Real RMS clean power vs. total Bull$hit [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Real RMS clean power vs. total Bull$hit



Audioman00
08-06-2004, 10:58 PM
Anyone else notice that brands (which are usually highly reknown) like yamaha, sony, Pioneer, etc. are actually stuping to new lows, like the old 100 watts equal power output? Ok, that is a broad statement that can be taken a number of ways. 100 x 2 @ one time or 1 at a time, etc. It really bothers me especially that Yammi is even doing it now with their HTR series recevers and so forth. I have been through home audio's up's and downs for many years and like most of you, have owned way to much equipment over the years to even mention, but even in the cheap brands, never has the industry stooped to such a car audio type low as this. We all know car audio can also be very high quality, but it's 90% hype and BS, ya know, big numbers make young dumb kids and even some adults think WOW I have a 1200 watt system, and it only cost me 200 bucks at wal-mart, but yet jim-bob down the street has a 150 watt old school yamaha amplifier pushing a 10" cerwin vega woofer and it wipes mine's a$$. Needless to say, this really is an outrage to me seeing as how I always prided myself on the higher quality of home audio components and the lack of bull. Now even they are doing it, I suppose it was the launch of HT systems and people thinking that big number are better, but nevertheless, this is not a good direction for the industry to go in. Any views on this and why the heck they are getting so cheesy about power ratings?

Mash
08-07-2004, 03:01 AM
Not sure what your complaint is.... The "FTC Power Ratings" seem fairly specific: required 1/3 power preheating, how long the power is delivered into the specified load, and so on. Some boomboxes do list music power but the fine print will usually reveal the RMS power.

Besides, given that you need a 2X power increase for your ears to detect ANY volume increase, why is it important if an amp is 90W, 100W, or 110W ??

Sealed
08-07-2004, 03:26 AM
It is to a degree, a consumer fraud. The mass-fi stuff likes to play the numbers game. This started in the late 70's or 80's when the Japanese manufacturers would rate output (when it would be only capable of it at 1,000hz) or PMPO "Peak Momentary Power Output" or other reality-cloaking devices.

As stated above, listening is key. But, to the masses, the bigger numbers (I think I saw an Aiwa mini system that said 1600 watts) sells like sex sells. "OOh! what power!"

The integrated chips and puny power supplies are probably a few watts at best from a class D or T switching amp.

Judge for yourself the fidelity. The real test is what kind of speaker can it drive? Its no challenge to drive a small two way klipsch speaker rated at 99db 1/w 1/m. But when asked to drive an electrostat, a dynaudio or other tough speaker load, it's obvious and clear there is more BS than RMS.

markw
08-07-2004, 03:26 AM
The FTC power ratings only apply to two channel units, and have since the early 70's Auto sound, 'puter speakers and boom boxes are exempt from these, which accounts for the eye boggling numbers. Now, the crus of this seemingly rambling post? Along with the three aforementioned exemptions, multi channel audio is similarly exempt.

Many times these amps will produce their advertised 100 wpc, but not all at the same time. As more channels are called into play, the lower the watts per channel drops. The power supply is the limitingfactor here and that's where they save $$.

But, the good thing is that in HT, having all channels going b*lls to the wall at the same time is rare, particularly where the surrounds are concerned. Now, with multi-channel music looming on the horizon, this may change but as far as rating multi channel HT receivers, it's still the wild, wild west out there.

This Guy
08-07-2004, 06:52 AM
Yeah I see what your saying. Even my Marantz lowers it's output significantly (Hi fi choice web site tested it). It's rated 85x6, but when they tested all channels driven and through the whole spectrum it lowers to 35 watts a channel. I bought this receiver knowing that, because it was one of the few that had pre-outs, and a powerful stereo mode (120 watts x 2) and can handle my lower impediance speakers. So far so good, and since I'm using the pre-outs, it's only powering four speakers, which according to them would be 70-80 watts. It does infact beat the sh1t out of my old JVC which was rated at 100 x 5 though.

