Yamaha RX-Z9 - av_phile hijacked thread

A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
phara0h said:
AV-Phile... here you go with another rant that detracts from your true charm and appeal. You said all of what you said to then ask the aforementioned question?

You are so consumed with the veracity of the 'horsepower'... so you can walk around braggadociously claiming that your horse is hung better than someone else is horse...and the reason you know yours is hung better is because your tape measure is more accurate than theirs?

That is exactly what this amounts to. I am shocked to see you let all of the steam out of another attempt at a compelling argument by floating such a rudimentary question. A classic blunder in Logic 101.

Your rants on truth in adverstising have proven that you are more qualified to be an Internal Auditor then you all are to be an 'auditory' expert. };-) What is particularly amusing is the fact that your incessant monopoly on technical specifications is the only foundation upon which you have been able to attempt to build an argument--one that is seemingly to attack the viability of non-European audio/video products.

Moreover, I find it abundantly amusing that you have hemorrhged several thousand, carefully chosen, words into an effort to impeach the credibility and opinions of enthusiasts and experts alike--particularly those that are not aligned with your proclivity for numerical values vs. real world performance.

However, I truly encourage you to never give up on your crusade. Without question, being that I am a person inclined to enjoying such dialogue, this has been abundantly amusing.

Best,

Pharaoh
I disagree, the logic of that statement proceeds with unassailable deductive path from my arguments.

Let me just say that there is this thing called PRIDE of OWNERSHIP. Whether in cars, homes, wristwatches, clothes, whatever. It's a primal instinct of the human creature. From it proceeds acts of courage, but also acts of folly, often with tragic remuneration.

Pride of ownership spawns bragging rights. I do frown upon bragging and being a braggadocio. But in a polite civilized conversation, when someone asks me what's your amp's power, I say I have a 200 watt amplifier. Is that bragging? Maybe. But more importantly, is there any truth to what I am saying? That's the point of all my loquacity.

There would be truth if I were using a NAD, a Rotel or an HK or some other brand whose specs from which I based my declaration is truthful. But if, from the specs, the manufacturer duped me into thinking I have a 200wpc amp when all the while it is just a 100wpc amp, therein lies the problem. And if, in my naive estimation, I hold the manufacturer in high respect, any challenge questioning its product's 200wpc ability would let loose a barrage of defense with all the ferocity at my command. However misplaced. I can therefore understand the angst generated by my post. But I wouldn't have one were I in the other shoe.

Knowing fully well that many in the membership are avid Yamaha receiver or amp users, I have thrown myself into a lion's den ,as it were, with open eyes. But it is precisely my trust in the sublimity of the human thought that my posts should attempt to bring these rational people beyond their precious comfort zones into a more discerning consciousness so that no one need be surprised that some of the promises in a product's spec can never be attained in real world listening. I agree, it probably doesn't matter at all. Specs are just a trifle sheet of paper. Nothing in it will ever tell you to what heights you can achieve sonic nirvana in this aurally hedonistic hobby. And I have no doubts, they already do with their yamaha gear. I am not questioning that, nor am i interested to do so. Is that hard to get?

But in the same way I look at a resume of the employment applicants with discerning interest, I look at a product's technical specs as an indicator and a start in evaluating it. Anything that doesn't interest me won't even merit a consideration for audition. Same with applicants.

I probably should apologyze for smearing a nationality with my reference to Japanese amps. But I won't. Can I help it if, in looking at the amplifer specs of Yamaha, Pioneer, Denon, Onkyo, Kenwood, JVC, Sony, Aiwa, to mention some, most of whose power claims I find similarly suspect, a comon thread deductively emerges that betrays their country of origin? Perhaps there are European and American brands that likewise elicit some suspicision with their specs, but that is totally beside the point. I am not here to bash gears from one or the other country. I am merely pointing out the inadequacies of power measurement in amps so that consumers like you and others can KNOW just what you are getting, and not expect more than what they can really deliver.

And yes, if i am more hung than you are, it is precisely because the tape measure we use do not tell a lie. But i'd be flusterred if you tell you are more hung based on numerical superiorty, if you used centimeters while I used inches.

