Why is the Marantz sr6004 have less power than the sr5003

[ChicagoLR3]

This fact was pointed out on another forum in passing, however, it appears to be true. When looking at the benchtesting done on both receivers by hometheatermag.com, it appears the sr6004 is significantly less powerful than the sr5003. For example, with 2 channels driven, with a 8 ohm load, the sr6004 does 111.6 watts at 0.1% thd. The sr5003 however, does 153 watts at 0.1% thd. The difference is still there when we look at 5 channels driven, with a 8 ohm load, at 0.1% thd. In this case, the sr5003 reports 103.8 watts, versus the sr6004's 73.4.

Does this seem troubling to anybody else? I know they're both good receivers, but the 5003 has almost 40% more power than the sr6004 in 2/5 channels.

Here are the links:
sr5003
http://www.hometheatermag.com/receivers/marantz_sr5003_av_receiver/index3.html

sr6004
http://www.hometheatermag.com/receivers/marantz_sr6004_av_receiver/index4.html

 

[m_vanmeter]

I would not even be interested in the 0.1% total harmonic distortion rating, if you look at the charts and the 0.01% rating, the power output is very similar for both units, but the sr6004 flat-lines at .01% where the sr5003 actually goes deeply into sub 0.01% range for a large portion of its rated output.

The charts show the 5003 just has a better, more conservative build than the 6004.....typical today as manufacturers fight a watts/per/channel war and battle the bean-counters to cheapen the overall units.

Quite a few of the consumer level a/v receivers get a little worse on their spec's each year with each new model....not better.

 

[selden]

The manuals for the two receivers claim that the SR5003 has a 600W power supply, while the SR6004 has a 650W power supply. This suggests that the 6004 should be able to provide a miniscule amount more output with low distortion, all other things being equal (which mignt or might not be the case).

Supposedly their next generation of equipment, models with nnn5 designations, will be available in September.

 

[PENG]

The manuals for the two receivers claim that the SR5003 has a 600W power supply, while the SR6004 has a 650W power supply.

I have never seen such specs in a mid range AVR's manual. Unless the manual actually say something like "Power supply rated output=650W at 0.X power factor", or Power supply rated output=800VA, you have no way of knowing what output (in VA or W with stated p.f.) it's power supply is rated for.

In most cases I see variations of the following:

"Power Consumption................. 6.3A" that is typical of Denon's, or

"Power Consumption.............500W/ 630VA, Maximum Power Consumption................1100W that is typical of Yamaha's lately, or

"Maximum Power Consumption...........850W" that is typical of HK (but not always, sometimes they just say Power Consumption)"

Such information do not really tell us what is the full load rating of the power supply. Yamaha at least try to tell us more, by providing VA, W, and maxiumu W. HK is the worst, when in some cases they provided us with only the maximum W and idling W.

 

[Seth=L]

I have never seen such specs in a mid range AVR's manual. Unless the manual actually say something like "Power supply rated output=650W at 0.X power factor", or Power supply rated output=800VA, you have no way of knowing what output (in VA or W with stated p.f.) it's power supply is rated for.

In most cases I see variations of the following:

"Power Consumption................. 6.3A" that is typical of Denon's, or

"Power Consumption.............500W/ 630VA, Maximum Power Consumption................1100W that is typical of Yamaha's lately, or

"Maximum Power Consumption...........850W" that is typical of HK (but not always, sometimes they just say Power Consumption)"

Such information do not really tell us what is the full load rating of the power supply. Yamaha at least try to tell us more, by providing VA, W, and maxiumu W. HK is the worst, when in some cases they provided us with only the maximum W and idling W.

Yamaha was very good about their specified ratings for a while. I haven't been paying much attention lately since they've directed their focus on low end models with features dominating the quality aspect. While everyone else was using integrated output devices on their receivers Yamaha was fully discrete on all but their bottom of the line model. Now they've got ICs up to the midpoint.

 

[M Code]

If you want more details on the Yamaha power consumption specifications, check out their Service Manuals. It appears that Yamaha like Onkyo, HK and Marantz are starting to edit down the specifications found in their consumer and website product disclosures. As some informed users are starting to put 2 & 2 together that if the AVR doesn't draw a certain minimum current it has little chance to meet its power output specs. Check carefully the specs on the NEWLY just announced Denon AVRs and you can better understand this subject...

In the end, this just adds to the exploiting of power output disclosures making it more difficult for the normal consumer to make an unbiased comparison. Max the power specs and sell it on the internet, seems to be the normal MO.. Especially since there are fewer test reports doing actual lab power output testing and disclosures..

Just my $0.01..

 

[Seth=L]

If you want more details on the Yamaha power consumption specifications, check out their Service Manuals. It appears that Yamaha like Onkyo, HK and Marantz are starting to edit down the specifications found in their consumer and website product disclosures. As some informed users are starting to put 2 & 2 together that if the AVR doesn't draw a certain minimum current it has little chance to meet its power output specs. Check carefully the specs on the NEWLY just announced Denon AVRs and you can better understand this subject...

