Separate amplifier (s) or internal?

[av_phile]

av phile,
I appreciate your input in this forum. I am not an EE but do possess a fair understanding of Ohms Law. I agree that,in regards to power claims,that the #'s many times do not add up.My question is: Are they really supposed to? If there really is no "standard" to rate a power supply,except WPC,how does the true layman make a choice.We on this forum all know that the $199 Sony that claims 100 wpc is really a joke. But there are millions who don't.

Thanks for you understanding. Yes, contrary to what's said in some posts, there are standards in measuring the power output rating of amplifiers. The problem is that there are many "standards" espoused by differing regulatory agencies across the planet. There's the European EIA standard. There's the Japanese counterpart EIAJ later renamed JEITA standards. There's the US FTC and IHF standard. There's the german DIN standards. All will yield different numbers for the same amp. Some closer to each other, others widely different. While these numbers may be correct as per the prescribed measuring conditions, it's their apparent misuse for marketing purposes that distress me.

Using all these standard, plus using the various conditions to measure them, the same stereo amplifer can be:

20 watts per channel Continuous Min RMS at 0.001%THD, 20hz-20Khz, into 8 ohms, both channels driven. Or,

40watts per channel, continuous min RMS at 0.01% THD, 20hz-20khz into 8 ohms, both channels driven. Or,

80w + 80w Continuous Min RMS, at 0.1% THD, 20Hz to 20Khz into 6 ohms , or

120w + 120w, at 1khz, 0.7%THD into 4 ohms
(only one channel driven, this fact never stated, only implied)

There's more across different THD levels and loads. Then there's Peak Dynamic power. (PMPO is one I wouldn't even care to describe.) Now, putting yourself into the shoes of a marketing guy, which of the above spec would you put in the amp's product brochure to drum up sales?

 

[zipper]

I knew there were standards,but I didn't know there were that many. I see your point as not so much blaming the individual manufacturers,but maybe the industry as a whole. I certainly have learned what ratings to look for but it's definitely NOT spelled out in plain english(?) for the average person to be able to compare reasonably. Until there can be an industry standard (like MPG for cars) then this will be a problem.

 

[av_phile]

The Yahamaha RX-V730 tested in Sound and Vision april 2003? rated at 75 watts rms per channel x 6 did a measley 26.5 watts rms all channels driven simultaneously.

This in no way means that the receiver will sound bad. They get good reviews on their sound quality and features. It just means it will not do too well with inefficent speakers, a large room, or be real dynamic when all channels are running simultaneously.

My point exactly. Not only that, it becomes a error to even claim you own a 75wpc RX-V730 because there really is no such thing as a 75wpc RX-V730. Except in the manufacturer's product brochure and technical sheet for that model.

 

[av_phile]

I knew there were standards,but I didn't know there were that many. I see your point as not so much blaming the individual manufacturers,but maybe the industry as a whole. I certainly have learned what ratings to look for but it's definitely NOT spelled out in plain english(?) for the average person to be able to compare reasonably. Until there can be an industry standard (like MPG for cars) then this will be a problem.

I don't think the world is really global enough to have just one standard. For me, I just rely on those old measuring conditions: Continuous Minimum RMS at 8-ohm load, 20hz-20Khz, all channels driven, and at THDs lower than 0.07%. Plus some statement about its dynamic headroom indicated in db, say 1.5db. If i'm looking for a high current amp, an exact measuring condition but in 4 ohms and 2 ohms load is a must. And their respective headrooms as well. These are what I look for in an amp's power specs. If there's even any mention of 1khz or DIN, or an absence of the words "all or both channels driven" i'd look elsewhere.

Let me just add: some amp specs don't use the letters RMS, instead, they use "continuous". Some would use both. That's becausee there really is no such thing as power in RMS. Technically, there's volts and amperes in RMS, but not power. More an average rating. Although, it has become idiomatic and among audiophiles, the two have come to mean the same.

 

[annunaki]

Here is a great one:

Denon AVR-2803 Rated at 90 watts rms x 7 channels "equal power" (Denon marketing speak) 20hz-20khz to .08% thd, at 8 ohms

Actual output: with 5 of the channels driven simultaneously into 8 ohms, 20hz-20khz to .1% thd, 35.3 watts rms x 5. (Home Theater magazine Sept. '03)

Retail price: $799 Eight hundred bucks for a 35 watt per channel receiver, no thanks.


