Would you agree with this statement?

[mrgooch]

Concerning a vintage receiver:

Power Rating: RMS power ratings are 4-5 time greater than todays PP power ratings. Example: 60WPC RMS power equals approximately 240WPC under todays PP power ratings.

 

[Francious70]

I'd say false. A watt is a watt is a watt, no matter when you measured it. P=v^2/r, and it always will be.

 

[j_garcia]

I'd have to disagree also. While many older amps probably had more headroom due to design than many current ones, current 2ch integrated amps are no worse than they were back in the day.

 

[Pyrrho]

Concerning a vintage receiver:

Power Rating: RMS power ratings are 4-5 time greater than todays PP power ratings. Example: 60WPC RMS power equals approximately 240WPC under todays PP power ratings.

It is quite false. However, many of the older receivers were designed for 4-ohm usage, whereas many modern ones are not. And, of course, continuous power output does not tell one what useable peak output there may be. And some companies have been more conservative than others in their claims.

A watt is a watt, which confuses many people, because one must also specify things like impedance and distortion figures and frequency(s) to know whether two amplifiers are truly similar in performance if they are both "60WPC RMS". If one is properly rated as 60WPC RMS @ 6 ohms @ 1kHz @ 10% THD, and the other is 60WPC RMS @ 8 ohms @ 5Hz-50kHz @ 0.05% THD, then we may expect a considerable difference between them in their performance. This is one of those cases where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as one may imagine one knows more than one does.

There are, however, two areas in which many vintage components exceed typical modern ones, and those areas are quality of construction and tuner performance.

 

[MacManNM]

It is quite false. However, many of the older receivers were designed for 4-ohm usage, whereas many modern ones are not. And, of course, continuous power output does not tell one what useable peak output there may be. And some companies have been more conservative than others in their claims.

A watt is a watt, which confuses many people, because one must also specify things like impedance and distortion figures and frequency(s) to know whether two amplifiers are truly similar in performance if they are both "60WPC RMS". If one is properly rated as 60WPC RMS @ 6 ohms @ 1kHz @ 10% THD, and the other is 60WPC RMS @ 8 ohms @ 5Hz-50kHz @ 0.05% THD, then we may expect a considerable difference between them in their performance. This is one of those cases where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as one may imagine one knows more than one does.

There are, however, two areas in which many vintage components exceed typical modern ones, and those areas are quality of construction and tuner performance.

I must disagree. Most vintage pieces can deliver much more power than todays receivers. An example of this is the ability to drive a 4 ohm load. Most of the older pieces could deliver double the wattage into a 4 ohm load compared to an 8 ohm load, and the THD was the same.

I will use one of Buckeys standards for amps:

An old Marantz 2245 receiver, was rated at 45 W/ch 8 ohms. It weighed 32lbs.
A Yamaha 5830 is 100 w/ch 8ohms and weighs in at 19lbs.

Lets not forget that this Yamaha is supposed to be 5 Chan.


The performance of the Marantz unit far exceeds that of the Yamaha, I know because I own one of each.

 

[jaxvon]

I'm not sure what to think. I was using this to drive my BICs at home. I'm driving them now at college with a Pioneer 1015tx. As of right now, that old Yamaha makes the Pioneer sound like a toy.

 

[Snap]

I thought (key words here are "thought") that older ways of testing amps ratings were more accurate. Let me explain my thoughts. (They might be wrong so if so please correct me)

Back in the day they used to test amps accross a whole spectrum of freqs. Both individually and as a whole. An Amp will draw more power reproducing several freqs, than it will doing let say 1. It is my understanding that older amps were tested this way to determine out put power.

Now days (I THINK) lots of companies use a select group of freqs, and do not test them over the whole system. So an amp might be rated for a certain power at only certain feqs. But throw in the whole bach, and the amp does not produce the ammount of power it is rated at.

Keep in mind I am NOT saying this to be a fact. Just what some older Pro Audio Guys have told me before.

I tend to believe them.

Just my .02 cents on the subject!
Blessed,
Snap

 

[dponeill]

So my 70's vintage Pioneer SX-1260 was really 800 wpc?

 

[jaxvon]

Har har. No one said that. And besides, we're only talking two channel.

 

[Pyrrho]

It is quite false. However, many of the older receivers were designed for 4-ohm usage, whereas many modern ones are not. And, of course, continuous power output does not tell one what useable peak output there may be. And some companies have been more conservative than others in their claims.

