Yamaha contiuous power
|
Anonymous | i like to know what is the contiuous power for the rxv 1200 and the 2400 when all speaker driven. thankyou |
|
Bronze Member Username: LandrovalPost Number: 41 Registered: Feb-04 | RX-V1400 has been measured 5*100W 8ohm and 5*110W 4ohm continuous. For 20ms burst it gives 5*130W 8ohm, 5*125W 4ohm, 5*54W 2ohm. In stereo 2*145W 8ohm and 2*200W 4ohm continuous. Those are just measurements and dont give you the whole picture of the sound or even the amount of sound. |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 294 Registered: Dec-03 | Home Theater measures the 2400 and found at 5 channels into 8 ohms at .1 % distortion it outputs 43.5 watts. It reaches 120 watts with 2 channels driven at 1% distortion. These are not very good measurements but I heard the 2400 two weeks ago with Paradigm 7's and it is a much better sounding receiver than past Yamaha models and in a small to medium sized room will give you enough power unless pushed to ridiculous limits. The above posters rating are from some European magazine I believe and maybe he can give us more info but for me I trust Home Theater's test results. I think the review of the 2400 is from their December issue and it got a very good review. |
|
Bronze Member Username: LandrovalPost Number: 42 Registered: Feb-04 | You're right elitefan. Those numbers are from a finnish magezine called HIFI. They are from the 1/2004 issue. I dont know how reliable their measurements are, but clearly the Yamaha 1200-2400 models are a lot better than the lower-end models. Here's some pictures about the reviewed receivers: http://www.hifilehti.fi/images/nettijatkot/Av-vahvistimet_1-04.htm |
|
Anonymous | according to landroval the 1200 is rated at 100*5 and the 2400 is rated at 43.5*5. im a little confused is'nt the 2400 suppose to be more powerfull than the 1200. my room size is about 25square meter so according to that i would like to get the right watts with a 5 speaker setup. if i could throw another question in, is it better to have more speakers with lower watts or less speakers with higher watts. seven channel compared to a five channel. thankyou and sorry about some many questions |
|
Bronze Member Username: W9cwPost Number: 16 Registered: Mar-04 | As one who spent over 12 years in the consumer electronics magazine business here in the USA, I would tend to believe European magazine test data over those of USA magazines. Most often, the European magazines test data is much more extensive, and tends to be more objective. Frankly, the USA magazine reviews seem to be affected by the business side of the publishing ledger - display advertising dollars! The UK magazine, HI-FI CHOICE, also had an extensive review of the RX-V1400RDS (the European version of the RX-V1400 with the RDS tuning system used in Europe). To the best of my knowledge, the only differences between the USA model and the model tested in the magazine are as follows: 1). The RDS tuning system, 2). a captive AC line cord, rather than the non-captive line cord of the USA models, 3). AC input line voltage difference due to the different standards in the USA and Europe, and 5). Availability of the unit in the Titanium finish. From everything I have been able to determine, there is absolutely no difference in the preamp, amp, and power supply design (other than the aforementioned transformer primary winding change for the European line voltage and frequency difference). The RX-V1400RDS tested as follows: Continuous (and they emphasized "Continuous") power output: 1). two-channels: 175W @ 8 ohms; 2). five-channels: 107W @ 8 ohms. In five-channel dynamic conditions, the test results were as follows: 210W @ 8 ohms, 330W @ 4 ohms, 380W @ 2 ohms. Here is the remainder of the data and I quote: "Distortion is higher at ~0.015% up to about 10W output, but settles back to ~0.004% over the bulk of its dynamic range through mid frequencies. Through both bass and treble, distortion increases slightly to ~0.015%. The output impedance(s) are low enough at ~0.045 ohm (front channels) and ~0.065 ohm (surround channels) while the response(s) are very extended - flat to 20kHz and just -0.9dB down at 100kHz." NOTE: The output impedance(s) they refer to is the source or driving output impedance of the amps, not the load (speaker) impedance. The review continues: "Front/surround channels balance is within tolerance at 0.18dB (ref. 0dBW) although the A-weighted S/N ratios are slightly different at 87.1dB and 92.1dB. Either way, this is a solid performer." Therefore, since two European magazines have now rated the RX-V1400RDS at very decent levels for 5-channels continuously driven outputs into 8 ohm loads, I would tend to believe them over the USA-based reviews. Additionally, the German websites also reflect similar testing results, and German magazines and web-based testing sites are absolute sticklers for specs, complete and honest testing data. All that being said, during DVD viewing (and, listening) very seldom are all 5 (or more) channels and respective audio outputs peaking at the same time, typically only in short and dynamic burst conditions. Most of us will never use, or need, such high continuous outputs anyway. Plus, you should primarily base your buying decision on how it "sounds" through your speaker system. Buying on "specs" alone is a guarantee for certain disappointment in the real world. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SmittyCanada Post Number: 28 Registered: Dec-03 | Interesting, do you happen to have any numbers from these European magazines on some receivers that were actually rated well by US magazines? Eg. NAD, H/K, Rotel or Outlaw? From my reading of these numbers the RX-V1400RDS has roughly equivalent power ratings as the NAD T773 or the H/K 7200. Seems a bit on the unbelievable side. |
