power consumption

[av_phile]

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

It's so obvious that you prefer to hide behind such remarks and not face up to the issue that power measurements do matter for some people and that manufacturers can hold your *** by their overhyped claims.

Hello, knock knock, I have to rain on your parade that you and your kind do not have a monopoly of correctness in this hobby. You can live with your DBTs and 100watt recievers than can only output 25wpc in reality. I have no quarrel with that. I couldn't care less if you have your kicks from such gears and listen to them with bias control everytime. But there are people who prefer to patronize only manufacturers who stick to the old conservative ways of specifying their products and I simply point them out here.

Apparently, because you and your kind in this forum like receivers so much you can forgive their overhyping and rationalize that it doesn't matter since there are no materials out there that demand the same power. Well, by your own logic, what if there are?

So it's ok for you that power measurements in mnay receivers are misleading. That's your opinion. That's fine. But don't hide behind such weak excuses as they reveal your total lack of concern for others in this hobby.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It's so obvious that you prefer to hide behind such remarks and not face up to the issue that power measurements do matter for some people and that manufacturers can hold your *** by their overhyped claims.

Hide? Hello? I suppose I must have stated that they don't matter to anyone, or shouldn't? Hello?


Hello, knock knock, I have to rain on your parade that you and your kind

Me and my kind? What kind would that be? You seem to have the answers. Test time. What kind are we?


do not have a monopoly of correctness in this hobby.

Oh!!! For a minute I was under the impression that this was an open board hence I cannot have the monopoly. Knock, knock.

You can live with your DBTs and 100watt recievers than can only output 25wpc in reality.

In reality? Really? I think you better wake up to reality. Knock, knock.
Your singular reality is just that, sorry.

I have no quarrel with that.

I am so happy, thanks.

I couldn't care less if you have your kicks from such gears and listen to them with bias control everytime.

Thanks. I was worried for a moment that I couldn't enjoy my preferences.


But there are people who prefer to patronize only manufacturers who stick to the old conservative ways of specifying their products and I simply point them out here.

Please, by all means.

Apparently, because you and your kind in this forum like receivers so much you can forgive their overhyping and rationalize that it doesn't matter since there are no materials out there that demand the same power. Well, by your own logic, what if there are?

Well, when that bridge comes, we will figure it out how to cross it. I doubt it will be in my lifetime, or yours.

So it's ok for you that power measurements in mnay receivers are misleading.

It is not misleading me. I cannot help if it is to you, not my fault.

But don't hide behind such weak excuses as they reveal your total lack of concern for others in this hobby.

If I didn't have a concern for others, I'd be somewhere else but you keep reminding me why I need to be here. Exhilarating.

 

[av_phile]

I guess people who insists that a 5.1 system will NEVER encounter a material that demands equal power on all channels have very limited exposure to some multichannel materials out there. They obviously do not listen to 5.1, or 6.1 stereo. OR to discreetly encoded SACDs and DVD-As where the bass from the rear can be just as chest pounding as the fronts. But on hindsight, I can very well understand this. Afterall people prefer HTs on multichannels rather than music. And movies not only rarely, but actually don't make such demands, especially since most home movies are played on HT receivers.

But that is entirely beside the point. I am really amused at the shallowness of some people's cranially-challenged reading comprehension.

This thread is about why some receivers eat more electrical power than others while giving out the same output power or even less. I've indicated my thoughts on this to say that there is such a thing as CONSERVATIVE power ratings and there are OVER-HYPED power ratings. And rather than get intelligent alternate responses as to why, I get harangued with excuses for the latter. I actually have yet to read a better reason why, except that from Pokfan. I find such responses nothing more than a laughable defensive rationalziation by those who love their receivers so much as to forgive their overhyping faults. But hey, this is a personal hobby and I hate to be guilty of overlooking that as some people here do. So whether your gears deliver as they promise or not, I really shouldn't care. But my posts are really meant for the benefit of inquiring minds, like the original poster. And not to those who've already made up theirs.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I think there's a lot to be said about buying the receiver with the feature set you like, then adding hi powered outboard amps. Especially for HT. You can get a receiver with all the bells & whistles you like for $700-$1000, then add as much power as you need/desire.