A watt is a watt, which confuses many people, because one must also specify things like impedance and distortion figures and frequency(s) to know whether two amplifiers are truly similar in performance if they are both "60WPC RMS". If one is properly rated as 60WPC RMS @ 6 ohms @ 1kHz @ 10% THD, and the other is 60WPC RMS @ 8 ohms @ 5Hz-50kHz @ 0.05% THD, then we may expect a considerable difference between them in their performance. This is one of those cases where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as one may imagine one knows more than one does.

There are, however, two areas in which many vintage components exceed typical modern ones, and those areas are quality of construction and tuner performance.

I must disagree. Most vintage pieces can deliver much more power than todays receivers. An example of this is the ability to drive a 4 ohm load.

You might want to reread the post to which you are claiming disagreement. I said what you are now saying in my second sentence regarding 4-ohm loads.

Most of the older pieces could deliver double the wattage into a 4 ohm load compared to an 8 ohm load, and the THD was the same.

I think you are mistaken on that. Many delivered more power into 4 ohms than into 8 ohms, but I doubt that very many could actually double their output into 4 ohms, particularly with no additional THD. Do you have any examples that do this? How many examples do you have? You should be able to produce quite a few examples of this, as you claim that "most" of the older pieces could do this.

I can give you a couple of examples that are not rated as you say, such as the Pioneer SX-1250, rated at 160 watts RMS per channel into 8 ohms, and 200 watts RMS per channel into 4 ohms, with the same THD; and the McIntosh MAC-1700, rated at 40 watts RMS per channel at both 4 and 8 ohms, with the same THD; Kenwood KR-7050 rated at 85 watts RMS @ 1kHz @ 8 ohms and 100 watts RMS @ 1 kHz @ 4 ohms, without saying it is the same THD (also rated as 80 watts RMS @ 8 ohms @ 20-20kHz @ 0.02% THD); Kenwood KR-6200 rated at 60 watts continuous @ 4 ohms both channels driven and 50 watts continuous @ 50 watts @ 8 ohms both channels driven.

In fact, I cannot recall ever seeing a vintage unit that was honestly rated as you say.

Now, if you mean to suggest that they actually do perform as you say, despite the manufacturers claims, then we need to hear more about the actual measurements that you, or someone else, has taken.

I will use one of Buckeys standards for amps:

An old Marantz 2245 receiver, was rated at 45 W/ch 8 ohms. It weighed 32lbs.
A Yamaha 5830 is 100 w/ch 8ohms and weighs in at 19lbs.

Do you really think that you can measure performance by the pound? That the heavier one always puts out more power? If so, you must imagine that tubes are really powerful. Don't you think that, for example, if someone made an amplifier, and then used heat sinks for one version of it, but a cooling fan for the other, that this could make a difference in weight, although we are really talking about what is otherwise the same amplifier? Don't you think that weight is more likely to tell us more about the quality of construction of the item, which is something I already mentioned?

Lets not forget that this Yamaha is supposed to be 5 Chan.


The performance of the Marantz unit far exceeds that of the Yamaha, I know because I own one of each.

Have you actually measured the performance of each? Ownership is not the same as measurement.

 

[Pyrrho]

I thought (key words here are "thought") that older ways of testing amps ratings were more accurate. Let me explain my thoughts. (They might be wrong so if so please correct me)

Back in the day they used to test amps accross a whole spectrum of freqs. Both individually and as a whole. An Amp will draw more power reproducing several freqs, than it will doing let say 1. It is my understanding that older amps were tested this way to determine out put power.

Now days (I THINK) lots of companies use a select group of freqs, and do not test them over the whole system. So an amp might be rated for a certain power at only certain feqs. But throw in the whole bach, and the amp does not produce the ammount of power it is rated at.

Keep in mind I am NOT saying this to be a fact. Just what some older Pro Audio Guys have told me before.

I tend to believe them.

Just my .02 cents on the subject!
Blessed,
Snap

Rating at specific frequencies, and ranges of frequencies, was common in "olden times", and rating both ways is still common (take a look at the specifications page of your manual). One must pay attention to all of the details of the ratings to know what to compare. Also, if we go back far enough, before RMS ratings were required, the ratings were all over the place, which is why some standards were made.

