Validity of rating/testing receiver at 1kHZ, all channels driven

[Unregistered]

Why bother to test a receiver at 1kHZ, with all channels driven, and then use that as one of the most important determinants of which one to choose?

I happen to like Onkyo. I think they have the best designed user interface and have never found power to be lacking for my tastes and my listening environment, yet some point to a test like S&V that shows they only deliver half their rated power at 1kHZ, all channels driven (for 4 seconds). Of course Onkyo is honest in that their spec sheet doesn't claim all-channels driven, they claim ANY 2 channels driven.

But regardless, who listens to pure tones, let alone with the same pure tone into all channels for a duration of 4 seconds or more? (and S&V did point out that such a condition would likely never occur in real music anyway - a fact thost most people who cite these tests conveniently overlook). Yeah, I'm in a mellow mood today, think I'll go home, sit in my recliner, and put on a nice 500Hz tone to relax.

Why would H/K receivers (or others), which apparently can deliver their rated power with all-channels driven (using that 1kHZ test tone), automatically be considered 'better'. Maybe Onkyo decided that all channels driven with a pure tone for 4 seconds is an abnormal condition and the receiver should protect itself, whereas H/K engineers decided to simply let the chips falls where they may and not bother to invoke a protection circuit. Or maybe the H/K really is a more substantial amp, but who knows, they sound about the same to me when playing music (and yes, I have owned one).

The point is, manufacturers have some leeway in rating power because the FTC 'standard' is vague. It only says they must state power over a given bandwith, into a given load, with a given number of channels (but DO NOT mandate that frequency, load, or channels). Some choose to rate at the ridiculous frequency of 1kHZ, 2 channels, others choose full bandwidth, 2 channels, and still others choose any 2, full bandwidth, etc - all are compliant with the ftc measurement criteria. Lab tests always use the 1Khz test - IMO not a real world test, anyway.

So why do threads inevitably degrade into bashing of one vs another (cite RX-Z9 thread), when it's all a crapshoot anyway? What we need is for the FTC to mandate a specific bandwidth, with 8Ohm load, and a specific number of channels driven to more accurately compare them. All-channels driven is not likely the best choice as no real music or movie will ever drive all channels simultaneously and certainly not at a single frequency for 4 or more seconds.

 

[3db]

So why do threads inevitably degrade into bashing of one vs another (cite RX-Z9 thread), when it's all a crapshoot anyway? What we need is for the FTC to mandate a specific bandwidth, with 8Ohm load, and a specific number of channels driven to more accurately compare them. All-channels driven is not likely the best choice as no real music or movie will ever drive all channels simultaneously and certainly not at a single frequency for 4 or more seconds.

I would also like add a 4 Ohm all channels driven spec at full rated audio bandwidth of 20 to 20KHz. The only other maufacturer to stand behind their power specs is NAD.

 

[annunaki]

Harman Kardon rates receivers as: all channels driven simultaneously, 20hz-20khz, at 8 ohms, to .07% thd.

NAD is, by far, the most demanding with ratings. All channels driven simultaneously, 20hz-20khz, at 4 and 8 ohms, to .08% thd.

The reason rating with all channels driven simultaneously is important is this: It gives a good representation of how large and adequate of a power supply the manufacturer chose to use, reguardless of whether or not is was 20hz-20khz or 1khz. Although, 20hz-20khz would be more demanding. Basically, it can show whether the manufacturer "chose to wear the bare minimum amount of flair or go above and beyond and wear extra ." (Use the smaller power supply to just acheive the FTC rating or use a larger one capable of meeting stricter standards.)

I am sure no one listens to just sine waves in the comfort of their own home.

In the case of receivers going into protection all channels driving simultaneously I would say that the manufacturer put it in as a safety guard for the smallish power supply to protect it from over current as that is it's design. Granted all amplifiers need a protection circuit, but when I see protection kicking in BEFORE clipping (all channels driven simultaneously) at resonable distortion levels, it makes one question the integrity of the design, and how truthful the manufacturer is.