In the end, this just adds to the exploiting of power output disclosures making it more difficult for the normal consumer to make an unbiased comparison. Max the power specs and sell it on the internet, seems to be the normal MO.. Especially since there are fewer test reports doing actual lab power output testing and disclosures..

Just my $0.01..

Denon's new receiver's power consumption figures would seem lower to the consumer. Their new 6 ohms @ 1kHz output rating is kinda misleading though.

 

[M Code]

Denon's new receiver's power consumption figures would seem lower to the consumer. Their new 6 ohms @ 1kHz output rating is kinda misleading though.

They are lower as the power supply has been trimmed down once again to save $..
And then next the advertising/marketing hype up the specs (6 Ohms, 1kHz, Dynamic power) to cover the real drop in power output capability..

Just my $0.01..

 

[Seth=L]

They are lower as the power supply has been trimmed down once again to save $..
And then next the advertising/marketing hype up the specs (6 Ohms, 1kHz, Dynamic power) to cover the real drop in power output capability..

Just my $0.01..

I thought I had covered this an another thread. The rating was changed from VA to Watts, which aren't directly transferable values.

They still are rated the same WPC when using the same method of measurement. The weight also did not change much if at all on the models.

 

[tom67]

Power question

Look at the weight on the respective units....my guess is that the heavier unit will deliver closest to the rated power....due to the power supplies which constitute most of the weight on a receiver....just the way it is and the trend is to cheaper, lighter power supplies because that is the costliest part of a reciever......

 

[PENG]

Look at the weight on the respective units....my guess is that the heavier unit will deliver closest to the rated power....due to the power supplies which constitute most of the weight on a receiver....just the way it is and the trend is to cheaper, lighter power supplies because that is the costliest part of a reciever......

I disagree, to a point, or let me say, agree to a point if you prefer. If you go by weight, you would be impressed by one of those old Sony ES receivers. I used to have a Sony DA4ES that weighed 21 kg, or 46 lbs, 8 lbs heavier than my Denon AVR-3805. The 3805 definitely had more power output than the 4ES. There are many examples based on published lab test results even if we restrict our reference to class A/B amps only.

HK (the older models), NAD's are also heavy, but lab measurements conducted by HTM, S&V, HCC time and again showed that they were no more powerful than similarly priced Denon or Onkyo (800 series) mid to high end AVR's that are 10 to 20% lighter. In the case of HK models, they typically tested weaker in lab measurements, except for their once flag ship AVR-7000 and 8000 series.

Don't forget that given a set budget manufacturers do have to make choices. Some spend more on the P/S in order to achieve a relatively higher ACD rating, while others spend proportionally more on the amp section in order to achieve higher 1,2,3 channel driven output while losing ground on the ACD output.

My personal view is that spending money to get better ACD results is kind of silly. I prefer Dennon/Yamaha's approach, that is, optimizing the Stereo output while still trying to produce not too shabby ACD ratings. That way, if you add an external 3 or 5 channel amp you will be perfectly fine; and if you don't you can still have decent power to enjoy two channel Stereo music CD's. Everything beging equal weight is a good indicator of power but everything is not equal. My 1992 Hyundai Sonata was heavier than a 1988 Volvo 740 wagon. Who would have guessed that without reading the specs in the manual? The Volvo looked and felt so much heavier, perhaps due to the superior rigidity of the chassis and overall body structure. Sorry I digressed.

 

[ChicagoLR3]

This has been a very enlightening discussion on the trend in receivers. However, no one has really commented on the fact the 5003 makes so much more power than the 6004. Is this the case with any other receivers? I understand the desire to save material costs. However, looking at MSRP, the SR6004 is over $400 more expensive than the SR5003. I know including all the various software upgrades the 6004 has will cost money, but I dont think its unreasonable to expect to get more power from a $1250 receiver than a year old $800 receiver.

 

[tom67]

You are right...and the answer is "do not buy the SR6004" . I am an old Yamaha fan and would not buy any of their new offerings under $1,200 for the same reason. I guess Marantz hopes their buyers will look at raw specs and not read reviews...Realize that 95% of the market does not research like you do....

 

[PENG]

This has been a very enlightening discussion on the trend in receivers. However, no one has really commented on the fact the 5003 makes so much more power than the 6004. Is this the case with any other receivers? I understand the desire to save material costs. However, looking at MSRP, the SR6004 is over $400 more expensive than the SR5003. I know including all the various software upgrades the 6004 has will cost money, but I dont think its unreasonable to expect to get more power from a $1250 receiver than a year old $800 receiver.

