watts per channel

[PENG]

In terms of evaluating the power of the amp section, I would pay more attention to the actual weight of the receiver. The heavier the receiver, the beefier its power supplies, and hence the more power it can crank out. I don't really feel comfortable using 20lb receivers. It's just not heavy enough.

Only true to a point even in the analog world. The Sony STRDA3,4,5, or 7ES receivers all weigh 21 kg or 46 lbs but no one think they have more power than a 37.5 lbs Denon 3805. The heavy HKAVR6XX receivers also weighs 40+ lbs but despite their beefy power supply their 1,2 channel power output are significantly less than that offered by Denon, Yamaha and Pioneer Elite models in the same price group. In fact, they are behind even in 5, and ACD scenarios. The only good thing about them is that they do seem to understate their rating while the others do the opposite. P/S are important but you cannot ignore the amp section neither. The weight of a receiver depends a lot on the type of material used. Types of material would not explain a weight difference of 20 lbs or more, but it may if the difference is 10 lbs or less. Just for reference, the 4 ohm capable Arcam AVR350 weighs about 35 lbs.

Given that all manufactuers have to watch their margin, they either beef up the P/S, the Amp section, or take a balance approach. If I were the design engineer and had to choose between spending more on the amp section or the P/S of a 7.1 receiver, I would choose the amp section. Reason is simple, we benefit much more often from 7.1 receivers that can do say 2X120W, but a disappointing(relative to its high 2 ch rating) 7X65W than one that does only 2X90W but an impressive (relative to its 2 channel rating) 7X75W.

 

[HiJon89]

What are manufacturers fabricating? Please specify. Don't confuse all channels driven and two channels driven as mandated by FTC, that makers are fabrication specs. Perhaps you just don't understand what specs mean on the printed spec sheet of amps?

From the specification page on the Pioneer VSX-816-K receiver:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/product/details/0,,2076_310069809_299915436_tab=B,00.html?compName=PNA_V3_ProductDetailsComponent

Surround Power 770 Watts Total System Power - 110 watts x 7 (1kHz 1.0% THD @ 8 Ohms)

Weight 20 lbs. 4 oz.

The description used by Pioneer is misleading at best, downright lying at worst. It is obvious that you are not going to get 110W RMS with all 7 channels going, but the way they phrase the power rating, it sure seems that's what they mean:
770 Watts Total System Power - 110 watts x 7
Where does it say anything about 110W with two channels driven? Regardless of FTC regulations, it is clear that Pioneer is attempting to deceive potential customers by claiming that the receiver can do 110Wx7. Where is the phrase "110 watts x 7" coming from? I know, out of their asses, hence fabrication.

 

[wire]

From the specification page on the Pioneer VSX-816-K receiver:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/product/details/0,,2076_310069809_299915436_tab=B,00.html?compName=PNA_V3_ProductDetailsComponent

Surround Power 770 Watts Total System Power - 110 watts x 7 (1kHz 1.0% THD @ 8 Ohms)

Weight 20 lbs. 4 oz.

The description used by Pioneer is misleading at best, downright lying at worst. It is obvious that you are not going to get 110W RMS with all 7 channels going, but the way they phrase the power rating, it sure seems that's what they mean:
770 Watts Total System Power - 110 watts x 7
Where does it say anything about 110W with two channels driven? Regardless of FTC regulations, it is clear that Pioneer is attempting to deceive potential customers by claiming that the receiver can do 110Wx7. Where is the phrase "110 watts x 7" coming from? I know, out of their asses, hence fabrication.

When it comes to weight there are exceptions to the weight rule .
I own a M240 Carver car Amp . This thing is crystal clear and powerful . The weight , about 4 lbs ( maybe less ) . He uses a different power suppy then most everyone else out there . Even his Sunfire and Carver home stuff is lightweight and very powerful .
But i do agree with most of the mass produced gear out there , they need to show fair ratings . Not just Peak power ratings .

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

The heat sinks on class A/B AVR's are also a very important component. These units get hot, and the way an electronic component can disapate heat will allow the unit to run more efficiently, for longer periods of time. Class A/B pro amps are light, but utilize powerful fans to cool the amp sections. If you look at your multi-thousand dollar (fanless) audio amps, all have massive heat sink sections. Obtaining a lot of "watts" from a 120V source is easy. Managing that power can be more difficult. You can also tell a good class A/B AVR by the size of the capacitors. Check out the Denon 3800 series and Pioneer Elite series caps, not to mention your dedicated audio amp caps. They're huge compared to these entry level 100 watt BB AVR's.

