Power Ratings in Modern AVR's

Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
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,
Thanks for this reply! I had always assumed that power specs listed were peak values not RMS so that's at least a bit reassuring. And yeah I obviously take the manufacturers ratings over a retail stores but I was still curious how and why they listed that particular spec that way. As Kurt pointed out 7 x 220w (6 ohm load) gets you that number but it seems arbitrary and misleading to list that as the main power capability of the receiver.

I did read Gene's post on this but that was from several years ago, and I was more curious as to modern AVR's and if amplifier quality has been sacrificed in order to add all these neat new features they have now. However I will check out those other suggestions as well for sure.

So you're saying that in reality if I'm running 5 channels on a receiver rated at 110w for 2 channels driven, then with 5 I should see 65% of that, or 71.5w per channel? Into 8 ohm speakers with a sensitivity of 84.5db 1m/2.83v. I assume anyway cause the labels on the back don't say anything more than the sensitivity.

Also regarding XO setting: same label lists the f6 frequency at 64Hz! So there's no way Audyssey could've triggered a 60Hz setting on those without some possible room or boundary gain. That means the f3 frequency is indeed prob closer to 80Hz where I've had these crossed over forever with my other AVR. So I upped that back up to 80Hz across LCR and tipped the surround bookshelves up to 90hz cause I figure for those I could get away with it and not start to localize the sub. I'll see if that gives the amp a bit more breathing room.

Great responses guys I really appreciate it!
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
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.
If the S&V data I linked is correct, they are not 8 Ohms!
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.
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
If the S&V data I linked is correct, they are not 8 Ohms!
Oh duh it would help if I could read lol. Kinda monitoring this thread on the fly for from my phone so I noted that link with the intent to come back to it later when I can actually sit down and give it attention. The sub in their test is also conveniently the one I own too.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
...
The power ratings supplied by manufacturers are not peak power but RMS figures.
...,
I would say they may call it RMS power but it is not. It is continuous average power.
You use RMS current and Voltage to arrive at average power which in the end works out to be peak current and voltage divided by 2.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
I've just had a look at the Marantz SR6011 receiver on the manufacturer's website.
Marantz also play with figures when quoting the power rating for a 6 ohm load:
First, the power output of any solid state amplifier at 6 ohms is always higher than that for an 8 ohm load. It's just a question of electricity. A lower resistance draws more power.
Any newbie would be tempted to believe it means a more powerful amp, but the real fact is that at 8 ohms, its power output is less BUT BIG POWER FIGURES SELL MORE!
Moreover, they publish a power rating of 150 Watts, 2 channels driven, at 0.7% THD for a 6 ohm load at 1000 Hz, which is not a warantee that the distortion will be the same at 20 Hz or 20 KHz. This distortion at 0.7% is close to a clipping condition cause at 1% it definitely is clipping! They even go as far as publishing a power rating of 220W, only one channel driven, at 10% distortion, a condition which would most likely fry high frequency drivers. That's getting ridiculous! They are not the only manufacturer to proceed that way.

The trend to use smaller and lighter power supplies implies some limits and you see them with the above mentioned figures. The Marantz amplifiers are still very good amplifiers if they are not pushed beyond their reasonable limits which are 110 watts/ch, 2 channels driven and 77 watts/ch with all channels driven for an 8 ohm load. (Marantz gives a 70% guarantee for the power rating with all channels driven) .

I don't know the size of your listening room. With the sensitivity of your speakers, you should get 110.5 dB of SPL at 1 meter distance for the left and right front channels driven simultaneously at 100 watts each. Decreasing that figure by about 4 dB for each doubling of distance (taking into account room furnishings) should give you a pretty close idea of what your speakers are capable of producing at your listening position.

Should you find afterwards that your receiver is not sufficient to attain your desired SPL, then you could explore the possibility of using your SR6011 as a preamp-processor and using external power amps. I assume that the SR6011 has pre-outs as with my SR5010.
 
Last edited:
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
I would say they may call it RMS power but it is not. It is continuous average power.
You use RMS current and Voltage to arrive at average power which in the end works out to be peak current and voltage divided by 2.
Greetings!
Thanks for the precision. Much appreciated.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
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.
I agree, but D&M typically does provide the rated average power output for 20-20,000 Hz into 8 ohms at their specified total harmonic distortions plus noise, with two channel driven simultaneously. Note that average power is also incorrectly known as RMS power.

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?
Assuming you are referring to D&M's AVRs, I have seen no evidence of "sacrifices" the amp stages, I believe they simply add more amp channels without increasing the power supply size accordingly. That means their output capability for 1,2 through 7 channel driven should basically remain the same as before.

