New Guy....With a ?

[cam]

Hello, name is chris..

Ok my ? is, is i currently have a Sony STR-DE925

I am wanting to upgrade and here are the 2 choice i want either the DENON 1804 or the Sony STR-DE995.

I would mainly use this for HT use.

Here is what i want out of a reciver..Sound quality, ability to ajust parameters ( able to do this on my 925 ).

Now i want the sony because i like the looks of it and the bells and whistles and because that is all i have ever used and had i loved the sond of my 925..But i know there is something better out there.

Now what would be your choice between the two if you have any experance over them....thanks, chris

BTW these all my speakers are matched and are Studio Series JBL
Front = S312
Rear = S38
center = S Center
Sub = PB12

Sony always over rates their power output, one way that gives them away everytime is to look at their power consumption on the back panel. You will always see that their total rated power output in watts is always more then their power consumption in watts. What you want to see is power output at or lower then the power consumption. Atleast that way you know they are being more honest with their specs. The Denon uses amps instead of watts to rate their power consumptiom, the 1804 is 4.5 amps. Convert that 4.5 amps to watts I believe you multiply by 120 which will give the denon 540 watts of max power consumption. The 1804 is rated at 90 x 6 which just so happens to = 540 watts. A typical sony will have lets say 400 watts of power consumption yet it is rated to be 110 x 7. Bull. Alot of people won't like to hear this but yamaha does the same thing. You yammy owners out there, look at the power consumption compared to what they rate the total power output. Go with denon, onkyo, or marantz.

[N. Abstentia]

Well, the power consuption in watts has nothing to do with the power output to the speakers. If that were the case, my computer would put out 550 watts of power!

[cam]

Well, the power consuption in watts has nothing to do with the power output to the speakers. If that were the case, my computer would put out 550 watts of power!

All I'm saying is that when you see the power consumption higher then the power output that's a dead give away that they are full of crap. Lets say amp A has a power consumption of 450 watts and the power output is 110 x 6 and you have amp B with a power consumption of the same 450 watts yet it is rated at 70 x 6 which one would you believe.

[paul_pci]

All I'm saying is that when you see the power consumption higher then the power output that's a dead give away that they are full of crap. Lets say amp A has a power consumption of 450 watts and the power output is 110 x 6 and you have amp B with a power consumption of the same 450 watts yet it is rated at 70 x 6 which one would you believe.

Yes, I've heard that about Yamahas. I myself am a Yamaha owner, admirer, and secret lover. So let's take a look at my specs. I own the RX-V3300 rated at 130watts/6 channels (of which I'm only using 5) and the power consumption is rated at 500watts/640VA, to which I have no clue what VA means, unless it stands for voltage amps.?? So what you are saying is that I'd never get 5 channels of 130 watts because, mathematically that supersedes the power consumption by about 150 watts. Yet, according to a recent thread on function of watts, many posters made it clear that speakers rarely consume the peak wattage and only briefly for particularly taxing musical/sound effects, etc. In that case, I'm only getting short changed on rare occasions. But then what about two channel listening. For the most part, I listen to CDs in two channels, so then according to your calculation, I should be able to get the full 130 watts, if needed, yes? Of course, let's not forget that all the while, the electric company is laughing all the way to the bank, and this poor chap is still scratching his head as to which receiver to buy.

[cam]

Yes, I've heard that about Yamahas. I myself am a Yamaha owner, admirer, and secret lover. So let's take a look at my specs. I own the RX-V3300 rated at 130watts/6 channels (of which I'm only using 5) and the power consumption is rated at 500watts/640VA, to which I have no clue what VA means, unless it stands for voltage amps.?? So what you are saying is that I'd never get 5 channels of 130 watts because, mathematically that supersedes the power consumption by about 150 watts. Yet, according to a recent thread on function of watts, many posters made it clear that speakers rarely consume the peak wattage and only briefly for particularly taxing musical/sound effects, etc. In that case, I'm only getting short changed on rare occasions. But then what about two channel listening. For the most part, I listen to CDs in two channels, so then according to your calculation, I should be able to get the full 130 watts, if needed, yes? Of course, let's not forget that all the while, the electric company is laughing all the way to the bank, and this poor chap is still scratching his head as to which receiver to buy.

Two channel listening you will gain some power but the output devices can only {handle deliver} only so much. I will use my set up for example: denon 1804, power consumption 4.5 amps, power output 90 x 6. 2 channel I would estimate at about 110 x 2 because the output devices can only handle so much. One thing is for sure is that distortion goes way down with 2 channel over 5 or 6 or 7 channel.

[cam]

All I'm saying is that when you see the power consumption higher then the power output that's a dead give away that they are full of crap. Lets say amp A has a power consumption of 450 watts and the power output is 110 x 6 and you have amp B with a power consumption of the same 450 watts yet it is rated at 70 x 6 which one would you believe.

I meant to say when the power output is way higher then the power consumption that's a good indication they are fudging their specs. Sony, JVC, Panasonic/Technics, Kenwood, and {gulp} Yamaha does it. That's why I say buy a Denon, Onkyo, or Marantz.