my lab equipment arrives in time for my Z9 review, I will be doing "real world" power measurements. We shall see.

I think you are way to preoccupied with these measurements. I encourage you to stick watt meter across your speakers at normal listening levels if you can. You will find the average power levels on the order of a few watts (assuming reasonably efficient speakers > 89dB SPL * 1 watt/meter). Thus in order to achieve 20 dB dynamics during peaks to reach 100dB SPL about 100 watts or so should get you there with no problems.

You may also be interested in knowing very few well designed speakers are capable of handling more than 100-200watts continuously without reaching thermal compression and increased distortion.

Our reviews are based on objective facts and subjective opinions as we have stated in the past. If you are looking strictly for a lab report, rather than a critical assessment, then you may be out of luck. My Z9 review will be full of many surprises including the most comprehensive testing of YPAO ever seen. Stay tuned...

[av_phile]

AV_Phile;

If my lab equipment arrives in time for my Z9 review, I will be doing "real world" power measurements. We shall see.

I think you are way to preoccupied with these measurements. I encourage you to stick watt meter across your speakers at normal listening levels if you can. You will find the average power levels on the order of a few watts (assuming reasonably efficient speakers > 89dB SPL * 1 watt/meter). Thus in order to achieve 20 dB dynamics during peaks to reach 100dB SPL about 100 watts or so should get you there with no problems.

You may also be interested in knowing very few well designed speakers are capable of handling more than 100-200watts continuously without reaching thermal compression and increased distortion.

Our reviews are based on objective facts and subjective opinions as we have stated in the past. If you are looking strictly for a lab report, rather than a critical assessment, then you may be out of luck. My Z9 review will be full of many surprises including the most comprehensive testing of YPAO ever seen. Stay tuned...

Gene,

I hope you are not missing my point entirely. For all intents and purposes, I can be using only 1 watt out of my 250wpc acurus amp and that would be sufficient to fill my room. Anything above it might very well damage my ears before any of my speakers even start to fry. But that's not my point. And I am not preoccupied with tech specs per se. But in relation to the product it describes.

The onus of my argument is centered on the CREDIBILITY of a manufacturer's technical spec versus what the product can deliver in REAL listening situations. This forum is supposed to be "pursuing the truth in audio." Right? So where is the truth when a tech spec says 100w + 100w DIN at 1 khz into 4 ohms when the amp does not even recommend using less than 8 ohms for its speaker connections? Where is the truth in audio when the same amp consumes only 80watts max of electrical power? And the manufacturer would have us believe it can generate 200 watts of output power? Where is the truth in audio when the manufacturer rates its amps only at 1Khz with only one channel driven, when we all know real listening conditions are anchored on both channels being driven for stereo listening and any program, even a solo voice, contains more than 1 Khz? And you expect the consumer to proudly declare he bought a 100wpc amp as correct? If that isn't misleading the consumer, pls tell me what is.

My early readings of hardware reviews contain both objective lab measurements to confirm or bellie CLAIMED specifications and the reviewer's opinions based on his set of values. I may disregard the latter, but not the former.

And I hope when you say that your review of the Z9 "will be full of many surprises" you have not prejudged the Z9.

[Yamahaluver]

Yes Gene,

Dont be making the mistake of praising anything from Yamaha in the near future, they make absolutely the most over rated junk. Just stick to your prasies of high priced euro junk as well as some other hypes. :rolleyes:

[phara0h]

"And you expect the consumer to proudly declare he bought a 100wpc amp as correct?" --AV-Phile

AV-Phile... here you go with another rant that detracts from your true charm and appeal. You said all of what you said to then ask the aforementioned question?

You are so consumed with the veracity of the 'horsepower'... so you can walk around braggadociously claiming that your horse is hung better than someone else is horse...and the reason you know yours is hung better is because your tape measure is more accurate than theirs?

That is exactly what this amounts to. I am shocked to see you let all of the steam out of another attempt at a compelling argument by floating such a rudimentary question. A classic blunder in Logic 101.

Your rants on truth in adverstising have proven that you are more qualified to be an Internal Auditor then you all are to be an 'auditory' expert. };-) What is particularly amusing is the fact that your incessant monopoly on technical specifications is the only foundation upon which you have been able to attempt to build an argument--one that is seemingly to attack the viability of non-European audio/video products.

Moreover, I find it abundantly amusing that you have hemorrhged several thousand, carefully chosen, words into an effort to impeach the credibility and opinions of enthusiasts and experts alike--particularly those that are not aligned with your proclivity for numerical values vs. real world performance.

However, I truly encourage you to never give up on your crusade. Without question, being that I am a person inclined to enjoying such dialogue, this has been abundantly amusing.

Now I'm off to listen to some music! Better yet...I don't need the Owner's or Technical Manual to accomplish that.

Best,

Pharaoh

[gene]

AV_Phile;

It is obvious we are not seeing eye to eye on things here so I suggest we agree to disagree.

I am very familiar with Acurus amps. I am close friends with the former owner of Acurus. Their multi channel amps are also not rated with all channels driven 8/4 ohm loads at full bandwdith. I know this because the power supply is not capable of delivering that much juice. Even the legendary Aragon 8008 series amps, (which I owned for 3 years until I sold them due to space limitations and no longer needing massive power in a system with 90dB SPL sensitive speakers and over 800 watts of amplified power to dual subwoofers) only delivered full power to all channels driven IF and ONLY IF the line voltage is held constant. They Even state this in their literature. Perhaps you should read up on this.

The Yamaha receiver that you discuss power ratings on never stated all channels driven so how are they being deceiving? The reality which I will prove in a future article is this "all channels driven test at full bandwidth into 8/4 ohm loads" is NOT a realistic real world test.

The reason Receiver companies don't recommend impedances below 6 ohms is so they can receive UL approval with regards to power consumption and heat dissipation. I have never had problems driving all of my 4 ohm speakers at ear bleeding levels in my 3000 cubic foot room with flagship receivers rated similarly to the Yamaha Z9.

I think what you fail to realize is a receiver is a compromise. It has everything in it so obviously they cannot stick the huge power supplies in them that some other dedicated amps have. The question is, do you really need them? I have found most 7CH amps in the price range of $2K DO NOT outperform these flagship receivers. While some are more powerful, they are usually more noisey. So would you rather trade power for noise? I wouldn't.

And I hope when you say that your review of the Z9 "will be full of many surprises" you have not prejudged the Z9.

What have I "prejudged"? I was referring to the types of measurements I will be doing on receivers which will set a standard on this site. I think what I learned from this forum discussion is to limit my discussion on products until I complete the review. With that, I leave you to continue discussions with other forum members and will check back when my analysis is complete.

