Check out this interesting chart on receiver tests

Discussion in 'AV Receivers' started by Rick88, Aug 6, 2006.

  1. Rick88

    Rick88 Auditioning

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm

    I found this on another forum the other day. It is interesting to see how much power some receivers put out all channels driven and how poorly others performed. Too bad they don't have an updated version with some newer models.
     
  2. John Garcia

    John Garcia Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 1999
    Messages:
    11,571
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    NorCal
    Real Name:
    John
    Old news man. I don't think Phil has been keeping it up to date recently and I haven't seen him around this forum much either.
     
  3. Guy Usher

    Guy Usher Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Old but useful. . . still helpful. . .
     
  4. LanceJ

    LanceJ Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,168
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Also remember that for many living rooms, if small satellites with 4" to 6.5" woofers are used - with or without bass management - all most people need is about 10 to 30 watts of clean power per channel to reach very loud levels. And if you're using horn-equipped speakers.....[​IMG]

    As anyone with an older receiver (or McIntosh power amp [​IMG] ) equipped with output power meters knows, this "need" for everyone to have 100watts/channel is pure marketing crap. And if you carefully read the spec section of most receivers, that "100 watts" listed there is mostly on paper: to come up with that figure someone has done lots of juggling of other amplifier parameters. So for me anyway, unless the THD figure is under .5%, an 8 ohm loudpseaker rating is specified and a full 20Hz to 20kHz test signal is listed (this all amounts to clean/usable power in my eyes), that amp's published power rating is useless to me.

    There used to be lots of stereo receivers with "only" 15-30 watts per channel, from pretty much every mid-fi manufacturer (Pioneer, Technics*, Sony, etc) until around the late 80s/early 90s, right about when power meters finally disappeared. Hmmm..........

    * I own a Technics receiver myself, so I am not picking on that company
     
  5. John Garcia

    John Garcia Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 1999
    Messages:
    11,571
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    NorCal
    Real Name:
    John
    Yep, I had a stereo Audiosource amp that had a needle meters for each channel and my bedroom system rarely went above a few watts even at elevated levels driving my Mordaunt Short 902s.
     
  6. Arthur S

    Arthur S Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 1999
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Before it became a sin to use tone controls, or, to put it another way, before I got my first subwoofer, I used to turn up the bass on my receivers. That is where you can start to make real demands on amplification.

    The only time my receiver(s) ever could not handle the demands of the speakers was way back when I had a pair of the original Bose 901's. Because they used 3.5 inch cones (X9) on each side, they needed a ton of bass equalization (boost). IIRC, 20db at the lowest frequencies in the "full boost" mode. My old Sansui receiver was 45 watts per channel and could not begin to handle all that bass boost. 200 watts per channel would have been perfect.
     

Share This Page