-Joey

skeptic
08-07-2004, 08:48 AM
Here's the FTC ruling;

"The SNPR concerns a class of audio equipment that did not exist when the Commission initiated its review of the Amplifier Rule in 1997. Due to recent advances in digital processing technology, consumers can now purchase home theater receivers (also known as audio/video receivers) that will decode complex digital signals on movie soundtracks and send discrete amplified signals to five or more loudspeakers strategically located around the listening room. "

"Under the Rule, all "associated channels" of an amplifier must be driven to full rated power simultaneously during the power measurement tests. Accordingly, the Commission is soliciting public comment on three alternative methods for designating "associated channels" for multichannel receivers and power amplifiers."

Here's the web site I got this from. You can research the followup yourself.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/12/amprule.htm

BTW, the original rule ending the amplifier horsepower race was adopted by the FTC around 1974. In 1997 they modified it to include self powerd speakers including subwoofers and speakers for computers. You can research the rules yourself but they are quite clear, specific, and complete. I think that they address your questions satisfactorily. It is clear however, that the standard procedures for testing and specifying audio amplifiers do not necessarily reflect the qualitative differences in real world performance of home high fidelity audio amplifiers. This is because the science of measuring their performance hasn't kept up with the science of designing them. As I have said in other threads, there is much work for the engineering community to do here and I can only conclude that for some engineers there is no incentive while for others they are just too lazy. This is why people like Robert Czar can make statements like "there is no audible difference between amplifiers of any kind" when we know from common experience of many if not most audiophiles that there are such real differences. Unfortunately, we have no way to understand when and why these differences exist and exactly what they consist of in both nature and degree because the engineers haven't done their homework.

kexodusc
08-07-2004, 01:37 PM
I think you'll see more manufacturers follow Yamaha's experiment and use the slacker power rating just to compete in stores like Best Buy. I think this is to the greater good of mankind, myself, but I have mixed feelings too. On one hand, people will better understand why Yamaha, Denon, Harman Kardon, Marantz etc are more expensive than the typical Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, etc...on the other it will prevent people from thinking a bit more, wondering why a 45 watt Harman Kardon receiver can smoke a 100 watt Sony.

This is a really old debate that doesn't seem to be any closer to resolution. At least Yamaha's HTR line often publishes both specs...I had a discussion today with a kid at a local shop who swore a Panasonic Boombox that was "Bi-amped" would smoke and NAD out there because it had 300 wpc and boomboxes were the wave of the future. You can't blame a manufacturer from trying to market itself...blame the masses of idiots who spend too much time looking at numbers and statistics and accepting them as truth without qualification.

People don't realize how much (how little) power they are actually using most of the time either. The modern consumer is born believing more = better.

skeptic
08-07-2004, 02:12 PM
With the disappearance of the all in one EIA rated furniture console stereos of the 60s and 70s and the greying of the baby boom generation, I think the market has become a little more sophisticated than it once was. I don't think people are as easily taken in by ads. At the low end of the market, and that for me includes all HT receivers under say about $500 to $1000, they are usually adequate to drive typical HT speakers especially since a lot of the work once done by receivers or amplifiers is now done by powered subwoofers with internally dedicated power amplifiers. As for the much more expensive $1000 and up dedicated power amplifiers, the market is pretty savvy knowing full well that an 8wpc SET won't be able to drive a pair of Magnepans. Usually, in that price bracket, people have researched what is available in their price range and narrowed their choices to one of several comparable models.

I don't think you'll fool most people past their teens into believing that a boom box will outperform a high quality sound system. On the other hand, you'd look pretty funny walking around the streets with a NAD receiver and a pair of B&W speakers over your shoulder, especially given that long power cord you'd be dragging.

kexodusc
08-07-2004, 02:19 PM
On the other hand, you'd look pretty funny walking around the streets with a NAD receiver and a pair of B&W speakers over your shoulder, especially given that long power cord you'd be dragging.

Ha...especially carting around an old turntable for source...

Point taken...alot of people do start to do more research when they get close to buying, especially newbies, this site is proof of that. The ones that don't, probably don't care.

mtrycraft
08-07-2004, 03:34 PM
Now, with multi-channel music looming on the horizon, this may change but as far as rating multi channel HT receivers, it's still the wild, wild west out there.

