# Does the weight of the receiver determine how good the amp is?



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

It seems like modern receivers are becoming lighter and lighter. Sure most are loaded with bells and whistles like the new Denon avr x3300w with XT32 yet it only weights around 24 lbs.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Depends on what type of amps it uses. if they use class D amps there would be less weight than traditional A/B amps. Remember my post a couple years ago, it seemed to indicate that for receivers with A/B amplification weight did make a difference driving more than two channels because of the larger power supply..


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> Depends on what type of amps it uses. if they use class D amps there would be less weight than traditional A/B amps. Remember my post a couple years ago, it seemed to indicate that for receivers with A/B amplification weight did make a difference driving more than two channels because of the larger power supply..


Yes I know D amps weigh less and are much cooler but A/B amps they seem to be really light these days. That's why I'm wondering how well can they drive the speakers being so light. 
Our 805 can drive just about any speaker without breaking a sweat. You then upgrade avr for the modern audio preprocessing but you get a feather amp. It seems like a trade off.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

well the Denon X7200 weighs in at 37lbs (our Onkyo 805 weighs 55lbs) and bench tests on the X7200 get fairly decent results at 122 watts 5 channels driven. So I would say that there is some reduction in weight in other areas as well.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> well the Denon X7200 weighs in at 37lbs (our Onkyo 805 weighs 55lbs) and bench tests on the X7200 get fairly decent results at 122 watts 5 channels driven. So I would say that there is some reduction in weight in other areas as well.


Yeah and the x7200 is more than twice the price of the 805. More features but weights less.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> well the Denon X7200 weighs in at 37lbs (our Onkyo 805 weighs 55lbs) and bench tests on the X7200 get fairly decent results at 122 watts 5 channels driven. So I would say that there is some reduction in weight in other areas as well.


Careful with ACD tests as what is really happening is that you are actually only testing the sensitivity of the protection circuit..nothing more. The 2 channels full bandwidth test are far more indicative of what an AVR can do.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

asere said:


> Yeah and the x7200 is more than twice the price of the 805. More features but weights less.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Without knowing what part of the AVR went on a weightloss diet, one simply cannot equate weight with power. It doesn't work like that.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

3dbinCanada said:


> Careful with ACD tests as what is really happening is that you are actually only testing the sensitivity of the protection circuit..nothing more. The 2 channels full bandwidth test are far more indicative of what an AVR can do.


S&V does these bench tests properly from what I understand. They do full frequency tests not just 1Khz and look for distortion so ACD tests can be reveling.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> S&V does these bench tests properly from what I understand. They do full frequency tests not just 1Khz and look for distortion so ACD tests can be reveling.


Its nice to see that S&V is using full bandwidth in their ACD tests but this doesn't negate the fact that what is really being tested is the sensitivity setting of the protection mechanism. As an example, Yamaha typically does poorly on the ACD test because of their overly sensitive protection circuit, yet in two channel testing, stomps the competition into the dirt. 

From this link; http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/rx-a3000/rx-a3000-measurements-cont


The Yamaha RX-A3000 handedly exceeded its 140wpc power rating continuously with two channels driven and stomped out an impressive 236wpc both channels driven into 4 ohms; and that’s a full power bandwidth measurement (20Hz to 20kHz at 0.1% THD + N). It proved to be every bit as powerful as their more expensive RX-Z7 mode. You can see the protection circuit kick on during our ACD tests, purposely limiting power to 65wpc. In short time, there is no doubt in my mind forum lurkers seeing this will pop up on our site or AVS Forum bashing Yamaha, not realizing the design purpose of power limiting a multi channel amplifier in a compact chassis, or the reality that real world program material will never trip this limiter circuitry. Thus we conducted dynamic burst power measurements simulating real world program content. Interestingly enough the RX-A3000 delivered similar dynamic power output ACD into 8 ohm loads and slightly more power two channels driven into 4 ohm loads than the Emotiva UPA-7 dedicated multi-channel power amplifier that is designed to deliver rated power continuously into all channels as can be seen in the comparison table below.
# of CH Test Type Power Load THD + N
2 CFP-BW 140 watts 8-ohms 0.1%
2 CFP-BW 238 watts 4-ohms 0.1%
7 1kHz Psweep 108 watts 8-ohms 0.1%
7 1kHz Psweep 117 watts 8-ohms 1%
2 1kHz Psweep 240 watts 4-ohms 0.1%
2 1kHz Psweep 252 watts 4-ohms 1%
7 Dynamic PWR 156 watts 8-ohms 1%
2 Dynamic PWR 320 watts 4-ohms 1%

Emotiva UPA-7 Power Measurement Table


It's clear that the Yamaha RX-A3000 delivers more than rated power with up to two channels driven and tons of dynamic headroom (1.9dB for 8 ohms based on their 140wpc power rating). Let no skeptic tell you otherwise, the RX-A3000 has a respectable amplifier section not only for a receiver but for a modestly priced seven channel power amplifier.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

3dbinCanada said:


> Its nice to see that S&V is using full bandwidth in their ACD tests but this doesn't negate the fact that what is really being tested is the sensitivity setting of the protection mechanism. As an example, Yamaha typically does poorly on the ACD test because of their overly sensitive protection circuit, yet in two channel testing, stomps the competition into the dirt.


