Power Ratings in Modern AVR's

Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Something I've been thinking about lately and thought I'd get some forum input on this. Consistency in how AVR manufacturer's market their power ratings seems to be woefully inadequate, which lends itself to a bit of confusion in determining just what a given AVR's power output may be. It is understandable that many manufacturer's may exaggerate their claims or publish specs that suggest more power than what they are actually capable of at RMS levels and also with the recent addition of multiple new features such as wifi, Atmos/DTS: X, bluetooth, 4k, etc., it seems possible if not even likely that in order to keep costs contained they may choose to make sacrifices in the amplifier stages. Would this be a reasonable assumption?

As someone who's been formally trained and schooled in electronics, I am intuitively familiar with the principles of Ohm's law and even the Kirchoff laws as they relate to current and voltage drops. One would think this would give me a greater ability to understand these AVR specifications, but in reality the way they are often published or marketed often makes little sense and likewise only leads to more questions. That combined with my lack of in-depth or similarly intuitive knowledge on just how a typical modern AVR routes its power to its output channels has me more than a bit confused. Seems like opinions and answers in the greater online community beyond this forum are about as varied as the AVR specs themselves. Also maybe I'm overthinking this, and I'm trying to apply standard circuitry calculations to AVR technology and maybe there's more to it than that.

The reason I ask is that I've begun to consider my recent purchase of the Marantz SR-6011 and its power output relative to my previous AVR. That one, an older Pioneer was rated at 770W total (7.1), and published specs of 110W per channel. That makes sense to me and is easy math. I also realize that these specs are indicative of peak power output and not factoring in RMS, so average power output will typically fall around a value less than listed peak power levels. The Marantz website lists specs on the SR-6011 as 110W for 8-ohm loads at a 2 channel drive. It's a 9.2 capable receiver. It lists power output for 6 and 4 ohm loads as well, but I have 8 ohm speakers so I'll focus on that. Yet Best Buy (where I bought it from) lists a total power spec of 1540 Watts and I can't figure out how in the world they came up with this. Are they just full of it? Last time I checked, 110w x 9 = 990w. Also from the Marantz site I'm not sure what exactly the "2 channel drive" bit means relative to the 7 other discrete output channels. The Marantz site lists higher power output levels for lower impedance loads and varying THD, but none of the numbers they list make Best Buy's spec add up. The math just doesn't work.

I'm basically trying to figure out exactly what kind of power I'm getting to my speakers and just last night discovered a rather sobering fact. The SVS SCS-01's and SBS-01's I've been running are actually rated at a 84.5db sensitivity and not the 87db or so I had previously thought. I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but I've ran these speakers a long time with no issues at all so guess it was just something I never needed to check. But it's right there on the label plate on the back of the speakers.

So, having a (allegedly) similarly powered AVR as my old one at 110W per channel one would think nothing should be any different right? Except my repeated runs through Audyssey's calibration have yielded a great sound at lower volumes but if I crank it up for maybe a good action flick I have noticed that the sound begins to sort of fall apart and get a little thin (think action sounds, lots of crashing sound FX, glass breaking, metal crunching, etc.). Even maybe some detectable distortion, but I often can't tell if it's that or just part of the actual sound effects being used. I guess not all power is created equal. It still sounds good, but its an anomaly I certainly never noticed before.

True to my theory above, in looking at the Marantz website for the SR-6011, they focus a HUGE amount of their descriptive text on the fancy bells and whistles (only some of which I actually care about) and their power section is written almost as an afterthought.

I mean, I've got basically the 2nd in the Marantz line from their $2200 flagship model, one would think these issues should be absolutely non-existent even for speakers of a lower sensitivity.

Also, certainly not a quantitative, scientific evaluation of it's capabilities but its overall weight is about 11 pounds less than the old Pioneer. Which to me suggests they skimped a bit on the amplifier section, or maybe here, 8-9 years later they've just been able to make those transformers and amplifier stages smaller and more efficient without reducing quality. *Shrug*.

