Has the FTC Failed Consumer Audio Regarding Amplifier Power Claims?

[Marcus Fry]

Yes, assumed we all knew that some makers are giving optimistic power ratings. FTC needs to crack down.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I've been listening to surround recordings for more decades than I care to admit. Fact is, there are multi-channel recordings in which all the principal channels (LF, RF, LR, RR, Center) get loud at the same time (eg, The Fantasy Film World of Bernard Herrmann). Ditto for mayhem-laden films. Therefore... Meaningful power tests should measure all five of these channels simultaneously.

Back when the FTC outlawed "music power", Phil Coker did a marvelous cartoon for Stereo Review showing how dishonest the idea was. It would be nice if someone could look it up and reprint it.

As for "closed" systems, such as woofers, it might be better for the FTC to forbid any power rating at all. What the buyer wants to know is how loudly the woofer can play without audible distortion. That opens a measurement "can of worms" I don't even want to think about. (Dayton-Wright was the only company that published meaningful distortion curves, for their SF6-loaded woofers. The distortion was so absurdly low it was initially hard to believe.)

 

[bogrod]

IMO the lack of truthfulness, or perhaps full disclosure/clarity extends well past power amp ratings. The entire snake oil subset of audio/video thrives at least partly on this. No one in the industry is actively going to want it. And I don't think it's a high priority for the FTC either.

 

[TechHDS]

I wish Harman would make an AV version of that receiver, do away with the radio tuner, but add HDMI and Asynchronous USB for external DAC, and build in a good REQ feature such as Dirac (preferred), or at least Audyssey XT32 with Sub EQ HT. I am sure there is a market for a 2 channel AVR for Audioholics.

I often wondered why no one's ever done that yet. Why even have a tuner in a unit now. Have any of you guys use a tuner lately? My point about HD radio or standard FM radio with all the commercials and the POP music if you can call it that is the reason I won't even select that source. I believe the time has come and gone for the need of a 'tuner' in a AVR, or even a Stereo unit. I for one see the Only reason the manufacturers are still putting tuners in units are for the media commercial Market. A two channel just as You describe 'PENG' would sell very well, as you know that Harman Kardon 3490 sold for retail 499.00. Add all of what you mention and Not cheep out on the build of the unit and price probably would climb up 8 Benjamin's or more but you would have a really nice two channel unit. Wonder if Outlaw reads these Threads they have a nice two channel on the market now.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Rather than put an FM tuner in a "receiver", it would be better to include an Internet interface to let the user select among the hundreds -- if not thousands -- of 'net radio stations available. This is hardly a new idea -- there have been desktop "radios" with this feature.

There's no question that HD (hybrid digital) lossy encoding degrades the sound of broadcasts. But it continues to be used by stations needing to expand the reception area, especially during drive-time peaks.

 

[PENG]

I often wondered why no one's ever done that yet. Why even have a tuner in a unit now. Have any of you guys use a tuner lately? My point about HD radio or standard FM radio with all the commercials and the POP music if you can call it that is the reason I won't even select that source. I believe the time has come and gone for the need of a 'tuner' in a AVR, or even a Stereo unit. I for one see the Only reason the manufacturers are still putting tuners in units are for the media commercial Market. A two channel just as You describe 'PENG' would sell very well, as you know that Harman Kardon 3490 sold for retail 499.00. Add all of what you mention and Not cheep out on the build of the unit and price probably would climb up 8 Benjamin's or more but you would have a really nice two channel unit. Wonder if Outlaw reads these Threads they have a nice two channel on the market now.

To be specific, I like it without the tuner because of the following benefits.

- a little less weight, 2 to 4 oz?
- a little more room for everything else to breathe.
- more display area to make thins cooler looking than the AM/FM thing.
- a little (minute) potential for interference.
- a little less cost ($10?), to spare that could then be spend on a touch larger PS components (caps?).
- overall a better looking unit.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Standard FM tuners need defending! My Parasound T3, with careful antenna positioning, achieves dead-quiet reception, even with the volume turned up so far you ought to be able to hear hiss between passages. This is remarkable performance for a non-DSP tuner. (Remember the Sony?)

So, what do you listen to with all that quiet? Seattle's 70-year-old KING-FM offers programming such as local concerts, in-studio performances, and (of course) the Met. These deliver sound quality you won't get with KING's specialized HD channels on the Internet.

