Would you agree with this statement?

[Audioholics]

I don't know Gene, amplification hasn't changed much in 30 years.

Did you read what he wrote to you? There's a lot that has changed. Check out that article. It was written by a former Yamaha Prouct Manger who's seen it all evolve.

 

[gene]

Materials have changed, such as core material in transformers, winding methods, dielectric materials in caps, board layers, power supply topologies, amplifier topologies, etc. Wood is heavier than stamped sheet metal too

of course if you're happy with 70's style receivers and vintage BOSE speakers, more power to ya

You speak of todays receivers powering 7 channels, I guess that's true as long as it's not all at the same time.

I guess you didn't bother to read our article on Product Managing Receiver platforms. If you did, you would see how the 100 watt rating is derived today compared to the older days of 2CH receivers.

 

[mtrycrafts]

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

Yes, of course, what ever you wish it to be

 

[mtrycrafts]

Both CH. 8 ohms 1 kHz: 50/50 watts.
Both CH. 8 ohms 20-20kHz: 45/45 watts.
.

As we can see, there is very little power difference between the 1kHz and full band power rating

 

[mtrycrafts]

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.

You can tell how much power is coming out just by listening? That is amazing.

 

[MacManNM]

Did you read what he wrote to you? There's a lot that has changed. Check out that article. It was written by a former Yamaha Prouct Manger who's seen it all evolve.

The article doesn't mention anything about the changing technology of amplifiers, it more or less points out how manufacturers cheat to rate their products 100W/ch

 

[MacManNM]

Materials have changed, such as core material in transformers, winding methods, dielectric materials in caps, board layers, power supply topologies, amplifier topologies, etc. Wood is heavier than stamped sheet metal too

Really? Can you please tell me what materials have changed? The combination of all of today’s technological advances in materials and methods account for maybe 5% improvement. This improvement isn’t in quality, just in weight. So today’s stuff should weigh 5% less. As far as the wood goes, those were mostly cosmetic and an option. In actuality, the stamped steel is heavier because back then they used heavier gauge steel.

of course if you're happy with 70's style receivers and vintage BOSE speakers, more power to ya

I don't recall ever mentioning Bose speakers. I did mention a Bose amp, one that I'm confident will outperform ANY 250W/ch amp on the market today.

I guess you didn't bother to read our article on Product Managing Receiver platforms. If you did, you would see how the 100 watt rating is derived today compared to the older days of 2CH receivers.

I read it, so they cheat today to rate their stuff better. It just shows how much better that Marantz 2245 is than todays stuff.

 

[mtrycrafts]

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.

They would have gotten away with it before the FTC standardized power rating. When it was frontier days in quoting power, anything went.

 

[jaxvon]

They would have gotten away with it before the FTC standardized power rating. When it was frontier days in quoting power, anything went.

Oh no! Not the FTC! We can't cheat anymore!

Seriously, man. Government agencies don't have that much swing. People play the game to put on a pretty face, but only to make it look good.

Regarding my comment earlier about my vintage Yamaha (actually my father's), I was speaking ONLY of two channel performance. Now, it's quite possible that I have a lemon 1015tx, but for 2ch listening the CR1020 stomps the Pioneer. It has amazing clarity and power. I had it cranked up to the point where I needed hearing protection to be in the same room as my speakers (and this was in an open basement, half finished). This was at half volume. According to the VU meters, I was hitting peaks above 50w and putting around 10w into the speakers continuosly. This is a receiver rated at 75wpc, both channels driven into 8 ohms at 1kHz.

 

[mtrycrafts]

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

So then, how do you know what they would do into 4 ohms? Psychic powers??? Wishful thinking??? Or, because a few may have, all must have been able???



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.

Measure it then and tell us, don't speculate or surmise that it must if it is a Marantz.

 

[j_garcia]

You can tell how much power is coming out just by listening? That is amazing.

I don't know about you, but I can tell if it's a POS putting out very little power or decent power by listening to it, accounting for a few factors. I DID NOT say I could tell how much power it was putting out, just that it will be obvious if it is not capable of delivering. Maybe I should pick it up too? Smell it? Lick it? Are you saying your ears don't tell you what you need to know about an amp? Maybe you need a technical paper to prove to you what you're hearing?

I can tell the difference between a Ferrari and a Geo Metro by driving them, without knowing how much horsepower they put out.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I don't recall ever mentioning Bose speakers. I did mention a Bose amp, one that I'm confident will outperform ANY 250W/ch amp on the market today..