To further illustrate my point, i often encounter questions from colleagues about why their NAD or HK that is rated at only 50wpc sounds louder and more full-bodied than their older Denon or Pioneer units rated at 75 or 80wpc. As well as questions in the reverse situation: why their new Onkyo whose spec indicated a 120wpc reciever didn't sound any louder than their older vintage HK reciever rated at only 50wpc. Or questions like "should I upgrade to a Rotel, but its power is only 40 wpc, whereas my older Yamaha has 70wpc? Needless to say, my explanations to them essayed the same gist as the posts I made here.

And I do find it "abundantly amusing", if not entirely pathetic, that people who champion the truth behind audio are exactly the same people who would question my efforts at exposing unrealistic specs whose "proclivity with numbers vs real world performance" is precisely that - a proclivity that borders on incredibility. I am now a mad man ranting blind at something everyone already knows. Nothing new to contribute.

Well, let me just say that if that were indeed the case, I feel sorry for a forum that is supposed to be interested in the truth about audio. Seems the arrival of something like the Z9 is treated with such overwhelming oohs and aahs that pointing out its obvious inadequacies that can never match the promise of its power specs must be treated with scorn and ridicule, like someone crying in the wilderness. Is this site sponsored by Yamaha? If so, I must have touched a raw nerve.

And if someone here would tell me to just disregard the specs as they are worthless, and just listen and enjoy, I would have no problem with that. Afterall, if they can disregard the dubious claims of wonder cables, I can disregard the dubious claims of overstated amp specs. Right? I beg to differ. While you can disregard bogus cable claims, you can rightfully go back to your ZIP cords and enjoy. But in disregarding bogus power claims on receivers and amps, you would still use them. That would be like telling me to disregard the claims of Pure Note but still find enjoymentt in listening to their $1,500 cerullean RCA cables. Is this a case of double standards or what?

Sorry Pharoah, I just couldn't let this pass. But just to return the favor, I also find your erudite responses prodigously entertaining despite their superficial grasp of my persistent loquacity, bordering on the laughable. But do continue with your engaging posts. I also gain so much bemusement with your obvious delight at my trifling tenacity, which, while implicit, is exceedingly unmistakable.
 
P

P0p

Guest
According to S&V Magazine
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/PDFs/sound_vision_5_04.pdf

The Z9 met its power spec (170wpc 8 ohms) as they measured 211watts 8 ohms / 1kHz. Full Bandwidth is about 20% less thus 170watts

7 Channels driven 1kHz 8 ohms, 140wpc --->> full bandwidth = 112wpc
(Yamaha never published a spec, thus they didn't pass or fail anything here)


Ah but Rotel is another story.

The RSX-1067 states:
120wpc, 1kHz, 8 ohms, 2CH driven at 1% distortion (YIKES, 1% distortion can be seen as clipping on an Oscope). Clearly not a very clean measurement. In comparision Yamaha Z9 delivers 170wpc 8 ohms, full bandwdith at .015THD.

Don't believe me, ok check here:
http://rotel.com/products/specs/rsx1067.htm


The RSX-1067 does deliver 100wpc, full bandwidth into 7Ch, so its about 12wpc shy of the Z9 in this type of test.

However, it is noteworthy to point out that the Z9 carries the THX Ultra 2 certification while the RSX-1067 does not. THX has test specs that mandate the amp must deliver the dynamic peaks of 100dB or so into a 3000cuft room. To my knowledge they even test voltage swing across a 3.2 ohm load to ensure the amps can deliver the current. The Rotel doesn't have this certification, so we don't know if it can meet it. It may, but nobody knowns.

Just food for thought. They are both great products I am sure.
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
P0p said:
7 Channels driven 1kHz 8 ohms, 140wpc --->> full bandwidth = 112wpc
(Yamaha never published a spec, thus they didn't pass or fail anything here)
As far as getting conservative and realistic continuous power rating is concered, this is all that matters to me. As revealed by these tests, the Z9 is a 112 watts/channel receiver, rated into 8 ohms, full bandwidth, and with all 7 channels driven. Yamaha never published this spec. They prefered the bloated figures measured from 1Khz or one channel only that are nowhere realistic. This is the point of all my loquacious rantings. And I am justified. Thank you.

