AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Wattage Specs - Receivers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wattage Specs - Receivers

post #1 of 62
11/30/09 at 12:23pm
Thread Starter 
This is a general question about the wattage specs given by the manufacturers (mfr)

I know mfr like to play games with their specs, but how does this translate to the RW performance?

for example all these receivers are in the $200 to $500 range,

Denon AVR-1610 - 75 W/channel

Sony STR-DN1000 - 110 W/channel

Yamaha RX-V565 - 90 W/channel

Onkyo TX-SR507 - 80 W/channel

Pioneer VSX-819H-K - 110 W/channel

These ratings span 35 watts!

As I won't be having external amps anytime soon, I'd like to have as much *clean* power as possible... should I trust the brand to be honest or should I trust the specs?

also if you have anything to say about any of the models i listed above... please comment as I am trying to make a decision (as everyone else is heh) ...i'm also looking for one with OSD

thanks for the feedback guys.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 62
11/30/09 at 1:15pm
You're never going to know the real world power ratings without one of the professional mags doing bench test in their labs on the receiver.

Of the receivers you listed I would get the Denon 1610. It converts analog sources to HDMI and has the best room calibration software of the receivers on your list.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 62
11/30/09 at 1:37pm
I agree. Many receivers only give power output for the Left and Right Speakers, once you go 7.1 those figures stretch out. I think one magazine found a 100 watt consumer level receiver could readily be max at 45 watts in 7.1.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 62
11/30/09 at 1:50pm
Most of these receivers do not come that close to their real world power output. The ones that do come closest are the Onkyo's,Denon's,Marantz and Pioneer Elites. Also though many believe that THX certification is not that important for some brands, it does mean that it at least gets closer to stated specs than others. Some of these things are even rated for 1 channel driven, and still don't meet specs. Be sure to try and find a test report on some of your choices(or at least a model close to it) and read them. This does not mean some opinion from someone like CNET. They are not test reports, they are listening test. You want bench reports. Do a little research before you buy, in the range you want to spend, and read a test if you can find one. Of the ones you have listed I would tend to believe that the 1610 would be the one that would be the best of the lot.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 62
11/30/09 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BassFreq View Post

This is a general question about the wattage specs given by the manufacturers (mfr)

I know mfr like to play games with their specs, but how does this translate to the RW performance?

for example all these receivers are in the $200 to $500 range,

Denon AVR-1610 - 75 W/channel

Sony STR-DN1000 - 110 W/channel

Yamaha RX-V565 - 90 W/channel

Onkyo TX-SR507 - 80 W/channel

Pioneer VSX-819H-K - 110 W/channel

These ratings span 35 watts!

As I won't be having external amps anytime soon, I'd like to have as much *clean* power as possible... should I trust the brand to be honest or should I trust the specs?

also if you have anything to say about any of the models i listed above... please comment as I am trying to make a decision (as everyone else is heh) ...i'm also looking for one with OSD

thanks for the feedback guys.

What loudspeakers will be used?

Just my $0.01...
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 62
11/30/09 at 5:55pm
Most receivers have posted their maximum power consumption in either watts or amps. A good rule of thumb is to use the posted maximum power consumption and covert it to watts if it is in amps, then divide it by the number of channels driven, exclude the LFE channel, and multiple that power consumption by 0.75 and that should yield approximately the maximum power that can be suppled to a single channel. If amps are used then divide that maximum amps by 120 volts to yield the maximum watts. The 0.75 is approximately the amount of power available to drive the speakers. For example, one of the receiver that I have is the Sony STR-DN1000. It's post power maximum consumption is 250 watts. Divide that by 5, I a driving 5 channels, and you have 50 watts per channel. Again multiple the previous calculation by 0.75 and now you have 37.5 watts per channel maximum. Now I know that there are many other variables that will come into play, however this is one quick method that will get you into the ballpark.

It would be nice if everyone would standardize on a power rating like 100 watts 20-20Khz @ 0.08%THD driving 8 ohms.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 62
11/30/09 at 6:28pm
Grand puba's method is what I've found to be a fair way of rating power. I would also add, look at the stereo power as this is a spec defined by the FTC.