Sorry, long winded post I know.
I'm supercharged on strong coffee and these thoughts have been burning a hole in my brain this weekend.. I went way over budget on this purchase and am already having to cut back elsewhere to sort of bring things back into balance with my finances so I want to undoubtedly know I made the right choice with this receiver one, and two, what the hell is up with all these wildly different power specs? And where does Best Buy get that 1540w rating from? I don't see it listed anywhere else. Most other online retailers simply copy the exact specs as they are listed on the Marantz website. Best Buy's rated spec seems like pure bunk to me from what I can see.

One last question, I promise: What happens to the excess power ability of an AVR that has 9 output channels, but you're only running 5 channels for a 5.1 setup? Does that just sit in reserve, or is the AVR able to provide a little more juice though the actual connected outputs?
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
Wow that's a lot. Lol. I won't tackle the super technical side but, will add a few things. My coffee may be working now. The first thing to do is find some bench tests to see what's what. I could only find one, but it's on a 7010(125wpc), but might give you some insight as to how the power decreases as you add channels.
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr7010-av-receiver-review-test-bench#v55DU7vXibX2JQCf.97
Best Buy? Hmmm. I went in for a lightning cable yesterday and heard a guy tell two nice ladies that a 10' cable wouldn't charge as fast a 3' cable even with the same wall wart. Wtf...
Anyway, must be a typo. 1540 is 220x7 which is twice the power rating of 110wpc. Someone messed up maybe? Or it's really a 14ch avr lol.
I think the real problem is power supplies that can't supply current to drive all the channels.
I have a purely anecdotal scenario similar to yours. A tale of 2 AVRs. One at 135x7,(onkyo txnr808)and one at 125x7(pioneer1019ahk). The 10wpc difference is basically insignificant, but the 135watt avr is around 20lbs heavier. Mains at 92db, center is 91db and surrounds are 89db. The front end is a pretty easy load, and the back isn't too bad.(I've since added a Yamaha p2500s for my mains). When I used the pioneer(i liked mcacc) it would run out of gas when the volume went up. Compression, distortion, loss of dynamics etc. all things nobody is a fan of. When I use the onkyo, it just never seems to run out of gas. It's a beast. So the pioneer is in my bedroom system. Works awesome. So I don't want to open up the whole does weight make a difference can of worms, but IMO, it absolutely can. Here's a link just to give another reference point.
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/onkyo-tx-nr838-av-receiver-test-bench#EcQoGAEgbqFwQ8wX.97
You might be a candidate for an outboard amp.
Maybe you should borrow one of your bands amps and try it at home. Sorry, I was not going to make this as windy as the original post but...
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
William thanks for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate the links too, that's part of the problem with this being a newer AVR I can't seem to find a reputable bench test on it anywhere yet, if one exists. That may provide some insight though at least like you said.

My "tale of two receivers" are rated exactly the same wpc so you'd think that the newer, more expensive one would crush the performance of my old one or at the very least be consistent with it. So I'm now sitting here having just spent $1400 on a brand new state of the art AVR, having to consider buying additional wattage just so my speakers don't go into a tizzy every time I turn the volume up.. I'm sure you and anyone reading can appreciate the sense of frustration I feel at this option. :(

The other alternative of course, would be to get more sensitive speakers. But that's something I'm not going to be able to do for awhile now. I should also note playing the system in 2.1 mode for music is clean, powerful and no signs of running out of gas. I even went so far as to taking the subs power cord and plugging it into another outlet at the risk of introducing a ground loop, leaving the AVR plugged into the power filter unit everything else is plugged into. Thinking, maybe.. if I free up some current draw on that particular circuit the amp will have a bit more voltage and current headroom at the source under peak transient conditions where I notice it the most. But it's a flimsy theory at best, I admit that. I shouldn't have to do such a thing.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
but I have 8 ohm speakers so I'll focus on that.
Tom Nousaine is considered a pretty good source of real measurements.
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/test-bench-svs-sbs-01-home-theater-speaker-system#udHgQ9sDmEvxdkVP.97
Sensitivity (SPL at 1 meter with 2.8 volts of pink-noise input) front left/right/surround: 85 dB center: 87 dB

Impedance (minimum/nominal) front left/right/surround: 2.5/4 ohms center: 3.2/4 ohms
Those speakers are really 4 ohm speakers with a minimum impedance of 2.5! Depending on what frequency (and phase) the 2.5 Ohm impedance occurs, those could be very demanding speakers, indeed.