They still, usually rate their power with two channels driven and most publications that happen to publish the specs, the components do meet the 2 channel claims.
As to the multi channel music I don't forsee a real need for full power to the surrounds unless one wants a recording from the perspective of being right in the middle of the orchesra :)

I'd rather sit out in the audience and get spacial effects in the surround at a few watts :D

mtrycraft
08-07-2004, 03:41 PM
BTW, the original rule ending the amplifier horsepower race was adopted by the FTC around 1974.


Jun 1978 Audio published an extensive article on the FTC protocol.


Unfortunately, we have no way to understand when and why these differences exist and exactly what they consist of in both nature and degree because the engineers haven't done their homework.


That is not so. It either clips, has too much distortion or frequency response if poor.

skeptic
08-07-2004, 05:41 PM
"That is not so. It either clips, has too much distortion or frequency response if poor"

Unfortunately, many of the specifications published by manufacturers measured in a traditional manner do not tell us what to expect in the way of differences in the performance of amplifiers in real world usage. In the 1920s and 1930s, they were more than adequate because in general performance was so poor and the differences so gross that they readily showed up. But 75 years later, we still measure frequency response at 1 watt with a resistive load. Here's an interesting simple experiment. Connect an amplifier to an 8 ohm resistor, apply a 100 hz square wave to the input and increase the gain until you have 2.83 volts output (1 watt.) Observe the tilt. Now replace the resistor with a woofer and watch the tilt increase. How much? depends on the amplifier. Try it with another amplifier and you may get a different change in tilt. Both might measure flat to 20 hz with a resistive load but one gets its voltage pulled down further than the other with an iductive load. Repeat the experiment with an 8.9 volt output (10 watts.) This might show us even greater differences. As the art of designing amplifiers improved, the art of measuring them to tell us more about what distinguishes one from another should have improved also. But it didn't and now not only are consumers left in confusion, so are engineers. They don't however seem to care.

The same criteria for studying cables or anything else should be applied to amplifiers. First double blind tests to determine if audible differences exist and then a far more thorough investigation to find the electrical differences which explain why they sound different. Throw away the old text books used to evaluate amplifiers which are perfect by those old criteria. It's time to demand far more information. When the science of measurement correlates well with experience, the consurmer will have far less difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff than to listen to testimonials like the ones we hear about cables.

Pat D
08-07-2004, 06:46 PM
"That is not so. It either clips, has too much distortion or frequency response if poor"

Unfortunately, many of the specifications published by manufacturers measured in a traditional manner do not tell us what to expect in the way of differences in the performance of amplifiers in real world usage. In the 1920s and 1930s, they were more than adequate because in general performance was so poor and the differences so gross that they readily showed up. But 75 years later, we still measure frequency response at 1 watt with a resistive load. Here's an interesting simple experiment. Connect an amplifier to an 8 ohm resistor, apply a 100 hz square wave to the input and increase the gain until you have 2.83 volts output (1 watt.) Observe the tilt. Now replace the resistor with a woofer and watch the tilt increase. How much? depends on the amplifier. Try it with another amplifier and you may get a different change in tilt. Both might measure flat to 20 hz with a resistive load but one gets its voltage pulled down further than the other with an iductive load. Repeat the experiment with an 8.9 volt output (10 watts.) This might show us even greater differences. As the art of designing amplifiers improved, the art of measuring them to tell us more about what distinguishes one from another should have improved also. But it didn't and now not only are consumers left in confusion, so are engineers. They don't however seem to care.

The same criteria for studying cables or anything else should be applied to amplifiers. First double blind tests to determine if audible differences exist and then a far more thorough investigation to find the electrical differences which explain why they sound different. Throw away the old text books used to evaluate amplifiers which are perfect by those old criteria. It's time to demand far more information. When the science of measurement correlates well with experience, the consurmer will have far less difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff than to listen to testimonials like the ones we hear about cables.
How well do the simulated speaker loads work, such as those used by Stereophile and Soundstage? Soundstage has provided the characteristics of what I presume is the 8 ohm simulated speaker load on their site:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_amplifiers.htm

An amplifier with a high output impedance certainly will not have a flat response into that load as the reviews in both magazines show.

