Another Unjustified Claim That The New Onkyos Are Underpowered (1 Viewer)

[MaxY]

Julian,
i thought he was saying that Randa actually dicussed the measurements on this unit in this issue. I will have to look back and dig out that issue.
Max
------------------

Browse My Collection of DVDs at DVD profiler
Equipment Lists for My HTs

 

[Julian Data]

Max,
It was an older issue. I wouldn't doubt he wrote that article because of forums like these!
------------------

 

[Sean Laughter]

So at this point would it be wise to wait and see what happens before buying a 595 to power a JBL NSP1 system?

 

[PomingF]

I hope Onkyo isn't selling out on their regular line now that they have the Integra. To me the name Onkyo always mean quality construction & conservative power rating and this was evidenced by the performance of my more than four years old TX-DS939.
I suggest all current Onkyo receiver owners esp. those with the newer models in question to call or e-mail Onkyo for an explanation of the S&V magazine review findings.
Just to boost the moral a bit, read my post on the new Integra DTR 9.1.
PF

 

[Paul_Psutka]

Hey everyone,
I wish I knew about this thread a month ago!
I wrote the original review atwww.audioreview.com that was quoted in the first message of this thread.
I have a few replies after reading all the posts.....
1. I'm not associated with Harman Kardon. I was just explaining a true story that happened to me when I was looking at Onkyo and Harman Kardon receivers at a store. After much research, I strongly feel that Harman Kardon as well as NAD have the healthiest power amp section in their receivers in their respective price ranges. But I will not buy a HK or NAD receiver because of their poor bass management (I like how Denon and Onkyo allow you to play 2 channel analog sources with the main speakers full range or with bass management (main speakers small and sub on).
2. The Sound & Vision test results are accurate for the Onkyo 696. I called and talked to David Ranada, and he also tested the 696 and came up with the same results as Daniel Kumin. Daniel was surprised with the results and so that's why David re-tested the receiver.
3. The Sound & Vision review of the Onkyo 696 was a very POSITIVE review overall. Even when mentioning the 46 watts x 5 output in the lab notes, they said something like "there is very little chance of all 5 channels being driven at the same time in real-world home theater playback".
4. I am disappointed with Onkyo, and do feel they had to cut some corners with the new power amp sections of their newest receivers in order to add new features like component video switching, s-video to composite conversion, etc. - while keeping the prices the same as last year's models. I took a look through the top cover of the Onkyo 575 and 595, and noticed the 595 has a slightly SMALLER power supply. I'm sure the same applies for the new 494 and 696.
5. Regarding impedance switches... I'm not an expert or an electronics major, but from what I've read over the years I think it's usually a bad sign when a receiver has an impedance switch. Though, the Yamaha impedance switch may be better because I remember when S&V tested the Yamaha 795 they obtained excellent power output results as long as they kept the switch in the 8 ohm position. Putting the switch in the 4 ohm position was more of a safety switch for limiting output. With the Onkyo, it seems that the power was limited no matter what position the switch was in. Also, here's what NAD has to say about impedance switches (understanding that this is "marketing" for NAD) - "...virtually all other receivers on the market today, which either limit the loudspeaker to 6 or 8 ohms, or employ a performance degrading resistor that must be manually switched into the circuit!"
6. I think the new Onkyo/Integra's are still excellent receivers at their price points. In terms of features and functionality, I think they are the best. I'm just bothered by people saying things like "I'm going to upgrade my Onkyo 676 to a 696 because the 696 has 15 more watts". If that's the only reason for your upgrade, then DON'T BOTHER WASTING YOUR MONEY. #1 the older 676 model has a healthier output into 4 ohm loads and with all 5 channels driven. #2 even if the 696 had a 15 watt increase, the difference would be hardly noticeable.
I'm also bothered by people buying an Onkyo or other brand of receiver with over-inflated power specs OVER a Harman Kardon or NAD which conservatively and accurately lists it's output specifications.
I'm not blaming the consumer here..... it's just a result of marketing.
Also, as others have mentioned, Onkyo is not the only company to over-inflate their power specs. I'd be cautious of the Denon 3801 too.
7. Finally, despite my disappointment with Onkyo, I am looking foward (while keeping my fingers crossed) to the new 797 and 898 models coming out this fall. And I will buy one of those models as long as the weight hasn't decreased (the 797 should weigh at least 35.9 lbs like the 787), and as long as the new models don't have an impedance switch. At least there will be the assurance of THX Select certification, which shows the power output had to meet certain standards.
The other option is to buy a 696 (some are purchasing these for $550 at Circuit City lately!) and use it as a preamp/processor, then add a poweramp like the Parasound 855 for $699, and you have a nice separates system for $1250.
[Edited last by Paul_Psutka on July 26, 2001 at 08:57 PM]
[Edited last by Paul_Psutka on July 26, 2001 at 08:58 PM]
[Edited last by Paul_Psutka on July 26, 2001 at 09:02 PM]

