# Can the size of the power supply make a difference?



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Here is some detailed factual information to backup statements that I have made for many years regarding receivers that have larger power supplies (heavier in weight) always do better with coming closer to actual specified power. It has been a subject of heated debate at times and I want to put some information that will back up what many of us have tried to say for quite some time.


First of all some background information as to why receiver manufacturers come up with their specifications for amplification power output:

It is only required that manufacturers test their receivers using a 1K test tone and this is done for a short duration (very unrealistic). In real world use receivers are put under much harsher loads.

Without getting into to much detail. Distortion is caused when the amp can no longer output the amount of power into the speaker. Taking the sine wave that normally has a smooth and rounded top & bottom and starts to flatten out causing the speaker cone to abruptly stop and start movement. This will damage a speaker.

In bench tests done by third party groups the output of most receivers becomes much more clear. A bench test is done by driving the receiver using a full frequency sweep or pink noise giving much more realistic results and in many cases very poor results that I will show below.

What I will try to do is compare receivers in the same price range with roughly the same features. You will begin to see a pattern.
I will only do a comparison with receivers that have class A/B amps in them as they are the most common and also the ones that suffer from the most loss in output when not supplied with a decent amount of power from a large power supply. 

*BENCH TESTS*

First price group ($1000) aprox

*Onkyo 828*, rated at 140 watts per channel, weight 33.1lbs

2 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads
0.1% distortion at 147 watts

5 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads
0.1% distortion at 109.9 watts

7 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads 
0.1% distortion at 78.5 watts


*Denon 2313*, rated at 135watts per ch, weight 24lbs

Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 126.8 watts 

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 77.7 watts 

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 74.3 watts 


*Harman Kardon 3650*, rated output at 130watts per ch, weight 27.2 lbs

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 70.4 watts 

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 43.6 watts


*Marantz SR6006*, rated output 130 watts per ch, weight 26lbs

Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 127.9 watts 

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 75.9 watts 

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 71.3 watts

*Onkyo 805*, rated at 135 watts per ch, weight 54lbs

2 channels driven continually into 8-ohm loads:
0.1 percent distortion at 173.0 watts

5 channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1 percent distortion at 162.0 watts

7 channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 

0.1 percent distortion at 120.4 watts

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second price group ($600)

*Denon E400*, rated at 125watts per ch, weight 20lbs

2 Channels, 8 Ohms
130.0 watts

5 Channels, 8 Ohms
70.0 watts

7 Channels, 8 Ohms
62.3 watts


*Yamaha A730,* rated at 120watts per ch, weight 22.9lbs

Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 115.5 watts

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 32.4 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 27.1 watts


*Pioneer 1123*, rated at 115 watts per ch, weight 21.6lbs

Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 127.7 watts

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 87.0 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 59.6 watts


*Denon 2112*, rated at 115 watts per ch, weight 22.5

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 76.6 watts 

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 52.3 watts


*Onkyo 609*, rated at 110 watts per ch, weight 24.7lbs

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 81.0 watts 

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads: 
0.1% distortion at 77.7 watts 


There are more than theses but I did not see any that the results were very different than what is shown above. Even a few pounds more in the receivers over all weight seems to suggest that it does make a difference. 

Now before this turns into a debate let's remember that many will say that 20-30 watts of power is plenty to drive most speakers to 75db I will answer to that:

"Most speakers" is a very broad statement, I disagree given speakers come in many different sizes and some are very efficient and others not at all. You take a speaker that is rated at 8ohms but in reality has very wide swings depending on what it's playing putting a huge load on an amp.
Placement as well as room size will also play a huge role in how loud that speaker will sound at the listening position. Too many variables to say that 30watts = 75db.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

Actually it only takes one or two watts to drive most speakers to an average SPL of 75 db in most home listening rooms. 20 or 30 watts would more than cover the peaks. Amplifier power is probably the least important element of an AV system but it does a nice job of feeding audiophilia. 

My first stereo amplifer delivered about 12 watts per channel into 8 ohms. It could fill the room with music, particularly back in those days of compressed vinyl records. 

The difference between 75 watts per channel and 150 watts per channel is close to meaningless. It is only 3 db. Much ado about nothing in my view.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I did an experiment about a month or so ago using a little mini system to power my EVs (94db efficient). It's rated to output 25 watts per channel so in reality probably about 15 or so. I was able to get band limited pink noise at 75db and then I played some tracks that I like to listen to at that volume setting but that was pretty much all it could do as turning it up clearly distortion was audible. I then took that same mini system and hooked it up to my mission 765s (89db @4ohm) the results were awful, it not only sounded bad but distortion was already in play well below 65db of output.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

The answer to your thread topic, is generally, yes. Given an AB amp with linear supply, as is typical in HT receivers.
Couple links that might be of interest to you, the first regarding power supplies, the 2nd (if you scroll down) peak power:
http://www.helarc.com/guru/guruscordell.htm

http://www.cordellaudio.com/he2007/show_report.shtml

While the data above you have provided is certainly useful, there are caveats. The second link provides examples of peak (not rms) power demands. The figures you quoted are continuous power (with test signals), but both music and movies (some much more so that others), is dynamic in nature.
So a lot "depends", on program, the listeners level demands....and ability to detect the non-linearities that inevitably develop, when real speakers are connected to real amplifiers, with dynamically changing signals.

cheers


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

As you satiated music and movies are dynamic in nature not continuous. In the second article you link to one comment was "the most dynamic power draw was during the Thwack of a snare drum dead centre" using 250 watts into speakers that were 89 db efficient. Clearly this would tax an amplifier if it was not able to keep up.


----------



## WooferHound (Dec 8, 2010)

Lets say we have a 50 watt amplifier and it is capable of producing 105 decibels from your speakers.
Now we turn up the volume and the amplifier is putting out 100 watts, you will hear a 3db increase in volume making 108db.
But Double the volume is a 10db increase in volume. To get a 10db increase you will need 10 times the power giving you 115db.
So if you want to double the volume of your 50 watt amp, you would need 500 watts of power.
There is not a reason to upgrade a 50 watt amp to 100 watts if it's not enough to begin with, you may not even hear a difference.
You get most of your volume with the first watt of power.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

tonyvdb said:


> I did an experiment about a month or so ago using a little mini system to power my EVs (94db efficient). It's rated to output 25 watts per channel so in reality probably about 15 or so. I was able to get band limited pink noise at 75db and then I played some tracks that I like to listen to at that volume setting but that was pretty much all it could do as turning it up clearly distortion was audible. I then took that same mini system and hooked it up to my mission 765s (89db @4ohm) the results were awful, it not only sounded bad but distortion was already in play well below 65db of output.


Two problems here. The first is your estimate of the power dissipation and the 25 watt "rating," which is most likely a peak rating at audible distortion levels. I don't doubt that you distorted it at 75 db but I do doubt the power rating and your estimate. The other problem is pink noise. To say that pink noise is harder to reproduce in terms of power requirements than music is an understatement. We don't use our systems to reproduce test tones and while they are taxing to the system they don't really indicate much in terms of the system's ability to reproduce music. They are necessary in order to make lab measurements but only as indicators of a system's potential performance in use. 

In my listening room I produce 75 db [measured) average SPL with less than 1 watt of power (measured) at a listening distance of 11 feet. It is a fairly live room and it contributes meaningfully to the SPL at the listening position. The comment above that most of your volume comes from the first watt is correct.

Modern amplifiers are way more powerful than necessary for the majority of applications and for good reason. The manufacturers would face serious business downturns and even litigation if people were burning up their equipment. Most people that buy a home theater receiver know a lot less about audio than you or I do. Imagine how ridiculous it would be for manufacturers to sell equipment to them that couldn't drive ordinary speakers to room filling volumes in ordinary listening rooms. They are certainly smart enough not to make that mistake.

Most external amplifiers are bought because they are wanted, not because they are needed. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with using the amps in an AV receiver either. But when all is said and done it still takes a doubling of amplifier power to produce a small audible change in SPL. People argue about the benefits of 125 watts over 100 watts and yet the difference is not even audible. I hope that helps explain why I said it was much ado about nothing.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

I agree with Tony on much of what he said. My only big difference is equating weight with power supply. 
The power supply is usually the same, whatever comes out of the wall, what is then made of that power is a matter of debate. Usually the weight of a receiver comes from a larger Transformer which is indeed PART of the internal power supply, and to be sure one of the more expensive parts. But truth be told the power supply is a multi piece section not the least of which will include a healthy amount of capacitance. Many years ago power amplifiers had capacitors the size of a soda can as well as very expensive transformers. Receivers not only have to provide power to the amplifier but also the pre amplifier, the computers within them, the lights and on and on. Designing and building an AVR with all the gadgets and options will cause the manufacturer to make pricing choices and it is not always in favor of a proper and substantial power supply section as we can see in Tonys charts. As channels are added, power goes down on probably 90% of the receivers out there. 
This in part is why we use separate amps, it takes a load off of the receiver and because they can be bigger, heavier and do not waste much power on gizmos, they tend to work better, especially for home theater.

It is wrong also to assume that the doubling of power always equates to a mere 3db increase in sound pressure. This is a supposition based upon very limited testing and not in the real world. Many times a soundtrack of music or special effects may require the amp or receiver to run at its limit for more than the few milliseconds needed to pass some lab test. As the sound track keeps drawing power, the receiver or amp must continually be able to renew the wattage being sucked out of it always or it will distort and that can be dangerous. More modern receivers have too many gadgets and not enough real world power and when taxed they can easily go into overload and blow up things, particularly tweeters. It is always better to have more power than not enough.

Many years ago, Oldsmobile decided many of is patrons liked to drive their cars in a way so as to never tax the drive train, you know the typical old people approach general motors took. So Olds decided to release its Cutlas with a tiny V-8 (260ci I think) bolted to a very light weight transmission. Yes indeed, the car moved and got to highway speeds, but it lacked the power necessary to move it quickly, repeatedly and safely. I remember riding in a friends while trying to get on the highway only to be scared to death it was so slow. 

Amps need to do the same thing, deliver good clean power, quickly, repeatedly and quite often for more than just a few milliseconds.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

fmw said:


> Two problems here. The first is your estimate of the power dissipation and the 25 watt "rating," which is most likely a peak rating at audible distortion levels. I don't doubt that you distorted it at 75 db but I do doubt the power rating and your estimate. The other problem is pink noise. To say that pink noise is harder to reproduce in terms of power requirements than music is an understatement. We don't use our systems to reproduce test tones and while they are taxing to the system they don't really indicate much in terms of the system's ability to reproduce music. They are necessary in order to make lab measurements but only as indicators of a system's potential performance in use.


Did you even read what I posted or just reply?
I used band limited pink noise just to set a level that would give me a starting point. I then played music but as we already have agreed on is that music has very many wide dynamic swings. Using an SPL meter even on C weight it bounces all over the place going from low to peaks of over 95db. The band limited pink noise is actually a very realistic load.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

fmw said:


> Modern amplifiers are way more powerful than necessary for the majority of applications and for good reason.


Can you provide data to support this claim?
What is the standard continuous and peak power output vs load, of a "modern amplifier"?
What is the standard reactive, varying load seen by a "modern amplifier"?
What is the standard user listening level required of a "modern amplifier"?
What is the statistical mean for detection of operational non-linearities of a "modern amplifier"?
What is the standard output impedance of a "modern amplifier"?
Data please. TIA.



fmw said:


> The manufacturers would face serious business downturns and even litigation if people were burning up their equipment.


"Burning up" would be an extreme case (starting to see a trend here). Amplifiers can misbehave all day long without actually failing. Clipping of short duration peaks is largely harmless electrically, but can certainly be detected aurally.



fmw said:


> Most external amplifiers are bought because they are wanted, not because they are needed.


Please provide your data to support this claim. Some surveys of "most" amp owners would be nice.



tonyvdb said:


> Did you even read what I posted or just reply?


Doubtful, given his absolutist positions.

cheers


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

My truthful statements must be bad for business, huh? You know exactly what I'm talking about. No need to play games with me. I'm certainly not going to play them with you.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

I'll take that as a No, can't provide any such data.
The questions were rhetorical in nature.
Try to be a bit more flexible in your positions, absolutism isn't helpful. Thanks. 
Have a nice day.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

ajinfla said:


> Can you provide data to support this claim?
> What is the standard continuous and peak power output vs load, of a "modern amplifier"?
> What is the standard reactive, varying load seen by a "modern amplifier"?
> What is the standard user listening level required of a "modern amplifier"?
> ...


You sit back like the all knowing and pick apart posts one word at a time demanding proof, proof, proof and regardless of what may be presented you scoff and brush it away.
From your signature I take it you are either in sales at or the owner of a small retail audio/home theater business.
As such, I ask you to provide data supporting your absolutism to the very questions you pose of others.
Given your critical nature displayed on this forum towards anyone that actually tries to make recommendations or have civil conversation supported by actual electrical engineering, or documented listening tests I do not think it is unreasonable to ask you to prove your position anymore so than the demands you place on others.

If you do not provide specific answers to the five questions you posed I will take that as a No, you don't know and I will submit that makes you unqualified to work in sales or to own a retail audio business.

Since you think putting smileys after your post makes it ok here you go :bigsmile:

Anxiously awaiting your answers to the questions above.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

ajinfla said:


> I'll take that as a No, can't provide any such data.
> The questions were rhetorical in nature.
> Try to be a bit more flexible in your positions, absolutism isn't helpful. Thanks.
> Have a nice day.


Your words, not mine. The correct word is won't provide any such data. My positions are flexible when the facts are flexible. They are absolute when the facts are absolute. Talk until you are blue in the face and I still won't play your game.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

chashint said:


> You sit back like the all knowing and pick apart posts one word at a time demanding proof, proof, proof and regardless of what may be presented you scoff and brush it away.


When I see misstatements, I opine. This is, after all, a discussion forum. Obviously you're not use to opinions contrary to yours and you find this upsetting. However, readers can note that neither you nor fnw ever address any technical issues, nor have any rebuttal for these very specific technical issues that I raise. They can conclude from this what they will, but it speaks volumes for the validity of your positions, which tend towards absolutism.



chashint said:


> From your signature I take it you are either in sales at or the owner of a small retail audio/home theater business.


I make loudspeakers. That's it. No amps, no HT installs. Just loudspeakers, were you to Red Herring the argument in that direction. My technical views on amplifiers (and such) are that of a loudspeaker builder.



chashint said:


> As such, I ask you to provide data supporting your absolutism to the very questions you pose of others.


They were rhetorical in nature...and you may want to look up the meaning of words you rehash. 
"Tis why I add "caveats" to many of these audio issues.
I'll take that as a "no", you won't have those answers either


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

fmw said:


> The correct word is won't provide any such data.


Yes, of course.
Have a great weekend.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Ok guys, take a step back here. No need to get all bent out of shape over this lets keep this to a discussion not a mud slinging act. 
This is not meant to be a discussion on "does a person need more power" although a lot of people do hear a difference when a receiver is not pushed into distortion. So that would suggest that there is merit to the need for more power than just 20 or 30 watts. 
Looking at the bench tests it clearly shows that the receivers with the larger power supply transformer seem to do better at reaching closer to the specified wattage output rating. That was my intention, to put some facts in place to back up my thoughts over the last few years.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

tonyvdb said:


> Ok guys, take a step back here. No need to get all bent out of shape over this lets keep this to a discussion not a mud slinging act.
> This is not meant to be a discussion on "does a person need more power" although a lot of people do hear a difference when a receiver is not pushed into distortion. So that would suggest that there is merit to the need for more power than just 20 or 30 watts.
> Looking at the bench tests it clearly shows that the receivers with the larger power supply transformer seem to do better at reaching closer to the specified wattage output rating. That was my intention, to put some facts in place to back up my thoughts over the last few years.


Nobody is slinging mud. We are simply disagreeing with one another. Here is another disagreement for you. If an audio guy hears an audible difference between two receivers that have the calibration software disabled, then they are falling prey to hearing bias. Their brain is telling them what they want to hear, not what is actually there. In order to get past that bias you need to do blind testing. If you are talking about receivers with the calibration enabled then, yes they will sound subtley different with or without hearing bias.


----------



## robbo266317 (Sep 22, 2008)

It was good to see that most of the ones you looked at were close to their rated RMS output. 
This is much better than when manufacturers labeled their devices with PMPO which is a totally unrealistic value.
Thank you for doing the tests Tony.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

fmw said:


> Nobody is slinging mud. We are simply disagreeing with one another. Here is another disagreement for you. If an audio guy hears an audible difference between two receivers that have the calibration software disabled, then they are falling prey to hearing bias. Their brain is telling them what they want to hear, not what is actually there. In order to get past that bias you need to do blind testing. If you are talking about receivers with the calibration enabled then, yes they will sound subtley different with or without hearing bias.


I'm talking about distortion not EQ or processing. 
It's been said many times that music and movies have wide dynamic swings. Pushing amps into distortion if there is not enough headroom. I already commented on the fact that one test done saw 250watts being drawn with just a simple snare drum hit, try an explosion or battle between two robots Put that through a receiver that's only able to output real 55 watts per channel all channels driven and I see a problem and yes all channels used during that sort of scene is very common.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

robbo266317 said:


> It was good to see that most of the ones you looked at were close to their rated RMS output.
> This is much better than when manufacturers labeled their devices with PMPO which is a totally unrealistic value.
> Thank you for doing the tests Tony.


Your welcome


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> It's been said many times that music and movies have wide dynamic swings. Pushing amps into distortion if there is not enough headroom. I already commented on the fact that one test done saw 250watts being drawn with just a simple snare drum hit, try an explosion or battle between two robots Put that through a receiver that's only able to output real 55 watts per channel all channels driven and I see a problem and yes all channels used during that sort of scene is very common.


Bingo, you're getting it Tony. The relevant info is burst power vs load, all channels driven, full impedance curve of the load, voltage sensitivity of the load and some semblance of user maximum desired SPLs, free of distortions.
Unfortunately for the consumer, that information is scant to non existent, even if they were educated to understanding why all are relevant.
I do applaud Sonnie, as it seems he will be putting this to the test! Obviously it is impossible to test every device on the market, but even raising awareness for members will be a great start.

cheers


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Tony, 
I don't think anyone disagrees that more power supply means more output with all channels driven, nor that beefier conventional power supplies generally weigh more. What I have always said is that there is often more to the story and one needs to consider how much power is needed in each case, along with all of the other considerations, not just buy the heavier unit.

There is almost always more to a decision than a single measure.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I agree, Leonard. There is always much more to consider. The efficiency of the speaker, the room size and room acoustics are also two big factors. But that still does not excuse receivers that boast high output numbers only to drop by almost half because of cost cutting and reduction in a major part of the receiver the Power supply and its counterparts.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

tonyvdb said:


> I agree, Leonard. There is always much more to consider. The efficiency of the speaker, the room size and room acoustics are also two big factors. But that still does not excuse receivers that boast high output numbers only to drop by almost half because of cost cutting and reduction in a major part of the receiver the Power supply and its counterparts.


I am not a manufacturer, engineer, retailer etc, but there has to be a reason why these receivers are performing as you say. It seems to be happening more and more and in my humble opinion the main parties being injured are indeed the consumer, who in turn seems to push for more gadgets and less quality. I recall about 4-5 years ago, Onkyo touting is massive AVR, not sure what model number, but it weighed somewhere around 50 pounds, had oodles of power was rated full range, two channels driven, but did not loose 50% power into 5 channels, rather it lost only 10 watts per channel, was touted as being THX ultra and what have you but got taken to the cleaners because it got hot. Not enough to cause damage, but some users got worried, put it on the net and that was the last of the huge heavy beasties. My Denon AVR at the time was similar in that is was rated 130 watts per channel but went down to 119 WPC with 5 channels driven. The AVRs of yesteryear are not like the new stuff and I think Tony is right it is in the power supplies.