[av_phile]

.

Now I'm off to listen to some music! Better yet...I don't need the Owner's or Technical Manual to accomplish that.

Best,

Pharaoh

Go ahead and enjoy. But i just hope you are getting what the tech specs said you should get as a consumer. Nothing less.

[av_phile]

I am very familiar with Acurus amps. I am close friends with the former owner of Acurus. Their multi channel amps are also not rated with all channels driven 8/4 ohm loads at full bandwdith. I know this because the power supply is not capable of delivering that much juice. Even the legendary Aragon 8008 series amps, (which I owned for 3 years until I sold them due to space limitations and no longer needing massive power in a system with 90dB SPL sensitive speakers and over 800 watts of amplified power to dual subwoofers) only delivered full power to all channels driven IF and ONLY IF the line voltage is held constant. They Even state this in their literature. Perhaps you should read up on this.


The scant user's manual on my Acurus amps are very clear: On the A250: BOTH CHANNELS DRIVEN. On my Acurus 200X3: ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN. So what are you talking about? How can they not be capable of delivering all that juice when each of them consume a whopping 1,200 watts of electric power?? Your Aragon 8003 consume more than TWICE that!!!

And ofcourse the line voltage should be held constant. Where's the argument there? I use a a servo automatic voltage regulator and a UPS that makes sure the line voltage is constant at all times. Most audiophiles do.

[av_phile]

The Yamaha receiver that you discuss power ratings on never stated all channels driven so how are they being deceiving? The reality which I will prove in a future article is this "all channels driven test at full bandwidth into 8/4 ohm loads" is NOT a realistic real world test.



I find that logic flawed. It is precisely in NOT stating both or all channels driven that they are deceiving the consumer. Precisely because any power measurement that does not drive all channels will yield a HIGHER power rating. And they nicely HIDE that fact to show a higher power figure.

Are you now saying that measuring at 1Khz is more realistic than with full bandwidth? I am shocked.

I think you better review the objective of power measurements in labs. They are meant to confirm the claimed manufacturer specs using CONTROLLABLE TEST CONDITIONS APPROACHING REAL WORLD SITUATIONS. And this involved driving ALL channels simultaneously to simulate REAL listening conditions and use FULL bandwidth to simulate a REAL recording of an orchestral piece. Are you in effect telling the members here that 1Khz is more realistic? And that the power ratings derived at 1Khz is more representative of the real power that can be expected by the consumer in a real-world listening conditions?

WOW. To hear that from a champion of "truth in audio" is really revealing.

[gene]

AV_Phile;

I can see this discussion with you is pointless, especially since you are putting words in my mouth about things I haven't said.

If the receiver claimed full power with all channels driven simultaneously into full frequency with specified load impedances, it would be another story and I would see your point.

The Acurus amps I was referring to were the 5CH amps and the new Aragon 3000 series 5CH amps. But thats not the point.

I have nothing left to add to this discussion as it has become nothing more than ranting and restating prior points.

[rgriffin25]

Av-phile,

It seems to me that you have endorsed yourself as the Electronics Police! Running around pointing out "flaws" in equipment that you may or may not own. If it really bothers you that much perhaps a letter to your congressman would suffice? Tell them how bad the average consumer is being ripped off by the audio industry. You might also mention how you only get a half bag of potato chips.(after some settling occurs.) Or how the mobile phone industry charges us for a minute of airtime even if the call is only 3 seconds. The list can go on and on.

How can you be such an advocate of accurate and honest and forthcoming specs, when you are smart enough to realize that they should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when it comes to power ratings. Besides there are several of us here already aware enough to be cautious of reading to much into specifications to begin with, regardless of their validity..

Not only is it important to let your ears be the judge, it is necessary to find equipment that is easy to use and fits into your budget.

Honestly, I can find many other things in life to worry about. I consider my hobby/addiction to be a form of entertainment. Not another way to be critical of meaningless specs.

I personally look forward to the reviews posted at this site. (I think you will be lucky to find a review without any bias anywhere) So don't point fingers here in hopes of changing the world. I think you will be the only one disappointed when nothing is changed on the account of you.

[av_phile]

The reason Receiver companies don't recommend impedances below 6 ohms is so they can receive UL approval with regards to power consumption and heat dissipation. I have never had problems driving all of my 4 ohm speakers at ear bleeding levels in my 3000 cubic foot room with flagship receivers rated similarly to the Yamaha Z9.

Now that's very revealing, so they'd raise the impedance just to gain UL SAFETY certification?!? That means, even if it can drive 4ohm loads, the receivers are dangerously close to thermal runaway and exceed UL minimum requirements for heat dissipation to gain the UL mark. Tsk Tsk. Another black eye for them.

Sorry to rain down on your parade, the ROTEL RSX 1067 is a 7.1 receiver rated conservatively at 100wpc with all 7 channels driven simultanously across 20hz - 20khz into 8 ohms at 0.05% THD as inidcated in its specs. And true enough its electric power consumption is a whopping 990 watts, just 10 watts shy of the Z9's. And oh, it states at the back a minimum speaker requirement of 4 ohms, unconditionally.

It has no UL mark but it runs just warm even with 4 ohm loads at higher than normal listening levels for the whole afternoon. My Acurus feeds a 4-ohm Mordaunt-short and never goes beyond warm under neighbor-*****ing levels.

I think what you fail to realize is a receiver is a compromise. It has everything in it so obviously they cannot stick the huge power supplies in them that some other dedicated amps have. The question is, do you really need them? I have found most 7CH amps in the price range of $2K DO NOT outperform these flagship receivers. While some are more powerful, they are usually more noisey. So would you rather trade power for noise? I wouldn't.

Nope, I've never considered receivers on equal footing with separates for the same power. So telling me it is a compromise is not surprising. I have no problem with that. Never did. My problem is when their manufacturers try to con me into thinking their reciever's power is better than or at par with some other receivers that is conservatively rated. Though I could be faulted for unfairly comparing the Z9 with a separates Acurus power amp, I must insist the comparison is not strained as I am comparing it with the amps sections of the reciever. But I guess a more judicious comparison is with another reciever. So I give the 100wpc Rotel RSX 1067.

Whether or not I would need stupendous amounts of power is beside the point. That already impinges on personal subjectivism. Let me repeat for the Nth time, I am questioning the propriety of stating power specs under unrealistic conditions that effectively mislead the consumer for what the product can actually deliver. Is that so hard to understand?

