Yamaha RX-Z9 - av_phile hijacked thread

[av_phile]

AV_Phile;

I feel I need to interject here for a moment as many of your statements are a bit misplaced. Yamaha never claimed the Z9 will deliver 170watts x 7 simultaneously. I know it may seem a bit misleading but welcome to the audio world where marketing rules! The truth is there really is no standard for multichannel power claims. Most manufacturers rate their amps on a per channel basis. They test at 1kHz because that does yield a slightly higher #. What you may also not realize is most reviewers make all channels power measurements while holding the line voltage constant (yet they don't usually state that). IMO a bogus test, far from real world. The majority of receivers and even power amps use unregulated power supplies (for a variety of reasons I won't expand upon here). Thus as the line voltage drops, so do the rails on the amps, especially when the Xformer saturates and the power supply caps run out of gas.

The all channels driven test is a bit of a misnomer. When do we actually listen to all channels driven simultaneously at full bandwidth continuously? If you do, you should get your hearing checked and your speakers to make sure nothing is blown.

The reality is the average power consumption of the receiver is much lower than you would expect, especially in todays home theater realm where all speakers are about 90dB SPL sensitive or higher, set to small, crossed over at 80Hz and have dedicated powered subwoofers (where the real power is needed!).

What amazes me is how people squabble over a few watts for an unrealistic test and forget all of the technical merits, features and quality of the product. I agree playing the power game can get annoying, but Yamaha is far from being the first at doing this. Would you rather have a product with a substandard digital amp that claims even higher power (incidentally much higher distortion and noise) with much less processing power, features, and fidelity simply because it will deliver more power?

I see now more than ever I need to slow down on writing cable articles and start writing articles on amplifier power

Thanks for responding, Gene. Let me respond to your points which are kinda surprising for me.

(1) Firstly let me again point out that I am not cirticizing the Z9 receiver on it own. I am posting my distress at the technical write-up on the power specs. This applies not just for Yamaha but for most other new japanese models. Let me put on record that I am in fact astounded by the Z9 preamp's audio and video features as truly awesome and virtually future-proof. I am sure, the reciever will sound excellent under normal listening conditions. But in posting my critical comments on the specs, I just want to point out its overstated power features so as not to mislead users to expect something it cannot deliver, nor make any user wonder why it wouldn't sound as powerful as one similarly rated but conservatively measured. And I welcome most openly discussions to this end and to prove me wrong.

(2) The Z9 is a multi channel equipment and as such, when its power spec tells you it has 170 wpc, it cannot but be interpreted as a 170 wpc amp SIMULTANEOUSLY for ALL channels. (Let's talk about its 7 identical channels and forget about its lesser powered 8th and 9th channel) The consumer expects THAT and when he talks about it with his fellow audiophiles, he uses that spec to say he has a 170 wpc multi-ch amp. How can such a spec be interpreted as "not to claim...simultaneously" for all channels??? Pls enlighten me. The spec is quite clear, let me quote:

Front channels: 170w + 170w
Center Channel: 170w
Surround Channels: 170w + 170w
Surround Back Channel: 170w + 170w

Here the Z9 did measure it as "Minimum RMS Ouput" for all audible frequencies 20hz - 20Khz at 0.015% THD, using FTC standards. FINE. But it says nothing about ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN, unlike some amps I know. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But look at the power consumption figures at the back: 1000 watts. It looks the part, the heft of the torroid suggests it's a 1KVA similar to that in some amps i've seen but with smaller ratings. With an extensive preamp circuit and another 8th and 9th channels beside, where will the amp get extra power to deliver 1,190 watts for its 7 channels when it eats only 1,000 watts?
OK so I can concede Japanese amps are more efficient. Someone should nominate them for a Nobel prize in Physics for overcoming that immutable law that says you can't give more than what you took in.

So it's a nominal electric power rating. So is the "minimum RMS output." Still not congruent. More so if its a maximum electric power rating. I strongly suggest you compare this with a Rotel or an Aragon multi-channel amp electric power specification vis-a-vis their audio output power specification and see what I mean.

