power consumption

[av_phile]

Hilarious...

Same sentiments.

 

[av_phile]

Let the Yamaha bashing begin again, how can one listen to a non musical amp like Rotel and even comment on Yamaha is beyond my comprehension. Since Yamaha is not made or priced for snobs, it would never be good no matter what. Call about being subjective, if this isnt so, dunno what is.

Oh! Well! Here we go again...................

You never really can understand, can you. I couldn't care less what brand it is and how much orgasm you get listening out of any of them. Nobody questions a personal subjective assessment. I don't even retort on your claims and those of others that a ROTEL sounds garbage. You're within your personal subjective rights to opine that way.

My point has been and always will be about PUBLISHED SPECS that scream something to create false expectations about a product. But can't deliver as promised. That's something I or anyone can question as it is a PUBLISHED rating that in their accuracy. And many commercial brands out there targeting mass markets can forget about CONSERVATIVE ratings in order to gain market dominance. It's essentially the name of the game in crass commercialism. Every audiophile I know knows about that and essentially couldn't care less as they don't patronize such products, but it seems a lot of defensiveness abound among members in this forum. But I am not entirely surprised considering that most, like you, are too blithefully content navigating about among commercial gears.

 

[av_phile]

There is no perfect receiver. At the risk of fanning the flames (what the heck.. it's fun to argue), I'll add my 2 bits:

IMO, the Yamaha tops every receiver for driving moderate loads in home theater applications. It has the best DSP's in the buisiness.It has very good DAC's. It's room optimizer is also pretty good. I would not want to try to drive 4 ohm speakers with one though. It's power supply is mediocre.

Pioneer has decent DSP's (not as good as the Yammy), and possibly a weaker power supply than the Yamaha. It has a very neutral sound, which is nice, but overall I am not really impressed with them.

Onkyo is very innovative, easy to use and have slightly better power supplies than the Yamaha. I think they are a great bang-for-the-buck Amp.

HK has the most robust amplifier section, but I think they are cheesy looking and don't have a lot of features. Its room optimizer sucks, but you can set the sub crossover separately for each set of speakers, which is really nice.

Dennon has a great power supply (not quite as good as HK), has good DSP's (not as good as Yamaha), but it has the best DAC's and a very good room optimizer.

This is what I gathered from spending hours reading spec sheets, reviews, user opinions.. ect. Take it with a grain of salt. I had a Sony receiver, which basically sucked. I read everything I could and listened to each one of these amps before choosing a Dennon 2805. I chose it because it had the features that I wanted in the price range I was looking at. It also sounded better to me than the other receivers I looked at, although I couldn't A/B it against the HK or the Onkyo.
Each one of these receivers does something or has something better than the others, and does some things worse. I think it depends on what priorities the buyer has. I would have probably been happy with any of these brands - none of them were bad receivers in the price range I was looking at.
Enough ranting.. I'm gonna go grab a fire extinguisher in anticipation of the flames heading my way!

In many ways, your short assessments of those brands attest to the subjective and personal nature of this hobby. You won't get any flame from me as I find them entirely valid and insightful as a personal opinion based on experience. That's what makes this hobby unpredictably delightful and vigorously exciting. No two experience over the same brand is entirely the same.

And for the most part, I can agree with some of them. The HK does look wanting in the aesthetics department, eversince the Citation amps, though they sound very musical with a lot of dynamics according to my neophyte auidophile colleagues who own them. The Onkyo is a favourite among start-up audiophiles here as providing excellent value and do provide better sonics than most other commercial brands, except HK. But they have reliability problems. The Yamahas and the Pioneers have the weakest load-challenged amplifer sections I've encountered, but they are also among the handsomest. The Denons, well, I haven't encountered any to make a personal assessment.

All these are entirely beside the point of this thread though. This thread is about POWER CONSUMPTION and the original poster wanted to find out how come different makes touting about the same power output have different power consumption figures.