However, before we start deciding on whether you should spend money on amps or speakers, let's check your set-up.
1) Are the speakers configured as "Small" by Audyssey? (if not, you need to manually change them to small)
2) What frequency is the crossover to the sub occurring? (based on the S&V graph, I'd roll them off higher at 150 or 200 to avoid the bass hump if you sub can handle the higher frequencies okay)
3) Last, make sure that the "Subwoofer Mode" is set to LFE (not LFE + Main)



Looking at the frequency response, if Audyssey is trying to keep response of the SBS-01 satellites flat below 90Hz, along with low impedance and sensitivity, that is a losing battle and could explain why the Marantz is fumbling.

Another test is to run the Marantz in pure direct mode. That would essentially put it on equal footing with the Pioneer by by-passing Audyssey's attempt to compensate for the lack of bass from your mains.

Overall, my gut reaction to your situation is you are using satellite (small) speakers to try to fill a decent sized room. Typically, you would want either bigger speakers or a very high quality satellite speaker to do this. They don't need to be towers, but larger bookshelf speakers would work.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I am not an EE or the best person to answer your question about power vs number of channels driven, but i believe a dummied-down way to look at it (which works for me) is the power supply and capacitance is shared among the channels. If you are driving all channels, the system becomes current limited by the capability of the power supply (especially at lower impedances).
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
Ken, I would normally agree with you as I'm a fan of towers for the sensitivity and dynamics, but if I'm not mistaken his room is pretty small. My guess is the receiver is over rated and the speakers are a too difficult a load for it. I think also maybe a 100 or 120hz XO would help.
Or halon, maybe you need some new speakers!!!! Lol, sorry couldn't resist.
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Tom Nousaine is considered a pretty good source of real measurements.
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/test-bench-svs-sbs-01-home-theater-speaker-system#udHgQ9sDmEvxdkVP.97


Those speakers are really 4 ohm speakers with a minimum impedance of 2.5! Depending on what frequency (and phase) the 2.5 Ohm impedance occurs, those could be very demanding speakers, indeed.

However, before we start deciding on whether you should spend money on amps or speakers, let's check your set-up.
1) Are the speakers configured as "Small" by Audyssey? (if not, you need to manually change them to small)
2) What frequency is the crossover to the sub occurring? (based on the S&V graph, I'd roll them off higher at 150 or 200 to avoid the bass hump if you sub can handle the higher frequencies okay)
3) Last, make sure that the "Subwoofer Mode" is set to LFE (not LFE + Main)



Looking at the frequency response, if Audyssey is trying to keep response of the SBS-01 satellites flat below 90Hz, along with low impedance and sensitivity, that is a losing battle and could explain why the Marantz is fumbling.

Another test is to run the Marantz in pure direct mode. That would essentially put it on equal footing with the Pioneer by by-passing Audyssey's attempt to compensate for the lack of bass from your mains.

Overall, my gut reaction to your situation is you are using satellite (small) speakers to try to fill a decent sized room. Typically, you would want either bigger speakers or a very high quality satellite speaker to do this. They don't need to be towers, but larger bookshelf speakers would work.
Yea, speakers are set to small and sub is on LFE only. These are all routine checks I do after running the calibration. Now, Audyssey did set the mains and surrounds to 60Hz, left the center at 80Hz (not sure why, seeing as how the center is identical to the mains, just horizontally positioned instead of vertical). So, coooouuld be that. All the sats were x'ed over at 80 in my old system but keeping the mains at 60 in the new seems to be the only way to retain any warmth and fullness. Maybe I just haven't given the 80Hz all option an honest try yet so I'll give that a shot for now.