I will say when it comes to watts, if some is good, then more is better, and too much is just right!

 

[Rÿche 1]

I guess people who insists that a 5.1 system will NEVER encounter a material that demands equal power on all channels have very limited exposure to some multichannel materials out there. They obviously do not listen to 5.1, or 6.1 stereo. OR to discreetly encoded SACDs and DVD-As where the bass from the rear can be just as chest pounding as the fronts. But on hindsight, I can very well understand this. Afterall people prefer HTs on multichannels rather than music. And movies not only rarely, but actually don't make such demands, especially since most home movies are played on HT receivers.

But that is entirely beside the point. I am really amused at the shallowness of some people's cranially-challenged reading comprehension.

This thread is about why some receivers eat more electrical power than others while giving out the same output power or even less. I've indicated my thoughts on this to say that there is such a thing as CONSERVATIVE power ratings and there are OVER-HYPED power ratings. And rather than get intelligent alternate responses as to why, I get harangued with excuses for the latter. I actually have yet to read a better reason why, except that from Pokfan. I find such responses nothing more than a laughable defensive rationalziation by those who love their receivers so much as to forgive their overhyping faults. But hey, this is a personal hobby and I hate to be guilty of overlooking that as some people here do. So whether your gears deliver as they promise or not, I really shouldn't care. But my posts are really meant for the benefit of inquiring minds, like the original poster. And not to those who've already made up theirs.

Right on av

 

[realistic]

Right on av

No, way off again.

AV_phile may think he is hearing all channels at the same time when listening to multi-channel music but he is not. Music is constantly varying even when there is substantial info in each channel, yet they are always fractions of a second apart - otherwise it would sound like a pure tone.
Believe what you want, av_phile and keep spending large amounts of money on k-tel receivers if you get enjoyment out of them.

You can 'see' a waveform using any good audio editor. I have seen thousands of them as I have been editing digital audio for years.

 

[Karp]

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?

Yes, the HK will deliver 85 with all channels driven. I think it drives around 100WPC with 2 channels driven.

BTW, I don't own an HK. I have a Dennon.

 

[Karp]

No, way off again.

AV_phile may think he is hearing all channels at the same time when listening to multi-channel music but he is not. Music is constantly varying even when there is substantial info in each channel, yet they are always fractions of a second apart - otherwise it would sound like a pure tone.
Believe what you want, av_phile and keep spending large amounts of money on k-tel receivers if you get enjoyment out of them.

You can 'see' a waveform using any good audio editor. I have seen thousands of them as I have been editing digital audio for years.

I believe he also mentioned 5/7 channel stereo, which DOES drive all channels equally. I am listening to my system in 5 channel stereo now. Since I am actually sitting in the room next to where my setup is, it sounds much better than 2 channel.

 

[Karp]

....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.

Very good point!

 

[Yamahaluver]

When we talk about specs and measurements, nothing is absolute; it is only relative to the current understanding of theories deduced. Human hearing, psychoacoustics, as well as waveform have many more revelations to give in years to come as science would evolve. So it will take years before science would be able to deduce why different amps, pianos and other instruments have variations in sound. If we go by the current laws of physics as well as the measurements available, then yes, all of them would look similar in their spec sheets. Musicians thoroughly disagree and don’t give a hoot about specs, to them, their ears are the final judge, and that is the way to a true audio connoisseur’s path. Let us not constrict ourselves in measurements and limit the vast and varied spectrum of sonic aura around. As beauty, this is a subjective field and will remain so, people who quote specs and gives it precedence over sound they hear, use it as a weapon for their vanities and egos.

 

[WmAx]

Human hearing, psychoacoustics, as well as waveform have many more revelations to give in years to come as science would evolve. So it will take years before science would be able to deduce why different amps, pianos and other instruments have variations in sound.

Pixie wings and crocodile fur! If your sure their is some magic audible propety of an amplifier, piano, etc. that can not be meaured, please refer me to a single credible perceptual study confirming such or I'll be forced to assume this is just an unfounded excuse.

-Chris

 

[Yamahaluver]

So in other words, science of twenty years back had the ability to deduce what we are doing today, for example DNA studies, genetics etc. Science evolves and with that we come to learn of newer things and get to explore hitherto unexplored territories.

