Power Ratings in Modern AVR's

[PENG]

Found a review on the VSX-52, that should be comparable to that of the VSX-23. The VSX-52 is 1.5 lbs heavier but power consumption is listed as 570W vs the VSX-23's 400W. So now I am pretty sure your SR6011 is more powerful than the VSX-23, probably more comparable to the VSX-52/53.

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/pioneer-elite-vsx-52-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures#flTLFEWkour8zTwF.97

 

[Halon451]

I will take a good look of the SC-95 and read up on the LX-701, but I got news for you on your old unit that the Marantz replaced.

The VSX-23TXH weighs only about 1 lb 12 oz more than the Marantz, not 10 lbs as mentioned in AH's review. It looks like Mr. Deboer might have used the total weight in the box by mistake.
http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/pioneer-electronics-vsx-23txh

If you go by the information from the Pioneer website, as well as their operating instructions, the VSX-23TXH wights 29 lbs 12 oz without package per operating instructions.

If you compare their power consumption figures, it is 400W for the Pioneer and 680W for the Marantz. There is no guarantee they go by the same rules but it does give you a good idea if you are comparing Pioneer to Pioneer or Marantz to Marantz AVRs. In other words, it helps if you are getting another Pioneer or another Marantz. On the other hand, you can't compare power consumption related figures between class AB and class D amps either even the units being compared are both Pioneer AVRs.

There are no available bench test data for the VSX-23 but I highly doubt it will be more powerful than the SR6011. I would actually bet the Marantz will be equal or better than the Pioneer in terms of power output into 8 and 4 ohms.

Hmmm.. okay having a somewhat rudimentary understanding of the difference in amplifier classes, what are the real world pros and cons to either A/B or D? The Class D amplification sure seems to be a strong selling point on the newer Pioneer.

So let's say for the sake of argument, that my Marantz purchase never happened. I have an old Pioneer Elite VSX-23TXH and I want to upgrade to the latest affordable Pioneer Elite model. Too much variation between manufacturers to make an honest apple to apple comparison like you say.. different rules. The SC-LX701 claims a power consumption of 310W operating, vs. the 400W of the VSX-23TXH, yet boasts more power. More efficient amplifier design? Should power consumption be a factor in determining how well any given AVR performs? I did not think to ever consider this. Also power consumption is usually a function of time, so is that 310w/second, per minute, per hour?

Just reading the specs sheet, the VSX-23TXH lists 110 wpc same as the Marantz. It's one of the reasons I picked the Marantz actually, I wasn't looking to beef up my sound any more than what it was, just provide consistent output while still giving me 4k switching ability. And whatever it looks like on paper, I'm telling you man, my ears - however subjective or unscientific of an analysis that may be - tell a distinct difference.

So, back to my other query then - would upgrading to the SC-LX701 be a reasonable approach to regain that little bit of lost dynamic headroom with the additional 25 wpc? That is providing analysis of reliable bench test data seems to indicate the line is still of good quality despite the Onkyo buyout...

 

[Halon451]

Incidentally, just called Best Buy and turns out I spend enough money with them that I'm considered an "Elite Rewards" member whatever the heck that means. But one thing it does mean is that I actually have a 30-day return window vs. the standard 14 day return window so I'm still in great shape to give this Marantz every last chance I can to do the job and still have time to swap her out if I finally decide that's the route I want to go.

 

[Halon451]

Buying additional amps at this point is, to me, silly. I cannot justify spending that much on a new AVR only to have to buy additional outboard amps to make it do what it's supposed to do. I'm not trying to fill an auditorium here or even a large home theater room, just a small living room for my girlfriend and I.

Speakers on the other hand, yea that's a legitimate suggestion. But like I said, not financially feasible right now. I know these SVS speakers are hard to drive, but I also know they did just fine for years and now they're suddenly acting like cheap white van speakers. What's changed? the AVR.

 

[PENG]

I can try to answer some of your questions on the power consumption spec but have to go out for a few hours now. Basically there are some rules that manufacturer follow, but seem only loosely, so it is complicated for the average consumer to deal with this spec. For sure you cannot compare class AB to class D because Class D amps are much more efficient. You also should not compare those figures between different manufacturers. To complicate things further, some use Watt, others use VA (Volt-ampere), Denon used VA, or A (current) in the old days, but switched to Watt when it became D&M (Denon/Marantz). Also, some provide both power consumption and max power consumption while most provide just one number, and we are left to guess whether they are just power consumption, or max power consumption, and much more confusion, just too much to elaborate, have to leave it for later.

 

[Halon451]

Volt-Amps is essentially the same thing as watts, following good ol' Ohm's law. W (or Power) = Voltage x Current (Amps), or E x I at typical RMS values if it is not strict DC voltage/current. So it's in essence "Apparent power", which is the same as real power. Different way of spelling tomato. It's only when you get to things like VAR's (Volt-Amps Reactive) that considers the inductive loads in a given system and relative losses due to additional current having to be supplied, then we get into things like power factor, etc., but this is all probably way beyond the scope of discussing speakers and amps. I deal with this a lot in my industry as VAR's are a huge consideration in powering the grid and power plant electrical systems. Though I'd be curious to see what kind of reactive load a typical speaker coil places on a given channel, seeing as how it is a coil and therefore inherently subject to inductive properties. On some level I could see similar characteristics albeit on a much smaller scale taking place in the line between power amplifier (source), line (transmission medium) and speaker (inductive load). I just don't know enough about speaker engineering to know if it's a negligible amount or not.

I need to actually get some work done myself, speaking of which so I'll likewise table this for now. Look forward to continued discussions on this. It may be a worthy suggestion to the AH admins, be it Gene or someone else up at the top that a revised evaluation of AVR amp power ratings may be necessary at this point considering the game has changed greatly since he posted about this topic way back in the mid-2000's. I read that with the inclusion of Atmos, DTS: x and 9 channel systems, a lot of AVR manufacturers completely overhauled the way they display their specs, much like Marantz shows with the "2 channels driven" spec.. okay, but what about the other damn 7?? lol... again I suspect there may be a weakness inherent there with an all-channels driven scenario for Marantz to omit this detail and only give us a 2 channel rating. At least Pioneer still states it explicitly and avoids us having to do our own guesswork/math to figure it out.

 

[Halon451]

Also a lot of people have stated "power is not as important." I would argue that with inefficient or low sensitivity speakers it is. Power is probably much less a concern if you have highly sensitive speakers, but I am just not that fortunate with my old SVS's.

This is supported by many if not most reviews I've read on them. They are great sounding speakers, as long as they have adequate power supplied to them. I really think I'm just at that threshold with this Marantz where it's juuuuust a wee bit shy of that golden mark. They otherwise do sound good with the Marantz, I finally got Audyssey to work well and give me a decent sound but in those peaks, it just breaks apart.

 

[Halon451]

Also, one thing I have to mention again on the Marantz... it runs HOT. This is not particular to my case. Read the reviews out there. I felt this in the store when I was demo'ing it. I had reached up to try out a few settings from the front face controls and kinda let my fingers rest on the top edge so I could press buttons with my thumb. It was so hot I instinctively recoiled - not like skin damaging hot, just a lot hotter than I expected and it surprised me. Like someone said in another thread... heat and electronics are not a good combo. To me this spells shorter life span, even if it runs that hot by design.

 

[Verdinut]

Also, one thing I have to mention again on the Marantz... it runs HOT. This is not particular to my case. Read the reviews out there. I felt this in the store when I was demo'ing it. I had reached up to try out a few settings from the front face controls and kinda let my fingers rest on the top edge so I could press buttons with my thumb. It was so hot I instinctively recoiled - not like skin damaging hot, just a lot hotter than I expected and it surprised me. Like someone said in another thread... heat and electronics are not a good combo. To me this spells shorter life span, even if it runs that hot by design.

You can cool the Marantz receiver with those AC Infinity fans which you can get at a very low price through Amazon. Actually, Amazon carries their complete line.
I am using two of those fans at medium speed to cool my SR5010 and they are rather quiet and very efficient in reducing its temperature. I bought the AIRPLATE 5 -Model AI-CFD80BA, removed the front plate and just installed them on top of the receiver with the use of small cushion feet.

 

[Halon451]

You can cool the Marantz receiver with those AC Infinity fans which you can get at a very low price through Amazon. Actually, Amazon carries their complete line.
I am using two of those fans at medium speed to cool my SR5010 and they are rather quiet and very efficient in reducing its temperature. I bought the AIRPLATE 5 -Model AI-CFD80BA, removed the front plate and just installed them on top of the receiver with the use of small cushion feet.

Yeah, I've looked at a few fan options, but here again we're getting into the principle I'm having a difficult time accepting - that of buying a mid to high end receiver but having to buy a whole bunch of other crap just to make it work well and not possible break down in two years.. none of the other AVR's I looked at (Yamaha, Pioneer, Denon, etc.) even came close to running that hot based on my touch-test anyway. Fans are cheap, but that's not really the point. I'm not sure exactly why the Marantz line in particular runs that warm. It's probably robust enough to take it and still last a long time, but that's still.. as an old electronics guy... gives me ample concern.

