How much power do I need?

[dp412]

Hi all,

I'd really appreciate your opinions/suggestions regarding inexpensive receivers.

I'm just starting to build a home theater system. I'll probably use it for 70% music and 30% movies. I'm building it in stages over the next two years as I can afford it. First, I'm buying a receiver and a new center speaker to pair with some old (inexpensive) tower speakers I have. Then (next year) I'm replacing the towers. Finally, I'll add a sub and surrounds.

For the towers, I plan to buy the Fluance XL7f. I know that these can muddle the sound a little bit between the bass and the midrange but, overall, they seem like the best value within my price range. I also plan to buy the matching center. I am not sure what surrounds or subwoofer I will eventually buy.

All that said, I'm trying to find a receiver for under $400 that will adequately power the XL7 speakers when I buy them. Here are the specs on the speakers:

Power handling: 80-200 Watts
Sensitivity: 89db
Impedance: 4~8 Ohms (this is the official specification but, according to the Audioholics review, they're actually much closer to 6 Ohms)

Given those specifications, I've been looking at receivers. I do not have a lot to spend on a receiver; I need it to be $400 or less (I will buy refurbished if necessary to meet this price limitation). I don't need a lot of bells and whistles (ie: networking features) and I don't plan to have more than a 5.1 set up. My top priorities are power and sound quality.

Here are the receivers I'm considering:

Sony STR-DN860
This one seems fairly powerful but it uses a 6 ohm measurement unlike the 8 ohm measurement I've seen on most other receivers. Is this cheating? Spec: 95W * 2 channels (6 ohms, 20Hz-20kHz, 0.09% THD)

Yamaha RX-V377
From what I've read, this receiver has great sound quality for the price. However, with only 70W * 2 channels, I am worried that it won't have enough power to drive the XL7f towers.

Yamaha RX-V479
Similar to RX-V377 but it puts out 80W * 2 channels.

I'd appreciate other receiver suggestions too. What are some other ideas for receivers in that price range? Like I said, I'd rather have more power than the networking features.

Thanks for the help!



Edit: I tried to include links to all of the different receivers but it would not let me because I haven't made 10 posts yet. I'm sorry for any added hassle.

 

[fmw]

I don't know how much power you need but perhaps I can help by explaining how much power I need. The answer to that is 18 watts per channel (excluding the subwoofer.) How do I know? Well, I've measured it. My average power dissipation is less than 1 watt per channel on average. 18 watts is the highest level of dissipation I have ever measured and it was in a movie explosion scene. My room is larger than average and my speakers are less efficient than average.

Your power dissipation could be lower or higher based on a number of factors but worrying about it with receivers is not important. The difference between a "low" powered AV receiver and a "high" powered one is insignificant since a doubling of power is needed to cause a meaningful addition to overhead. In other words, ignore power which is fairly trivial in home audio and buy the unit that has the features you want and will use.

 

[Adam]

fmw and I don't agree on the point that power is irrelevant. In my case, I know it isn't. At my everyday listening levels, I don't need much power, and a "low" powered receiver is just fine. However, at higher volumes, every "low" powered receiver that I've used has lost dynamics at higher volumes. For example, guitar plucks sound muffled, as do vocals.

That said, I don't consider the STR-DN860 "low" power. I own it. It's sitting about five feet away from me - in the box. It's in the box because I don't like it as well as my 2009 Pioneer Elite, with the primary reason being that the Sony has no auto equalization or room correction. It will set the timing and levels for your speakers, but that's it. It doesn't have a system like MCACC or Audyssey, which I find very lacking in it's price range these days. That said, I didn't find it lacking in power at all. At all, and my speakers are less efficient than those towers. Even without room correction, it sounded pretty darn good - but just not as good as my Pioneer. You can read my Amazon review here if you're interested. I do think that Sony used good components in that model, and I do believe it will have the power that you want.

One thing that I noted in that review is that Sony seemed to focus on network features, which is something that you mentioned not being that interested in. With that Sony, I think that you're paying more for things that you don't care about. I haven't used either of those Yamahas (or any Yamaha in years), so I can't speak to those. Just wanted to give my two cents on the Sony.

 

[tcarcio]

Another place to look for receivers is www.accessories4less.com They have a great selection within your price range. By the way where are you located I have a Fluance center speaker collecting dust and if your close enough maybe you might be interested.

