AVR power output S&V test bench - Would the results affect your decision on you next AVR purchase?

[PENG]

So, you have amps that might work with a 4-ohm load loudspeaker with music at moderate volumes but the spec sheet cannot indicate a power rating into 4 ohms so the buyer is left to wonder about the low impedance stability.

Not the same as what you are referring to, but likewise, some Yamaha models bench tested not as good as D&M's in the 7 channel driven into 8 ohm measurements could have good performance, even better than comparable D&M models in real world music and movie performance using real loudspeakers. I really believe the only "smart" about their protective system design is that they made it more effective (aggressive?) in protecting against harmful thermal overload (imposed by the uninformed) or over current (due to hook up mistakes, component failures etc situations), knowing full well it wouldn't matter if used properly, for real world music/movie enjoyments. In doing so, they could expect fewer warranty repairs in the long run.

 

[panteragstk]

Reading this makes me glad I got dual 20a outlets with their own breaker each for my theater. Not that I'll ever need it, but if I do, its already done.

I did vote yes and no. Yes because if I plan to use a receiver to drive a speaker that could be difficult I'd want to know if it can or not. No if I don't plan on using the internal amp of a receiver. So I guess my real answer would be "it depends".

 

[PENG]

Reading this makes me glad I got dual 20a outlets with their own breaker each for my theater. Not that I'll ever need it, but if I do, its already done.

I did vote yes and no. Yes because if I plan to use a receiver to drive a speaker that could be difficult I'd want to know if it can or not. No if I don't plan on using the internal amp of a receiver. So I guess my real answer would be "it depends".

So you are only concerned with the power output and not THD+N, SN, XT, preout voltage/THD/SN, LFE channel response etc.?

 

[panteragstk]

So you are only concerned with the power output and not THD+N, SN, XT, LFE channel response etc.?

Guess I got a bit single minded about the question. Changed vote to yes.

Now that you've pointed it out yes, all those would be important too. As others have said I really haven't seen any that are bad in regard to THD+N or SN so I glance over those most of the time.

 

[PENG]

Guess I got a bit single minded about the question. Changed vote to yes.

Now that you've pointed it out yes, all those would be important too. As others have said I really haven't seen any that are bad in regard to THD+N or SN so I glance over those most of the time.

I edited my post#63 to include the very important metric, the preout performance. S&V doesn't do much, if anything about that one, so we can only count on Gene's Audioholics.com reviews.

No bad ones that would be audible as such, but some of the not very good ones do make me wonder why weren't they better. I have also seen a few that have what I would consider poor LFE FR performance.

 

[PENG]

A simple and specific question to illustrate:

Based on the two reviews linked below, for use as prepro, would the bench test results influence your decision?

https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x3300w-1/measurements
https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/yamaha-rx-a860

 

[Kvn_Walker]

Today few valid test reports/reviews are done....
If they are done, minimal measurements are done to save time..
But test reports/reviews can sell a lot of product if positive....
Since most audio magazines require advertising..
When was the last time U saw a bad test report/review??

However by far...
IMHO the biggest testing publication that drives & influences the consumers to purchase is Consumer Reports..
I do like Gene's test reviews, he does a thorough job..

Just my $0.02...

You never see "bad" reviews anymore but I read plenty of "it's good, but (insert botique brand costing an order of magnitude more who happens to be an advertiser) does it just a wee bit better."

So the product being tested gets good marks but somebody else's gear gets a free nod as well. Funny how that works...

 

[PENG]

You never see "bad" reviews anymore but I read plenty of "it's good, but (insert botique brand costing an order of magnitude more who happens to be an advertiser) does it just a wee bit better."

So the product being tested gets good marks but somebody else's gear gets a free nod as well. Funny how that works...

That is very true for the subjective reviews, and I read those for fun only, or ignore them altogether. It is also mostly true that even in the objective parts, i.e. bench test results, you rarely see any bad ones but the measurements in many cases could still be useful especially those found on Audioholics.com and Avtech (nothing since 2014). Regarding the objective reviews/bench tests, just because you don't see bad ones, does not mean the reviews are "not valid..", or not useful.

Example of DUTs tested with good (above average?) measurements:
http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/download2008/reports/feb08/nad_t765_(analogue).html
https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x5200w/measurements
http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/download/reports/aug04/denonavr3805.html
https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/yamaha-rx-v2600/yamaha-rx-v2600-benchmark-performance-tests

Example of DUTs tested with not so good (not bad, but perhaps below average?) measurements:
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/nad-t758-v3-av-receiver-review-test-bench
https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/pioneer-sc-07/sc-07-measurements-and-analysis
https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/yamaha-rx-a860

So overall I thought those reviews, even the less detailed S&V's, could be useful in guiding my purchase decisions, but I fully understand the saying ymmv..