But why the sudden change, in 4-5 years we go from power houses to receivers that have a hard time keeping up. Consumer driven ?? Are we afraid of heat or do we want more goodies in the same size cabinet for less money so the manufacturer has to cut on the front end thinking no one will know ??

Are we actually as a general consumer getting what we asked for ??


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Yup, that's the Onkyo 805 and 875.
Both receivers weighed over 50lbs and two channels driven did better than 170watts that dropped down to 120 with all 7 channels driven for a receiver than the specifications stated 135 and 140 watts per channel.

I personally own the Onkyo 805 and can attest to it's stellar output.


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

Nasty can of worms this is...

Can weight make a difference? I suppose, but I would think that tech can make a package smaller and lighter and still have equivalent performance. I think its more the summon of the units parts.

On the side of specs the companies use I really wish they would standardize and give power at all channels driven 20-20 kHz vice some many that give it a 1khz or 2 channels driven...etc.


----------



## WooferHound (Dec 8, 2010)

These days the power supplies are changing too. Class D amps don't even have a transformer and rectify the voltage straight to capacitors and use the power from there. I have some professional Class D amps that I'm super happy with. They weigh 7 pounds and have 2 channels rated at 285w @ 8Ω, 530w @ 4Ω, 900w @ 2Ω


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

All of the AVRs that Tony has been discussing use conventional power supplies. There is not much that technology can do to reduce the weight of the transformer in this type of supply.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

With the exception of the Yamaha all of the AVRs in the list supplied at least 70W / CH, five channels continuously driven.
That is nothing to scoff at.
While there are going to be applications that demand more capability I doubt there would be very many people that would be dissatisfied with any of these AVRs including the Yamaha which only managed 32 watts with five channels continuously driven.
Subwoofers have become a common part of a multi channel system, this helps the AVR even more.

Do I want my 100 watts out of all seven channels driven continuously?...Sure...Will I ever notice if it's only 70?...Highly unlikely.
I think the major brand names do a decent job of stating the specifications and the consumer is not being deceived.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The problem is that many people don't even know what distortion sounds like, they have no idea that they are missing a lot of clarity. I hear over and over from people on this forum that they can't hear dialog during the dramatic louder parts of a movie. Many of them are experiencing distortion from their system making the dialog unclear.
As has been made clear also in this thread is that there are a lot of things that will load up an amp that does not generate frequencies low enough to send to a subwoofer. (Again the snare drum hit drawing 250watts)


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

Andre said:


> Nasty can of worms this is...
> 
> Can weight make a difference? I suppose, but I would think that tech can make a package smaller and lighter and still have equivalent performance. I think its more the summon of the units parts.
> 
> On the side of specs the companies use I really wish they would standardize and give power at all channels driven 20-20 kHz vice some many that give it a 1khz or 2 channels driven...etc.


That isn't any more meaningful in my view. One thing your system will never encounter is the stress of a test tone being amplified by every amplifier at the same time for any meaningful amount of time. That sort of stress doesn't exist in a movie soundtrack. The main, center and sub channels have almost all the audio content. The surrounds hardly work at all.

The reality is that amplifier power is trivial for typical home theaters and how you rate it is therefore trivial as well. I'm not sure I understand the fascination with pouring over receiver specifications. The reality is that they all perform about the same. Far more important than the specifications are the reliability record and the feature set.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

Do amplifier power supplies matter? Sure they do. They are the source of the power than runs the amplifier. They need to be strong enough to handle the current demands of the speakers. 

But weight is a very poor indicator of quality. My friend the audio dealer once invited me into the service shop to see two Sony CD players opened up. One was an ordinary model and the other was the upscale ES model. While the cosmetics and connections were different, the main circuit board and transport/laser mechanism were the same. The ES weighed nearly three times as much. Why? Because there was a steel plate installed beneath the circuit board. Was there a difference in the sonic performance between the two units. Of course not. But there was a big difference in weight and price. Weight is not a reliable indicator of quality.

I have two subwoofers. One has a 250 watt A/B amp in it and the other has a 300 watt D switching amp in it. The A/B amp outweighs the D amp by a factor of 4. Does it outperform the D amp? Not in my experience. Weight is not a reliable indicator of quality.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

In the context that Tony has established, AVRs which all have conventional supplies, and if the output power is significant to you, there is likely a correlation between weight and output. My point has always been that correlation is not the same as causation, and there may be other factors that mitigate the value of weight as a performance indicator. 

All else being equal, put a larger transformer in an amp with a conventional power supply and it can deliver more power. I just don't assume the "all else being equal" part.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

fmw said:


> That isn't any more meaningful in my view. One thing your system will never encounter is the stress of a test tone being amplified by every amplifier at the same time for any meaningful amount of time. That sort of stress doesn't exist in a movie soundtrack. The main, center and sub channels have almost all the audio content. The surrounds hardly work at all.
> 
> The reality is that amplifier power is trivial for typical home theaters and how you rate it is therefore trivial as well. I'm not sure I understand the fascination with pouring over receiver specifications. The reality is that they all perform about the same. Far more important than the specifications are the reliability record and the feature set.


+1


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

lcaillo said:


> In the context that Tony has established, AVRs which all have conventional supplies, and if the output power is significant to you, there is likely a correlation between weight and output. My point has always been that correlation is not the same as causation, and there may be other factors that mitigate the value of weight as a performance indicator.
> 
> All else being equal, put a larger transformer in an amp with a conventional power supply and it can deliver more power. I just don't assume the "all else being equal" part.


Excellent point. Irrespective of my thoughts that weight does not equal better, it can be used as a guide post. For instance, my Denon BR player is indeed quite heavy, is it better than my Oppo or Sony...in some ways yes in some no. It is loaded with extra metal mounts, cooling components, copper plates and a sort of sarcophagus surrounding the disc player proper. While no longer an outstanding player visually, it does work, is very quiet and provides the most film like image I have seen. So in this case, weight may not be better. 

In power providing electronics, weight for A/B amps can surely point in the right direction. If a class A/B receiver touting 120 watts per channel x 7 has every new gizmo on board but weighs 17 pounds, I would say put it back, you will not be hearing what is being fed into it. 

I did a bit of an experiment today in way of dynamic range which will allow us to realize how much power may actually be needed to reproduce a musical event. I decided to play some Wagner, the part in Götterdämmerung moments after Hagen plunges a speak into Siegfried back. Once Siegfried falls, the funeral music starts and imo is one of the most touching pieces of classical music ever written also one of the most powerful. 

To the point, my speakers are about 90 db sensitive and my room is about 16" x 22' and yes I have sub woofers. When the music starts my room is about 54-55 db at the listening chair. Early in the piece the music does blare out a bit as the brass takes the lead to announce our heroes passing while the first violins and double basses come in low and sad. Moving on the bombast of the full orchestra wailing for the passing of Sigfried reaches over 97db at the listening chair, while still being able to keep the instruments separate from one another instead of forming one big blob of sound. You do the math but there is no way that a average modern receiver will be able to provide the power to the instruments needing it most, reloading the capacitors, providing more and more and more power without going into some distortion or limiting procedure. My feeling anyway.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

fmw said:


> Do amplifier power supplies matter? Sure they do. They are the source of the power than runs the amplifier. They need to be strong enough to handle the current demands of the speakers.
> 
> But weight is a very poor indicator of quality. My friend the audio dealer once invited me into the service shop to see two Sony CD players opened up. One was an ordinary model and the other was the upscale ES model. While the cosmetics and connections were different, the main circuit board and transport/laser mechanism were the same. The ES weighed nearly three times as much.


We are not talking about CD players with metal plates.
My Sherwood Newcastle r972 weighs 40 lbs most of the weight sits at the front where the power transformer sits. The receiver is rated at 130 watts per channel.
My Onkyo 805 weighs 54lbs and the weight is again mostly at the front where the power transformer is sitting. It's rated at 135watts per ch. on the bench the Onkyo walks all over the Sherwood. 
I have tried my r972 down in my Theater and there was a noticeable drop in clarity and dynamics during movies that clearly would task the amps. 
No metal plates were added for this demonstration.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Savjac said:


> To the point, my speakers are about 90 db sensitive and my room is about 16" x 22' and yes I have sub woofers. When the music starts my room is about 54-55 db at the listening chair. Early in the piece the music does blare out a bit as the brass takes the lead to announce our heroes passing while the first violins and double basses come in low and sad. Moving on the bombast of the full orchestra wailing for the passing of Sigfried reaches over 97db at the listening chair, while still being able to keep the instruments separate from one another instead of forming one big blob of sound. You do the math but there is no way that a average modern receiver will be able to provide the power to the instruments needing it most, reloading the capacitors, providing more and more and more power without going into some distortion or limiting procedure. My feeling anyway.


This is where feelings are just feelings.
If you do the math all of the AVRs in Tony's list will do it quite easily.
http://www.hometheatrebasics.com/home-theatre-tools/spl-calculator/


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

And right at the bottom it states "This calculator does not account for room acoustics, amplifier dynamic headroom or off axis listening positions" there are also other uncontrollable variations that a calculator can not factor in such as the speaker load changing depending on what is being sent to it. Most if not all speakers have swings in the resistance depending on what is playing. (for example 8 ohms is just an average)


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Ok, there we have it. A cheap receiver wins and I wasted my money. Live and learn


----------



## magic (May 23, 2011)

Can I add some other observations and questions to the discussion...

First 
Yes, we have the power and everyone wants that... but isn't it the current that drives the speakers, and controls them. 

Eg tube amps have low power but high current and they weight A lot. 



Second 
The capacitance in the receivers are lower also. Check some older receivers vs now.


Third 
We can't expect a 11.2 AVR to power all 11 speakers and be the same size and weight as much as the older 5.1 avr's used to. And what do you here a lot from new forum members the thing weights a ton and I don't have space to put it in my cabinet...... (frustrating) 

I do agree the weight does contribute but we need to also check if the AVR is baised to Power or to current and, does it have good size capacitors to keep up with the peaks. I don't believe they do.

Why
Partly because a lot of people use small speakers and if we push to these high speaker numbers we have to go smaller due to space. I personally don't have room for a 11 speaker setup. But if you have small speakers you don't need high power avr's cause the sub covers the rest


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Yes, current is what makes a voice coil move. But you deliver current based upon the load, the voltage across it, and assuming the power supply can deliver adequate current. If either voltage or current are not sufficient, you get an effective limit on power, and clipping.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

magic;665191Partly because a lot of people use small speakers and if we push to these high speaker numbers we have to go smaller due to space. I personally don't have room for a 11 speaker setup. But if you have small speakers you don't need high power avr's cause the sub covers the rest[/QUOTE said:


> Because a speaker is small does not always mean easier to drive, quite the contrary. And...most do not have proper subs, nor will the subs be set up appropriately.
> 
> If a thing is advertised as being able to do something it should do it, however, oversight controls via the feds have found ways to subvert the old system by say making the requirement for full power of one millisecond at 1000 hertz, or a new one I have seen is 6 ohms or less. One has to almost be an expert at to know what is happening.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

No one is saying anything negative about your choice of electronics.
Why does it require "feeling" or "believing" that you need it to justify wanting it, owning it and enjoying it?

As far as the calculator goes it is just a tool that allows anyone to calculate SPL vs distance vs power.
I really don't see why anyone would take exception to it.
Pointing out the room acoustics disclaimer is rather silly since reflections in room will only increase the SPL so IMO not a factor to dismiss the validity of the calculator.

Want headroom included try this one http://geoffthegreygeek.com/amplifier-speaker-spl-calculator/ 
Don't like that one either instead of nitpicking it why not find a better one and help the group by posting a link.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The problem I have with any calculators is that they don't take into account dynamics only a constant signal. SPL and dynamic volume caused by swings in the audio source are not constant and often swing dramatically in either direction. You will have bursts of high SPL well above 100db even if your volume is set at reference. During those peaks the resistance can drop down to 3 or 4 ohms or climb to above 10-12 ohms all depending on what is happening and what speakers you are using. 
There is so much more going on than just what those calculators take into account.


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

So it seems:

The manufactures specification are to be taken with a rather large grain of salt, more the we should look for overall manufacture track record as satisfying the customers requirements, this is where site like HTS excel so that those that have had problems can warn others.

Transformers and heat sinks add up to a substantial portion of an AVRs weight. which "can" denote an increase in their ability to perform, however, I still feed the engineering e.g. how the transform is wound, size and type of capacitors...etc will trump weight at the end of the day. 

It looks to be that the only real way to figure out how robust an amplifier you need is the measure it in your room with your speakers and at the volume level you wish to achieve. Some may only need a Sherwood, while others will be beyond Any AVRs ability


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Just found this article on the Sound an Vision site that relates to this topic quite well.


----------



## magic (May 23, 2011)

It might be me but he doesn't make sense in the article ..... He says the following:

"While the receiver’s supply has plenty of current to drive one or two channels to full output simultaneously, it will fall short when three or more are demanded for more than a few hundredths of a second. This is not so clearly the “cheat” that many of us reflexively assume; it actually reflects real-world conditions better than the brute-force, all-channels approach, since analyzing actual multichannel recordings (movies or music) reveals that multiple channels virtually never require full power, simultaneously and in-phase."


We have receivers with 9 and 7 channels and you don't think they need power??? 
More than what 1 or 2 channels.... I just don't get it . How is this real world conditions?


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

While very interesting, I also didn't exactly follow what he was getting at, even though the article overall did make sense. 
This is purely observational, but in my house we have 4 AVRs ranging in power ratings from 65, 95,110,and, 135wpc. Weights range respectively from 12lbs to 42lbs. The heaviest rcvr is SO much more capable of delivering clean, consistent playback, at any level. In our large space, as you go lower in weight/power/cost(not ironically), it becomes very clear where the lesser rcvrs start falling off with demanding material/volume. I also have a Mcintosh 2100(circa1971) that weighs about 46 lbs, and it is rated at 105watts X2. It also seems to never run out of gas. Looks cool too. (IMO) like I said, purely observational, but in my experience, a correlation definitely exists between the weight and power delivery.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

magic said:


> It might be me but he doesn't make sense in the article ..... He says the following:
> 
> 
> > This explains why more and more receivers specify power as one- or two-channels-driven rather all-channels: While the receiver’s supply has plenty of current to drive one or two channels to full output simultaneously, it will fall short when three or more are demanded for more than a few hundredths of a second. This is not so clearly the “cheat” that many of us reflexively assume; it actually reflects real-world conditions better than the brute-force, all-channels approach, since analyzing actual multichannel recordings (movies or music) reveals that multiple channels virtually never require full power, simultaneously and in-phase.
> ...


I fixed the quote. He's saying that because real MCH signals (movie soundtracks, etc) are dynamic in nature, it would be almost non-existent for a situation where all channels would require full or near full rms output. So indeed, if your "100w" 7ch AVR were capable of 100w rms, all 7 ch driven into 8 ohm dummy load, that would be nice...but not helpful under real load conditions. Now if that very same power supply $$/weight was implemented into an AVR, that allowed a single or 2 channels to give 250w of burst power into 3 ohms minima reactive load,_* that*_ would be better. IOW, when hooked to real speakers, with real signals, the AVR was less likely to be driven into non-linear behavior.
So beware of misreading the power capability of the amp with unideal tests.
I am baffled why most manufacturers are cost cutting pre-outs, at least on the fronts (LCR). My old Pioneer VXS815 (2005?) had preouts all channels and was $365 msrp, iirc <$250 street!
Now it seems you have to spend upwards of $600 for all ch preouts.
It would be very beneficial/cost effective (if you like clean dynamics) to have the fronts driven by a separate amp and the AVR (power supply) powering the remaining 2, 4, 6, etc channels.

cheers


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

ajinfla said:


> He's saying that because real MCH signals (movie soundtracks, etc) are dynamic in nature, it would be almost non-existent for a situation where all channels would require full or near full rms output. So indeed, if your "100w" 7ch AVR were capable of 100w rms, all 7 ch driven into 8 ohm dummy load, that would be nice...but not helpful under real load conditions.


This is where I disagree, many movies particularly action have lots of information playing all channels at hig levels for longer that 3 seconds, this would surly drain the reserves of most lower end receivers causing distortion. Also what about the people who run "all channel stereo" this sends almost identical signals to all the channels simultaneously.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

tonyvdb said:


> This is where I disagree, many movies particularly action have lots of information playing all channels at hig levels for longer that 3 seconds, this would surly drain the reserves of most lower end receivers causing distortion. Also what about the people who run "all channel stereo" this sends almost identical signals to all the channels simultaneously.


Or even concert material. While a lot of the stuff going in the rears is ambient(depending on the disk) a lot of times it's not. In the case of our biggest rcvr, I've been able to watch all the concert blu rays I've tried at least at -5 relative.(not too often with the family home). At that level, I've almost felt like i was in the crowd a few times. With the next rcvr in the hierarchy , -12 is about where the dynamics start to fade. This is when the facade breaks down, and presentation suffers. This is not a daily thing, but not infrequent either. 
...just more observations.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> This is where I disagree, many movies particularly action have lots of information playing all channels at hig levels for longer that 3 seconds, this would surly drain the reserves of most lower end receivers causing distortion.


There can always be exceptions to any rule. Many movies? Do you have data, for specific high rms scenarios, or is this anecdotal? I believe Kumin is basing this on actual signal analysis.



tonyvdb said:


> Also what about the people who run "all channel stereo" this sends almost identical signals to all the channels simultaneously.


Not familiar with this practice and again, there will always be exceptions. Such a scenario with droning noise (Pop music?) should certainly overtax the amp.
Not my cup of tea, but perhaps the bees knees for others.

cheers


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

ajinfla said:


> Many movies? Do you have data, for specific high rms scenarios, or is this anecdotal? I believe Kumin is basing this on actual signal analysis.


Well, I have a Wholer 8 channel level meter array hooked up to all the channels on my receiver and during most recent action movies such as Transformers DOTM, StarTrek, Avengers, The most recent Wolverine just to name a few all displayed alot of activity in the souround channels only slightly lower than the mains and center as far as db output.




> Not familiar with this practice and again, there will always be exceptions. Such a scenario with droning noise (Pop music?) should certainly overtax the amp.
> Not my cup of tea, but perhaps the bees knees for others.
> 
> cheers


I myself dont like it but those of us who use receivers in multi purpose rooms its quite common to use all channel stereo mode. All receivers have it.


----------



## magic (May 23, 2011)

ajinfla said:


> I fixed the quote. He's saying that because real MCH signals (movie soundtracks, etc) are dynamic in nature, it would be almost non-existent for a situation where all channels would require full or near full rms output. So indeed, if your "100w" 7ch AVR were capable of 100w rms, all 7 ch driven into 8 ohm dummy load, that would be nice...but not helpful under real load conditions. Now if that very same power supply $$/weight was implemented into an AVR, that allowed a single or 2 channels to give 250w of burst power into 3 ohms minima reactive load, that would be better. IOW, when hooked to real speakers, with real signals, the AVR was less likely to be driven into non-linear behavior. So beware of misreading the power capability of the amp with unideal tests. I am baffled why most manufacturers are cost cutting pre-outs, at least on the fronts (LCR). My old Pioneer VXS815 (2005?) had preouts all channels and was $365 msrp, iirc <$250 street! Now it seems you have to spend upwards of $600 for all ch preouts. It would be very beneficial/cost effective (if you like clean dynamics) to have the fronts driven by a separate amp and the AVR (power supply) powering the remaining 2, 4, 6, etc channels. cheers


Thanks Ajinfla 
I think you should have written the article ... it would have made more sense. 

