what receivers are producing High Current

[Superfly]

I know Emotiva is listed alot but what differance is their between it and say
bryston or others?
I guess as human nature goes, when the price is so low you wonder why?

 

[bandphan]

I know Emotiva is listed alot but what differance is their between it and say
bryston or others?
I guess as human nature goes, when the price is so low you wonder why?

FWIW Emotiva OEMs for several major companies. As with any manufacture products can fail (a few here can attest ) but Lonnie and Co are pretty good about their CS. The XPA series performs as stated and is a great value. You may also want the look at pro amps, ie the yamaha PS series, as another option.

 

[Seth=L]

Choose speakers before amplification, that is the golden rule.

Depending on what speakers you choose and what the size of the room you are using them in should be used as determining factors in which receiver or amplifier you choose to power them.

Take for example the Pioneer Elite SC-27, which has been benchtested and proven to be powerful receiver that would satisfy the needs of most any application unless you are driving speakers with highly reactive loads such as a pair of electrostatic speakers.

Many folks get overly concerned with meeting certain wattage requirements that they don't need and won't even use. I use a Teac CR-H220 CD/Receiver to power a pair of Vandersteen 2Ce towers that are not very efficient and the impedance ranges from 4-7 ohms. The little 25 watts per channel @ 6 ohm Teac powers them to reasonable levels of output (enough to annoy neighbors) without stress. I'm not going to get bone crushing sound pressure levels using the Teac, but more than enough output to serve my listening habits.

Unless you like to listen to music at blistering levels of output it's highly likely that a separate power amplifier will be unnecessary if you have a good receiver like the Pioneer SC-27.

You asked if a 100 wpc @ 8 ohms & 150 wpc @ 4 ohms would be less powerful than a 50 wpc @ 8 ohms & 80 wpc @ 4 ohms. Assuming that both of those ratings approximate the actual output capability of amplifiers with those published ratings that would not be true. More wattage is more power. If an amplifier is rated using a different method than the other than it may become possible for the resulting published specifications to be incompatible and hence it would only be possible to determine which had higher output power by testing them with the same method.

Unfortunately published specifications aren't a solid indication of real performance because many companies use a different method of measurement. That's why magazines such as Sound&Vision and HomeTheaterMag do their own measurements using the same method to measure each receiver and amplifier they review, to show how they compare when using the same lab method.

Another hot topic is receivers, amplifiers, digital to analog converters, preamplifiers, and processors having different sonic signatures. In the base parts this is mostly untrue. If you use a receiver or amplifier for just stereo operation with the tonal adjustments set to flat and no other post processing added any receiver should sound sonicaly identical to another so long as both are operating within their design parameters. Does this mean that the Pioneer SC-27 and Pioneer VSX-519 sound the same? Yes. Does this mean that you should just get the VSX-519 since it's vastly cheaper? No. There's also the factor that once the VSX-519 runs out of steam the SC-27 will definitely sound better at higher levels of output simply because the VSX-519 will not be able to produce unclipped program at the same levels the SC-27 can. I wouldn't recommend the VSX-519 to anyone with high power demands, and the VSX-519 has a really limited feature set as well as connectivity basically making it good for people looking for a basic home theater, not those that want a dedicated setup.

 

[highfigh]

It could have been a lower rated one I don't remember what model.

I guess the best thing is to get the biggest amp I can.
It was easier to buy a car to me it had less variables

"There's no replacement for displacement".

 

[3db]

I was wondering how do you tell if a receiver is producing high current?

Also if the higher end models from Yamaha, marantz, Denon, Onkyo, Rotel, NAD are do they still have a sonic signature to them?

Thanks

NAD and HK can be considered high current receivers. NAD espcially will meet advertised power specs with all channels driven. Whether or not you need that much power depends on your speakers effciency, the room size and how loud you want to drive them. As an example I had an older Technics receiver rated at a 100w per channel and it drove my entire PSB suite speakers to more than comfortable listening levels. Only once I reached insane loudness levels did I reach the receivers limit. The highs became etchy and hard to listen too.

Once I switched the receiver to the Yamaha RX-V1800, I could push well past the level of loudness achieved by the Technics without any strain or stress. It was way too loud for me to listen too comfortably.

 

[PENG]

NAD and HK can be considered high current receivers.

I cannot disagree with what you are saying but I would only add that if so, and only if, then I would also say so are several Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo models. The NAD and HK models, yes even their top models are not going to be any more 'high current' than an Onkyo 875 and up.

