HK watts vs. Yamaha watts

[derekwwww]

How do the wattage ratings on HK and Yamaha receivers compare? Like would 120 yamaha rated watts be about 100 HK rated watts or are they about the same?

thanks

[markw]

If you teach that man how to fish, he'll eat all his life.

To obtain a barely audiable increase of 3 db, you would need to double that 100 watts to 200 watts. An increase of 20 watts here is basically inaudiable.

You seem to be curious as to the basics of this hobby. Here's a site that will teach you to fish. You'll probably find the answers to many other questions you've asked here as well.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/index.php

This site also offers many other helpful hints as well as this one.

The home page is http://www.audioholics.com

Happy fishing...

[shokhead]

How do the wattage ratings on HK and Yamaha receivers compare? Like would 120 yamaha rated watts be about 100 HK rated watts or are they about the same?

thanks

Other things to look at other then watts. 80-100 watt HK will run most anything pretty good. 80-100 watt Kenwood wont.

[derekwwww]

Other things to look at other then watts. 80-100 watt HK will run most anything pretty good. 80-100 watt Kenwood wont.
yeh exactly 100 kenwood watts are nothing close to 100 watts HK that is what I was asking about yamaha in comparision the same way?

[NickWH]

It depends on how those watts are obtained. Look at the specifications. Are the watts full bandwidth rated (should be 20Hz-20kHz, not 1kHz)? Are they full bandwidth rated into all channels simultaneously (should be) ? What is the load impedence stated at rated wattage (6 ohms or 8 ohms, using the lower number produces more power)? Does the distortion (THD) increase when going from 2-channel to surround mode (shouldn't change with descrete amplification).

You want to judge power on an even playing field, and all manufacturer's do not use the same methods for their ratings. There are many ways to manipulate the power specifications and make them look better than they actually are. HK has a reputable track record when it comes to amplifier ratings (usually underrated) and as such often comes out sounding at least as powerful as another receiver rated for twice the power. This is why you can't go by the wattage alone. You combine this with what MarkW said above and what you have is a much different playing field than what the manufacturer's would want you to believe.

I would say that if anything, the HK will sound at least as powerful as the Yamaha. Probably more powerfull due to the power supplies (more reserve power for dynamics).

[RGA]

Actually I would not assume the kenwood is any worse - they don't have fancy boxes but never assume. People assume Sony sucks too but check out this listing of receiver reviews of a couple of years ago - these amplifiers are listend to in blind auditions.

Don't let the high current label fool you either. The Sugden A21a may be the best SS amp under 2k period and is NOT a high current amplifier - it is a Class A Single ended solid state amp however. http://hifichoice.co.uk/review_list.asp?category=AMP&subcategory=MULTI

[cam]

This is my rule of thumb: If you have a yamaha rated at 120x 7 and HK was going to rate it themselves it would probably be a 60/65 watt times 5 all channels driven. My denon 1804 is rated at 90x6 but it is a 45 watt times 5 all channels driven. Yamaha's, denon's,and onkyo's you can pretty well half what the manufacturer states, maybe add a couple of watts and that is what it can produce 5 channels driven together, 6 or 7 channels driven and you will start going below half of what the manufacturer states. Now in 2-channel stereo that same yamaha rated at 120x7 will produce a minimum 120x2 but lab test prove that they will usually produce about 15 to 25% more in 2-channel. My denon 1804 I read somewhere produced 110 watts times two in 2-channel while still having low distortion. But 5 channels driven it is a mere paltry 45x5.Yeha!

[shokhead]

All that depends on the reciever. I bet you'll see a difference when you look inside a Kenwood or a JVC next to a Denon or a HK. How they are cooled,how neat the wiring is, just the general "how it looks".

[markw]

All that depends on the reciever. I bet you'll see a difference when you look inside a Kenwood or a JVC next to a Denon or a HK. How they are cooled,how neat the wiring is, just the general "how it looks".You can learn a lot more, a lot easier a lot quicker and a lot more accurately by learning how to correctly read and interpert the specs. Not that specs are the end all and be all but for comparisons you must know where these numbers come from and how they are measured and stated.

[RGA]

Yes and if beside the watts it says at 1khz - basically you may as well use the spec sheet for toilet paper.

The watt numbers on these amplifiers are built up to impress buyers and they try anything to make them look bigger - of course it's easier to sell numbers to quality but really that's all receiver makers have to sell.

Buy the receiver that has the features you require, the best warranty, and looks ok and don;t forget about the functionailty and remote control - like an all in one printer - you're buying it not because it's the best photo printer or the best scanner but that it can do it all ok for cheap. Where as the great photo printer is great at that one thing but you can't make a scan.

[NickWH]

All that depends on the reciever. I bet you'll see a difference when you look inside a Kenwood or a JVC next to a Denon or a HK. How they are cooled,how neat the wiring is, just the general "how it looks".