Well, I've opined my thoughts on this. There are CONSERVATIVE power ratings and there are OVERSPECIFIED power ratings. Commercialism would tend to favor the latter. That's just the name of the game. So if you happen to like them, inspite of their overspecified ratings, that's your personal preferrence. But let no one think that it's an OK thing with impertinent reasons like, "you won't need that much power in normal listening anyway," or "they don't state it that away," or "you don't drive all channels the same way." These are simple defensive obfuscations of the fact that many commercial hypes in receivers abound to mislead unwary consumers.

And far be it for me to wage a consumer advocacy against such questionable practices. I won't. I am simply pointing them out for the information of those who may not be aware. For those who are, and don't find anything wrong with it, that's entirely their opinion. It won't change the fact they're getting overhyped products.

 

[Yamahaluver]

av_phille,

Your obsession with snob appeal brand is quite apparent and you would even go on a rant with the moderators on that issue, we all know that from your past posts. Your basic interpretation of specs is so faulted and self opined, it is really impossible to even speak any sense to you. One of the reasons I declared, let the bashing begin.

 

[realistic]

Rating ALL the channels in a multichannel gear IS conservative and rating a multichannel receiver or amp with only one or two channels is over-hyped and, thus, totally deceitful to unwary consumers who would think they are getting a receiver rated for all channels.
...
A spec as advertised is a promise to the consumer who EXPECTS his gear to perform as promised. Stating that it is a 170wpc is presicely that. If it cannot deliver what it is capable of doing. Then you just got duped.

You are entitled to your opinions and at least you are consistent in that you always post the exact same rebuttal.

However, instead of defending 'unwary consumers', they should be criticised for inferring facts not in evidence. In other words, if the written text of the specs says '2 channels driven' and the consumer expects it to be the same for all channels driven, then they are ignorant and can blame themeselves for assuming something that is clearly contrary to the facts written in plain english on the spec sheet. Most importantly, the point is moot anyway because under no circumstance will any real music or movies ever drive all channels simultaneously; thus in many ways a 2 channel rating is more realistic anyway.

 

[av_phile]

av_phille,

Your obsession with snob appeal brand is quite apparent and you would even go on a rant with the moderators on that issue, we all know that from your past posts. Your basic interpretation of specs is so faulted and self opined, it is really impossible to even speak any sense to you. One of the reasons I declared, let the bashing begin.

I often amaze myself debating with someone who is too blind to make any sensible opinion. And while I may have the snob obsession, at least my obsession is not with faulty, deceitful and inferior mass market products.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Specs dont make or reflect the sound character,

No? I guess it is window dressing?


if that was to be the case, all pianos from different manufacturers should sound allike,

Should it? Or, is that a poor analogy or attempt to imply that amps are pianos?

there should be no difference between a Yamaha, Steinway or a Baldwin but those who play them know very well the subtle difference in the sound and use it accordingly.

Perhaps a piano is not an amp, is it?



My opinion of Rotel exactly represents and reflects the subjective and biased nature of this very debate and therefore, in my opinion, the Rotel sounds like garbage just like to others, Yamaha sounds thin, harsh and bright.

Yep, opinions. We all have them. Some are better than others though in the end.

 

[av_phile]

You are entitled to your opinions and at least you are consistent in that you always post the exact same rebuttal.

However, instead of defending 'unwary consumers', they should be criticised for inferring facts not in evidence. In other words, if the written text of the specs says '2 channels driven' and the consumer expects it to be the same for all channels driven, then they are ignorant and can blame themeselves for assuming something that is clearly contrary to the facts written in plain english on the spec sheet. Most importantly, the point is moot anyway because under no circumstance will any real music or movies ever drive all channels simultaneously; thus in many ways a 2 channel rating is more realistic anyway.

Fine, then they should just advertise their multi channel gears as a "2-channel receiver with X other channels that need not be as powerful."

And it is never moot. You apparently haven't played a 5.1 SACD or a DVD-A with equal power demands from each channel.