For an example of a troublesome rating, consider the Kenwood KR-6200. It was rated as:

Dynamic Power Output (IHF):
Both CH. 4 ohms 1 kHz: 240 watts.
Both CH. 8 ohms 1 kHz: 190 watts.
Continuous Power Output:
Each CH. 4 ohms 1 kHz: 80/80 watts.
Each CH. 8 ohms 1 kHz: 60/60 watts.
Both CH. 4 ohms 1 kHz: 60/60 watts.
Both CH. 8 ohms 1 kHz: 50/50 watts.
Both CH. 8 ohms 20-20kHz: 45/45 watts.
Harmonic Distortion (at rated): 0.5%.
(at -3 dB rated): 0.1%.
I.M. Distortion (at rated): 0.5%.
(at -3 dB rated): 0.2%.
Frequency Response: 20-40kHz +/- 2 dB.*
Power Band Width (IHF): 13-30,000 Hz.


Now, answer quick (without rereading anything), how much power does it put out? The olden days were more full of confusion than today, though the RMS requirements changed that. Oh, and assuming that the ratings are correct, I would call this a forty five watt per channel receiver. I have no idea how it was advertised, but would not be surprised if individual stores quoted different ratings in their print ads.



*The frequency response is with a "high level input" (i.e., not phono), and represents the combined performance of the preamp and power amp section.

 

[j_garcia]

Ratings aside, the best way to tell how much an amp puts out is to listen to it if at all possible. You'll need to consider the speakers being used as well as the room, but you'll still get a decent idea whether or not it is capable of pumping out real power.

 

[Pyrrho]

Har har. No one said that. And besides, we're only talking two channel.

Actually, that is what they are saying. You might want to reread the initial claim:

Would you agree with this statement?

Concerning a vintage receiver:

Power Rating: RMS power ratings are 4-5 time greater than todays PP power ratings. Example: 60WPC RMS power equals approximately 240WPC under todays PP power ratings.

 

[MacManNM]

I think you are mistaken on that. Many delivered more power into 4 ohms than into 8 ohms, but I doubt that very many could actually double their output into 4 ohms, particularly with no additional THD. Do you have any examples that do this? How many examples do you have? You should be able to produce quite a few examples of this, as you claim that "most" of the older pieces could do this.

I can give you a couple of examples that are not rated as you say, such as the Pioneer SX-1250, rated at 160 watts RMS per channel into 8 ohms, and 200 watts RMS per channel into 4 ohms, with the same THD; and the McIntosh MAC-1700, rated at 40 watts RMS per channel at both 4 and 8 ohms, with the same THD; Kenwood KR-7050 rated at 85 watts RMS @ 1kHz @ 8 ohms and 100 watts RMS @ 1 kHz @ 4 ohms, without saying it is the same THD (also rated as 80 watts RMS @ 8 ohms @ 20-20kHz @ 0.02% THD); Kenwood KR-6200 rated at 60 watts continuous @ 4 ohms both channels driven and 50 watts continuous @ 50 watts @ 8 ohms both channels driven.

In fact, I cannot recall ever seeing a vintage unit that was honestly rated as you say.

Most units were measured at 8 ohms, they really didn't rate at 4 ohms in the 70's.

Now, if you mean to suggest that they actually do perform as you say, despite the manufacturers claims, then we need to hear more about the actual measurements that you, or someone else, has taken.

My Proton D1200, rated that way. Bose 1801 amp, rated and measured by me. Marantz 2245, I measured 69 W/ch both driven, less than 1% THD @1kHz 8 ohms. Never measured @ 4 but I know it will at least double the advertised 45.

Do you really think that you can measure performance by the pound?

To a point. It is a very good indicator.

That the heavier one always puts out more power?

Weight is a direct indicator of build quality, and the size of the power supply, large power supply generally means large output capability.

If so, you must imagine that tubes are really powerful.

1. we are talking about solid state units.

2. If you remove the output transformers from a Tube amp, Or build one without transformers, they are quite lite.

Don't you think that, for example, if someone made an amplifier, and then used heat sinks for one version of it, but a cooling fan for the other, that this could make a difference in weight, although we are really talking about what is otherwise the same amplifier?

1. Aluminum heat sinks weigh nothing compared to the rest of the amp.

2. My Bose 1801 is built both ways, the one with the fan is heavier.

Don't you think that weight is more likely to tell us more about the quality of construction of the item, which is something I already mentioned?

Asked and answered.

Have you actually measured the performance of each? Ownership is not the same as measurement.

I have made measurements on several vintage pieces. Including Pioneer, Marantz, Mcintosh, Proton, Bose. ALL of the units exceeded their spec.