Confident??? Is that from actual measurements, or extrapolation of weight and the olden days were so much better.

It would be much better if you would post hard facts, data from measurements, on a comparable amp today and the Bose amp you speak of.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The article doesn't mention anything about the changing technology of amplifiers, it more or less points out how manufacturers cheat to rate their products 100W/ch

Cheat??? Tell it to FTC then. Or, perhaps you just don't like the way the rules are??? Then complain to the FTC.

 

[mtrycrafts]

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.

In the end, it would depend on how each component is measure. But if your example is based on equivalent measurements, no. Watts are watts as was mentioned. Some just cannot get beyond the 'good old days.'

 

[MacManNM]

Confident??? Is that from actual measurements, or extrapolation of weight and the olden days were so much better.

It would be much better if you would post hard facts, data from measurements, on a comparable amp today and the Bose amp you speak of.

I believe I said that I made measurements on this unit. I believe that there is a previous post on it also.

 

[MacManNM]

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

So then, how do you know what they would do into 4 ohms? Psychic powers??? Wishful thinking??? Or, because a few may have, all must have been able???


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.

Measure it then and tell us, don't speculate or surmise that it must if it is a Marantz.

The proton is specd. according to your precious FTC rules, and I have measured the Bose. The Marantz, I have measured, but not at 4 ohms.

 

[gene]

Macman;

you seem to love arguing. Perhaps if you designed magnetics for a living like I used to before doing Audioholics, you would realize that b/c of better materials these days one can design lighter weight cores of similar performance to ones 20-30% larger a few decades ago.

I believe I said that I made measurements on this unit. I believe that there is a previous post on it also.

Really and what kind of measurements did you do other than ALL CHANNELS POWER TESTS?

I did mention a Bose amp, one that I'm confident will outperform ANY 250W/ch amp on the market today.

What metrics do you judge your definitive statement about the superiority of your Bose amp? Perhaps they should bring that amp back to market today. I bet that amp paired with some BIC speakers must achieve sonic bliss, though I wonder how much power your BIC's can handle from the Bose before the voice coils start to sizzle?

 

[PENG]

This is refreshing, no name calling so far. There is nothing wrong with some debating and/or "arguing" on an interesting subject such as this one. Let's hope this is sustainable.

 

[MacManNM]

Materials have changed, such as core material in transformers, winding methods, dielectric materials in caps, board layers, power supply topologies, amplifier topologies, etc. Wood is heavier than stamped sheet metal too

I ask that you answer this. The overall gain in technology is virtually nothing. There may be a 5% gain in overall compactness of units (due to the combination of some of the things you mention). Caps haven’t changed drastically, nor have transistors, unless you are speaking of Fets. It boils down to none of this means anything. So what has changed?

Macman;
you seem to love arguing. Perhaps if you designed magnetics for a living like I used to before doing Audioholics, you would realize that b/c of better materials these days one can design ligher weight cores of similar performance to ones 20-30% larger a few decades ago.

Really? Let’s say that the core material of a transformer accounts for 10% of the weight of the entire unit. If that material is reduced by 20-30% then that is an overall savings of 2-3%. Hardly 33% as I stated previously. Now, what about the fact that the units of today are 5 or 7 channels? The units of today should be heavier than the 2 channel units of the 70’s even with the savings in the core material. Is that core material even being used in today’s audio equipment? What is that material?

Really and what kind of measurements did you do other than ALL CHANNELS POWER TESTS?

Well, I make measurements every day. I measure HPM, and femtosecond lasers for a living. Audio is a little out of my band, but I don’t think it should be a problem.

What metrics do you judge your definitive statement about the superiority of your Bose amp? Perhaps they should bring that amp back to market today. I bet that amp paired with some BIC speakers must achieve sonic bliss, though I wonder how much power your BIC's can handle from the Bose before the voice coils start to sizzle?

Well they won’t bring it back to market because I doubt the mass market wants a 90lb 250W/ch amp. The BIC comment, come on isn’t that a little petty? How about we take my vintage equipment and do a measurement? My C-28 and XR-16’s powered by that Bose amp, vs, anything you can muster for let’s say 10x the price I paid for everything. Let’s do some room measurements and see how short this vintage stuff really falls. Sounds fair to me.

 

[MacManNM]

Macman;

you seem to love arguing. Perhaps if you designed magnetics for a living like I used to

How do you design magnetics exactly?