jdm56 Posted February 8, 2002 Share Posted February 8, 2002 I've read in S&V lately of three different A/V receivers that failed to meet their advertised power ratings. Some failed by a wide margin. A Marantz, a Pioneer and a Sony What gives with this? What good is the FCC if manufacturers aren't really held accountable for the claims they make for their products? Of course, high-end tube amps fail to meet their published specs more often than not, too. I'd hate to shell out cash for a "100 Watt" A/V receiver and then find out it can barely manage 35W. Caveat Emptor indeed! ------------------ JDMcCall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted February 8, 2002 Share Posted February 8, 2002 i forget which marantz that was exactly but it was a newer one like a 6200 or something. heard that it was a drastic dif, but also marantz claimed the unit used was faulty. i have a marantz sr8000 that claims 105WX5 but think it actually reviewed at 100W. good soundin, higher current amp though. compared to my 1st a/v receiver, a sony de-935 rated at 110WX5, my marantz kicks it's wimpy butt. guess that's why we need to demo them 1st. ------------------ My Home Systems Page This message has been edited by boa12 on 02-08-2002 at 02:42 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundog Posted February 8, 2002 Share Posted February 8, 2002 Power ratings are the most untrustworthy and generally misleading spec out today. The standards are very loose. My 65 watt per channel Outlaw 1050 outperform the 100 watt per channel Sonys I had previously. They tend to test higher than 65 w/c. ------------------ Soundog's HT Systems This message has been edited by soundog on 02-08-2002 at 11:48 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rennocneb Posted February 8, 2002 Share Posted February 8, 2002 It is all about how the manufactuer states the FCC rating for example a 100x5 sony may be rated as follows 100watts per channel into 6ohms at 1khz One Channel driven. While a 60watt NAD for example is rated as follows 60watts per channel into 8ohms from 20hz-20khz all five channels driven this is a gods honest 60 watts, but by rating at 6ohms and only one channel driven with high distortion numbers sony is able to pump up the specs. Most people never look to see the frequency bandwith an amp is rated over or the number of channels being dirven thata is very important. For example a very well known company Denon rates all there recievers with 2 channels driven far from all 5 or 7 in some cases so it may make rated power with 2 driven but no where near rated power with all driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted February 10, 2002 Author Share Posted February 10, 2002 boa - I believe the Marantz was the SR-7200. I was very disappointed to read of it's high noise level and low power driving five or six channels. I hope it was defective, 'cause I was thinking it might be a good "transition" component; For use as the centerpiece in my music rig, providing access to SACD and also providing some good options for playing two-channel material back through a full surround speaker set-up. Then I could slide it into the HT rig when and if SACD/DVD-A with digital outputs ever become available. The newer Marantz gear is gorgeous! soundog & rennocneb - Three receivers were compared and tested equally--5 channels driven, 20-20k. I generally would not consider a receiver that is only rated @ 1khz with just one or two channels driven. That does not tell you much when you are dealing with multichannel, bass heavy material. ------------------ JDMcCall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted February 10, 2002 Share Posted February 10, 2002 jd, if u don't need that 6th channel & all those new gizmo formats like DPLII & DTS:neo, u might still be able to find a marantz sr8000 for a lot less than a 7200. great receiver, smooth amp & it delivers as advertised (give or take 5 watts). real nice for 2 channel stereo too & one of the best universal remotes. ------------------ My Home Systems Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted February 10, 2002 Share Posted February 10, 2002 James,check out Denon.I can't think of anything that anyone could want for any audio environment that their receivers don't have(3802 and ^).Except boa's infinitely adjustable crossover,that is! Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted February 10, 2002 Share Posted February 10, 2002 I really like to boldly tout subjective rules of thumb. If a HT receiver weighs less than 30 pounds its power rating is suspect. If the transformer mass is not there you have a difficult time getting clean current. Outlaw 1050 is a conervative rated product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 10, 2002 Share Posted February 10, 2002 There are just too many lemons on the market today,lets face it.Most recievers have piss poor amplification matched to noisy pre-pro section built around a soda can chassis. Any reciever under $400 with a 5 x 100W power rating is a hoax.In the lower priced segment BS ratings are king and prey on those who only look at specs