$600 MSRP Sony 1030: 134.7WPC x 2Ch 8 ohms/167.7WPC c 2Ch 4 ohms/90.4WPC x 5Ch 8 ohms.
$1200 MSRP Yamaha RX-A1020: 129.2WPC x 2Ch 8 ohms/173.0WPC x 2Ch 4 ohms/73.2WPC x 5Ch 8 ohms.<o
So the Sony seems to have plenty of power (assuming the 1040 is similar to the 1030 model). As you can see, the $600MSRP Sony is about equal in power to the $1200MSRP Yamaha.
If you are not using any EQ (subwoofer EQ, room EQ, Dynamic EQ) and just use Direct modes, then I think the Sony will sound as good as any AVR.
</o
Based on the 2 channel specs, the Yamaha has more power reserves than the Sony and is able to better handle a 4 ohm load.
From the article...
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/the-all-channels-driven-acd-amplifier-test/the-all-channels-driven-acd-amplifier-test-page-5
The problem however (as documented in our previous article: The All Channels Driven Test Controversy) is that many budget products are designed for real world performance and must make trade offs for safety and heat dissipation reasons. As a result, they design their amps to be dynamic, but limit the total output capability of the product with a limiter that activates if more than three channels are driven at full power. The result of driving more than three channels at full power is reduced power delivery to all channels to satisfy the heat dissipation requirements of UL, as well as the manufacturer's requirements for dependability and reliability. Thus, when a publication does the classic ACD test into 5 or 7 channels, the reader can get the wrong impression that the amplifier isn't very capable at delivering power
despite the fact it exceeds manufacturers specs with flying colors with only one or two channels driven continuously, and also satisfies the old FTC mandate for rating power into two channels.
Let's take the following Scenario when comparing two similarly priced receivers.
- Receiver #1: rated at 110wpc (# of channels driven not specified, but FTC mandates it must apply to at least two channels)
- Receiver #2: rated at 70wpc ACD
If we bench test both receivers with just two channels driven, we more often than not find that Receiver #1 was able to comfortably exceed its rating into 8 ohms and deliver respectable power delivery into 4 ohms (usually higher than the 8 ohm rating). Receiver #2 will usually exceed its 8 ohm rating but typically at a smaller margin than receiver #1 and, more often than not, maintains a similar power rating for 8 and 4 ohm loads. Of course an ideal amplifier should act like a constant voltage source and double power delivery when speaker impedance is halved. Very few receivers, and only the better separates amps, have a robust enough amp topologies and correspondingly robust power supplies to achieve such a feat.
So, in reality, Receiver #1 has the potential to deliver more power than Receiver #2, especially into 4 ohm loads, when driving one or up to three channels simultaneously with a correlated audio source. But because of the thermal limitations of the budget sized receiver, which aims at designing a dynamic amplifier over one that can provide sustained power into all channels simultaneously, it has to limit the power delivery when the amplifier is taxed with a correlated audio source to more than three channels. During loud transients Receiver #1 will likely be able to deliver cleaner output because it has more available headroom than Receiver #2.