I can now go to my clients who are in the market for more powerful HT receivers and intelligently recommened the Z9 as a possible upgrade from their existing 50wpc receivers if they can afford one. But I definitely won't recommend it if they already have 90wpc receivers conservatively rated. See what I mean? If I had believed that the Z9 was a 170wpc reciver, as the specs would have it, I would have recommended it to upgrade their conservatively rated 90 watters. And I would have received the flak from disgruntled upgraders who wouldn't notice any loudness difference.

But to clients who are interested in more features, more channels, and NOT power, I'd strongly endorse the Z9 hands down. This receiver has the most input flexibility and digital processing features than any receiver on this planet, save perhaps the Denon flagship. And with a continuous 112wpc for all 7 channels, it is formidable enough an HT receiver in its class. So formidable that it beggars the mind that something so exceptional had to be hyped at all. Just don't give me that BS that this is a 170wpc receiver.

Case closed.
 
Yamahaluver

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General
That there is no mention of any Japanese brands in your praise list and every chance you get, you manage to denigrate each and every Japanese manufacturer of repute goes to show you are a biased, prejudiced individual with clouded thinking. There were old 70s and 80s era Japanese amps which always delivered more than their rated wattage, sometimes significantly more. The managed to sound better, last longer than their high priced euro counterparts and yet costed less.

I have a stack of back issues from Australian Hi-Fi, What Hi-Fi UK and Stereo Review and in all their tests, the Japanese amps delivered higher than their rated wattage or at least met their rated wattage with ease. Julian Hirsch tested Yamaha's DSP-A1000 and found it delivered 23W more than its rating.

Sadly you keep on harping about HK, NAD, ROTEL etc. have you ever wondered that quite a lot of us dont like their sound, specs be damned and in What Hi-Fi test, when they compared a Rotel integrated to a Yamaha integrated, the panel found the Yamaha to have better bass and delivering significantly higher dynamics. What Hi-Fi also used a Pioneer A-400 as their referrence amp. How about Accupahse? No mention in your books about them either.

At least my name suggests that I am an unabashed Yamahaluver, why do you hide behind your name, why not come out with a Japanese basher moniker instead.
 
phara0h

phara0h

Audioholic Intern
Glad You Finally Addressed My Comments

I'm very pleased to that you finally mustered up the wherewithal to address my comments. My response will be very simple. Let me begin with the most significant quote of the entire stream of thought:

"But in the same way I look at a resume of the employment applicants with discerning interest, I look at a product's technical specs as an indicator and a start in evaluating it. Anything that doesn't interest me won't even merit a consideration for audition. Same with applicants."

Robin Garman, former vice president of Shearson Lehman American Express, walked into Rabson's Stereo Warehouse on 50 7th St. and 6th Ave. in Manhattan one afternoon back in 1983. She was a bullish handsome woman with a very Type-A personality and money to burn.

She had recently made a stopover at Harvey's Electronics, one of the more elite audiovideo establishments at that time to be found in New York City. She had gotten an ear full about Satin moving coil cartridges, Oracle turntables, Magnepans, Acoustic Research, Mission and a plethora of other brands that were either in the upper echelon that time or had spires of product lines that were.

It was obvious that she was hellbent on buying a complete audio system that day, as she had a very poor party to conduct a later that evening in her penthouse apartment a few blocks away. I happen to be the fellow standing behind the counter. I listened to her go on and on about all the things that she was told were great. I suffered through giving her a detailed rundown on every speaker, receiver, power amp, preamp, turntable, CD player, stylus and tape deck we sold.

After going through the litany of products on hand she preceded, in a very snobbish way, to question why we didn't have some of the same brand's Harvey's Electronics carried?

