Power Ratings in Modern AVR's

[PENG]

That's actually fairly consistent with large scale grid applications. This was a good exercise actually, as it allowed me to use my own knowledge of electricity to better understand how a speaker actually works. But it makes perfect sense when I think that the way a speaker operates is basically through the use of a purely inductive process (electrical coil energized, induces mechanical motion in an apparatus, i.e., cone movement). So by this same logic, is the implication here that more sensitive speakers contribute less of a reactive load and therefore a higher power factor? Is that what's really going on in determining those sensitivity specs?

Agree, Large grid could be 0.8 or higher if more large users do their PF correction more aggressively for long term benefits.

 

[Halon451]

Greetings!
For the topic of power consumption, I can provide an example:
With my Marantz SR5010, the manufacturer's specs indicate 650 Watts for power consumption.
I believe that this figure would represent the maximum average consumption for that receiver.
Rated maximum power output per channel, all channels driven, is 70 watts X 7 channels = 490 Watts Total.
Taking into account that the amp modules are of the Class A/B category, which could well be 75% efficient with the most modern technology: 490W / 650W = 75.38%, this assumption seems to be right.

When using that receiver in my living room (12.5 ft x 18 ft x 8 ft), the average power consumption is only about 200-250 Watts.

Not sure why this is really a concern to be honest, other than as a potential indirect gauge of how much power the AVR is actually drawing to push into the speaker system. But in more modern more efficient amplifiers this rough gauge may fall short, no? In these "eco-friendly" times these specs are often stated and my Marantz even has an "eco-mode" which I haven't used cause it's just silly. My logic here is quite simple. Whatever power is used by my receiver utterly pales in comparison to my HVAC system when running or even my refrigerator when the compressor kicks on. My AC system uses somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 kilowatts x # hours running, and I'm in Florida.. so in the summer time that's roughly 20-24 hours... do that math. Even falling towards conservative estimates I'm approaching nearly 40 kilowatts used in a single day in the summer.

I'm not a power-hoarder by any means.. I changed all the light bulbs in my house to LED's.

 

[Halon451]

Plus I don't run my AVR at higher SPL's very often, only when I pop in movies. Most of the time I actually have the volume turned way down to watch regular cable TV or Netflix. Or it's off completely and I'm reading a book.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Greetings!
For the topic of power consumption, I can provide an example:
With my Marantz SR5010, the manufacturer's specs indicate 650 Watts for power consumption.
I believe that this figure would represent the maximum average consumption for that receiver.
Rated maximum power output per channel, all channels driven, is 70 watts X 7 channels = 490 Watts Total.
Taking into account that the amp modules are of the Class A/B category, which could well be 75% efficient with the most modern technology: 490W / 650W = 75.38%, this assumption seems to be right.

You're being very generous with that 75% efficiency factor for a Class A/B amplifier; think more like 50% for anything with more than a single pair of output transistors. Also, you're forgetting the number of other ASICs in the Marantz, which probably dissipate something like 25-35 watts total. So I'm thinking that either the power consumption rating is typical in some way, not maximum, or the amplifiers aren't really Class A/B.

 

[Halon451]

Wow, now that I'm actually looking at the right stuff.. this Yamaha RX-A2060 (equivalent features to both my current Marantz SR-6011 and the Pioneer SC-LX701, but priced equivalent to the Pioneer) seems like a true powerhouse. Obviously, having bought the Marantz I'm not totally married to the Pioneer line, I was clearly willing to try out another brand. Just kind of setting the stage here for future consideration..

This bench test was found with the 2050 (probably a slightly earlier but nearly identical model to the 2060) and it seems to absolutely wallop the other two in terms of headroom and margin to .1% THD at higher power ratings.

And compared to the Marantz:

And the equivalent Pioneer model to the one I'm looking at, the SC-95:

Note: The SR-6011 was THE only AVR on the market at that particular price point that offered 9 discrete output channels, but it is in fact a tier below the other two so it's not surprising to see its bench results showing the poorest performance. Well, presumably - these are all relative results of models as similar to the ones in question as possible until actual tests can be run on those specific models. But it should still serve as a pretty good indicator as to the difference between the three.

 

[vsound5150]

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.

This is when benchmark testing comes in handy to tell true power per channel....this is some head scratching stuff.

For Pioneer, how did they get 110W x 7 from a 400W supply?

Pioneer Elite VSX-23TXH
400W
7 power amps
110W x 7 (spec. states all 7 driven)

For Marantz, what is power consumed per amp when 7 channels driven, who knows.

Marantz SR-6011
680W
9 power amps
110W x 2 (spec. states 2 channels driven)
x 5?
x 7?
x 9?

Some crazy stuff they leave us figuring out and our pockets empty.

 

[Halon451]

Some crazy stuff they leave us figuring out and our pockets empty.

Lol, exactly! That's precisely why I started this thread.

 

[Halon451]

It would no doubt be nice if there was at least some consistency across manufacturers that would allow us to make equal comparisons and not have to utilize so much guesswork or try to calculate what we're actually getting from those amps. The bench tests are good, I wish I had clued in on these before my initial purchase.

I swear to god I'm not going through this again when the 8K revolution hits years from now. I had a perfectly good system that sounded great and I had to go and muck things all up by buying a new TV...