As for a rating standard from the FTC, we should have one for surround receivers. It should go some thing like this: ALL channels driven simultaneously, 20hz-20khz, at 8 ohms to <.1% thd. for at least 3 seconds. Chances are, however, this would not happen, as it would be met with much backlash from companies thriving off of the current rating system. Why? Because, for one, their manufacturing costs would increase as now their have to give you (the customer) a more powerful amplifier in order for it to stand up to the new standard.

I do not see why people do not embrace this as consumers. In the end, it is you and I, the consumer who wins. We get more powerful amplifiers at a cheaper price. Rather than the current trend of weaker amplifiers for the same old price. You can choose to support the current rating standard and get less power for your dollar, or push for a stronger one and get more. As for me I choose the latter.

 

[Unregistered]

The reason rating with all channels driven simultaneously is important is this: It gives a good representation of how large and adequate of a power supply the manufacturer chose to use, reguardless of whether or not is was 20hz-20khz or 1khz. Although, 20hz-20khz would be more demanding.

For the most part, I agree, but I still say one is not necessarily superior based on the specs alone - basically because no real world source will ever drive all channels simultaneously, from 20Hz-20kHZ. Therefore, such a measurement is largely unimportant. It's all in how you interpret the numbers and we know some manufacturers inflate the numbers beyond reality, but the better brands are at least comparable.

H/K: They never say 'all channels driven' - they say 'power per individual channel' which may or may not be intended to be the same thing. If they want to stress 'all channels driven' to express superiority to others, they should come right out and say it. But no matter, they always test out to be able to drive all channels at their stated output.

[I don't have an actual test in front of me, so from memory...]

H/K: Rated 55wpc. Tests show 'all channels driven' = 55wpc. Two channels driven, show 75wpc. Sounds good.

Onkyo: Rated 75wpc. Specifically state, "any 2 channels driven'. Test shows 'all channels driven' actually puts out 50wpc. Two channels driven, 90wpc.

So they both exceed their stated output with 2 channels and both have the same power when driving all channels.
If ~50wpc is sufficient for your needs, then either one will do and it comes down to aesthetics, ease of use, etc and those are the criteria that most people end up using anyway.

This is why I think these debates, here and on other forums, get tiresome. All the top tier mfgs make good products and are fairly comparable, although i definitely agree that a more exacting standard is necessary.

 

[Unregistered]

---basically because no real world source will ever drive all channels simultaneously, from 20Hz-20kHZ. Therefore, such a measurement is largely unimportant.---

---This is why I think these debates, here and on other forums, get tiresome. All the top tier mfgs make good products and are fairly comparable---

Great points!

 

[av_phile]

I don't know if any of you guys have heard of the word "conservative." In accounting, they stick to an ethical norm in valuating transactions and properties which I believe is called "Conservative Accounting Practice." I could be wrong, but I think violating this normative practice was what brought ENRON to its knees.

In measuring power or any aspect of performance, I stick to the conservative. Anything above that is hype and a disservice to the consumer, even to the manufacturer who does the hyping, and the industry as well. It misleads the consumer into thinking he has a 100wpc receiver when in truth, it may only be 50wpc. It makes a level playing field for judicious and fair comparison based on specs alone skewed in favor of those who hype their products at the expense of those who stick to a conservative rating. It makes the offending manufacturer look suspiciously over-anxious to sell their otherwise excellent products that many audiophiles who know tend to shy way from in favor of more conservatively rated gears that many not really sound any better. It's unfair to all concerned. Period.

With your indulgence, allow me to just give my thoughts on some of the points raised here and in the other threads where my loquacious rantings have become notorious, not exactly my intention though.

There are no standards for rating the power of multi channel amps. TRUE. The FTC or EIA or DIN or JEITA may come up with one, but I wouldn't bet on that. And I couldn't care less.

Measurement conditions for conservative power ratings have been with us for the last 50 years for stereo apparata: full bandwidth, both channels driven, into 8 ohm speaker or resistive load, at a specified THD level to arrive at a minimum conintuous power. This has been adopted by many HT brands as well. But others have found more creative ways to go around such practices to extract a numerical edge without the meat. Whether in stereo or multichannel. So they measure in full bandwidth, but with only one channel driven. Or they can measure at only 1khz, the easiest, with all channels driven. Or they can measure at 4 ohms, even if their amps cannot handle that load for any extended time. Worst, they can measure at 1khz with only 1 channel driven at a load the amp will easily fry with. All these conditions can arrive at power figures that are turly impressive. Without the juice. But if the consumer is curious enough, he's look at the back panel to reveal that their stated electric power consumption limits almost always betray the lie.