I gave for the requisite response that Harvey's was our competitor and why we did share some brands we each have exclusive contracts with manufacturers to serve as exclusive vendors of some of the finer products. She then explained to me that the salesperson at Harvey's told her that everything that Rabson's carried was garbage. I said that in his estimation, based upon his tastes, his opinion was irrefutable. I explained to her that one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Then I asked her what she liked to listened to. Smartly enough, she had arrived prepared with her own assortment of music.

The manager of the store, then the guide by the name of Mark Hayder, asked me who she was and if I wanted to T.O. the potential sale to someone more knowledgeable than me about the brand history's, technical specifications and other minutia related to the equipment. See, I was just the counter salesman and everyone was at lunch. I told him "No!" and asked that he allow me to proceed. He granted my wish, all the while watching me through the glass wall that peered into the sound room.

Behind closed doors, I asked Ms. Garman what her objective was? Are you looking for equipment that will function as decor? Are you looking for something that has the smallest possible footprint that produces the fullest possible sound? Is space not an issue allowing us to look at virtually everything we have to offer as a possible solution?

Ms. Garman very curtly advised (no doubt likely due to the fact that she was rich, important and had an outstanding home atop one of New York's finest buildings) that space was not an issue, price was no object and that the most important criteria for her was that when she listened to her system, and that when others did too, she and they could only remark at how wonderfully engaging and beautiful the reproduction of sound was. But she did throw in one caveat, the stuff needed to be brands that people would recognize as being the finest of the finest.

That threw me a curveball... because in my mind, based upon her requirements sans the last, I had a pretty good idea what she would be walking out with. I derived at this but carefully scrutinizing her musical selections even before the first listen.

She agreed to give me 10 minutes of her time and we proceeded to audition equipment. Some 40 minutes to an hour later she was deciding whether or not she wanted to pairs of the speakers at cost or to fall in love with. All the wonderful brochures technical specification sheets that she had acquired at Harvey's were now in a nearby trash can.

Later that day we delivered an installed her dream system. I was invited to the party which was a fabulous event. All night long people commented on the aesthetics, sound quality in the presence of the music emanating from her system. She had a proud glow all night long.

Upon leaving that evening she thanked me for not allowing her to become overly consumed with superficial details there were admired her decision-making process and quite possibly for turned our road to a decision that would ultimately prove to being less prudent then it could have been.

The idea that someone could rule out listening to any product, or auditioning any equipment, based upon whether the technical specifications jumped out to them as something noteworthy is somewhat befuddling. No, political correctness is not warranted here...it is downright asinine.

So where you certainly have ruled out viable equipment considerations in the past, time certain did you have likewise watered down your talent pool in your search for employees by employing the same tactic.

The fact is people lie on resumes, companies lie about product claims. Moreover, I the do believe in "what you except you teach!" Therefore, I do feel that people should be held culpable for things that they do. I guess that's why I have been in the law enforcement and fraud investigation arena for so long. Nevertheless, perspective is important when assessing what arguments have merit and which ones don't. There's nothing further I need to say about that particular statement.

I for one never got the impression that many in the membership here were after the Yamaha lovers and owners. On the contrary, the impression I got was that many here were open-minded individuals whose focus is centered around purity, quality and reliability. While I am not discrediting your assertion that there may be some plausible bit of deception that exists in manufactures technical specifications; what I'd do take exception to is the perceived need to turn a reasonable question into an inquest that has an equal amount of bias coming from your end.

Nevertheless, to each his own. If reading technical specifications for you is the equivalent of composing a sonata for Mozart to them...then I feel you. But just as with religion... there's no need to proselytize!

Lastly, your attempt to emulate my writing style resulted in something that sounded quite ridiculous coming from you.

There is only one Phara0h... on your faces!!! :)
 
H

hopjohn

Full Audioholic
Among all these pissing contests, one point has yet to be fully considered. While lies on specs sheets are something of a concern to us, I'd be more interested in coming to a factual conclusion of how much amplification power is actually required. Just how much wattage is needed to reach a level just beyond my own personal comfort level, less noticeable distortion? I know each room is different, but has anyone taken the time to consider this approach? Then maybe once we reach a certain wattage spec we can trust or at least assume, then it really becomes a moot point for reasons of unpracticallity.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
How did you guys get the 112x7 power rating? In the S&V article it states 138 watts driven across 7 channels at the same time. I did not see any indication of the figures you are coming up with.