My room isn't that big really. I'm about 8 feet away from my front speakers ceilings are vaulted up towards the middle and the living room is open on one end to the dining rom and kitchen area but it's not a huge volumetric space..
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Even bi-amping is out of the question even though the AVR is capable my speakers don't have separate posts for the hi and lo drivers
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
If you're losing warmth by crossing higher, I'm guess an issue in the XO region. IME higher XO would add warmth by the subs taking over vs the smaller mains.
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
Even bi-amping is out of the question even though the AVR is capable my speakers don't have separate posts for the hi and lo drivers
It's a waste anyways, unless you use active crossovers too.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
Something I've been thinking about lately and thought I'd get some forum input on this. Consistency in how AVR manufacturer's market their power ratings seems to be woefully inadequate, which lends itself to a bit of confusion in determining just what a given AVR's power output may be. It is understandable that many manufacturer's may exaggerate their claims or publish specs that suggest more power than what they are actually capable of at RMS levels and also with the recent addition of multiple new features such as wifi, Atmos/DTS: X, bluetooth, 4k, etc., it seems possible if not even likely that in order to keep costs contained they may choose to make sacrifices in the amplifier stages. Would this be a reasonable assumption?

As someone who's been formally trained and schooled in electronics, I am intuitively familiar with the principles of Ohm's law and even the Kirchoff laws as they relate to current and voltage drops. One would think this would give me a greater ability to understand these AVR specifications, but in reality the way they are often published or marketed often makes little sense and likewise only leads to more questions. That combined with my lack of in-depth or similarly intuitive knowledge on just how a typical modern AVR routes its power to its output channels has me more than a bit confused. Seems like opinions and answers in the greater online community beyond this forum are about as varied as the AVR specs themselves. Also maybe I'm overthinking this, and I'm trying to apply standard circuitry calculations to AVR technology and maybe there's more to it than that.

The reason I ask is that I've begun to consider my recent purchase of the Marantz SR-6011 and its power output relative to my previous AVR. That one, an older Pioneer was rated at 770W total (7.1), and published specs of 110W per channel. That makes sense to me and is easy math. I also realize that these specs are indicative of peak power output and not factoring in RMS, so average power output will typically fall around a value less than listed peak power levels. The Marantz website lists specs on the SR-6011 as 110W for 8-ohm loads at a 2 channel drive. It's a 9.2 capable receiver. It lists power output for 6 and 4 ohm loads as well, but I have 8 ohm speakers so I'll focus on that. Yet Best Buy (where I bought it from) lists a total power spec of 1540 Watts and I can't figure out how in the world they came up with this. Are they just full of it? Last time I checked, 110w x 9 = 990w. Also from the Marantz site I'm not sure what exactly the "2 channel drive" bit means relative to the 7 other discrete output channels. The Marantz site lists higher power output levels for lower impedance loads and varying THD, but none of the numbers they list make Best Buy's spec add up. The math just doesn't work.

I'm basically trying to figure out exactly what kind of power I'm getting to my speakers and just last night discovered a rather sobering fact. The SVS SCS-01's and SBS-01's I've been running are actually rated at a 84.5db sensitivity and not the 87db or so I had previously thought. I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but I've ran these speakers a long time with no issues at all so guess it was just something I never needed to check. But it's right there on the label plate on the back of the speakers.

So, having a (allegedly) similarly powered AVR as my old one at 110W per channel one would think nothing should be any different right? Except my repeated runs through Audyssey's calibration have yielded a great sound at lower volumes but if I crank it up for maybe a good action flick I have noticed that the sound begins to sort of fall apart and get a little thin (think action sounds, lots of crashing sound FX, glass breaking, metal crunching, etc.). Even maybe some detectable distortion, but I often can't tell if it's that or just part of the actual sound effects being used. I guess not all power is created equal. It still sounds good, but its an anomaly I certainly never noticed before.

True to my theory above, in looking at the Marantz website for the SR-6011, they focus a HUGE amount of their descriptive text on the fancy bells and whistles (only some of which I actually care about) and their power section is written almost as an afterthought.

I mean, I've got basically the 2nd in the Marantz line from their $2200 flagship model, one would think these issues should be absolutely non-existent even for speakers of a lower sensitivity.