I agree that in the absence of such standards for multi-channel amp, HT manufacturers are free to adopt their power measurement yardstick whichever way it can bring then to satisfy their business objectives. I call that nominal marketing anarchy in the HT business. But it has come to be the practice so why bother. I don't. Once in a while I air my distress in a forum such as this. It would be nice though if manufacturers beign to realize how insulting their over-hyping is. But that requires a crusade I have no interest in championing. I just let my purchasing dollars do the complaining for me. Which leads me to the next.

Technical specs won't reveal the quality of an amp's sonic trait. TRUE. Neither will it reveal to what heights you can reach your aural orgiastic experience listening to its relevant contraption. For all I care, one can just reach ecstatic levitation from listening to a pocket transistor radio.

But just like a resume or biodata, I consider the tech sheet a definitive declaration about the product it describes. No electronic gear ever comes into being without first being defined in a technical specs document. But i can understand that once a product comes into being, those technical specs can magically transform into something more expedient for marketing purposes than a defining product document that it was.

So with my purchasing wherewithal in hand, I go to a shop and look at a receiver or amp that smites my fancy. Next, I ask the salesman for the tech spec. If I see a DIN rating for 1Khz at 4ohms on the first line without any other line of power spec that has a conservative rating with "all or both Channels Driven at 20hz- - 20Khz into 8 ohms at 0.05% THD" I start to look elsewhere. Goodbye.

Much like looking at a resume of applicants. One suspicious or questioonable item won't merit my consideration for an interview. Period.

I don't care how good those amps and receivers are inspite of their overblown specs. Their over-rated power figures reveal a product insecurity on the part of the manufacturers or an overzealousness to dispose off their inventory for which I have no intention to be part of. And because I know there are equally good if not better products out there coming from more candid manufacturers who have not succomed into this marketing anarchy, I can safely disregard those who overhype their products. Sorry, they won't get my patronage.

Not all source materials, whether movies or music, output in full bandwidth at the same instant of time. TRUE.

But is that a good reason to rate the power just at 1Khz? Even with all channels driven? Is that a valid reason to bleed the power transformer dry and focus them on just one solitary frequency to achieve the greatest numerical rating? As if to imply that that is the power a consumer can expect when listening to a Mantovini at the stated THD level? Can anyone show me an album of Mantovani with only 1Khz? DO you like listening to a pure 1khz test tone the whole afternoon? Or even a variety of test tones, 100hz, 3Khz, 15Khz, one after the other? Even a human voice has more frequencies than that arriving at you simultaneously. Let alone an orchestral symphony with choir and church organ.

Not all source materials, whether movies or music, output in ALL channels at the same instant of time. TRUE.

But is that a good reason to rate the amp from just one channel? Is that valid enough to hemorhage all the power from the the transformer to yield the highest numerical output power rating for just one channel and then, mathematically summing all the channels together, incredibly surpass the transformer rating and the maximum Electric Consumption of the receiver? As if to say they have gloriously overcome that immutable law of physics that says you cannot give more that what you took in. As if to shamelessly suggest that such a bloated power rating is the audio power a consumer can rightfully expect at the stated THD levels when, for a few seconds perhaps, suddenly all the channels came to life when watching the stampede scene in Lion King? Let alone the omaha beah invasion in Saving Private Ryan. Or the discrete instruments coming all around in Grover Washington's Let It Flow DVD-A. And is there anyone who listens on only one channel with his stereo or HT gear?

My goodness, methinks the manufacturers of such aural contraptions underestimate the perceptive and cognitive intellection of the human creature bent on attaining audiophilic pleasures. But I guess they bank on the well established notion that there's one sucker born every minute, right?

In an HT set-up most of the power goes to the subwoofer and the receiver needs only to output at most 50watts from each of 5 channels to give decent SPLs in even a fairly large typicaly room. TRUE AND FALSE

(Firstly, is that 50 watts peak or continuous? That's another topic altogether I won't discuss here.)