 

[fmw]

fmw and I don't agree on the point that power is irrelevant. In my case, I know it isn't. At my everyday listening levels, I don't need much power, and a "low" powered receiver is just fine. However, at higher volumes, every "low" powered receiver that I've used has lost dynamics at higher volumes. For example, guitar plucks sound muffled, as do vocals.

I explained how much power I need, not how much you or the OP need. A home audio system that needs more than an AV receiver can handle is in a small minority. I'm not suggesting either you or he are not in that minority. Perhaps you are and, as we all know, the power requirements increase quickly as volume increases. I stand by my comments for the majority of people, however.

 

[Adam]

fmw, you stated that the difference between a low and high power receiver is insignificant. I don't agree with that, that's all, and I don't play my system anywhere close to what other people that I know consider "loud." I've been told several times that what I consider loud is actually very quiet. The OP may not notice a difference in power, but you are making statements about your personal experience and extrapolating that to the "majority" of people. You may be right. But, you aren't in my case, so I told the OP that.

 

[3db]

That depends on how loud you want to listen and how big the room is. The room size and desired loudness volume combination with your speaker efficiency will tell you how much power you will need. You will not notice the power difference in loudness between the AVR choices you have listed here. They are too close to make any meaning full difference. I would go with Yamaha RXV479 only because I'm a Yamaha fan and it offers a few more features that the RXV379 does not have.

 

[dp412]

fmw and I don't agree on the point that power is irrelevant. In my case, I know it isn't. At my everyday listening levels, I don't need much power, and a "low" powered receiver is just fine. However, at higher volumes, every "low" powered receiver that I've used has lost dynamics at higher volumes. For example, guitar plucks sound muffled, as do vocals.

That said, I don't consider the STR-DN860 "low" power. I own it. It's sitting about five feet away from me - in the box. It's in the box because I don't like it as well as my 2009 Pioneer Elite, with the primary reason being that the Sony has no auto equalization or room correction. It will set the timing and levels for your speakers, but that's it. It doesn't have a system like MCACC or Audyssey, which I find very lacking in it's price range these days. That said, I didn't find it lacking in power at all. At all, and my speakers are less efficient than those towers. Even without room correction, it sounded pretty darn good - but just not as good as my Pioneer. You can read my Amazon review here if you're interested. I do think that Sony used good components in that model, and I do believe it will have the power that you want.

One thing that I noted in that review is that Sony seemed to focus on network features, which is something that you mentioned not being that interested in. With that Sony, I think that you're paying more for things that you don't care about. I haven't used either of those Yamahas (or any Yamaha in years), so I can't speak to those. Just wanted to give my two cents on the Sony.

I read your review and checked out the Pioneer Elite series. Specifically, I looked at the lowest end model in the series, the Elite VSX-45. It looks like it puts out 80 watts for each of the 5 channels. Comparatively, the Sony STR-DN860 puts out 95 watts for just 2 channels (I assume that the power drops fairly significantly when driving all 5 speakers). Am I interpreting that right? Does that matter?

 

[dp412]

Also, thanks to everyone for responding so far. I understand that the power differences won't matter much at normal listening levels but I don't want the receiver to struggle when I do turn it up. If the tower speakers I'm buying have a power handling of 80-200 watts and I hope to add a center and surrounds, will a receiver that puts out 80 watts * 2 channels be able to handle loud volumes?

Thanks for the help!

 

[3db]

Also, thanks to everyone for responding so far. I understand that the power differences won't matter much at normal listening levels but I don't want the receiver to struggle when I do turn it up. If the tower speakers I'm buying have a power handling of 80-200 watts and I hope to add a center and surrounds, will a receiver that puts out 80 watts * 2 channels be able to handle loud volumes?

Thanks for the help!

Room size? How loud is loud oh and how far away will you be sitting from the speakers? That last part also has a BIG impact. Need these questions answered before we can recommend anything.

 

[fmw]

fmw, you stated that the difference between a low and high power receiver is insignificant. I don't agree with that, that's all, and I don't play my system anywhere close to what other people that I know consider "loud." I've been told several times that what I consider loud is actually very quiet. The OP may not notice a difference in power, but you are making statements about your personal experience and extrapolating that to the "majority" of people. You may be right. But, you aren't in my case, so I told the OP that.

The difference between 75 watts per channel and 150 watts per channel is 3 db. I consider that trivial. You are free to consider it significant if you wish. Sorry, I stand by what I said.