By referring to Pixie wings and crocodile furs, you are doing nothing but denigrating yourself to a lower level by comparing my assertion to witchcraft. I am sure, no positive that Albert Einstein and Satyen Bose had to face the same accusation just like poor Gallileo as well as Coppernicus had to.

 

[annunaki]

They used the sceintific method (most of them) to make their individual hypothesis a theory. What you are claiming, is throwing out the current scientific tests and methods to come up with and untested theory. Einstien proved realitivity, Columbus proved Gallileo's hypothesis that the world was round.

 

[WmAx]

By referring to Pixie wings and crocodile furs, you are doing nothing but denigrating yourself to a lower level by comparing my assertion to witchcraft. I am sure, no positive that Albert Einstein and Satyen Bose had to face the same accusation just like poor Gallileo as well as Coppernicus had to.

A theory is just that until proven. However, it is pointless to compare the issue of mysterious amplifier audibility to Einstien, as you are attempting. On one hand you have Galileo or Einstien attempting to devise theories on observable phenomena; while on the issue of amplifier sound for example, no one has shown anything observable. Show me something to observe. A properly performed DBT demonstrating statistically significant postive results, with all variables(distortion, frequency response, noise, etc.) well under human thresholds will suffice. Otherwise, how can I take these claims(that have been made for many years with NO evidence to back them up) seriously?

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

A theory is just that until proven.
-Chris

Don't forget, there is a scientific theory that scientists use. It is based on scientific models, observations, principles, etc.
Then there is theory by non scientist which is nothing more than guessing.
Big difference between the two.

 

[mtrycrafts]

So in other words, science of twenty years back had the ability to deduce what we are doing today, for example DNA studies, genetics etc. Science evolves and with that we come to learn of newer things and get to explore hitherto unexplored territories.

By referring to Pixie wings and crocodile furs, you are doing nothing but denigrating yourself to a lower level by comparing my assertion to witchcraft. I am sure, no positive that Albert Einstein and Satyen Bose had to face the same accusation just like poor Gallileo as well as Coppernicus had to.

Why would you equate DNA and genetics to the ability to detect audible differences, measurment of those differences, correlating such measurements with differences?
Acoustics, psychoacoustics, been studied for a 100 years or more. Yes, laboratory instruments even decades ago were extremely good at measuring. Back in 1980 or so, JND of detection threshold was published. There as a similar study published just a few years ago, or maybe just last year at AES. Nothing new, just expanded to include JND for other signal sources.

Those in the know can measure pico amps; that is very small. those in the know can see molecules with tunneling microscopes or even that may be obsolete.

No, audio and detecting differences is just about at its end game.

It is your hearing that is not evolving to amore sensitive level. Actually is is getting worse with the age of noise pollution and, of course each passing year in age
So, no, we will not discover anything about what people claim to hear and measurements. Difficult to measure ones imaginations.

 

[Yamahaluver]

I flatly refuse to agree with the available parameters of measuring and perceptualising sound wave as being absolute, thats all.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I flatly refuse to agree with the available parameters of measuring and perceptualising sound wave as being absolute, thats all.

Are you looking for absolutes?

 

[Yamahaluver]

Never but then I am not limited to accepting the current methods, theories as absolute either.

 

[Yamahaluver]

A theory is just that until proven. However, it is pointless to compare the issue of mysterious amplifier audibility to Einstien, as you are attempting. On one hand you have Galileo or Einstien attempting to devise theories on observable phenomena; while on the issue of amplifier sound for example, no one has shown anything observable. Show me something to observe. A properly performed DBT demonstrating statistically significant postive results, with all variables(distortion, frequency response, noise, etc.) well under human thresholds will suffice. Otherwise, how can I take these claims(that have been made for many years with NO evidence to back them up) seriously?

-Chris

Microphones are not human cochlea connected to a wonderful piece of machinery called the brain,total, absolute hearing cant be observed or charted by machine as of yet, maybe in the future, who knows. It is good to be skeptical but then again, our scepticism is severely limited as well as dependant on what we know around us. I will continue to differ on this, just as you would continue to ask me about proof, dont think we can go anywhere with this debate.