On the flipside:

Harman Kardon AVR-325 rated at 50 watts x 7 rms into 8 ohms, 20hz-20khz to .07% thd.

Actual output: with 5 channels driven simultaneously into 8 ohms, 20hz-20khz to .1% thd, 73.8 watts rms x 5 (Home Theater Magazine June '03)

Retail price: $899 This is not a bad price for a 70 watt per channel receiver (one that is supposed to be only 50 watts per channel) that has some balls, 40 pounds of them to be exact.

 

[Yamahaluver]

I can see that Denon and Yamaha along with rest of the Japanese manufacturers declaring chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Funny dont see the line forming at the HK dealers for their supposedly superior product. People still buy the under powered Japanese brands for some strange reason.

HT magazine fudged up the Z-1 test by not stabilizing the line voltage during its tests and later on came out with a clarification but by then the damage was done.

 

[av_phile]

Here is a great one:

Denon AVR-2803 Rated at 90 watts rms x 7 channels "equal power" (Denon marketing speak) 20hz-20khz to .08% thd, at 8 ohms

Actual output: with 5 of the channels driven simultaneously into 8 ohms, 20hz-20khz to .1% thd, 35.3 watts rms x 5. (Home Theater magazine Sept. '03)

Retail price: $799 Eight hundred bucks for a 35 watt per channel receiver, no thanks.


On the flipside:

Harman Kardon AVR-325 rated at 50 watts x 7 rms into 8 ohms, 20hz-20khz to .07% thd.

Actual output: with 5 channels driven simultaneously into 8 ohms, 20hz-20khz to .1% thd, 73.8 watts rms x 5 (Home Theater Magazine June '03)

Retail price: $899 This is not a bad price for a 70 watt per channel receiver (one that is supposed to be only 50 watts per channel) that has some balls, 40 pounds of them to be exact.

Harman Kardon is one of those brands of receivers that consistently rate their products conservatively, using FTC standards with ALL channels driven and have shunned away from the more trendy but deceptive rating of Japanese receivers. The HK AVR230 only delivers 50wpc for a 7.1 (5 identical) all channels driven. Look at its electric power consumption: a stupendous 800watts. In contrast, the Pioneer VSX-D811s is rated at 100wps for a 6.1 but look at its electric power consumption, a measly 280 watts. Which is more believable? You don't even need to wait for an independent test like HT magz to confirm which is telling the truth.

 

[Yamahaluver]

One of the worst piece of amp I ever owned was a flagship HK Citation 22, it was noisy and really sounded bad and that with a good B&W 801 speakers.

Not all of us care hoots about ratings, if it sounds good to our ears, then so be it. If ratings was everything then as I said earlier, Denon, Yamaha et al should declare bankruptcy.

Many years back the Yamaha AV-550 was compared to its contemporaries by What Hi-Fi UK, it was found that the Yamaha clobbered the Phillips, NAD, Arcam, Cambridge, SONY, Kenwood and their reference, the Pioneer A-400 in terms of wattage, depth, sonic character etc. Still that didnt mean that all of What Hi-Fi readers bought that particular amp, those who like the sound of Arcam swore by it.

Point is that advertising or not, the Z-9 is on back order and I am sure when Denon launches its answer, it would be on the back order list too. So you see there are enough fools like us not going by the rating but going by the sound.

 

[av_phile]

Point is that advertising or not, the Z-9 is on back order and I am sure when Denon launches its answer, it would be on the back order list too. So you see there are enough fools like us not going by the rating but going by the sound.

Have you ever considered that precisely because many less-informed consumers out there believed in the awesome power specs of these receivers that they are queuing for them. For $5,000, a simple consumer certainly would get a Z9 for its hyped 300wpc muscle and chooce it over a Rotel that is conservatively but correctly marketed as a 120 watt receiver for about the same price.

Power is not everything. Right. But with all things equal, a consumer would choose a more muscled gear. Fine. But do so with all eyes and ears properly fed with the right information.