-thx
 
Yamahaluver

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General
Pharaoh........nicely written.....................luv that moniker of yours.

I worked for Rabsons, NY as a college student and my experience was exactly what you went through. Many a times we would take these snobs to our listening room and tell them to do a A/B blind test and they would invariably pick the cheaper, mass market model instead of the high priced one. Sad part is ego, pompousness, vanity are ills really quite prevalent in the audio world and it is very hard to go through that all.

For those who need to calculate how much power they need or how much SPL they really need, check out this wonderful calculator at

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
hawke said:
Despite the obvious baiting I'm not going to close this thread - though it is going nowhere. av_phile, you appear (to me) to be your own worst enemy: unproductive and full of unwavering agenda. Your points are well taken for the third or fourth time.

Thank you, drive through.
What is baiting? Is it anywhere like a fishing line?

Yup, my agenda is most unwavering. For as long as they don't the light.
 
Yamahaluver

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General
av_phile said:
What is baiting? Is it anywhere like a fishing line?

Yup, my agenda is most unwavering. For as long as they don't the light.

Baiting=Trolling

Unwavering=Annoying

Light=Your Way only that is no low rated brand from the land of the rising Sun.
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
phara0h said:
I'm very pleased to that you finally mustered up the wherewithal to address my comments. My response will be very simple. Let me begin with the most significant quote of the entire stream of thought:

"But in the same way I look at a resume of the employment applicants with discerning interest, I look at a product's technical specs as an indicator and a start in evaluating it. Anything that doesn't interest me won't even merit a consideration for audition. Same with applicants."

Robin Garman, former vice president of Shearson Lehman American Express, walked into Rabson's Stereo Warehouse on 50 7th St. and 6th Ave. in Manhattan one afternoon back in 1983. She was a bullish handsome woman with a very Type-A personality and money to burn.

She had recently made a stopover at Harvey's Electronics, one of the more elite audiovideo establishments at that time to be found in New York City. She had gotten an ear full about Satin moving coil cartridges, Oracle turntables, Magnepans, Acoustic Research, Mission and a plethora of other brands that were either in the upper echelon that time or had spires of product lines that were.

It was obvious that she was hellbent on buying a complete audio system that day, as she had a very poor party to conduct a later that evening in her penthouse apartment a few blocks away. I happen to be the fellow standing behind the counter. I listened to her go on and on about all the things that she was told were great. I suffered through giving her a detailed rundown on every speaker, receiver, power amp, preamp, turntable, CD player, stylus and tape deck we sold.

After going through the litany of products on hand she preceded, in a very snobbish way, to question why we didn't have some of the same brand's Harvey's Electronics carried?

I gave for the requisite response that Harvey's was our competitor and why we did share some brands we each have exclusive contracts with manufacturers to serve as exclusive vendors of some of the finer products. She then explained to me that the salesperson at Harvey's told her that everything that Rabson's carried was garbage. I said that in his estimation, based upon his tastes, his opinion was irrefutable. I explained to her that one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Then I asked her what she liked to listened to. Smartly enough, she had arrived prepared with her own assortment of music.

The manager of the store, then the guide by the name of Mark Hayder, asked me who she was and if I wanted to T.O. the potential sale to someone more knowledgeable than me about the brand history's, technical specifications and other minutia related to the equipment. See, I was just the counter salesman and everyone was at lunch. I told him "No!" and asked that he allow me to proceed. He granted my wish, all the while watching me through the glass wall that peered into the sound room.

Behind closed doors, I asked Ms. Garman what her objective was? Are you looking for equipment that will function as decor? Are you looking for something that has the smallest possible footprint that produces the fullest possible sound? Is space not an issue allowing us to look at virtually everything we have to offer as a possible solution?