The differences are not significant to know for sure one is more powerful than the other. If I were a betting man I would actually bet on the 6004 based on the published specs. I believe the 6004 is actually a touch more powerful, but practically no difference. Lab measurements are great but it does depend on the testing procedure/methodology used at the time. It would be a more reliable comparison in their group tests when the AVRs are tested by the same person using the same procedure/methodology at around the same time. In separate tests, even when they were done by the same person, I learnt not to take everything on face value. As I pointed out previously, HTM and S&V tested the 3808, 4308, 4310, 4810; and guess which one had the worst ACD and even overall output power performance? It was the heaviest (43 lbs) and most expensive ($2999) 4810. The lowest price and lightest (38 lbs) 3808 had the best overall output power. Do I believe those numbers? Only to a point...

 

[M Code]

The differences are not significant to know for sure one is more powerful than the other. If I were a betting man I would actually bet on the 6004 based on the published specs. I believe the 6004 is actually a touch more powerful, but practically no difference. Lab measurements are great but it does depend on the testing procedure/methodology used at the time. It would be a more reliable comparison in their group tests when the AVRs are tested by the same person using the same procedure/methodology at around the same time. In separate tests, even when they were done by the same person, I learnt not to take everything on face value. As I pointed out previously, HTM and S&V tested the 3808, 4308, 4310, 4810; and guess which one had the worst ACD and even overall output power performance? It was the heaviest (43 lbs) and most expensive ($2999) 4810. The lowest price and lightest (38 lbs) 3808 had the best overall output power. Do I believe those numbers? Only to a point...

Weight can be a crucial factor, but is more pertinent for the lower cost entry-level AVRs (SRP <$999). The power transformer is the most expensive component within an AVR, and the primary mass-distributed brands including Yamaha, Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo, Denon save $ by reducing here. The other key build factor is to consider the heat sinking area, when there is less heat sinking area and then the AVR has to bring in the protection circuit sooner. And the output stage will have less thermal capacity. However as previously mentioned, once the SRP is > $999 then there are simply more $ available to use higher grade components.

The other consideration is that the entry-level AVR user is more likely to use a subwoofer/satellite loudspeaker system. Whereas the low frequencies are handled by the subwoofer's amplifier outside the AVR which relaxes the demands on the AVR's power supply and built-in amplifiers..



Just my $0.01..

 

[Seth=L]

Weight can be a crucial factor, but is more pertinent for the lower cost entry-level AVRs (SRP <$999). The power transformer is the most expensive component within an AVR, and the primary mass-distributed brands including Yamaha, Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo, Denon save $ by reducing here. The other key build factor is to consider the heat sinking area, when there is less heat sinking area and then the AVR has to bring in the protection circuit sooner. And the output stage will have less thermal capacity. However as previously mentioned, once the SRP is > $999 then there are simply more $ available to use higher grade components.

The other consideration is that the entry-level AVR user is more likely to use a subwoofer/satellite loudspeaker system. Whereas the low frequencies are handled by the subwoofer's amplifier outside the AVR which relaxes the demands on the AVR's power supply and built-in amplifiers..



Just my $0.01..

You need to consider that some manufacturers don't need as big of a heatsink because they use a more efficient design that disipates less heat. The point is, even in the budget receivers, there is no absolute factor that will determine power by just looking at the receiver and weighing it.

Just my $0.02..

 

[M Code]

You need to consider that some manufacturers don't need as big of a heatsink because they use a more efficient design that disipates less heat. The point is, even in the budget receivers, there is no absolute factor that will determine power by just looking at the receiver and weighing it.

Just my $0.02..

Going forward..
As Class D solutions begin to penetrate the market in significant numbers vs. the traditional Class A/B, heat sinking area will be less relevant. This will also coincide with the dramatic form factor changes as everything starts to size down and disappear..

Just my $0.01..

 

[tom67]

I'm changing my mind here...maybe best to buy one the 18 lb units for $200 and run it at -2db to be able to hear evening news over the noise from the dishwasher...just buy new one every year or so....they dont cost much to run and probably sound is ok on the cheap units for most people....variable room acoustics probably a bigger factor than specs anyway...

 

[PENG]

Weight can be a crucial factor

I think we are in agreement. Your words "can be" are the key words. It can be, may be even more often than not, but not always a crucial factor. Even within the class A/B group you can find examples where weight do not guarantee more power. Example: Bryston 4BSST/2 vs Emotiva XPA-2. The Bryston is just as powerful but 30 lbs lighter.

The Marantz 5003 weighs about the same as the 6004. I still think HTM did their measurements under slightly different conditions. May be when they did the 5003 they held the supply voltage constant, or something like that.....

Just an aside, if I remember correctly HTM rated the 6004 top pick but not the 5003.

 

[Seth=L]

Going forward..
As Class D solutions begin to penetrate the market in significant numbers vs. the traditional Class A/B, heat sinking area will be less relevant. This will also coincide with the dramatic form factor changes as everything starts to size down and disappear..

Just my $0.01..

Of course not all Class A/B amplifiers are created equal. Look at the enormously inefficient TX-SR805. Yes, it's a powerful receiver to be sure, but it generates a lot of heat wasting a fair amount of energy. Mosfet designs tend to require less heatsinking.