Receiver Audio Specs Comparison Help

[TechToys2]

This is information from a manual from an older 5.1 receiver. Is it possible to compare this to a more recent AVR to figure out what models would be comparable?

 

[WaynePflughaupt]

Sure, you can compare spec’s from an older receiver to those of a new receiver. Seems obvious, so perhaps I’m missing something...

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[TechToys2]

Sure, you can compare spec’s from an older receiver to those of a new receiver. Seems obvious, so perhaps I’m missing something...

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Sorry, I guess I was unclear. I'm not all that familiar with this stuff. The power is based on all channels driven and everything I see now is with 2 channels driven and I understand is often overstated in any event. So I am trying to figure out how, for example, to compare an amp section for something that says it has 100 watts per channel with 2 channels driven, and also whether these specs are in line with most things available now or are better/worse.

 

[WaynePflughaupt]

Not really possible to directly compare the two. You can obviously assume that a 2-channel rating will be higher than all channels driven.

And, a rating at 1 kHz is not as substantial as a broadband rating at 20 Hz - 20 kHz. More specifically, a power rating is at least 25% inflated when given at 1 kHz, as you can see in your attachment.

Bottom line, if 75 watts is your “baseline” for two channels driven, I’d expect you’d need close to double that figure for an all channels spec.

What you should also be concerned with your attached spec is the abysmal S/N ratio.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well, those specs may also be overstated unless it came off of a 3rd part company that measure receivers.
Two channel driven is more useful. You will most likely never see an electronic event that is identical in all the channels at the same instant.

 

[TechToys2]

Not really possible to directly compare the two. You can obviously assume that a 2-channel rating will be higher with all channels driven.

And, a rating at 1 kHz is not as substantial as a broadband rating at 20 Hz - 20 kHz. More specifically, a power rating is at least 25% inflated when given at 1 kHz, as you can see in your attachment.

Bottom line, if 75 watts is your “baseline” for two channels driven, I’d expect you’d need close to double that figure for an all channels spec.

What you should also be concerned with your attached spec is the abysmal S/N ratio.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Thank you.
Note that the specs attached are for a receiver from 1999.

 

[Gmoney]

Thank you.
Note that the specs attached are for a receiver from 1999.

What Model and Manufacture?

 

[lovinthehd]

It is but you'd have to post the equivalent spec....which may not be provided. It can be close enough to give you an idea of how similar/dissimilar they are....

 

[PENG]

This is information from a manual from an older 5.1 receiver. Is it possible to compare this to a more recent AVR to figure out what models would be comparable?

View attachment 42401

If that is an AVR spec, it would probably be Harman Kardon's or NAD's. In the earlier years those would likely have provided the so called "continuous....power" and all channel driven.

You can still compare it to the recent models, with caveats. For example, D+M's 5.1 channel driven could be calculated using the 70% rule so a 120 W rated one would be expected to do about 84 W, 5 channels driven, and a little less 7 channels driven.

Note that the term "continuous" is misleading because it would not mean literally continuous, but for 5 minutes minimum, per FTC. No 5.1 receivers can do 100 W "continuous" literally speaking. The cost of a 1,000 VA transformer would be very heavy and cost prohibitive for receivers.

 

[Gmoney]

If that is an AVR spec, it would probably be Harman Kardon's or NAD's. In the earlier years those would likely have provided the so called "continuous....power" and all channel driven.

You can still compare it to the recent models, with caveats. For example, D+M's 5.1 channel driven could be calculated using the 70% rule so a 120 W rated one would be expected to do about 84 W, 5 channels driven, and a little less 7 channels driven.

Note that the term "continuous" is misleading because it would not mean literally continuous, but for 5 minutes minimum, per FTC. No 5.1 receivers can do 100 W "continuous" literally speaking. The cost of a 1,000 VA transformer would be very heavy and cost prohibitive for receivers.

Morning @PENG, that's something I'd like to know, PENG on AVR's say umm mid- level up to say a Denon or Yamaha Flagship how can one tell what the VA power supply is in it? 300VA? 600VA or is it higher? Lower? I would hope it's not less than 300VA.