Where in my post did it ever occur to anyone that I would trade power for noise? Just because I am ranting against over-rated or over-hyped products, does that imply I would favour power over sonic quality? Where's the deductive logic in there?

[av_phile]

Av-phile,

It seems to me that you have endorsed yourself as the Electronics Police! Running around pointing out "flaws" in equipment that you may or may not own. If it really bothers you that much perhaps a letter to your congressman would suffice? Tell them how bad the average consumer is being ripped off by the audio industry. You might also mention how you only get a half bag of potato chips.(after some settling occurs.) Or how the mobile phone industry charges us for a minute of airtime even if the call is only 3 seconds. The list can go on and on.

How can you be such an advocate of accurate and honest and forthcoming specs, when you are smart enough to realize that they should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when it comes to power ratings. Besides there are several of us here already aware enough to be cautious of reading to much into specifications to begin with, regardless of their validity..

Not only is it important to let your ears be the judge, it is necessary to find equipment that is easy to use and fits into your budget.

Honestly, I can find many other things in life to worry about. I consider my hobby/addiction to be a form of entertainment. Not another way to be critical of meaningless specs.

I personally look forward to the reviews posted at this site. (I think you will be lucky to find a review without any bias anywhere) So don't point fingers here in hopes of changing the world. I think you will be the only one disappointed when nothing is changed on the account of you.

You're absolutely right. Why should I care? There are really more important things in life, and in this hobby, to even bother aspiring to be policeman in the industry. Nope, I'm not interested in the job.

In the same way I've pointed out how misleading some Pioneer universal players are by their silence in converting SACD bitstreams to PCM prior to analog shaping, I've tried pointing out there are amps out there with misleading power specifications the better to clinch sales from audio enthusiasts and audiophiles who may be after power but do not know any better. My posts aimed to point that out. Nothing more.

I won't be writing to congressmen and senators who, just like you, have more important things to attend to. And they themselves may be enjoying some overstated amps with blithesome abandon, for all I care. But if members of this forum can decry over-hyped cables and congratulate themselves for exposing such marketing hypes, I find the attitude "let the ears be the judge" a little hypocritical when it comes to amplifiers. Did you change the world when you ecposed the questionable claims of cable vendors? Are you also dissapointed that there are still $1,500 cerullean RCA cables out there being enjoyed by audiophiles, inspite of your crusades? Why can't you just leave these audiophiles to enjoy their stratospherically priced cables? But it's ok for you to just enjoy your amps even if the manufacturer ripped you off with bogus power claims, right?

[rgriffin25]

All I was trying to say is you are not telling us anything that we have not heard before.

To each his own...

However, I do think that it is funny how some people can spend $300 on a HTIB and be far happier than any Audiophile who has it all!!! So you tell me who the fool is? :p

[av_phile]

AV_Phile;
I can see this discussion with you is pointless, especially since you are putting words in my mouth about things I haven't said.

I don't have to put anything in your mouth as what you were saying is quite clear and their implications unmistakable.

If the receiver claimed full power with all channels driven simultaneously into full frequency with specified load impedances, it would be another story and I would see your point.
That is my point and nothing else.

The Acurus amps I was referring to were the 5CH amps and the new Aragon 3000 series 5CH amps. But thats not the point.
Whether 2 ch or 5 ch the Acurus measures their power with the same conditions. I also have the multi-channel A200X5 and the A125X5 manuals downloaded from their site. The Aragon 3005 is also quite clear in saying "3 channels driven." when indicating the power (definitely candid rather than not saying anything.) Oh, I disagree, they're not beside the point. These are prime examples of how to properly rate an amp's power. Whether in receivers or in separates.

I have nothing left to add to this discussion as it has become nothing more than ranting and restating prior points
LOL The rantings of a mad man, yeah right. Is that the typical response when cornered or exposed???

[Yamahaluver]

av_phille,

Maybe you should seriously consider joining Ralph Nader, you are truly in the wrong forum. You should also start a campaign to actively ban these deceiving Japanese imports particularly the ones from the motorcycle maker Yamaha, they are the biggest crook and your congressman should really get to hear about this.

Meanwhile leave us fools and our crappy amps and let us listen to music and enjoy, after all that is what we fools do anyways, dont have the IQ or the acumen to go into the technical details.

[av_phile]

All I was trying to say is you are not telling us anything that we have not heard before.

Oh I see. So all you folks have heard and known about this all along. Nothing new. My bad. Ok, just enjoy your gears.

Likewise, I've known all along that there are $300/meter cables out there being enjoyed by audiophools. Nothing new there, too. Next time you question these audiophools who enjoy listening with these cables, I'd say the same "you are not telling us anything that we have not heard before."


However, I do think that it is funny how some people can spend $300 on a HTIB and be far happier than any Audiophile who has it all!!! So you tell me who the fool is? :p

Should I have to call any of the two a fool? Like you said, to each his own. Right?

[av_phile]

av_phille,

Meanwhile leave us fools and our crappy amps and let us listen to music and enjoy, after all that is what we fools do anyways, dont have the IQ or the acumen to go into the technical details.

Nothing would please me more. I think that's the problem, I must have misjudged you and some members here to have the right IQ to make the proper discernment. And that I have been duped into thinking this is a forum about "pursuing the truth in audio." I think you should lobby to have this motto changed to "pursuing sonic nirvana." Plain and simple. Forget about the truth. That's a lot of nonsense that gets in the way of enjoying your music.

[Pop]

As an owner and avid fan of Aragon amps, I think it is interesting to note that their latest 3005 series amp power ratings are somewhat ambigious just like AV_Phile complains about Yamaha.

3005 is their 5CH 300wpc power amp:
http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=427

Note they state 300wpc x 3 channels driven = 900 watts total for a 1200 watt power consumption = 75% efficiency, seems reasonable. BTW the 1200 watt power consumption to me implies a 1200VA Xformer which is the same size in the Z9. So basically the Z9 has similar power capabilities (900 watts but must deliver it to 7 main channels and 2 front channels as opposed to 5 channels in the Aragon).

Yet when they rate it in 4 ohms, they say 500 watts, but guess what??, they don't specify # of channels driven! Thus if the max power consumption is 1200 watts and we hold the 75% efficiency, they can only drive one channel at 500watts continuously into 4 ohms.

So I would assume their ability to drive all channels into 8 ohms would be 180wpc and into 4 ohms would be even less. In fact SoundandVison did a 7CH power test on the Z9 and found it to be 140wpc, only 40 watts shy of the Aragon. Meanwhile the Aragon says 300wpc. Why not send the radar police to Aragon?