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.
Ohm's law and the electrical power equation are quite relevant, not so much Kirchoff. According to Ohm's law (Current=Voltage/Impedance), so at a given voltage, if impedance is halved, current is doubled. According to the electrical power equation, Power=Voltage X Current, so if current is doubled, power is doubled as well.

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.
Opinions are going to vary, but facts shouldn't.

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.
The specs from the Marantz website look okay to me. If Best Buy lists 1540W, they probably meant the total peak power output of all 7 channels sum together and based on sine wave. If so, that is misleading for sure. We all know there is no way the SR6011 can output a total of 770W average (or so called RMS) power, or 770X2-1540W of peak power, with all 7 channels driven simultaneously.

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.
From your other thread, I knew those speakers had low impedance, but I wasn't concern because you told us your room size and sitting distance (remember I asked for those info?). Regardless of the low impedance, those speakers are not designed to play very loud anyway. Lots of satellite speakers are 4 ohms or even lower, so what are people supposed to do? You must have seen some tiny satellite HTIAB type speakers in BB, Costco etc., and don't be surprise lots of them are also 4 ohms (or lower) speakers. The SBS-01s are actually quite respectable among satellite 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.
Maybe your Pioneer is a little more powerful than the SR6011 but I highly doubt it would have made any difference. My educated guess is that without realizing it, you now listen at higher volume than 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*.
The newer Marantz and Denon are lighter because, among other things, they use lighter gauge material, more AL, plastics, lighter heat sinks, smaller enclosures and probably better and lighter material for their own power transformers. I used to have a Denon AVR-4308 that weighs almost 43 lbs, the latest flagship Denon weighs only 37 lbs but has a larger power supply. Weight is an indicator for sure but not the only one that counts.

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.
I guess BB tried to be creative.:D Just ignore them..

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?
Not always, but D&M's mid range AVRs tend to follow that rule, so if run only two channel such as using it for stereo music enjoyment you will get more dynamic head room. Take a look of the SR6006, the predecessor of your SR6011's bench test results below:




"This graph shows that the SR6006’s left channel, from CD input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 127.9 watts and 1 percent distortion at 153.2 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 156.8 watts and 1 percent distortion at 195.8 watts.
Read more at http://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr6006-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures#KPEW2HSVW9t5bqse.99"


I think we can safely assume the 6011 is as powerful as the 6006, so there should be enough juice for your svs speakers in your relatively small room sitting 9 ft? from them.
 
Last edited:
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
PENG, great post thank you. Yes about 9 ft. distance. I'm probably much more acutely aware of little anamolies in the sound having just bought this thing and have been busy tuning up my system obviously but from everything I gather on this thread so far, perhaps the pioneer did spit out slightly more power but maybe that was enough to put me just over the threshold. It seems as if maybe given a much more detailed analysis of those speakers' performances, I'm more or less right at the Marantz' power limit at those higher volumes.. I have to break out my SPL meter and find batteries for it to find the equivalent volume level based on the formula Verdinut provided above maybe that'll give me my own "soft" limit controlled by my remote control. They're great speakers for sure but I guess they need a lot of power to operate at their best. Is this an accurate statement?

Another anecdotal comparison. With my old system I once cranked up a loud action movie to a very high level.. I think I had just gotten the sub at that point and I wanted to see what it could do. Walked outside, across the street and down a ways with my door open and I could hear the dialogue as plain as day along with the action sound fx, nothing sounded strained. Obviously this is a ridiculous test and I could've damaged something in my system not to mention my hearing coming back in to turn it down but I was duly impressed. I don't think I could do that with this system.

I've got to digest some of all this info you guys have been so kind as to share with me.

So the 6011 seems sufficient by your estimates.. which is reassuring. but if I find myself needing to regain that apparent lost dynamic headroom.. am I truly looking at the choice between upgrading speakers or adding separate amps? Jeez.. I hope not. I like to think that $1400 was well spent to get me what I need by itself.
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Btw how is Marantz customer support? I'm thinking it may be a good idea to call them up and ask some questions. Since there seems to be a lack of real bench test data on this model (just reasonable comparisons) maybe they could also shed some light. Worth it?
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
I did write to them in order to know the damping factor of their amplifier modules on the SR5010. They never gave me the answer.
Please review a trend which I had posted: Marantz Support. You will have more info on their attitude toward informing product owners. The fact is that you will have to be persistent and manage to reach the right person to get the info you want.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I don't think the receiver specs are especially dishonest, but most speaker specs are highly dishonest and misleading.

Also in this age of subs, there is massive nonsense spread about.