I have the vsx-919 which has the same amps as the vsx-1019. It is bi-amped to drive a passive sub and will still drive my system distortion free to ear spliting volumes. It is a great avr for the money. Here is a link to a test report pdf. The site also has a nice review.

Now once you get the power figured out, try to forget about it. There are a lot of variables (speaker efficiency, room size, speaker size, volume preference, etc) that effect precieved sound quality/volume. Go for the features you need at a price that is fair to you. There are a lot of reviews out there
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 62
12/1/09 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand PuBa View Post


It would be nice if everyone would standardize on a power rating like 100 watts 20-20Khz @ 0.08%THD driving 8 ohms.

In pratical applications when would you have an 8 ohm load that never fluctuates? I never understood why people care so much about this specification. Especially when 50 watts and 100 watts = 3 db volume difference.

Mark
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 62
12/1/09 at 8:41am
One thing you could look at would be power consumption. Another would be weight, but that's going to vary for reasons other than power transformer size.

I do know that the MFG rated spec is not very useful.

Sometimes you can find benchmarks which rate all channels driven into 8 ohms 20hz to 20khz continuous, but I have seen benchmarks of the same receiver with differing numbers, so don't place too much faith in that either.

It's a bit easier comparing receivers from the same manufacturer. If the chasis size is identical, and one receiver is signficantly heavier than another, you are likely seeing a difference in transformer size, and the heavier receiver should be more powerful.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 62
12/3/09 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand PuBa View Post

Most receivers have posted their maximum power consumption in either watts or amps. A good rule of thumb is to use the posted maximum power consumption and covert it to watts if it is in amps, then divide it by the number of channels driven, exclude the LFE channel, and multiple that power consumption by 0.75 and that should yield approximately the maximum power that can be suppled to a single channel. If amps are used then divide that maximum amps by 120 volts to yield the maximum watts. The 0.75 is approximately the amount of power available to drive the speakers. For example, one of the receiver that I have is the Sony STR-DN1000. It's post power maximum consumption is 250 watts. Divide that by 5, I a driving 5 channels, and you have 50 watts per channel. Again multiple the previous calculation by 0.75 and now you have 37.5 watts per channel maximum. Now I know that there are many other variables that will come into play, however this is one quick method that will get you into the ballpark.

It would be nice if everyone would standardize on a power rating like 100 watts 20-20Khz @ 0.08%THD driving 8 ohms.

What happens when the "Power Consumption" in the spec is listed as something like: 8.1 A?

What's the formula to convert that into watts?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 62
12/3/09 at 11:49am
Quote:
What happens when the "Power Consumption" in the spec is listed as something like: 8.1 A?

It should be called current consumption.


Quote:
What's the formula to convert that into watts?

Multiply the current by the voltage.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 62
12/3/09 at 12:32pm
There are a number of things that matter more than the advertised ratings:

1. Power supply wattage (you can't squeeze 600 watts out of a 200 watts PSU - this should be your first check)
2. Amperage (affects impedance support - the greater the better if you have speakers which impedance dip low)
3. Efficiency of the amplification stage (determines how many watts are usable - I have seen some amps advertise their 1500 watts PSU, but only output 1/3rd of that as usable power with be bulk being dissipated as heat)
4. Dynamic power (short term peaks can be satisfied through capacitance)

If you know these things, you can predict with great confidence how well an amp will perform power wise.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 62
12/3/09 at 12:37pm
Based on historical bench tests and recent trends, here's what things look like to me in the sub $500 receiver market:

Yamaha - Amp sections are light over the last couple of years; probably no more than 40wpc into 5.

Pioneer - The 1019 was benched and it came in around 28wpc into 5. Elite will likely do much better for a few bucks over $500.

Onkyo - Good amp sections. Usually come in around 70-80% of stated power and do well into 4 ohms.

Marantz - Usually meet their stated specs and do well into 4 ohms.

Denon - Usually meet their stated specs into 8 ohms; mixed bag into 4 ohms.

Harman/Kardon - Almost always underrated. You will get what they state at a minimum.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 62
12/3/09 at 12:51pm
Depends on the Yamaha receiver...a number of Yamaha receivers do better than 40 watts into 5 channels. You should qualify your statements a bit more

A lot of those other companies you mention have models where they definitely DO NOT meet rated spec with 5 or more channels driven. Again, a generalization I can't agree with, no offense.