True, if you set your main-to-sub crossover around 120hz to 180hz.
True, if you have a sub-satellite speaker set-up that have high crossover point.
False, if you don't use a sub and have full range speakers all around.
False, if you have a crossover below 60hz, like I do
False, if you don't have the right bass management features but play SACD and DVD-A on full range speakers.

Ok, you say? So what if the power rating is wrong, as long as the reciever gives me goose bumps watching a movie. Fine. Like I said, I couldn't care less if you find pleasure listening to a transistor radio.

Then again. Is that a valid reason to rate the receiver with any measurement yardstick other than the conservative way? Is that a valid reason to rate it at 1khz? With only one channel? Is that a good reason to mislead the consumer?

 

[zipper]

Measuring @ 1Khz is something that goes back a ways. Bell labs. It was determined that the human voice,on average, is generally in that range of frequency. Even today,when balancing voice circuits, we test @ 404Hz,1004Hz, & 2804 Hz striving for a balance of -4 to -8 dbrnc at each end. I think it's usefulness in the hifi world has long since passed however.

 

[annunaki]

H/K: They never say 'all channels driven' - they say 'power per individual channel' which may or may not be intended to be the same thing. If they want to stress 'all channels driven' to express superiority to others, they should come right out and say it. But no matter, they always test out to be able to drive all channels at their stated output.

[I don't have an actual test in front of me, so from memory...]

H/K: Rated 55wpc. Tests show 'all channels driven' = 55wpc. Two channels driven, show 75wpc. Sounds good.

Call H/K's tech support. They will tell you it is derived all channels driven.

As for the Onkyo, I ask you this. Did you get what you paid for? You paid for 75 watts x 6(7)? but you only get 50 when all the channel run at the same time. If I am supposed to get 75w x 7 then that's what I should get. Not 50. That is a 175 watt loss. When we as consumers settle for less than what we paid for manufacturers feel it is okay to continue.

How would you like it if the brand new car you just purchased was rated in mpg (fuel consumption) the same way your receiver was? Would you stand for it. Would you like for the mpg on your car to be derived with 2 cylinders driven instead of all 8. I think you would be pretty upset, and demand a refund or a different car after you checked the actual mileage. You would go from say 35 mpg hwy down to probably 20. This is why we need to have a more conservative rating system for wattage.

Horsepower on the car is rated the same way wattage is beginning to be. It is almost always rated at the flywheel, which would be like 1 or two channels driven. It shows the highest numbers. Then there is brake horsepower which is taken at the brake rotors. That is like rating all channels driven into 1khz simultaneously to rated distortion. A little lower numbers but more realistic. Last but not least there is horsepower taken at the wheels, which would be like rating a receiver all channels driven simultaneously, 20hz-20khz, to rated distortion. (8 ohms for all the above by the way). It shows you what the best numbers would be, worst case scenario. In othe words, real world power.

 

[Unregistered]

With your indulgence, allow me to just give my thoughts on some of the points raised here and in the other threads where my loquacious rantings have become notorious

It is rather difficult to read your posts. You describe yourself (in every post) as 'loquacious' which simply means 'talkative'. I think the language of your posts could be better described as 'pompous' or 'bombastic'. Your writing style is to use large, flowery words to give the impression that you are super educated, when in reality your sentences are ridiculous and practically meaningless.

To wit,

Neither will it reveal to what heights you can reach your aural orgiastic experience listening to its relevant contraption.
aural orgiastic experience? relevant contraption?
translation: To what extent will your listening experience equate to the feeling of participating in an orgy when the music is reproduced by a device(relevant contraption) that meets the criteria you have set forth. Yeah, good analogy for discussing receiver power ratings.

For all I care, one can just reach ecstatic levitation from listening to a pocket transistor radio.
ecstatic levitation?
translation: Obtain the feeling of extreme happiness as if floating above the earth. Is it the goal of a receiver to reproduce music in such a way that you reach 'ecstatic levitation'?