Ms. Garman very curtly advised (no doubt likely due to the fact that she was rich, important and had an outstanding home atop one of New York's finest buildings) that space was not an issue, price was no object and that the most important criteria for her was that when she listened to her system, and that when others did too, she and they could only remark at how wonderfully engaging and beautiful the reproduction of sound was. But she did throw in one caveat, the stuff needed to be brands that people would recognize as being the finest of the finest.

That threw me a curveball... because in my mind, based upon her requirements sans the last, I had a pretty good idea what she would be walking out with. I derived at this but carefully scrutinizing her musical selections even before the first listen.

She agreed to give me 10 minutes of her time and we proceeded to audition equipment. Some 40 minutes to an hour later she was deciding whether or not she wanted to pairs of the speakers at cost or to fall in love with. All the wonderful brochures technical specification sheets that she had acquired at Harvey's were now in a nearby trash can.

Later that day we delivered an installed her dream system. I was invited to the party which was a fabulous event. All night long people commented on the aesthetics, sound quality in the presence of the music emanating from her system. She had a proud glow all night long.

Upon leaving that evening she thanked me for not allowing her to become overly consumed with superficial details there were admired her decision-making process and quite possibly for turned our road to a decision that would ultimately prove to being less prudent then it could have been.

The idea that someone could rule out listening to any product, or auditioning any equipment, based upon whether the technical specifications jumped out to them as something noteworthy is somewhat befuddling. No, political correctness is not warranted here...it is downright asinine.

So where you certainly have ruled out viable equipment considerations in the past, time certain did you have likewise watered down your talent pool in your search for employees by employing the same tactic.

The fact is people lie on resumes, companies lie about product claims. Moreover, I the do believe in "what you except you teach!" Therefore, I do feel that people should be held culpable for things that they do. I guess that's why I have been in the law enforcement and fraud investigation arena for so long. Nevertheless, perspective is important when assessing what arguments have merit and which ones don't. There's nothing further I need to say about that particular statement.

I for one never got the impression that many in the membership here were after the Yamaha lovers and owners. On the contrary, the impression I got was that many here were open-minded individuals whose focus is centered around purity, quality and reliability. While I am not discrediting your assertion that there may be some plausible bit of deception that exists in manufactures technical specifications; what I'd do take exception to is the perceived need to turn a reasonable question into an inquest that has an equal amount of bias coming from your end.

Nevertheless, to each his own. If reading technical specifications for you is the equivalent of composing a sonata for Mozart to them...then I feel you. But just as with religion... there's no need to proselytize!

Lastly, your attempt to emulate my writing style resulted in something that sounded quite ridiculous coming from you.

There is only one Phara0h... on your faces!!! :)
It is plain your woman customer never knew and will never know how to read and interpret technical specs. But why bother, her social status guarantees that. Money was no object to her. It is to me. Tech specs and properly interpreting them are reserved to peasants like me who do not want to be duped into parting with his hard-earned wherewithal getting a product that is less than what is promised in those specs. Thank you for another asinine, albeit entertaining, anecdote. And no i wasn't trying to sound like you, the mere thought was ridiculous enough. But if it did, it was meant to be a parody.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
With a few exceptions this has been 10 some odd web pages of garbage. This thread was titled RX-Z9. I have heard the old advertised power ratings vs. actual power under load a zillion f**king times in numerous forums. Who cares. More importantly, has anyone used or heard this unit? I looked at this thread to gain some insight into the sound, function, and over all value of this machine before I sink 3500+ hard earned dollars into it.
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
It is precisely your concern on the value of the Z9 HT receiver vis-a-vis the SRP it commands that has prompted me to raise the issue of whether the claims on the specs, particularly those on the power output, are truly descriptive of the product so that it can deliver the juice as claimed and as expected. From all my exposure in this hobby, I have to say they are not CONSERVATIVELY rated. The electric power consumption at the back betrays that unmistakably.