I am not at all sure square wave performance relates much to audibility.

mtrycraft
08-07-2004, 07:05 PM
"That is not so. It either clips, has too much distortion or frequency response if poor"

Unfortunately, many of the specifications published by manufacturers measured in a traditional manner do not tell us what to expect in the way of differences in the performance of amplifiers in real world usage. In the 1920s and 1930s, they were more than adequate because in general performance was so poor and the differences so gross that they readily showed up. But 75 years later, we still measure frequency response at 1 watt with a resistive load. Here's an interesting simple experiment. Connect an amplifier to an 8 ohm resistor, apply a 100 hz square wave to the input and increase the gain until you have 2.83 volts output (1 watt.) Observe the tilt. Now replace the resistor with a woofer and watch the tilt increase. How much? depends on the amplifier. Try it with another amplifier and you may get a different change in tilt. Both might measure flat to 20 hz with a resistive load but one gets its voltage pulled down further than the other with an iductive load. Repeat the experiment with an 8.9 volt output (10 watts.) This might show us even greater differences. As the art of designing amplifiers improved, the art of measuring them to tell us more about what distinguishes one from another should have improved also. But it didn't and now not only are consumers left in confusion, so are engineers. They don't however seem to care.

The same criteria for studying cables or anything else should be applied to amplifiers. First double blind tests to determine if audible differences exist and then a far more thorough investigation to find the electrical differences which explain why they sound different. Throw away the old text books used to evaluate amplifiers which are perfect by those old criteria. It's time to demand far more information. When the science of measurement correlates well with experience, the consurmer will have far less difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff than to listen to testimonials like the ones we hear about cables.


Why do I want to apply a square wave input? Are you interested how it is affected by such a wide bandwidth to cover that square wave?
You think amps have not been subjected to DBT listening over the decades? Why the 1990 8th International AES conference publication article examined 23 such tests comprising of 13,523 trials.
Here are some positive cases:
May 1977- 10 watt amp compared with a 400 watt amp.
May 1977- misbiased tube amp
Apr 1981- oscillating tube amp
Jan 1986- ignored 25% of the trials
Nov 1989- FR unmatched

Since then there were fewer but no positive outcomes that I know about. One case in particular, Stive Zipser and two others in Florida, compared a Yam AX-700 and Pass Lab Aleph 1.2 monoblocks, $14k for the pair.
The Audio Critic has been measuring amps by what they call the 3 powerd cubed method, able to load the amp to 60 deg inductive and capacitive loads and down to 1 ohms. Most if not all cannot withstand such extremes. Yet, they also lisened under DBT. No surprises.

What experience are you thinking about here?
When the science of measurement correlates well with experience,

Science is looking for facts and truths, hopefully. Experiences may be and can be wholly unreliable. How can science support an unreliable experience or perception? It cannot. The listener has to change to reality, not reality needs to bend to the listener.
Scienc e of measurements do correlate to what we hear unbiased. Toole has demonstrated this. \
Ask any number of the speaker makers exposed to the audio lab chambers at the NRC in Canada. Paul Barton, PSB, had a most interesting interview in Dec 1999 Audio: measurements correlate with listener preference. But they do their testing DBT :)
Or, the Paradigm's power trio, VanderMarel brothers and Bagby in Apr 1999 Audio:
NRC clearly proved that there is in fact a direct correlation between what we hear and what we can measure.
While these are speaker guys who do a lot of DBT listening, no reason why it doesn't apply to amps as well.

skeptic
08-08-2004, 04:05 PM
"Why do I want to apply a square wave input?"

Square waves are just another way of representing frequency response. The increased tilt caused by the speaker load shows that the frequency response is not nearly so perfect under real world loads driving loudspeakers as it is with 8 ohm resistive loads. The specifications normally supplied by manufacturers and expected by consumers do not show to what degree the performance is load dependendent. Damping factor (source impedence) is a start but only a start.

"Experiences may be and can be wholly unreliable. How can science support an unreliable experience or perception? It cannot."