 

[TechHDS]

To be specific, I like it without the tuner because of the following benefits.

- a little less weight, 2 to 4 oz?
- a little more room for everything else to breathe.
- more display area to make thins cooler looking than the AM/FM thing.
- a little (minute) potential for interference.
- a little less cost ($10?), to spare that could then be spend on a touch larger PS components (caps?).
- overall a better looking unit.

Couple left and right analog VU meters, lite Amber glow. After all, still have RCA jacks for input output for TT, Pre-amp outs. Simple round display for your Source and Input select like Marantz uses.

 

[TechHDS]

Standard FM tuners need defending! My Parasound T3, with careful antenna positioning, achieves dead-quiet reception, even with the volume turned up so far you ought to be able to hear hiss between passages. This is remarkable performance for a non-DSP tuner. (Remember the Sony?)

So, what do you listen to with all that quiet? Seattle's 70-year-old KING-FM offers programming such as local concerts, in-studio performances, and (of course) the Met. These deliver sound quality you won't get with KING's specialized HD channels on the Internet.

Personally I'm old school, I would rather stream the net for much better free music from around the World that's not censored. What's being rammed down the throat of the public in the United States is Sooo censored to the point it has killed off HD radio or FM. Unless you have satellite subscription that is also monopolized. Your choices are few here in the States. Net Radio is in my opinion Miles Ahead and choices are Unlimited with streaming. As a note in honor to Gene's Thread, on the FTC, I feel that the FCC, has failed the public miserably. Be it lack of funding, or special interest groups, or Congress bureaucrats who has seen fit to their own views over citizens.

 

[PENG]

Standard FM tuners need defending! My Parasound T3, with careful antenna positioning, achieves dead-quiet reception, even with the volume turned up so far you ought to be able to hear hiss between passages. This is remarkable performance for a non-DSP tuner. (Remember the Sony?)

So, what do you listen to with all that quiet? Seattle's 70-year-old KING-FM offers programming such as local concerts, in-studio performances, and (of course) the Met. These deliver sound quality you won't get with KING's specialized HD channels on the Internet.

Sure, if you meant separate tuners, for the few people that still want one in the HT room. I used to own a Pioneer tuner that I paid a fortune for, iirc >$300 many years ago. You can now get a good used one for <<$100. I haven't used the Pioneer for so long (don't remember the last time I listened to FM on the AVP) and I don't remember where I put it. I thought it was in the basement but only found the empty box. Anyway, nowadays I only listen to FM when driving.

 

[MrDIY]

Several thoughts:

The issue is esp acute in whole-house sound systems when all channels are driven by identical program material. This is not the case in home theater systems.

Yay for NAD for giving an IM distortion figure! IM seems to have been all but totally forgotten by the industry. I could say the same for tuner ratings in AV receivers: 30 & 50db quieting sensitivity in mono & stereo, adjacent channel rejection, distortion, capture ratio, selectivity, drift, etc. People who can afford a $3-10k piece of equipment are old enough to remember when such things were SOP for mfrs.

 

[gene]

Several thoughts:

The issue is esp acute in whole-house sound systems when all channels are driven by identical program material. This is not the case in home theater systems.

Yay for NAD for giving an IM distortion figure! IM seems to have been all but totally forgotten by the industry. I could say the same for tuner ratings in AV receivers: 30 & 50db quieting sensitivity in mono & stereo, adjacent channel rejection, distortion, capture ratio, selectivity, drift, etc. People who can afford a $3-10k piece of equipment are old enough to remember when such things were SOP for mfrs.

I've seen a few comments on this thread or perhaps others about IMD distortion testing.

The reality is, in most cases, THD+N is good enough info to have for today's wide bandwidth amplifiers. In fact, it's been my experience if you see good THD+N performance, than IMD will also be similarly good. IMD alone doesn't give you noise sprectra so I'd rather have full disclosure of power bandwidth with THD+N.

See: https://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/the-most-memorable-audio-receivers-of-all-time/distortion2014sidebar

 

[T1m]

I just read the article and the posts. I am very disappointed with the manufacturers so called power ratings on their web sites! I had been thinking about purchasing a budget integrated amplifier or 2 channel stereo receiver and could not believe the garbage that most manufacturers had posted on their webpages and the almost complete lack of true power ratings. I bought my first stereo as a teenager in the early 1980s when everyone was posting the TRUTH, eg. 40 watts rms per channel, both channels driven into 8 ohms from 20hz to 20 kHz +/- .5 dB at no more than.05% thd.