I fall in the line that you want to have enough power to run all 7 channels for a 7.1 system and all the power for 9 channels for a 9.1 system etc... Power being if you say 125 watts it's 125 all channels driven. Not for 1 channel and then when we test it we get 30 watts at 7 channels and it shuts down doing that. What about the dynamic peeks to that .... What would that be 60 watts ?! Action movies would eat this up. 

movies that are lossless require more power. Doing just the first 2-3 channels isn't enough. What keeps happening is the receivers are getting more channels and then they are getting less power to run them. What they want is, for us to throw out our 10 inch and 6 inch woofers and get small 4inch or 2inch woofers. 
Small sub sat systems.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

magic said:


> T
> I fall in the line that you want to have enough power to run all 7 channels for a 7.1 system and all the power for 9 channels for a 9.1 system etc... Power being if you say 125 watts it's 125 all channels driven. Not for 1 channel and then when we test it we get 30 watts at 7 channels and it shuts down doing that. What about the dynamic peeks to that .... What would that be 60 watts ?! Action movies would eat this up.


Hi magic,

Bottom line is if you want to eliminate the possibility of clipping, any channel, all driven, then a more powerful outboard amp is required. _However_, clearly, the marketplace is saying that the "100w" (rms, 8ohm, 2ch driven, etc) AVRs that dominate, are "doing the job" for most applications. That tends to confirm Kumins assertion that the majority of tracks do not require simultaneous full sustained output based on his analysis. But there is a second reason. And that is detection of non-linearities with clipped waveforms. Sustained clipping is pretty easily recognized by most, but the shorter duration/near instantaneous ones can be difficult to detect. Especially by untrained (consumer) ears. Couple that to the fact that our perceptual systems become less sensitive to non-linearities when the soundfield (pardon the pun) becomes more complex. i.e., what might be easily detected in mono, becomes harder in stereo, then practically undetectable by 5 ch, much less 7 or 9.



magic said:


> movies that are lossless require more power. Doing just the first 2-3 channels isn't enough. What keeps happening is the receivers are getting more channels and then they are getting less power to run them.


I disagree, but then again I require only 5ch (despite being a speaker manufacturer!), use speakers with high sensitivity, benign load and don't listen at hearing loss levels. To each their own.



magic said:


> What they want is, for us to throw out our 10 inch and 6 inch woofers and get small 4inch or 2inch woofers.
> Small sub sat systems.


The opposite. The larger speaker will have greater sensitivity and thus require less power for the same output.
A 5-7ch system with your average 12-15" pro speaker, driven by your average $400 street "100w" receiver should reach deafening levels.
But looks/aesthetics/price are the #1 priority of consumers.

cheers


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

We have a set of sensitive speakers in the 94dB to 100dB range. The Klipsch mains and surround speakers were made and tested back in the day when Paul was at the helm, so they're not exaggerated figures. With the above in mind, when attached to our Marantz SR5007, as the action sound tracks picked up, I could hear the life being sucked out of the speakers and despite the sensitivity of the speakers, the SR5007 just didn't have what it took, to keep up with the demands of the sound track. Enters our recently acquired AVR.

I decided the AVR needed to be replaced and did so with a Denon AVR4520CI which has a much better amplifier section that is designed to handle 4ohm loads. My guesstimate, based on other Denon bench tested amplifiers, all channels driven, the AVR4520CI should have a reasonable rating of 125wpc, all channels driven. Needless to say, with it's 4ohm capability, the amplifier has no trouble keeping up with action sequence sound tracks. We're running a 5.2 system and listen with peaks in the <105dB range. Most content is listened to in the 55dB to 95dB range and the system has zero trouble maintaining full on, continuous reference level play. It's our ears that can't take reference level output but the system itself, is more than capable of full on continuous reference level play.

The point, yes, a power supply and sensitive speakers do make a difference but as stated above, just because your system can go there, doesn't mean the viewer should go there.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

BeeMan458 said:


> We have a set of sensitive speakers in the 94dB to 100dB range. The Klipsch mains and surround speakers were made and tested back in the day when Paul was at the helm, so they're not exaggerated figures. With the above in mind, when attached to our Marantz SR5007, as the action sound tracks picked up, I could hear the life being sucked out of the speakers and despite the sensitivity of the speakers, the SR5007 just didn't have what it took, to keep up with the demands of the sound track. Enters our recently acquired AVR.
> 
> I decided the AVR needed to be replaced and did so with a Denon AVR4520CI which has a much better amplifier section that is designed to handle 4ohm loads. My guesstimate, based on other Denon bench tested amplifiers, all channels driven, the AVR4520CI should have a reasonable rating of 125wpc, all channels driven. Needless to say, with it's 4ohm capability, the amplifier has no trouble keeping up with action sequence sound tracks. We're running a 5.2 system and listen with peaks in the <105dB range. Most content is listened to in the 55dB to 95dB range and the system has zero trouble maintaining full on, continuous reference level play. It's our ears that can't take reference level output but the system itself, is more than capable of full on continuous reference level play.
> 
> The point, yes, a power supply and sensitive speakers do make a difference but as stated above, just because your system can go there, doesn't mean the viewer should go there.


Ok, I'll counter your single purely anecdotal story with a dozen


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

ajinfla said:


> Ok, I'll counter your single purely anecdotal story with a dozen


Despite the smiley face, I'm not sure the why of the insult. Maybe you'll be so kind as to expand on the point you were trying to make as in my case, what ever it is you tried to share, I clearly missed.

As to anecdotal evidence, I've deleted all the REW graphs for the SR5007 and verified my new findings using sound checks with a calibrated Type II sound meter as I spent the money for the calibration device. Paul Klipsch was well known in the industry for his demanding personality and how when he passed, Klipsch no longer held to his standards. The mains and surrounds were purchased almost twenty years ago when Paul was very much alive. 

Our mains are Klipsch, Epic CF-3s, the center channel is a Klipsch RC-64 II and the surrounds are Klipsch KSP-S6s. Our subwoofer system is a pair of Rythmik FV15HPs. Josh Ricci has empirically tested and posted specs on the FV15HPs on his web site. I linked to Sonnie's review for the Denon AVR4520CI and he had this to say about the amplifier section of the Denon AVR4520CI:

*"Summing It Up*

In conclusion, I am thoroughly impressed with this unit. It has about all the features you could ask for in a receiver/processor and ample power to accommodate most any speaker system.* I initially intended on reviewing it and then selling it, but instead I have already sold my Onkyo 5508, XPA-3 amp and XPA-1 monoblocks. I keep thinking to myself that the 4520 seems to be a little on the pricey side, but if you consider what any other processor with the same features would cost you and then add the expense of amplification, the 4520 price actually sounds like a bargain.* I think the most surprising part of my experience with the 4520 has been its ability to drive my MartinLogan speakers effortlessly. I had almost given up on ever trying receiver power because I have always read and heard that the Prodigy’s pretty much needed at least 300 watts of good clean power to perform their best. I will have to disagree with the naysayers, as I find it hard to get any better than what it is right now with the 4520 the only power amp source in my system. Excellent job Denon!"

The Denon AVR4520CI is selectable for 8ohm, 6ohm or 4ohm playback.

Sound and Vision finally did a review of the AVR4520CI and their bench test agrees closely with my guesstimate of 125w.

"*1% distortion at 121.7 watts, seven channels driven*" and I'm driving five channels which bench tested at "0.1% distortion at 121.8 watts." And at 4ohm (Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 237.5 watts) there's more than ample distortion free power to drive difficult passages.

Our blu-ray player is a universal Denon DBT3313UDCI player.

For all the above, the only claim I make is that of being able to easily do reference level play, which it does and have made no comment about speakers or sound quality. If you check my photo album you'll see graphs for the subwoofers and images of our system and placement. In my opinion, me being a layperson, that qualifies as a lot of empirical evidence.

...


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

BeeMan458 said:


> Despite the smiley face, I'm not sure the why of the insult.


Calling anecdotal stories anecdotal isn't an insult, it's simply making it clear what it is. The link I gave with purely subjective impressions of an "average" AVR (Pioneer VSX-912) driving HE speakers (15" pro driver 2 way) are exactly that, as was your example of an SR5007 "sucking life" out of non-specified HE speakers. Where is the "insult" there?
Perhaps we're both missing each others point? This thread _was_ about linear AB power supply weight and its relevance, which I figured was covered a while back.



BeeMan458 said:


> As to anecdotal evidence, I've deleted all the REW graphs for the SR5007


That would certainly be non-anecdotal. But what were they of? Were they power vs load measurements? I am still not 100% familiar with REW, so I don't know.



BeeMan458 said:


> For all the above, the only claim I make is that of being able to easily do reference level play, which it does and have made no comment about speakers or sound quality.
> ...


That's great, but I'm equally confused about that point. Was the ability of that Denon using specific HE Klipsch speakers questioned somewhere, that I missed? Or is it to reinforce that the heavier and 5x [?] cost Denon AB amps offers more power than the lighter Marantz AB?


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

The title of the thread is: "Can the size of the power supply make a difference?"

I've presented links to back up any claims for our gear regarding reference level playback capability. I didn't add links for empirical evidence to the SR5007 because I didn't think the lower end AVR would need empirical testing data to backup my anecdotal claim of it not being able to keep up with the movie sound track and to simply show that I went through an amplifier change to achieve consistent output levels which the SR5007 was not capable of.

In my opinion, challenges of anecdotal vs empirical in a friendly conversation is a challenge of honesty and is an insult by saying the individual is not believable. I'm a layperson, not an acoustical engineer. I'm not a scholar. I'm not an author of peer reviewed white papers. But I do qualify as an incompetent old man who likes watching blu-rays at home. I hope the litany of supportive links will show that my comments were anything but anecdotal. My personal experience was sufficient to encourage me to spend $5k USD to upgrade our system so I would not have to listen to the life being sucked out of the speakers because the amplifier in the SR5007 was not able to do what it was tasked to do. 

My original comment was intended as a simple comment that yes, we can hear output differences and upgrading the amplifier section will add noticeable output differences that can be easily empirically measured. And yes, agreeing with you, listening at ear damaging levels, although possible, is not a good idea.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

BeeMan458 said:


> I didn't add links for empirical evidence to the SR5007 because I didn't think the lower end AVR would need empirical testing data to backup my anecdotal claim of it not being able to keep up with the movie sound track and to simply show that I went through an amplifier change to achieve consistent output levels which the SR5007 was not capable of.


Fair enough, but what about my link showing a "lower end" AVR, equally subjectively, being able to provide capable/very high (HT) output levels? Should I (or they?:scratch be "insulted" that their subjective, anecdotal impressions are being impugned or at least ignored?



BeeMan458 said:


> In my opinion, challenges of anecdotal vs empirical in a friendly conversation is a challenge of honesty and is an insult by saying the individual is not believable.


No one "challenged" your subjective impressions of the specific AVR (SR5007). They are what they are. If there is a "challenge", it's to the idea that a "lower end" AVR is inherently incapable of very high, clean, output with the right (HE) speakers. _My_ linked subjective (anecdotal) stories indicate that.



BeeMan458 said:


> My original comment was intended as a simple comment that yes, we can hear output differences and upgrading the amplifier section will add noticeable output differences that can be easily empirically measured. And yes, agreeing with you, listening at ear damaging levels, although possible, is not a good idea.


Then I _think_, with the exception of what constitutes an "insult/challenge", we are in fact, in agreement.

cheers


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

ajinfla said:


> Should I (or they?:scratch be "insulted" that their subjective, anecdotal impressions are being impugned or at least ignored?


If part of the conversation, then yes, I would expect the individual to feel impugned. Friendly conversation require an acceptance of each others personal experiences as opposed to empirical arguments. As I posted, I'm neither an engineer nor a scholar. I'm just a guy who's hobby is watching blu-ray movie content.



> If there is a "challenge", it's to the idea that a "lower end" AVR is inherently incapable of very high, clean, output with the right (HE) speakers. _My_ linked subjective (anecdotal) stories indicate that.


Then post a challenge but not a whole article with the expectation that I would intuitively know what part of the article you're referencing or expecting me to make note of. Note how all my links reference specific comments regarding our system. I don't leave the reader guessing and if I do, I'm happy to clarify any misunderstandings as to what my intent is. In the case of the "lower end"...that's not what I posted, the SR5007 is the lower end of the Marantz SR line, not a random lower end AVR.

This is what I posted: "I didn't add links for empirical evidence to the SR5007 because I didn't think the lower end AVR would need empirical testing data to backup my anecdotal claim of it not being able to keep up with the movie sound track and to simply show that I went through an amplifier change to achieve consistent output levels which the SR5007 was not capable of."

Even the flagship SR7007 which lays claim to 125w into two channels suffers from a poorly designed amplifier circuit which is easily backed up with a link from Sound and Vision bench testing.

"Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 89.5 watts" 

Just to be clear, my comment was specific to the SR5007 and was stated as such. I do my best to make sure I'm being clear what I referencing to prevent any confusion. What I enjoy while participating in Home Theater Shack, is the casual nature of conversation as I prefer to stay out of technical conversations and I'm partial to the general tenor of the forum that we're all suppose to feel welcome and comfortable with our conversation.

cheers[/QUOTE]

...:T


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

BeeMan458 said:


> Friendly conversation require an acceptance of each others personal experiences as opposed to empirical arguments. As I posted, I'm neither an engineer nor a scholar. I'm just a guy who's hobby is watching blu-ray movie content.


Sure BeeMan, but then you can't have it both ways. You can't float "REW data" and "Paul Klipsch doesn't fudge numbers" and SV data...then revert to, but I'm an insulted hobbyist as soon as any discourse with a technical lean begins.
That, as we see now, doesn't lead to discourse about the thread topic.



BeeMan458 said:


> Then post a challenge but not a whole article with the expectation that I would intuitively know what part of the article you're referencing or expecting me to make note of.


Understood, but that is how it exists, as a single PDF. I'm not adept enough to parse it, but perhaps I should have mentioned concentrate on the latter parts. 
Regardless, it shows several glowing testimonials of the HT output of Dr. Geddes system, using a "low end" VSX912 (23lbs, around $250 at Costco iirc), driving 15" pro driver 2 ways.
What are your comments specific to this, in the context of this thread?



BeeMan458 said:


> Just to be clear, my comment was specific to the SR5007 and was stated as such. I do my best to make sure I'm being clear what I referencing to prevent any confusion. What I enjoy while participating in Home Theater Shack, is the casual nature of conversation as I prefer to stay out of technical conversations and I'm partial to the general tenor of the forum that we're all suppose to feel welcome and comfortable with our conversation.
> 
> cheers


I hope you continue to enjoy the forum and I certainly don't wish to stifle discourse. Why you choose to single out the SR5007 is up to you, but I don't see it as anything other than a specific example of a poor fit, for a specific persons system/subjective needs.

cheers


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

After perusing the linked article, two points, the article revolved around music and stereo output with little mention of HT as it mentioned generic low end AVRs as opposed to a specific ten year old Pioneer AVR that lacked any room correction software. If I missed something please correct my above. I went through the full of the article, one line at a time and didn't find mention of a specific Pioneer model.



ajinfla said:


> Sure BeeMan, but then you can't have it both ways. You can't float "REW data" and "Paul Klipsch doesn't fudge numbers" and SV data...then revert to, but I'm an insulted hobbyist as soon as any discourse with a technical lean begins.
> That, as we see now, doesn't lead to discourse about the thread topic.


Yes it does. I didn't float REW data as I posted that I deleted the graphed information so I didn't have the information for the SR5007 and Paul Klipsch is well known for not fudging numbers as Sound and Vision is an accepted authority among home theater hobbyists. I also suggested looking to my photo album for posted empirical information regarding our system. I did my best to link to empirical information. How else can a layperson have empirical information readily at their finger tips if sources are not found to be universally acceptable and deleting information is not found to be an acceptable practice among laypeople and posted empirical information is not found acceptable as there was no mention of my photo album?



> Understood, but that is how it exists, as a single PDF. I'm not adept enough to parse it, but perhaps I should have mentioned concentrate on the latter parts.


Fourteen pages?



> Regardless, it shows several glowing testimonials of the HT output of Dr. Geddes system, using a "low end" VSX912 (23lbs, around $250 at Costco iirc), driving 15" pro driver 2 ways.
> What are your comments specific to this, in the context of this thread?


Could you please quote, with the link, the information you're referencing. Now I have to look up the specifications for an over ten year old VSX 912 and see if I can find any bench tests for the same said AVR and so far, I'm not finding anything. As well as I have to read the full content of an article to ferret out what you're trying to share.....where upon I missed any reference to a Pioneer VSX 912.



> I hope you continue to enjoy the forum and I certainly don't wish to stifle discourse. Why you choose to single out the SR5007 is up to you, but I don't see it as anything other than a specific example of a poor fit, for a specific persons system/subjective needs.


As to why I choose the SR5007, it's because that's an AVR I own. In fact it's our backup should the 4520CI ever have to be sent in for servicing. I made the point of ownership clear when I posted:

"With the above in mind, when attached to our Marantz SR5007, as the action sound tracks picked up, I could hear the life being sucked out of the speakers and despite the sensitivity of the speakers, the SR5007 just didn't have what it took, to keep up with the demands of the sound track. Enters our recently acquired AVR."

There's nothing subjective about THX, reference level output as this is a clearly defined standard which I'm sure you're keenly aware of.

I am not a musician. I do not work in the audio industry. My formal education ended with an AA transferable, I love our system and Earl is welcome to stop by any reasonable time of his choosing and audition our home theater system.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

BeeMan458 said:


> Yes it does. I didn't float REW data as I posted I deleted the information so I didn't have the information for the SR5007 and Paul Klipsch is well known for not fudging numbers as Sound and Vision is an accepted authority among home theater hobbyists. How else can a layperson have empirical information if sources are not found to be universally acceptable and deleting information is not found to be an acceptable practice among laypeople?


Well, obviously you're not too insulted to continue this conversation, so onward we go...



BeeMan458 said:


> Could you please quote, with the link, the information you're referencing.


Nope, once again, it's in the single pdf already linked. Several subjective references to the (very loud) output levels and he still, I believe, uses that Pioneer today.



BeeMan458 said:


> Now I have to look up the specifications for an over ten year old VSX912 and see if I can find any bench tests for the same said AVR and so far, I'm not finding anything.


2 seconds of Google http://ec1.images-amazon.com/media/i3d/01/A/man-migrate/MANUAL000072100.pdf 
..and since you don't like reading long PDFs, the relevant info:
Weight 23.1lbs
Power consumption 300w (and it's Class AB).



BeeMan458 said:


> As well as I have to read the full content of an article to ferret out what you're trying to share.


Nope, just the latter part, as I already stated. But feel free to read the whole thing as well, it's informative and entertaining.



BeeMan458 said:


> As to why I choose the SR5007, it's because that's an AVR I own. In fact it's our backup should the 4520CI ever have to be sent in for servicing.


That much was pretty clear. It's the relevance in reference to the thread/discourse that's a bit fuzzy.



BeeMan458 said:


> There's nothing subjective about THX, reference level output as this is a clearly defined standard which I'm sure you're keenly aware of.


Absolutely. But I don't see anything in that link about why the SR5007 "sucks the life out of music". Nor any data on the SR5007. Nor any measurements of your Klipsch (impedance, sensitivity, etc.)
What am I missing?

cheers


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

ajinfla said:


> Well, obviously you're not too insulted to continue this conversation, so onward we go...