I agree, but the Yamaha RX-A3000 is also 38lbs so on the heaver side.
To prove my point is the review of the Onkyo 805 which is still possibly one of the strongest receivers ever made weighing in at 55lbs measured 270watts into 2 channels at a 4ohm load and 173 watts into an 8ohm load
http://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_3/onkyo-tx-sr805-receiver-9-2006-part-5.html 

So no matter how you slice it my stance that a heaver receiver will still outperform one that weighs in at only 25 or less lbs still stands.

regarding source material not needing more than 65watts of power Ive linked to several different places in the past and Im not going to bother trying to find them now but in one test done a simply snare drum was hit hard and that induced a draw on the amp of somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 watts so there is plenty of musical instruments alone that can task an amp and movie soundtracks are even more demanding these days sending information to all 7 channels at high levels.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> I agree, but the Yamaha RX-A3000 is also 38lbs so on the heaver side.
> To prove my point is the review of the Onkyo 805 which is still possibly one of the strongest receivers ever made weighing in at 55lbs measured 270watts into 2 channels at a 4ohm load and 173 watts into an 8ohm load
> http://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_3/onkyo-tx-sr805-receiver-9-2006-part-5.html
> 
> So no matter how you slice it my stance that a heaver receiver will still outperform one that weighs in at only 25 or less lbs still stands.



That Onkyo was a formidable AVR and I'm not arguing that. But, make sure we're talking about the same class of amplifier as there are many Class D amps that are much lighter than 55 pounds that will easily keep up or surpass the Onkyo. My points are these; unqualified generalizations shouldn't be made and weight alone is no way of determining the quality of an amplifier. The 2nd point is ACDs tests are bogus for the following reasons; a) Its not a real life scenario where all channels in AVR are receiving full bandwidth signals at the same amplitude, and b)...it really only tests the sensitivity of the protection circuit. These are my points.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

You did not read my earlier poost as i clearly said I am taling about A/B amplification not Class D

I think you might have missed my edit in the previous post:
regarding source material not needing more than 65watts of power Ive linked to several different places in the past and Im not going to bother trying to find them now but in one test done a simple snare drum was hit hard and that induced a draw on the amp of somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 watts at a level of 90db so there is plenty of musical instruments alone that can task an amp and movie soundtracks are even more demanding these days sending information to all 7 channels at high levels.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> You did not read my earlier poost as i clearly said I am taling about A/B amplification not Class D


Ok.. as long as there is some qualification around generalizations. 



tonyvdb said:


> I think you might have missed my edit in the previous post:
> regarding source material not needing more than 65watts of power Ive linked to several different places in the past and Im not going to bother trying to find them now but in one test done a simple snare drum was hit hard and that induced a draw on the amp of somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 watts at a level of 90db so there is plenty of musical instruments alone that can task an amp and movie soundtracks are even more demanding these days sending information to all 7 channels at high levels.


What you have demonstrated with your measurements is that you saw one or perhaps two channels with a temporary or instantaneous peek draw. This is far from the ACD which is based on much longer time periods or steady state. The signal of a drum thwack is also bandwidth limited. Even the lighter amps can provide instantaneous power draw but the heavier amps can do it for a longer periods of time before they too run out of power. My point still stands that ACD tests are unrealistic as *not all channels contain full bandwidth signals at the same levels. *

Generally, when one is building a home theater or audio room, one should purchase the speakers first to best meet the room size and desired volume levels and match the AVR's power capabilities of driving into 2 channels, the volume desired coupled with the speaker's sensitivities and load impedances. If one has a small room and doesn't require or demand earth shattering SPLs coupled with easy to drive speakers, then a lightweight AVR will perform in that environment to the same level as a heavy weight AVR.