For sure the features of the Z9 in terms of flexibility and digital processing are non-pareil, awesome to say the least. I am hard-pressed to name a multi-channel preamp out there that can match it in those terms. Even a Krell, a Sunfire or a Rotel doesn't. Sonic quality besides. If power is not your cup of tea, then I'd recommend this gear. If you think other factors such as S/N ratios, frequency response, slew rates etc, are more important, then my posts don't matter.

The gist of my posts is simple. I just wanted to point out what to me is an incongruence between what is claimed in the output power specs and its power consumption rating. And I've gone to great lengths to question the conditions under which such bloated figures have been arrived at. Nothing in it even hints of questioning any subjectively perceived QUALITY of the sound, whether it is warm or cold, bright or laid back, etc. I leave that to those who own the gear. My only objective is to point this out so that buyers will not be wondering why the Z9 won't sound as loud as another multi-channel amp that has numerically similar power rating, but conservatively measured. I base my choices based on CONSERVATIVE power rating. Period.

For $3,500, I'd get this receiver and use it as a preamp, the same way some colleagues bought excellent receivers with pre-outs and eventually used them to mate with better or more powerful amplifiers. (We're power freaks.) I'd mate it to another multi-channel power amp. But if the independent testing is accurate enough that this is a 112wpc amp with ALL 7 channels driven, I'd still consider it a powerful receiver. I just can't accept it when the manufacturer would have me believe this is a 170wpc receiver when it is not.
 
Yamahaluver

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General
This is a sad case of a fine piece of machinery which is yet to be tested, becoming a victim of someone's highly biased, prejudiced, misconceptions, sadly the person who is commenting on this unit will never come to owning one in his lifetime.

I own this unit and can tell you, it is really very powerfull, the dynamics are absolutely fantastic and so is the sound quality. I have a 260Wrms class A amp to compare it with and therefore all I can say is that this unit is superb, whats more, it has one of the quietest pre-amp section as well as fantastic DSP alogrithms to boot.

Wait for Gene's reveiw and dont go by anyone else's, specially the biased ones who will never come close to ownig this unit.
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
hopjohn said:
Among all these pissing contests, one point has yet to be fully considered. While lies on specs sheets are something of a concern to us, I'd be more interested in coming to a factual conclusion of how much amplification power is actually required. Just how much wattage is needed to reach a level just beyond my own personal comfort level, less noticeable distortion? I know each room is different, but has anyone taken the time to consider this approach? Then maybe once we reach a certain wattage spec we can trust or at least assume, then it really becomes a moot point for reasons of unpracticallity.
Pardon the pissing contest for which I nearly overlooked your valid concerns.

It is a bit difficult to say what is the proper amp wattage for anyone. Apart from considerations of room size and accoustic qualities, there's speaker efficiency or sensitivity. There's also source levels to contend with where not all titles or record labels give out the same output levels from a player. There's also your personal listening preferences that can dictate if you are content with playing it loudly, softly or to the max. And there are audiophiles whose quest for hi-fidelity leads them to a journey where simulating the ACTUAL SPLs they recieve in an auditorium or concert hall gives then sonic bliss and nothing less. I used to belong to the latter.

It's perfectly ok to have even a 1 to 7-watt amplifier like some SET amps. Mated to speakers with sensitivities above 92db, they can generate sufficient SPLs for comfortable listening in a typical room. I would say that 10-25 watts per channel is sufficient on a continuous basis and a dynamic headroom of 1db to 1.5db is most adequate. Whether stereo or multi-channel.

Just to give you an idea of sound pressure levels, they're not exact. but estmates:

Jet engine up close, 155db
Snare drums 6 inches away, 150db
Rock singer screaming close to mic, 140db
30m from jet aircraft, 140db
Cymbal Crash few inches away, 130db
Threshold of pain, 130db
Pneumatic Jack hammer, 125db
Podium with full orchestra, 120db
Fender Guitar amp at full volume 10 inches away, 120db
Chainsaw,110db
Disco, 100db
Heavy traffic, 90db
Stereo listening at home, 80db
Busy road, 80db
Conversational speech 1 foot away, 60db
Quiet bedroom at night, 30db
Background in TV studio, 20db
Recording Studio ambience, 10db
Threshold of hearing 0db

Depending on room size/accoustics and speaker sensitivity, different power ratings from different amps can achieve the SPLs you want. A typical 4m by 4m room with the right decay qualities will probably require just 10 wpc continuous into 8 ohms speakers with average sensitivity to generate 80db SPL that each of your ears can perceive 1 meter from the speakers On the otherhand, in that same room and speakers, if you want to simulate the same SPLs a conductor receives at the podium driving a full orchestra at full might, you might need more than 100wpc to generate 120db spl.