|
Bronze Member Username: W9cwPost Number: 17 Registered: Mar-04 | Smitty, The March 2004 issue of HI-FI CHOICE tested the following units in their "Ultimate Group Test": 2-channel stereo - Arcam DiVA A80, Creek A50iR, Roksan Kandy MkIII, and Rotel RA-1062. A/V: Denon AVR-2803, Pioneer VSX-AX3 (this is equivalent to one of the Elite models sold here in the USA/Canada), Sony STR-DB790 (sold here as the Sony STR-DA1000ES), and the Yamaha RX-V1400RDS. The Rotel RA-1062 was their "Best Buy" among the 2-channel stereo units. They absolutely loved it, and the lab tests supported everything I've read about this unit and Rotel in general, i.e. power output, dynamic power characteristics, current delivering capacity, etc. I keep an "occasional" eye on the European magazines - I don't buy them very often because of their price (in the case of HI-FI CHOICE $8.99 at Borders) - but, I haven't seen a test of an NAD product, or H/K and Outlaw. I agree with you - it would be interesting to compare notes. Model numbers typically differ for units marketed in the USA/Canada, and other parts of the world. For example, this magazine also considers the H/K AVR-5550 a "Best Buy." This was tested in an earlier issue. The only way we could conclusively determine this is to test it ourselves. Certainly, it's possible to configure five 8 ohm resistive loads capable of handling 150W - with a lot of paralleling of non-inductive power resistors! But, I don't have such an inventory here. And, an old Hewlett-Packard AC VTVM would or ampere meter would be all that one would need to determine the continuous power level. The labs, of course, use much more elaborate and state-of-the-art test equipment. I wouldn't necessarily discount, or not believe, the tested continuously-driven output levels produced by the Yamaha. From my contacts in the consumer electronics industry, it appears the RX-V1400 and RX-V2400 are the first generation of a new wave of thinking at Yamaha. Certainly, on the voicing side of the equation, they are much less "bright" than models that came before them. |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 305 Registered: Dec-03 | For my money I will trust the bench test results from Home Theater magazine and as far as test results based on advertising IMO that's bogus in this case as Yamaha advertises in every month of this magazine. 43.5 watts @8ohms at 1% speaks for itself. I agree that the 2400 is much better sounding than past models and is not bright, just thin. BIG improvement from past Yamaha's. |
|
Bronze Member Username: LandrovalPost Number: 50 Registered: Feb-04 | The Finnish magazine described Yamaha RXV1400s sound as cold, steril, clean, detailed and well controlled. The bass could have had more power, but it was not weak as it was. Marantz SR6300 (test winner) had warm and detailed mids, tight focused bass and transparent soundstage. It had no problem even with massivest classical music. H/K AVR4550 had most bearing and punch in it's sound, although it was not as detailed an a bit covered. Sound was very warm. Denon AVR2803 sounded clean and open, but had a little "loudness" tone. It was detailed, but the bass was lacking power especially with movies. Pioneer VSA-AX3 was detailed and neutral/warm, with tight bass. With music it was a bit metallic and not very full or dynamic and lacked a bit vigour. Sony STR-DB2000ESs sound depended a lot from the speakers. It had ephasized bass and treble, but it was not "loudness" (?). A bit cold and covered and quite easy to listen. Better with movies. |
|
Bronze Member Username: W9cwPost Number: 18 Registered: Mar-04 | Unfortunately, I know first hand how the presence, or absence, of a major display advertising campaign from a client influences reviews. Display advertising drives the bottom line of all consumer magazines. To believe otherwise is naive. Otherwise, Consumer Digest and Consumer Reports, regardless how you view their review results, would have no reason to exist. I've been a NAD customer since 1980, and love their products. But, we all need to maintain objectivity regarding all products whoever the manufacturer may be. Perhaps we need to discuss other facets of receivers rather than their claimed or measured continuous power outputs. Unless one is using increadibly inefficient, or hard to drive, speakers, most, if not all, units available today have sufficient output levels to create painfully high dBA sound levels in a typically-sized room without perceptible distortion products. As most of you know, the difference between 50W and 100W power levels is only 3dB. The average human ear has a very difficult time differentiating an audio power level change of +/- 1dB. Frankly, I really don't understand the constant debate over power levels, unless one has the aforementioned speaker requirements. Many current quality receivers have more than reasonable dynamic "short term burst" amplifier chracteristics. We should be more concerned with the performance of the DSP processor with its ability to properly decode the various coding schemes with seamless operation, no digital or noise artifacts, hum, etc. Certainly, there is more to an A/V receiver than just the preamp and amp section. The most significant drawback to the RX-V1400 and RX-V2400 is its voicing. I agree with the poster above on this. The sound is not as bright with this generation, but certainly thin if you are used to listening to other brands, such as NAD and others. |