Science in this case starts with objective evaluations of experience with double blind tests to determine what are illusions due to bias and what are genuine differences in perception. Once the genuine differences are established, then the job of the electrical engineer is to find out what technical factors contribute to that difference. If the specifications cannot give any clue, hint, or guide to what differences exist that are germaine to the listener's expectations, then they are worthless.

" The listener has to change to reality, not reality needs to bend to the listener."

And it is science's first priority to find out what that reality is and isn't.

Within the identical maximum power capabilities of an audio amplifier lie a vast number of possibilities. These would range from say a public address amplifier at one extreme to a state of the art high fidelity amplifier at the other. The differences can be broken down into tiny increments as one design is altered piece by piece to become transformed the other. Would you say there are no differences between the extremes? Then at each point along the continuum between them it is desirable to know which changes contribute to the audible differences, to what degree, and exactly how. I think that there is still much work to do. The debates here strongly suggest it.

E-Stat
08-08-2004, 06:13 PM
I don't think you'll fool most people past their teens into believing that a boom box will outperform a high quality sound system.
Excepting, of course, one particularly frequent poster here. :D

rw

mtrycraft
08-08-2004, 09:58 PM
"Why do I want to apply a square wave input?"

Square waves are just another way of representing frequency response. The increased tilt caused by the speaker load shows that the frequency response is not nearly so perfect under real world loads driving loudspeakers as it is with 8 ohm resistive loads. The specifications normally supplied by manufacturers and expected by consumers do not show to what degree the performance is load dependendent. Damping factor (source impedence) is a start but only a start.

Yes, but that square wave, even at 100Hz, is a very broad spectrum, maybe beyond the design specs?



Science in this case starts with objective evaluations of experience with double blind tests to determine what are illusions due to bias and what are genuine differences in perception. Once the genuine differences are established, then the job of the electrical engineer is to find out what technical factors contribute to that difference. If the specifications cannot give any clue, hint, or guide to what differences exist that are germaine to the listener's expectations, then they are worthless.

Yes, you are right, no dispute here. But, this isn't rocket science anymore.


And it is science's first priority to find out what that reality is and isn't.

Yes, of course.

Within the identical maximum power capabilities of an audio amplifier lie a vast number of possibilities. These would range from say a public address amplifier at one extreme to a state of the art high fidelity amplifier at the other. The differences can be broken down into tiny increments as one design is altered piece by piece to become transformed the other. Would you say there are no differences between the extremes? Then at each point along the continuum between them it is desirable to know which changes contribute to the audible differences, to what degree, and exactly how. I think that there is still much work to do. The debates here strongly suggest it.

Yes, but power is only one spec. There are a few others that an amp is designed for and will give an idea where it is applicable to use and where not. Driving different loads, continuously is another such important spec.

There certainly was a difference between that 10 watt amp and the 400 watt amp.
This isn't rocket science where the differences are and why.

skeptic
08-09-2004, 04:07 AM
The problem as I see it is that it is a fairly widely reported experience that amplifiers which look identical or nearly identical on paper according to their advertized specifications do not always perform identically. That the user can tell that there is a differences causes me to conclude that the specifications we normally associate with them are incomplete. Either that or the users are deluding themselves. But I have also had the same experience. I would not say it is true to nearly the same degree as one loudspeaker system and another sound differently, but there are differences. This makes it impossible not only for even the best informed hobbyist consumers to make objective choices but even for engineers themselves. Once again the onus of proof should fall on those who sell the most expensive equipment. Why should we buy a multi thousand dollar 100 wpc Bryston amplifier in preference to a few hundred dollar 100 wpc Adcom or say a $50 used 100 wpc HK receiver? It's up to Bryston to show us something meaningful that justifies their price. So far, all we have is anecdotes and educated guesses. And as with the audiophile cables, for me that's just not enough. BTW, my reference system uses a 60 wpc Mosfet 120 I built from a kit for $200 eleven years ago. It seems like an excellent design and a great value. I'm only sorry I didn't buy more of them when I could.

