Onkyo TX-SR805 AV Receiver Review

[johsti]

The Denon 2808 is a fairly new receiver. Have you actually listened to it or are your comparing it to older Denon receivers? If you are you're making a mistake, it's a very beefy receiver, with all the new gadgets. I 100% concur Kbouchez, take a listen for yourself. I did.... and I chose the Denon.

No, I compared it to the 3808. I've never listened to the 2808. I know weight isn't everything, but the fact is the 805 has a good 20 pounds on the 2808 and a much larger power supply. The Denon 3808 and the Onkyo 805 had a warmer sound to them compared to the slightly more detailed Elite. I could be happy with any one of these receivers, but the recent sales price of $699 persuaded me to give the Onkyo a shot even though I never considered the Onkyo after reading the forums.

Have you read this review? http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_3/onkyo-tx-sr805-receiver-9-2006-part-5.html

Next we moved on to the "cooking" tests. All tests were conducted "two channels driven" with the same 2.0V RMS input.

First we left the 805 in its 6 ohm setting, brought the output up to 1% THD (popularly accepted as the point of clipping), and measured the output. We then loaded it with 4 ohms on each channel and measured. Switching the 805 to its 4 ohm setting we again measured with 8 and 4 ohm loads. The results are tabulated as follows.


>6 ohm setting (default) / 4 ohm setting

8 ohm load - 173 Watts / 87 Watts


4ohm load - 270 Watts* / 151 Watts



* Time limited test under controlled laboratory conditions.

 

[croseiv]

Denon 2808 weighs 28.2 lbs., while the Onkyo weighs in at 50.9 lbs. I'd say the Onk wins in the weight category, and it has a very impressive amplifier/power supply competing more with the 4308...

 

[Pipelayer]

I'm not saying what I'm about to say applies here, I would need more info for that. I've been an Electronc & Computer Tech for quite a while, and usually as far is technology is concerned, bigger only means older parts - and newer technology usually translate into lighter, smaller and more efficient parts.

These two systems almost identical in the watts per channel rating. With such a close similarity in power there is no reason one should be that much larger than the other. We all know how much bigger some of the 50s, 60s, and 70s amps were, and that was because of the older technology.

 

[croseiv]

A look under the hood of the 805 shows cutting edge technology parts I think...It is a very solid performer as is the 2808. Either receiver is a good choice. The 805 is much more appealing to me though (and actually the 905 is even more so). I certainly don't get the feeling Onkyo is skimping in the least with these new receivers.

 

[johsti]

It's unfortunate that there is no standardized way for manufacturers to advertise watts. It's like cars, you need to put them on a dyno to find out how much power they actually make.

I listened to some Usher tiny dancers the other day being powered by these 22 watt monoblocks. http://www.divertech.com/asl1006845dt.html 22 watts made my 130 watt receiver sound like 6 watts. It all depends on how the watts are measured.

I really liked the Denon 3808 I heard, and I would imagine that the 2808 sounds the same/similar. As you said, you would be very hard pressed to tell a difference between 110 and 130 watts measured the same way. Enjoy!

 

[MDS]

It's unfortunate that there is no standardized way for manufacturers to advertise watts.

There are a number of standards that are used: FTC, DIN, and EIJA. We are most concerned with the FTC standard that is used in the US.

Despite the fact that people like to claim things like '50 HK watts is like 100 Denon watts', a watt is a watt. The arguments arise due to misunderstanding the differences in ratings. The FTC standard is still two channels driven or for surround two channels driven at full power and the remaining channels driven at 1/8 power. Comparing a receiver rated for all channels driven at full power to one rated for two channels driven is comparing apples to oranges. A 50 watt all channels driven receiver is not necessarily more powerful than one rated 100 wpc with two channels driven due to the dynamic nature of music and other reasons that have been discussed many times here.

The difference between 100 wpc and 130 wpc is about 1.1 dB so it should be no surprise that there isn't a large difference to be heard.

 

[johsti]

There are a number of standards that are used: FTC, DIN, and EIJA. We are most concerned with the FTC standard that is used in the US.

Exactly! three different ways to measure watts = no standard
You also need to factor in the THD+N, etc., etc...... There is no standard in advertising.