(3) I am surprised to learn there is "no standard" for measuring multi-channel amps. True, they're a recent phenomenon (albeit, 10 years don't seem to make it new is it?) relative to the more than half-century evolution of the modern audio industry. But let's face it, when there is this EIAA, FTC, RIAA, etc etc standards specifying how to measure an amplifier's power output, it beggars the mind to accept the notion there is no standard. What have I been reading all along in amp specs?

Let me say that the standards we have known regarding a conservative measurement of a stereo 2-ch amp's power should likewise be observed when rating a 100-channel amp. Using a 20hz-20khz test tone sweep or pink noise while driving ALL the channels to extract power from its transformer and into an 8-ohm load (resistive or real) at an audiophile grade distortion of no more than 0.05% or lower, we can expect a conservative audiophile power rating that is consistent across many brands and models and a prudent basis for comparison in terms of what can be expected as its power out. Just that.

Now if a manufacturer devitates from that and measures his baby's power only at 1Khz driving only ONE channel and into a 4ohm load at a clipping distortion of 1% or some other, boy, you can expect a really high power figure there.

(3) There is nothing unrealistic about having ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN as the basis for real-life expectation. Do you listen to your Stereo amp with only one channel? Do you listen to your multi-channel amp with only one channel?

Further, there is nothing unrealistic about expecting all audible frequencies to have the same power available to them than just at 1Khz. Do you listen to music at only 1Khz? While it is true that in real musical passages, not all frequencies are reproduced at any instant of time, my goodness, they're definitely a lot more than just 1Khz. To state your power at that point as if to imply or suggest that THAT is the power the consumer can expect when listening to music smacks of deception. In my school days in a true-or-false exam, if a statement is partly true, it is still false. Half-truths are still lies. They're more insiduous as they mislead the unwary. It's not even an inidcation of the power available to all the frequencies. 1Khz is the easiest with which to measure power rating. But the power available at 1khz can be so much more than the power available at 100hz. Much less when all the frequencies are being worked on by the amp at the same time. And much less if all the channels are driven at the same time.

(4) "The reality is the average power consumption of the receiver is much lower than you would expect," True, so what is so wrong about telling it as it is. NAD, Harman-Kardon, Rotel, Acurus, Aragon, they tell it as such. They state their power output as CONTINUOUS with ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN into conservative 8-ohm loads and across all the 20hz-20khz audible spectra.

Now if a manufacturer comes along and states his amp has 300wpc based on 1Khz with only ONE channel driven and into 4-ohm load, is the would-be owner correct in claiming he's got a more powerful amp than someone else's NAD conservatively rated at 120 wpc across all audible frequencies with All channels driven into 8 ohms? I can understand if he does, he's been mislead by an overstated specs.

(5) Yamaha is certainly not the first to play the annoying "power game." I've seen Pioneers and Onkyos do the same. All, in the obvious effort to get more customers who, rightly or wrongly, believe that the higher the power the better. What is more galling is the first part of the Z9 power specs that read and I quote:

DIN standard output power (4 ohms, 1khz, 0.7% THD)
Front channels: 300w + 300w
Center Channel: 300w
Surround Channels: 300w + 300w
Surround Back Channel: 300w + 300w

What is Yamaha thinking about? Is this a 300 watt multichannel amplifer or a 170 watt multi-channel amplifer? This is a totally USELESS and utterly misleading specification. Look at the back panel again and read the very revealing SPEAKER IMPEDANCE Caution: MINUMUM 6-ohms/8-ohms. Does Yamaha expect the user to use 4-ohm speakers and expect it will last an afternoon delivering 300 watts per channel?

With such DIN conditions as I've stated above, you can really extract the most numbers. But what for?

