rms wattage discrepencies among brands? (1 Viewer)

[John S]

Keep in mind Digital amplification, does not follow the same AC power requirements as analog amplification.

So, with the 1014 you can't use the "This much AC -vs- this much output guidelines at all"

They get away with this, because the output is in bursts of sorts. No continuous output.

 

[Greg Yeatts]

John S

The amplifiers in the 1014TX are not digital. Pioneer describes the amplifier structure in the 1014TX as Advanced Direct Energy Mosfet. The 1014TX was the only regular Pioneer to use this amplifier structure. I got this info from a Pioneer brochure .pdf that I downloaded from Pioneer's website.

 

[Ryan Leemhuis]

You must be confusing it with some other receiver or something. It uses MOSFET amplification, like most receivers out there. MOSFET's are definitely analog devices .

Power can not change as far as I know. A amplifier does not in any way generate power. It simply takes a signal and amplifies either the current or voltage to accomplish a task however they are not both increase. With a increase in voltage comes a decrease in current. The opposite is also true. So I do agree that is somewhat fishy that it claims to take in only 480 but output more. However, the point is correct that we do not know what conditions it takes in 480 watts under. One would hope they would list full load consumption.

 

[John S]

Interesting. I had really understood it to be digital amplification.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

I even played with one for a week or so. I found it to be somewhat gutless when even approaching heavy demand was put on it.

I never really looked at the specs all to much admittedly.

 

[Guy Usher]

My understanding is that the power consumption figure listed on the back of amps/receivers/etc. is there for a purpose. One is for their "UL" listing and so you can assure that you plug it in to a circuit capable of delivering that amount of current. That 480 watt number is in fact the maximum amount of current the receiver needs to produce it's rated output.

This has been a standard practice going back as far as before I can remember. Fact is that it is impossible to get 7x110watts out of 480 period. I dont know what the revier was smoking. . . I have been told by my amp builder friend who works on these receivers every day that he would be surprised at anything over 50wpc all channels driven.

 

[Ryan Leemhuis]

good point, they would probably have to post the maximum power input needed. Seems fishy.

 

[Shiu]

I still think that some manufacturers tend to overstate their output but understate their input in order to claim a lower power consumption. Just like how they do it with refrigerators!

I used to have a Sony DA4ES that weighs 46.2 lbs. It has a huge transformer and something like 30,000 microfarads of capacitors. Its specified power consumption is 370VA. Even at 0.9 power factor, 370VA = 333W. That's way lower than even the 1014 that weighs 34 lbs and for sure has a smaller power supply. Based on the size and weight of the P/S transformer in the 4ES (I had it in my hand), it is hard to believe that it is only rated for 370VA. I concluded that Sony was simply specifying its consumption at a conveniently chosen output level, say at "normal listening" level or whatever, just to show that it is energy efficient. Again, think about those power consumption labels on refrigerators.

Another case in point, H.K. always provide information about their power consumption at idling as well as maximum. Their consumption even at idling is significant.

Example:The entry level AVR130 is rated 72W at idling, 580W at maximum (2 channel driven). The receiver weighs only 10.9 kg or 23 lbs. Does it make any sense that the 1014 weighs 34 lbs and yet it has much less power than the AVR130, or the Sony DA4ES that weighs 46.2 lbs has even less, I mean much less? All I am saying is that we do not know for sure the power consumption number on the back plate is for maximum output, unless the manufacturer (such as H.K.) states that it is.

 

[Guy Usher]

You dont play games with that number as it relates to the "UL" listing plus the simple fact that you could very easily have a fire hazard on your hands. This number is specificaly there to tell you to size the circuit and wire corectly.

All manufacturers have their own methods of rating their equipment but none of them want a lawsuit from some poor soul who just burnt his house down using wire that was too small. Actually I read about the 1014's consumption on another site where they tested it and found it's actual amp draw at maximum output was only 430 watts, less than the rated 480 watts. That makes much more sense to me. . .

Really who cares as it is the receivers actual performance that counts. The only problem I would have with the 1014 would be playing music on all 7 channels at loud levels. Used for HT I have personally experienced what it sounds like running out of gas and it will run out of gas at -15 and higher. I found on some "Hot" DVDs it started getting grainy at -20.

Seems to me that the 75wpc HK635 has a stated amp draw of over 1000 watts. . . .

Still I think it is a best buy. I find myself sounding like I am running it down and that is not my intention. Actually I wish I had not bought my VSX56TXi and had kept the 1014 as there is very little difference between the two, certainly not 1000.00 dollars difference. However I do like the shiny black face. . .

 

[Greg Yeatts]

Perhaps someone could post actual fact and not conjecture as to how the wattage rating is obtained listed on the back of the 1014TX. Then the argument will be settled.

The owners manual for the 52TX lists its wattage consumption at 480 watts as well. Yet in the review linked above it makes more than its rated power with five channels driven.

 

[Ryan Leemhuis]

Greg Richard is the only one that seems to have seen a test on the 1014 so thats the best we have to go off right now. That is until some magazine actually tests it.

 

[Guy Usher]

It is a fact that the 1014 requires this amount of current to deliver it's maximum output what ever that number is. Regardless; the actual consumption at rated output is 480 watts.

 

[AlbertD]

I hope I don't start something here that I should have left alone, but while I have no doubt that all three receivers: Harman Kardon AVR-335, Denon AVR-2105, and the pioneer 1014 are great receivers to catagorize any of them as "high current" is a huge stretch.