The difference between 100 wpc and 130 wpc is about 1.1 dB so it should be no surprise that there isn't a large difference to be heard.

Correct, as long as they are measured with the same "standard".

 

[MDS]

Exactly! three different ways to measure watts = no standard

OK, you got me there.

However, there is a misconception about what it to means to be a 'standard'. Most people think a standard is the one be-all end-all way to do things but it is not. Instead a standard is an agreed upon and accepted means of doing something and there can be many such 'standards' that have been accepted even though they are different and target the same problem.

I work with software standards (mostly 'emerging technologies'; ie web based) so I know what you are getting at. Rather than go into a big discussion about that I'll leave you with these words of wisdom on a poster in the computer lab at UF: 'The nice thing about standards is there are so many of them'.

 

[Pipelayer]

If I remember correctly, there was something that arose back in the seventies that made a big difference in letting the public know what they were buying in the watts ratings, and I do believe it still stands today. Everyone used to put their watt ratings next to their receiver's brochures back then. Just the number (100) and then the (watts). I.E. (100 watts).
Consequently you had smaller cheaper receivers with a higher watt ratings that the professional more expensive receivers. So some branch of the government consumer division (can't remember which) made them identify which type of watts they were, which solved many a problem and made a good buy of good equipment an easier procedure.

This is what they did:

They made them identify what type of watts they were and they had to put it by their watt ratings, like so:

300 watts IPP
300 watts RMS

The 300 watts IPP means - Initial Peak Power (in other words, with the volume turned waaay up)

The 300 watts RMS means: RMS=Root Means Square - which translates to minimum power - the volume turned down to a minimum level

Bottom line - 10 watts RMS is more powerful then 95 watts IPP. Don't hold me to an exact on the numbers but you get the point.

Would you believe: RMS was the ratings by which all the good professional equipment makers rated their watts. IPP was the rating which most of the cheap, inexpensive equipment makers rated their watts. Once those ratings were made to be identified, than the truth of the matter became clear.

 

[MDS]

Would you believe: RMS was the ratings by which all the good professional equipment makers rated their watts. IPP was the rating which most of the cheap, inexpensive equipment makers rated their watts. Once those ratings were made to be identified, than the truth of the matter became clear.

I've never heard of IPP but PMPO (or something like that) was Peak Music Power Output and sounds similar. It is the kind of rating that boom boxes and cheap systems use to make the numbers look larger than reality. It's irrelevant when discussing receiver or amplifier power ratings as those ratings are never used.

RMS would more correctly be called 'average continuous' power. It is definitely not the minimum unless you want to interpret minimum as meaning the minimum power it can output on a continuous basis.

 

[Pipelayer]

I've never heard of IPP but PMPO (or something like that) was Peak Music Power Output and sounds similar. It is the kind of rating that boom boxes and cheap systems use to make the numbers look larger than reality. It's irrelevant when discussing receiver or amplifier power ratings as those ratings are never used.

RMS would more correctly be called 'average continuous' power. It is definitely not the minimum unless you want to interpret minimum as meaning the minimum power it can output on a continuous basis.

First of all, anyone who knows anything about buying a system in the 70s knows what IPP (peak power) means, sorry you never head of it. But for the skeptics here's a link where the terms are being used (4th Paragraph):
http://www.dualav.com/pr/2005/4.html



Root Mean Square (abbreviated RMS or rms), also known as the quadratic mean, is a statistical measure of the magnitude of a varying quantity. It is especially useful when variates are positive and negative, e.g. waves.

It can be calculated for a series of discrete values or for a continuously varying function. The name comes from the fact that it is the square root of the mean of the squares of the values. It is a power mean with the power p = 2.



RMS is indeed a statictical measurement which can be used to determine a series of values (not just one), yes contunuous is one of them, also minimum is another.

Those ratings you are talking about came out much later. My topic was on the initial ratings that was enforced by the government. Actually, the minimum calculation is better, with the continuous calculation you can play around with the numbers too much.

 

[MDS]

First of all, anyone who knows anything about buying a system in the 70s knows what IPP (peak power) means, sorry you never head of it.

Umm...this is 2007. I'm sorry that I was in middle school in the '70s and didn't get to join the crowd that knows about IPP.