If the objective is to capture more customers to buy their products, it would seem to me that these overstated specs are no different from the P.M.P.O. specs of most HITBs. Let me close by saying, i probabaly won't be the last word on this. But if this forum is interested in TRUTH the way I staunchly believe it does with cables and other myths, then talking about overstated specs would go a long way to unmasking the truth behind many japanese brands that so enthusiastically overstate their power specs.

 

[av_phile]

Here is a nice quote from the website of NAD to bolster my point on conservative power rating which Yamaha and other japanese brands might have missed: (underscoring mine)

On the C352 integrated stereo amp:

NAD also takes a stand against the meaningless “brochure power” touted by many of our competitors by offering Full Disclosure power specs. We specify minimum continuous power, across the entire audible range of frequencies, at rated distortion, for both 8 and 4 ohms with all channels driven simultaneously.

Now if only all ampflier specification conformed to this....

 

[Yamahaluver]

Here is a nice quote from the website of NAD to bolster my point on conservative power rating which Yamaha and other japanese brands might have missed: (underscoring mine)

On the C352 integrated stereo amp:

NAD also takes a stand against the meaningless “brochure power” touted by many of our competitors by offering Full Disclosure power specs. We specify minimum continuous power, across the entire audible range of frequencies, at rated distortion, for both 8 and 4 ohms with all channels driven simultaneously.

Now if only all ampflier specification conformed to this....

Every Yamaha amp brochure states its minimum bandwidth power as well if you care to look, for instance the MX-1 power is quoted at 200+200, 8ohms 20Hz-20KHz at 0.008% THD. Now what more can you specificaly ask for.

Talking about NAD( capacitor blow in one year), isnt this the same company which would put a little green sticker in the front fascia of its amps advertising 440W PMPO, WOW! and I thought that PMPO was for comapct NO-FI music systems.

It seems your quest is to totally belittle Japanese amps, past and present and this is meaningless, if you are happy with your flabby NAD sound, or non musical, mechanical ROTEL, so be it. Why go about a crusade against Japanese products when it seems you hardly even care to read the manual or even care to own one. We love our false claim Japanese amps and even though I have been a Krell, B&K, Creek owner in the past, wouldnt go back to them even if they were offered free to me.

 

[gene]

AV_Phile;

My time is limited so I will point out a few concerns with your post:

1) Aragon amps at least their 2000/3000 series DO NOT rate with all channels driven. Look at their spec again! Take a look at this article we did awhile back for more info:
Aragon FAQ
Only their old 8008 multichannel amps and Palladiums did infact rate power with all channels driven and again since the power supplies were unregulated, that figure was only valid if the line voltage was held constant.


2) Ok so lets Say NAD and a few others do rate power with all channels driven (again with line voltage held constant, but they don't tell you that) and a NAD flagship does in fact deliver 120wpc X 7, the Z9 for example (never stated all channels driven) will likely do between 120-140wpc x 7 all channels driven at full bandwidth based on the massive 1.2KVA transformer (maybe larger, will look at schematics this weekend).

Again its a matter of semantics how one company rates differently than another. No Where in the Yamaha literature does it state simultaneously. If it did, that would be another story.

I am pretty sure the rating on the back of the Z9 for 1000watts is not a maximum consumption rating. In the past they used to rate all channels driven at 1/8th power on their receivers, not sure how they are rating it now. If you notice the 1200VA rating on the unit, that seems to indicate the true capability of the product. To my knowledge, no current A/V receiver has a larger transformer than that. Also notice they use 80V caps which is about 5V higher than needed to get 170wpc with sufficent margin. More later....

 

[Unregistered]

German review / comparisons

http://www.areadvd.de/hardware/bolidencheck.shtml contains a comparison of the current high end amps. There are also comprehensive individual reviews on that site. Use www.systranlinks.com or the free IBM translator to get the gist if, like me, your German is not up to it.

 

[av_phile]

Every Yamaha amp brochure states its minimum bandwidth power as well if you care to look, for instance the MX-1 power is quoted at 200+200, 8ohms 20Hz-20KHz at 0.008% THD. Now what more can you specificaly ask for.