Also, certainly not a quantitative, scientific evaluation of it's capabilities but its overall weight is about 11 pounds less than the old Pioneer. Which to me suggests they skimped a bit on the amplifier section, or maybe here, 8-9 years later they've just been able to make those transformers and amplifier stages smaller and more efficient without reducing quality. *Shrug*.

Sorry, long winded post I know.
I'm supercharged on strong coffee and these thoughts have been burning a hole in my brain this weekend.. I went way over budget on this purchase and am already having to cut back elsewhere to sort of bring things back into balance with my finances so I want to undoubtedly know I made the right choice with this receiver one, and two, what the hell is up with all these wildly different power specs? And where does Best Buy get that 1540w rating from? I don't see it listed anywhere else. Most other online retailers simply copy the exact specs as they are listed on the Marantz website. Best Buy's rated spec seems like pure bunk to me from what I can see.

One last question, I promise: What happens to the excess power ability of an AVR that has 9 output channels, but you're only running 5 channels for a 5.1 setup? Does that just sit in reserve, or is the AVR able to provide a little more juice though the actual connected outputs?
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Ken, I would normally agree with you as I'm a fan of towers for the sensitivity and dynamics, but if I'm not mistaken his room is pretty small. My guess is the receiver is over rated and the speakers are a too difficult a load for it. I think also maybe a 100 or 120hz XO would help.
Or halon, maybe you need some new speakers!!!! Lol, sorry couldn't resist.
Call me "Kurt" or "KEW" in the future as there is a Ken who posts here on a regular basis!;)

I was mixing up room dimensions with another thread.

I seriously doubt Marantz is over-rating their receivers. They have been in the industry a long time and I have never seen a review that did not adhere to their published numbers. The measurements of the 7010 were consistent with their specifications. They have an established reputation and I would hope this is not the year they decided to forfeit that!

2.5 Ohms is an unusually low impedance and this speaker spends plenty of time below 4 Ohms! Running 4 of them at once with HT at volume is going to deplete the current pretty quickly.
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
Call me "Kurt" or "KEW" in the future as there is a Ken who posts here on a regular basis!;)

I was mixing up room dimensions with another thread.

I seriously doubt Marantz is over-rating their receivers. They have been in the industry a long time and I have never seen a review that did not adhere to their published numbers. The measurements of the 7010 were consistent with their specifications. They have an established reputation and I would hope this is not the year they decided to forfeit that!

2.5 Ohms is an unusually low impedance and this speaker spends plenty of time below 4 Ohms! Running 4 of them at once with HT at volume is going to deplete the current pretty quickly.
My apologies, Kurt.
I also agree. All the points you've made about marantz are true, and don't believe they would be intentionally deceitful. However bench tests regularly show avrs not meeting spec. I also believe his speakers are an unusual load.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
Something I've been thinking about lately and thought I'd get some forum input on this. Consistency in how AVR manufacturer's market their power ratings seems to be woefully inadequate, which lends itself to a bit of confusion in determining just what a given AVR's power output may be. It is understandable that many manufacturer's may exaggerate their claims or publish specs that suggest more power than what they are actually capable of at RMS levels and also with the recent addition of multiple new features such as wifi, Atmos/DTS: X, bluetooth, 4k, etc., it seems possible if not even likely that in order to keep costs contained they may choose to make sacrifices in the amplifier stages. Would this be a reasonable assumption?

As someone who's been formally trained and schooled in electronics, I am intuitively familiar with the principles of Ohm's law and even the Kirchoff laws as they relate to current and voltage drops. One would think this would give me a greater ability to understand these AVR specifications, but in reality the way they are often published or marketed often makes little sense and likewise only leads to more questions. That combined with my lack of in-depth or similarly intuitive knowledge on just how a typical modern AVR routes its power to its output channels has me more than a bit confused. Seems like opinions and answers in the greater online community beyond this forum are about as varied as the AVR specs themselves. Also maybe I'm overthinking this, and I'm trying to apply standard circuitry calculations to AVR technology and maybe there's more to it than that.