Personally, this is of no moment to me. I can be happy with just 10wpc or 1000wpc. But I prefer to err on the side of plenty. Power is not everything. No argument there. But I like to get the most that my money can get in this regard, everything else equal. That is why I get overly passionate in my posts about power specs. I expect to get the power as claimed by the manufacturer. If he is conservative in measuring it, I can safely expect to realize his claim when I get home. If he measures his power under unrealistic conditions, I am duped.
 
P

P0p

Guest
I suppose I am not surprised to come back to this thread a week later to still find AV_Pile bashing the amplifier section of the Z9 for not delivering all channels driven (note they never claimed it) for their power ratings. However, while you are on this endless campaign , you should note that even your beloved Rotel falls short of their claims. In this respect even worse, b/c they state "all channels driven at full bandwidth"

The RSX-1065 states 100wpc x 5 full bandwidth all channels driven.

Yes S&V measured 106wpc x 5 at 1kHz which equates to (.8*106) = 85wpc x 5 at full bandwidth. Thus they are short by 15watts shy of their claim.

S&V also tested their 7CH receiver and found it to deliver the power Rotel claimed at fullbandwidth in their 1kHz test procedure which again demonstrates they are short or not specing their amps honestly.

Note I have nothing against Rotel, just stating facts.
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
P0p said:
I suppose I am not surprised to come back to this thread a week later to still find AV_Pile bashing the amplifier section of the Z9 for not delivering all channels driven (note they never claimed it) for their power ratings. However, while you are on this endless campaign , you should note that even your beloved Rotel falls short of their claims. In this respect even worse, b/c they state "all channels driven at full bandwidth"

The RSX-1065 states 100wpc x 5 full bandwidth all channels driven.

Yes S&V measured 106wpc x 5 at 1kHz which equates to (.8*106) = 85wpc x 5 at full bandwidth. Thus they are short by 15watts shy of their claim.

S&V also tested their 7CH receiver and found it to deliver the power Rotel claimed at fullbandwidth in their 1kHz test procedure which again demonstrates they are short or not specing their amps honestly.

Note I have nothing against Rotel, just stating facts.
If that is true, then that particular Rotel receiver falls in the same boat.

True the Z9 never claims it. So it's ok for an uninformed consumer to conclude by reading the spec that is silent about it that the z9 is a 170wpc HT receiver? If that isn't puting one over the consumer, what is?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
av_phile said:
True the Z9 never claims it. So it's ok for an uninformed consumer to conclude by reading the spec that is silent about it that the z9 is a 170wpc HT receiver?
The point is that if one were to read the specs and the specs say 'two channels driven' then IT IS a 170wpc receiver when TWO CHANNELS ARE DRIVEN. If they were to say 'all channels driven' then it would be misleading the consumer, but they don't say that, now do they?
 
A

av_phile

Senior Audioholic
Unregistered said:
The point is that if one were to read the specs and the specs say 'two channels driven' then IT IS a 170wpc receiver when TWO CHANNELS ARE DRIVEN. If they were to say 'all channels driven' then it would be misleading the consumer, but they don't say that, now do they?
Nope, silence can mislead. If it just says 2 channels. Fine. The Aragon 3000 series says they measure it with 3 channels driven out of a total of 5. I have no problem with that. If it is says All channels driven, they are definetely misleading, if and only if, the power consumption betrays them. If they are silent about that, then what should the consumer conclude, or how should the salesman position it? As a 170wpc receiver?
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top