"2 seconds of Google http://ec1.images-amazon.com/media/i...L000072100.pdf" 

Those are specification, not bench test results and I saw no reference to the AVR being discussed in the article nor did you point out where in the article the exact model was mentioned.

As to the relevancy of the SR5007 I made the point clear when I posted about it not being able to keep up with the demands of the sound track when I posted:

"With the above in mind, when attached to our Marantz SR5007, as the action sound tracks picked up, I could hear the life being sucked out of the speakers and despite the sensitivity of the speakers, the SR5007 just didn't have what it took, to keep up with the demands of the sound track."

As to the relevancy to the Klipsch speakers, at certain reproduced frequencies, the Epic CF-3s can draw down to <4ohm and the SR5007 is not capable of maintaining that type of draw.

I made the relevancy of the THX reference clear for if one understands THX standards, they know that's the goal of home theater output so as to mime what sound engineers and producers track their sound levels at. 

Being insulted has nothing to do with the conversation other than in the context of your use of anecdotal being personally considered an insult. And being that's how you see this conversation, I'll end my participation.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

BeeMan458 said:


> Those are specification, not bench test results


300w power consumption says it all. And it's not an overunity device.
The weight is similar to your Marantz.



BeeMan458 said:


> I saw no reference to the AVR being discussed in the article nor did you point out where in the article the exact model was mentioned.


It's the VSX912. The article has the subjective impressions, opposite of yours.



BeeMan458 said:


> As to the relevancy, I made the point clear when I posted about it not being able to keep up with the demands of the sound track


Your demands. Not "the".
It's non THX certified, so I'm not sure what you were expecting when purchasing.



BeeMan458 said:


> Being insulted has nothing to do with the conversation.
> Being that's how you see this conversation, I'll end it.





BeeMan458 said:


> I'm not sure the why of the insult
> 
> challenges of anecdotal vs empirical in a friendly conversation is a challenge of honesty and is an insult


I can only go by what you write. 
I agree, it's about linear supplies and weight. Take care.

cheers

*** sorry, can't keep up with your edits of every post as I type***


----------



## magic (May 23, 2011)

ajinfla said:


> Hi magic, Bottom line is if you want to eliminate the possibility of clipping, any channel, all driven, then a more powerful outboard amp is required. However, clearly, the marketplace is saying that the "100w" (rms, 8ohm, 2ch driven, etc) AVRs that dominate, are "doing the job" for most applications. That tends to confirm Kumins assertion that the majority of tracks do not require simultaneous full sustained output based on his analysis. But there is a second reason. And that is detection of non-linearities with clipped waveforms. Sustained clipping is pretty easily recognized by most, but the shorter duration/near instantaneous ones can be difficult to detect. Especially by untrained (consumer) ears. Couple that to the fact that our perceptual systems become less sensitive to non-linearities when the soundfield (pardon the pun) becomes more complex. i.e., what might be easily detected in mono, becomes harder in stereo, then practically undetectable by 5 ch, much less 7 or 9. I disagree, but then again I require only 5ch (despite being a speaker manufacturer!), use speakers with high sensitivity, benign load and don't listen at hearing loss levels. To each their own. The opposite. The larger speaker will have greater sensitivity and thus require less power for the same output. A 5-7ch system with your average 12-15" pro speaker, driven by your average $400 street "100w" receiver should reach deafening levels. But looks/aesthetics/price are the #1 priority of consumers. cheers





Thanks I have added amps to my system... But I added it due to my belief that the amps in the AVR's isn't enough. I have 4 tower speakers a smaller center speaker. (5.1 system) but I still experienced clipping while watching movies. and listening to music. Yes sometimes you just have to play it loud. And some times the movies have large dynamic swings. 

You say that they 12-15 inch pro speakers are more efficient, but wouldn't they need more power ( current ) to drive them. This would mean you are back to were you were before requiring a much bigger amplifier section in the avr. 
Thanks.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

magic said:


> You say that they 12-15 inch pro speakers are more efficient, but wouldn't they need more power ( current ) to drive them.


No, the exact opposite. For the same SPL, they need only a fraction of the power less efficient speakers do. With the same amount of amplifier power available, they will play significantly louder.

cheers


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

ajinfla said:


> No, the exact opposite. For the same SPL, they need only a fraction of the power less efficient speakers do. With the same amount of amplifier power available, they will play significantly louder.
> 
> cheers


And to add to that they tend to have less bottom end usually the roll off is at around 60Hz (larger drivers does not equal deeper bass)


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Here is some detailed factual information to backup statements that I have made for many years regarding receivers that have larger power supplies (heavier in weight) always do better with coming closer to actual specified power. It has been a subject of heated debate at times and I want to put some information that will back up what many of us have tried to say for quite some time.
> 
> 
> First of all some background information as to why receiver manufacturers come up with their specifications for amplification power output:
> ...


I realize I'm jumping into the "discussion" late but the numbers you've posted are still incomplete. Are these tested under full bandwidth or are these numbers at 1KHz. Yamaha excels in the full bandwidth two channel test, espcially its ability to come close to doubling its output in to 4 ohms. Yet, the published numbers for 5 and 7 channels is dismal compared to other receivers. I don't believe its a power supply issue but rather, an overly aggressive protection circuit that limits power prematurely. I don't put a lot of stock on to the ACD test because its far too dependent on the mnaufacturer's protection circuitry.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Check out whats written below the graph in the linked information.

The weight is specified for the total weight of the unit, not just the amplifier section. This makes the original question a bit moot as how the case itself is manufactured will impact the total weight of the unit and then how many channels the unit has as well is how much electronics is onboard will also impact total weight characteristics.

As to weight of the power supply, that's dependent on what the engineer designed into the unit. Is it a stereo unit or an eleven channel unit. Is the unit a fifty watt unit or a two hundred watt unit? What type of power supply is used. Is it a tubed unit or a SS unit. The point being, with a question of this kind, one needs to take these points into consideration as opposed to the weight of the unit or the power supply alone being the determining factor.

In double blind tests, two hundred dollar AVRs have competed against multi-thousand dollar, stand alone amplifiers and in ABX tests, as long as operating within specifications, nobody could tell the difference beyond that of random chance. So no, it doesn't make a difference.

Does a Rolex tell better time then a Casio? That sort of thing.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

3dbinCanada said:


> Are these tested under full bandwidth or are these numbers at 1KHz. Yamaha excels in the full bandwidth two channel test, espcially its ability to come close to doubling its output in to 4 ohms.


Those are true Bench test numbers done using full bandwidth test signals done by an unbiased third party. Yamaha is no better than the rest if you look at the bench test results. The receivers with the larger power transformer have always done better in those tests. Just look at the Onkyo 805 bench test results.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Those are true Bench test numbers done using full bandwidth test signals done by an unbiased third party. Yamaha is no better than the rest if you look at the bench test results. The receivers with the larger power transformer have always done better in those tests. Just look at the Onkyo 805 bench test results.


I don't see any tests into 4 ohm loads were the real testing begins. 

Read this. This is how amplifiers should be tested. And I haven't seen a receiver made to date that will touch its capabilities despite the poor showing in the ACD test which is meaningless anyway.
http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/rx-a3000/rx-a3000-measurements-cont


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

There is 4ohm load tests done as well, your free to look them up yourself at Sound and vision. I only posted the 8ohm loads because the numbers dont really change much as far as what it can do. Many sub $600 receivers cant even drive a 4ohm load anyhow.
The Onkyo 805 did 270 watts at 4ohm when left in the 6ohm setting and 151 watts in the 4ohm setting.

The Yamaha A3000 is a $1600 receiver and weighs 45lbs so it fits into the category of Big power supply


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Have a look at the Yamaha A730, very poor results driving an 8ohm load.

Rated at 120watts per ch, weight 22.9lbs

Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 115.5 watts

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 32.4 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 27.1 watts


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Have a look at the Yamaha A730, very poor results driving an 8ohm load.
> 
> Rated at 120watts per ch, weight 22.9lbs
> 
> ...



I don't know where S&V is getting the rating but Yamaha advertises that unit to be 95 watts per channel full bandwidth so it delivers more than its advertised spec. Looks like S&V magazine made a mistake. 

http://ca.yamaha.com/en/products/au...x-a730_black_u/?mode=model#tab=product_lineup

7-channel powerful surround sound and full discrete amp configuration
105W per Channel (8 ohms, 1 kHz, 0.9 % THD, 1 ch driven)
*90W per Channel (8 ohms, 20 Hz-20 kHz, 0.09 % THD, 2 ch driven)*


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

3dbinCanada said:


> despite the poor showing in the ACD test which is meaningless anyway.


ACD tests are not at all meaningless, If you have read all of the posts you will see that there is alot of facts behind at least 5 channels driven at decent levels WILL cause most receivers to be stressed. Many movies that are released these days Action movies particularly have sustained levels all channels driven at good SPL.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> ACD tests are not at all meaningless, If you have read all of the posts you will see that there is alot of facts behind at least 5 channels driven at decent levels WILL cause most receivers to be stressed. Many movies that are released these days Action movies particularly have sustained levels all channels driven at good SPL.


Maybe meaningless is a little harsh. My points are these in why I don't put too much stock in the ACD test.

1.) However, there are very few movies are being driven full bandwidth at the same loudness level across all channels. I can't think of a single one.
2.) Most people use subs and channel the bass to the sub thus reducing the load on all the channels.
3.) Manufacturers protection circuits all trigger at different levels so one can't make an apples to apples comparison. You can't really test a powersupply if the protection circuit is overly agressive like it is on Yamahas.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Ive also posted results of a test in this thread that dispute your claim that a sub will ofload alot from the main channels. This is in fact not fully true. A simple snare drum "Thwack" has enough energy in it to cause many amps to struggle and none of that is in the subs frequency range. Vocals can be very demanding on an amps ability to reach good levels. Try the movie Frozen for example. The vocals are so strong during the music that even my center channel was having a difficult time with it at reference levels.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Ive also posted results of a test in this thread that dispute your claim that a sub will ofload alot from the main channels. This is in fact not fully true. A simple snare drum "Thwack" has enough energy in it to cause many amps to struggle and none of that is in the subs frequency range. Vocals can be very demanding on an amps ability to reach good levels. Try the movie Frozen for example. The vocals are so strong during the music that even my center channel was having a difficult time with it at reference levels.


It really depends on the room size, speaker sensitivity, and distance from the speakers. My AVR has no trouble driving into the low 90s (which is far too loud for me as it is ) in my room set up.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

tonyvdb said:


> Ive also posted results of a test in this thread that dispute your claim that a sub will ofload alot from the main channels. This is in fact not fully true. A simple snare drum "Thwack" has enough energy in it to cause many amps to struggle and none of that is in the subs frequency range. Vocals can be very demanding on an amps ability to reach good levels. Try the movie Frozen for example. The vocals are so strong during the music that even my center channel was having a difficult time with it at reference levels.


The fact that there is enough energy in much media that can tax a system outside of the range of a sub does not refute the fact that using a sub does, indeed, remove some of the power that the amp and speakers need to produce. On material where there is both deep bass and those challenging higher frequencies, the system with a sub compared to the one without is still a benefit.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

lcaillo said:


> On material where there is both deep bass and those challenging higher frequencies, the system with a sub compared to the one without is still a benefit.


Yes and that is why I said* it is not fully true* there is plenty of information in the 80Hz-16kHz that will also tax the receivers amps.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I hate to be pedantic, but it IS fully true that a sub will unload a lot from the main channels. That statement does not deny that there may be much more energy at other frequencies. We have to be careful with our words and logic to not unintentionally mislead a casual reader.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Ok, my wording is not very well put. I do agree with you just saying that it's been proven that a lot is happening above the subs capability that will drive amps into distortion at normal listening levels. Removing those below 80hz and sending them to a sub helps no doubt but it's not going to prevent distortion in the mains when you have a receiver rated to do 100 watts per channel fail to even do 32watts all channels driven.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I know you get it, Tony, just trying to be sure we are clear.


----------



## B- one (Jan 13, 2013)

I recently reset our equipment into a tv stand. And during this process I placed a thermometer on the Avr to watch the heat level, it previously ran about 70-75 degrees. Then I decided to add some amps to our system(wife not to impressed)and while yet again moving stuff around ,before getting the amps, I failed to hook up the sub RCA cable the temp soared over the limit of our thermometer. Even with my efficient Klipsch speakers trying to pick up the subs load.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Ok, my wording is not very well put. I do agree with you just saying that it's been proven that a lot is happening above the subs capability that will drive amps into distortion at normal listening levels. Removing those below 80hz and sending them to a sub helps no doubt but it's not going to prevent distortion in the mains when you have a receiver rated to do 100 watts per channel fail to even do 32watts all channels driven.


Still stuck on the ACD spec I see. I gave you three solid reasons why ACD tests are far from accurate and that they cannot be relied on and yet you disregard them. Far too many variables. BTW, you do realize Sound and Vision incorrectly specified the specs for the A730.

Define normal listening levels, the room volume, speaker sensitivity, and distance of the speakers to the seating location. Again far too many variables which makes the statement rather open ended. I can assure you that in my environment, normal levels do not cause any distortion at all, even when I run my PSB Image t-45 full range.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

3dbinCanada said:


> Still stuck on the ACD spec I see. I gave you three solid reasons why ACD tests are far from accurate and that they cannot be relied on and yet you disregard them. Far too many variables. BTW, you do realize Sound and Vision incorrectly specified the specs for the A730.


Yes I see they got the specs wrong but the bench test results still stand.

Your reasons for ACD spec don't fly with me as lots of people use all channel stereo mode on there receivers when playing music this sends the same level to all channels simultaneously. Many action movies do have audio that covers all channels sustained for decent periods of time I have confirmed this using my own Wholer 8 channel meter array and many movies of recent years have lots of info playing all channels.

Your rxv1800 is a very capable receiver, it weighs 38 lbs and I suspect you don't have any issues with distortion for that reason.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Again, double blind ABX comparison studies have shown that as lone as the amplifier is working within specifications, nobody can choose better than random chance.

The point, I notice this point is not being discussed as if this point is not relevant.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> Again, double blind ABX comparison studies have shown that as lone as the amplifier is working within specifications, nobody can choose better than random chance. The point, I notice this point is not being discussed as if this point is not relevant.


Forgive my ignorance, but when you ask this question, are you referring only to the amplifier section? If so, how do you do such a test, without the influence of the AVRs inherent voicing?


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

If AVR's are operated in 'Pure Direct' mode (all EQ/DSP turned off) there really isn't any inherent voicing.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

tonyvdb said:


> Yes I see they got the specs wrong but the bench test results still stand.
> 
> Your reasons for ACD spec don't fly with me as lots of people use all channel stereo mode on there receivers when playing music this sends the same level to all channels simultaneously. Many action movies do have audio that covers all channels sustained for decent periods of time I have confirmed this using my own Wholer 8 channel meter array and many movies of recent years have lots of info playing all channels.
> 
> Your rxv1800 is a very capable receiver, it weighs 38 lbs and I suspect you don't have any issues with distortion for that reason.


I agree somewhat that using all channel modes requires more from the power supply, but most people, IME do not drive their system as hard in this mode as when watching a movie with lots of energy. I know I use all channel mode a lot for casual background listening. I believe that if you really looked at the power being used and the peak levels, it is rare that most people use more than a fraction of the max stereo rated power on most AVRs in ALL channels simultaneously. I think the fact that most people are highly satisfied with AVRs that do not perform as well in ACD tests supports this idea.

Tony, your views have a great deal of truth, but where I take exception is your tendency to over generalize and use partial truth as reason. To say that the reason the RXV1800 has low distortion is because it weighs 38 lbs is simply not an accurate statement. The reason it does not clip at higher levels with all channels driven any more than it does may be largely due to the power supply capacity, true enough. But weight is only accounting for a part of the variance in amplifiers and AVRs in distortion and power output. 

Keep the logic clean in your arguments and you would get more aggreement, because there is value in the idea that weight is something of an indicator of power supply capacity in conventional power supplies. It is when you make direct leaps from a premise to a conclusion that leaves out much of the story that you get dissagreement.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

My problem with ACD is that it really only tests the protection circuit of the AVR and not what the AVR's power supply can really give. In two channel tests, one does not run into the protection circuit. Case in point, look at the review of RX-A3000 by Audioholics that I posted. In two channels test, it beat a dedicated power amp which is no small feat. Its ACD test scored very low and the only reason for that is the overly aggressive protection circuitry in action.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

ACD tests do tell you what the AVR can give. If the protection circuits are conservative, it is even more of a functinoal limit on output than distortion.

Yamaha is a good example. They do seem to be somewhat conservative in their protection. If you do push them hard in, for instance, 5 ch stereo mode, they are more likely to shut down into a moderately complex load than say a similarly powered (2 ch) Onkyo until you get into their more expensive models that have bigger power supplies. I sold and repaired them for decades. They rarely break, possibly because they are well protected.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

lcaillo said:


> ACD tests do tell you what the AVR can give. If the protection circuits are conservative, it is even more of a functinoal limit on output than distortion.


I disagree on the basis for the RX-A3000 . An overly conservative protection mechanism such as found on the RX-A3000 gives no indication what that receiver's power supply is truely capable of. 

Also be careful of Onkyo because their reputation for quaility at this point in time is very poor. They did NOT do their homework on thermal analysis causing premature failure.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

If a protection circuit is conservative, it does not really matter what the power supply can do beyond the point where protection kicks in. I experienced that more than a few times with Yamaha over the years. Out of hundreds of systems, I can recall a few where it was obvious that the protection was kicking in earlier than necessary. On the other hand, the were always the best in terms of reliability. Cut the deck in half...

As for Onkyo, I have always said that their quality was not quite up to par with Yamaha in terms of reliability, based upon experience going back decades. They have consistently opted for high value in terms of features and output over slightly better build quality. That said, I currently own one of their AVRs. The differences in reliability are small relatively speaking. You hear about more Onkyo failures because more people own them and they are a greater topic of discussion on the forums. We are talking about very small percentages in failure rates, however. At times, most brands have issues with a model here and there. Yamaha had issues with several of its flagship receivers with intermittent problems due to thermal issues. Most of those models never had a problem, but the ones that did were very frustrating. Marantz had thermal issues for several years a decade or so ago with some of its receivers. So in the big picture, while I would certainly put Onkyo on the second tier in terms of reliability, they still represent a great value. Those tiers are very close.

The bottom line is that there is always more to the story than generalizations leave us with. The topic of this thread is a great example. The answer to the question is yes, it CAN, but it is not the only factor. As always, the only correct answer is "it depends," which of course is just as incomplete as the generalizations, but it at least makes clear that there is a deeper discussion to be had to fully understand.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

3dbinCanada said:


> I disagree on the basis for the RX-A3000 . An overly conservative protection mechanism such as found on the RX-A3000 gives no indication what that receiver's power supply is truely capable of.


Hi 3db, you disagree with Leonard for agreeing with you?:scratch:
He's saying the conservative protection of the Yamaha does not allow ACD high power output, aka what the "true" MCH power capability is (which correlates to distortion levels).



3dbinCanada said:


> Also be careful of Onkyo because their reputation for quaility at this point in time is very poor. They did NOT do their homework on thermal analysis causing premature failure.


