REAL Watts? (1 Viewer)

[Justin_D]

Which of the "mainstream" brands actually bumps out what (or close to) they advertise?

Denon, Onkyo, H/K, Sony (obviously not), Yamaha, JVC, Pioneer (Elite can be separate), etc.

If you could rank them, that would be even better. I just wanna see what people's perspective is on this.

 

[ChrisLazarko]

Well HK is probably the best in terms of getting close. They are one of the few who actually go wayy ahead of what they specify. The next in my opinion would be Denon and Onkyo, with Yamaha leading the rear.

 

[Yogi]

I am with Chris on this. My findings are exactly the same as his

 

[Robert Cowan]

H/K is the only one that does, the others dont come all that close with all channels driven.

 

[Justin_D]

Right Robert
Sorry I forgot to specify all channels driven into 8 ohms.

Whats interesting is, when you look at an H/K specs, this is how it reads (7200 as reference):


Stereo Mode
Continuous Average Power (FTC) per Channel : 115 Watts per channel @

 

[Juan_R]

Actually, Pioneer does as well, I don't have the link but it was tested and put out what it claimed. This was the Pioneer Elite 45-TX to be exact.

 

[KevinCa]

You'd be surprised which brands actually put out their specified wattage.
Marantz' new range (x400) is pretty good at doing just that, usually only 5W below specification with all channels driven, that's pretty good.
Denon (not talking about the A1SR and the higher end models) and Yamaha (except the AZ-1, Z9 and other flagships) are among the worst regarding power output with all channels driven, dropping to 20 - 30W per channel.
Sony QS series is somewhere in between, ES don't know but I think it's going to be pretty good since it's a digital amp with high efficiency

For example Denon 1804, rated at 90W/ch, gives 2x110W in stereo, plummits to 5x35W in surround.
Marantz SR4400, also rated at 90W/ch, also gives 2x110W, but can maintain 5x85W.
Another one, Sony STR-DB790QS, rated 90W/ch, actual output 2x96W and 5x65W.
.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't buy something just because it has a high wattage.
I'd rather have the Denon 1804 then the Sony 790, just because I find it horrible to work with, even though the reviewers at homecinemachoice prefered the Sony.

 

[Dah-Dee]

I've seen test reports where the Harman Kardon AVR7200, the model apparently causing Justin some concern, actually delivered 140 ultraclean watts per channel into all 7 ["all channels driven"], 20-20 etc. etc.... Pretty freaking impressive....and one of numerous reasons I just ordered it, from OneCall

Bottom line: H/K is the king of actual power output.

 

[Robert Cowan]

kevin,

i cant remember which magazine it was, but rotel was sending around an independant test that was doing a lot of receivers in the $2K-$4K range. there was the flagship yamaha (Z1, not Z9), denon 5803 and a few others. neither met their specs. they werent WAY below, but IIRC, the yamaha was like 103 and the denon was 110 or something. not so hot. the rotel of course was 5-10 watts higher than spec.

there are FEW receivers out there that can actually do what they rate.

 

[Mike Butny]

The top three go in this order Rotel, Marantz, and denon. I was told this by a denon rep.

 

[DonnyD]

You may be shorting yourself by getting hung up on "all channels driven" as there is no need for a receiver to drive "all channels" simultaneously........ and I haven't seen any program material that demands it either.....

There's been many threads such as this before and there are those who understand and there are those who simply want to use the opportunity to point out XXXXX is lying regardless...........

 

[PaulT]

Here's a link you might enjoy ref this subject. All items are from Manufacturer's Specs vs Sound & Vision Bench Tests:

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

Phil Iturralde is a Forum Memeber here so you can thank him for his time. Note it is a Geocities web host site, so you may have to wait if the bandwidth for the page has been exceeded.

 

[Justin_D]

He he
Paul read my mind!

I was hoping as a result of this thread someone would post that site being that I lost it!

Thanks Paul!

 

[ReggieW]

NAD. I am shocked they haven't been mentioned since they are famous for this. They are rated in 8/4 ohms with continuous power! Only HK and Rotel comes close.

Reg

 

[KevinCa]

The one thing I find very confusing about NAD is that they claim a given number of watts into 8 as well as 4 ohm.
For instance: 125W into 8/4 ohm.
Well which one is it, 8 or 4 it can't be both.
If it can manage 125W into 8 then it obviously can handle that into 4 as well, but it should almost double, not stay exactly the same.

 

[Robert Cowan]

Donny,

its pretty important for a lot of people... with dvd-a and sacd, all channels driven is very important.

 

[Chris Sherman]

That Geocities chart is pretty dated. I think Sound and Vision did a great service to it's readers by testind receivers in both stereo and 5 channels driven. Onkyo stated slacking after the 575 and it showed in their SR 500 and SR600 models. I think they are aware consumers got wise to this as power ratings came way back up in the SR 501, SR601 models. They even put a large sticker on their transformers now saying high power or something to that effect. I've heard the argument that you don't use all channels simultaneously and that is true for the most part . Everyone who remembers the Pro Logic days knows it was par for the course to have your back channels rated at half or less the power of the fronts. With the advent of Dolby Digital and DTS Some people do run all channels large and may not have a sub so I still want a receiver that can put out equal power to all channels. All things being equal I like a heavier receiver , it's usually a good sign of the power supply. My 5 channel Onkyo TXDS676 weighs more (32lbs) than it's latest equal in cost 6 channel SR701. I bought last years HK 325 largely because I prefer the old black color and the 40 lb. weight was more assuring to me than the HK330's 30lbs. Though the 330 is still a nice piece.

 

[Dennis Gardner]

Somewhere I saw that the HK 7200 was tested with just 1 channel into 4 ohms and put over 340 watts through that channel. This indicates that the transformer can redirect needed performance for HT pan and sweeps with relatively little effort.

I haven't been able to test the limits of my 7200 since my pain threshold sets in well before the amps distort or clip.

Solid to say the least, and never has went into overload as my previous JVC 100wpc avr did.

DG

 

[ericanthonE]

i think that most companies are lying, it is just a matter of how big the lie is

I think that the only mainstream companies(if you could call them that) that rate power honestly are

NAD,ROTEl(All channels driven)

Everything else is only driven into two channels(denon is only driven into two channels)

I would rather have a receiver that can put out 110 into 7 channels driven ANYDAY over something that is only two channels.

The fact is, if the company lies to you about the specs, did they really make a quality product in the first place? what ELSE are they lying about?
I mean, if you make something nice, you would advertise it. I think that companies lie, because they feel that there products are inferior(and want to make it up somehow)

 

[Lewis Besze]

Yeah,is there a link to that?