----------



## drummerboy1962 (Jul 13, 2016)

asere said:


> It seems like modern receivers are becoming lighter and lighter. Sure most are loaded with bells and whistles like the new Denon avr x3300w with XT32 yet it only weights around 24 lbs.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


 I like to think it does but times are changing. I can only answer this question as being an owner of a 67kg monster that has never let me down and is a renowned beast of an amp.I have the Denon POA-A1HD and can vouch for its build and reliability.My matching Denon pre/pro is a 32kg monster and is as reliable as my amp provided i keep it like that. On the other hand i have a pioneer sclx86 receiver at 17kg and that too is reliable as i keep it dust free. Some Mark levinson amps are on the light side and we all know how good they are.Well when i say light i mean in comparison to my POA. Also to note that i know off a good few people have upgraded from the denon AVPA1HD 32kg monster to the marantz 8802 at around 17kg but it is the latest pre/pro with the bells and whistles.So people are sacrificing build quality for the latest bells and whistles and they are people that have experience in home theater and audio.But i think weight and build do matter to a degree. Too early for me to invest in a tin box yet but times are slowly changing again.:smile: The photo below is the delivery of my 67kg amp.


----------



## drummerboy1962 (Jul 13, 2016)

3dbinCanada said:


> Without knowing what part of the AVR went on a weightloss diet, one simply cannot equate weight with power. It doesn't work like that.


I think you are correct to a degree depending on the make off the amp.On the other hand I feel the weight of an amp can contribute to the reliability and even that depends on the maker also.I know one thing for sure and that being that I have tried 2 different amps with my Denon Avp and my Poa has more grunt and gut feeling after my test than the lighter amp which was rated at 190 watt per channel.This test I did was for movies only though and was not thorough but all the same I did notice a difference without getting into splitting hairs.I have always been of the opinion that it does matter but I could be wrong.:smile:


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

drummerboy1962 said:


> I think you are correct to a degree depending on the make off the amp.On the other hand I feel the weight of an amp can contribute to the reliability and even that depends on the maker also.I know one thing for sure and that being that I have tried 2 different amps with my Denon Avp and my Poa has more grunt and gut feeling after my test than the lighter amp which was rated at 190 watt per channel.This test I did was for movies only though and was not thorough but all the same I did notice a difference without getting into splitting hairs.I have always been of the opinion that it does matter but I could be wrong.:smile:


By specifying the manufacturer and model, you are already adding qualifications. I stand by argument  that unqualified generalizations shouldn't be made and weight alone is no way of determining the quality of an amplifier.


----------



## drummerboy1962 (Jul 13, 2016)

I find this subject really interesting and have always thought about this topic but have never posted anything on it.I have always owned heavy amps and have always thought that the heavier the amp the better due to the fact of what parts are being used.But yet again I am not a tech and don't know how to build one.I also have been in the state of mind that anything less than 17kg is a tin box.I don't know if I should be thinking like that.


----------



## drummerboy1962 (Jul 13, 2016)

asere said:


> Yes I know D amps weigh less and are much cooler but A/B amps they seem to be really light these days. That's why I'm wondering how well can they drive the speakers being so light.
> Our 805 can drive just about any speaker without breaking a sweat. You then upgrade avr for the modern audio preprocessing but you get a feather amp. It seems like a trade off.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


 You know that's a good point you bring up about the speakers,as my Yamaha Hx speakers according to a reviewer perform better with more power.Well in short they are power hungry.I now gather that the current amp I have and are using is suited to my speakers better than my pioneer.My pioneer weighs around 15kg and my Denon 67kg.The specs on paper as far as watts go is very similar between the two amps but because the heavier amp being the Denon is way heavier and sounds better to my ears I am putting it down to build quality hence the weight.Like I said before I am no tech and have no knowelege of putting an amp together but I can feel the difference in movies between the two amps.I can hear the difference in the vocals believe it or not the Denon has more depth and tends to go lower.But I must add one important aspect of my test and that with the pioneer being a receiver I was using its multichannel inputs and only its amp section as I paired it with my Avpa1hd and it is not a dedicated amp as such.Bit still it's amp is Rated by pioneer at 190 watts per Chanel.The Denon on the other hand is the matching amp to same pre/pro that I tested the pioneer with so I can also understand why it sounds better,plus being a dedicated amp.The test I did was not a true test in terms of so called fairness but I was happy still with my Denon and came to the end conclusion that the money I spent on it and the choice I made was correct.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

For this thread to have more merrit, let's restrict the arguments to the same amplifier class, avr to avr, power amp to power amp. If these conditions are met, I believe the heavier unit would have more power reserves if the weight added is due to a more powerful and robust power supply. The other point I would like to make is that a more powerful amp doesn't make a less powerful amp (assuming conditions met that I outlined above) of lesser quality. If one never uses the full potential of a more powerful amp, then the less powerful would work just as cleanly. The take away I've learned in this thread is to match one's amp to both the speaker's load and room size.