Despite the fact that the HK is famous for stating power honestly, and that Denon is always safe, and Pioneer is loved my many, you would have to get into the actual flagship model of any of these receiver brands before you could catagorize any of them as high current. I believe that B&K and Sunfire, "may" be the only true high current receivers available, but possibly the Denon 5805 and new Yamaha Z9. If the power doesn't double from 8 to 4 ohms, you probably aren't dealing with a high current amp section.

There have been many long and excellent threads on both this site and AVS as well on this topic. Here is a very interesting one going on right now that you might take a look at.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=512770

 

[Shiu]

Guy, you could be right. I was only saying that we could not be sure. I don't believe UL requires the manufacturer to state their maximum power consumption at maximum output. Some receivers don't even provide that number on their back plate. As long as the power supply is adequately protected from severe overload and short circuits (cct bkr, fuses etc.), and the power cord can carry the current, e.g. 15A at 120V, there is no danger of burnt down anything.

Again, you could well be right, so I am not really trying to argue with you. Just raising some "reasonable" doubts, in view of some otherwise inexplicable numbers (such as the valid question: how can 480W power input give you close to, equal, or more output?).

 

[Guy Usher]

I hear you. . . Its just that I have been studying this exact same thing we are talking about for the past three months and prior to that every time the subject comes up. I have been trying to find the "Right" HT receiver for my needs and their power ratings kept getting in the way and getting me more confused.

I read the "glowing" reviews on the 1014 so I bought one strictly for temp use untill I got my "big" one. Originaly I planned to buy the VSX56TXi Elite and finally did get the 56.

Along the way I learned real quick that you can not trust the ratings even ratings after professional reviews in some cases. I remember from the "old days" that a rough guide to determine the output was to look on the back panel and take the consumption number divide it by the number of channels and you would be in the ball park.

You can be sure that the number on the receivers rear panel is the maximum current the receiver will need at its maximum output whatever that number is. So with no other number to go by I started using it as a rough guide. It makes sense that the more input the more output.

I had determined that the HK635 would give me what I wanted but try to find one in Columbus, Ohio. . . Every listed dealer had nothing bigger than the 335 while a handfull had a 630. CC had only 120 of the 635s in their warehouse, that relates to almost one per store and they wern't ready to realese them.

Finally I came full circle and bought the 56 Elite. With it's 600 watt rating (consumption) vs the 1014s 480 plus the larger PS/Bigger Caps/ better shielding/ better chip set/ heavier weight/ bigger box. . . all scientific attributes. .LOL. . . Long story short I love the 1014 but at extreme levels it ran out of gas where the 56 does not, at least for my needs.

I really do not care what power rating it carries as long as it works in my house. But you would think they would at least clarify how they come to their stated output or use numbers we can understand.

Truth be known if they listed actual watts all channels driven at full bandwidth everyone would buy by the highest number when in reality most of these things are more than adequate for use as a HT receiver.

 

[Shiu]

Agree, and I am sure the 56 will give you all the power you need. If one day you end up with lower efficiency speakers, such as mine, you can get a 2 channel amp to take care of the front channels, and you will end up with more net current availability than the 635.

 

[Guy Usher]

I have a gorgeous Yamaha M-50 that I have for that event but I had rather use it in another area. . . Like my office with my vintage Sansui TU-9500 tuner that I just put over 400 bucks in on a total upgrade and alignment. AWESOME sounding tuner. . .

 

[Bill Polley]

Just for giggles, lets look at my "85 x 5" Parasound amp. I had it tested by an electronics buddy. When I bought the amp, I called Parasound and asked them if I would get more power per channel if I only ran 3 channels (many receivers are rated at, say 100 x 5 at 1khz, and actually put out about 50 wpc if all channels are driven, but will put out 105 X 2 if run in stereo with both channels driven). The Parasound rep told me that this was because of smallish power supplies. He assured me that the HCA-855a that I had would put out 85 watts into 8 ohm loads, and 125 watts into 4 ohm loads, no matter whether one or five channels were being driven. He said the limiting factor in their amps was not the power supply, but instead it was the output devices.

As I said, I had it tested by a buddy to check this. The results, with my 855a were: 93 watts into 8 ohm loads, 20-20khz, all channels driven, 140 watts into 4 ohm loads, 20-20khz, all channels driven, 94 watts into 8 ohm loads, 20-20khz, 2 channels driven, and 140 watts into 4 ohm loads, 20-20khz, 2 channels driven.

My amp is listed as drawing 750 watts maximum.

 

[John S]

Amazing how a casual look at specs between mid-fi and true hi-fi would lead one to believe the mid-fi could be the superior product huh????

Truth in specs is something I do repect about reputable Hi-Fi manufacturers for sure.


PS: By the way.. Your Parasound ROCKS ARSE with those real measured numbers!!!!

 

[Guy Usher]

5x93 = 465watts this makes more sense and is how I would expect it to be, more or less. . .

750-465 = 285. . . No free rides. . .

 

[JeremyErwin]

I downloaded some specs from Krell's site. Their "Full Power Balanced" monoblock amplifiers consume twice as much power as is output. (3000 Watts into 2 ohms, 6000W consumption). Other amplifier designs might well be more demanding.

Of course, "Class A" circuitry is not as efficient as the more common "Class B" or "Class A/B" designs. Pioneer uses a digital amplifier that's still more efficient. Still, Watts In should be greater than Watts out. Maybe capacitors help here.