I own this amp and love it. I don't care that it can't deliver 300wpc to all channels driven. I don't need that much power nor do most home theater systems.

Again here is another example, their 2007 which claims 200wpc in 8 ohms, 300wpc in 4 ohms.
http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=424
This amp also consumes 1200watts. So it would be logical to conclude a similar sized power supply of the 3005 is used in the 2007 to drive 7 amps instead of 5. Thus this amp should deliver about the same power of the Z9, yet it states 200wpc. Look closer and they rate 200wpc in 3 channels 8 ohms, and 300wpc, 4 ohms (no channel #'s specified!) Call the power police?

I think what we can learn here is there really are no uniform standards for rating multi channel power amps. You have to be aware of how manufacturers are rating them to compare apples to apples.

No way am I discrediting the Aragon amps, just pointing out they also dont deliver or state all channels driven.

[Clint DeBoer]

Despite the obvious baiting I'm not going to close this thread - though it is going nowhere. av_phile, you appear (to me) to be your own worst enemy: unproductive and full of unwavering agenda. Your points are well taken for the third or fourth time.

Thank you, drive through.

[av_phile]

AV-Phile... here you go with another rant that detracts from your true charm and appeal. You said all of what you said to then ask the aforementioned question?

You are so consumed with the veracity of the 'horsepower'... so you can walk around braggadociously claiming that your horse is hung better than someone else is horse...and the reason you know yours is hung better is because your tape measure is more accurate than theirs?

That is exactly what this amounts to. I am shocked to see you let all of the steam out of another attempt at a compelling argument by floating such a rudimentary question. A classic blunder in Logic 101.

Your rants on truth in adverstising have proven that you are more qualified to be an Internal Auditor then you all are to be an 'auditory' expert. };-) What is particularly amusing is the fact that your incessant monopoly on technical specifications is the only foundation upon which you have been able to attempt to build an argument--one that is seemingly to attack the viability of non-European audio/video products.

Moreover, I find it abundantly amusing that you have hemorrhged several thousand, carefully chosen, words into an effort to impeach the credibility and opinions of enthusiasts and experts alike--particularly those that are not aligned with your proclivity for numerical values vs. real world performance.

However, I truly encourage you to never give up on your crusade. Without question, being that I am a person inclined to enjoying such dialogue, this has been abundantly amusing.

Best,

Pharaoh

I disagree, the logic of that statement proceeds with unassailable deductive path from my arguments.

Let me just say that there is this thing called PRIDE of OWNERSHIP. Whether in cars, homes, wristwatches, clothes, whatever. It's a primal instinct of the human creature. From it proceeds acts of courage, but also acts of folly, often with tragic remuneration.

Pride of ownership spawns bragging rights. I do frown upon bragging and being a braggadocio. But in a polite civilized conversation, when someone asks me what's your amp's power, I say I have a 200 watt amplifier. Is that bragging? Maybe. But more importantly, is there any truth to what I am saying? That's the point of all my loquacity.

There would be truth if I were using a NAD, a Rotel or an HK or some other brand whose specs from which I based my declaration is truthful. But if, from the specs, the manufacturer duped me into thinking I have a 200wpc amp when all the while it is just a 100wpc amp, therein lies the problem. And if, in my naive estimation, I hold the manufacturer in high respect, any challenge questioning its product's 200wpc ability would let loose a barrage of defense with all the ferocity at my command. However misplaced. I can therefore understand the angst generated by my post. But I wouldn't have one were I in the other shoe.

Knowing fully well that many in the membership are avid Yamaha receiver or amp users, I have thrown myself into a lion's den ,as it were, with open eyes. But it is precisely my trust in the sublimity of the human thought that my posts should attempt to bring these rational people beyond their precious comfort zones into a more discerning consciousness so that no one need be surprised that some of the promises in a product's spec can never be attained in real world listening. I agree, it probably doesn't matter at all. Specs are just a trifle sheet of paper. Nothing in it will ever tell you to what heights you can achieve sonic nirvana in this aurally hedonistic hobby. And I have no doubts, they already do with their yamaha gear. I am not questioning that, nor am i interested to do so. Is that hard to get?

But in the same way I look at a resume of the employment applicants with discerning interest, I look at a product's technical specs as an indicator and a start in evaluating it. Anything that doesn't interest me won't even merit a consideration for audition. Same with applicants.

I probably should apologyze for smearing a nationality with my reference to Japanese amps. But I won't. Can I help it if, in looking at the amplifer specs of Yamaha, Pioneer, Denon, Onkyo, Kenwood, JVC, Sony, Aiwa, to mention some, most of whose power claims I find similarly suspect, a comon thread deductively emerges that betrays their country of origin? Perhaps there are European and American brands that likewise elicit some suspicision with their specs, but that is totally beside the point. I am not here to bash gears from one or the other country. I am merely pointing out the inadequacies of power measurement in amps so that consumers like you and others can KNOW just what you are getting, and not expect more than what they can really deliver.

And yes, if i am more hung than you are, it is precisely because the tape measure we use do not tell a lie. But i'd be flusterred if you tell you are more hung based on numerical superiorty, if you used centimeters while I used inches.

To further illustrate my point, i often encounter questions from colleagues about why their NAD or HK that is rated at only 50wpc sounds louder and more full-bodied than their older Denon or Pioneer units rated at 75 or 80wpc. As well as questions in the reverse situation: why their new Onkyo whose spec indicated a 120wpc reciever didn't sound any louder than their older vintage HK reciever rated at only 50wpc. Or questions like "should I upgrade to a Rotel, but its power is only 40 wpc, whereas my older Yamaha has 70wpc? Needless to say, my explanations to them essayed the same gist as the posts I made here.

And I do find it "abundantly amusing", if not entirely pathetic, that people who champion the truth behind audio are exactly the same people who would question my efforts at exposing unrealistic specs whose "proclivity with numbers vs real world performance" is precisely that - a proclivity that borders on incredibility. I am now a mad man ranting blind at something everyone already knows. Nothing new to contribute.

Well, let me just say that if that were indeed the case, I feel sorry for a forum that is supposed to be interested in the truth about audio. Seems the arrival of something like the Z9 is treated with such overwhelming oohs and aahs that pointing out its obvious inadequacies that can never match the promise of its power specs must be treated with scorn and ridicule, like someone crying in the wilderness. Is this site sponsored by Yamaha? If so, I must have touched a raw nerve.