----------



## drummerboy1962 (Jul 13, 2016)

Yea I agree and I think matching the hatch is very important too.I am very fortunate that I have a building 8x5 metres out back soundproofed and dedicated which justifies my Denon otherwise I would really not need it.In that case I think it matters to the extent of the open possibilities of a heavier amp in my case.I love the macintosh amps too and they are a little on the heavy side also.I love their new pre/pro,s.The mx160 would be an awesome pre with all the latest bells and whistles.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

It certainly seems like weight is a good indicator of overall quality... hard to know how much of that lends to actual build quality vs amp performance. 

When it comes to power and performance, nothing is as disappointing of trying to drive the show with an amp that tops-out and shows its limitations. My inclination is to go overkill on the power-side, just to be on the safe side


----------



## DqMcClain (Sep 16, 2015)

Circuitry architecture, like A, A/B, D, T etc, will have some effect on the mass of the finished product... but that effect is insignificant compared to the design of the power supply. The weight you're all experiencing is almost always due to the presence of a large toroidal or EI transformer wound entirely out of solid copper wire, heavy gauge and lots of it. These linear power supplies are nearly indestructible as long as you stay within the specs, and deliver power very predictably... and more important they deliver power constantly. Each approach (EI vs toroidal) has its pitfalls, but skillful design and assembly can get around them.

Switch-mode power supplies rely on pass transistors that are full-on or full-off in order to deliver power. They are generally much more efficient than traditional transformers, given that they only deliver power when asked... and they're smaller and lighter. They got a bad rap a few decades ago because of a few things. 1) switching frequencies were too low, resulting in loss of efficiency which in turn resulted in unstable power. 2) Lack of good design resulted in the process of switching generating EMI for the device drawing power and 3) companies that were making low-end equipment were the first to adopt the technology because of the relative ease and inexpensiveness of manufacturing. These three things taken together gave us the association of switch-mode power supplies with bad gear. And it isn't that the association is unfounded... it WAS bad gear, and the WERE poorly constructed power supplies. But at this point, knowledge of the design process and the availability of high quality components at lower prices have yielded SMPS's that are as clean and reliable as their linear cousins. 

Take the current line of Crown XLS amps; the most grotesquely obese model in the line weighs in just shy of 16lbs... and it will dump 775W x2 into 4Ohms. (I know... specs lie). I'm using these (1000's and 1500's) in my system right now, and they sound great. The old models (202 through 802) had chunky toroidal transformers... and they also sounded great. 

Even though I definitely prefer a little heft in my gear, I don't think it's necessarily an indication of quality over a lighter unit... so why do we, myself included, prefer the heavy stuff given the choice?


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

DqMcClain said:


> ... so why do we, myself included, prefer the heavy stuff given the choice?


I think it helps to lend to the feeling of quality...and when your dumping hundreds to thousands into a rather small item, you want to feel like you're getting your money's worth. Validation is a big thing when spending.


----------



## drummerboy1962 (Jul 13, 2016)

Todd Anderson said:


> I think it helps to lend to the feeling of quality...and when your dumping hundreds to thousands into a rather small item, you want to feel like you're getting your money's worth. Validation is a big thing when spending.


 That's right,you think about it for a second nearly all electrical stuff these days are throw away items as they are expected to last a certain time and then not worth the repair to a degree.Most amps are basically classed by knowledgeable enthusiasts as tin boxes and that is what I wanted to stay clear off once I gained a little knowledge.Phones,fridges,washing machines and anything else that has the potential to fail and amps are no exception.That is what I was afraid off,I basically did not want to be replacing my gear every time something went wrong.I am really happy with my pre and amp and I have no craving for atmos at the moment as the build quality,sound,and video processing is all there for me.I love the weighty pre's and amps and even my bluray player is 17kg,and when I eject the disc you can almost feel the sturdy toughness in the drive.You can hear the difference too and it's reassuring.


----------



## DqMcClain (Sep 16, 2015)

Todd Anderson said:


> I think it helps to lend to the feeling of quality...and when your dumping hundreds to thousands into a rather small item, you want to feel like you're getting your money's worth. Validation is a big thing when spending.


So, if I ever get into the manufacturing business, I need to put decent SMPS into my gear, nice looking aluminum chassis, and a 3/16" solid steel plate on the bottom to add mass.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

Pretty much! ;-)

So much goes into the interaction with a piece of equipment... I think it's safe to assume that gear perceived to be quality through materials and physical presence will always be given the benefit of the doubt! ;-)


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

> *Does the weight of the receiver determine how good the amp is?*


No.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

ajinfla said:


> No.


Short, sweet, succinct.


I like it.


----------

