Interesting comment on the Sony DA4ES in the latest S&V (1 Viewer)

[Ted Ross]

I dont think this is a re-post, but forgive me if it is. I got the latest S&V in the mail today & noticed they reviewed the DA4ES. I was curious how it tested, because i used to have a DA5ES & the 2 are pretty similar. I go to the5 channels driven test it says N/A & to read the note below. The note says "the 5 channel test could not be taken because Sony told them that the receiver was not designed to deliver full power to all channels simultaneously. rather it was designed to exceed the EIA/CEA amplifier specification 490-A, in which each channel is tested individually at full power while all other channels run at 1/8 rated power"

Does that mean Sony would not let S&V do the test or did S&V get such a bad test reading on all channels driven that they left it out? What other receiver companies rate their products with the 490-A specification?

 

[Paul Clarke]

What other receiver companies rate their products with the 490-A specification?

Hi Ted,
A great many of them, unfortunately. And lately the field is getting more crowded.
I haven't received my copy yet but it sounds like Sony is 'advising' S&V that any 'meaningful' 5 channels driven result will be difficult to obtain/report. I take this as industry speak for 'we ain't building them like we used to.'
In the case of Sony it's a shame as just a short while ago Home Theater Magazine gave a full and comprehensive test of the 3ES and achieved results exceeding it's ratings, including the 5 channels driven.
Sony is far from alone in this new trend towards cost cutting. Big names are making design moves they previously used to frown upon when it was done by the competition.
IMO the same common sense rule applies no matter what the latest trends may bring: you get what you pay for.

 

[Lewis Besze]

I found S&V's deceision,not to do the lab test,is rather disapointing.Clearly this was a move on the behalf of the manufacturer,not the consumer.This BS that Sony is hiding behind is ludicrious,and S&V should have not caved in.

 

[Wayne Ernst]

I'm sure the STR-DA4ES could easily deliver the power that it advertises. If the STR-DA4ES had been released as a 25 Lb. receiver - then, no, Sony would be short-changing the customers.
For anyone who chimes in here with any negativity about the STR-DA4ES - don't knock it until you've tried it. Also, our good friend Norman L had some independent tests done his Onkyo receiver this past summer. Maybe, he can advise us on some testers who can conduct these tests. As I recall, Norman was from NJ - maybe, someone from NJ could submit their STR-DA4ES for testing to prove the point. I'd be glad to make a contribution towards the cost of the testing.

 

[Andrew Pierce]

Of course, the Sony would also be at a handicap on an 'all channels driven' test -- in that it has 7 as opposed to the 6 or 5 most receivers pack. I'd be curious of the results at 7, 6, 5, and 2 channels driven.

 

[Ted Ross]

It performed well with 2 channels driven: (1khz 8/4 ohms) 140/209W(21.5/23.2 dBW), but then again so did the $300 Sherwood reciver(RD-7108) also tested in this issue(113/106W(20.5/20.2)

 

[Bill_D]

I guess the question here ...or for me anyway is why did S&V chicken out on the test. Sony is correct. The 4ES is not designed to deliver full power to all channels simultaneously but it is designed for home theater use which in normal practice has activity in at least 5 channels. And, this is the reason the info should have been provided. I am sure the unit performs admirably regardless of result of the 5 channel test.
Why not provide an independent REVIEW? I can read Sony's propaganda on my own.

 

[Darren_C]

Having looked at mid range receivers recently, my 2 cents is this-

If you want a receiver to do 6 or 7 channels at about 100W/Ch, drive 4 ohm loads and have reasonable headroom, you are asking a lot.

Even a low end amp that can do this has some heft, and isn't cheap. Throw 3 of those internals plus preamp, tuner and surround processing into one chassis and you have something that is likely to weigh at least 60 pounds and cost at least $1000, in my opinion...

I doubt my new Marantz receiver could put rated power into all 6 channels simultaneously, or drive six channels of 4 ohm loads even to the power rated for 8 ohms...

Fortunately, even 10-20W of power into a reasonably efficent speaker can produce acceptable SPLs for surround sound in a small to medium size room. After all, it takes about a factor of 10 in power to be a doubling in perceived volume. If you're also sending the low bass to a separately powered subwoofer, you're probably OK with a less expensive receiver For a real audiophile/videophile, you probably need to shell out the real audiophile/videophile bucks...

 

[RichardMA]

It's not the continuous power needs that is the problem.
Most of the time, that does not go very high. What does
are transients that demand huge power increases immediately. This is where most receivers fall flat
compared to separate power amps. And how can they not?
We aren't likely to put up with 200lb receivers.
7 channels in a 60lb receiver means less than 10lbs of
weight per channel. Try finding a separate power amp of
class a/b or b that weighs less than 10 lbs and can deliver
100watts + per channel.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Why not provide an independent REVIEW? I can read Sony's propaganda on my own.