|
Bronze Member Username: E1kad2Post Number: 32 Registered: Dec-03 | Nothing much to say elitefan. I told you before, you should test it for yourself and not just believe in what you read. How would you explain the other test results findings? |
|
Unregistered guest | It is impossible to measure the power output of an amplifier with "speakers driven". An amp is tested on a bench with the speaker outputs terminated at a load resistor; 8 Ohms, 4 Ohms and so on. A load reisitor is just that a resistive load. As such it bears no relationship to what the amp sees when it is driving a reactive load of a speaker which has an impedance curve or in some cases an impedance swing that can vary from as little as 1 Ohm to as much as 65 Ohms for some very difficult to drive speakers. Resistance is just a portion of the equation for determining impedance. There are many other things going on in a real live speaker such as phase angle, EMF (or literally the force that the speaker's combined motor mechanisms try to put back into the amplifier) the capacitance and inductance of the crossover, etc. Then realize that that power rating is taken with a single sine wave frequency that again has no relationship to the actual signal complexity of music or anything else in nature for that matter. An example I have used to illustrate this is an 80's Mitsubishi that a friend had. It had a instantaneous fuel economy display. We would head over to Fort Worth and he'd get going about 90 mph as we crested a good size hill (good size for Texas that is) and as we started downhill he took his foot off the gas and checked the economy display. WOWSERS!!! We were getting 785 miles to the gallon! About 30 seconds later we were headed uphill with his foot on the gas and now we were getting 4.5 mpg. Obviously neither had anything to do with reality. And unfortunately there is less reality to the specs of audio gear. Read some of the pages from the better audio manufacturers and if they are avlable at your local library back issues of "Audio" magazine which disappeared back in the 90's to find good explanations of how equipment actually works in the real world versus the four color glossy world of ads and spec sheets. As a final aside , speaking of glossy ads there used to be an ad for Marantz that ran on the back of every audio magazine for months. This is in the 70's when Marantz was ownwed by Superscope and was making pure mass market junk. Their "hot" seller was the 2270B (I took one on trade one time that had been purchased from a tire store). On a test bench the amp measured as stated in the specs and could sell for less than any of the competition. The picture was of a 2270B reciever that was charred from a fire. Marantz claimed in the ad that after the reciver was reclaimed from the ashes all they had to do was replace the power cord and the reciever worked like new. The joke in the stores, of course, was they failed to tell you it was the Marantz that started the fire. This was in the heyday of the Phase Linear 700B, 350 watts per channel and could reach 1000 watt peaks. It earned the nickname "Flame Linear". What looks good on paper isn't always so in real life. The lesson everyone has to learn; if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Learn how to listen and look with intelligence. |
|
Bronze Member Username: W9cwPost Number: 20 Registered: Mar-04 | Of course what Jan says it true for most speaker designs. The speaker impedance is not made up of simple resistance. The impedance is a combination of resistance and either inductive or capacitive reactance, and this complex impedance all varies substantially with the audio input frequency. The same is true with RF frequencies. In antenna design, the impedance is generally referenced to a 50 ohm impedance at the resonant frequency. However, the true resonance of the antenna may be anything from a few ohms to several hundred or thousand ohms resistive, as well as either significant inductive or capacitive reactance. That said, most of the specs of RF amplifier or linear amplifier designs (either vacuum tube or solid-state) are specified into a 50 ohm resistive load - not the actual complex R+/-X as is typically seen in all antennas. This RF example is certainly analogous to AF theory. A few speakers, however, do "look" to the amplifier as a continuous resistive load. For example, several models of KEF speakers back in the early '80s incorporated a "swamping" resistor before the cross-over network to ensure a constant 8 ohm resistive load was presented to the amplifier. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 469 Registered: Dec-03 | Don, Wonderful and very informative. But I agree completely with Jan Vigne. All I can suggest is a possible explanation for everyone's obsession with power ratings: with just a little knowledge, and an over-riding concern for sound quality, the first thing most people look for in an amp is getting the most Watts per channel for their money. Manufacturers know this. Some will devise any means to increase the stated power value, and then forget to leave out detailed qualifications, which you absolutely need in order to make any comparison. We should not believe manufacturers' claims unless they explicitly say something like "..with not more than x distortion (THD or what?), from 20 Hz - 20 kHz (or what?), continuously (important), all channels driven (important). You will know better than anyone here what exactly what should go in the blanks, if anything. Power is the rate of doing work. I am not in any way qualified on this, but I cannot see any sense in quoting "instantaneous power" except to get large numbers, leave off the qualification, and make sales to people who want the cheapest Watts, and don't want to think too hard about what "Watt" means. Landroval started by quoting a figure for a 20 msec burst. We usually listen to music and movies for more than 20 msec. Probably there is a ceiling on transient power delivery, but my elementary physics says 130 W for 20 msec is just the same quantity of energy as 260 W for 10 msec, and so on. Not to mention 130 kW for 20 microseconds. Whereas, continuous power requires no qualifiation, and is what matters for real listening. Surely? About a year ago, when looking for my first audio purchase for a long time (an AV receiver), I wandered into a consumer electronics store and found all the labels said were: maker; price; and Watts per channel. That's all the salesman knew, too. I have put this link in various places here : NAD power. I was actually expecting delivery of a 100 W pc Sony (forget the model) when I first read that, and my reaction was "NAD cannot meet reasonable power specs; they are making feeble excuses". But I read some more here, and found a traded-in NAD at 5 x 60 W for the same (discount; mail-order) new price of the Sony at 5 X 100 W. Then I read the detailed specs for both, and canceled the Sony order. The clincher really was "continuous"; you really had to dig into the Sony spec to find it was not. It did appear to me they had something to hide. I do believe it was a good decision. I am not banging the NAD drum; from what I read here, you can say the same for H/K, Marantz, and Denon, not to mention many smaller independents. "during DVD viewing (and, listening) very seldom are all 5 (or more) channels and respective audio outputs peaking at the same time, typically only in short and dynamic burst conditions". Yes, but when they do peak at the same time, you need it. As you know, I have the zeal of the newly converted for DVD-Audio. Massive orchestral fffs from all five main channels are something. You will only get full dynamic range if your amp will deliver the required power. And 20 seconds, a short burst for music, is as probably the same as "Continuous" from an electronics point of view. I totally agree with "Buying on "specs" alone is a guarantee for certain disappointment in the real world." But that is why some makers play the numbers game. I do think we should try not to be fooled, especially these days where it is getting difficult to audition things even in showrooms, and home trial (once the test of a real dealer) is almost unknown. |
|
Silver Member Username: GeekboyNewport, RI United States Post Number: 242 Registered: Dec-03 | Don/Landroval et al: we're obsessed with power because of manufacturers like Sony. John A reasonably concludes that we need both... proper specifications and to listen to the equipment as well (with an appropriately setup environment -- speakers, room, etc). I became mildly obsessed after my Sony STR-DE995B fiasco. I traded my 110W x 7 STR-DE995B for my 70W x 7 Harman Kardon AVR-525. Who would have known? If we went into the store and just read the labels -- I'm guilty of that -- we'd all be sitting at home with our Sony STR-DE995Bs and thinking THAT was what you got for the amount of money invested. Now, my requirements may be different than most. I drive Paradigm Reference Eclipse/BP speakers (88dB anechoic) in my front array and have a rather large room (18'x30'x11'4"). There is definately a difference in how electronics perform with my setup without regard to music fidelity. Take music fidelity out of the equation and just pure ability to power my speakers (I have Mirage 390is' in the rear)... it was obvious there was something wrong with the Sony. I think we all agree here that most consumer systems capable of supplying 40W of continuous power with all channels driven (20Hz - 20kHz) is more than enough for relatively efficient speakers in a relatively normal listening room (12'x12'x9'). I think we can all agree that in some cases, that isn't enough.  It's not so much that these common consumer receivers can output 100W at burst for XXms... it's where these consumer receivers start clipping at 50W after 1ms of program material. Also, while we're on the topic of discrepency between magazines... I'm starting to not trust anyone. I'll have to look at the specs for myself, and setup a workbench in my garage so that I can bench test all these receivers myself. Back to reality though, I respect Sound and Vision (and now subscribe) because I believe them to be fair and run practical bench tests. Please let me know what the UK/EU magazines are and maybe I can get a subscription for those as well. I wouldn't mind seeing all sides of the truth. |