Talking about NAD( capacitor blow in one year), isnt this the same company which would put a little green sticker in the front fascia of its amps advertising 440W PMPO, WOW! and I thought that PMPO was for comapct NO-FI music systems.

It seems your quest is to totally belittle Japanese amps, past and present and this is meaningless, if you are happy with your flabby NAD sound, or non musical, mechanical ROTEL, so be it. Why go about a crusade against Japanese products when it seems you hardly even care to read the manual or even care to own one. We love our false claim Japanese amps and even though I have been a Krell, B&K, Creek owner in the past, wouldnt go back to them even if they were offered free to me.

You better read my post and let your brain do a little more understanding. ALL Channels Driven. GET That?

For you to say I belittle japanese amps further betrays your deductive abilities. Read again.

And show me a NAD model that has PMPO in it. And I'll show you Emperor Hirohito's cheeky bottoms.

 

[Yamahaluver]

Read Gene's take on the all channel driven concept and you will see the point if you still have some logic left in you and I am certainly not into bottoms of Hirohitho.

NAD in the 80s and 90s used to sell their amps with the little green sticker with 400W PMPO written, maybe it is way before your time.

I can see that in each and every post in this forum, you are hell bent on attacking Japanese amps in general and it is evident in your advice to others. For me the word of wisdom Gene has spoken and therfore I need to speak no more in this matter. It will be fun when the review comes.

 

[av_phile]

1) Aragon amps at least their 2000/3000 series DO NOT rate with all channels driven. Look at their spec again! Take a look at this article we did awhile back for more info:
Aragon FAQ
Only their old 8008 multichannel amps and Palladiums did infact rate power with all channels driven and again since the power supplies were unregulated, that figure was only valid if the line voltage was held constant.

Like I said, there can only be one realistic way of measuring an amp's power. And that is to measure it with all channels driven across all audible frequencies driving a load that the consumer commonly uses. Anything less will unrealistically bloat any measured power rating.

I am not interested whether the measurement was done with the voltage held constant. After all I expect the line voltage to remain constant in the same way I expect my home power mains voltage to remain so. Remember that a good amp behaves as a constant voltage source. Almost all US and European amplifers behave as constant voltage sources, that's why they have very good high current capabilities when presented with difficult loads. In contract many Japanese amps behave like constant current sources. That's why they are hard put to deliver high current when called for. Current is what drives the speakers. Not voltage.

2) Ok so lets Say NAD and a few others do rate power with all channels driven (again with line voltage held constant, but they don't tell you that) and a NAD flagship does in fact deliver 120wpc X 7, the Z9 for example (never stated all channels driven) will likely do between 120-140wpc x 7 all channels driven at full bandwidth based on the massive 1.2KVA transformer (maybe larger, will look at schematics this weekend)..

Bull's eye!!!! If i were to make a DIY 7-ch amp with a 120wpc, 1.2kva is perhaps the minimum spec for the transformer I would use. Not only would it take care of my CONTINUOUS power, but PEAK transcient capability as well. But I'd prefer to use TWO 1KVA transformers, for more power reerves to handle peak transients.

Again its a matter of semantics how one company rates differently than another. No Where in the Yamaha literature does it state simultaneously. If it did, that would be another story

Yes and no. This is not just semantics. An uninformed sales guy will take just one look at the Z9 brochure, see the first line on the tech spec, and conclude this is a 300 watt per channel amp. He's not interested in what this DIN standard is or the 1khz or the 4 ohm load used to arrive at 300 watts. Likewise, an uninformed customer will see this first line and gasp at a 300 watt 9-channel amp that for $5000, tuners and preamps included, is a bargain compared to an Aragon 5-ch amp and preamp costing more, but only has a pathetic 200wpc!!!! Totally misleading, the latter is actually 2 db more powerful.

In NOT stating it's all channels driven, they're at least admitting it. They don't seem to want to add further to their hype. Good for them. It reveals that even their Continuous rating at all audible frequencies into 8 ohms is overstated, if measured with only one channel at a time. And you are absolutely right in saying the Z9 's real power is anywhere within 120w to 140w. NOT 170w. Thank you. More likely 120w.