Wow, that's deep man.

[shokhead]

So if its to much for ya. For every 1 thing i know{which is very little},i'm taught 10X more on this forum. I thought we had an informative talk going. Help us out,please. Oh,the spec's are important. Some are over my peabrain. I'm here to learn more.

[E-Stat]

How do the wattage ratings on HK and Yamaha receivers compare? Like would 120 yamaha rated watts be about 100 HK rated watts or are they about the same?
I find it ironic that this issue still has relevance today. This was a topic of discussion thirty years ago as well and the industry agreed upon a stringent testing method to address it. As you have probably discovered, there are several ways to measure output wattage. I would recommend reading the link Markw suggested for the complete scoop.

The Cliff Notes version is that far too many AV receivers are rated using one, not all of the channels driven, over only a portion of the frequency range, for momentary bursts. Kinda like saying that once-in-a-blue-moon-for-a-fraction-of-a-second the amp does this. The most stringent criteria is continuous watts RMS with ALL channels driven from 20 to 20khz. With my NAD receiver for example, the overly optimistic 300 watts IHF dynamic figure drops to a "realistic" 100 watts using that criteria.

rw

[nate dog]

I've heard that a very general rule of thumb is to look at the weight of the reciever. The power supply is the heaviest component in a reciever so it has the biggest factor on weight. So if a H/K 50wpc weighs 35lbs and a Yamaha 120wpc weighs 35lbs they are probably fairly close on actual power delivered.

[shokhead]

I've heard that a very general rule of thumb is to look at the weight of the reciever. The power supply is the heaviest component in a reciever so it has the biggest factor on weight. So if a H/K 50wpc weighs 35lbs and a Yamaha 120wpc weighs 35lbs they are probably fairly close on actual power delivered.

I would'nt buy my reciever that way but thats me.

[kexodusc]

The weight thing has been blown out of proportion...Years ago I think this was more true, but today it's not that simple. In reality a large, thick heavy chassis does little to help amplification, same with the decision to employ a light weight cooling fan or heavy duty heatsinks, etc. I would say you could look at the weight if it was significantly different, say the 6 or more lbs, but great quality componentry has become significantly lighter in recent years, and skews this a bit. Even power supplies are becoming more efficient and aren't as heavy as they were a few years ago. A 28 lbs receiver isn't necessarily inferior to a 31 lbs receiver.

As for watts in general, I think too many people look at it the wrong way. If one receiver has 100 X 2 channels and the other 110 X 2 channels (or 45 X 5 vs. 50 X 5), who cares....that tiny bit of wattage isn't going to mean much to you, and if you really think it is, you need way bigger amplification anyway.
I would concentrate more on how loud you think you'll ever play this, and then look for a bit of headroom. A 70 X 5 watt Yamaha or Denon receiver is probably good enough for most people, if you have a bit more, even better. The problem is most people don't ever go that far in their research and rely on the manufacturers to tell them watts better, so of course they come back with an inflated number.

I've played with some crappy 80 watt/channel sony receivers that could handle most reasonable movie soundtracks in a medium sized room without clipping or distortion on your basic respectably efficient speakers of about 89 dB or more. They probably only put out 20 to 30 watts into all 5 channels, but most people probably only need 2 or 3 watts per channel to play really loud. I'm not so sure about their quality, but that's another thread...

I think H/K's decision to NOT inflate power specs has nothing to do with a desire to be honest and true to the consumer, but really is their way of marketing their products. I've seen it at Best Buy and Futureshop a hundred times...a customer will look at a Kenwood at 110 watts/channel, a Yamaha at 85 watts/channel, then a H/K at 40 watts/channel and want to know why it costs TWICE as much as the Kenwood. This gets the customer and salesperson talking about the H/K...what more could a company want?

It's kind of like horsepower...My neighbors Mustang has 260 HP or something rediculous, but his 210 HP Eclipse will smoke it in a race. The number by itself doesn't tell you much.

[NickWH]

I think H/K's decision to NOT inflate power specs has nothing to do with a desire to be honest and true to the consumer, but really is their way of marketing their products. I've seen it at Best Buy and Futureshop a hundred times...a customer will look at a Kenwood at 110 watts/channel, a Yamaha at 85 watts/channel, then a H/K at 40 watts/channel and want to know why it costs TWICE as much as the Kenwood. This gets the customer and salesperson talking about the H/K...what more could a company want?

That's absolutely ridiculous. A manufacturer gives an honest rating and now that's a fault? What about NAD, Arcam, Rotel, B&K, Cambridge Audio, and other less mainstream manufacturer's who give honest and detailed specifications? Just because the vast majority of manufacturer's obscure their specifications does not mean that it is right. I mean really, your take on that is pure nonsense.


It's kind of like horsepower...My neighbors Mustang has 260 HP or something rediculous, but his 210 HP Eclipse will smoke it in a race. The number by itself doesn't tell you much.