So with my purchasing wherewithal in hand, I go to a shop and look at a receiver or amp that smites my fancy.

smites my fancy? I'm sure you meant to say 'strikes my fancy'. To smite, means to 'inflict a heavy blow upon', but hey it sounds erudite. (oops, i'm using a $50 word that could have been replaced by a simple one, too).


My goodness, methinks the manufacturers of such aural contraptions underestimate the perceptive and cognitive intellection of the human creature bent on attaining audiophilic pleasures.
aural contraptions?
translation: receiver
perceptive and cognitive intellection?
I'm sure you meant 'intellect' not 'intellection', but nonetheless I am at a loss to discern (oops, did it again) what you are talking about.

 

[Unregistered]

As for the Onkyo, I ask you this. Did you get what you paid for? You paid for 75 watts x 6(7)? but you only get 50 when all the channel run at the same time. If I am supposed to get 75w x 7 then that's what I should get. Not 50. That is a 175 watt loss.

Again, the point is that under no circumstance will all channels ever be driven at the same time and the spec sheet specifically states any 2 channels driven. Under those conditions, it produces more than the rating, so yes you get what you paid for. And in your example, it is a 25w loss, not 175.

Would you like for the mpg on your car to be derived with 2 cylinders driven instead of all 8.

An engine doesn't drive all 8 cylinders at once - intake, compression, power, exhaust. So just like a receiver reproducing music, at any moment in time, it is not using all channels.

Horsepower on the car is rated the same way wattage is beginning to be. It is almost always rated at the flywheel, which would be like 1 or two channels driven. It shows the highest numbers. Then there is brake horsepower which is taken at the brake rotors. That is like rating all channels driven into 1khz simultaneously to rated distortion. A little lower numbers but more realistic. Last but not least there is horsepower taken at the wheels, which would be like rating a receiver all channels driven simultaneously, 20hz-20khz, to rated distortion. (8 ohms for all the above by the way). It shows you what the best numbers would be, worst case scenario. In othe words, real world power.

Very good points, but let me extend your analogy a bit.
1. measuring at the flywheel: this is equivalent to the tests that labs perform using a 1kHZ test tone for a number of seconds driving all channels. Just as the car won't produce the same horsepower when the flywheel is actually connected to a transmission connected to the driveshaft, etc, the receiver will operate differently when connected to source devices and presented a load by the speakers. The number is not valid for an engine and it is not valid for a receiver.

2. brake horsepower: a valid measurement, and almost always specified as 'bhp'. So just as with receivers, before you condemn the mfg, you must understand the nomenclature used. If you were expecting horsepower at the wheels (hp) but the mfg gives you bhp, you cannot directly compare one to another when they used different measurements. True there should be a standard so they are directly comparable. Neither will actually produce the rated numbers in the real world anyway, so once again the point is moot.

3. Horsepower at the wheels does not show what the best numbers would be worst-case by any stretch of the imagination. When testing in a specific car with that engine, yes. But buy the engine separately and bring it home and drop it into your car, with your transmission, with your rear-end and things may be far different. Likewise, bring home your new receiver and connect it to your speakers in your room and things will be different.

The reality is that things are far more complicated than the spec sheet and lab tests will reveal due to the vast number of combinations of gear. All of the better brands are comparable when they use similar measurement criteria. Sure, using 1kHZ only and 1 or 2 channels only is suspect; as is rating at 6Ohms. But, when rating full bandwidth with any 2 driven or all channels driven, the results are comparable. Instead of focusing on number of channels driven, focus on what level of power you need and choose a receiver that can deliver it.

As in my prior example, if you need 50wpc and feel you need that power to all channels, then either of the two choices i cited will work. If you feel 'slighted' because one was actually rated at 75wpc (any 2 channels remember, but delivered the needed 50wpc into all channels) and the other delivered the same amount of power into 1..n channels, so be it. For most music, there will never be more than 2 channels driven at a time (a stereo recording wont drive 2 channels simultaneously at all points in time), so in that case, the receiver that delivers more power into 2 channels will be preferred by some and others will prefer the one rated more 'conservatively' into all channels.