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

The fact that they test receivers this way is what makes Sound&Vision invaluable. The tweakier magazines sometimes don't even test the power into all 5 speakers and don't state the S/N ratio in dolby digital and CD input. These are the same magazines where they don't test subwoofers to separate the men from the boys but say only "the deepest, fastest bass I have heard in my room to date. Despite costing only $4,000 I must say that this is quite a musical bargain." Or something along those lines.

 

[DaveF]

I just get a brand new 696, and here y'all come, harshin' on my buzz!

I'm disappointed to hear that Onkyo may be lowering their well-known conservative standards for power ratings. Though I dislike the prospect of yet another unreliable power rating for a consumer receiver, I guess it's still not any worse than most everything else in the price class.
And as long as I've got downstairs neighbors, I'm in no danger of maxing the amp (or should that be a

-- lous downstairs neighbors...)

 

[Kevin Peak]

For quite a while I've heard many complaints about certain companies building receivers with padded and 'inflated' numbers. I don't doubt this one bit, but my question is, how do they inflate them, what truth is there to the numbers and how did they acquire them, and how is this 'legal'? Call me niave, and I wanted to ask this question the first time this thread was alive and kicking, so does anyone know?
------------------
Thanks,
kevp

 

[Tyson]

Easy, just test 1 channel w/a 1khz signal and a .5% distortion limit. You will get a much higher reading than if you run a 20hz-20khz signal to all 5 channels similtaniously with a .1% distortion limit.
I also wanted to agree w/Ryan's post - I think that many times speaker manufacturers are also guilty of overstating their speaker's sensitivity. Bumping up the sensitivity rating on a speaker 3db is the same exact thing as changing an amps rating from 50watts to 100watts. Just something to think about. . . .
------------------
"Remember Sammy Jenkins"

 

[MatthewJ S]

O.K., here's my 22 cents...
the weight doesn't "neccesarilly" mean that much to me( I think others in this thread given some good reasons why it may not mean all that much, and I'll add one; power supply effeciancies can change)
next issue: when any mag gives out any unfavorable test results sit-up and take notice , fear of lost advertising revenues ussually prevents them from doing so
next:the switch on the back doesn't "neccesarily" bother me , as others have pointed out , other reputable mfgrs do this as well(some with no appreciable/discernable differance in performance in either setting) ' Yamaha has said that this is due to UL's standards. although, as someone pointed out, Onkyo has been tough on others in the past for doing this!
next:I could spend page after page on the different power ratings methods by differant mfgrs.. in fact ,someone else hit the nail on the head when they were talking about some mfgrs printing one spec in cc/bb to inflate the numbers for JSP(IE;100 watts per channel at 1khz w/2ch driven at

 

[DaveF]

Falling asleep last night, I had a thought I haven't heard mentioned yet: aren't these power ratings what we should expect?
The receiver is rated at 100W RMS x 2 (20Hz - 20kHz, 8ohm)
This is 200W RMS total power. Spread that across five channels and you get (drum roll please!) 40W RMS x 5 (20Hz - 20kHz)
Compare to the S&V test results

Also, with 5 channels driven at the same time, the output is only 46 watts (8 ohms @ 1KHz).

So while that simple calculation is not exact, it still seems that Onkyo is delivering what they claim.
Color me unconcerned.

 

[John-D]

quote: Spread that across five channels [/quote]
assuming the other three channels are just empty metal casings..... didn't Onkyo have discrete amplification??
----------------------------------
The things we own end up owning us
[Edited last by John-D on July 27, 2001 at 10:20 AM]

 

[Bob Marker]

Interesting topic. I have been considering purchase of the 494 or 595 to get into a modest 5.1 channel system and was somewhat cocerned when I read Paul's post on Audio Review. I checked the Onkyo website and confirmed that the 595 and 696 are a couple of pounds lighter than the previous models. However, the weights shown for the 494 and 484 are THE SAME (as are the power ratings - 55 watts per channel)
Also,unlike the 595 and 696, the new 494 does NOT have an impedance switch - I checked the back panel of a 494 at Circuit City.
I'm not sure what conclusions, if any, can be drawn from the above information but thought I'd pass it along.
Bob

 

[DaveF]

assuming the other three channels are just empty metal casings..... didn't Onkyo have discrete amplification??