I find it amazing that in NA you can read all sorts of reviews praising how powerful the UK (originated) models and a few NA less popular but higher priced models such as HK, B&K receivers are and yet if you read the European magazine reviews the opposite seems generally true. Further, even when our NA magazines praised NAD, HK etc., when you see their lab tests you may find they don't reall turn out better numbers in ACD and low impedance tests other than in many cases (not always either) they do exceed their published ratings. I just don't go by tested vs published rating any more because what really matters is $/Watt or $/Amp if my concern is power and current.

NAD and HK models tend to be heavier but once you reach a critical point more weight do not automatically get you more power. I am talking about say 40 lbs vs 55 lbs. For class A/B amps I do believe anything receiver that weights less than 33 lbs is not going to be that powerful for what I need. The Marantz SR8002, at 33.1 lbs only just made it for me.

IMHO, if people are concerned about which AVR does well in the power/current department, their best bet is to read as many reviews that include lab results and pay more attention to those that offer full disclosure of what equipment they use and how they conduct their tests. I would not go with hearsays such as'HK models are the high current ones'. I have seen lab results of HK models failed miserably on low impedance tests when more than two channels are driven. At least one that I remember was the AVR3XX, probably the 330.

 

[Buckster]

Choose speakers before amplification, that is the golden rule.

Depending on what speakers you choose and what the size of the room you are using them in should be used as determining factors in which receiver or amplifier you choose to power them.

Take for example the Pioneer Elite SC-27, which has been benchtested and proven to be powerful receiver that would satisfy the needs of most any application unless you are driving speakers with highly reactive loads such as a pair of electrostatic speakers.

Many folks get overly concerned with meeting certain wattage requirements that they don't need and won't even use. I use a Teac CR-H220 CD/Receiver to power a pair of Vandersteen 2Ce towers that are not very efficient and the impedance ranges from 4-7 ohms. The little 25 watts per channel @ 6 ohm Teac powers them to reasonable levels of output (enough to annoy neighbors) without stress. I'm not going to get bone crushing sound pressure levels using the Teac, but more than enough output to serve my listening habits.

Unless you like to listen to music at blistering levels of output it's highly likely that a separate power amplifier will be unnecessary if you have a good receiver like the Pioneer SC-27.

You asked if a 100 wpc @ 8 ohms & 150 wpc @ 4 ohms would be less powerful than a 50 wpc @ 8 ohms & 80 wpc @ 4 ohms. Assuming that both of those ratings approximate the actual output capability of amplifiers with those published ratings that would not be true. More wattage is more power. If an amplifier is rated using a different method than the other than it may become possible for the resulting published specifications to be incompatible and hence it would only be possible to determine which had higher output power by testing them with the same method.

Unfortunately published specifications aren't a solid indication of real performance because many companies use a different method of measurement. That's why magazines such as Sound&Vision and HomeTheaterMag do their own measurements using the same method to measure each receiver and amplifier they review, to show how they compare when using the same lab method.

Another hot topic is receivers, amplifiers, digital to analog converters, preamplifiers, and processors having different sonic signatures. In the base parts this is mostly untrue. If you use a receiver or amplifier for just stereo operation with the tonal adjustments set to flat and no other post processing added any receiver should sound sonicaly identical to another so long as both are operating within their design parameters. Does this mean that the Pioneer SC-27 and Pioneer VSX-519 sound the same? Yes. Does this mean that you should just get the VSX-519 since it's vastly cheaper? No. There's also the factor that once the VSX-519 runs out of steam the SC-27 will definitely sound better at higher levels of output simply because the VSX-519 will not be able to produce unclipped program at the same levels the SC-27 can. I wouldn't recommend the VSX-519 to anyone with high power demands, and the VSX-519 has a really limited feature set as well as connectivity basically making it good for people looking for a basic home theater, not those that want a dedicated setup.

mm not convinced by all of this.

I had an Arcam AVR350 - which struggled at higher volumes driving my Tannoys all round (all fronts are 6 ohms) - at higher volumes it started to get harsher sounding, and it was rated and tested at something like 105W/channel all channels driven. Yet my Pioneer 59TXi drives the Tannoys to high volumes whilst still sounding superb.

Also its all about dynamics as well.

I had a Pioneer SC-05 - which drove my speakers to high volumes, but didn't sound dynamic to me. Yet the Pioneer 59TXi keeps the dynamics even at high volumes.