With the exception of Harmon Kardon, who does measure all channels driven, most of those other brands will fall somewhat short of their rated spec on most models. The cheaper the model, the more they will tend to fall short.

I base this on having looked at many, many reviews with benchmarks over the last few years.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 62
12/3/09 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Depends on the Yamaha receiver...a number of Yamaha receivers do better than 40 watts into 5 channels. You should qualify your statements a bit more

I haven't seen one over the last 2 years that do better in the sub $500 market. Even the 863 performed poorly on the bench when driving 5 channels.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 62
12/3/09 at 12:55pm
I missed that you said sub $500. In that case, I would say almost every sub $500 receiver falls short.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 62
12/3/09 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

I missed that you said sub $500. In that case, I would say almost every sub $500 receiver falls short.

HK never falls short. Denon and Onkyo usually do well, but you're right, they'll fall a little short. Marantz typically costs more than $500 so I probably should have excluded them from the list.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 62
12/3/09 at 1:01pm
As I said, HK measures with all channels driven. If I find an example of a case where those other brands fall short, I will post it. I recall seeing some.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 62
12/3/09 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

As I said, HK measures with all channels driven. If I find an example of a case where those other brands fall short, I will post it. I recall seeing some.

I have no doubt. I'm grossly generalizing and of course there are always exceptions. I missed that you mentioned HK a few posts earlier. If HK would start using a real EQ system like Audyssey and work the bugs out of their software, I wouldn't buy anything else
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 62
12/3/09 at 1:04pm
Here's an Onkyo benchmark. It's more than $500. Look at the 7-channel specs. No where near rated power. This is the norm, not the exception for many models from many brands.

http://hometheatermag.com/receivers/...er/index4.html
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 62
12/3/09 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BassFreq View Post

should I trust the brand to be honest or should I trust the specs?

Trust the power usage at the wall. Or the VA reading on the transformer. It will be printed in the specs of the manual.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 62
12/3/09 at 1:06pm
This Denon $1200 model does quite well! But still not rated power. Except for HK, or maybe some Euro brand, I don't recall EVER having seen a receiver hit rated power.

http://hometheatermag.com/receivers/...er/index4.html
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 62
12/3/09 at 1:10pm
Here's a lower model Denon. Not that recent, but it's hard to find benchmarks. You can see it falls way off with 5 channels driven. Again, this is the norm for receivers in this price class.

http://hometheatermag.com/receivers/...on/index2.html

So I can't say I agree with your assesment. It's best to not make generalizations as different models will do better or worse in terms of meeting rated power with 5 or 7 channels driven.

Blame the FTC. They allowed for the phrase associated channels to used in this way. Far as I know, associated channels could be only one channel. But it's often two. And many receivers do meet (or come very close,) to rated power with two channels driven.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 62
12/3/09 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Blame the FTC. They allowed for the phrase associated channels to used in this way. Far as I know, associated channels could be only one channel. But it's often two. And many receivers do meet (or come very close,) to rated power with two channels driven.

I have, but they don't take me seriously 2-channel is a different animal as quite a few of the receivers I've seen benched exceed their stated power into 2 channels (at 8 ohms). Even budget models like the Pioneer 918.

But you're probably right when measuring into 5+ channels. I'll simply say that in the sub $500 market, you will likely get the better amp sections buying HK, Denon, and Onkyo if we're talking about current models.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 62
12/3/09 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnatalli View Post

I have, but they don't take me seriously 2-channel is a different animal as quite a few of the receivers I've seen benched exceed their stated power into 2 channels (at 8 ohms). Even budget models like the Pioneer 918.

But you're probably right when measuring into 5+ channels. I'll simply say that in the sub $500 market, you will likely get the better amp sections buying HK, Denon, and Onkyo if we're talking about current models.

Are you aware...
1. The Onkyo AVRs are designed by the development team that has been designing HK AVRs for the last 7 years.
2. The Denon and Pioneer AVRs are built in the same China factory, and the factory is not owned by either brand.

Regarding real power output measurements, only 1 brand is honest for this disclosure.. HK..
Pioneer, Denon and Yamaha may meet their output power spec with (2) channels driven but when all (7) channels are driven this spec is reduced by about 75%.