Is this reputation based on anecdote or statistical data analysis? If the latter, please provide a link or reference, thanks.

cheers


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

AJ, 
I sold and serviced all of the major brands over the course of several decades. The pattern was pretty consistent over time, Onkyo was not the equal of Yamaha and Denon in reliability. But the differences were always small other than the occassional dog that all brands have. In terms of receivers, Yamaha really has had few of those.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

ajinfla said:


> Hi 3db, you disagree with Leonard for agreeing with you?:scratch:
> He's saying the conservative protection of the Yamaha does not allow ACD high power output, aka what the "true" MCH power capability is (which correlates to distortion levels).
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree with the specific point that ACD tests gives one an indication of what the power supplies can do. It doesn't. It really tests the protection circuitry. That's my point of disagreement and why I don't put much stock in the test. The two channel test does not engage the protection circuitry and thus gives a better representation of what the power supply is capable off.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

lcaillo said:


> AJ,
> I sold and serviced all of the major brands over the course of several decades. The pattern was pretty consistent over time, Onkyo was not the equal of Yamaha and Denon in reliability. But the differences were always small other than the occassional dog that all brands have. In terms of receivers, Yamaha really has had few of those.


Ok, wasn't sure if there was some sort of database somewhere. thanks


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

3dbinCanada said:


> I disagree with the specific point that ACD tests gives one an indication of what the power supplies can do. It doesn't. It really tests the protection circuitry. That's my point of disagreement and why I don't put much stock in the test. The two channel test does not engage the protection circuitry and thus gives a better representation of what the power supply is capable off.


Ok, understood.


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

I've read through 6 pages of this topic and I have to throw my 2 cents in. I'm no expert so lets get that out of the way. We can talk numbers and stats all day. In the end, when we sit down and listen its our own ears that judge. I've had many receivers in my life. In the last 20 years every one of them has been rated at 100w per channel or more. Every one of them has sounded different in my room. Some have played through the same speakers so there has been direct comparisons in my home. In my experience the heavier receivers always sounded better. When the volume was up there is a difference. Always.... I'm seeing a lot of "well for most people", "in real world levels" etc. Well, I dont think 'we' are most people. lol... I could feed someone hamburgers their whole life, delicious tasty burgers and they would think its the best,,, until,,, I fed them a filet mignon. There'd be no going back. lol.. I think that not in all cases but some, all else being equal, a heavier unit will out preform a lighter one in dynamics and you will hear the difference. Its like these kids today with 4 cylinder tuner cars. They race them around thinking theyre the fastest thing going BUT nothing beats cubic inches. It may cost you more but you can always build a V8 to beat a 4banger. So, watts, weight, sound, there is a difference..... right now my receiver blew yesterday so I'm in the market. I dont want to spend upwards of $2000 for features I dont use or need only to have sound that doesnt compare to what I had (Onkyo 805) because the internal amps cant keep up... You dont always get what you pay for and its sad.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

rawsawhd said:


> I've read through 6 pages of this topic and I have to throw my 2 cents in. I'm no expert so lets get that out of the way. We can talk numbers and stats all day. In the end, when we sit down and listen its our own ears that judge. I've had many receivers in my life. In the last 20 years every one of them has been rated at 100w per channel or more. Every one of them has sounded different in my room. Some have played through the same speakers so there has been direct comparisons in my home. In my experience the heavier receivers always sounded better. When the volume was up there is a difference. Always.... I'm seeing a lot of "well for most people", "in real world levels" etc. Well, I dont think 'we' are most people. lol... I could feed someone hamburgers their whole life, delicious tasty burgers and they would think its the best,,, until,,, I fed them a filet mignon. There'd be no going back. lol.. I think that not in all cases but some, all else being equal, a heavier unit will out preform a lighter one in dynamics and you will hear the difference. Its like these kids today with 4 cylinder tuner cars. They race them around thinking theyre the fastest thing going BUT nothing beats cubic inches. It may cost you more but you can always build a V8 to beat a 4banger. So, watts, weight, sound, there is a difference..... right now my receiver blew yesterday so I'm in the market. I dont want to spend upwards of $2000 for features I dont use or need only to have sound that doesnt compare to what I had (Onkyo 805) because the internal amps cant keep up... You dont always get what you pay for and its sad.


Rawsawhd, I think this thread has pretty much run it's course. Lol. I also read about your 805 giving up the ghost. ...sorry. The above post really mirrors a lot of my feelings, and I loved the tuner car reference. We have an nhra track in my town, and grew up with fuel cars, and my own 1st car was/is a'69 camaro. My experience,( subjective of course) is exactly the same as yours. In the last ten years, I've had the same speakers, but 4 different AVRs,(in my main system alone), and every single one has it's own signature, soundstage, depth of stage, and all that. More related to the thread, the heavier the unit, the more dynamic. Plain and simple. My 808 went down for awhile(hdmi board,onkyo fixed free thx!) And in the meantime I put in my backup. A pioneer 1019, which was the pinnacle before going to elite. It is (over) rated for 120x7, but weighs 1/3, my 808(135x7). In practice, that pio is like a 4cyl rice grinder, next to a blown big block(808). It sound really nice, (and very different), but when you lean on it, you can just hear it falling away. My space is huge, but it is very plain to see, when it starts giving up. Touching on your question of separates(not hijacking ), I'm inclined to tell you to do separates, but I should confess my vicarious nature in doing so. Like I said, my space is huge, and separates are where I want to go. There may very well be 10,000 reasons an updated AVR would be better but I've never had them so...
Will


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

willis7469 said:


> Rawsawhd, I think this thread has pretty much run it's course. Lol. I also read about your 805 giving up the ghost. ...sorry. The above post really mirrors a lot of my feelings, and I loved the tuner car reference. We have an nhra track in my town, and grew up with fuel cars, and my own 1st car was/is a'69 camaro. My experience,( subjective of course) is exactly the same as yours. In the last ten years, I've had the same speakers, but 4 different AVRs,(in my main system alone), and every single one has it's own signature, soundstage, depth of stage, and all that. More related to the thread, the heavier the unit, the more dynamic. Plain and simple. My 808 went down for awhile(hdmi board,onkyo fixed free thx!) And in the meantime I put in my backup. A pioneer 1019, which was the pinnacle before going to elite. It is (over) rated for 120x7, but weighs 1/3, my 808(135x7). In practice, that pio is like a 4cyl rice grinder, next to a blown big block(808). It sound really nice, (and very different), but when you lean on it, you can just hear it falling away. My space is huge, but it is very plain to see, when it starts giving up. Touching on your question of separates(not hijacking ), I'm inclined to tell you to do separates, but I should confess my vicarious nature in doing so. Like I said, my space is huge, and separates are where I want to go. There may very well be 10,000 reasons an updated AVR would be better but I've never had them so...
> Will


Yea, I was just looking though the forum and this thread caught my eye. I had to put my thoughts out there. lol... A lucky guy you are if your first car was a 69 Camaro! What I wouldnt give. I bought a 2010 Camaro RS/SS when they came out. That car put a smile on my face everytime I drove it regardless of my mood. Alas I gave it up for a woman, got engaged and was gonna buy another home. Now I'm not even with her! Live and learn. lol..... I'm still up in the air on what to buy.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

rawsawhd said:


> Yea, I was just looking though the forum and this thread caught my eye. I had to put my thoughts out there. lol... A lucky guy you are if your first car was a 69 Camaro! What I wouldnt give. I bought a 2010 Camaro RS/SS when they came out. That car put a smile on my face everytime I drove it regardless of my mood. Alas I gave it up for a woman, got engaged and was gonna buy another home. Now I'm not even with her! Live and learn. lol..... I'm still up in the air on what to buy.


Lucky indeed! Not bad for a 19 year old kid. (Then,not now lol) I like the new ones too. Old/new... Live and learn is right. It's hard sometimes. 
The separate/AVR conundrum...it's a tough one. Good luck! Interested to see what you do.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

willis7469 said:


> ...but when you lean on it, you can just hear it falling away.


That was our experience with the Marantz SR5007. It just didn't have what it takes to keep up with action based sound tracks but that's not the case with our current AVR.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

rawsawhd said:


> .... I'm still up in the air on what to buy.


Please, not another woman. And if you do, the car and home theater system stay......along with all the rest of the skeletons and baggage in the closet. The good news, the longer you're together, the fewer skeletons unexpectedly jump out at the worst possible moment......until finally, there's just you and the wife in the closet.

...


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> Please, not another woman. And if you do, the car and home theater system stay......along with all the rest of the skeletons and baggage in the closet. The good news, the longer you're together, the fewer skeletons unexpectedly jump out at the worst possible moment......until finally, there's just you and the wife in the closet.
> 
> ...


Hummmm, a lot of fun could be had in that closet!!!! 

I just made a new thread on the WAF, I'd like to get your input and a few others. I'm finding yourself, Willis, a few others and I are on the same page here. lol

Its in the AV Home Theater section...


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

rawsawhd said:


> Its like these kids today with 4 cylinder tuner cars. They race them around thinking theyre the fastest thing going BUT nothing beats cubic inches. It may cost you more but you can always build a V8 to beat a 4banger. So, watts, weight, sound, there is a difference..... right now my receiver blew yesterday so I'm in the market. I dont want to spend upwards of $2000 for features I dont use or need only to have sound that doesnt compare to what I had (Onkyo 805) because the internal amps cant keep up... You dont always get what you pay for and its sad.


I am old enough to know what you are talking about but, yes there is always another opinion, the nothing beats cubic inches really does not apply unless maybe the only thing you wish to do is quarter mile runs or maybe street light to street light in the city. Then maybe more cubes may work. In almost all other races, we find a well designed smaller, lighter engine can make enormous power all over the revs and still be light enough to not cause the front end or back end to nose dive into corners. Take Indy, LeMans, or quite simply the streets of Chicago. So in reality the power needed will be dictated by the need. Just because something is heavy does not mean it was designed well or uses quality components. There are indeed to many variables there.


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

Savjac said:


> I am old enough to know what you are talking about but, yes there is always another opinion, the nothing beats cubic inches really does not apply unless maybe the only thing you wish to do is quarter mile runs or maybe street light to street light in the city. Then maybe more cubes may work. In almost all other races, we find a well designed smaller, lighter engine can make enormous power all over the revs and still be light enough to not cause the front end or back end to nose dive into corners. Take Indy, LeMans, or quite simply the streets of Chicago. So in reality the power needed will be dictated by the need. Just because something is heavy does not mean it was designed well or uses quality components. There are indeed to many variables there.


I actually was talking drag racing. lol... But I understand your point.


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

You know this thread is basically about listed power vs actual output and weight but at its core I'm finding many discussing what power do we really need. Can we hear the difference, does it make a difference? This gets me thinking. What do we "need" vs what do we "want"? Do we need 250 watts? Do we need 25watts? We dont really "need" a 120" screen, big amplifiers or giant subwoofers. We dont need any of it. Its this way in every facet of life. We only need the basics to survive. But we all want more. I know I'll always be upgrading what I have. I'll always want something else. Cars, homes, theater equipment, doesnt matter... When it comes to these ratings on power the manufacturers give its a bit of a stab in the back to the consumer. Hey, I'll pay the money, just give me what I pay for. 100watts times 7 channels? Ok, *cha-ching* heres my $... Wait, wait,,, whats this? I paid a grand of my hard earned dollars for 40watts with all channel driven, when you said 100w? Whats this you say? It doesnt matter??!!! I cant really hear the difference??!!!! Its only 3db??? Well Mr Big Audio Corp, you can all suck an EGG! Some of us out there actually read and do research. We care!!!!


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

rawsawhd said:


> What do we "need" vs what do we "want"?


The ability to cleanly play THX reference level playback as that's the standard used by producers and mixing engineers, who create the sound tracks. Reference level playback is loud and most theaters play in the area of max of +96dB.

The idea is to cleanly play, no audible distortion at full on, continuous, reference level playback. The idea is to cleanly play bass notes at +/-3dB flat so there are no nulls to deal with, bass note suckouts.

Anything above +/-3dB flat and clean reference level playback is not necessary. But this does not mean one doesn't need additional headroom so as to eliminate distortion.


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> The ability to cleanly play THX reference level playback as that's the standard used by producers and mixing engineers, who create the sound tracks. Reference level playback is loud and most theaters play in the area of max of +96dB.
> 
> The idea is to cleanly play, no audible distortion at full on, continuous, reference level playback. The idea is to cleanly play bass notes at +/-3dB flat so there are no nulls to deal with, bass note suckouts.
> 
> Anything above +/-3dB flat and clean reference level playback is not necessary. But this does not mean one doesn't need additional headroom so as to eliminate distortion.



Thats Exactly what I want!  And then some!!!!


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

I think rawsawhd is hitting stride here. There is a good way to present the available power in any given product but stating what should be the obvious. 100 watts per channel into 8 ohms, all channels driven, so many hertz to so many hertz. Simple really, but because of the ways things have skewed, the new presentations of one channel, two channels, at 6 ohms blah blah blah are meaningless. One does not really know what they are buying into until it has been received and even then, one may not know if things are working fine until he or she hears something better. Its a crazy way to market stuff. Its a bit like gas mileage, few of us will go the 55 miles per hour that the feds use to measure fuel consumption, but at least we do have a decent bottom line to go by. With audio components, nope no way.


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

Savjac said:


> I think rawsawhd is hitting stride here. There is a good way to present the available power in any given product but stating what should be the obvious. 100 watts per channel into 8 ohms, all channels driven, so many hertz to so many hertz. Simple really, but because of the ways things have skewed, the new presentations of one channel, two channels, at 6 ohms blah blah blah are meaningless. One does not really know what they are buying into until it has been received and even then, one may not know if things are working fine until he or she hears something better. Its a crazy way to market stuff. Its a bit like gas mileage, few of us will go the 55 miles per hour that the feds use to measure fuel consumption, but at least we do have a decent bottom line to go by. With audio components, nope no way.


I just might be. lol Have a bit of a cold so I'm just sitting here relaxing on the computer browsing. ... I agree with what you say.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Savjac said:


> I think rawsawhd is hitting stride here. There is a good way to present the available power in any given product but stating what should be the obvious. 100 watts per channel into 8 ohms, all channels driven, so many hertz to so many hertz. Simple really, but because of the ways things have skewed, the new presentations of one channel, two channels, at 6 ohms blah blah blah are meaningless. One does not really know what they are buying into until it has been received and even then, one may not know if things are working fine until he or she hears something better. Its a crazy way to market stuff. Its a bit like gas mileage, few of us will go the 55 miles per hour that the feds use to measure fuel consumption, but at least we do have a decent bottom line to go by. With audio components, nope no way.


Absolutely. 
Kinda like tvs and "published" contrast ratio etc. See what you think of this: Back in the 60's, they used to measure horsepower at the flywheel. This was with all the accessories off the engine, optimal conditions etc. (til insurance companies started sniffing around). These figures were inflated compared to what was actually usable. Somewhere in the 90s (iirc) they started measuring at the wheels. This was met with some resistance, but logic prevailed and we now have horsepower ratings reflective of real world usage. I think what rawsaw, and many others feel, is that if you say we are paying for 7 channels of XYZ wattage, that's what we should expect. Somewhere in the middle might be akin to this early 70s Mcintosh I'm playin with right now. It's rated for 105 watts. And it actually delivers at least that much, but from 20hz up to 20k. Not a single 1k tone. Just sayin...


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Savjac said:


> With audio components, nope no way.


...

Not sure what you're trying to say as with independent bench tests, third party speaker sensitivity tests and THX standards.......yes way.

(not trying to be a tool but instead, trying to be sardonically humorous in my above)

With a calibrated sound meter and REW, one is able to tell if they've arrived or not. That's the beauty of standards.



rawsawhd said:


> I just might be. lol Have a bit of a cold so I'm just sitting here relaxing on the computer browsing. ... I agree with what you say.


It Saturday and after denying myself food and drink and taking an afternoon walk, I'm enjoying twelve ounces of Canada's gift to America.

...

I can't afford McIntosh.

:crying:

(why, why.........)

...


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> ...
> 
> Not sure what you're trying to say as with independent bench tests, third party speaker sensitivity tests and THX standards.......yes way.
> 
> ...


Molson??? I'm a Stella guy myself. And Yes, McIntosh! Those blue meters are lights for the soul...


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

No thought of you being a tool 

I do not really believe that the general buying public, or many of us for that matter have access to bench tests and thx is really a goal and indicates that when using so labeled products, one may achieve a certain level of reproduced sound. Although THX must then be on all components and those components must meet a room standard that may or may not be available. A SPL meter is another thing that may or may not be available. I just think it should not be so difficult and the providers could voluntarily provide accurate and meaningful statistics regarding what their equipment does or does not do. 




BeeMan458 said:


> ...
> 
> Not sure what you're trying to say as with independent bench tests, third party speaker sensitivity tests and THX standards.......yes way.
> 
> ...


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

rawsawhd said:


> Molson??? I'm a Stella guy myself. And Yes, McIntosh! Those blue meters are lights for the soul...


Costco Canadian Whisky.

(not spelled Whiskey)


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Savjac said:


> I do not really believe that the general buying public, or many of us for that matter have access to bench tests and thx is really a goal and indicates that when using so labeled products, one may achieve a certain level of reproduced sound. Although THX must then be on all components and those components must meet a room standard that may or may not be available. A SPL meter is another thing that may or may not be available. I just think it should not be so difficult and the providers could voluntarily provide accurate and meaningful statistics regarding what their equipment does or does not do.


That's why the likes of Sound and Vision and Home Theater Shack reviews, so us plebs have reliable information.

As to having THX on all components, that's not true. There's THX standards and there's the selling of the rights to plaster the THX logo on your gear.

Sound meters are cheap and easy. A digital version can be found on the cheap at Radio Shack or online at Amazon.

Agreeing with you, as too it being hard. If it were easy, everybody's home theater would sound as good as our home theater systems sound. As to telling the truth, we can't get our government to tell the truth.........how does a consumer expect to get manufactures to tell the truth?

If I were to create a bumper sticker, it would say; "If it's okay for the president to lie, why should I be held to a higher standard?"

...


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

I thought Canada's gift was Windsor! Lol


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

BeeMan458 said:


> That's why the likes of Sound and Vision and Home Theater Shack reviews, so us plebs have reliable information.
> 
> 
> ...


HTS, yes the reviews here are on the up and up and present real world facts based on real world listening. S&V not so much imho, they are in business to make money and not tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Like our friend Julian Hirsch, never wrote a bad review. We all know, some products are probably not up to snuff, and as such, they should be called out accordingly.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Savjac said:


> HTS, yes the reviews here are on the up and up and present real world facts based on real world listening.


I appreciate the faith in us. We do try to be honest about reporting what we find. We need to be careful to parse out what is fact and what is opinion and experience, however. Facts are measurements, information about what a product can and cannot do functionally, etc. Anything related to performance from listening is only one person's report of what he/she experienced. It may be honest, but I would not consider it factual.

I personally find that doing reviews is very difficult. As most of you know I am always looking for facts and data, but I also believe that the measurements that are typically used do a poor job of differentiating components and speakers. Reporting the subjective part of the experience is very hard to do while trying to be fair. You don't want to pull any punches, all the time realizing that what we hear in any particular set of conditions may be completely irrelevant to someone else.

But, as you say, we really do try to provide reviews from the perspective of the user and hobbyist, and we try very hard to be accurate. Your kind words and faith in us is appreciated and taken seriously. And that's a fact, Jack. :heehee:


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Yes you are quite spot on correcting me on this point, to an extent. 
I attribute many of the panel writings as facts, mainly because they are not biased by "outside" influences and for any given individual presenting their personally biased "subjective" statement of findings, the discussion presented in the writings, for them become facts. We also have the advantage of being able to read the thoughts and experiences of several individuals all of whom do not appear to have any axe to grind. 

Doubtless in the proper context you are very correct in saying the empirical data obtained may be considered more factual that an opinion based upon ones personal biases. The only side bar I might throw in relates to your presentation below that quite correctly depicts relevancy between the presenter and the reader. One room, one set of facts, another room, another set of facts. For me that is why the "personal experiences" or thoughts presented by the writers seems much more realistic. Granted these findings will be room specific to an extent as well, however, the ability of the reader to be able to cull out the data from all the writers and make one whole thought, seems the more on task. 