So now the onus is on the consumer. Never mind if there are vendros out there who foist one over them to mulct them. Too bad they're too ignorant so they get what they deserve. Fine. That's why I go to lengths trying to make such ignorant fools discern better.

 

[toquemon]

Different Opinion

Same sentiments.

HILARIOUS When a person spends more money in equipment that reproduces sound instead of spending it in equipment that creates it. That is the audiophile stupidity.

But, who's gonna play the piano for me?

And i still think Yamaha is the best of the best in mass market level.

"the power section of the Yamaha's is weak",well, i don't agree with that HAVE YOU SEEN RECEIVERS LATELY?. Maybe the power section of the Denon 3805 is stronger than the Rx-V1400's (Well but the Denon costs $300 more). With the other brands, YAMAHA is a clear and absolute winner.

 

[annunaki]

Chis, I agree.

Monkey eggs!

If one piano really sounds different than another, it will most certainly measure differently. The same goes for an amplifier.

-Chris

 

[Yamahaluver]

Well musicians think otherwise, amps as well as speakers as well as pianos from different manufacturers sound different, specs being the same. One doesnt buy a particular amp or speaker for the features itself, otherwise there would only be few brands out there.

 

[toquemon]

You're a serious case man.

 

[realistic]

Fine, then they should just advertise their multi channel gears as a "2-channel receiver with X other channels that need not be as powerful."

They advertise the rating of each channel and each channel is capable of the rating and often more. They further qualify by saying '2 channels driven', which to someone who actually reads the statement does not imply all channels driven. You, however, impose your own beliefs tempered by your experience with other equipment that IS rated all channels and jump to the conclusion that this particular brand must also be stating all channels and are thus lying. The fault lies within if you cannot comprehend what is written.

And it is never moot. You apparently haven't played a 5.1 SACD or a DVD-A with equal power demands from each channel.

You apparently have never seen a waveform or know much about sound. I'll repeat: No music or movie, no matter how many channels will ever demand equal power for equal amounts of time from all channels at the same time. If it did, it would be a pure tone, identical in frequency and amplitude for a given duration. Not musical at all.

 

[WmAx]

Well musicians think otherwise, amps as well as speakers as well as pianos from different manufacturers sound different, specs being the same. One doesnt buy a particular amp or speaker for the features itself, otherwise there would only be few brands out there.

What musicians think does not concern me. The only thing that concerns me is reality. A proper signal analysis will show different results if they are present. It's not magic.

-Chris

 

[Karp]

You are entitled to your opinions and at least you are consistent in that you always post the exact same rebuttal.

However, instead of defending 'unwary consumers', they should be criticised for inferring facts not in evidence. In other words, if the written text of the specs says '2 channels driven' and the consumer expects it to be the same for all channels driven, then they are ignorant and can blame themeselves for assuming something that is clearly contrary to the facts written in plain english on the spec sheet. Most importantly, the point is moot anyway because under no circumstance will any real music or movies ever drive all channels simultaneously; thus in many ways a 2 channel rating is more realistic anyway.

Very true, except if Joe Consumer was looking through the Sunday paper at the Best Buy and Circuit City adds, I would see an HK receiver advertised at 85WPC at around the same price as a Sony advertised at 125WPC. There are no explanations there or in the store as to how the receivers are rated. Unless the consumer does research on the internet, or happens to come across a review in a magazine, he would never know that the Sony only delivers about 30WPC with all channels driven.

Wow, what a deal on the "Big Name" Sony!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Very true, except if Joe Consumer was looking through the Sunday paper at the Best Buy and Circuit City adds, I would see an HK receiver advertised at 85WPC at around the same price as a Sony advertised at 125WPC. There are no explanations there or in the store as to how the receivers are rated. Unless the consumer does research on the internet, or happens to come across a review in a magazine, he would never know that the Sony only delivers about 30WPC with all channels driven.

Wow, what a deal on the "Big Name" Sony!