And if someone here would tell me to just disregard the specs as they are worthless, and just listen and enjoy, I would have no problem with that. Afterall, if they can disregard the dubious claims of wonder cables, I can disregard the dubious claims of overstated amp specs. Right? I beg to differ. While you can disregard bogus cable claims, you can rightfully go back to your ZIP cords and enjoy. But in disregarding bogus power claims on receivers and amps, you would still use them. That would be like telling me to disregard the claims of Pure Note but still find enjoymentt in listening to their $1,500 cerullean RCA cables. Is this a case of double standards or what?

Sorry Pharoah, I just couldn't let this pass. But just to return the favor, I also find your erudite responses prodigously entertaining despite their superficial grasp of my persistent loquacity, bordering on the laughable. But do continue with your engaging posts. I also gain so much bemusement with your obvious delight at my trifling tenacity, which, while implicit, is exceedingly unmistakable.

[P0p]

According to S&V Magazine
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/PDFs/sound_vision_5_04.pdf

The Z9 met its power spec (170wpc 8 ohms) as they measured 211watts 8 ohms / 1kHz. Full Bandwidth is about 20% less thus 170watts

7 Channels driven 1kHz 8 ohms, 140wpc --->> full bandwidth = 112wpc
(Yamaha never published a spec, thus they didn't pass or fail anything here)


Ah but Rotel is another story.

The RSX-1067 states:
120wpc, 1kHz, 8 ohms, 2CH driven at 1% distortion (YIKES, 1% distortion can be seen as clipping on an Oscope). Clearly not a very clean measurement. In comparision Yamaha Z9 delivers 170wpc 8 ohms, full bandwdith at .015THD.

Don't believe me, ok check here:
http://rotel.com/products/specs/rsx1067.htm


The RSX-1067 does deliver 100wpc, full bandwidth into 7Ch, so its about 12wpc shy of the Z9 in this type of test.

However, it is noteworthy to point out that the Z9 carries the THX Ultra 2 certification while the RSX-1067 does not. THX has test specs that mandate the amp must deliver the dynamic peaks of 100dB or so into a 3000cuft room. To my knowledge they even test voltage swing across a 3.2 ohm load to ensure the amps can deliver the current. The Rotel doesn't have this certification, so we don't know if it can meet it. It may, but nobody knowns.

Just food for thought. They are both great products I am sure.

[av_phile]

7 Channels driven 1kHz 8 ohms, 140wpc --->> full bandwidth = 112wpc
(Yamaha never published a spec, thus they didn't pass or fail anything here)



As far as getting conservative and realistic continuous power rating is concered, this is all that matters to me. As revealed by these tests, the Z9 is a 112 watts/channel receiver, rated into 8 ohms, full bandwidth, and with all 7 channels driven. Yamaha never published this spec. They prefered the bloated figures measured from 1Khz or one channel only that are nowhere realistic. This is the point of all my loquacious rantings. And I am justified. Thank you.

I can now go to my clients who are in the market for more powerful HT receivers and intelligently recommened the Z9 as a possible upgrade from their existing 50wpc receivers if they can afford one. But I definitely won't recommend it if they already have 90wpc receivers conservatively rated. See what I mean? If I had believed that the Z9 was a 170wpc reciver, as the specs would have it, I would have recommended it to upgrade their conservatively rated 90 watters. And I would have received the flak from disgruntled upgraders who wouldn't notice any loudness difference.

But to clients who are interested in more features, more channels, and NOT power, I'd strongly endorse the Z9 hands down. This receiver has the most input flexibility and digital processing features than any receiver on this planet, save perhaps the Denon flagship. And with a continuous 112wpc for all 7 channels, it is formidable enough an HT receiver in its class. So formidable that it beggars the mind that something so exceptional had to be hyped at all. Just don't give me that BS that this is a 170wpc receiver.

Case closed.

[Yamahaluver]

That there is no mention of any Japanese brands in your praise list and every chance you get, you manage to denigrate each and every Japanese manufacturer of repute goes to show you are a biased, prejudiced individual with clouded thinking. There were old 70s and 80s era Japanese amps which always delivered more than their rated wattage, sometimes significantly more. The managed to sound better, last longer than their high priced euro counterparts and yet costed less.

I have a stack of back issues from Australian Hi-Fi, What Hi-Fi UK and Stereo Review and in all their tests, the Japanese amps delivered higher than their rated wattage or at least met their rated wattage with ease. Julian Hirsch tested Yamaha's DSP-A1000 and found it delivered 23W more than its rating.

Sadly you keep on harping about HK, NAD, ROTEL etc. have you ever wondered that quite a lot of us dont like their sound, specs be damned and in What Hi-Fi test, when they compared a Rotel integrated to a Yamaha integrated, the panel found the Yamaha to have better bass and delivering significantly higher dynamics. What Hi-Fi also used a Pioneer A-400 as their referrence amp. How about Accupahse? No mention in your books about them either.

At least my name suggests that I am an unabashed Yamahaluver, why do you hide behind your name, why not come out with a Japanese basher moniker instead.

[phara0h]

I'm very pleased to that you finally mustered up the wherewithal to address my comments. My response will be very simple. Let me begin with the most significant quote of the entire stream of thought:

"But in the same way I look at a resume of the employment applicants with discerning interest, I look at a product's technical specs as an indicator and a start in evaluating it. Anything that doesn't interest me won't even merit a consideration for audition. Same with applicants."

Robin Garman, former vice president of Shearson Lehman American Express, walked into Rabson's Stereo Warehouse on 50 7th St. and 6th Ave. in Manhattan one afternoon back in 1983. She was a bullish handsome woman with a very Type-A personality and money to burn.

She had recently made a stopover at Harvey's Electronics, one of the more elite audiovideo establishments at that time to be found in New York City. She had gotten an ear full about Satin moving coil cartridges, Oracle turntables, Magnepans, Acoustic Research, Mission and a plethora of other brands that were either in the upper echelon that time or had spires of product lines that were.

It was obvious that she was hellbent on buying a complete audio system that day, as she had a very poor party to conduct a later that evening in her penthouse apartment a few blocks away. I happen to be the fellow standing behind the counter. I listened to her go on and on about all the things that she was told were great. I suffered through giving her a detailed rundown on every speaker, receiver, power amp, preamp, turntable, CD player, stylus and tape deck we sold.

After going through the litany of products on hand she preceded, in a very snobbish way, to question why we didn't have some of the same brand's Harvey's Electronics carried?

I gave for the requisite response that Harvey's was our competitor and why we did share some brands we each have exclusive contracts with manufacturers to serve as exclusive vendors of some of the finer products. She then explained to me that the salesperson at Harvey's told her that everything that Rabson's carried was garbage. I said that in his estimation, based upon his tastes, his opinion was irrefutable. I explained to her that one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Then I asked her what she liked to listened to. Smartly enough, she had arrived prepared with her own assortment of music.