Here's an old power amp with two huge caps and a heat sink that takes up the entire back and sides of the unit. This is not your typical 100 watt BB AVR.

Here's the internals of an older Pioneer SX1980:

Compare that to the Pioneer 100x5 watt model 516 heat sink and capacitors here:

 

[MDS]

770 Watts Total System Power - 110 watts x 7
Where does it say anything about 110W with two channels driven? Regardless of FTC regulations, it is clear that Pioneer is attempting to deceive potential customers by claiming that the receiver can do 110Wx7. Where is the phrase "110 watts x 7" coming from? I know, out of their asses, hence fabrication.

110 watts x 7 means that EACH channel is capable of 110 watts; it says nothing about driving all channels simultaneously. The problem is that people see '110 x 7' and INFER that it means all channels driven when it never does.

770 watts total system power is meaningless and is a marketing angle in the same way that clubs often advertise '10,000 watt sound system' yet nobody ever infers that it means 10,000 watts per channel.

 

[Limeman]

Hi.

In regards to HiJon89's statement about the Pioneer VSX-816:

I recently purchased the Pioneer VSX-816 ($275) along with a HK AVR-145 ($318) and did an A/B comparison. The Pioneer is rated at 110W/channel x 7, while the HK is rated at 40W x 5.

I use a 5.1 setup, so the extra 2 channels on the Pioneer were not used. I have a Definitive Technology CinemaPro 800 sat/1000 center setup with an Orb Audio Super Eight Sub. My room is roughly a 12' x 18' rectangle with an large opening into the dining room along the long, left wall.

After evaluating both receivers for about a week I took the Pioneer back. Not only was the HK able to keep up and surpass the volume level of the Pioneer (my SPL meter did not lie), but the sound quality of the HK far surpassed that of the Pioneer. The Pioneer was pinched and hard sounding in the mids and highs in comparison to the warm and smooth sound of the HK. When pushed hard, the Pioneer sounded just plain rude when played at the same level as the HK. The HK also had a more open soundstage and appears to be the better built, more robust unit. I did have to raise the volume level higher than the Pioneer to match/surpass SPLs (-18 db on the Pioneer display vs -7 db on the HK for example) but who cares? The HK remote is nicer as well. Looks are subjective (as is sound), but I like the HK better in that regard as well.

I know I'm comparing receivers at the bottom of the rung, but the HK was clearly superior to my ears and it's modest 40W x 5 rating left the Pioneer's 110W x 7 in the backseat. Go figure.

I think the Pioneer is a decent receiver, but having them side by side really showed the higher quality of the HK receiver for movies as well as music. I would say the additional $42 was well worth it and can highly recommend this unit if you are looking for an excellent sounding, well constructed modest receiver in the $300 price range (current online price of the HK is about $318 to $325).

Cheers!

 

[no. 5]

Here's the internals of an older Pioneer SX1980:

wow, those are som BIG caps!

Compare that to the Pioneer 100x5 watt model 516 heat sink and capacitors here:

I have a 6 year old Pioneer VSX-D411 that looks more impresive inside - well I think it is, it's been a while since I last opend it up.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hi.

In regards to HiJon89's statement about the Pioneer VSX-816:

I recently purchased the Pioneer VSX-816 ($275) along with a HK AVR-145 ($318) and did an A/B comparison. The Pioneer is rated at 110W/channel x 7, while the HK is rated at 40W x 5.

I use a 5.1 setup, so the extra 2 channels on the Pioneer were not used. I have a Definitive Technology CinemaPro 800 sat/1000 center setup with an Orb Audio Super Eight Sub. My room is roughly a 12' x 18' rectangle with an large opening into the dining room along the long, left wall.

After evaluating both receivers for about a week I took the Pioneer back. Not only was the HK able to keep up and surpass the volume level of the Pioneer (my SPL meter did not lie), but the sound quality of the HK far surpassed that of the Pioneer. The Pioneer was pinched and hard sounding in the mids and highs in comparison to the warm and smooth sound of the HK. When pushed hard, the Pioneer sounded just plain rude when played at the same level as the HK. The HK also had a more open soundstage and appears to be the better built, more robust unit. I did have to raise the volume level higher than the Pioneer to match/surpass SPLs (-18 db on the Pioneer display vs -7 db on the HK for example) but who cares? The HK remote is nicer as well. Looks are subjective (as is sound), but I like the HK better in that regard as well.