and dont even know the ratings should be 100W RMS full bandwith all channels driven non stop.All recievers will fail to meet their ratings this way even the Denon 5800!So any lesser reciever(and all have lesser amps)will fail poorly,in other words pathetic amps with overblown figures. Denon 3801 and up,Onkyo 939 and up,Yamaha 2000 and up,Marantz SR19 and up,B&K any reciever they ever made and the new Pioneer 47 and 49TX are close to the claimed power ratings.Outlaw and Rotel are known to not overblow their specs to fool the unsuspecting buyer. In any way I have dedicated power amps to take care of the reciever amp problems,get an Outlaw or ATI power amp and you are set. I almost forgot,wiuth Klipsch you often will be A ok with 20W per channel. TheEAR(s) Now theears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted February 10, 2002 Share Posted February 10, 2002 "I believe the Marantz was the SR-7200. I was very disappointed to read of it's high noise level and low power driving five or six channels. I hope it was defective, 'cause I was thinking it might be a good "transition" component; For use as the centerpiece in my music rig, providing access to SACD and also providing some good options for playing two-channel material back through a full surround speaker set-up. Then I could slide it into the HT rig when and if SACD/DVD-A with digital outputs ever become available." jd, for a while there this seemed like a general issue thread. now looks like this receiver or that, so you better provide more than the above. as ttk points out i'm a big advocate of the adjustable crossover, though it only applies if you have a seperate sub that is running BOTH lfe & low bass & u have bigger speaks that can go down below 60hz or so. so yea if u end up getting a sub & using the digital connection for sacd, & u want to spend more $ than the 7200, might want to look at the b&k 305 or 307, or that denon 4802. ------------------ My Home Systems Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch-daddy Posted February 10, 2002 Share Posted February 10, 2002 It looks like no one mention yamaha receivers. I love my rx-v1200. I will crank up my rf-3's with any problem and without any distortion. I realize its not the same power as a mono, or multi channel amp but it more than does the job for me and my ears! ------------------ Home Theater: Yamaha RX-V1000 Klipsch RF-3's Klipsch KSC-C1(LOOKING FOR A RC-3 OR RC-3II) Kenwood KSV64 Bipolar Speakers Klipsch Subwoofer KSW-12 Television: TOSHIBA THEATER VIEW 50" DVD Player SONY S-360 CD Changer CDC 585 5 Disc Yamaha Philips Pronto ts-1000 monster cable interconnects/12 gauge speaker wire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBM135 Posted February 10, 2002 Share Posted February 10, 2002 Textf>When I was shopping for AV receivers a much more knowledgable person than I told me to really look at high current power--not just watts. I decided at the time on a Harman/Kardon AVR 110. Only 40 watts X 5 (or 50 X 2) but let me tell ya--it will shake the walls. I had an older Sony rated at 85 wattsX2. The H/K blows it away. Sony was crap--the "little" H/K tips the scale at 32 lbs and supplies +/- 25 amps of current power. Damn thing is huge. Was VERY hard finding a shelf that would hold this thing (deep enough that is). So, I would look at current power--Denon's are also good in this area but I've suffered reliability and service issues with them so I will not buy anymore Denon stuff. H/K 120 has a very nice sound, even in 2 chan but does not have preamp outs so will be expensive for me to upgrade to seperates. Worth a look but go with the AVR 220 for the preamp option. System I have: Forte II mains KV-3 Cent SS-1s rear Sony 32 in Trinitron Sony DVPS-360 Denon DCM 370 HDCD Changer System I want: Forte IIs Academy (or KLFC7 or maybe RC-3) SS-1s are fine for back-end RSW-12 Sub Rotel HDCD Single CD player Outlaw 1050/950 amp/preamp combo (or Rotel seperates) Sony has a new 40 inch tude TV--I want one. MM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted February 12, 2002 Author Share Posted February 12, 2002 Thanks for the advice one and all. My little 80Wattx2 mosfet Sony ES integrated is doing a bang-up musical job driving the k-horns through a Dynaco QD-2 passive surround decoder. The rear speakers are an old pair of High-efficiency Infinity SM-120's. Still looking for a Belle to do center channel duty. BUT...am keeping my eyes open for a good receiver that has dpl II and at least one other good surround extraction mode for two channel. Not that faked-up BS, but a simple, clean "Hafler-esque" approach, like Marantz's "Circle Surround", Harmon-Kardon's Logic-7 (or whatever they call it). 'Cause the fact of the matter is the bulk of my listening will probably remain 2-channel for years--I won't be buying any DVD-A's or SACD's at 25 bucks a pop. Other high receiver priorities -- low noise, multi-channel inputs for SACD, a beefy power supply, and GOOD tone controls that operate on the multi-channel inputs, also. (try finding that one!) ------------------ JDMcCall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.