The manager of the store, then the guide by the name of Mark Hayder, asked me who she was and if I wanted to T.O. the potential sale to someone more knowledgeable than me about the brand history's, technical specifications and other minutia related to the equipment. See, I was just the counter salesman and everyone was at lunch. I told him "No!" and asked that he allow me to proceed. He granted my wish, all the while watching me through the glass wall that peered into the sound room.

Behind closed doors, I asked Ms. Garman what her objective was? Are you looking for equipment that will function as decor? Are you looking for something that has the smallest possible footprint that produces the fullest possible sound? Is space not an issue allowing us to look at virtually everything we have to offer as a possible solution?

Ms. Garman very curtly advised (no doubt likely due to the fact that she was rich, important and had an outstanding home atop one of New York's finest buildings) that space was not an issue, price was no object and that the most important criteria for her was that when she listened to her system, and that when others did too, she and they could only remark at how wonderfully engaging and beautiful the reproduction of sound was. But she did throw in one caveat, the stuff needed to be brands that people would recognize as being the finest of the finest.

That threw me a curveball... because in my mind, based upon her requirements sans the last, I had a pretty good idea what she would be walking out with. I derived at this but carefully scrutinizing her musical selections even before the first listen.

She agreed to give me 10 minutes of her time and we proceeded to audition equipment. Some 40 minutes to an hour later she was deciding whether or not she wanted to pairs of the speakers at cost or to fall in love with. All the wonderful brochures technical specification sheets that she had acquired at Harvey's were now in a nearby trash can.

Later that day we delivered an installed her dream system. I was invited to the party which was a fabulous event. All night long people commented on the aesthetics, sound quality in the presence of the music emanating from her system. She had a proud glow all night long.

Upon leaving that evening she thanked me for not allowing her to become overly consumed with superficial details there were admired her decision-making process and quite possibly for turned our road to a decision that would ultimately prove to being less prudent then it could have been.

The idea that someone could rule out listening to any product, or auditioning any equipment, based upon whether the technical specifications jumped out to them as something noteworthy is somewhat befuddling. No, political correctness is not warranted here...it is downright asinine.

So where you certainly have ruled out viable equipment considerations in the past, time certain did you have likewise watered down your talent pool in your search for employees by employing the same tactic.

The fact is people lie on resumes, companies lie about product claims. Moreover, I the do believe in "what you except you teach!" Therefore, I do feel that people should be held culpable for things that they do. I guess that's why I have been in the law enforcement and fraud investigation arena for so long. Nevertheless, perspective is important when assessing what arguments have merit and which ones don't. There's nothing further I need to say about that particular statement.

I for one never got the impression that many in the membership here were after the Yamaha lovers and owners. On the contrary, the impression I got was that many here were open-minded individuals whose focus is centered around purity, quality and reliability. While I am not discrediting your assertion that there may be some plausible bit of deception that exists in manufactures technical specifications; what I'd do take exception to is the perceived need to turn a reasonable question into an inquest that has an equal amount of bias coming from your end.

Nevertheless, to each his own. If reading technical specifications for you is the equivalent of composing a sonata for Mozart to them...then I feel you. But just as with religion... there's no need to proselytize!

Lastly, your attempt to emulate my writing style resulted in something that sounded quite ridiculous coming from you.

There is only one Phara0h... on your faces!!! :-)

[hopjohn]

Among all these pissing contests, one point has yet to be fully considered. While lies on specs sheets are something of a concern to us, I'd be more interested in coming to a factual conclusion of how much amplification power is actually required. Just how much wattage is needed to reach a level just beyond my own personal comfort level, less noticeable distortion? I know each room is different, but has anyone taken the time to consider this approach? Then maybe once we reach a certain wattage spec we can trust or at least assume, then it really becomes a moot point for reasons of unpracticallity.

[Unregistered]

How did you guys get the 112x7 power rating? In the S&V article it states 138 watts driven across 7 channels at the same time. I did not see any indication of the figures you are coming up with.

-thx

[Yamahaluver]

Pharaoh........nicely written.....................luv that moniker of yours.

I worked for Rabsons, NY as a college student and my experience was exactly what you went through. Many a times we would take these snobs to our listening room and tell them to do a A/B blind test and they would invariably pick the cheaper, mass market model instead of the high priced one. Sad part is ego, pompousness, vanity are ills really quite prevalent in the audio world and it is very hard to go through that all.

For those who need to calculate how much power they need or how much SPL they really need, check out this wonderful calculator at

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html

[av_phile]

Despite the obvious baiting I'm not going to close this thread - though it is going nowhere. av_phile, you appear (to me) to be your own worst enemy: unproductive and full of unwavering agenda. Your points are well taken for the third or fourth time.

Thank you, drive through.

What is baiting? Is it anywhere like a fishing line?

Yup, my agenda is most unwavering. For as long as they don't the light.

[Yamahaluver]

What is baiting? Is it anywhere like a fishing line?

Yup, my agenda is most unwavering. For as long as they don't the light.


Baiting=Trolling

Unwavering=Annoying

Light=Your Way only that is no low rated brand from the land of the rising Sun.

[av_phile]

I'm very pleased to that you finally mustered up the wherewithal to address my comments. My response will be very simple. Let me begin with the most significant quote of the entire stream of thought:

"But in the same way I look at a resume of the employment applicants with discerning interest, I look at a product's technical specs as an indicator and a start in evaluating it. Anything that doesn't interest me won't even merit a consideration for audition. Same with applicants."

Robin Garman, former vice president of Shearson Lehman American Express, walked into Rabson's Stereo Warehouse on 50 7th St. and 6th Ave. in Manhattan one afternoon back in 1983. She was a bullish handsome woman with a very Type-A personality and money to burn.

She had recently made a stopover at Harvey's Electronics, one of the more elite audiovideo establishments at that time to be found in New York City. She had gotten an ear full about Satin moving coil cartridges, Oracle turntables, Magnepans, Acoustic Research, Mission and a plethora of other brands that were either in the upper echelon that time or had spires of product lines that were.

It was obvious that she was hellbent on buying a complete audio system that day, as she had a very poor party to conduct a later that evening in her penthouse apartment a few blocks away. I happen to be the fellow standing behind the counter. I listened to her go on and on about all the things that she was told were great. I suffered through giving her a detailed rundown on every speaker, receiver, power amp, preamp, turntable, CD player, stylus and tape deck we sold.