I know I'm comparing receivers at the bottom of the rung, but the HK was clearly superior to my ears and it's modest 40W x 5 rating left the Pioneer's 110W x 7 in the backseat. Go figure.

I think the Pioneer is a decent receiver, but having them side by side really showed the higher quality of the HK receiver for movies as well as music. I would say the additional $42 was well worth it and can highly recommend this unit if you are looking for an excellent sounding, well constructed modest receiver in the $300 price range (current online price of the HK is about $318 to $325).

Cheers!

I am sure you did everything in your power not to be biased in any way, right?
Levels matched and DBT protocol and all that jazz.

 

[PENG]

Hi.
I think the Pioneer is a decent receiver, but having them side by side really showed the higher quality of the HK receiver for movies as well as music. I would say the additional $42 was well worth it and can highly recommend this unit if you are looking for an excellent sounding, well constructed modest receiver in the $300 price range (current online price of the HK is about $318 to $325).
Cheers!

The Pioneer is listed at $299 vs the HK's $549, both from their respective websites. Further, the Pioneer is rated for 1% THD vs HK's 0.07% THD. There are really no comparison between the two, the HK's street price is $40 more but that's almost 15% higher and you get two channel less, no pre-outs. No wonder the HK sounds better, it should. So the 816 offers features, e.g. 7.1 and preouts that allows you to add an ext. amp, while the 145 offers SQ.

The HK's online prices are quite competitive in the U.S., but in Canada the Future Shop is having the old AVR140 on sale for C$499, reg. price C$699.

It is not simple to compare HK to Pioneer because HK has only one line and they are all of basically the same sound quality. You pay more for more power and features. Pioneer has the regular series and the Elite series. Ideally, one should compare HK's models to the Elite models, but to do so you are limited to choosing the 445, 645, 745 from the HK line up.

 

[HiJon89]

110 watts x 7 means that EACH channel is capable of 110 watts; it says nothing about driving all channels simultaneously. The problem is that people see '110 x 7' and INFER that it means all channels driven when it never does.

Seeing 110x7 and thinking it means all channels driven is not an inference, that is clearly what the manufacturers what the consumers to think.

 

[MDS]

Seeing 110x7 and thinking it means all channels driven is not an inference, that is clearly what the manufacturers what the consumers to think.

...and that is exactly what it is - each channel is capable of 110 watts. Older ProLogic receivers had lower power ratings for the center and surround channels but now surround receivers have equal power for each channel and that is the message being conveyed by '110 x 7'.

Trust me, every single person that wants to argue about how receiver manufacturers 'lie' about their power ratings points to the same thing you do. Just like all other audio claims one needs to look further to find the truth rather than reading into it what you want to see.

I would suggest the 'all channels driven' thread and the various articles on this site about how power is rated. You can also google for DIN, FTC, and EIJA rating standards.

 

[MichaelJHuman]

Blame the FTC. In fact, if I am correct, they weakened the rules a little bit some time ago. Quality MFG's are simply abiding by FTC rules.

I personally believe ACD is not a real requirement. How often are you trying to drive all 5 channels at full power? Or all 7 channels at full power? To comply with FTC, I believe they still must drive 2 channels at the posted specs. It would seem more likely to hit that limit with rock music.

Speaker efficiency seems like a cheaper way to get more output power. Say your speakers were $1500 for 96Db SPL speakers. 4 watts gets you 102Db; 8 watts gets you 105Db which is plenty loud. If your speakers are 88Db, you need 64 watts to reach 106Db.

Also, a powered sub should take a lot of burden of your amps if what I read is true. I have heard varying numbers, but it takes a lot of power to drive a woofer. Even crossing your bass over at 80hz should help for movies especially, but also for bass heavy music.

 

[PENG]

...and that is exactly what it is - each channel is capable of 110 watts. Older ProLogic receivers had lower power ratings for the center and surround channels but now surround receivers have equal power for each channel and that is the message being conveyed by '110 x 7'.

Trust me, every single person that wants to argue about how receiver manufacturers 'lie' about their power ratings points to the same thing you do. Just like all other audio claims one needs to look further to find the truth rather than reading into it what you want to see.

I would suggest the 'all channels driven' thread and the various articles on this site about how power is rated. You can also google for DIN, FTC, and EIJA rating standards.