Still irrelevant as that need to drive all channels to full power at the exact same time is just not on any recordings.
Is the HK delivers 85 RMS watts to all channels at the same time? We went through this before. I don't think it will; maybe 50? But it is still irrelevant. What will it do into two channels or one where the need is most likely the case?

 

[mtrycrafts]

They advertise the rating of each channel and each channel is capable of the rating and often more. They further qualify by saying '2 channels driven', which to someone who actually reads the statement does not imply all channels driven. You, however, impose your own beliefs tempered by your experience with other equipment that IS rated all channels and jump to the conclusion that this particular brand must also be stating all channels and are thus lying. The fault lies within if you cannot comprehend what is written.

You apparently have never seen a waveform or know much about sound. I'll repeat: No music or movie, no matter how many channels will ever demand equal power for equal amounts of time from all channels at the same time. If it did, it would be a pure tone, identical in frequency and amplitude for a given duration. Not musical at all.

You got it, he doesn't Just to show you that experience is not the end all be all After all, one can have unreliable and faulty experiences. Just ask the alien abductees

 

[av_phile]

They advertise the rating of each channel and each channel is capable of the rating and often more. They further qualify by saying '2 channels driven', which to someone who actually reads the statement does not imply all channels driven. You, however, impose your own beliefs tempered by your experience with other equipment that IS rated all channels and jump to the conclusion that this particular brand must also be stating all channels and are thus lying. The fault lies within if you cannot comprehend what is written.

When the manufacturer says 2-channels driven, that is NOT implied. That is EXPLICITLY stated. That's just fine with stereo, as all reputable makers clearly state ALL or BOTH channels driven to arrive at a CONSERVATIVE measurement of their power ratings. And when another stereo box is entirely silent on that, saying 100 + 100 when its power rating was measured with only one channel and only at 1K, then unwary customers would take that as indeed a 100wpc amp. And in their igonarance, they will forever wonder why their new gear can't sound any more powerful than an older amp conservatively rated at, say, 60wpc.

The practice of CONSERVATIVE power measurement has been with us from the days of stereo as has been the accepted norm among res[ectable manufacturers held up by knowledgeable audiophiles. Manufacturers who want to be noticed with exhorbitant power claims are free to overhype their specs with whatever standards they want to adopt.

Now with multichannel, there's even a larger void about standards to govern power rating measurements. Hence, among manufacturers competing for the market and who are very much cognizant of market perceptions, rightly or wrongly, that consumers buy their gears with the most power numbers for the same price, then it's free for all.

I don't need to inject my belief into this as the practice of CONSERVATE measurement that went with stereo is still practiced by manufacturers who believe in full disclosure of their power specs, regardless of how thier competitors are overhyping it.

You apparently have never seen a waveform or know much about sound. I'll repeat: No music or movie, no matter how many channels will ever demand equal power for equal amounts of time from all channels at the same time. If it did, it would be a pure tone, identical in frequency and amplitude for a given duration. Not musical at all.

Well, unfortuantely my ears cannot see a waveform. And let me repeat, you obviously haven't heard a multichannel source that demands the same power as the fronts.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well, unfortuantely my ears cannot see a waveform.

Your eyes can. After all, you select gear with it mostly so it should be just as good seeing waveforms, right?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well musicians think otherwise, amps as well as speakers as well as pianos from different manufacturers sound different, specs being the same. .

Well, spects may be close, very close in fact, most likely never the same

Musicians are allowed to think too. What they can really hear, excluding what they can also see, in other words trusting their hearing exclusively (DBT) is a different issue though.
This too has been well demonstrated:

"The Grass is Always Greener in the Outakes", Gould, Glenn, High Fidelity, Aug 75, pg 54-59.

Yes, I have lots of citations


One doesnt buy a particular amp or speaker for the features itself, otherwise there would only be few brands out there.

Not at all the case. Human nature and the Marketeers know how to take advantage of that makes the marketplace what it is.

But, if your analogy here was the case, why are there multiple brands of sugar in your grocery store? Or Salt, for that matter? Tell me they are different chemically.