WmAx
08-09-2004, 09:57 AM
The problem as I see it is that it is a fairly widely reported experience that amplifiers which look identical or nearly identical on paper according to their advertized specifications do not always perform identically. That the user can tell that there is a differences causes me to conclude that the specifications we normally associate with them are incomplete.
How often does one see a complete and objective set of measurement data from the manufacturer? That is one thing stereophile is good for, lately they have been providing a section with almost every amp when they review it; detailed thd vs. frequency vs. power vs. load plots along with other important measurments such as IMD, etc. Not long ago they reveiwed perhaps the poorest performing SET I've ever noticed, with 10% THD at it's rated output power of 10 watts. In this case, I would expect a difference to be detected in a controlled comparisions. However must amplifiers they measure are well under audible thresholds for the audible bandwidth. Some have potentially audible freuency response difference under any condition, some have potentially audible fr difference under certain loads(high output impedance), etc. Hey, somehting Stereophile IS good for! :-)

Failed attempts to find 'unmeasurable' difference: a fellow named Richard Clark has been performing ABX tests with audiophiles, studio engineers, etc. for a few years now. He has performed many of these tests and with a prize: the winner gets $10,000 USD. Their are a few 'catches' if you want to call them this: must aquire 8/10 score average over three trials total(not aproblem if you can reall hear difference!). The DUT(device under test) is compared to another amp that is equalized to match the DUT if the two have different fr. The two amps must used/compared in their normal operating ranges(not allowed to operate into clipping region). You can pick both amps if you wish, but audible fr difference must be removed with eq if present. He goes to the extent, and supposedly has performed this test in people's homes where they will be comofrtable in their 'own environment'. He has yet to pay any prize money. But this should not be problem for audiophiles; i mean they are comparing one amp used directly compared to another amp that is being fed through those nasty EQ circuits! :-)

You can talk to Richard Clark/contact at:

http://www.carsound.com/cgi-bin/UBB_CGI/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=1

-Chris

kexodusc
08-09-2004, 10:22 AM
Richard Clark's test/challenge is an interesting proposition.
Most "audiophiles" I know blow all their money on crazy expensive gear and exotic cables, and can't afford to fly Richard to their homes and provide him compensation for his time, though.

I wish a few big name audio guru's would take him on publicly, and at least we'd have some definitive answers one way or another. And compare something like an AMC-2100 vs. a Bryston 3B or something drastic.

The great thing about goofy challenges like this is someone goes home with egg on their face. I wonder how many well known industry names have actually taken him up on it to date?

mtrycraft
08-09-2004, 03:33 PM
The problem as I see it is that it is a fairly widely reported experience that amplifiers which look identical or nearly identical on paper according to their advertized specifications do not always perform identically. That the user can tell that there is a differences causes me to conclude that the specifications we normally associate with them are incomplete.

But how reliable are all these reports in light of what published data from DBT shows us?


Either that or the users are deluding themselves.


Or, their listeing protocol is unreliable.

But I have also had the same experience.

From careful level matched DBT? How difficult of a speaker load are we talkning about? How grossly different amps?

I would not say it is true to nearly the same degree as one loudspeaker system and another sound differently, but there are differences.


Even with loudspeakers you have to be very careful about biased preferences. Toole has demonstrated this, in peer paper.

This makes it impossible not only for even the best informed hobbyist consumers to make objective choices but even for engineers themselves.

We'll just disagree in a friendly manner :D

Once again the onus of proof should fall on those who sell the most expensive equipment.

Or, the ones claiming testable differences?

Why should we buy a multi thousand dollar 100 wpc Bryston amplifier in preference to a few hundred dollar 100 wpc Adcom or say a $50 used 100 wpc HK receiver?

Issue of preference? 20 year warranty? Maybe it can drive difficult loads? If none of these, then no reason. :)

It's up to Bryston to show us something meaningful that justifies their price.

Only if they claim something special for that amp, sonic quality, etc, which they don't. They do have a very long warranty. That costs $$.

mtrycraft
08-09-2004, 03:38 PM
Richard Clark's test/challenge is an interesting proposition.
Most "audiophiles" I know blow all their money on crazy expensive gear and exotic cables, and can't afford to fly Richard to their homes and provide him compensation for his time, though.