But then again, maybe I should just hit the road jack.....:innocent:



lcaillo said:


> I appreciate the faith in us. We do try to be honest about reporting what we find. We need to be careful to parse out what is fact and what is opinion and experience, however. Facts are measurements, information about what a product can and cannot do functionally, etc. Anything related to performance from listening is only one person's report of what he/she experienced. It may be honest, but I would not consider it factual.
> 
> I personally find that doing reviews is very difficult. As most of you know I am always looking for facts and data, but I also believe that the measurements that are typically used do a poor job of differentiating components and speakers. Reporting the subjective part of the experience is very hard to do while trying to be fair. You don't want to pull any punches, all the time realizing that what we hear in any particular set of conditions may be completely irrelevant to someone else.
> 
> But, as you say, we really do try to provide reviews from the perspective of the user and hobbyist, and we try very hard to be accurate. Your kind words and faith in us is appreciated and taken seriously. And that's a fact, Jack. :heehee:


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Noooo! Please don't. :sad:


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Savjac said:


> But then again, maybe I should just hit the road jack.....:innocent:


Yes. 5 hours north. This weekend.

cheers


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

ajinfla said:


> Yes. 5 hours north. This weekend.
> 
> cheers


I would so love to be there, last year was a good time. My wife is ill and unless I can get someone to stay here in my stead, I cannot make it. 

I will implore our daughter to come stay with her today at dinner so I can touch and hear all the new stuff in the hotel....ok and maybe have dinner at Lou Malnottis or Carsons Ribs....
Does that sound selfish ?? :huh:


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

lcaillo said:


> Noooo! Please don't. :sad:


Well thank you kind sir, I cannot go far, there is too much to learn here. :yay:


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Catching up, beg pardon if I miss something important here.

Just thinking in terms of effective test methods, a full-power 20 Hz sine wave would cause more power supply droop than most test signals. A 20 Hz square wave would be even harder for the supply to keep up with. Accounting for real-world speaker impedance variations is next to impossible, so the best general-purpose stress load is 4 ohms resistive.

I can understand the _general tendency_ for a heavier AVR to have bigger power transformer and capacitors, and therefore a _tendency_ to keep up with taxing program passages better, but - as already pointed out - there are plenty of reasons for that rule not to be true with a given AVR, so it is not a rule to bank on.

It is not hard to see how such complexities lead to the "more power is better" approach to amplifier selection just to simplify things and allow one to not have to think about it. But there are no guarantees there either. No rule of thumb comes with a guarantee.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

BeeMan458 said:


> The ability to cleanly play THX reference level playback as that's the standard used by producers and mixing engineers, who create the sound tracks. Reference level playback is loud and most theaters play in the area of max of +96dB.
> 
> The idea is to cleanly play, no audible distortion at full on, continuous, reference level playback. The idea is to cleanly play bass notes at +/-3dB flat so there are no nulls to deal with, bass note suckouts.
> 
> Anything above +/-3dB flat and clean reference level playback is not necessary. But this does not mean one doesn't need additional headroom so as to eliminate distortion.


What's the point of THX listening levels if they are too loud to begin with? Other than premature but permanent hearing loss, I see no pint to the THX reference level. The analogy is owning a Porsche, BMW M5 etc and stuck in NA not being able to even come close to their top speed.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

You would be surprised how close to reference level most of us get on regular ocasions. Place your db meter at your listening position on C weight and watch. I bet you hit reference more than you think particularly if your room is treated properly.


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

3dbinCanada said:


> What's the point of THX listening levels if they are too loud to begin with? Other than premature but permanent hearing loss, I see no pint to the THX reference level. The analogy is owning a Porsche, BMW M5 etc and stuck in NA not being able to even come close to their top speed.


Of course your point is correct But thats exactly not the point. lol..... There is not one reason in the world to own a Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, or even a Vette or Viper(I would Gladly take one of each sir!). Same goes for HT as a solid HTIB may actually get the job done, so why spend 10's of thousands of dollars on equipment with ridiculous high output, lots of lights, aluminum face plates and more inputs to shake a stick at? Its not that we need it, we just want it. ;-)

Keep in mind too that these THX reference levels are not a 2hr assault on our eyes and ears at 105+db but a short burst here and there for impact as the director intended. 40yrs of movies and music and sometimes at levels that border on the insane,,, had a hearing test last month for my work which determined that I still have excellent hearing...... 

Judging by your own equipment list you're driving a new Camaro SS in your own living room.  You dont need it but you got it. More power to you my friend!


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

...^^^...what he said.



3dbinCanada said:


> What's the point of THX listening levels if they are too loud to begin with?


It has nothing to do with being too loud, it has to do with meeting the standard producers and sound/audio engineers adhere to.

Skywalker Sound:










Our system:


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

From the audioholics web site;

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-am...all-channels-driven-acd-amplifier-test-page-5

So the ACD is entirely invalid?

The answer to this question is a qualified "It depends." ACD can be thought of as a conditionally valid test to determine if an amplifier is capable of instantaneously consuming all of the power from the wall outlet. In the best case scenario, it can reveal the absolute capability of the amplifier's power supply. If the amp has a robust power supply then you will simply be testing for line voltage sag on an unregulated line up to the fuse limit of the amplifier.

The problem however (as documented in our previous article: The All Channels Driven Test Controversy) is that many budget products are designed for real world performance and must make trade offs for safety and heat dissipation reasons. As a result, they design their amps to be dynamic, but limit the total output capability of the product with a limiter that activates if more than three channels are driven at full power. The result of driving more than three channels at full power is reduced power delivery to all channels to satisfy the heat dissipation requirements of UL, as well as the manufacturer's requirements for dependability and reliability. Thus, when a publication does the classic ACD test into 5 or 7 channels, the reader can get the wrong impression that the amplifier isn't very capable at delivering power despite the fact it exceeds manufacturers specs with flying colors with only one or two channels driven continuously, and also satisfies the old FTC mandate for rating power into two channels.

Let's take the following Scenario when comparing two similarly priced receivers.

Receiver #1: rated at 110wpc (# of channels driven not specified, but FTC mandates it must apply to at least two channels)
Receiver #2: rated at 70wpc ACD 

If we bench test both receivers with just two channels driven, we more often than not find that Receiver #1 was able to comfortably exceed its rating into 8 ohms and deliver respectable power delivery into 4 ohms (usually higher than the 8 ohm rating). Receiver #2 will usually exceed its 8 ohm rating but typically at a smaller margin than receiver #1 and, more often than not, maintains a similar power rating for 8 and 4 ohm loads. Of course an ideal amplifier should act like a constant voltage source and double power delivery when speaker impedance is halved. Very few receivers, and only the better separates amps, have a robust enough amp topologies and correspondingly robust power supplies to achieve such a feat.

So, in reality, Receiver #1 has the potential to deliver more power than Receiver #2, especially into 4 ohm loads, when driving one or up to three channels simultaneously with a correlated audio source. But because of the thermal limitations of the budget sized receiver, which aims at designing a dynamic amplifier over one that can provide sustained power into all channels simultaneously, it has to limit the power delivery when the amplifier is taxed with a correlated audio source to more than three channels. During loud transients Receiver #1 will likely be able to deliver cleaner output because it has more available headroom than Receiver #2.

On the other hand, the ACD test can very easily boast over inflated power figures for amplifiers that don't employ this form of current limiting. This is true in particular when the audio publications test in the 3 conditions we previously mentioned - instantaneous 1kHz power vs THD test, VARIAC regulated line, and bypassing the internal amplifier fuses. Thus, the consumer is misled into believing the inflated power measurements are continuous and achievable in typical household installations.

Since this test isn't representative of music or movie program material, and it is usually conducted in conditions not representative of normal product usage, its validity is questionable at best. It is certainly not a clear delineation of true amplifier performance in a real world environment.

So Why Do We Need Big Amplifiers?

Despite the fact that few boat-sized multi-channel amplifiers can deliver their inflated 200-400wpc into all channels simultaneously, there is still validity for these amps. An amp with a huge power supply and multiple output devices per channel can typically drive a wider range of speaker loads and usually has vanishingly low output impedance, making it less susceptible to frequency response variations when driving a reactive load such as a loudspeaker. It also has the ability to act more like an ideal voltage source by doubling its power with halving load impedance. This allows the amplifier to deliver more steady state power to low impedance loudspeakers.

Editorial Note about Amplifier Output Impedance
Output impedance is determined by output stage topology and feedback ratio. The internal wiring often (especially if there is internal speaker switching) has more impedance than the amp as does the output choke which is connected after the feedback stage. The ability for an amp to double power with halving impedance is almost all power supply influenced assuming the amplifier output stages can sink the required current to sustain the power levels.

According to Bruno Putzeys of Hypex, it turns out that the output choke is usually the dominant factor in determining amplifier output impedance, because it's outside the loop. Before the output choke, any reasonably designed amp has negligible output impedance. In addition, boat-sized amplifiers typically have such powerful (and hence slow) output stages that loop gain needs to be scaled back a bit, increasing HF distortion. Funnily enough, it is precisely HF distortion that fools the human ear into thinking the bass is tightly controlled.


So What Have We Learned?

Most of the ACD power figured in magazines and/or in manufacturers product literature are highly conditional, vary from publication to publication, and are usually not product representative. These ratings are typically taken using the 1kHz Psweep test for 8 ohms at amplifier clipping and almost never done at 4 ohms for all channels.
The ACD test is NOT representative of normal program material.
Compromises in budget gear must be incorporated to produce dynamic amps while meeting stringent UL/CSA heat dissipation requirements under continuous loading conditions.
Despite many manufacturers' boasts to the contrary, most multi-channel amplifiers' ACD power ratings are, at best, a highly conditional rating.
The ACD test isn't a clear indication of the power capabilities of an amplifier designed for dynamic power delivery as a primary metric. 

If ACD Doesn't Matter, Then What Does?

The following metrics can provide a far more insightful view of real world amplifier performance:

Amplifier Bandwidth Linearity
Output Impedance
Amplifier Distortion + Noise at Various Power Levels
Signal to Noise Ratio
Channel to Channel Isolation
Amplifier Stability under reactive load testing
True continuous undistorted power delivery into one or two channels under various loading conditions
Amplifier power stability with multiple channels driven at reduced power while the primary one or two channels are driven at full rated power. 

These are just some of the primary metrics of concern when dealing with true amplifier performance.

A lot can be determined about an amplifier's performance by testing the above criteria with just 1 or 2 channels driven, while a comparison is made with the other channels at idle vs. being driven at a continuous reduced power level. Since the typical program materials we deal with are dynamic in nature, it's important for an amplifier to be able to reproduce large transients. Doing so requires careful design in the amplifier's power supply and output stages.

To test the amplifier's ability of handling multi-channel program material, a tone burst method such as the test THX implements is more practical and accurate in gauging amplifier performance. A slightly modified approach to the new IEC ruling for multi-channel amps is another viable approach (article coming soon).

So, Who is to Blame For Inflated Power Figures?

First, the consuming public for demanding unqualified numbers over real performance.
Second, the review publications for pandering to an uneducated demand for numbers without attempting to frame these "test results" in "real world" performance terms.
 Finally, the manufacturers themselves for playing the numbers game despite the fact that they should know better. 

Closing Thoughts

Understanding amplifier power ratings can be a difficult task in an industry almost devoid of standards and rife with loose interpretations of existing standards that have exceeded their usefulness and practicality in today's multi-channel environment. Deceptive marketing and inadequately stated test conditions certainly don't help this situation.


----------



## B- one (Jan 13, 2013)

Savjac said:


> I would so love to be there, last year was a good time. My wife is ill and unless I can get someone to stay here in my stead, I cannot make it. I will implore our daughter to come stay with her today at dinner so I can touch and hear all the new stuff in the hotel....ok and maybe have dinner at Lou Malnottis or Carsons Ribs.... Does that sound selfish ?? :huh:


Carson's is my go to when in town such a value and GREAT QUALITY. Leona's (?spelling?) is another great value as well.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

3dbinCanada said:


> From the audioholics web site;
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/audio-am...all-channels-driven-acd-amplifier-test-page-5
> 
> ...


I guess there are times when one has to write so much verbiage so as to preclude any realistic discussion of what was just said. Then blaming the public for demanding unqualified numbers over real world performance seems to be the height of unmitigated hubris. The public is uneducated because education costs money and honest advertisement costs even more money. Manufacturers have chosen a path of providing more gizmos on any given piece of electronics over real world performance in a manner similar to the tax laws we strive to understand every year. Truly I am not sure of the chicken or the egg here, have manufacturers decided to cater to what the buying public thinks they want or have manufacturers found that telling the buying public that what the manufacturers provide is what the public NEEDs thus developing a sink hole to where the basics of what amplification should be doing while changing the focus of modern equipment to provide ever changing new gadgets that remain cheap to mass product but may never be used by most consumers...again, similar to the tax law loopholes. 

I have been a participant in the world of audio and video for many years and it is truly my most genuine hobby but yet I do not understand most of what modern gear is about. I would rejoice in knowing that the basics of my amplification, be it AVR or separates do, at the very least, present operational standards based upon when the item was designed to do. Power amplification, again in AVR or separates, should be built to a standard that can be advertised when the item is doing what it was purchased to do, be it one, five, seven or 11 channels. If the amplifier can only hold on to 55 wpc all channels driven then so be it, therein lies its advertised power rating. If what Gene is saying is true and a 300 wpc amplifier needs several ac lines, then again, so be it. What I think Gene has missed here, is that a large, high powered amp will also incorporate power reserves in way of capacitance that will not tax the wall outlets as much as say an amplifier that drains its capacitance on the first canon explosion. 

Again going back to "The Day" most of the equipment I bought was 2 channel and delivered 35 to say 55 wpc and I bought speakers to match accordingly. However, like many other industries, manufacturers do not want to have the buyer actually look into components that work together but would rather advertise un realistic figures for power reproduction and not tell the buying public that they may not be getting what they think they are paying for. How many non audio hobby persons have we all heard say, "My Amp puts out 150 watts per channel" or "my speakers can handle 200 watts per channel" without really knowing what they are talking about ? Give people real world numbers, real in that the product can do what it says and let the buying public decide what to do.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

Savjac said:


> I guess there are times when one has to write so much verbiage so as to preclude any realistic discussion of what was just said. Then blaming the public for demanding unqualified numbers over real world performance seems to be the height of unmitigated hubris. The public is uneducated because education costs money and honest advertisement costs even more money. Manufacturers have chosen a path of providing more gizmos on any given piece of electronics over real world performance in a manner similar to the tax laws we strive to understand every year. Truly I am not sure of the chicken or the egg here, have manufacturers decided to cater to what the buying public thinks they want or have manufacturers found that telling the buying public that what the manufacturers provide is what the public NEEDs thus developing a sink hole to where the basics of what amplification should be doing while changing the focus of modern equipment to provide ever changing new gadgets that remain cheap to mass product but may never be used by most consumers...again, similar to the tax law loopholes.
> 
> I have been a participant in the world of audio and video for many years and it is truly my most genuine hobby but yet I do not understand most of what modern gear is about. I would rejoice in knowing that the basics of my amplification, be it AVR or separates do, at the very least, present operational standards based upon when the item was designed to do. Power amplification, again in AVR or separates, should be built to a standard that can be advertised when the item is doing what it was purchased to do, be it one, five, seven or 11 channels. If the amplifier can only hold on to 55 wpc all channels driven then so be it, therein lies its advertised power rating. If what Gene is saying is true and a 300 wpc amplifier needs several ac lines, then again, so be it. What I think Gene has missed here, is that a large, high powered amp will also incorporate power reserves in way of capacitance that will not tax the wall outlets as much as say an amplifier that drains its capacitance on the first canon explosion.
> 
> Again going back to "The Day" most of the equipment I bought was 2 channel and delivered 35 to say 55 wpc and I bought speakers to match accordingly. However, like many other industries, manufacturers do not want to have the buyer actually look into components that work together but would rather advertise un realistic figures for power reproduction and not tell the buying public that they may not be getting what they think they are paying for. How many non audio hobby persons have we all heard say, "My Amp puts out 150 watts per channel" or "my speakers can handle 200 watts per channel" without really knowing what they are talking about ? Give people real world numbers, real in that the product can do what it says and let the buying public decide what to do.


Gene did mention the point of large power supplies (read the entire article.. I just took page 5 ..the conclusion if you will ) but even large power supplies capacitance would not be able to sustain ACD driven for any duration considered longer than brief peaks or bursts. Thats one of his beefs around the ACD test, especially if its full bandwidth. 
I guess the moral around this story is that there is no standard testing around ACD driven. If you did manage to read the entire publication, you will soon realize that the standard 15 amp circuit cannot carry enough current to supply all channels driven even if the unit under test was capable of driving that kind of load. Furthermore, if one adds the fact that many manufacturers begin to limit output after 3 channels driven due to safety reasons based around not overheating power chords, etc, one quickly realizes that the ACD test really doesn't offer much in describing what the power supplies/amplifiers are truly capable of. I used to be hung up on ACD test but not anymore. I ignore them and go to the 2 channels driven, full bandwidth signal tests in both 8 and 4 ohms. I would like to add more to these tests where the load driven can be both varied from an impedance and adjustable phase angle.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

3dbinCanada said:


> Gene did mention the point of large power supplies (read the entire article.. I just took page 5 ..the conclusion if you will ) but even large power supplies capacitance would not be able to sustain ACD driven for any duration considered longer than brief peaks or bursts. Thats one of his beefs around the ACD test, especially if its full bandwidth.
> I guess the moral around this story is that there is no standard testing around ACD driven. If you did manage to read the entire publication, you will soon realize that the standard 15 amp circuit cannot carry enough current to supply all channels driven even if the unit under test was capable of driving that kind of load. Furthermore, if one adds the fact that many manufacturers begin to limit output after 3 channels driven due to safety reasons based around not overheating power chords, etc, one quickly realizes that the ACD test really doesn't offer much in describing what the power supplies/amplifiers are truly capable of. I used to be hung up on ACD test but not anymore. I ignore them and go to the 2 channels driven, full bandwidth signal tests in both 8 and 4 ohms. I would like to add more to these tests where the load driven can be both varied from an impedance and adjustable phase angle.


I haven't read the AH article, but powercube testing, as done by The Audio Critic, was far more relevant to reality. Here is a nice laymans read by AP

p.s. Jack, take care of the Mrs, see you next year

cheers,


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

ajinfla said:


> I haven't read the AH article, but powercube testing, as done by The Audio Critic, was far more relevant to reality. Here is a nice laymans read by AP
> 
> p.s. Jack, take care of the Mrs, see you next year
> 
> cheers,


To be fair, you would need to read the article before coming to conclusions which test is more relevant. I read the article on power cube testing and I know for a fact that circuit breakers would popping if this testing method was used for the ACD test. The standard 15amp circuit will not be able to sustain a current flow of this magnitude. I did mention at the end of my last post what I would have liked to see and it seems like the powercube testing was what I would like to see. Perhaps this why you mentioned this to me.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Peak and continuous are two different ratings. Newer homes have 20A breakers and breakers are quite capable of momentarily handling far more than fifteen or twenty Amps worth of 120v.

Check out the content of this link; page 3 and 4.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

BeeMan458 said:


> Peak and continuous are two different ratings. Newer homes have 20A breakers and breakers are quite capable of momentarily handling far more than fifteen or twenty Amps worth of 120v.
> 
> Check out the content of this link; page 3 and 4.