 

[TechHDS]

I edited my post#61 to include the very important metric, the preout performance. S&V doesn't do much, if anything about that one, so we can only count on Gene's Audioholics.com reviews.

No bad ones that would be audible as such, but some of the not very good ones do make me wonder why weren't they better. I have also seen a few that have what I would consider poor LFE FR performance.

PENG, well said about LFE FR performance, I sold off units because of that. What about the pre-amp performance? Doesn’t if ever get mentioning in reviews, had a Onkyo 818 a few years back and to me the pre-amp sucked in it.

Mike

 

[PENG]

PENG, well said about LFE FR performance, I sold off units because of that. What about the pre-amp performance? Doesn’t if ever get mentioning in reviews, had a Onkyo 818 a few years back and to me the pre-amp sucked in it.

Mike

Only Audioholics.com reviews and avtech tested preouts, other than that, cross talks and especially SN, are more indicative of the pre-amp performance. For example, if SN A weighted is 110, it is safe to assume it would be a little higher if measured at the pre-amp output. In some AH reviews, Gene only provided SN at the pre-amp output.

 

[TechHDS]

Only Audioholics.com reviews and avtech tested preouts, other than that, cross talks and especially SN, are more indicative of the pre-amp performance. For example, if SN A weighted is 110, it is safe to assume it would be a little higher if measured at the pre-amp output. In some AH reviews, Gene only provided SN at the pre-amp output.

Thanks PENG! Just learn something from you!

Mike

 

[M Code]

Keep in mind...
When comparing Signal to Noise and Dynamic Range measurements done by the Audio Precision...
For SNR the signal level is arbitrary, is usually taken to be the nominal program level. SNR is actually two measurements:

• 1st for the signal level
• 2nd the noise floor level with the signal turned OFF

Then these two measurements are expressed as a ratio, typically in dBs.
However...
Often like most noise measurements done with the AP, the SNR results are bandpass limited using high and low pass filters, or a weighting filter. Whatever specs are published, the filters used should be disclosed, this is often not shown for AD or DAC SNR specs.

Dynamic Range is another spec, and is the ratio of the highest signal a device can pass to the device’s noise floor, usually specified @ 1% distortion. Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Dynamic Range specs are basically the same measurement, except that the signal in SNR is arbitrary ( but should be disclosed),and the signal in Dynamic Range is at the maximum. The majority of these specs follow the AES standard and/or the IEC.

Bottom line..
Here the highest spec number is not always the best...
When comparing units, be sure to note what filters are used and @ what level...

Just my $0.02... ,

 

[Andrein]

Maybe not directly related to this topic but made me thinking. In the era of small and powerful cpu modules, why cant AVR be split into multichannel dac, multichannel pre-amp, multi core cpu and memory module and sound processing soft. So, when the next standard comes out like dts xx, you just pay for update, download and install it. Done. This way you just buy the dac/preamp once, the best you can afford. In worst case you just add more dac/preamp modules and point soft to them if new standard includes more channels.

 

[PENG]

Keep in mind...
When comparing Signal to Noise and Dynamic Range measurements done by the Audio Precision...
For SNR the signal level is arbitrary, is usually taken to be the nominal program level. SNR is actually two measurements:

• 1st for the signal level
• 2nd the noise floor level with the signal turned OFF

Then these two measurements are expressed as a ratio, typically in dBs.
However...
Often like most noise measurements done with the AP, the SNR results are bandpass limited using high and low pass filters, or a weighting filter. Whatever specs are published, the filters used should be disclosed, this is often not shown for AD or DAC SNR specs.

Dynamic Range is another spec, and is the ratio of the highest signal a device can pass to the device’s noise floor, usually specified @ 1% distortion. Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Dynamic Range specs are basically the same measurement, except that the signal in SNR is arbitrary ( but should be disclosed),and the signal in Dynamic Range is at the maximum. The majority of these specs follow the AES standard and/or the IEC.

Bottom line..
Here the highest spec number is not always the best...
When comparing units, be sure to note what filters are used and @ what level...

Just my $0.02... ,

As always, one must compare apples to apples...

 

[lovinthehd]

Maybe not directly related to this topic but made me thinking. In the era of small and powerful cpu modules, why cant AVR be split into multichannel dac, multichannel pre-amp, multi core cpu and memory module and sound processing soft. So, when the next standard comes out like dts xx, you just pay for update, download and install it. Done. This way you just buy the dac/preamp once, the best you can afford. In worst case you just add more dac/preamp modules and point soft to them if new standard includes more channels.