 

[vsound5150]

Lol, exactly! That's precisely why I started this thread.

So if you played back in 2-channel mode, the Marantz lacks SPL compared to the Pioneer? I'm thinking it would be a fair comparison knowing 110W from each, unsure if it's peak or rms maybe doesn't matter. Maybe the Pioneer had larger capacitors, it seems Marantz strives for clean sound as opposed to big power, don't know.

 

[Halon451]

So if you played back in 2-channel mode, the Marantz lacks SPL compared to the Pioneer? I'm thinking it would be a fair comparison knowing 110W from each, unsure if it's peak or rms maybe doesn't matter. Maybe the Pioneer had larger capacitors, it seems Marantz strives for clean sound as opposed to big power, don't know.

No, actually. In 2 channel mode the Marantz actually performs quite well without any noticeable distortion or loss of dynamics. And I cranked up some demanding tracks on it too (i.e., Nine Inch Nails, Meshuggah, etc.). The girlfriend had to come in from the back room to tell me to please turn it down, haha. If I could get all five channels sounding that powerful and clean this thread would never have happened.

The Pio on the other hand often seemed to fall a bit short in 2-channel mode (stereo only or 2.1), and even the big ol' sub barely helped prop up the sound. But with movies, man... it was a beast. I bragged about it often. Not sure why that's the case actually - you'd think any AVR would be a bit better in 2 channel as opposed to all channels so *shrug*.

 

[Halon451]

I think it's imperative on the parts of manufacturers to list an "all-channels driven" spec. I've read some on here saying it's not really necessary but I don't really understand why it isn't. Especially considering that movies these days are cramming so much more content in those extra channels than they ever did before so those surround channels are getting worked out a lot harder, and depending on the scene - can be called upon just as much as the fronts for short periods of time. Now we're adding height channels on top of that. Maybe if it's not a terribly important spec I'd really like to better understand why not.

 

[vsound5150]

No, actually. In 2 channel mode the Marantz actually performs quite well without any noticeable distortion or loss of dynamics. And I cranked up some demanding tracks on it too (i.e., Nine Inch Nails, Meshuggah, etc.). The girlfriend had to come in from the back room to tell me to please turn it down, haha. If I could get all five channels sounding that powerful and clean this thread would never have happened.

The Pio on the other hand often seemed to fall a bit short in 2-channel mode (stereo only or 2.1), and even the big ol' sub barely helped prop up the sound. But with movies, man... it was a beast. I bragged about it often. Not sure why that's the case actually - you'd think any AVR would be a bit better in 2 channel as opposed to all channels so *shrug*.

Similar what I experienced when I went from Onkyo to Marantz, the Onkyo just wasn't doing it for music at higher volumes but movies it performed well. That's cool of Best Buy honoring the 30-day return gives you some options.

 

[Halon451]

Similar what I experienced when I went from Onkyo to Marantz, the Onkyo just wasn't doing it for music at higher volumes but movies it performed well. That's cool of Best Buy honoring the 30-day return gives you some options.

Not gonna lie that Yamaha is looking pretty good right about now.

 

[mtrycrafts]

This is when benchmark testing comes in handy to tell true power per channel....this is some head scratching stuff.

For Pioneer, how did they get 110W x 7 from a 400W supply?

Each channel is capable of that power delivery but not all 7 ch at the same instant.

Pioneer Elite VSX-23TXH
400W
7 power amps
110W x 7 (spec. states all 7 driven)

That is not possible. May want to call them and ask.

For Marantz, what is power consumed per amp when 7 channels driven, who knows.

Marantz SR-6011
680W
9 power amps
110W x 2 (spec. states 2 channels driven)
x 5?
x 7?
x 9?

Some crazy stuff they leave us figuring out and our pockets empty.

Not to worry too much about the other channels. Seriously doubt all channels will need full power at the same instant. And, even the fronts will be different.
Also, don't forget, using sine waves to test is more difficult for the amp than actual source sounds.

 

[lovinthehd]

This is when benchmark testing comes in handy to tell true power per channel....this is some head scratching stuff.

For Pioneer, how did they get 110W x 7 from a 400W supply?

Pioneer Elite VSX-23TXH
400W
7 power amps
110W x 7 (spec. states all 7 driven)

For Marantz, what is power consumed per amp when 7 channels driven, who knows.

Marantz SR-6011
680W
9 power amps
110W x 2 (spec. states 2 channels driven)
x 5?
x 7?
x 9?

Some crazy stuff they leave us figuring out and our pockets empty.

Where did you get the idea the power supply is only 400W? Or 680?

 

[vsound5150]

Where did you get the idea the power supply is only 400W? Or 680?

400W from owners manual and 680 from specs > general on marantz site.

 

[Halon451]

lovinthehd I was waiting for you to appear lol. Welcome to this party, I'm sure you have some good input.

 

[Halon451]

400W from owners manual and 680 from specs > general on marantz site.

I'm confused, you talking about the Pioneer or the Marantz?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Halon, I'm trying to remember where this came from, but it seems to my Brain cell that yamahas have a tendency to go into protection mode when driving difficult loads. Seems the engineers got a little fussy. I'm going to keep digging. Maybe someone can shed some light, or correct me.

 

[lovinthehd]

@vsound5150 That's a power consumption spec for a particular rating/classification purpose, its not the max capacity of the power supply.