I visit this again and again. The big myth is that small bookshelves and a sub can match the power capability of capable larger speakers with it without a sub. This is nonsense.

Most of the power, 90% at least is required between 80 and 2.5 KHz. About 60 to 70% on most sources is required between 80 and 400 Hz. Everything below 500 Hz is bass and NOT midrange.

Small speakers are a particular problem as the change from half to full space radiator transitions at a higher frequency as the front baffle narrows, requiring increased power demands for smaller and smaller speakers as the size of the drivers go down. So as you design smaller speakers, in terms of power output everything stacks against you fast. This all results in increased distortion and increased thermal dynamic compression.

So a sub offloads drivers and NOT power amplifiers. The most important function of a sub is to offload drivers below box tuning, where cone movement suddenly becomes excessive and useless. In any event sub range occurs at the tuning peaks of impedance where current demands and power demands tend to be low, especially with more competent speakers with F3s below 40 Hz.

Halon your problem is inadequate speakers. In your space you will fail to achieve high spl, let alone clean spl with those speakers.

Lets look at the FR.



Top line is 1 meter, lower is the listening position. The purple line with the 29 Hz peak is an artifact, I'm certain.

These speakers are starting to fall off at 250 Hz. They look to have inadequate baffle step compensation. This may be to try and keep impedance near 8 ohm, or to prevent thermal damage, quite likely both. Then there is a sharp tuning peak at 80 Hz to try and paper over the the deficiency. I would bet these speakers sound distinctly on the thin side.

They actually need crossing over at 250 to 500 Hz. That deep 10db notch between 80 and 250 Hz will be highly audible. That is over an octave and a really crucial one at that.

The speakers are of low sensitivity, which will compound thermal compression issues when trying to push the speakers.

Your next purchase to go with that nice new TV you have needs to be capable tower speakers and matching center. Although good speakers get on very well without a center, so you can delay that. In fact the BBC say they will never record or provide a center channel. They will only provide front left and right and surround. In their view a center channel under domestic conditions is deleterious, and they may very well be right about that. The BBC have been proved right about most audio issues for close to a hundred years now!
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
TLS once again you astound me with your intuition and detailed background knowledge on this stuff. You nailed a couple things perfectly:

1.) They do sound thin when I run them without the sub - bass drum hits sound like mere clicks almost

2.) you addressed the low sensitivity of the speakers which was my initial concern starting that led to me exploring AVR power considerations (and promptly becoming confused by them) and hence this thread.

3.) That 10db dip between 80Hz and 250hz succinctly sums up much of the struggle I've had with this new setup, and in that region is where I feel I'm losing the warmth and fullness. This of course is tied to #1.

4.) I do need new speakers. I'd see that as a much less frustrating purchase than buying additional amplification to boost an already expensive AVR purchase that I feel should be able to stand on its own unless I'm trying to blow out my hearing and my windows, which I'm not. I may post a new thread in the speakers section on this soon.

In the meantime, you say these current ones should be x'ed over between 250 - 500hz, which makes sense looking at the graph but in reality would that not cause a severe imbalance in my overall soundstage and definitely localize the sub? Not even sure that sub could effectively reproduce content in those upper ranges, I've never tried.. 80Hz seemed to work well in my old setup but maybe I was just lucky enough to have accidentally paired those speakers with an AVR that could actually drive them cleanly and that was the exception not the norm.
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
I did write to them in order to know the damping factor of their amplifier modules on the SR5010. They never gave me the answer.
Please review a trend which I had posted: Marantz Support. You will have more info on their attitude toward informing product owners. The fact is that you will have to be persistent and manage to reach the right person to get the info you want.
Verdinut I will certainly contribute to that thread once I've contacted them. I'm very glad to provide my input. :)
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
I find it rather interesting that I've had these speakers for nearly 9 years now and it took buying a new receiver to actually truly get to know them.:confused:
 
William Lemmerhirt

William Lemmerhirt

Audioholic Overlord
I find it rather interesting that I've had these speakers for nearly 9 years now and it took buying a new receiver to actually truly get to know them.:confused:
Maybe you just started listening! I mean that in a nice way of course. I think you understand.
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Seeing as how I had such great luck with the old Pioneer, I initially leaned towards replacing my Elite with a newer Elite model as it made the most sense. But I was swayed into the Marantz by a bit of cautionary commentary on Pioneer's Elite line now belonging to Onkyo and that summarily, "they aren't the same as they used to be." I took that to heart and went with the Marantz. But even here on Audioholics, the general feeling was not one of concern but praise.

Audioholics Review of Pioneer Elite SC-LX701

So, is there just simply a bias against Onkyo for some reason? No one was able to actually tell me in any kind of quantitative way why the Elite line "isn't what it used to be."