It's actually nothing like horsepower. Your scenario is an example of power-to-weight ratio, not absolute horsepower. Where does that fit into a receiver discussion?

[hermann_giron]

the following comments are designed for the non-audiophile.... Please dont flame me

The speakers you choose may be more important than the watts

I recently picked up a higher quality integrated amp rated at 50 watts per channel to replace my old 100 watt per channel integrated amp that had stopped working. After repairing my old amp, i did a Head to Head sound test of both amps with a couple of pairs of speakers rated from 90 Db to at 97 Db sensitivity.

Let me give you the real life conclusions:

1.) There is a noticeable difference in the volume and sound staging of the speakers using the same amplifier. The higher sensitivity speakers developed more sound at a given power level with both amps. (you can look for more information on how sensitivity affects volume on this forum or at audioholics.com)

2.) The sound quality is not specifically related to sensitivity, the less sensitive speakers can produce a sound as good as the more sensitive speakers, they just take more power to achive the given sound. (wattage, impedance and sensitivity are not measures of how a system will sound, the only way to really know is to audition)

3.) You will seldom require more than 50 watts RMS power to listen to music at an ordinary level with sensitive speakers in a medim sized living room. Any power above that will help your system perform well when shifting from low volume to high volume very quickly (classical music does this a lot), if you are powering large speakers at very high volumes (not for personal listening, more like very loud music for a party) or if your speakers have special power requirements (low impedance, etc.)

for all practical purposes, the 10 watt difference between the two amp brands you compare is much less important than the way the amps sound, or the functions you require from the specific amps you are comparing (inputs, outputs, aesthetics). Listen to them with your speakers or audition a few other speakers to choose which sounds best.

take care, HG

[royphil345]

Think the Yamaha would come closer than most other brands. I chose a HK, but Yamaha would have been my 2nd choice. Better DSP, great value, usually VERY reliable. My old Pro Logic receiver was a Yamaha. Just thought the HK sounded a touch more transparent when I was shopping for a Dolby Digital receiver. Also wanted preamp outs and I don't think Yamaha had them on the more affordable models if I remember correctly.

[kexodusc]

Nick, the example proves my point, enough said....NAD, Arcam, etc, aren't sold in big box retail stores agains competing products with high wattage ratings...H/K is!!! Somewhere along the line the Harman marketing gurus discussed whether to follow suit or not...at the very least, I've proven there are some benefits to their rating methods. I think you have to admit that.
As for rediculous statements, I challenge you to give me an example of a "dishonest specs"...they're all honest, qualified by the details...duh.

Your "horse power to weight ratio" comment isn't worth the cyber space it occupies...a 10000 year old invention called "the wheel" (ever hear of it?) makes that spec absolutely meaningless. Ever take physics in high school?
FYI, the real mass workloads in both those cars are so close it's negligible.

[shokhead]

Think the Yamaha would come closer than most other brands. I chose a HK, but Yamaha would have been my 2nd choice. Better DSP, great value, usually VERY reliable. My old Pro Logic receiver was a Yamaha. Just thought the HK sounded a touch more transparent when I was shopping for a Dolby Digital receiver. Also wanted preamp outs and I don't think Yamaha had them on the more affordable models if I remember correctly.

For me,i'd gladly give up DSP for other goodies. The only one i've ever liked and use is the 5ch stereo on Denon. The one problem that Yamaha use to have was the lack of inputs on the rear. Value and reliable,yes. I alwas liked HK but was always just out of my price range and never pulled the triger but got close on the 630.

[NickWH]

As for rediculous statements, I challenge you to give me an example of a "dishonest specs"...they're all honest, qualified by the details...duh.

Yes, and I'm sure most consumers don't read the fine print to get those details. It's all about the watts, don't you know?


Your "horse power to weight ratio" comment isn't worth the cyber space it occupies...a 10000 year old invention called "the wheel" (ever hear of it?) makes that spec absolutely meaningless. Ever take physics in high school? FYI, the real mass workloads in both those cars are so close it's negligible.

Actually, power-to-weight ratio is a leading indicator of the performance of a vehicle. Even vehicles with that 10,000 year old invention. There are many other factors, like gearing, aerodynamics, etc., but HP alone means nothing. It's funny that you reference high school, because that is where I bet your formal education ends.

You are living proof that a little knowledge on a topic is far more dangerous than no knowledge at all. Kexodusc, you seem to lack logic and sound very ignorant. I'm not wasting my keystrokes anymore.

[kexodusc]

I'm sorry to see you go Nick, this is the 2nd time you've turtled on me when you've run out of tough-guy talk and couldn't find any useful knowledge to help you out...you aren't fooling anybody but yourself Einstein.

[derekwwww]

i noticed..

a HK AVR230 rated at 50wpc has a power consumption of 890watts and my Yamaha RX-V1500 has a power consumption of 500 watts.