Most breakers need to momentarily handle the in-rush currents (old rule of thumb is 7x steady state current) of electrical motors found in our appliances. That is nothing new. However, this fact doesn't do anything to negate the fact that ACD testing doesn't test power supplies but rather the protection circuit employed by the manufacturers to meet UL safety requirements. I would like to add that the powercube testing as I read only does it at 1KHz, hardly what I would call a signal representative of the entire audio spectrum.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

I think another issue with published numbers is most consumers don't have a reference to go back to, and don't care enough to learn. For example, my buddy's dad buys a (advertised) 3500 watt home theater,(in a box). Then come to my house and and can't believe that my 135wpc AVR knocks him through the back of the couch, and his won't disrupt the hair on his arm. I start explaining, and his eyes glass over. All he sees is that he got ripped off! People also don't like qualifiers on things, cause they have to think about it. 100wpc, ACD, @8 ohms, 4ohms, etc. or, Your new car does 0-60 in 3.5sec. With all cylinders firing, or with 1 passenger or 750 lbs max passenger weight. Even rms vs. peak is too much. That's just confusing and normal people don't want to do the math. They just want to know if it's good or not. 
Maybe what we need is a simpler scale. Loud, louder, and loudest! Lol
We need a yardstick that normal people can read, and means something. 
For those of us that do care, we need manufacturers to use the same yardstick, and one that is relevant. Not slanted to show the big numbers. I think AH's new test format is going in the right direction.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

3dbinCanada said:


> I did mention at the end of my last post what I would have liked to see and it seems like the powercube testing was what I would like to see. Perhaps this why you mentioned this to me.


Yep.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

willis7469 said:


> Maybe what we need is a simpler scale. Loud, louder, and loudest! Lol
> We need a yardstick that normal people can read, and means something.
> For those of us that do care, we need manufacturers to use the same yardstick, and one that is relevant. Not slanted to show the big numbers. I think AH's new test format is going in the right direction.


That's why I use THX reference standards. But then again, it costs money to get one to full on, clean, continuous reference level play so we're back to first base again......finding a system, that plays clean, reference level play, for five hundred USDs or less.

...


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

3dbinCanada said:


> However, this fact doesn't do anything to negate the fact that ACD testing doesn't test power supplies but rather the protection circuit employed by the manufacturers to meet UL safety requirements.


Thanks!

Don't know nothing about protection circuits other than if it's running hot, due to thermo hi/low limit switches, if hot, the Amp shuts down. In our case, because our Amp is so capable, we don't run our Amp hard and it don't get hot. That's all I know about protection circuits built into an Amp or AVR.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

Is it too late to say that I believe in sturdy power supplies and amplifier sections and that was never my beef? *LOL* What I am saying is that ACD numbers published today have no baseline to draw on from one tester to the other. It really doesn't test the power supplies capabilities but rather the protection circuit to have the amp/AVR meet UL safety regulations.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

3dbinCanada said:


> What I am saying is that ACD numbers published today have no baseline to draw on from one tester to the other. It really doesn't test the power supplies capabilities but rather the protection circuit to have the amp/AVR meet UL safety regulations.


I have zero idea (clueless) in matters of this kind. I figured it was all about distortion figures as they heated up the shunt. I didn't know bench tests were about tripping the protection circuits.

...


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

If you have not already read this article here It seems to dispute how much power is really required and I Agree.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

But this is Home Theater Shack, all channels driven with THX standards being the standard, producers and sound mixers use to mix their sound tracks at.

Our front three are spec'd at 100dB and 99dB, 1w/1m and we sit ten feet from the front three. Our surrounds are 94dB and although I'd love to upgrade to surrounds that are rated at 97dB, the money's not there to accommodate this unnecessary purchasing excess.

If one were to use our speaker system, using an average sensitivity of 91dB (this allows for misstated sensitivity specifications, distance beyond that of 1m and actual measuring errors) at the MLP, one would need a minimum of 64wpc to cleanly reproduce reference level sound and not be close to over driving the amplifier that is limited to a measured 124wpc.

The point, there's perceived and there's measured output and the article took only it's listening parameters into consideration as opposed to multi-channel, home theater playback consideration.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

BeeMan458 said:


> That's why I use THX reference standards. But then again, it costs money to get one to full on, clean, continuous reference level play so we're back to first base again......finding a system, that plays clean, reference level play, for five hundred USDs or less.
> 
> ...


I do not really want to get too deep into this but can you please explain the THX reference standards as you are using them in your examples ?
I find them all but incomprehensible not to mention very hard to utilize as any realistic standard. I applaud Tom Holman for doing that which others ignored in trying to make some sort of standard and when it comes to working with Movie Palaces as well as home theater palaces, it is highly unlikely that most home theater enthusiasts can purchase the whole 9 yards needed to make it work. 

I think maybe we have gotten off track a bit from the original question and may wish to get back on track. Can the size of a power supply make a difference ??
Yes it CAN but no size is not a guarantee.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Savjac said:


> I do not really want to get too deep into this but can you please explain the THX reference standards as you are using them in your examples ? I find them all but incomprehensible not to mention very hard to utilize as any realistic standard. I applaud Tom Holman for doing that which others ignored in trying to make some sort of standard and when it comes to working with Movie Palaces as well as home theater palaces, it is highly unlikely that most home theater enthusiasts can purchase the whole 9 yards needed to make it work. I think maybe we have gotten off track a bit from the original question and may wish to get back on track. Can the size of a power supply make a difference ?? Yes it CAN but no size is not a guarantee.


I think to answer your last question, I will agree. But could it also be fair to say that without said power supply, it's far more likely to perform less favorably?


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

BeeMan458 said:


> But this is Home Theater Shack, all channels driven with THX standards being the standard, producers and sound mixers use to mix their sound tracks at.
> 
> Our front three are spec'd at 100dB and 99dB, 1w/1m and we sit ten feet from the front three. Our surrounds are 94dB and although I'd love to upgrade to surrounds that are rated at 97dB, the money's not there to accommodate this unnecessary purchasing excess.
> 
> ...


Interesting thoughts but once again we are dealing with the arbitrary here. May I ask, what do you mean by the word "Cleanly" and how does one know when it stops being clean and starts being less clean. Is this a steady state clean or moments of dramatic power increase clean. Would we be able to tell when it starts going off course ? I would vote, no.
Look the sciences involved with the reproduction of music and/or movies may seem simple but in reality it is so very complex as to become almost a job in itself to understand it. I recall owning some nice separates many years ago that were excellent fodder for upgrades and there was a company out of Missouri that in fact did provide them, at a cost of course. Being the hands on guy I was, I ordered the full monty updates for the amp and preamp and upon arrival, went about installing them. Lots of parts, not different topology just what was claimed to be much better components. When discussion the pre-amp, the power supply remained somewhat close to the original but with the new and improved components, it took on an entirely New sound, authoritative, powerful, wide, deep and stunning. The amp had similar results but not quite as much of a change. The watts per channel did not change but the amp sure sounded more powerful. Hmmm did my ears deceive me ?? In a word, no. Folks from the audio society in Chicago that listened all heard it so it could not just be me.
None the less, I know first had that a quality power supply, be it in the pre amp section or the power section can truly trump the use and weight of lesser components.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

willis7469 said:


> I think to answer your last question, I will agree. But could it also be fair to say that without said power supply, it's far more likely to perform less favorably?


Sorry I was answering while this was posted but the post above should answer your question.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Savjac said:


> I do not really want to get too deep into this but can you please explain the THX reference standards as you are using them in your examples ?
> I find them all but incomprehensible not to mention very hard to utilize as any realistic standard.


I'm sure you're familiar with the THX reference standard.

Speakers able to reproduce without distortion, the sound track at +85dB with a clean +20dB worth of headroom for peaks;120Hz to 20kHz.

Subwoofers, due to the way we hear bass waves, the LFE channel is mixed +10dB higher. Able to play without distortion, +95dB with a clean +20dB worth of headroom for peaks; 20Hz to 120Hz.

That said, what i define as "full on, continuous reference level playback" is a system capable of maintaining continuous maximum demands of +105dB for speakers and +115dB for subwoofers without distortion or worry of overheating.

It's the realistic standard being used by the movie industry. These are not my standards but the standards set by THX and used by producers and sound/mixing engineers when creating a movie sound track.



> ...it is highly unlikely that most home theater enthusiasts can purchase the whole 9 yards needed to make it work.


I'm not sure of the validity of the above comment as the THX standard does not concern itself with those who can't cobble together a system that is capable of reference level playback. Just saying, as with any "hobby," those who care about reference level playback, will find a way to meet THX specifications. All hobbies are this way whether buying camping gear, RC planes/cars, sky diving, skiing, or spending a night in a motel while on a road trip. Those who care, are willing to pony up the money.

As to the weight of an AVR, there's no validity to this point. In order to have any validity, one would have to drag the transformer out of the AVR and weigh it, not the AVR itself. It stands to reason, the more one demands of an amplifier section, the more amplification one is going need; two channel, five channel or 11 channel. The same expectation can be made of subwoofers as well.

In all sincerity, my apologies if my manner of articulating my thoughts is found confusing or unintelligible.

(i've read these same comments before, so no offense is taken)

Forgive me for I am uneducated (two year AA) and the best I can qualify for is that of an incompetent old man.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Savjac said:


> Interesting thoughts but once again we are dealing with the arbitrary here.


It's not arbitrary. These are standards based on human's hearing and our sensitivity to what we can hear and having a system that does not exceed these standards. There is one standard for speakers and speaker based amplifiers and another standard for subwoofers and amplifiers.

The comment of mine that you boldened, was for our situation, not someone else's situation. Hence why I described the sensitivity or our speakers and the distance to the MLP, so this point would not be misunderstood.



> Would we be able to tell when it starts going off course ? I would vote, no.


And you'd be right as the standard is two fold, a transient response so our brain won't detect the momentary distortion and the standard is set below the threshold of the majority of listeners.

[quote}Look the sciences involved with the reproduction of music and/or movies may seem simple but in reality it is so very complex as to become almost a job in itself to understand it.[/quote]

And you'd be correct again as this is something I've been playing with for years, not days, weeks or months. I've not delved into this understanding with the zeal of a scholar but with that of someone who wanted to understand the why of it all. Now? Now I just listen to killer home theater sound quality because all the grunt work (learning curve) is behind me. Now? Now I'm at the mercy of the producer and sound/mixing engineer as we're dependent on the quality of the sound track.



> Being the hands on guy I was, I ordered the full monty updates for the amp and preamp and upon arrival, went about installing them.


I've read of those who do what you suggest in your above and have read about similar glowing results. Being that my desoldering and soldering skills are about as good as one swinging a sledge hammer, I'm not going try what you suggest so I buy equipment where the manufacture is reported to have used higher quality components that I can afford to buy.

Surprise, we're closer on this issue than you realize.

...


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

BeeMan458 said:


> I'm sure you're familiar with the THX reference standard.
> 
> Speakers able to reproduce without distortion, the sound track at +85dB with a clean +20dB worth of headroom for peaks;120Hz to 20kHz.
> 
> ...


As usual for anything I post, there is Never any offense made, I trust that is clean now. Nope, never, I am just an old man as well. In this case, yes, I am aware of the standards but they do require the use of THX certified gear, because the standards are far more encompassing that playback volumes. There are probably 75 or so standards that must be met to achieve the thx stamp of approval for equipment in any given size room. Further this standard also involves the placement of speakers, namely 7, the wire used in the system and well a myriad of other things. This is why I asked what your thoughts were on THX reference and its meaning. Most of todays home theater gear will hit a substantial volume level before it blows up. The problem is often one of being able to sit in the same room when that volume is realized. I am hard pressed to make a determination if a piece of gear, be it speakers or electronics is distorting or not when it hits those levels. Lets say for instance it is not a hard voice turning the drivers into umbrellas type of distortion but maybe something much less drastic, would you be able to tell ? Same goes for electronics, can we tell by listening if an amplifier is headed into the dreaded 1% distortion level or is it just .025% ?
See that is very difficult to tell without all the equipment being THX certified to work together we can never really know now, or at least that is my thoughts.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Savjac said:


> See that is very difficult to tell without all the equipment being THX certified to work together we can never really know now, or at least that is my thoughts.


Fortunately, meeting the THX standard is easy. Putting a THX logo on an AVR is expensive. Our system meets the "THX Ultra2" standard.

Just saying, it's been shown, wire is wire as double-blind studies have shown, once the curtain goes down, properly working, zip cord to custom cables, cables can't be differentiated beyond chance. In the case of Teflon coated cables, the RF rejection rate is measurable but not detectable to the ear. And I so wish this wasn't true as personally, I so want to believe in snake oil and magic. 



> Most of todays home theater gear will hit a substantial volume level before it blows up. The problem is often one of being able to sit in the same room when that volume is realized. I am hard pressed to make a determination if a piece of gear, be it speakers or electronics is distorting or not when it hits those levels.


Forgive me but my understanding, that's the idea of standards. Systems blowing up, not good. Distortion, not good. Hopefully us meeting these standards will prevent us from experiencing these maladies. Again, these are not my standards but standards I've educated myself to along the way. I would say that we're both on the same team in that we both like decent gear that's not going distort or blow up when reproducing a difficult passage. Your system being much more complex than our system as my goal was to keep things as compact and simple as possible. We have an AVR, a blu-ray player, Comcast cable box and a 60" flat screen and I wish things to get no more complex than this. 

(i don't count the normal box of cables and interconnects found in the garage)



> I am hard pressed to make a determination if a piece of gear, be it speakers or electronics is distorting or not when it hits those levels. Lets say for instance it is not a hard voice turning the drivers into umbrellas type of distortion but maybe something much less drastic, would you be able to tell ? Same goes for electronics, can we tell by listening if an amplifier is headed into the dreaded 1% distortion level or is it just .025% ?


And without argument, you'd be right again. Because of these standards being in place and those who have test gear and share their results, we have third party information to give us a generalized idea of when we're going exceed these standards. My position is that of a simple man, buy that what can meet the standards using the 80% rule. Never buy gear where you're going exceed 80% of it's capability.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

BeeMan458 said:


> Fortunately, meeting the THX standard is easy. Putting a THX logo on an AVR is expensive. Our system meets the "THX Ultra2" standard.
> 
> Just saying, it's been shown, wire is wire as double-blind studies have shown, once the curtain goes down, properly working, zip cord to custom cables, cables can't be differentiated beyond chance. In the case of Teflon coated cables, the RF rejection rate is measurable but not detectable to the ear. And I so wish this wasn't true as personally, I so want to believe in snake oil and magic.


Now now Mr. Bee Man, we must not intimate that a system meets the standard when we have no THX gear now can we ? Saying that we own a nice receiver, speakers and subwoofers that play loud and a proper sized room does not mean we have met anything but a vague standard in the same way that saying we own a car that has 4 wheels, a v-8, power windows, air conditioning and a good ride, therefore we must own a Rolls. Not quite the same thing. 

Second, personally I have heard differences in "Some" cables so while I may kind of disagree with your findings about them, if we are to follow the THX standards, can we just throw out what we do not believe while retaining what we do believe ? This form of methodology makes everything Tom Holman has recommended to us and if we do not want to follow his thoughts, why qualify out systems as following his standard? Again, remember the standard is about power yes, but also proper reproduction of frequencies, blending properly with a subwoofer and overall build quality. Yes it is expensive and there is a reason for that. Kind of like that Rolls, there is a reason the car is so expensive eh ?? :innocent:


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Savjac said:


> Now now Mr. Bee Man, we must not intimate that a system meets the standard when we have no THX gear now can we ?


If you've taken the time to learn up on THX standards you can.



> ... if we are to follow the THX standards, can we just throw out what we do not believe while retaining what we do believe ?


THX standards are listed. This is not a mysterious enigma. There's no throwing out of a belief structure as there's no belief structure. There are THX standards and does the equipment meet these standards. One can pay extra for the THX logo if they're so inclined.



> Yes it is expensive and there is a reason for that.


It's a standard and no it's not expensive. The manufacture is paying to use the THX logo (licensing fee) but not having a THX logo on an AVR does not mean it doesn't exceed THX standards. And trying to draw a comparison between a Rolls and another vehicle is not a valid comparator as the price of the rolls and the AVR is based on manufacturing/material costs as opposed to having the ability to meet an "arbitrary" THX standard.

Again, just because an AVR manufacture didn't find it necessary to pay for THX licensing (marketing ploy) fees, doesn't mean the AVR in question fails to meet THX standards.

As to hearing differences in cables, once the curtain goes down on double-blind, ABX tests, accurately picking the cable in question, drops to less than fifty percent of random chance.

I want to believe in snake oil and magic. I'm dumb as a bag of hammers and I want to believe but everything I've taken the time to read, says I can't go down that road because there's no road to go down. Here's a mind blowing article.

Violinists can’t tell the difference between Stradivarius violins and new ones

But Claudia Fritz (a scientist who studies instrument acoustics) and Joseph Curtin (a violin-maker) may have discovered the real secret to a Stradivarius’s sound: nothing at all.

The duo asked professional violinists to play new violins, and old ones by Stradivari and Guarneri. *They couldn’t tell the difference between the two groups.* One of the new violins even emerged as the most commonly preferred instrument.

When the curtain goes down, the results are no better than random chance. I wish I was making this stuff up so I could continue believing in snake oil and magic. I want to believe but my limited education precludes this from happening. You have no idea how much I want to believe.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

BeeMan458 said:


> If you've taken the time to learn up on THX standards you can.
> 
> THX standards are listed. This is not a mysterious enigma. There's no throwing out of a belief structure as there's no belief structure. There are THX standards and does the equipment meet these standards. One can pay extra for the THX logo if they're so inclined.
> 
> ...


Thank You for the continued dialog. Please know that there is no reason not to believe in things that may not have as yet crossed your path. Education does not preclude these beliefs and only begs to have the listener add a bit more to his or her knowledge base to see the light or not. Having said that, I am still most curious why anyone would want to advertise and/or defend their beliefs, that a system is compliant with the THX standards and yet continues to remove certain portions of these standards by saying that wire is snake oil and applying for the ability to have goods certified is little more than a marketing ploy. If this is indeed a marketing ploy, might it not be in ones best interest to steer away from this ploy when bragging on ones system ?

In reviewing many of the writings in the field by so called experts, there is no clear correlation that THX certified products in and of themselves cost more than non-certified products. An example presented is that the the Onkyo TX-NR609 ($599) is THX-certified (Select2 Plus), while the Arcam AVR600 ($4995) is not. Most probably the Arcam would pass the tests needed but they must have felt they were not interested. Why is that ?? We may never know.

Next I would put forth this quote from above. 

"_THX standards are listed. This is not a mysterious enigma. There's no throwing out of a belief structure as there's no belief structure. There are THX standards and does the equipment meet these standards. _"

Please note that to this day, the particulars of THX's criteria are not public. Yes you may go ahead and sign up for classes and what have you, but as a general user, you will get generalizations as to what is trying to be achieved, but you will not get the particulars, those are held close to the chest indeed. 

In way of amplifiers , THX Ultra power amplifiers must have a certain amount of guts to work within the particulars set forth to the manufacturers. It is doubtful you will ever see one with less than 100 watts/channel continuous RMS, full band, all channels driven. This may be a good spec indeed and power output all channels driven is one i fully applaud. I do find it odd though that many of these receivers do show far less power all channels driven and have no real explanation. Receivers and amps alike are said to have passed more than 2,000 laboratory bench tests across 75 categories and covering 14,000 individual data points to ensure that every aspect of audio performance meets rigorous THX standards for theater-reference sound. I find that fascinating and would postulate that not many pieces of equipment out there can fill those shoes. 