 

[annunaki]

Again, the point is that under no circumstance will all channels ever be driven at the same time and the spec sheet specifically states any 2 channels driven. Under those conditions, it produces more than the rating, so yes you get what you paid for. And in your example, it is a 25w loss, not 175.


An engine doesn't drive all 8 cylinders at once - intake, compression, power, exhaust. So just like a receiver reproducing music, at any moment in time, it is not using all channels.



Very good points, but let me extend your analogy a bit.
1. measuring at the flywheel: this is equivalent to the tests that labs perform using a 1kHZ test tone for a number of seconds driving all channels. Just as the car won't produce the same horsepower when the flywheel is actually connected to a transmission connected to the driveshaft, etc, the receiver will operate differently when connected to source devices and presented a load by the speakers. The number is not valid for an engine and it is not valid for a receiver.

2. brake horsepower: a valid measurement, and almost always specified as 'bhp'. So just as with receivers, before you condemn the mfg, you must understand the nomenclature used. If you were expecting horsepower at the wheels (hp) but the mfg gives you bhp, you cannot directly compare one to another when they used different measurements. True there should be a standard so they are directly comparable. Neither will actually produce the rated numbers in the real world anyway, so once again the point is moot.

3. Horsepower at the wheels does not show what the best numbers would be worst-case by any stretch of the imagination. When testing in a specific car with that engine, yes. But buy the engine separately and bring it home and drop it into your car, with your transmission, with your rear-end and things may be far different. Likewise, bring home your new receiver and connect it to your speakers in your room and things will be different.

The reality is that things are far more complicated than the spec sheet and lab tests will reveal due to the vast number of combinations of gear. All of the better brands are comparable when they use similar measurement criteria. Sure, using 1kHZ only and 1 or 2 channels only is suspect; as is rating at 6Ohms. But, when rating full bandwidth with any 2 driven or all channels driven, the results are comparable. Instead of focusing on number of channels driven, focus on what level of power you need and choose a receiver that can deliver it.

As in my prior example, if you need 50wpc and feel you need that power to all channels, then either of the two choices i cited will work. If you feel 'slighted' because one was actually rated at 75wpc (any 2 channels remember, but delivered the needed 50wpc into all channels) and the other delivered the same amount of power into 1..n channels, so be it. For most music, there will never be more than 2 channels driven at a time (a stereo recording wont drive 2 channels simultaneously at all points in time), so in that case, the receiver that delivers more power into 2 channels will be preferred by some and others will prefer the one rated more 'conservatively' into all channels.

You are seriously reading way too far into the analogies here, and missing the point. We were discussing validity of rating at 1khz, not how a receiver will act when it is in the house and a room. We are talking about specs on the spec sheet, how accurate they are, and not how product A interacts with product B.

Why are you trying to defend the current rating system that obviously has holes in it?

 

[Unregistered]

Sorry if it seems I got off track, but I am not defending the current system. I agree completely with you that it is insufficient (after all I started this thread proclaiming just that.) And I do think that you make very good points and obviously know quite a bit about specifications and what they mean. I guess I was just trying to say that bench tests don't tell the whole story because they don't necessarily exercise a receiver in the same manner that it would be exercised when actually used.

I only use H/K and Onkyo as a point of reference because they are both generally considered to be good receivers and I have some experience with both.

The key point is that the bench tests often cited (eg., S&V magazine), drive receivers at 1kHZ, all channels driven, for 4 seconds and the H/K takes that test in stride and delivers its rated power, whereas the Onkyo invokes its current limiter and reduces the power. The H/K states 'all channels driven', the Onkyo states 'any 2 channels driven'.
We can debate forever which is a more valid way of rating power, but as I've said, I think it's a wash anyway because no real source will meet either of those criteria.

Even if I accept 1kHz (or even full bandwidth), all channels driven as a valid test, I do not accept 4 seconds as valid. What if the Onkyo engineers decided to invoke the current limiter after 2 seconds instead of 4? Then it would pass this particular test and likely produce its rated output into all channels, just like the H/K. What if Onkyo gets wise to the fact that some people consider it inferior due to tests like this and change the design to not invoke the current limiter until after 5 seconds? Then once again, it will pass this test. That would be akin to the controversy between ATI and Nvidia where they were both caught 'tuning' their GPU to the benchmarks and doesn't consider the fact that the benchmark may not be realistic anyway.