Because i don't have the luxury to do an A/B listening test between various amp makes, nor do all the amps I shortlist make themselves available in one AV shop, i can only rely on their printed and web-loaded technical specs and brochures to try and make an informed decision. It is therefore important that amps be presented on a level playing field, as it were. The manner for doing this is quite clear and runs common across many specs.

I am pretty sure the rating on the back of the Z9 for 1000watts is not a maximum consumption rating. In the past they used to rate all channels driven at 1/8th power on their receivers, not sure how they are rating it now. If you notice the 1200VA rating on the unit, that seems to indicate the true capability of the product. To my knowledge, no current A/V receiver has a larger transformer than that. Also notice they use 80V caps which is about 5V higher than needed to get 170wpc with sufficent margin. More later...

I can find fault on japanese amps hyping their output power ratings to attract customers. But one thing is sure, when it comes to electrical power consumption, they will never compromise the safety of consumer households. Not the japanese. Underating an appliance's power consumption is not only an electrical safety hazard but a clear violation of the rules of local and international regulatory agencies. That 1000 watts and 1kva rating IS maximum. It cannot be otherwise or it risks electrical fires from overloaded household mains.

Even that 1.2KVA rating won't clear it. 170w x 7 is 1190. Just sufficient to cover it. Where will the Z9 get the power to drive the other 2 channels, again overrated at 50wpc. And the preamp circuitry, which i imagine should eat somewhere in the 30 watt point????? And where may I ask, will it get the power to generate the supposed dynamic power that according to spec goes up to 580 watts PER Channel at 2 ohm load? That's a cool 4060 watts!!! Even for a few milliseconds, from a 1.2KVA transformer??? This dynamic headroom is another misleading spec from Yamaha, and like you, I'd say more on this later....

Again, pls check your Aragon power amps and just correlate the 2.5KVA transformer in it that generously gives a really believable 200watts of continuous power from just 5 channels into 8 ohms and 400watts into 4. With enough reserves for instantaneous peak demands that can deliver a 1.5db headroom into either loads. Then compare that to the Z9. Not the power output as they are different, but the relationship between power consumption and output power with dynamic headroom. Check also the Acurus amps, the NADs, Harman Kardons and Rotels. You will see what I am talking about. It's so easy comparing these brands in terms of power rating as they all measured conservatively, properly and credibly.

 

[gene]

AV_Phile;

I see you still have some preconceived misconceptions about power, ratings, and standards used to test them. After I complete my Z9 review, I will write an article about this using much of your dialog here to clear things up. The Dynamic power Yamaha lists is in fact dynamic based on an IHF standard to deliver large amounts of power to handle brief transients (I will reference this in my article as well). If you consider what THX recommends for a 3,000 cubic foot room based on nominal levels of 75dB with transients of up to about 100dB it would make more sense. If a 90dB SPL speaker requires about 1 watts to achieve 75dB at the listening position (15 feet away, based on the inverse square law of 6dB fall out for every doubling of distance, this assumes no room or boundary gain), you will find that a continuos rating of 100wpc will allow you to achieve the 20dB of dynamic range. I am being simplistic here, but I hope you can see my point. The average power a receiver uses is rather low, say 5-10wpc to achieve average 70-80dB levels at the listening position with reasonably efficient speakers. People fall victim of the power game too often (mostly manufacturers are to blaim for creating the demand, and consumers buying into it because it sounds impressive).

Now,if you were using the old QUAD ESL's or Apogees, then by all means use some 8008 series Aragon amps and end the discussion. But right now you are arguing over a few watts where in most modern home theater configurations with active subs and efficient speakers is a moot point.

Time to get back to work, but thanks for your dialogue here. You have given me good fuel to write a useful article that maybe I can learn some stuff from as well

 

[Ross]

Hey guys, be careful, becuase crack kills...

Lighten up fellas, why all the hostility?