 

[Halon451]

Btw, it sits in a very open, well ventilated central cavity in my console. I've posted a few pics in other threads, not sure if you saw it. It has plenty of room around it and especially at the top.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Wow this thread blew up! I was gonna mention the ponkyo, onkyoneer thing. I think The issue is people got burned, or heard about the big onkyo hdmi failures and are swearing off of them. This is pure ignorance. The reality is, onkyo was one of the most recommended and purchased AVRs out there, offering much more performance/dollar value than anyone. So naturally with more product out in the wild, you'll have more failures/reports/people talking etc. Something else of note is they're fixing units through 2018. Who else is gonna do that? Btw, everyone has failures. I personally wouldn't buy an onkyo, but that's only because they dumped audyssey. And yes they fixed my avr once, without question. I also have a good friend that has a marantz 7005 that suffered a board failure. A4L fixed it, but in the long run, marantz just sent him another refurb.
Anyway, pioneer and onkyo, for the foreseeable future are going to be run independently from each other. Personally I'd like to see what they can do together, although I'm not a fan of rebranding. Ok, .02 more.

 

[Halon451]

I read somewhere that it was feared that the Elite line would dip too far into the Onkyo parts bin to build the newer AVR's, but that it appears the opposite is actually happening. Allegedly of course, I have no proof of this, just something I read. At any rate, I could see that - the Elite line of old was definitely solid. There's a reason I went with that in the first place back when. And with that much of an established presence in the market, I don't suspect Onkyo would threaten additional profitability of the Elite line by sacrificing its quality or reliability - at least if they were intent on maintaining it. You're right though, statistically - more product = more bad reviews out there, so I'm trying to look at it fairly and make the proper equivalence.

Yeah this thread did blow up, lol.. and I'm grateful for the responses. I think it's a good discussion to have, considering how power specs or the way they are presented, has changed in recent years. I'd be willing to bet there are probably a good many people out there just as confused as I am/was going into this topic.

 

[Halon451]

If I do end up re-boxing this Marantz back up and taking it back I'll definitely be looking at that Pioneer SC-LX701 or the equivalent Yamaha model (RX-A2060).

Hell, at this point, if I still had my old Pioneer I'd just hook it back up and forgo the 4k pass-through capability, at least until I was able to upgrade my speakers. lol

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Yes there is a lot of misunderstanding of specs and things. Then you have internet geniuses blabbing about. Fwiw, I technician friend once told me the elite badge on pioneer stuff wasn't so big a deal as I always thought. He said most of the guts were all the same(within reason).

 

[Verdinut]

I can try to answer some of your questions on the power consumption spec but have to go out for a few hours now. Basically there are some rules that manufacturer follow, but seem only loosely, so it is complicated for the average consumer to deal with this spec. For sure you cannot compare class AB to class D because Class D amps are much more efficient. You also should not compare those figures between different manufacturers. To complicate things further, some use Watt, others use VA (Volt-ampere), Denon used VA, or A (current) in the old days, but switched to Watt when it became D&M (Denon/Marantz). Also, some provide both power consumption and max power consumption while most provide just one number, and we are left to guess whether they are just power consumption, or max power consumption, and much more confusion, just too much to elaborate, have to leave it for later.

Greetings!
For the topic of power consumption, I can provide an example:
With my Marantz SR5010, the manufacturer's specs indicate 650 Watts for power consumption.
I believe that this figure would represent the maximum average consumption for that receiver.
Rated maximum power output per channel, all channels driven, is 70 watts X 7 channels = 490 Watts Total.
Taking into account that the amp modules are of the Class A/B category, which could well be 75% efficient with the most modern technology: 490W / 650W = 75.38%, this assumption seems to be right.

When using that receiver in my living room (12.5 ft x 18 ft x 8 ft), the average power consumption is only about 200-250 Watts.