If the FTC were to mandate a more exacting standard that they all must follow, then we wouldn't be having these discussions.

 

[av_phile]

It is rather difficult to read your posts. You describe yourself (in every post) as 'loquacious' which simply means 'talkative'. I think the language of your posts could be better described as 'pompous' or 'bombastic'. Your writing style is to use large, flowery words to give the impression that you are super educated, when in reality your sentences are ridiculous and practically meaningless.

To wit,

Neither will it reveal to what heights you can reach your aural orgiastic experience listening to its relevant contraption.
aural orgiastic experience? relevant contraption?
translation: To what extent will your listening experience equate to the feeling of participating in an orgy when the music is reproduced by a device(relevant contraption) that meets the criteria you have set forth. Yeah, good analogy for discussing receiver power ratings.

For all I care, one can just reach ecstatic levitation from listening to a pocket transistor radio.
ecstatic levitation?
translation: Obtain the feeling of extreme happiness as if floating above the earth. Is it the goal of a receiver to reproduce music in such a way that you reach 'ecstatic levitation'?


smites my fancy? I'm sure you meant to say 'strikes my fancy'. To smite, means to 'inflict a heavy blow upon', but hey it sounds erudite. (oops, i'm using a $50 word that could have been replaced by a simple one, too).


My goodness, methinks the manufacturers of such aural contraptions underestimate the perceptive and cognitive intellection of the human creature bent on attaining audiophilic pleasures.
aural contraptions?
translation: receiver
perceptive and cognitive intellection?
I'm sure you meant 'intellect' not 'intellection', but nonetheless I am at a loss to discern (oops, did it again) what you are talking about.

I may be using a plethora of "flowery" words that you so eloquently quote with their meanings any peasant can grasp. I like hyperbole, metaphor, irony and sarcasm, to mention some figurative semantic and literary arsenal. Maybe because I am used to discoursing with people with poetic imaginings and profound literary intellection. And I like to use words that are less trite and overused. So I do not expect people with puerille comprehending acuity to appreciate them. Seems you are more interested in attacking my "erudite" and "pompous" writing style than match them with any semblance of thoughtful counter-argument. Can't argue with you on that. To each his own as they say.

 

[av_phile]

---basically because no real world source will ever drive all channels simultaneously, from 20Hz-20kHZ. Therefore, such a measurement is largely unimportant.---

---This is why I think these debates, here and on other forums, get tiresome. All the top tier mfgs make good products and are fairly comparable---

Great points!

Sorry to disappoint you I have a Saint-Saens Organ Symophony whose sonics go well below 20Hz for the organ pedals notes and whose tirangles and flutes many not fundamentally reach 20khz but I am sure their harmonics do. It's a 1936 remastered CD in splendid MONO. And I listen sometimes in 2 channel or 5 channel mode. And at loud levels, approaching 110db on my listening posiition. In effect ALL the channels are dirven simultaneously. It may not be at full bandwidth at any instant of time, but at the climactic finale, it is. Whether full or partial bandwidth, they sure beat a solitary 1khz.

Not important to you. Fine. It is to me. When I want a 200wpc multichannel amp, I EXPECT to get the SPLs from a 200wpc 5 channel reciever on a Continuous basis. If the manufacturer rated his amp at 1 khz with only one channel driven and tells me its 200wpc, that's baloney. I look at the back panel to see a meager 700 watts of electric power consumption and that betrays that the amp's rating is a laughable fraud. Plain and simple. I don't care if the reciever sounds glorious. It probably is at levels far below what I EXPECT. For sure it won't give me the SPLs I EXPECT. And if I were misinformed about such blatant power hype, I would be getting this 1-khz rated receiver because of recommendations from people like you. And I will be wondering for the rest if my life why it is no louder than my older CONSERVATIVELY rated 100wpc reciever.

 

[av_phile]

I would also like add a 4 Ohm all channels driven spec at full rated audio bandwidth of 20 to 20KHz. The only other maufacturer to stand behind their power specs is NAD.