I think 7X110W is fair. It really doesn't imply ACD. It simply says there are 7 pieces of 110W amplifiers on board. The "770W total system power" statement is a little suspicious though, what else could it mean?

 

[highfihoney]

Blame the FTC. In fact, if I am correct, they weakened the rules a little bit some time ago. Quality MFG's are simply abiding by FTC rules.

I agree that mfg's are simply following the guidelines but that still does not make it right,truth in advertising has gone out the window with some audio mfg's with spec's written in such a way that the average consumer is mislead right from the start.

There is no truth to an 11 pound htib that say's it's a 1000 watt total system.

 

[Limeman]

I am sure you did everything in your power not to be biased in any way, right?
Levels matched and DBT protocol and all that jazz.

... My bias was merely based upon my personal experience with the two recievers. I tried both out as they had been recommened to me as excellent units for the dollar (my budget was quite modest) and the Harman was the clear winner. Since 7.1 was not a deal-breaker for me, but sound was, the HK won. Clearly the Pioneer has more features, but they come at the expense of sound quality. Had I not heard the HK, I might have thought the Pioneer was great. Having compared them, I can honestly say there was a difference and the HK appealed to me more.

I know my methods are not scientific, but using the sound level meter to maintain equal sound levels, along with using music and movie tracks I'm quite familar with, helped me to make what I feel was a solid decision.

Bottom line: the HK's 40W/channel kept up with Pioneer's 110w/channel and left me with the impression of greater dynamic range as well.

Too bad they can't get HK cheaper in Canada!

 

[PENG]

... My bias was merely based upon my personal experience with the two recievers. I tried both out as they had been recommened to me as excellent units for the dollar (my budget was quite modest) and the Harman was the clear winner. Since 7.1 was not a deal-breaker for me, but sound was, the HK won. Clearly the Pioneer has more features, but they come at the expense of sound quality. Had I not heard the HK, I might have thought the Pioneer was great. Having compared them, I can honestly say there was a difference and the HK appealed to me more.

I know my methods are not scientific, but using the sound level meter to maintain equal sound levels, along with using music and movie tracks I'm quite familar with, helped me to make what I feel was a solid decision.

Bottom line: the HK's 40W/channel kept up with Pioneer's 110w/channel and left me with the impression of greater dynamic range as well.

Too bad they can't get HK cheaper in Canada!

See this is what we have to pay for those mid level HKAVRs in Canada:

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10080991&catid=10551

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10071470&catid=10551

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10079397&catid=10551

Do you not realize that it is almost meaningless to compare your 145 to the 816. You can't expect a $299 7.1, 110WX7 channel receiver loaded with the latest feature including pre-outs to sound anywhere near as good as one that is normally 15 to 25% more expensive 5.1 receiver with much less features. With the savings from not investing in the features/gadgets/2 extra amps, HK has more resource to invest in the quality of the HK's amp section. Pioneer on the other hand focus their resource on things not too related to SQ, and perhaps higher power rated electronic components (transistors etc.) but of lesser quality.

Just look at the specifications, the 816 with 2 more amplifiers in it and those loaded features weighs 4 lbs less and THD almost 15 times higher. It has little to do with their power rating but has everything to do with the difference in quality between their amp sections. Sorry to say it, but you are comparing orange to lemon, enjoy your orange (HK), it should be sweeter!

 

[no. 5]

Bottom line: the HK's 40W/channel kept up with Pioneer's 110w/channel and left me with the impression of greater dynamic range as well.

wellll, it's not realy 40 watts vs. 110 watts, as the H/K is rated ACD and the Pioneer is not, also the Pioneer's much higher THD indicates it was driven fairly hard to get 110 watts out of it.
not that you did'nt make the right choice (I think I would have made the same one), just saing that the specs arn't all that comprable. but upon reflection, that point has been fairly well covered... oops.

 

[Limeman]

Yikes. I guess I stepped on a nerve here? I meant no offense. I only compared the two because they were within $50 of each other and I tried them both out at the same time at home - therefore the comparison was quite meaningful to me and made sense to post when you consider the original nature of this thread.

Peace!

 

[no. 5]

Yikes. I guess I stepped on a nerve here? I meant no offense.

none takin. but yes, there are some subjects we tend to get a little excited about.

 

[PENG]

Mr. Limeman, I don't think you stepped on any nerve and it seems pretty peaceful so far. Enjoy your 145! I auditioned a few older HK models before, and I was impressed their sound quality. You guys are so lucky to be able to pick one up for that little money.