This one in particular has great reviews, and if I can manage to convince Best Buy to allow me to return the Marantz a day or two past their 14 day return window (in order to spend more money with them), I could easily fork over the additional 200 bucks to get the equivalent Pioneer Elite model that contains all the same things the Marantz does now. But with a lot more power and weight behind it. Plus I get my standing wave control option back.

Pioneer Elite SC-LX701

I don't know guys, I honestly appreciate the input and feedback initially in warning me away from the Elites, but damn... at this point I can't help but feel like I should have just stuck with what I know works with my speakers. $200 more to get this is much more affordable than running out to buy new speakers.

Any thoughts on this? Is it just Onkyo bias or are there hard facts and data that support the negativity towards the newer Elite models?
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
My speakers may be difficult for sure, as TLS pointed out, but I know the Pioneer could handle them and whip them into some sort of shape.

I'm very interested to see hard data supporting the newer Elites' inadequacies over their predecessors. I'll try and look stuff up, but I know some of you guys are much more adept at finding this material and know where to look. I just keep coming up with user-reviews so far (most of which are very positive).

*Edit: I answered my own question. I did find this, but model is given as SC-95... not sure what the difference is yet, but it appears to be the same exact receiver.

Sound & Vision Review and Bench Test of Pioneer Elite SC-95
 
Last edited:
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
I no doubt need a speaker upgrade and that will happen at some point. It just may not be something that's feasible for some time. Even getting new tower speakers for the mains would be cost prohibitive right now, to get some that are actually worth a damn. I would like to at least restore my sound to what it was previously until then.

The SC-LX701's specs are much more sensible and impressive than the Marantz's.

Power Output: Watts per Channel (8 ohms, 1 kHz, 0.08 %, 2 ch Driven FTC) 135 W/ch

Power Output: Watts Multi ch Simultaneous Drive (8 ohms, 1 kHz, 1 %) 760 Watts

So at least they give a real spec on multi-channel drive capabilities, unlike the Marantz which leads me to believe Marantz would rather not show that number.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
TLS once again you astound me with your intuition and detailed background knowledge on this stuff. You nailed a couple things perfectly:

1.) They do sound thin when I run them without the sub - bass drum hits sound like mere clicks almost

2.) you addressed the low sensitivity of the speakers which was my initial concern starting that led to me exploring AVR power considerations (and promptly becoming confused by them) and hence this thread.

3.) That 10db dip between 80Hz and 250hz succinctly sums up much of the struggle I've had with this new setup, and in that region is where I feel I'm losing the warmth and fullness. This of course is tied to #1.

4.) I do need new speakers. I'd see that as a much less frustrating purchase than buying additional amplification to boost an already expensive AVR purchase that I feel should be able to stand on its own unless I'm trying to blow out my hearing and my windows, which I'm not. I may post a new thread in the speakers section on this soon.

In the meantime, you say these current ones should be x'ed over between 250 - 500hz, which makes sense looking at the graph but in reality would that not cause a severe imbalance in my overall soundstage and definitely localize the sub? Not even sure that sub could effectively reproduce content in those upper ranges, I've never tried.. 80Hz seemed to work well in my old setup but maybe I was just lucky enough to have accidentally paired those speakers with an AVR that could actually drive them cleanly and that was the exception not the norm.
Those subs could be crossed over at 250 Hz. If you did that you would need two of them and have to place the speakers on top if each sub. That would make a full range three way speaker. However it would take customization of an electronic crossover to make for a seamless blend.

I fail to see how a receiver would make for a more robust sound from those speakers. It would have had to have had a very skewed response. Even if it did boost that null of over an octave, the 10 db increase on power required would almost certainly have fried the voice coils.
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Those subs could be crossed over at 250 Hz. If you did that you would need two of them and have to place the speakers on top if each sub. That would make a full range three way speaker. However it would take customization of an electronic crossover to make for a seamless blend.

I fail to see how a receiver would make for a more robust sound from those speakers. It would have had to have had a very skewed response. Even if it did boost that null of over an octave, the 10 db increase on power required would almost certainly have fried the voice coils.
TLS, which speaker was that FR curve for? I assume it was the SCS-01? I'm confused. It seems to contradict the graph from the bench test KEW posted. Although there is indeed a trough in that octave, it's not nearly as severe as the one you posted. Maybe one or two db in a gentle slope but certainly no where near -10db.

1218200615343.jpg


Edit: Sorry maybe "contradict" isn't the right word. The general shape is the same, but that severe dip in your graph is clearly not represented quite as significantly in KEW's.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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