After going through the litany of products on hand she preceded, in a very snobbish way, to question why we didn't have some of the same brand's Harvey's Electronics carried?

I gave for the requisite response that Harvey's was our competitor and why we did share some brands we each have exclusive contracts with manufacturers to serve as exclusive vendors of some of the finer products. She then explained to me that the salesperson at Harvey's told her that everything that Rabson's carried was garbage. I said that in his estimation, based upon his tastes, his opinion was irrefutable. I explained to her that one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Then I asked her what she liked to listened to. Smartly enough, she had arrived prepared with her own assortment of music.

The manager of the store, then the guide by the name of Mark Hayder, asked me who she was and if I wanted to T.O. the potential sale to someone more knowledgeable than me about the brand history's, technical specifications and other minutia related to the equipment. See, I was just the counter salesman and everyone was at lunch. I told him "No!" and asked that he allow me to proceed. He granted my wish, all the while watching me through the glass wall that peered into the sound room.

Behind closed doors, I asked Ms. Garman what her objective was? Are you looking for equipment that will function as decor? Are you looking for something that has the smallest possible footprint that produces the fullest possible sound? Is space not an issue allowing us to look at virtually everything we have to offer as a possible solution?

Ms. Garman very curtly advised (no doubt likely due to the fact that she was rich, important and had an outstanding home atop one of New York's finest buildings) that space was not an issue, price was no object and that the most important criteria for her was that when she listened to her system, and that when others did too, she and they could only remark at how wonderfully engaging and beautiful the reproduction of sound was. But she did throw in one caveat, the stuff needed to be brands that people would recognize as being the finest of the finest.

That threw me a curveball... because in my mind, based upon her requirements sans the last, I had a pretty good idea what she would be walking out with. I derived at this but carefully scrutinizing her musical selections even before the first listen.

She agreed to give me 10 minutes of her time and we proceeded to audition equipment. Some 40 minutes to an hour later she was deciding whether or not she wanted to pairs of the speakers at cost or to fall in love with. All the wonderful brochures technical specification sheets that she had acquired at Harvey's were now in a nearby trash can.

Later that day we delivered an installed her dream system. I was invited to the party which was a fabulous event. All night long people commented on the aesthetics, sound quality in the presence of the music emanating from her system. She had a proud glow all night long.

Upon leaving that evening she thanked me for not allowing her to become overly consumed with superficial details there were admired her decision-making process and quite possibly for turned our road to a decision that would ultimately prove to being less prudent then it could have been.

The idea that someone could rule out listening to any product, or auditioning any equipment, based upon whether the technical specifications jumped out to them as something noteworthy is somewhat befuddling. No, political correctness is not warranted here...it is downright asinine.

So where you certainly have ruled out viable equipment considerations in the past, time certain did you have likewise watered down your talent pool in your search for employees by employing the same tactic.

The fact is people lie on resumes, companies lie about product claims. Moreover, I the do believe in "what you except you teach!" Therefore, I do feel that people should be held culpable for things that they do. I guess that's why I have been in the law enforcement and fraud investigation arena for so long. Nevertheless, perspective is important when assessing what arguments have merit and which ones don't. There's nothing further I need to say about that particular statement.

I for one never got the impression that many in the membership here were after the Yamaha lovers and owners. On the contrary, the impression I got was that many here were open-minded individuals whose focus is centered around purity, quality and reliability. While I am not discrediting your assertion that there may be some plausible bit of deception that exists in manufactures technical specifications; what I'd do take exception to is the perceived need to turn a reasonable question into an inquest that has an equal amount of bias coming from your end.

Nevertheless, to each his own. If reading technical specifications for you is the equivalent of composing a sonata for Mozart to them...then I feel you. But just as with religion... there's no need to proselytize!

Lastly, your attempt to emulate my writing style resulted in something that sounded quite ridiculous coming from you.

There is only one Phara0h... on your faces!!! :-)

It is plain your woman customer never knew and will never know how to read and interpret technical specs. But why bother, her social status guarantees that. Money was no object to her. It is to me. Tech specs and properly interpreting them are reserved to peasants like me who do not want to be duped into parting with his hard-earned wherewithal getting a product that is less than what is promised in those specs. Thank you for another asinine, albeit entertaining, anecdote. And no i wasn't trying to sound like you, the mere thought was ridiculous enough. But if it did, it was meant to be a parody.

[Unregistered]

With a few exceptions this has been 10 some odd web pages of garbage. This thread was titled RX-Z9. I have heard the old advertised power ratings vs. actual power under load a zillion f**king times in numerous forums. Who cares. More importantly, has anyone used or heard this unit? I looked at this thread to gain some insight into the sound, function, and over all value of this machine before I sink 3500+ hard earned dollars into it.

[av_phile]

It is precisely your concern on the value of the Z9 HT receiver vis-a-vis the SRP it commands that has prompted me to raise the issue of whether the claims on the specs, particularly those on the power output, are truly descriptive of the product so that it can deliver the juice as claimed and as expected. From all my exposure in this hobby, I have to say they are not CONSERVATIVELY rated. The electric power consumption at the back betrays that unmistakably.

For sure the features of the Z9 in terms of flexibility and digital processing are non-pareil, awesome to say the least. I am hard-pressed to name a multi-channel preamp out there that can match it in those terms. Even a Krell, a Sunfire or a Rotel doesn't. Sonic quality besides. If power is not your cup of tea, then I'd recommend this gear. If you think other factors such as S/N ratios, frequency response, slew rates etc, are more important, then my posts don't matter.

The gist of my posts is simple. I just wanted to point out what to me is an incongruence between what is claimed in the output power specs and its power consumption rating. And I've gone to great lengths to question the conditions under which such bloated figures have been arrived at. Nothing in it even hints of questioning any subjectively perceived QUALITY of the sound, whether it is warm or cold, bright or laid back, etc. I leave that to those who own the gear. My only objective is to point this out so that buyers will not be wondering why the Z9 won't sound as loud as another multi-channel amp that has numerically similar power rating, but conservatively measured. I base my choices based on CONSERVATIVE power rating. Period.

For $3,500, I'd get this receiver and use it as a preamp, the same way some colleagues bought excellent receivers with pre-outs and eventually used them to mate with better or more powerful amplifiers. (We're power freaks.) I'd mate it to another multi-channel power amp. But if the independent testing is accurate enough that this is a 112wpc amp with ALL 7 channels driven, I'd still consider it a powerful receiver. I just can't accept it when the manufacturer would have me believe this is a 170wpc receiver when it is not.