 

[Snap]

Pyrrho- I would say that it is a 45 watt amp as well. But it would not suprise me if it was listed as an 80 watt per chan amp. They probably got away with that due to the fact that in some cases it is an 80 watt amp.

The old timers still sware by the their statment that the new generation of amps people are fibbing about what they can or can not put out.

I bet your High End stuff is more accurate. Classe, McIntosh, Bryston, and may be even some of the middle/high end as well. Earthquake, Parasound, Rotel and the such.

Some of the good amps actually put copies of there test sheets with the amp.

 

[MacManNM]

Rating at specific frequencies, and ranges of frequencies, was common in "olden times", and rating both ways is still common (take a look at the specifications page of your manual). One must pay attention to all of the details of the ratings to know what to compare. Also, if we go back far enough, before RMS ratings were required, the ratings were all over the place, which is why some standards were made.

For an example of a troublesome rating, consider the Kenwood KR-6200. It was rated as:

Dynamic Power Output (IHF):
Both CH. 4 ohms 1 kHz: 240 watts.
Both CH. 8 ohms 1 kHz: 190 watts.
Continuous Power Output:
Each CH. 4 ohms 1 kHz: 80/80 watts.
Each CH. 8 ohms 1 kHz: 60/60 watts.
Both CH. 4 ohms 1 kHz: 60/60 watts.
Both CH. 8 ohms 1 kHz: 50/50 watts.
Both CH. 8 ohms 20-20kHz: 45/45 watts.
Harmonic Distortion (at rated): 0.5%.
(at -3 dB rated): 0.1%.
I.M. Distortion (at rated): 0.5%.
(at -3 dB rated): 0.2%.
Frequency Response: 20-40kHz +/- 2 dB.*
Power Band Width (IHF): 13-30,000 Hz.


Now, answer quick (without rereading anything), how much power does it put out? The olden days were more full of confusion than today, though the RMS requirements changed that. Oh, and assuming that the ratings are correct, I would call this a forty five watt per channel receiver. I have no idea how it was advertised, but would not be surprised if individual stores quoted different ratings in their print ads.



*The frequency response is with a "high level input" (i.e., not phono), and represents the combined performance of the preamp and power amp section.

You couldn't have picked a better unit for your example. Kenwood back then was no better than it is today. Junk.

 

[Snap]

You couldn't have picked a better unit for your example. Kenwood back then was no better than it is today. Junk.

That is funny right there, I do not care who you are.

 

[gene]

thus the reason why we write articles which apparantly few of our forum members get a chance to read:

Product Managing Receiver Platforms

also using the weight analogy isn't always applicable if you aren't comparing apples to apples. The old vintage receivers from 70/80s had all wooden chassis constructions, very inefficienct power supplys, lesser designed transistors that had higher drop off voltages than many of the ones offered today, larger sized components such as caps, b/c the dielectric materials used then, etc.

That being said, some of those 2CH receivers did put out some good power in low impedances, but they weren't powering 7 speakers like todays multi channel receivers are. But if you want more power, simply by a new 2CH amp. Its usually a better option than buying/using a dated receiver with parts that are so old (screaming replacement otherwise you have compromised performance). I'd hate to see/measure some of the electrolytic caps from electronics of that era

 

[Snap]

thus the reason why we write articles which apparantly few of our forum members get a chance to read:

Product Managing Receiver Platforms

Great article thanks for pointing it out to me.

 

[MacManNM]

thus the reason why we write articles which apparantly few of our forum members get a chance to read:

Product Managing Receiver Platforms

also using the weight analogy isn't always applicable if you aren't comparing apples to apples. The old vintage receivers from 70/80s had all wooden chassis constructions, very inefficienct power supplys, lesser designed transistors that had higher drop off voltages than many of the ones offered today, larger sized components such as caps, b/c the dielectric materials used then, etc.

That being said, some of those 2CH receivers did put out some good power in low impedances, but they weren't powering 7 speakers like todays multi channel receivers are. But if you want more power, simply by a new 2CH amp. Its usually a better option than buying/using a dated receiver with parts that are so old screaming replacement otherwise you have compromised performance. I'd hate to see/measure some of the electrolytic caps from electronics of that era

I don't know Gene, amplification hasn't changed much in 30 years. Power supplies still use a transformer, rectifier, and a few caps. As far as transistors, there are some minor differences, but in the big picture, they are the same. Weight is an unscientific way to measure quality. You speak of todays receivers powering 7 channels, I guess that's true as long as it's not all at the same time. http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14222