 

[av_phile]

One of the worst piece of amp I ever owned was a flagship HK Citation 22, it was noisy and really sounded bad and that with a good B&W 801 speakers.

Not all of us care hoots about ratings, if it sounds good to our ears, then so be it. If ratings was everything then as I said earlier, Denon, Yamaha et al should declare bankruptcy.

Many years back the Yamaha AV-550 was compared to its contemporaries by What Hi-Fi UK, it was found that the Yamaha clobbered the Phillips, NAD, Arcam, Cambridge, SONY, Kenwood and their reference, the Pioneer A-400 in terms of wattage, depth, sonic character etc. Still that didnt mean that all of What Hi-Fi readers bought that particular amp, those who like the sound of Arcam swore by it.

Can't you get it? I am not arguing over sonic quality. Or whether US brands sound better than japanese brands. Or whether exotic boutique brands sound better than mass consumer brands. I am talking about the penchant of some mass consumer brands to overstate their power ratings on equipment that are excellent on their own. I am not judging on the sonic qualities of a Z9 or even a VSX-D811. But preferring to publish their tech data with unrealistic power claims is as much as disservice to the consumer as it is to their own products.

 

[Yamahaluver]

You cant even compare the Z-9 to Rotel, there is absolutely no logic there, one is a 9.1 unit with fantastic DAC built in and the power rating is yet to be ascertained, all you are talking is in hypothesis, other is a stand alone amp and why cant you comprehend that it is the sound, and not the specs that most of us ill informed fools are after anyways.

Only Gene's test will reveal the true power of the Z-9, I for one am quite satisfied as it compared quite favorably to my 260Wx2RMS amp quite favorably in terms of dynamics and decibels.

Either way the Z-9 would deliver more power with better sonic character than your Rotel can ever aspire to.

 

[av_phile]

Thanks Yamahluver. I'm totally convince you can't get it.

 

[Yamahaluver]

The displeasure is all mine as I am the one who failed in my attempts to give you the crux of the matter.

 

[av_phile]

The crux of the matter is that believing in specs and just liking what you listen to is totally beside the point. Yes I do believe in specs. You don't. Fine. We have our own set of beliefs and that's not what I'm interested in resolving in my argument. A specsheet is just that. It tells you about the product. You read about it. Then if you like what you read, you audition it. Your biodata also tells you about you. You read it and then are interviewed. Do you prop up your biodata to get the job?

 

[Yamahaluver]

If specsheet were to be music then the world would be a sad place indeed. Seems like to you it is and nothing else.

BTW: My Ph.D. speaks for itself, dont have to hype my bio data, but we all do make our bio data look as attractive as can be and most of us have resorted to a little bit of liberty with the truth from time to time.

 

[av_phile]

Ah ok, that's very revealing. I now understand why hyping up tech specs doesn't bother you. Thanks.

 

[Yamahaluver]

But I definitely fail to understand your anal retentive attitude with specs in general and your venom towards the Japanese, particularly the Z-9. Do I detect a tinge of envy when you see that your mega buck Euro amp has given you so little for what you paid but the Z-9 gives you so much more.

Dont worry, we all suffer from the dreaded sour grapes syndrome, I have a surefire cure, put your high specced junk on eBay and pray that some sucker pays you 50% of what you paid and then conjure up all your financial resources and rush to your nearest Yamaha/Denon/Marantz dealer and put your money down for their flagship and hear what you have been missing apart from the specs.

 

[zipper]

I can understand both points of view. On one hand,AV is getting a 1st opinion on equipment by the specs,which is fine.I do the same thing.As we have all discovered,100wpc can sound like crap or it can sound beautiful.It really depends on who is producing it & how they are doing it.I chuckle when I see ads for,and please don't think I have a vendetta against them,Sony receivers that advertise as having high power,as I believe they are the worst offenders.Just my experience.Personally,I think a company would do itself a good deal of justice to underrate their power.But the problem is that their equipment might be dismissed from consideration by the average Joe because all he knows is more power is better.Sure,their reputation would be solidified by audiophiles in the long run but the fact is it would hurt a companies' mass sales.
Yamahaluver suggests listening to equipment before judging it & I also agree here. The japanese products on the market are solid & sound great. I said, in another thread,that power costs money.Think about it.If B&K,Rotel,etc. really had anything on Denon,Yamaha,etc. then how are ALL these companies still thriving?
Misleading the public is one thing but misleading them with an inferior product(B_O_S_E) is another. As far as judging power goes,for me anyway, I say pick the MF'er up. Is it heavy? What does it weigh? I've found that anything promising high power that truly delivers has a great power supply which,& there's no getting around this,weighs a ton.
Specs don't tell the whole story,they're only a starting point.With at least 4 or 5 different methods of rating power,how does the GP know which is best & truest? They'd better do their homework.
So do I agree with AV_phile? Yes.Do I agree with Yamahaluver? Yes.The japanese SEEM to overrate their power.However,they also make outstanding products that I use & will continue to use.