 

[PENG]

Morning @PENG, that's something I'd like to know, PENG on AVR's say umm mid- level up to say a Denon or Yamaha Flagship how can one tell what the VA power supply is in it? 300VA? 600VA or is it higher? Lower? I would hope it's not less than 300VA.

I would say practically impossible to know, unfortunately. Manufacturers typically don't/won't provide such information. Even when they do, and usually the case for power amplifiers, they don't specify the conditions and if they have used say a 1,000 VA once, it does not mean they won't substitute it with a different one at some point. They are not obligated to update the specs when they do substitute. Sometime they might have a typo in the info sheet/spec sheet etc., and wouldn't bother to update them. Yes I have seen obvious examples of such, and in one case I email them about it, who responded, confirming what I suspected were mistakes, yet I have not seen any updates to the published info...

You can guess, going by the weight, and power consumption specs though neither one are very good indicators for various reasons. A 1,000 VA toroid from one manufacturer may weight 16 lbs, but could be 20 lbs from another. Toroids are supposedly lighter on lb/VA, but you can assume it is always the case.

Power consumption specs are all over the map, you really can only try to relate them to transformer VA specs if you are comparing models by the same manufacturer's such as between a Denon and Marantz comparable models, but not between one of those to Yamaha's or Sony's.

That's my long answer lol..

Short answer: Based on their published power consumption specs, weight, advertisements, and available images of their innards, I am guessing 900 to 1,100 VA for the flagship Denon, slightly less for the Marantz, and 650 to 750 VA for the Yamaha. The Yamaha flagship is a little heavier, but it has a significantly larger enclosure, one of the possible reasons why they appear to run relatively cooler.

 

[Gmoney]

I would say practically impossible to know, unfortunately. Manufacturers typically don't/won't provide such information. Even when they do, and usually the case for power amplifiers, they don't specify the conditions and if they have used say a 1,000 VA once, it does not mean they won't substitute it with a different one at some point. They are not obligated to update the specs when they do substitute. Sometime they might have a typo in the info sheet/spec sheet etc., and wouldn't bother to update them. Yes I have seen obvious examples of such, and in one case I email them about it, who responded, confirming what I suspected were mistakes, yet I have not seen any updates to the published info...

You can guess, going by the weight, and power consumption specs though neither one are very good indicators for various reasons. A 1,000 VA toroid from one manufacturer may weight 16 lbs, but could be 20 lbs from another. Toroids are supposedly lighter on lb/VA, but you can assume it is always the case.

Power consumption specs are all over the map, you really can only try to relate them to transformer VA specs if you are comparing models by the same manufacturer's such as between a Denon and Marantz comparable models, but not between one of those to Yamaha's or Sony's.

That's my long answer lol..

Short answer: Based on their published power consumption specs, weight, advertisements, and available images of their innards, I am guessing 900 to 1,100 VA for the flagship Denon, slightly less for the Marantz, and 650 to 750 VA for the Yamaha. The Yamaha flagship is a little heavier, but it has a significantly larger enclosure, one of the possible reasons why they appear to run relatively cooler.

Thanks PENG, I did try to research this but came up with nothing. The manufactures publish everything else about their AVR's but never have I come across power supply VA rate in AVR's. Outlaw post the size of the power supply in their two channel stereo receiver was just wondering why manufacturers of AVR's don't.

 

[TechToys2]

If that is an AVR spec, it would probably be Harman Kardon's or NAD's. In the earlier years those would likely have provided the so called "continuous....power" and all channel driven.

You can still compare it to the recent models, with caveats. For example, D+M's 5.1 channel driven could be calculated using the 70% rule so a 120 W rated one would be expected to do about 84 W, 5 channels driven, and a little less 7 channels driven.

Note that the term "continuous" is misleading because it would not mean literally continuous, but for 5 minutes minimum, per FTC. No 5.1 receivers can do 100 W "continuous" literally speaking. The cost of a 1,000 VA transformer would be very heavy and cost prohibitive for receivers.

Thank you Peng. FYI, the unit is from Rotel (RSX965). It is a 5.1 receiver, but (for whatever this is worth), at 33 pounds, it weighs more than many of the 9.2 receivers I have seen.

Here is a review from Audio magazine back in the day http://rotel.com/sites/default/files/RSX-965 Audio Sep99.pdf