|
Silver Member Username: GeekboyNewport, RI United States Post Number: 243 Registered: Dec-03 | (More dribble from me to no one in particular): I think we educated consumers tend to use the numbers to help quantify what we think we hear. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. But it's easy for me to say that the H/K (70w) -- an example -- seems to have faster punchier bass on my Paradigms than a Sony (110W) does. How can I exlain that differently? Of course it could be the DSP, the DACS? What if I turned off the DSP and used the DACS in my CD player? What explains it then? Consumers need a correct method for quantifying what they should hear, sorry, expect from electronics. And that goes against everything that we teach here... listen for yourself. But there is some correlation between what you hear and what the electronics are capable of reproducing. Truthfully, I think the advent of multi-channel (> 2 channels) sound, especially around movie tracks, is what's driving all this. 2-Channel stereo seems to work very well in all these consumer models. I don't argue about that. They have adequate power to deafen anyone in just about any sized room. (What was that band... Disaster Area.) Because sound is so subjective anyhow, I don't think we'll ever have an objective number to quantify it. Consumers will never be able to read a number (spec) and say... "that's what I want". But, capitalism at its finest, suggests that we buy the most watts for the cheapest buck... we are sending the wrong message. That's my opinion, I could be wrong. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 485 Registered: Dec-03 | geekboy, You eloquently express my own state of confusion. "HiFi News" is pretty good. It was there I first read the question about DSP ambience effects that everyone should ask him/herself: Why do I need to emulate the sound I would to hear if I played my audio system in a church? Yes, "Disaster Area". Thanks for remembering. The source: Alpha Centauri Arena. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 487 Registered: Dec-03 | Sorry, that was not the source; just a concert review by a critic. But I think he'd got the idea. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 63 Registered: Dec-03 | Gentlemen: If I may, please let me give you my 34+ year take on this obsession called audio, and the basic problem someone new, or just starting out will face. As we know it all starts with information and education. When starting out, they have no point of reference. Absolutely no clue as to what sound they should be listening for in a system. When I started, I went to my local specialty audio salon, started asking questions, listening, putting together a system, and building a TRUSTING RELATIONSHIP with the dealer. I had such a relationship for 20+ years before sadly closing 10 years ago. Another victim of the Circuit City, Best Buy ilk. So where does one go when starting out today? Magazines, the Circuit City route, and places like this forum. What can one learn from Circuit City? The typical clerk there doesn't know a digital processor from a thermometer. I think I will stop here, but my advice is to gather all the info you can, take good advice under consideration, and then push youself away from your keyboard, and go out and listen to the equipment for yourself. Go somewhere, listen to a good high end system, and then try to get as close to that sound within yor budget. Lastly, listen to the good guys on this board, Gman, hawk, geekboy, JohnA., elitefan, and others who freely give their time, opinions, and advice, for the love of this insane hobby. Thank you. |
|
Silver Member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 315 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Thanks for including me among the "good guys". I really do try to give the best answers I can as I enjoy helping people spend their money as wisely as possible. It's easy putting together an expensive system but it's more rewarding helping someone on a tight budget put together a good sounding system. Ewan, I will admit I was pleasantly surprised at the sound quality of the 2400, especially compared to past Yamaha's which were so much brighter. The 2400 is still to thin sounding for my tastes and would be a poor choice to pair with my Monitor Audio speakers but is a nice match with the Paradigm Monitor series. As I said before I will trust Home Theater's ability to measure this units power output as they have been doing this for several years and know what they are doing and for nothing else but comparrison purposes as I have been a subscriber for many years. I was glad to have had a good experience with a Yamaha as it's been so long since I could say that. Maybe, hopefully they are getting their act together. Imagine, a Yamaha with REAL bass management. It's about time. All in all the 2400 is a nice receiver when paired with the right speakers and I would consider them in the future if I changed speakers. [Years away] |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 64 Registered: Dec-03 | elitefan, You are welcome-thank you. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 490 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Thanks, too! I agree. However, there are still professional audio dealers. Some manufacturers will only distribute through them, not through mail or internet order. To the newcomer, this may smack of protectionism. But I think it is worth paying for. Good manufacturers value long-term customer satisfaction. The customer can sometimes get sense and good advice out of dealers, and will certainly get after-sales support, the possibility of demos, and, still, in some cases, home trials. It depends where you are, I think. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 65 Registered: Dec-03 | JohnA., I could not agree with you more. I quess my point is the small professional audio salons are slowly going the way of the dinosaur. Just can't compete in the mid-fi market with the big chains. It's sad in my opinion. I just can't understand how anyone can buy a piece of gear without listening to it, or have no frame of reference for good sound. P.S. You are also welcome. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 495 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, A pleasure. I'm sure you can find, and recommend, professional dealers in your area. I can only really advise on UK. BTW It gets harder to be impressed as time goes by. But I am a new convert to DVD-A with only a slightly shorter track record than you. One conclusion I find confirmed is that CD was not, really, a hi-fi format. It was a convenience format. Remember all the debate about LP vs CD? Digital could not really deliver high-resolution sound comparable to analogue, on a 650 MB CD, despite everything Sony-Philips said. Now the storage capacity of a 12 cm disc has gone up nearly 10 times, and digital really is as good as analogue. Plus multichannel is finally a reality, unlike quadraphony, ambisonics, etc. This is progress! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 66 Registered: Dec-03 | JohnA., Absolutely. The one thing the new-comers have, is this amazing technology today. Not like when I started out, transferring vinyl to 10" open reel tape with Dolby B. My first love was always 2 channel stereo, and still is. I was probably the last convert to CD, later, the first early adopter of DVD-funny how things change. I'm sure I'll get around to DVD-A. Do you currently reside in the UK, or in the US? |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 498 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, I am with you. I've always loved good stereo and know about channel balance, the Blumlein pair, all that. Many recording engineers still don't know where to put microphones, and they've had nearly 50 years to get it right. When they do, it's wonderful. I have slighly lost track of my manic posts on DVD-A in the last couple of days. At the risk of repetition: my view is that DVD-Audio (and I mean in 5.1) is the biggest step forward in sound reproduction since the introduction of stereophony. That was the late 1950s, I think. Nothing, in the interim, compares. Consider that "this amazing technology today" is only really appreciated if you can take a long view, and have base for comparison. There are consolations! All the best. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 67 Registered: Dec-03 | JohnA., Stay well, and keep up the good work. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 509 Registered: Dec-03 | Sincere thanks, Rick. |
|
VCody Unregistered guest | Somewhat of a duplicate post from another thread but please bear with me, I just found this thread. I will listen to all receivers I consider but to narrow the choices I do look first at specs. And since I have NHT speakers (86db efficiency) and a 16x23x8 room (listening 12' from front speakers) I do care about power. One thing that has me confused is how can Yamaha test at 107wx5 and spec at 110x7 continuous when the max power consumption is 500 watts? For that matter how can Marantz sr7400, with a rep for good power, spec at 105wx7 with a 540w max? By comparison Denon 3805 makes sense at 840w max and H/K 630 is 1100w max! Separately, any recs for a receiver (<=$1000) to go with a 7.1 nht set-up (sb3 fronts, sc2 center, iw3/ic3 surrounds) are much appreciated. Thanks! |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 646 Registered: Dec-03 | VCody, Personally I favour low-efficiency speaker designs, other things being equal. I read good things here about NHT. So, perhaps like you, it is easy for me to imagine the power rating of an amp/receiver is particularly important. The problem is, it is very difficult to compare specs between brands. My post above on April 05 is my story and point of view; follow the link there, too. Jan Vigne has a much broader knowledge and more professional point of view, I think. What I own, and am very pleased with: KEF speakers (reputation for low efficiency; my current surrounds are 83 dB I think) driven by NAD receiver (reputation for conservative power ratings; the one I have rated at 5 x 60 W). With a good clean signal it can play continuously with plenty in reserve and at volumes I find satisfying, and people who are not listening find terrifying. And I have a much larger volume of air in the room, having a higher ceiling |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics