|
New member Username: Divin11112000Michigan Post Number: 4 Registered: Dec-04 | My current reciever claims that it's 100w. I've been told that the way that some of the recievers claim that much but they don't tell you that it's 2ohms and 2 channel. I'm just curious as to if my reciever does have the power to push my speakers or if I should be looking to upgrade my reciever. How can I find out how much power my reciever is actually pushing to each speaker when its in 7.1. I have an off bestbuy shelf pioneer reciever VSX-D811S. |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 981 Registered: Dec-03 | I went to the top of this page and entered your model number into the window and found one review from cnet and it was a very good review. One thing mentioned was it's "prodigious" power reserves. Why do you think it does not have the power you need? Even though this is a budget receiver and probably does not output 100 watts when all channels are driven I bet it will do at least 65 or more. That should be sufficient for most needs. Remember, many receivers do not output anywhere near their advertised power in multichannel mode. The Yamaha 2400 for example, only outputs 43.5 in 5 channel mode and is considered generally a good receiver. If you want to upgrade that's fine but I don't think lack of power is a legitimate reason. |
|
Silver Member Username: BleustarPensacola, Florida Post Number: 201 Registered: Jul-04 | 100wpc has been the marketing "standard" for manufacturer's to use for many years. The problem is the number 100 can be claimed by using any number of measurements that supposedly articulate the strength of the receiver. It is not a valid means to quantify the receivers true output of power, and for the most part it means very little. Many companies use this artificial number and some do not. Sony and Yamaha are the kings of using this gimickry with their figures. Harman Kardon for example, does not. Set the Sony brand that states 100wpc next to the HK with 55wpc and you will hear the truth about which receiver has more power. Of course, in that lies the problem. |
|
Silver Member Username: JohnnyMissouri Post Number: 525 Registered: Dec-03 | I know this link has been floating around her for awhile, but I thought it would help this thread. The link is to a chart that lists the results of the Sound and Vision Magazine power test results on various receivers they have reviewed. It is a little out of date (about a year), but it helps illustrate the points made above. As Bleustar says, look at the power ratings for Yamaha, Onkyo, and Sony...some of the worst users of the "gimickry". Compare those to the numbers of HK and NAD. http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm |
|
New member Username: Divin11112000Michigan Post Number: 5 Registered: Dec-04 | If it will do 65 then i'm happy, I was just lead to belive that I may be underpowering my speakers and then risking clipping. Since i'm putting my money into the speakers right now I don't really want to ruin them by starving them of power. I've heard of higer end stores testing the recievers, but didn't know if you could do it at home. Thanks for the posts though |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 987 Registered: Dec-03 | What speakers are you looking at and what is your budget? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I would suggest that watts alone mean nothing. A persistent problem of audio products is how the measurements are taken has little to do with how the unit will be used. Pair that with the consideration that the specs the industry pushes are the least significant to use as a reference and the problem of numbers is compounded. Most amplifiers can be driven into clipping with even a modest amount of actual volume unless your speakers start off at about 100dB efficiency. As it requires more and more power to derive a constant volume level change the difference between 1,000 watts and 2,000 watts is still a mere 3dB. Concerning yourself about the actual wattage of a receiver is about the same as worrying about the actual trunk space of a sedan. If the amplifier clips when driving your speakers to what you consider a satisfactory level would lead me to suggest new speakers more than a new amplifier if you want to stay with a receiver based system. P.S. If an amplifier could actually produce 100 watts into a 2 Ohm load for more than an instant it would be a rarity in the world of receivers. Most receivers, no matter the power rating, cannot acheive this level of stability (HK, Outlaw and NAD being the better known exceptions, and even their products can only manage this for the briefest burst of power). |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 989 Registered: Dec-03 | J.Vigne, Your overall point about power is a valid one in a lot of ways but your comment about 100db efficient speakers is a bit strange since other than some Klipsch models I know of no speakers with that kind of efficiency. We all know their is no practical difference between a 85 watt amp and a 100 watt amp but what I am talking about is a amps ability in multichannel mode, not 2 channel. I think a receiver/amp that can be measured to output it's spec'd power with 5 or more channels driven is an indication of quality design not just of the amp stage but of other parts as well. It takes a real commitment to overall quality for a company to do this as we see with NAD, Rotel and a few others. I agree we get caught up in this power stuff more than necessary and I don't pay much attention to it other than measured multichannel power. That is to me an indicator of other things as well, like load tolerance. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | I agree with most of what you say. But, as usual, there are exceptions to all things. Quite a while back I posted the test results of two receivers from the late '90's, one a Marantz and the other a HK. At that time both amps were, for all intents and purposes, the same product. The HK was differentiated by a few different diodes and resistors mainly in the power supply. The Marantz was rated at 115 watts pc while the HK was rated at 85 watts pc. Both amps produced in excess of 120 watts and where virtually identical in every respect until it came to the power output into a 2 Ohm load. The Marantz shut down while the HK would produce power into this load for short bursts typical of what the amp might see in real world use. What does this indicate? Not much, really. There are many aspects of how a designer should go about creating a good audio product; but, unfortunately, real world economics play a significant part in the way the product will reach its audience. On the bright side of the audio world, the advent/resurrection of Single Ended Triode tube amplifers, with their 3.5 watt output power, has given a new life to ultra high efficiency speakers. If you'll put that description into a search engine you can find numerous links to examples of speakers with very high efficiency. Not all are horn loaded designs, though a horn still provides the highest efficiency design despite the numerous design problems to get around. |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 991 Registered: Dec-03 | Interesting reply. When I get time I will do just what you say. I look forward to seeing what's out there besides horns as I find them a bit harsh for my taste. Later. |
|
New member Username: Divin11112000Michigan Post Number: 6 Registered: Dec-04 | Thanks for your posts. I was just a little concerned about damaging my speakers. I'm starting to get into the higher end components and I started with buying fronts and center speakers. I am still saving for sub & surrounds, then will have to save for a higher end reciever. I just didn't want to ruin them with a reciever that could not push them. (they are rated for 150Watts) From what you've said and the links to the reviews of the reciever, I should be ok with this reciever. Thanks again |