Thanks for printing out the definition of RMS but you said this: The 300 watts RMS means: RMS=Root Means Square - which translates to minimum power - the volume turned down to a minimum level and that makes no sense. When the volume is at a minimum the power will be at a minimum too. Maybe you didn't quite mean what you said but that statement says that a 300 wpc RMS rated amp will be putting out 300 wpc when the volume control is at a minimum. Does it work that way when the mute function is engaged too?

 

[Pipelayer]

You just answered you own question. But it has little to do with volume in RMS watts using the RMS calculation. RMS is a truer statement of the amps power in both minimum and maximum.

IPP - Initiatial (or Instantaneous) peak power is not (in relativity to RMS) a true statement of the amps power. A 300 watt IPP amp is a comparison to how a true 300 watt amp would sound and to simulate that comparison the IPP amp has to be at peak power output.

Whereas the RMS amp is continuously (as you have noted) putting out 300 RMS watts no matter whether the output level is at minimun or maximum and there is some variance in there but nothing like the tripling and quardrupling or IPP. For instance a 10db increase in volume might increase the 300 watt RMS amp to 320 watt RMS, but no increase will make a 300 watt RMS amp into a 500, 600, or 700 watt RMS amp. Also, relativity comes into play based on how much resistance (ohms) it runs into when the amps power hits the speaker. A 4 ohm speaker will increase the power output of a 300 watt RMS amp as opposed to an 8 ohm speaker, possibly by more than a hundred watts.

It is the formula that makes the numbers in IPP not the watts.


For instance, take the RMS forumula and use it on the IPP system and you'll get a much lower watt rating. Take the IPP formula and use it on the RMS system and you'll get a much higher watt rating. Relativity is the key. But minimun or continuous denotes a truer watt rating.

 

[croseiv]

I always thought RMS meant average power output? Amplifier power will vary depending on input signal and when listening to music the input is never constant you have peaks and valleys. The peaks require more power than the valleys. When you turn on a 100 wpc amplifier, it will not be running 100 wpc at idle.

 

[Pipelayer]

I always thought RMS meant average power output?

Ahhh... could you please show me where you saw that?

When you turn on a 100 wpc amplifier, it will not be running 100 wpc at idle.

Your right, it won't be runing at all , it will be idle.

Listen... I originally said "a minimum" not "the minimum." Be serious, something has to be playing. A minimum could mean; a minimun listening level, I didn't say turned all the way down to zero.

Furthermore, we're talking about ratings, not power output. A 300 watt RMS amp is going to be rated a 300 watt RMS amp, whether it's playing music or taped up in a box being shipped from here to Alaska. Indeed the initial discussion was about ratings and terminology. I was just trying to explain to MDS how those ratings came about and what they mean. He had never heard of the terms I used and felt they were non-existant, I simply showed him they were. Then he asked another question about a statement I made that he didn't quite understand concering power output in relation to watts. I answered it as best as I could, eventhough it was off topic.

The topic was, and nothing more, how manufacturers were made to distinguish their watt ratings so consumers could make a more informed purchase.

 

[MDS]

I was just trying to explain to MDS how those ratings came about and what they mean. He had never heard of the terms I used and felt they were non-existant, I simply showed him they were.

I've never heard of IPP and the way it was described it sounded to me like the peak music power output rating used by boom boxes. I never meant to imply that I didn't believe it existed.

RMS, on the other hand, is well known. It is the continous power available as opposed to brief instants and is not quite the way you describe it (or at least as I interpreted your description).

 

[Pipelayer]

Good enough, I'm going to drop this with; wishing you the best.

 

[Panjsheri]

I got the Onkyo 805 and absolutely love it!!!!!

 

[roshi]

To change the topic a little bit:
Does anybody have the iPod dock from Onkyo? Is the on-screen menu nice? I'm kind of thinking about investing 75$ in it...

 

[preppie16]

I'm also getting a 1080p lcd tv. Should I be concerned with "1080p scaling" in the receiver?

The receiver is Top-Notch for Audio quality. However, as far as video... Purchase a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player that offers superb upconversion (Samsung BD-UP5000 $799 Duo player w/ HQV Reon processor) connect via HDMI with 1080p pass-through on receiver HDMI input and there you have optimal video quality!!
There you go!