NAD is one of the few conservatively rated brands of receivers, integrateds and power amps that have consistently gained the respect of serious and seasoned audiophiles. Taiwanese-made, they have not succomed to the marketing pressures to hype their products for commercial gain that many brands do.

 

[av_phile]

Harman Kardon rates receivers as: all channels driven simultaneously, 20hz-20khz, at 8 ohms, to .07% thd.

NAD is, by far, the most demanding with ratings. All channels driven simultaneously, 20hz-20khz, at 4 and 8 ohms, to .08% thd.

The reason rating with all channels driven simultaneously is important is this: It gives a good representation of how large and adequate of a power supply the manufacturer chose to use, reguardless of whether or not is was 20hz-20khz or 1khz. Although, 20hz-20khz would be more demanding. Basically, it can show whether the manufacturer "chose to wear the bare minimum amount of flair or go above and beyond and wear extra ." (Use the smaller power supply to just acheive the FTC rating or use a larger one capable of meeting stricter standards.)

I am sure no one listens to just sine waves in the comfort of their own home.

In the case of receivers going into protection all channels driving simultaneously I would say that the manufacturer put it in as a safety guard for the smallish power supply to protect it from over current as that is it's design. Granted all amplifiers need a protection circuit, but when I see protection kicking in BEFORE clipping (all channels driven simultaneously) at resonable distortion levels, it makes one question the integrity of the design, and how truthful the manufacturer is.

As for a rating standard from the FTC, we should have one for surround receivers. It should go some thing like this: ALL channels driven simultaneously, 20hz-20khz, at 8 ohms to <.1% thd. for at least 3 seconds. Chances are, however, this would not happen, as it would be met with much backlash from companies thriving off of the current rating system. Why? Because, for one, their manufacturing costs would increase as now their have to give you (the customer) a more powerful amplifier in order for it to stand up to the new standard.

I do not see why people do not embrace this as consumers. In the end, it is you and I, the consumer who wins. We get more powerful amplifiers at a cheaper price. Rather than the current trend of weaker amplifiers for the same old price. You can choose to support the current rating standard and get less power for your dollar, or push for a stronger one and get more. As for me I choose the latter.

Complete agreement in totto. Conservative power specs should be the norm. Whether in stereo or multi-channel. Receivers, Integrateds or Power Amps. Anything above that is a disservice to all concerned.

 

[Unregistered]

I may be using a plethora of "flowery" words that you so eloquently quote with their meanings any peasant can grasp. I like hyperbole, metaphor, irony and sarcasm, to mention some figurative semantic and literary arsenal. Maybe because I am used to discoursing with people with poetic imaginings and profound literary intellection. And I like to use words that are less trite and overused. So I do not expect people with puerille comprehending acuity to appreciate them.

'Poetic imaginings', is that what it is? Because it certainly isn't anything resembling a competent grasp of the English language or a solid understanding of basic sentence structure. You definitely do use words that are less trite and overused, but you string them together in ways that make no sense whatsoever, indicating that you haven't the faintest idea what you are saying.

I especially like 'puerile comprehending acuity' (one 'l' in puerile by the way). Literally that would mean 'juvenile understanding perception', which is pretty non-sensical, but I'm sure it impresses other morons that don't know any better (like maybe those with 'literary intellection' you like 'discoursing with').

I think you should stop listening at 110dB or pretty soon your hearing will be as bad as your grammar.

 

[av_phile]

'Poetic imaginings', is that what it is? Because it certainly isn't anything resembling a competent grasp of the English language or a solid understanding of basic sentence structure. You definitely do use words that are less trite and overused, but you string them together in ways that make no sense whatsoever, indicating that you haven't the faintest idea what you are saying.

I especially like 'puerile comprehending acuity' (one 'l' in puerile by the way). Literally that would mean 'juvenile understanding perception', which is pretty non-sensical, but I'm sure it impresses other morons that don't know any better (like maybe those with 'literary intellection' you like 'discoursing with').

Impressions can go either way. Obviously, they impressed you. I take exceeding delight at your very apt and thorough self-description.

 

[Ross]

What in the world are these threads turning into???

 

[annunaki]

Good one Ross. I did not know this was now an English language forum. Just kidding guys.