 

[fmw]

Also, thanks to everyone for responding so far. I understand that the power differences won't matter much at normal listening levels but I don't want the receiver to struggle when I do turn it up. If the tower speakers I'm buying have a power handling of 80-200 watts and I hope to add a center and surrounds, will a receiver that puts out 80 watts * 2 channels be able to handle loud volumes?

Thanks for the help!

Yes, except in unusual circumstances.

 

[dp412]

Room size? How loud is loud oh and how far away will you be sitting from the speakers? That last part also has a BIG impact. Need these questions answered before we can recommend anything.

I'll be moving soon so room size is hard to pin down. My best guess is that it'll be close to 15*20, or 300 square ft. Additionally, I'll probably sitting about 10 feet from the tower speakers.

 

[Adam]

Oops, sorry - I should have mentioned that my Pioneer Elite was $1000 back in 2009. It's rated at 110W into two channels, 20-20kHz.

I should clarify something about my view on the power aspect, and it's something that I'm not the best person to try and quantify. There are receivers that do well with high transient power draw, and others that don't (e.g. for a cymbal crash or guitar pluck). At low to (what I'd call) moderate volumes, every one that I've ever tried has sounded the same. At higher volumes, that's when I can clearly tell a difference. The ones that I've used that have struggled have been rated lower in total power, maybe in the ~50-70W. That doesn't mean that every receiver in that range is going to struggle - just the ones that I tried. They seemed to be designed for lower volume applications, and did fine with those, but the dynamics just suffered at higher volumes. Some receivers list their peak output power, which is nice to see...but I honestly don't know what peak output corresponds to the listening that I do to check dynamics. I don't have a meter fast enough to catch those events.

 

[dp412]

Yes, except in unusual circumstances.

The difference between 75 watts per channel and 150 watts per channel is 3 db. I consider that trivial. You are free to consider it significant if you wish. Sorry, I stand by what I said.

Thanks - That does help put things in perspective. What would be the advantages of ever going with the 150 watt/channel receiver over the 75 watt/channel receiver? Is there any significant upside to more power besides the 3 db increase?

 

[fmw]

I read your review and checked out the Pioneer Elite series. Specifically, I looked at the lowest end model in the series, the Elite VSX-45. It looks like it puts out 80 watts for each of the 5 channels. Comparatively, the Sony STR-DN860 puts out 95 watts for just 2 channels (I assume that the power drops fairly significantly when driving all 5 speakers). Am I interpreting that right? Does that matter?

One could write a book answering that question. It involves distortion, bandwidth and few other things. I would guess the Pioneer is probably trivially more powerful. Let's just say that it doesn't really matter. Again. One has to double power in order to get a measly 3 db of additional overhead. The difference between 80watts and 90 watts is trivial. I view amplifier power as one of the least important aspects of home audio. I have good reason to view things that way but, as you can see, not everybody agrees. Such is home audio.

 

[Adam]

The difference between 75 watts per channel and 150 watts per channel is 3 db. I consider that trivial. You are free to consider it significant if you wish. Sorry, I stand by what I said.

You always stand by what you say. You aren't discussing the transient effects, though. I'm not saying that my other receivers didn't get loud - just that they sounded far less dynamic at those volume levels.

 

[fmw]

Thanks - That does help put things in perspective. What would be the advantages of ever going with the 150 watt/channel receiver over the 75 watt/channel receiver? Is there any significant upside to more power besides the 3 db increase?

No. There are other issues involved with amplifier design but they don't really apply to AV receivers. AV receivers are adequate for what they do. You wouldn't want them to amplify a live rock band performance but they will handle your living room.

 

[fmw]

You always stand by what you say. You aren't discussing the transient effects, though. I'm not saying that my other receivers didn't get loud - just that they sounded far less dynamic at those volume levels.

Because it is far simpler than you want to make it. An amplifier either operates within its design parameters or it clips. If it clips it become less dynamic and higher in distortion. So if you are complaining about loss of dynamics, I would assume that your amplifier is clipping. In that case it isn't powerful enough for your application.

A transient is simply something that is short in duration. If your amplifier clips during transient peaks, then at least the clipping doesn't last very long. If it clips consistently then it is likely to degrade sound quality audibly.l

At my normal listening level (15 db below reference) my amplifiers never exceed 18 watts of power dissipation (subwoofer excepted.) In other words, they never clip and they never lose dynamic range. If you listen loud enough to clip your amps then you need more powerful amps. It isn't any more complicated than that. And yes, I always stand by what I say.

 

[Adam]

Because it is far simpler than you want to make it.

Then I'll make it simpler. You're wrong about power not mattering in a receiver.