The reason I ask is that I've begun to consider my recent purchase of the Marantz SR-6011 and its power output relative to my previous AVR. That one, an older Pioneer was rated at 770W total (7.1), and published specs of 110W per channel. That makes sense to me and is easy math. I also realize that these specs are indicative of peak power output and not factoring in RMS, so average power output will typically fall around a value less than listed peak power levels. The Marantz website lists specs on the SR-6011 as 110W for 8-ohm loads at a 2 channel drive. It's a 9.2 capable receiver. It lists power output for 6 and 4 ohm loads as well, but I have 8 ohm speakers so I'll focus on that. Yet Best Buy (where I bought it from) lists a total power spec of 1540 Watts and I can't figure out how in the world they came up with this. Are they just full of it? Last time I checked, 110w x 9 = 990w. Also from the Marantz site I'm not sure what exactly the "2 channel drive" bit means relative to the 7 other discrete output channels. The Marantz site lists higher power output levels for lower impedance loads and varying THD, but none of the numbers they list make Best Buy's spec add up. The math just doesn't work.

I'm basically trying to figure out exactly what kind of power I'm getting to my speakers and just last night discovered a rather sobering fact. The SVS SCS-01's and SBS-01's I've been running are actually rated at a 84.5db sensitivity and not the 87db or so I had previously thought. I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but I've ran these speakers a long time with no issues at all so guess it was just something I never needed to check. But it's right there on the label plate on the back of the speakers.

So, having a (allegedly) similarly powered AVR as my old one at 110W per channel one would think nothing should be any different right? Except my repeated runs through Audyssey's calibration have yielded a great sound at lower volumes but if I crank it up for maybe a good action flick I have noticed that the sound begins to sort of fall apart and get a little thin (think action sounds, lots of crashing sound FX, glass breaking, metal crunching, etc.). Even maybe some detectable distortion, but I often can't tell if it's that or just part of the actual sound effects being used. I guess not all power is created equal. It still sounds good, but its an anomaly I certainly never noticed before.

True to my theory above, in looking at the Marantz website for the SR-6011, they focus a HUGE amount of their descriptive text on the fancy bells and whistles (only some of which I actually care about) and their power section is written almost as an afterthought.

I mean, I've got basically the 2nd in the Marantz line from their $2200 flagship model, one would think these issues should be absolutely non-existent even for speakers of a lower sensitivity.

Also, certainly not a quantitative, scientific evaluation of it's capabilities but its overall weight is about 11 pounds less than the old Pioneer. Which to me suggests they skimped a bit on the amplifier section, or maybe here, 8-9 years later they've just been able to make those transformers and amplifier stages smaller and more efficient without reducing quality. *Shrug*.

Sorry, long winded post I know.
I'm supercharged on strong coffee and these thoughts have been burning a hole in my brain this weekend.. I went way over budget on this purchase and am already having to cut back elsewhere to sort of bring things back into balance with my finances so I want to undoubtedly know I made the right choice with this receiver one, and two, what the hell is up with all these wildly different power specs? And where does Best Buy get that 1540w rating from? I don't see it listed anywhere else. Most other online retailers simply copy the exact specs as they are listed on the Marantz website. Best Buy's rated spec seems like pure bunk to me from what I can see.

One last question, I promise: What happens to the excess power ability of an AVR that has 9 output channels, but you're only running 5 channels for a 5.1 setup? Does that just sit in reserve, or is the AVR able to provide a little more juice though the actual connected outputs?
Greetings!
I agree with you about the tendency of several receiver and amplifier manufacturers to mislead prospective purchasers with inflated power ratings and publishing total harmonic distortion figures with only one channel driven. "Who listens to monophonic music now unless it's an old recording?"

I suggest that you read AVR reviews which have been posted on this site and on the Soundandvision.com site to get more acquainted with the real facts.

THD figures should be published for the full range of 20-20K. Otherwise, the figure at 1 kH could be acceptable but, at the same power output at 100 Hz for instance, it could very well be a clipping amp.

