High Instantaneous Current Amp Spec

[gene]

And its funny, of all the shops that I've been to that sell both Yamaha and NAD, the shop owners always said that the NADs sounded better than the Yamahas.

I am sure that has no relation to the margins of the products they are selling either

 

[gene]

Yamaha has rated it for one channel driven; the fact that someone wants them to list an all channels driven rating does not make Yamaha's claim false.

Actually by FTC mandate, receiver power has to be rated into 2 channels. Thus the published spec from Yamaha is guaranteed for at least 2 channels driven, though I have usually found them to exceed their ratings in that capacity and thats without holding the line voltage up either

 

[aarond]

so its legal to advetise the htr 5990 as a 980 watt recvr?

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/HTIB/HTR5990.htm

 

[3db]

I new you would bring that up

I am sure that has no relation to the margins of the products they are selling either

Actually As it stands right now, I can't afford NAD.. and both owners are aware of this. And they never tried to upsell me. I've also asked them what they have at home and both said NAD.

 

[3db]

If you have any technical sense than I don't need to back up my statement about the Audio Precision Test sweep. Its a fact. Companies like HT Magazine use that test. Its a useful test, but NOT representative of a continuous power test.

As for the rail fuse and regulation, read the editorial notes in S&V magazine. If I recall correctly they bypassed the fuse in a denon receiver review. Since I don't subscribe to magazines I can only recite from memory what I read when I perused them at the bookstore.

As for regulation, again its a fact that they have to regulate since the #'s they are publishing simply aren't possible without doing so. S&V Magazine also stated the discrepancy with their Yamaha/Denon debacle when they tested the Yamaha RX-V1. If you don't believe it, simply find the following issue to that review and you can read it for yourself in their feedback section.

Or better yet, you can read the editorial from the owner of S&V Magazine who allowed me to print this several years ago.

http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/yamahaRX-V1receivertest.php

Did I sufficiently back it up for you?

Cool read. thanks for the info.... So if all receivers are put on a regulated supply, then the playing field is once again levelled and performance once again goes back to the robustness of the amps/power supply.

 

[3db]

If you have any technical sense than I don't need to back up my statement about the Audio Precision Test sweep. Its a fact. Companies like HT Magazine use that test. Its a useful test, but NOT representative of a continuous power test.




http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/yamahaRX-V1receivertest.php

Did I sufficiently back it up for you?

You do bring up a good point.. For those high powered HT, should people consider getting a dedicated circuit into their HT room if 5 channels cause the line volatge to drop?

 

[gene]

So if all receivers are put on a regulated supply, then the playing field is once again levelled and performance once again goes back to the robustness of the amps/power supply.

Um, not quite, read this thread:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14222

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I am sure that has no relation to the margins of the products they are selling either

Audio humor. That actually made me chuckle.
But how true it is.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

so its legal to advetise the htr 5990 as a 980 watt recvr?

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/HTIB/HTR5990.htm

Lets just say it's not illegal, but misleading.

They say this right away, which is pretty much BS:

7-Channel 980W Powerful Surround Sound (140W x 7)

 

[PENG]

If you pick a Yamaha and a HK that sells for the same money, the Yamaha will likely give you more power, at least in terms of dynamic power output.

As Buck said, the way Yamaha advertises their mid level receiver's output does seem misleading, but the bottom line is, the buyer will still end up with a good value. mtry is also right, if you read the Yamaha's manual, they do not claim all channel driven. Some of their advertisements sort of do.

 

[3db]

Um, not quite, read this thread:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14222

I can't see the point you are trying to make with this thread. If S&V tests all of their receivers on a regulated power supply, then this puts all receivers under the same conditions. Whats so misleading about this?

 

[Votrax]

so its legal to advertise the htr 5990 as a 980 watt recvr?
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/HTIB/HTR5990.htm

If you called them on it they would probably blame their marketing group

 

[Votrax]

If you pick a Yamaha and a HK that sells for the same money, the Yamaha will likely give you more power, at least in terms of dynamic power output.

As Buck said, the way Yamaha advertises their mid level receiver's output does seem misleading, but the bottom line is, the buyer will still end up with a good value. mtry is also right, if you read the Yamaha's manual, they do not claim all channel driven. Some of their advertisements sort of do.

The AVR7300 put out the same power as the RX-Z9 and is less than half the price of the RX-Z9

S&V test of the RX-Z9
S&V test of the AVR7300

 

[mtrycrafts]

we all know that it won't. the point is all of yamaha's advertising claims that its an 840 watt recvr when that is just an out and out lie!

did you read the above post from Gene about how the power rating on the back of the amp reflects a UA required rating, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Maybe the all channels driven test may not be the best measure of what an amplifier will sound like. I can't help but see a correlation here.

You see a correlation between what and what?

 

[mtrycrafts]

though I have usually found them to exceed their ratings in that capacity and thats without holding the line voltage up either

Just as at home, voltage sags and all

 

[mtrycrafts]

If you called them on it they would probably blame their marketing group

Of course, that is where most of this originates at.
As are some design choices as told to me by a speaker company when it came to bi-wire capability

 

[PENG]

The AVR7300 put out the same power as the RX-Z9 and is less than half the price of the RX-Z9

S&V test of the RX-Z9
S&V test of the AVR7300

I absolutely agree with you on this. I thought of mentioning the 7200/7300 as an exception but I would have repeated myself the umpteenth times (mentioned in my previous posts).

Just a side note, HK here in Canada typically sell for their list price. Regardless, I agree with you, like anything else, there are exceptions, the 7200 was my dream receiver. I would have bought one if HK would honor its warranty in Canada for products purchased in the U.S.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

The AVR7300 put out the same power as the RX-Z9 and is less than half the price of the RX-Z9

S&V test of the RX-Z9
S&V test of the AVR7300

Actually, it puts out more power in 5 and 7 channel mode, and can be purchased from ebay's HK store for under $1000. The best you'll do on the RX-Z9 is $3000 (and probably have a voided warranty). That's 1/3 the price. There is no competition to the AVR7300 IMO.

 

[Pyrrho]

The AVR7300 put out the same power as the RX-Z9 and is less than half the price of the RX-Z9

S&V test of the RX-Z9
S&V test of the AVR7300

I wouldn't buy the HK AVR 7300 because of its audible cooling fan, which makes it AUDIBLY inferior to many less expensive receivers (not to mention HK's reliability problems that they have had in recent years which may or may not have been corrected). As for the RX-Z9, it is a "9.1" channel receiver, so it ought to cost more (power output is not the only consideration when purchasing a receiver). And, as is typical with expensive "top of the line" models, RX-Z9 is not as good of a value as some of Yamaha's lower priced models.