Just my 2ps worth

 

[Seth=L]

The Arcam is a bit below either of these Pioneer receivers in terms of output capability. In terms of measured output the 59TXi and SC-05 have similar figures with a slight edge to the SC-05. The SC-05 uses ICEpower, which is a derivitive of Class D amplification. The 59TXi is a Class A/B machine. This isn't to say that Class D amplifiers can't deliver linear power. Some Class D designs do have a lower damping factor and they may work slower than Class A/B amplifiers because of the time it takes for the amplifier to switch, at least as I understand it.

Now I could be wrong, but there's only two possible answers to the dilema. Your brain is altering what your ears here, or somehow the Class D amplification in that receiver is inferior to the Class A/B inside the 59TXi.

 

[PENG]

mm not convinced by all of this.

I had an Arcam AVR350 - which struggled at higher volumes driving my Tannoys all round (all fronts are 6 ohms) - at higher volumes it started to get harsher sounding, and it was rated and tested at something like 105W/channel all channels driven.

I often see posts here from people who insist the internal amps of an AVR should be rated ACD and that's the only rating that is meaningful. Well, Arcam may be closer (relative to HK) to the ACD camp.

If I were to manufacture an AVR and must choose between spending the fixed manufacturing budget on the following options, both to have the same feature set on the prepro side,

Option1, to achieve an ACD rating that is approximately the same as 1, and 2 channel driven ratings:
a) Stronger power supply for 7X110W ACD (e.g. Arcam, NAD, HK).
b) Weaker amp section (much has been spent on the power supply already) that really cannot do no much more than 110W each.

Option2, to maximimize 1 and 2 channel ratings, for better (relatively speaking) dynamics but, allow ACD rating to fall below 1, and 2 chanel driven ratings:
a) Weaker power supply for say 7X80W or even slightly lower ACD (e.g. some mid range Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, Marantz or even some Sony models)
b) Stronger amp section (from money saved on the weaker power supply) so the 1, 2 channel driven ratings could be as high as 170, 150W tested and typically >200W into 4 ohms by use of higher power transistors,

I would take Option2 based on most real world applications that do not pump out high SPL from all channels are the same time but at any time there could be high peak demands on 1,2 or 3 channels simultaneously. Besides, for real worry free power ratings, an external amplifier is a must. A unit made under Option2 above should only require a 5 channel external amp because in all likelihood, the two back surround channels can be powered by the AVR easily. Option1 would be more suited to people who enjoy mostly rock concerts and anything similar that generate steady high SPL and who don’t care as much about dynamics for most movie watching and serious two channel music listening.

It is a good thing that we have choices such as the NAD, HK on one camp and many others on the other, with a few sort of in between. So we have them all, how can anyone complain?

 

[3db]

I often see posts here from people who insist the internal amps of an AVR should be rated ACD and that's the only rating that is meaningful. Well, Arcam may be closer (relative to HK) to the ACD camp.

If I were to manufacture an AVR and must choose between spending the fixed manufacturing budget on the following options, both to have the same feature set on the prepro side,

Option1, to achieve an ACD rating that is approximately the same as 1, and 2 channel driven ratings:
a) Stronger power supply for 7X110W ACD (e.g. Arcam, NAD, HK).
b) Weaker amp section (much has been spent on the power supply already) that really cannot do no much more than 110W each.

Option2, to maximimize 1 and 2 channel ratings, for better (relatively speaking) dynamics but, allow ACD rating to fall below 1, and 2 chanel driven ratings:
a) Weaker power supply for say 7X80W or even slightly lower ACD (e.g. some mid range Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, Marantz or even some Sony models)
b) Stronger amp section (from money saved on the weaker power supply) so the 1, 2 channel driven ratings could be as high as 170, 150W tested and typically >200W into 4 ohms by use of higher power transistors,

I would take Option2 based on most real world applications that do not pump out high SPL from all channels are the same time but at any time there could be high peak demands on 1,2 or 3 channels simultaneously. Besides, for real worry free power ratings, an external amplifier is a must. A unit made under Option2 above should only require a 5 channel external amp because in all likelihood, the two back surround channels can be powered by the AVR easily. Option1 would be more suited to people who enjoy mostly rock concerts and anything similar that generate steady high SPL and who don’t care as much about dynamics for most movie watching and serious two channel music listening.

It is a good thing that we have choices such as the NAD, HK on one camp and many others on the other, with a few sort of in between. So we have them all, how can anyone complain?

don't make enough to cash to buy them all??