I think so, but that likely means that the circuitry for amplifying the processed signal is separate for each channel; that doesn't mean that there are five, individual power amplifers, each capable of 100W WMS output. Ultimately, those five channels are powered by a single, unified power source (which is what you plug into the wall).
This is implicit in the receiver ratings: it's 2x100W, not 5x100W. The max power per channel can be sent to any channel, but not full power to all channels simultaneously. (compare to older DPL receivers, which could only send a lesser power to the surround channels, compared to the front channels).
Moreover, even if it could draw 5 x 100W (that's 500W of power!), could the typical home or apartment electrical outlet handle that? Or would it blow the circuit breaker?
I now think that we got concerned over little. Onkyo seems to provide what they claim. Perhaps in previous models they provided more than was spec'd, but it doesn't seem like they're failing to meet their specs.
I'd love to hear from a knowledgable electronics person.

 

[Phil Iturralde]

(compare to older DPL receivers, which could only send a lesser power to the surround channels, compared to the front channels).

Here's why DPL was designed that way, . . .
DPL surround channels frequency response were mono and only reproduced the sound spectrum between 100Hz to 7 kHz, thus the surround channels didn't require full amplification due to it's limited range by design.
Dolby Digital & DTS 5.1 surround channels are discrete and cover 20 Hz to 20 kHz, so it would be nice to have equal power output all-around. It takes more power to reproduce the entire specified frequency spectrum, so it made sense to start producing AV REC/AMP that had equal power x 5.
I'll leave the rest of your comments to some "knowledgeable electronics person" to answer.
Phil
------------------
http://www.geocities.com/p_iturra

 

[Justin Lane]

Dave F, your reasoning is flawed. On Onkyo's website in the specs for the 696, it clearly states into 8 ohms: 100 wpc for the front L/R, 100 watt per channel for the center, and 100 watts per chanel for the rear L/R.Nowhere does it say, this is a 200 watt amplifier max, split between 5 channels as you claim.
Something is very fishy with this new line of Onkyo receivers, and I think without them making a rebuttal to a publicaton such as S&V, they are aware of how their product now performs. It is a shame if they have decided to go totally mass market. I would rather pay the extra money for an overall quality product, than have new product with better features in one department while sacrificing in another for the same price.
J

 

[John-D]

that's true justin.. but let's also consider those who might opt to use external amplification .. the 696 could make a very decent pre-pro for some.
------------------
The things we own end up owning us

 

[Justin Lane]

Dave, also I would like to point out that 500 watts of power would not come close to blowing almost any home circuit breaker. A 500 watt receiver running at maximum output would only draw a little over 4 amps of current. Most breakers in your home are probably rated at 15-20 amps or more.
John, I have to agree this would make an excellent pre/pro, but if Onkyo is going overrate their product by almost double, something is just not right. Other manufacturers such as Outlaw and H/K rate their amplification lower than other brands, but their product is still looked at as higher quality compared to brand X with 100 watts per channel for 200 bucks. I don't see why Onkyo could not follow a similar route, especially with their reputation, but what do I know.
J

 

[Paul_Psutka]

It's important to note that in the S&V test, one rating of the Onkyo 696 far exceeded the manufacturer's specification. They tested 151 watts (!!) at clipping with one channel driven into an 8 ohm load @ 1 KHz.
Onkyo claims 100 watts full bandwidth 20 - 20,000 Hz. So 151 watts @ 1 KHz would probably end up being 120 watts full bandwidth? At least 100 watts..... probably more.
And this 151 watts at 1 KHz, is actually HIGHER than any Onkyo receiver they've ever tested except for the flagship 989 model. (they've also tested the 474, 575, 777).
The tradeoff for the higher 1 channel, 8 ohm, 1 KHz output, is LESS output at 4 ohms (50% of the 8 ohm output), and only 46 watts per channel with all 5 channels driven @ 8 ohms. So I'd imagine the 4 ohm power with all 5 channels driven simultaneously would be 23 watts?
And so the 4 ohm and all channels driven power is LOWER than any Onkyo receiver they've ever tested (even the 474 model!).

 

[Paul_Psutka]

John-D,
I'd love to see the 696 released as a preamp/processor for slightly less money than the 696 receiver. Unfortunately, they'd end up charging a lot MORE (probably $2,000) to release it as a pre/pro because that's what the market can bear in the separates category.
Paul