[Yamahaluver]

This is a sad case of a fine piece of machinery which is yet to be tested, becoming a victim of someone's highly biased, prejudiced, misconceptions, sadly the person who is commenting on this unit will never come to owning one in his lifetime.

I own this unit and can tell you, it is really very powerfull, the dynamics are absolutely fantastic and so is the sound quality. I have a 260Wrms class A amp to compare it with and therefore all I can say is that this unit is superb, whats more, it has one of the quietest pre-amp section as well as fantastic DSP alogrithms to boot.

Wait for Gene's reveiw and dont go by anyone else's, specially the biased ones who will never come close to ownig this unit.

[av_phile]

Among all these pissing contests, one point has yet to be fully considered. While lies on specs sheets are something of a concern to us, I'd be more interested in coming to a factual conclusion of how much amplification power is actually required. Just how much wattage is needed to reach a level just beyond my own personal comfort level, less noticeable distortion? I know each room is different, but has anyone taken the time to consider this approach? Then maybe once we reach a certain wattage spec we can trust or at least assume, then it really becomes a moot point for reasons of unpracticallity.

Pardon the pissing contest for which I nearly overlooked your valid concerns.

It is a bit difficult to say what is the proper amp wattage for anyone. Apart from considerations of room size and accoustic qualities, there's speaker efficiency or sensitivity. There's also source levels to contend with where not all titles or record labels give out the same output levels from a player. There's also your personal listening preferences that can dictate if you are content with playing it loudly, softly or to the max. And there are audiophiles whose quest for hi-fidelity leads them to a journey where simulating the ACTUAL SPLs they recieve in an auditorium or concert hall gives then sonic bliss and nothing less. I used to belong to the latter.

It's perfectly ok to have even a 1 to 7-watt amplifier like some SET amps. Mated to speakers with sensitivities above 92db, they can generate sufficient SPLs for comfortable listening in a typical room. I would say that 10-25 watts per channel is sufficient on a continuous basis and a dynamic headroom of 1db to 1.5db is most adequate. Whether stereo or multi-channel.

Just to give you an idea of sound pressure levels, they're not exact. but estmates:

Jet engine up close, 155db
Snare drums 6 inches away, 150db
Rock singer screaming close to mic, 140db
30m from jet aircraft, 140db
Cymbal Crash few inches away, 130db
Threshold of pain, 130db
Pneumatic Jack hammer, 125db
Podium with full orchestra, 120db
Fender Guitar amp at full volume 10 inches away, 120db
Chainsaw,110db
Disco, 100db
Heavy traffic, 90db
Stereo listening at home, 80db
Busy road, 80db
Conversational speech 1 foot away, 60db
Quiet bedroom at night, 30db
Background in TV studio, 20db
Recording Studio ambience, 10db
Threshold of hearing 0db

Depending on room size/accoustics and speaker sensitivity, different power ratings from different amps can achieve the SPLs you want. A typical 4m by 4m room with the right decay qualities will probably require just 10 wpc continuous into 8 ohms speakers with average sensitivity to generate 80db SPL that each of your ears can perceive 1 meter from the speakers On the otherhand, in that same room and speakers, if you want to simulate the same SPLs a conductor receives at the podium driving a full orchestra at full might, you might need more than 100wpc to generate 120db spl.

Personally, this is of no moment to me. I can be happy with just 10wpc or 1000wpc. But I prefer to err on the side of plenty. Power is not everything. No argument there. But I like to get the most that my money can get in this regard, everything else equal. That is why I get overly passionate in my posts about power specs. I expect to get the power as claimed by the manufacturer. If he is conservative in measuring it, I can safely expect to realize his claim when I get home. If he measures his power under unrealistic conditions, I am duped.

[P0p]

I suppose I am not surprised to come back to this thread a week later to still find AV_Pile bashing the amplifier section of the Z9 for not delivering all channels driven (note they never claimed it) for their power ratings. However, while you are on this endless campaign , you should note that even your beloved Rotel falls short of their claims. In this respect even worse, b/c they state "all channels driven at full bandwidth"

The RSX-1065 states 100wpc x 5 full bandwidth all channels driven.

Yes S&V measured 106wpc x 5 at 1kHz which equates to (.8*106) = 85wpc x 5 at full bandwidth. Thus they are short by 15watts shy of their claim.

S&V also tested their 7CH receiver and found it to deliver the power Rotel claimed at fullbandwidth in their 1kHz test procedure which again demonstrates they are short or not specing their amps honestly.

Note I have nothing against Rotel, just stating facts.

[Yamahaluver]

Well written POp, sadly will go on deaf ears.

[av_phile]

I suppose I am not surprised to come back to this thread a week later to still find AV_Pile bashing the amplifier section of the Z9 for not delivering all channels driven (note they never claimed it) for their power ratings. However, while you are on this endless campaign , you should note that even your beloved Rotel falls short of their claims. In this respect even worse, b/c they state "all channels driven at full bandwidth"

The RSX-1065 states 100wpc x 5 full bandwidth all channels driven.

Yes S&V measured 106wpc x 5 at 1kHz which equates to (.8*106) = 85wpc x 5 at full bandwidth. Thus they are short by 15watts shy of their claim.

S&V also tested their 7CH receiver and found it to deliver the power Rotel claimed at fullbandwidth in their 1kHz test procedure which again demonstrates they are short or not specing their amps honestly.

Note I have nothing against Rotel, just stating facts.

If that is true, then that particular Rotel receiver falls in the same boat.

True the Z9 never claims it. So it's ok for an uninformed consumer to conclude by reading the spec that is silent about it that the z9 is a 170wpc HT receiver? If that isn't puting one over the consumer, what is?

[Unregistered]

True the Z9 never claims it. So it's ok for an uninformed consumer to conclude by reading the spec that is silent about it that the z9 is a 170wpc HT receiver?

The point is that if one were to read the specs and the specs say 'two channels driven' then IT IS a 170wpc receiver when TWO CHANNELS ARE DRIVEN. If they were to say 'all channels driven' then it would be misleading the consumer, but they don't say that, now do they?

[av_phile]

The point is that if one were to read the specs and the specs say 'two channels driven' then IT IS a 170wpc receiver when TWO CHANNELS ARE DRIVEN. If they were to say 'all channels driven' then it would be misleading the consumer, but they don't say that, now do they?

Nope, silence can mislead. If it just says 2 channels. Fine. The Aragon 3000 series says they measure it with 3 channels driven out of a total of 5. I have no problem with that. If it is says All channels driven, they are definetely misleading, if and only if, the power consumption betrays them. If they are silent about that, then what should the consumer conclude, or how should the salesman position it? As a 170wpc receiver?