I wish a few big name audio guru's would take him on publicly, and at least we'd have some definitive answers one way or another. And compare something like an AMC-2100 vs. a Bryston 3B or something drastic.

The great thing about goofy challenges like this is someone goes home with egg on their face. I wonder how many well known industry names have actually taken him up on it to date?


Is there an link to the actual offer? The above link is to a web page only.
This may be the same $10 I read about. If so, the statistics is stacked in his favor, 100% accuracy on what, 20 trials?

E-Stat
08-09-2004, 03:55 PM
The problem as I see it is that it is a fairly widely reported experience that amplifiers which look identical or nearly identical on paper according to their advertized specifications do not always perform identically. That the user can tell that there is a differences causes me to conclude that the specifications we normally associate with them are incomplete.
Thank you sir for stating the obvious to those incapable of grasping such !

rw

budgetaudio76
03-16-2008, 12:05 AM
Anyone else notice that brands (which are usually highly reknown) like yamaha, sony, Pioneer, etc. are actually stuping to new lows, like the old 100 watts equal power output? Ok, that is a broad statement that can be taken a number of ways. 100 x 2 @ one time or 1 at a time, etc. It really bothers me especially that Yammi is even doing it now with their HTR series recevers and so forth. I have been through home audio's up's and downs for many years and like most of you, have owned way to much equipment over the years to even mention, but even in the cheap brands, never has the industry stooped to such a car audio type low as this. We all know car audio can also be very high quality, but it's 90% hype and BS, ya know, big numbers make young dumb kids and even some adults think WOW I have a 1200 watt system, and it only cost me 200 bucks at wal-mart, but yet jim-bob down the street has a 150 watt old school yamaha amplifier pushing a 10" cerwin vega woofer and it wipes mine's a$$. Needless to say, this really is an outrage to me seeing as how I always prided myself on the higher quality of home audio components and the lack of bull. Now even they are doing it, I suppose it was the launch of HT systems and people thinking that big number are better, but nevertheless, this is not a good direction for the industry to go in. Any views on this and why the heck they are getting so cheesy about power ratings?


the ratings can be anoying huh? IN my bedroom system(a sherwood low budget 2 channel reciever it is rated at 100 watts per channel it is a discrete amp.. what ever that means... but it doesnt sound much louder than my h/k avr 146 which is rated at 40 watts per channel stereo 30 watts in h/t mome. But the harmon doesnt shut off when going near full volume. which the sherwood does just after the half way mark. this was with 86db at 1 watt speakers. like some of the others said about the harmons sounding like their rated power i can attest to it with my lowly harmon.:16:

JohnMichael
03-16-2008, 04:44 AM
Wow a 3 1/2 year old thread revival.

budgetaudio76
03-16-2008, 10:42 AM
Wow a 3 1/2 year old thread revival.



yeah :crazy: i looked at the dates after done posting my reply. needless to say i felt funny afterwards

JohnMichael
03-16-2008, 01:35 PM
yeah :crazy: i looked at the dates after done posting my reply. needless to say i felt funny afterwards



Do not feel funny. You bring up an interesting point that specs are not always what is important in choosing electronics. One amp might be rated simply by using an eight ohm resistor and the other actually driving a loudspeaker load. Sounds like the HK has a better power supply. Even though it has a lower rating it can probably deliver more watts than rated while the other's power supply is being strained and protection circuitry is shutting it down. The better amp regardless of specs will always be the one that keeps playing.

GMichael
03-17-2008, 05:54 AM
Geez, I was half way through this thread before I noticed how old it was. I was about to respond to E-stat's post and try to guess who he meant.

budgetaudio76
03-17-2008, 07:19 AM
yeah i went half way through it and i was itchen to respond so i did and only after posting did i see how old it was

hermanv
03-19-2008, 07:57 AM
Wow a 3 1/2 year old thread revival.89.372% of all threads on this forum are revivals (not really, I just made up a number, sounds good though, huh?).

But there are always newbies who don't know and oldsters who know better, but can't help dragging out and dusting off the old objectivist/subjectivist tedium.