The other major design characteristic of a THX speaker is that it is a dedicated satellite speaker which REQUIRES the support of a subwoofer. The THX speaker system therefore is categorically a sub/sat system.
THX does NOT wish the user to have full range speakers as there is no way to control how they meld with subs. Accordingly, the use of full range speakers in your home theater in essence makes that system decidedly Not THX compliant. Funny how things play out.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Savjac said:


> Please know that there is no reason not to believe in things that may not have as yet crossed your path. Education does not preclude these beliefs and only begs to have the listener add a bit more to his or her knowledge base to see the light or not.


My quandary, I'm educated enough to read but I'm ignorant enough to want to believe in snake oil. Pretty neat conundrum if you ask me.



> Having said that, I am still most curious why anyone would want to advertise and/or defend their beliefs, that a system is compliant with the THX standards and yet continues to remove certain portions of these standards by saying that wire is snake oil and applying for the ability to have goods certified is little more than a marketing ploy.


I'm not removing anything as the insides of retail AVRs are made with standard, readily available parts at commercial assembly plants around the world using PC boards made the same way. The AVRs are tested and the results are published.

Here are marketing examples where the user must pay to play. In the 20's, as I'm sure you know, it was called "Payola." Today it's called marketing fees.



> If this is indeed a marketing ploy, might it not be in ones best interest to steer away from this ploy when bragging on ones system ?


No reason to when in a conversation and the comments are within the context of the conversation. As a retail consumer I can comment but I'd bet if I was an AVR manufacturing business, THX would be all over me. You'll see from this link, Denon has many AVRs that hold THX certification. Marantz and Denon are part of the same company: D&M Group. They have THX certified gear and non-certified gear but it would be a press to say that Denon and Marantz flagship gear is dumbed down because it doesn't have a THX certification sticker.



> In reviewing many of the writings in the field by so called experts, there is no clear correlation that THX certified products in and of themselves cost more than non-certified products.


Which was the point when I responded: "It's a standard and no it's not expensive."



> An example presented is that the the Onkyo TX-NR609 ($599) is THX-certified (Select2 Plus), while the Arcam AVR600 ($4995) is not. Most probably the Arcam would pass the tests needed but they must have felt they were not interested. Why is that ?? We may never know.


Mark Seaton has never submitted his subs for testing by Josh Ricci of data-base dot com. The point, many realize their reputation precludes the need for testing or certification logos and their products sell despite the lack of empirical testing or a certification label by a third party. I'm still waiting for Mark to submit his subs for testing.

[quote}Next I would put forth this quote from above. 

"_THX standards are listed. This is not a mysterious enigma. There's no throwing out of a belief structure as there's no belief structure. There are THX standards and does the equipment meet these standards. _"

Please note that to this day, the particulars of THX's criteria are not public. Yes you may go ahead and sign up for classes and what have you, but as a general user, you will get generalizations as to what is trying to be achieved, but you will not get the particulars, those are held close to the chest indeed.[/quote]

THX standards 



> In way of amplifiers , THX Ultra power amplifiers must have a certain amount of guts to work within the particulars set forth to the manufacturers. It is doubtful you will ever see one with less than 100 watts/channel continuous RMS, full band, all channels driven. This may be a good spec indeed and power output all channels driven is one i fully applaud. I do find it odd though that many of these receivers do show far less power all channels driven and have no real explanation. Receivers and amps alike are said to have passed more than 2,000 laboratory bench tests across 75 categories and covering 14,000 individual data points to ensure that every aspect of audio performance meets rigorous THX standards for theater-reference sound. I find that fascinating and would postulate that not many pieces of equipment out there can fill those shoes.


I can't answer why any company would submit bogus specifications. As a consumer, that's why I'm dependent on third parties to test and publish data. I'm grateful for this information. 



> The other major design characteristic of a THX speaker is that it is a dedicated satellite speaker which REQUIRES the support of a subwoofer. The THX speaker system therefore is categorically a sub/sat system.
> THX does NOT wish the user to have full range speakers as there is no way to control how they meld with subs. Accordingly, the use of full range speakers in your home theater in essence makes that system decidedly Not THX compliant. Funny how things play out.


Working with you, in the early 90s it was like this but today, due to standards, this has all changed. Klipsch is our speaker of choice and they have their Palladium series.  Note their surrounds are 72Hz to 24kHz. The same with their center channel; 56Hz to 25kHz. The point, today's surround speaker system, as you suggest, is designed with subwoofers in mind.

Today, most if not all AVRs are equipped with bass management technology. High-end AVR manufactures pay licensing fees for use of top room correction software. Between included bass management ability, room analyzing software such as Audyssey XT32 w/SubEQ HT which can measure and correct in the time domain, and room correction software, common folk like me are able to measure and EQ a room very efficiently so as to meet THX acoustic standards.

Via the AVR's main menu, one has a great deal of individual channel control over bass. The standard that is encouraged, after running room corrections software is to set all speakers to small and all speaker channels to 80Hz to minimize any subwoofer location issues, hence why full range speakers and no longer necessary.

Our subs, speakers and amplification section are easily able to exceed THX Ultra II sound reproduction standards. This is verified using the above listed gear along with a calibrated Type 2 sound meter via a calibration device w/calibrated measuring microphone.

(and to be clear, I am not an expert and the best I can hope to rise to is that of an incompetent old man)


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Once again, thanks for your insight, however, it is clear you are not an incompetent old man. I think you may be down on yourself for reasons unknown, but it is clear to me that you are on top of your game quite well. I am older than most others on this forum and to be sure my take on a system such as you are putting forth is that it can go really loud as one of the guidelines of THX may point to. I see no other resemblance to a proper THX system in your possession, albeit I can only go by you photographs as your equipment is not listed so i may be way off base. 

I think you may wish to look closer at the page you linked to, which is quite lightweight indeed, but if you feel it is a good guide for you, please look closer as i quote for your guidance:

_All equipment used must be THX certified including the cables used for connecting them._ 

I guess therein lies the key here, so for my system, i decidedly fail, and for yours ??

Again, the ability of any given system to play loudly signifies nothing....other than the ability to play loudly which makes me think that maybe you are much younger than you indicate as most of us older dudes know the system can raise the roof, we just may not want it to. :laugh::laugh:


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

One reason a Manufacturer might not go through the THX licensing process is (I am going by what Dolby, and UL require which I assume is the same to a degree with THX) every model that they want certified must be sent to them for testing, and every model that is certified would then have to pay a licensing fee. As you can see it could get expensive to do this for the manufacturer, plus every time they come out with a newer model they must go through the whole process again. Now when UL Certifies they are certifying only what was submitted... Here is an example a PC fan is submitted for certification, and it passes... Then a heat sink is added to it. As soon as they added the heat sink it was no longer certified. 

As was pointed out above in the THX certification process... In order for the whole setup to be certified everything must be THX certified down to the interconnects, and speaker wire. Now think about this... If a Manufacturer only sells a receiver... Why should they get it THX certified unless it is for advertising as unless the wires are THX certified it doesn't mean anything (since most of the manufacturers of AVRs don't sell wires) other than it went through the THX certification process.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

ellisr63 said:


> One reason a Manufacturer might not go through the THX licensing process is (I am going by what Dolby, and UL require which I assume is the same to a degree with THX) every model that they want certified must be sent to them for testing, and every model that is certified would then have to pay a licensing fee. As you can see it could get expensive to do this for the manufacturer, plus every time they come out with a newer model they must go through the whole process again. Now when UL Certifies they are certifying only what was submitted... Here is an example a PC fan is submitted for certification, and it passes... Then a heat sink is added to it. As soon as they added the heat sink it was no longer certified.
> 
> As was pointed out above in the THX certification process... In order for the whole setup to be certified everything must be THX certified down to the interconnects, and speaker wire. Now think about this... If a Manufacturer only sells a receiver... Why should they get it THX certified unless it is for advertising as unless the wires are THX certified it doesn't mean anything (since most of the manufacturers of AVRs don't sell wires) other than it went through the THX certification process.


Thanks, I absolutely agree with what you have typed, no ands, ifs or buts. I think the THX certification is a good thing, if one wishes to go that route and you can be assured that in the end, it will mean something, but personally i have no interest. To go to the next step, most manufacturers as you correctly state, do not really care or need to go to all that trouble when their name tends to carry the weight of selling their brands. I think at one time THX was important to have stamped on your goods, but not so much anymore. As i indicated above, it is my belief that should one wish to indicate that their system is THX compliant, well then all parameters of the THX specs must be filled, otherwise, we can just say out system sounds great, goes loud and we love it. That should do it eh ??? :clap:


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

Savjac said:


> Once again, thanks for your insight, however, it is clear you are not an incompetent old man. I think you may be down on yourself for reasons unknown, but it is clear to me that you are on top of your game quite well.


It's easier to say that I'm dumb as a bag of hammers than it is to prove I'm not.  The comment is to keep a single point clear, I'm not an expert as I rattle on and on.

As to THX, it's a made up standard for making movies and money the industry embraced. It gives us plebs something to work with but the standards themselves were arbitrarily created to serve Skywalker Sound; The THX story.

This is an accepted expert's opinion who has been out there for many years and his comment regarding THX and non-THX.

"THX certified just means it was tested and qualified at the THX labs. if brand x decided not to sent there stuff to get tested, it doesn't get the sticker. but it could be higher quality than brand y that sent in their stuff and qualified."

You mentioned the $600.00 USD, Onkyo TX-NR609 and we're using Denon's flagship model, AVR4520CI which has the scaled down guts of the Marantz AV8801. Note, Marantz's flagship Pre-Pro isn't THX certified.

Note, as another example,  McIntosh amplifiers aren't THX certified. The list of high end amplifiers and Pre-Pros, selling for many of thousands of dollars that aren't THX certified, is a long one.

My apologies for not listing our system components as what we're using didn't seem germane to the discussion. I don't list gear in discussions as my opinion, my doing so is ego based as in look at the gear we're using. In my opinion, my doing this is inappropriate.

Denon AVR4520CI
Denon blu-ray player DBT-3313UDCI

All Klipsch speakers:
Mains: Epic CF-3s
Center Channel: RC-64 II
Surrounds: KSP-S6s

Subwoofers: Rythmik FV15HPs

Cables: various and assorted from Kimber PBJ to 12awg O2 free speaker wire to Mediabridge subwoofer and HDMI cables. It has been shown time and again, certified THX cables are snake oil as there's no measurable differences between certified and non-certified cables but companies like Monster are making a killing off the general public who are ignorant to this point.

As to a resemblance to a THX certified system, not only is our system easily able to obtain full on continuous THX reference playback levels but we're able to do so, distortion free; below hearing threshold. Also in our photo album, I've included subwoofer graphs showing that we're doing so with +/-3dB accuracy.



> As i indicated above, it is my belief that should one wish to indicate that their system is THX compliant, well then all parameters of the THX specs must be filled, otherwise, we can just say out system sounds great, goes loud and we love it. That should do it eh ???


That's your standard and you're welcome to keep it but I hope you won't get angry with me for not adopting your standard of communication.

I'm not sure if I can say anymore on this issue. Maybe someone else will pick up the conversation.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Thanks BeeMan, 

Enjoyed the conversation and you are right time to move on. I have not heard the Klipsch your own, I have a similar pair in the KLF-10's. They do rock especially for movies with the C-7 center channel engaged. I am so torn though, while the KLF-10's have incredible muscle and frankly no high end issues in my room, I really really love the float like a butterfly reproduction of the Martin Logans. And to think I almost sold the Logans to get a nice pair of the KLF-30's, I am not sure that would have been the right thing to do.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

ellisr63 said:


> One reason a Manufacturer might not go through the THX licensing process is (I am going by what Dolby, and UL require which I assume is the same to a degree with THX) every model that they want certified must be sent to them for testing, and every model that is certified would then have to pay a licensing fee. As you can see it could get expensive to do this for the manufacturer, plus every time they come out with a newer model they must go through the whole process again. Now when UL Certifies they are certifying only what was submitted... Here is an example a PC fan is submitted for certification, and it passes... Then a heat sink is added to it. As soon as they added the heat sink it was no longer certified.
> 
> As was pointed out above in the THX certification process... In order for the whole setup to be certified everything must be THX certified down to the interconnects, and speaker wire. Now think about this... If a Manufacturer only sells a receiver... Why should they get it THX certified unless it is for advertising as unless the wires are THX certified it doesn't mean anything (since most of the manufacturers of AVRs don't sell wires) other than it went through the THX certification process.


I very curious what cable certification looks like? What tests were conducted.. excuse the pun..


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

THX certification is much more than just a fancy badge, THX certification gives you some very useful processing modes that you do not get if the receiver is not certified. Once you have used these modes particularly THX cinema and THX Ultra you never go back.


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

When the lights go out......and the curtain goes down.......nobody can hear.......

(and if your cables aren't certified, they won't work)

moo baby moo......your system doesn't have a THX certification tag. And you want to expose me to this type of sonic abuse. What kind of friend are you?.......mumbling under breath......imagine, no THX certification.

The point, the purpose and history of THX is a known commodity and at this time and point, is a marketing ploy and nothing more. If it can't be measured, it only exists in the mind. I had know idea that one's mind was more powerful than all the testing equipment in the world.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

You dont miss what you dont have


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> You dont miss what you dont have


And since my system has everything, i'm not missing anything.. :rofl2: ..except for more time to enjoy it... :hissyfit:


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

3dbinCanada said:


> And since my system has everything, i'm not missing anything.. :rofl2: ..except for more time to enjoy it... :hissyfit:


Maybe if you gave up hockey playoff action.

......


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

Moderators.. I want to report an offensive post :rofl2:

when watching hockey, I do use the sports mode and it really gives me the sense of sitting at the arena. Yamaha may not have Audessey but their sound modes are the best bar none.




BeeMan458 said:


> Maybe if you gave up hockey playoff action.
> 
> ......


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

tonyvdb said:


> THX certification is much more than just a fancy badge, THX certification gives you some very useful processing modes that you do not get if the receiver is not certified. Once you have used these modes particularly THX cinema and THX Ultra you never go back.


I personally enjoy a THX certified receiver. However I do find the THX modes a little underwhelming. (No I don't use other sound modes. Game, or theater, or cinema etc). I agree that it's more than a fancy badge too. I've BMW doesn't just buy AMG badges do they?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The THX modes are specifically designed to improve a large theater room space it does not work well in a smaller theater room.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

tonyvdb said:


> The THX modes are specifically designed to improve a large theater room space it does not work well in a smaller theater room.


well, that is a good point. I think I would qualify as small space due to my LP to speaker distances. But when I account for all the additional spaces attached to my viewing/listening area, I could qualify for local cineplex!


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

I believe THX has four standards.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> The THX modes are specifically designed to improve a large theater room space it does not work well in a smaller theater room.


I have Ultra2 with an over 4,000 cf room and Ultra2 is for 3,000 cf rooms so I don't know if that changes the sound being a bigger room.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

I wonder this also. Just the 2 spaces adjoined in my house are roughly 7200 cu ft. My main viewing space however is about 4000.


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

BeeMan458 said:


> I believe THX has four standards.


Well the THX link states that it does Has 4 standards.... Think of it as "The good house keeping seal of approval" when it comes to HT. A set level of standards across the board to meet a level of playback intended. Whether it be speakers, amps, processors, wires, displays, etc....Now any given company can meet these standards. Maybe go beyond them. Apply for licensing and pay a fee to slap on the "THX" logo...... BUT keep in mind, just because said product isn't THX doesn't mean its not the equivalent. Some are, some aren't. I'm not talking $200 receivers at Best Buys. Lets not nitpick. You all know what I mean. You can buy a quality amplifier from any number of company's that aren't THX certified and it will go above and beyond the THX specs........ There's THX specs for the movie company producing the film. THX for the sound that goes with the film. THX for the theater that's playing the film. THX for the Blu-ray/DVD press. THX for all aspects of the home theater. Etc, etc, etc......Do we NEED it??? Thats up to each of us. What we Can count on is superior level of playback from something that's THX certified. 

The best experience I've had watching a movie is at IMAX. I don't recall THX flashing on the screen, announcing that its a THX IMAX theater so HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS!!! Maybe we should all be longing for IMAX badged equipment? Point is there is many levels of approval. I recall when you just had to have AC3 gear. But if you had an AC3 processor and junk speakers with 24 gauge wire, no sub, 3" woofers and 40w a channel amp, watching it all on your 25" TV from 16' away? Well you just wouldn't get the right effect!!!! lol....

I like to look at THX as a reference. You know you'll be getting quality out of that piece of equipment. If you pair that with other quality equipment you'll do fine. Lets not fight and debate anymore guys. Cant we all just get along?????


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

rawsawhd said:


> Well the THX link states that it does Has 4 standards.... Think of it as "The good house keeping seal of approval" when it comes to HT. A set level of standards across the board to meet a level of playback intended. Whether it be speakers, amps, processors, wires, displays, etc....Now any given company can meet these standards. Maybe go beyond them. Apply for licensing and pay a fee to slap on the "THX" logo...... BUT keep in mind, just because said product isn't THX doesn't mean its not the equivalent. Some are, some aren't. I'm not talking $200 receivers at Best Buys. Lets not nitpick. You all know what I mean. You can buy a quality amplifier from any number of company's that aren't THX certified and it will go above and beyond the THX specs........ There's THX specs for the movie company producing the film. THX for the sound that goes with the film. THX for the theater that's playing the film. THX for the Blu-ray/DVD press. THX for all aspects of the home theater. Etc, etc, etc......Do we NEED it??? Thats up to each of us. What we Can count on is superior level of playback from something that's THX certified.
> 
> The best experience I've had watching a movie is at IMAX. I don't recall THX flashing on the screen, announcing that its a THX IMAX theater so HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS!!! Maybe we should all be longing for IMAX badged equipment? Point is there is many levels of approval. I recall when you just had to have AC3 gear. But if you had an AC3 processor and junk speakers with 24 gauge wire, no sub, 3" woofers and 40w a channel amp, watching it all on your 25" TV from 16' away? Well you just wouldn't get the right effect!!!! lol....
> 
> I like to look at THX as a reference. You know you'll be getting quality out of that piece of equipment. If you pair that with other quality equipment you'll do fine. Lets not fight and debate anymore guys. Cant we all just get along?????


Have you tried a Dolby Atmos movie yet? I did and IMO it was better than IMAX. :T


----------



## rawsawhd (Apr 10, 2014)

ellisr63 said:


> Have you tried a Dolby Atmos movie yet? I did and IMO it was better than IMAX. :T


No I havent. I do recall just recently reading something about that. Isnt it like 30+ channels or something??? The question is, do you/we have Dolby Atmos certified equipment yet????? lol.... I'm sorry, I've been watching the posts on this thread and I'm just finding it funny how its gonna way off topic with this THX discussion... Ok, I'm off to bed, good night all.....


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

rawsawhd said:


> No I havent. I do recall just recently reading something about that. Isnt it like 30+ channels or something??? The question is, do you/we have Dolby Atmos certified equipment yet????? lol.... I'm sorry, I've been watching the posts on this thread and I'm just finding it funny how its gonna way off topic with this THX discussion... Ok, I'm off to bed, good night all.....


Yeah, you are right...


Let's get back on topic everyone. :T


----------



## BeeMan458 (Nov 25, 2012)

ellisr63 said:


> Let's get back on topic everyone. :T


Isn't discussing a standard, regarding a question of this type, on topic?

In the end, isn't it all about the ability/size of a power supply, the ultimate goal being, the achieving of a standardized goal.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

I think rawsawhd was right and, I am to blame for it too... The Dolby Atmos, and THX is a bit off topic imo. :T


----------