Precisely!
I really don't have a beef with Sony here,though I wouldn't speculate power ratings based on weightthis is why we need real lab tests independent from the MFR.
S&V used to measure dynamic power into both loads[4/8],which usually yielded a dynamic headroom figure,I don't see them anymore,and now this.
I usually defend this mag but I can't this time.

 

[IraSWeiss]

Although my issue has not arrived yet (maybe this afternoon), I'm afraid S&V caved into threats against advertising dollars. In the past they have exposed many receivers that did not come close to matching their power ratings when they had all channels driven from most brands, including a Sony DB series a few months ago. This kind of testing and no holds bared reporting was very valuable to me and many of us. It's unfortunate that S&V did not stand by their methodology on this one as it affects their editorial credibility.

 

[Wayne Ernst]

The Sound and Vision forums offers an opportunity to discuss recent articles that have been published in their magazine. I was going to start a thread over there last evening related to their '4ES' testing, but was having some troubles signing in. I'm trying to locate the magazine, so I can read through the article and then make an appropriate post. Unfortunately, Borders along with Barnes and Noble still have the December issue (Spider Man) on the racks.

 

[AaronBatiuk]

2 channels driven: (1khz 8/4 ohms) 140/209W(21.5/23.2 dBW)

209W into 4 ohm in stereo mode? Ooooo baby! That is quite impressive. Since any given sound effects is almost always weighted towards a fraction of the channels (what would be the point of multi-channel if they weren't?), and most systems have self-powered or seperately powered subwoofers to offload the bass reproduction, this receiver clearly has the capability to deliver dynamic power when and where it is needed.
Everyone:
If you want a better idea of the actual power output capability of the 4ES, look up its international version, the STR-VA333ES (not STR-V333ES). Because it is built for the European market, it needs to be tested to strict European standards, including all channels driven. In Europe, it is rated at 7 x 100 W by the DIN method (8 OHM, 1 kHz, 0.7% THD), and is further derated to 7 x 90 W RMS (8 OHM, 20-20000 Hz, 0.05% THD). In North America, it is rated 7 x 110W RMS 8 Ohm 0.05% THD 20-20000 Hz, but this does not indicate all channels driven at that power. It is probably tested using the method that S&V stated (One channel driven to full output, all others to 1/8 of that. Note that 1/8 power is equal to -9.0 dB.)
For brief explanations of methods of power rating, and explanations of RMS and peak power and other things, check out this page
Note that the difference between 90W and 110W is only 0.87 dB. Put another way, it is less than the 'step' size of most volume controls, and is less than the commonly accepted level difference that is noticeable for human hearing (1.0 dB).

 

[Ted Ross]

If you want a better idea of the actual power output capability of the 4ES, look up its international version, the STR-VA333ES (not STR-V333ES). Because it is built for the European market, it needs to be tested to strict European standards, including all channels driven. In Europe, it is rated at 7 x 100 W by the DIN method (8 OHM, 1 kHz, 0.7% THD), and is further derated to 7 x 90 W RMS (8 OHM, 20-20000 Hz, 0.05% THD).

Why would Sony be ashamed of those numbers, if thats what it can truly put out? The above European tests would put in in the front of the pack for receivers in its price range. My gut reaction, after reading the S&V Lab tests, was that it must have put out absolutely dismal numbers for all channels driven. Which makes things even more confusing since Hometheatermag tested the da3es in 5 channels driven & it performed quite well. Granted, the S&V test was with 2 more channels(5 vs. 7), but did the extra 2 channels drag the numbers down that far? Or is Sony really ashamed that its receiver can only put out 100X7 rather than its 110X7 rating?

 

[Gil D]

Note that the difference between 90W and 110W is only 0.87 dB.

The difference is squat. I have the DA5es and it has no problem driving 4 and 6ohm speakers. I really didn't feel the need to use a separate amp with the Sony and left it driving my speakers directly.

I'm really beginning to think that Denon pinched some pennies on the 3803. It just doesn't seem to have the channel spearation of the 3802 to me and this is used as preamp only.

 

[Grant B]

I think sony was just trying to say the test was not a valid performance test and I agree. In stereo it is valid but what source would drive all 7 ch at once? It's like if car and driver tested a pick up fully loaded at whatever it could carry at top speed on a high bank oval. The car company would tell them that it's not designed to do all that at once.

At 60 lbs it's amazing it can deliever that much. My TAE 9000ES Preamp weighs more than that alone; the amps over twice that.

 

[Mark Davenport]

I have a Sony V444ES used as a prepro coupled with a TAN-9000ES 5 channel amp. Now the 444 is an older model and probably was made before any degrade in build quality. I used it for over a year by itself and was happy with it but after hooking it up to the 9000es amp it made a huge difference to the sound quality. Plays louder now, the sound resonates much better and just overall was a huge upgrade. Even though the specs of the amp with 5 channels driven are the same as my receiver. I would not underestimate the added efficiency of using a seperate amp and would recommend it to anyone still using a integrated receiver.