This well seasoned conversation comparing flagship receivers to that of seperate component pre/amp combos is pretty old. Does anyone here have anything new to bring to the table, other than Flagship units are worth the premium price to some, and not to others?

Are ya'll really gonna sit here and argue over the same old stuff?

Does anyone here not believe that most all seperate amps have better capabilities than most all, including "Flagship" receivers...

move on...

best,

 

[zipper]

No offense,Ross, but I'm enjoying this discussion. I'd like to know as much as I can on this subject. A salesman I banter with on a regular basis 1st brought my attention to power ratings & claims a couple of years ago when I bought my Yamaha 620. He actually recommended a particular Denon model to me that was rated lower on power but was a bit more expensive. If I had to guess I'd say it was probably a 2803 or 3802. He also pointed out that most receivers' claims of power are unrealistic but that they also only need to put out a few watts to achieve a pleasant listening volume. As it is now,I only know enough to be dangerous. I'll be looking forward to Genes' review.

 

[av_phile]

AV_Phile;

I see you still have some preconceived misconceptions about power, ratings, and standards used to test them. After I complete my Z9 review, I will write an article about this using much of your dialog here to clear things up. The Dynamic power Yamaha lists is in fact dynamic based on an IHF standard to deliver large amounts of power to handle brief transients (I will reference this in my article as well). If you consider what THX recommends for a 3,000 cubic foot room based on nominal levels of 75dB with transients of up to about 100dB it would make more sense. If a 90dB SPL speaker requires about 1 watts to achieve 75dB at the listening position (15 feet away, based on the inverse square law of 6dB fall out for every doubling of distance, this assumes no room or boundary gain), you will find that a continuos rating of 100wpc will allow you to achieve the 20dB of dynamic range. I am being simplistic here, but I hope you can see my point. The average power a receiver uses is rather low, say 5-10wpc to achieve average 70-80dB levels at the listening position with reasonably efficient speakers. People fall victim of the power game too often (mostly manufacturers are to blaim for creating the demand, and consumers buying into it because it sounds impressive).

Now,if you were using the old QUAD ESL's or Apogees, then by all means use some 8008 series Aragon amps and end the discussion. But right now you are arguing over a few watts where in most modern home theater configurations with active subs and efficient speakers is a moot point.

Time to get back to work, but thanks for your dialogue here. You have given me good fuel to write a useful article that maybe I can learn some stuff from as well

I look forward to your review. But I don't think my misconceptions about power rating, if they are misconceptions at all, blinds me to the fact that many amps out there ARE over-rated. The Z9 is one of them. And that is simply the point of my posts. Don't get me wrong, the Z9 is already impressive as a receiver. But zealously overstating the power specs, what for???

So pls do address the points I've raised when you can find the time, I'd appreciate it.

 

[av_phile]

Hey guys, be careful, becuase crack kills...

Lighten up fellas, why all the hostility?

This well seasoned conversation comparing flagship receivers to that of seperate component pre/amp combos is pretty old. Does anyone here have anything new to bring to the table, other than Flagship units are worth the premium price to some, and not to others?

Are ya'll really gonna sit here and argue over the same old stuff?

Does anyone here not believe that most all seperate amps have better capabilities than most all, including "Flagship" receivers...

move on...

best,

Ross, i'd like nothing better than to move on. But it's not about comparing flagship recievers and separate amps. It just so happens i used that comparison to drive my point that some amps, whether integrateds or inside recievers, are overstated in their power specification - a condition that could at the least make any judicious comparison based on tech write-up, difficult, and at worst, misleading to unwary or uninformed consumers. What i really find incomprehensible, is why excellent products like the Z9 need to be hyped up at all. I suppose it's for marketing reasons. But I just can't take that sitting down if it's all at the expense of the consumer.

 

[phara0h]

Av_Phile...Chill Awile...Back Off With That Snappy Guile

It is my opinion that the majority of these discussions, with the loquacious AV-Phile, have been mired in talk that takes the circuitious route and does not get to the most significant flaw in his markedly erudite but mostly benign ramblings...