The lighter weight of receivers should not normally be of concern. They now use thinner lighter chassis and more plastic finishing. The power supplies, however, as you know, can affect the all channels driven performance and this is mostly where you can notice difference among manufacturers.

The power ratings supplied by manufacturers are not peak power but RMS figures.
However, if you compare for instance the all channels driven performance of a Yamaha with that of a Marantz receiver, you will notice that the Marantz has a beefier power supply. It should output for all channels driven, a minimum of 65% of the 2 channels driven figure. With the Yamaha, you might get only 45%. This has been reported in serious reviews.

The all channels driven power does not have to be the same as that for 2 channels only. Music does not contain sustained sine waves, it's also mostly transient in nature. A 65% all channels figure should be sufficient to provide adequate power for all needs. Most of the sound comes mainly from the front channels.

I recommend that you go the manufacturer's website to see the exact specs, not BestBuy.

I own a Marantz SR5010 receiver which was purchased to replace a NAD T763 receiver that let me down.
It performs pretty well and I don't miss my previous NAD. You won't do a mistake if you buy the SR6011.

Have a look also at Gene's post on this site with regard to the inflated power ratings. Manufacturers nowadays, in contrast with the info which they provided 50-60 years ago, publish less specs which are often dishonest for someone who is not familiar with the electronic products.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Yea, speakers are set to small and sub is on LFE only. These are all routine checks I do after running the calibration. Now, Audyssey did set the mains and surrounds to 60Hz, left the center at 80Hz (not sure why, seeing as how the center is identical to the mains, just horizontally positioned instead of vertical). So, coooouuld be that. All the sats were x'ed over at 80 in my old system but keeping the mains at 60 in the new seems to be the only way to retain any warmth and fullness. Maybe I just haven't given the 80Hz all option an honest try yet so I'll give that a shot for now.

My room isn't that big really. I'm about 8 feet away from my front speakers ceilings are vaulted up towards the middle and the living room is open on one end to the dining room and kitchen area but it's not a huge volumetric space..
Good, sounds like you are familiar with Audyssey!

Try switching the mains to 80Hz. That should make a easily detectable difference in how loud you can play the speakers before you start to have trouble. I can see Audyssey dumping some serious power into keeping the mains flat to 60Hz!
You may not be able to retain warmth and fullness at volume, but based on the S&V graph, you should not expect much out of these at 60 Hz.
Also make sure you have the crossover at the sub either by-passed or set to its highest value so it is available for the 80Hz range.

What is the model # for the Pioneer? An AVR amp that is stable with a 4/2.5 Ohm load is very impressive!
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Good, sounds like you are familiar with Audyssey!

Try switching the mains to 80Hz. That should make a easily detectable difference in how loud you can play the speakers before you start to have trouble. I can see Audyssey dumping some serious power into keeping the mains flat to 60Hz!
You may not be able to retain warmth and fullness at volume, but based on the S&V graph, you should not expect much out of these at 60 Hz.
Also make sure you have the crossover at the sub either by-passed or set to its highest value so it is available for the 80Hz range.

What is the model # for the Pioneer? An AVR amp that is stable with a 4/2.5 Ohm load is very impressive!
Kurt I'm confused on that last statement.. I didn't mean to imply the Pioneer was driving a 4/2.5 ohm load, that Pioneer was the Elite VSX-23TXH. Used the same SVS speakers for that I'm using now, all rated at 8 ohm.
 
M Code

M Code

Audioholic General
A couple of points..
The loudspeaker sensitivity/impedance specs are quite low..
Making the AVR work harder especially with full bandwidth loudspeakers, and if the listening room is large. Basically depends upon How loud? U typically listen @..
Assuming the AVR has the recommended free-air clearance of 4-5" for the L/R sides and top..
Feel the top if too hot to touch then U better consider...
  • Turn it down
  • Upgrade the AVR
  • Add a component power amplifier
  • Change the loudspeakers to ones with higher sensitivity/impedance specs

Regarding todays AVRs, more channels and intense price competition so there is little overdesign as found in previous generation AVRs..

Just my $0.02... ;)
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top