 

[Unregistered]

I can understand both points of view. On one hand,AV is getting a 1st opinion on equipment by the specs,which is fine.I do the same thing.As we have all discovered,100wpc can sound like crap or it can sound beautiful.It really depends on who is producing it & how they are doing it.I chuckle when I see ads for,and please don't think I have a vendetta against them,Sony receivers that advertise as having high power,as I believe they are the worst offenders.Just my experience.Personally,I think a company would do itself a good deal of justice to underrate their power.But the problem is that their equipment might be dismissed from consideration by the average Joe because all he knows is more power is better.Sure,their reputation would be solidified by audiophiles in the long run but the fact is it would hurt a companies' mass sales.
Yamahaluver suggests listening to equipment before judging it & I also agree here. The japanese products on the market are solid & sound great. I said, in another thread,that power costs money.Think about it.If B&K,Rotel,etc. really had anything on Denon,Yamaha,etc. then how are ALL these companies still thriving?
Misleading the public is one thing but misleading them with an inferior product(B_O_S_E) is another. As far as judging power goes,for me anyway, I say pick the MF'er up. Is it heavy? What does it weigh? I've found that anything promising high power that truly delivers has a great power supply which,& there's no getting around this,weighs a ton.
Specs don't tell the whole story,they're only a starting point.With at least 4 or 5 different methods of rating power,how does the GP know which is best & truest? They'd better do their homework.
So do I agree with AV_phile? Yes.Do I agree with Yamahaluver? Yes.The japanese SEEM to overrate their power.However,they also make outstanding products that I use & will continue to use.

Thanks Zipper. I can agree with you on some point there. Let me just share my reservation.

I guess you would likewise agree with me when I say we are all after the truth in this forum, right? Like, i said in my previous post, overstating the specs gives an impression the manufacturer has some insecurities about his otherwise excellent gear. And as a consumer, I may like the sound of his gear, but I wouldn't want to have any part of his insecurities, whatever that is. If it hypes the product for marketing reasons, it is no less guilty of misleading the public to generate more sales. And that is why I take my hats off to makers like NAD, HK and ROTEL for sticking it out with conservative power rating as it should, and still enjoys a marketing niche out there, apart from a enviable sonic reputation among informed audiophiles worldwide. To say that listening is enough and not be bothered by misleading claims as some members say, is the same as saying my $1,500 cerullean RCA cable from Pure Note gives me all the listening pleasure i want, and that's all that matters, forget about their dubious claims and specs which we like to point out are snake oils. I probably can live just by getting all the listening pleasures from a gear. But one day, should I decide to upgrade it to something more powerful, I'd be shortchanged to let go of some conservatively rated amp because an overstated amp took my breath away.

 

[av_phile]

Oops, sorry about that, forgot to log in. That's me above.

Let me just add, Zipper. I am not in the business of bashing any product out there. As I use a variety of them myself. But I just want to make sure consumers know what they are buying. And not be surprised if what they got does not confrom to their expectations as promised in the specs. Yes, they can be happy listening to one notwithstanding some dubious claims. But its the misinformation from such specs that can lead one to assume his gear is at par with one that is correctly specified. And it can wrongly give him bragging rights over someone's gear that is conservatively rated.

And yes, specs are not everthing. Nothing in my posts even suggest that. But products are designed based on specs. Curiously, some are sold with seemingly better specs than what they were born with. Yes it's one thing to have misleading specs for an excellent product, and another foisted to cover up a really lousy one. But it's still misleading.