Will he ever use the power? Can he ever tap the power limits? And does he even have an "ear enough" to discern the quality of any sound?... let alone the sonic signatures and output of equipment at this caliber?

Fact is, most boys that can afford these toys aren't blessed with the receptive ability to really discern one from the next.

These discussions are tantamount to George Bush getting into a protracted discussion about the fluid playability of a Paul Reid Smith guitar, because he owns them, but doesn't even possess the manual dexterity to even play them.

He can look at them and appreciate their beauty. He can comment on the aesthetic appeal of the finish; the choice of wood, the inlay, the fret work, the materials used in the finishing of the instrument, but without the ability to wrap his hands around it and make it sing, all of the wonderfully philosophical information he can supply is whittled down to mere filibustering.

Herein lies the problem.

I would venture to bet that the reason AV-Phile is so wonderfully versed in the technical anomalies of various equipment models is because he spends an inordinate amount of time consuming the manual's; which is disproportionate and disparate to the amount of time he spends actually enjoying the equipment. Whatever he really owns.

It is the people who have only a few basic to midrange items, who dream of owning something very specific and very special to them, that become these tech sponges that satiate their inadequacies by regurgitating the sum total of their knowledge--over and over again in these forums.

While I know that I will get a venomous and very entertaining response to this post everyone here should realize, that in just a few short readings of his rantings, I have peered into the very soul of this most passionate individual and nailed his inadequacies with the precision of Robin Hood.

Sad to see someone waste so much knowledge championing a cause for which their experiences are not justly equipped. AV_Phile, you have some value here, you've done your homework well, but it is real-world application that matters in the end. I choose not to get into plastering all I know in these pages or plastering a dissertation on everything I've owned in these pages. But I will say this. If you spend more time listening to equipment, enjoying the texture of sound, integrating your components with your environment, you would ultimately see that the things you focus on become secondary or even tertiary in scope.

Best to all of you. ~Pharaoh

P. S. excuse any typos I'm still training my dictation software!!! ~Peace

 

[zipper]

Wow. Crossing over with Pharoah.

 

[Ross]

Zip,
Have you or anyone else really gained anything here?

This thread simply turned into one guy defending yamaha at all costs, and another stating that receivers use misleading numbers in their spec sheets.

Is there anything else thus far in this developing argument that you can foresee as being informative or beneficial?

pharaOh,
That was deep !

Maybe you guys can just cool off a little until Gene sums up his findings and thoughts on amplifier parameters and capabilities. Then we can have something useful to discuss.

best,

 

[Unregistered]

My most heartfelt gratitude to you Pharoah for a most eloquent counterpoint to my loquacious but needless arguments.

Let's not be bothered with whatever the manufacturer claims their products have so long as we achieve the sonic nirvanas we so blindlessly pine for from a receiver or amp that can never deliver what was promised. And then we will forever wonder why.

 

[av_phile]

My most heartfelt gratitude to you Pharoah for a most eloquent counterpoint to my loquacious but needless arguments.

Let's not be bothered with whatever the manufacturer claims their products have so long as we achieve the sonic nirvanas we so blindlessly pine for from a receiver or amp that can never deliver what was promised. And then we will forever wonder why.

 

[phara0h]

Sonic Nirvana

"Sonic nirvana!" I love that.

That is the true essence of what we are all typically after.

I will say this, this forum has some of the most knowledgable consumers I think I have ever run across. And did I mention passionate, witty and abundantly entertaining?

Best,

Pharaoh

 

[zipper]

Welcome aboard Pharaoh. Enjoy the fruit basket.And if you need extra towels,just ring the front desk.
Actually,since Genes motto is" pursuing the truth in audio", I feel av_philes' beef has a place here. Although I'm not ready to throw out or replace my Yamaha because it's power claims may not be legit,I will file this information away for future reference. If I know me,I'll outgrow what I have pretty quick & be out looking for more.