 

[PENG]

Volt-Amps is essentially the same thing as watts, following good ol' Ohm's law. W (or Power) = Voltage x Current (Amps), or E x I at typical RMS values if it is not strict DC voltage/current. So it's in essence "Apparent power", which is the same as real power. Different way of spelling tomato. It's only when you get to things like VAR's (Volt-Amps Reactive) that considers the inductive loads in a given system and relative losses due to additional current having to be supplied, then we get into things like power factor, etc., but this is all probably way beyond the scope of discussing speakers and amps. I deal with this a lot in my industry as VAR's are a huge consideration in powering the grid and power plant electrical systems. Though I'd be curious to see what kind of reactive load a typical speaker coil places on a given channel, seeing as how it is a coil and therefore inherently subject to inductive properties. On some level I could see similar characteristics albeit on a much smaller scale taking place in the line between power amplifier (source), line (transmission medium) and speaker (inductive load). I just don't know enough about speaker engineering to know if it's a negligible amount or not.

I need to actually get some work done myself, speaking of which so I'll likewise table this for now. Look forward to continued discussions on this. It may be a worthy suggestion to the AH admins, be it Gene or someone else up at the top that a revised evaluation of AVR amp power ratings may be necessary at this point considering the game has changed greatly since he posted about this topic way back in the mid-2000's. I read that with the inclusion of Atmos, DTS: x and 9 channel systems, a lot of AVR manufacturers completely overhauled the way they display their specs, much like Marantz shows with the "2 channels driven" spec.. okay, but what about the other damn 7?? lol... again I suspect there may be a weakness inherent there with an all-channels driven scenario for Marantz to omit this detail and only give us a 2 channel rating. At least Pioneer still states it explicitly and avoids us having to do our own guesswork/math to figure it out.

 

[PENG]

Volt-Amps is essentially the same thing as watts, following good ol' Ohm's law. W (or Power) = Voltage x Current (Amps), or E x I at typical RMS values if it is not strict DC voltage/current. So it's in essence "Apparent power", which is the same as real power. Different way of spelling tomato. It's only when you get to things like VAR's (Volt-Amps Reactive) that considers the inductive loads in a given system and relative losses due to additional current having to be supplied, then we get into things like power factor, etc., but this is all probably way beyond the scope of discussing speakers and amps. I deal with this a lot in my industry as VAR's are a huge consideration in powering the grid and power plant electrical systems. Though I'd be curious to see what kind of reactive load a typical speaker coil places on a given channel, seeing as how it is a coil and therefore inherently subject to inductive properties. On some level I could see similar characteristics albeit on a much smaller scale taking place in the line between power amplifier (source), line (transmission medium) and speaker (inductive load). I just don't know enough about speaker engineering to know if it's a negligible amount or not.

I need to actually get some work done myself, speaking of which so I'll likewise table this for now.

Speaker load can be quite reactive, mostly inductive but can be capacitive too. It is not unusual for their reactive behaviour to end up drawing 25 to 50% (at 60 deg phase angle) more current, or VA for the same Watt at certain frequencies. When Denon went from A or VA to Watt, they drop the numbers by about 25% so they probably assume a power factor of 0.8.

 

[Halon451]

Speaker load can be quite reactive, mostly inductive but can be capacitive too. It is not unusual for their reactive behaviour to end up drawing 25 to 50% (at 60 deg phase angle) more current, or VA for the same Watt at certain frequencies. When Denon went from A or VA to Watt, they drop the numbers by about 25% so they probably assume a power factor of 0.8.

That's actually fairly consistent with large scale grid applications. This was a good exercise actually, as it allowed me to use my own knowledge of electricity to better understand how a speaker actually works. But it makes perfect sense when I think that the way a speaker operates is basically through the use of a purely inductive process (electrical coil energized, induces mechanical motion in an apparatus, i.e., cone movement). So by this same logic, is the implication here that more sensitive speakers contribute less of a reactive load and therefore a higher power factor? Is that what's really going on in determining those sensitivity specs?

 

[PENG]

Greetings!
For the topic of power consumption, I can provide an example:
With my Marantz SR5010, the manufacturer's specs indicate 650 Watts for power consumption.
I believe that this figure would represent the maximum average consumption for that receiver.
Rated maximum power output per channel, all channels driven, is 70 watts X 7 channels = 490 Watts Total.
Taking into account that the amp modules are of the Class A/B category, which could well be 75% efficient with the most modern technology: 490W / 650W = 75.38%, this assumption seems to be right.

When using that receiver in my living room (12.5 ft x 18 ft x 8 ft), the average power consumption is only about 200-250 Watts.

I would not make such assumptions as we really don't have enough facts. By the way, if the average consumption of you avr is 200-250 Watts in your room, your are putting your hearing at risk.

In my room, I probably average 1 to 2w watching 7.1 movies, idling consumption would be less than 100w so total average consumption should be around 90 to 100w.