I was fortunate enough to have subscribed to Canada’ Sound magazine in the early 1980’s and had the benefits of learning about speakers, amplifiers, and many related topics until it went out of print in about 1997 or 1998. Thanks to people like Len Feldman, Alan Lofft, Ian G. Masters, Peter Mitchell, Andrew Marshal, and especially Floyd E. Toole I was much more knowledgeable than the average person when I went shopping for audio and video equipment.

So when I started looking for the manufacturers specifications for their audio equipment I soon became frustrated and angry that they were posting such garbage for their “power ratings “. Almost completely useless!

Thank you so much for pointing out the lack of compliance to the FCA ratings. I wish that every magazine tested their products as thoroughly as Audioholics. I also would like to point out that it is not just the mid to high end products but also the budget equipment were the vast majority of people spend their hard earned money that should be concerned about too. If somebody is earning $20,000 a year has $500 or $1,000 that they have to purchase a piece of audio equipment they have the right to know what they are getting, just as much as someone who earns $100,000+ and has $5,000 to $10,000 to spend on some audio equipment.

 

[PENG]

I bought my first stereo as a teenager in the early 1980s when everyone was posting the TRUTH, eg. 40 watts rms per channel, both channels driven into 8 ohms from 20hz to 20 kHz +/- .5 dB at no more than.05% thd.

It really isn't that bad. If you want manufacturers based their product's power ratings on 20-20000 Hz +/- 0.5 dB and 0.05% THD, you can simply look to current Denon models such as the AVR-X4400H, X6400H, X8500H, or Marantz models SR7012, SR8012. They all have THD rated 0.05%, 20-20 kHz, and in the past the 4000 series Denon and 7000 series Maratnz all measured well, with results better than their advertised specs. They do include some garbage specs such as the XXX watts, one channel diven at 1 kHz at 10 % THD, but as an informed consumer, you know full well to pay attention to the good stuff only.

Below is one example of the lab measurements I mentioned above.

https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x5200w/measurements

"Denon rates the AVR-X5200W as follows:

• 140 watts < 0.05% ; 20Hz to 20kHz 8 ohm load, unspecified channels driven
• 160 watts (8 ohms, 2CH) and 250 watts (4 ohms, 2CH) dynamic power

Our test results validate Denon’s power specification at least for two channels driven. In fact we were even able to validate their 250 watt sticker slapped on the front panel, but only for one channel driven at 1kHz into 10% THD +N. They could really do away with that sticker but more POWAH sells, especially to less informed consumers, which is who they are targeting with this claim."

 

[Johnny2Bad]

The FTC Rule of the early 70's was developed at a time when the audio component marketplace was simpler than today and suffered from some abusive marketing. It's important to note that the FTC Rule never applied to a lot of products that are common in our market today, and the rules still apply to the same components they ever did. It has never applied to boom boxes, car audio, TVs, any device that is designed to operate as a complete system (such as a product comprising of an amp and speakers together),anything "portable" which means not connected to AC or one that contains a "handle" somewhere ... the list goes on, actually.

It's also worth noting that the FTC Rule only applies to advertisements in print where certain power claims are made in the text. It does not prohibit other forms of power claim, only that they cannot be more prominent (text size, bolded, etc) than the FTC method figures. And to repeat, only to ads.

Not to webpages, not to downloadable brochures, not to owner's manuals, not to video, and not to non-advertising product literature of any kind. Since people no longer shop Bricks-And-Mortar stores they no longer encounter printed brochures. Back in the 70's and 80's a store would have hundreds of different take-home brochures on display.

And if you're not reading an ad in a printed magazine, or if that ad doesn't make certain power claims on certain component products, it doesn't apply either.

Most reputable manufacturers follow the FTC rule in composing their spec sheets.

The FTC attempted to expand the FTC rule to apply to multichannel components but yielded to industry pressure. The main argument against expansion was that buyers of multimedia gear would feel cheated when the new rules came into force and power claims fell at the same price point.

So it only applies to certain types of stereo and mono amplifiers, distributed from a US-based company, and only products sold by that company within the US, which doesn't come close to covering the entire market today.