Need link for actual wattages for receivers with all channels driven. (1 Viewer)

[Tony Meconiates]

who has the link?

 

[Greg Haynes]

I know sound & vision magazine's website has all actual wattage numbers on all their reviewed receivers.
Here's a link:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/HFN...nt_reports.asp

 

[Tony Meconiates]

thanks for the link...

I remember seeing someone post a link with a grid of about 40-50 receivers with manufacturers reported wattage and lab tested wattage with all channels driven... thats the link I was hoping for

 

[Jason Wilcox]

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm

 

[Greg Haynes]

Looks like the site has exceeded its monthly transfer rate. If this site is like what Tony mentioned with 40-50 receivers all listed I will bookmarking it right away.

 

[Jason Wilcox]

yeah it's the site

 

[Tony Lai]

I wonder if this testing is too strenuous for the equipment.

The English (HCC?) use something called a 'fidelity firewall'. This sort of test is geared towards poweramps with massive powersupplies and a largely different design/cost/benefit philosophy.

I wonder if the same test is inappropriate when applied to $500 budget receivers?

The poweramp I use is rather typical of the design parameters applied to many poweramps.

John Curl shot for 120w x 6 with this amp. It actually rated at 135w x 6... all channels driven of course.

From independent testing, it maintains 220w x 2 at just under 1% THD. It maintains something like 175w x 6 all driven, same THD. It does 150w x 6 all day, everyday it need be with >0.05% THD.

Of course it's a 35kg+ device and cost is slightly higher. I would not expect one of the receivers mentioned above to do the same feat as every Parasound so if they end up looking worse off, surely it's the testing and not the device itself?

T.