I'd think the expense of including everything possible hardware-wise up front for long term software/firmware updates (if it's even possible) let alone physical component interchangeability (e.g. I just got a new phone and needed a new sim card as the old one was too big). NAD has had some modularity but they weren't very well known for keeping up with promises, believe Emotiva has also had issues in this regard. Probably more than anything is we have somewhat a disposable technology mindset but exacerbated by changing technology/harrdware, it's easier to simply throw out and replace vs the expense of repair/upgrading and most consumers aren't that into it....

 

[Andrein]

I'd think the expense of including everything possible hardware-wise up front for long term software/firmware updates (if it's even possible) let alone physical component interchangeability (e.g. I just got a new phone and needed a new sim card as the old one was too big). NAD has had some modularity but they weren't very well known for keeping up with promises, believe Emotiva has also had issues in this regard. Probably more than anything is we have somewhat a disposable technology mindset but exacerbated by changing technology/harrdware, it's easier to simply throw out and replace vs the expense of repair/upgrading and most consumers aren't that into it....

Maybe this is not worth it. Everything is becoming disposable these days. It is true. And you pay again and again... From avr perspective DSP, EQ, Sound processing formats like Dolby, parts of DAC... could in theory be handled by software alone or maybe even web service leaving only analog parts without any logic inside black boxes on our shelves.

Anyway, sorry for interrupting this thread.

 

[M Code]

As always, one must compare apples to apples...

When making the Apples to Apples comparison just be sure the measuring filters specs are confirmed... On many specs sheets they seem to have vanished..

Just my $0.02..

 

[PENG]

When making the Apples to Apples comparison just be sure the measuring filters specs are confirmed... On many specs sheets they seem to have vanished..

Just my $0.02..

Sure, but I am sure Gene would always tell us what filter he used for the A weighting. Gene usually measured SN using both unweighted and A weighting.

S&V claimed they used the AP as well, and they always use A weighting so I thought it should be a safe assumption that they used the same bandpass filter for A weighting for most if not all of their bench tests on avrs

 

[M Code]

Sure, but I am sure Gene would always tell us what filter he used for the A weighting. Gene usually measured SN using both unweighted and A weighting.

S&V claimed they used the AP as well, and they always use A weighting so I thought it should be a safe assumption that they used the same bandpass filter for A weighting.

I don't worry about Gene's results but rather the specs disclosed on certain brand internal component spec sheets. For example, below is a link taken from Burr Brown's website noting some of their popular DACs.. An SNR spec is given but no breakout what filters & levels were used....

http://www.ti.com/product/PCM1796

IMHO..
I respect TI/Burr Brown disclosures but some clarification is required if one wants to do any serious comparisons..
This situation reminds me of the various misleading power output disclosures made frequently..

Just my $0.02...

 

[PENG]

I don't worry about Gene's results but rather the specs disclosed on certain brand internal component spec sheets. For example, below is a link taken from Burr Brown's website noting some of their popular DACs.. An SNR spec is given but no breakout what filters & levels were used....

http://www.ti.com/product/PCM1796

IMHO..
I respect TI/Burr Brown disclosures but some clarification is required if one wants to do any serious comparisons..
This situation reminds me of the various misleading power output disclosures made frequently..

Just my $0.02...

Okay then, I thought you were talking about AH and S&V's bench test results. For advertized specs, that is true, higher numbers may not be better, because it depends...

Regarding DACs, I always looked for the more detailed data sheet, for example, in your link, if you open the data sheet, you do get more specifics(including the filters) such as the following:

Dynamic range
EIAJ, A-weighted, fS = 44.1 kHz 120 dB MIN 123 dB TYP
EIAJ, A-weighted, fS = 96 kHz 123 dB TYP
EIAJ, A-weighted, fS = 192 kHz 123 dB TYP

Signal-to-noise ratio
Same as above

(1) Filter condition: THD+N: 20-Hz HPF, 20-kHz AES17 LPF Dynamic range: 20-Hz HPF, 20-kHz AES17 LPF, A-weighted Signal-to-noise ratio: 20-Hz HPF, 20-kHz AES17 LPF, A-weighted Channel separation: 20-Hz HPF, 20-kHz AES17 LPF Analog performance specifications are measured using the System Two Cascade audio measurement system by Audio Precision in the averaging mode.
(2) Dynamic performance and dc accuracy are specified at the output of the postamplifier as shown in Figure 36.
(3) Dynamic performance and dc accuracy are specified at the output of the measurement circuit as shown in Figure 38.