Just my $0.01...
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 62
12/3/09 at 3:13pm
In some cases more than 75%.

I don't know why we always have this discussion I don't mean you and me, I mean the thread people in general.

Here's the facts -

* The FTC rule calls for measuring all associated channels. What's an associated channel? You got me. Near as I can tell, a lot of MFGs are using speaker pairs like L/R; some might test with one channel only
* Almost no receivers meet rated spec with all channels driven; HK is an exception because they specifically rate all channels driven; their amps also have less rated power (they don't seem to have a magic formula for making lots more power for a given price tag than anyone else.)
* The primary limiting factor is the likely the transformer. More expensive receivers put a bigger transformer into the receiver; there's either a current limiter who's limits are were based on the transformer, or the transformer can't hold rail voltage under load (I am still trying to determine which happens first.)

Nothing can be done about this. It's the way it is, so to speak. Your best bet is to figure on either spending more money on a receiver to avoid the most underpowered budget models (for example looking at $600 and up receivers,) or buying an external amp, or simply living with the limitations of your receiver.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 62
12/3/09 at 4:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

In some cases more than 75%.

I don't know why we always have this discussion I don't mean you and me, I mean the thread people in general.

Here's the facts -

* The FTC rule calls for measuring all associated channels. What's an associated channel? You got me. Near as I can tell, a lot of MFGs are using speaker pairs like L/R; some might test with one channel only
* Almost no receivers meet rated spec with all channels driven; HK is an exception because they specifically rate all channels driven; their amps also have less rated power (they don't seem to have a magic formula for making lots more power for a given price tag than anyone else.)
* The primary limiting factor is the likely the transformer. More expensive receivers put a bigger transformer into the receiver; there's either a current limiter who's limits are were based on the transformer, or the transformer can't hold rail voltage under load (I am still trying to determine which happens first.)

Nothing can be done about this. It's the way it is, so to speak. Your best bet is to figure on either spending more money on a receiver to avoid the most underpowered budget models (for example looking at $600 and up receivers,) or buying an external amp, or simply living with the limitations of your receiver.

Michael..
This topic is raised frequently because power output is the number 1 question raised about AVRs.. And as the US $ weakens the primary AVR brands continually are stripping out the higher-quality, costly internal parts and real output power decreases..

As long as certain primary Japanese AVR brands continue to inflate their power output specifications fighting for market share and shelf-space @ Best Buy, Amazon, Walmart and CostCo, this dilemma will remain..

Just my $0.01..
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 62
12/3/09 at 4:31pm
I see your point, but it gets old I cover this is the FAQ. Maybe not in as much detail as I should. But I do cover it

What bothers me, I guess, is this theory that some brands are somehow better than others. I see little evidence of that.

Almost all the players make budget AVRs whose ACD bench is 1/2 to 1/3 (thereabouts) what the rating says. I fail to see how Denon, or Onkyo is better in this regard than Yamaha, Sony or Pioneer ( the brands people seem to pick on.)

Please, show me these budget Denon and Onkyo receivers that are anywhere close to their rated 100 watts (or so) with all their channels driven. Maybe I missed some reviews.

Once you start climbing up the price tier, you can find some discrepencies, to be sure. For example, my RZ-Z7 lists for $2500, and definitely is not as powerful as other receivers for less money. In this case, I am discussing specifics, which is a bit more productive, IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 62
12/3/09 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Almost all the players make budget AVRs whose ACD bench is 1/2 to 1/3 (thereabouts) what the rating says. I fail to see how Denon, or Onkyo is better in this regard than Yamaha, Sony or Pioneer ( the brands people seem to pick on.).

No one is disputing that it's a norm for most manufacturers to inflate their specs, but it's clear some brands do it more than others. Here's one example directly comparing the Yamaha 663 and Onkyo 606 which were direct competitors last year. Same lab:

Onkyo 606: 71.8wpc into 7 channels (81.2wpc into 5 channels @ 0.1%)
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avrecei...06/index6.html

Yamaha 663: 46.9wpc into 7 channels (60wpc into 5 channels @ 0.1%)
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avrecei...63/index7.html

The Onkyo has 53% more power than the Yamaha. In real world use this may or may not matter if we're talking about speakers that are efficient.

Here's a bench test for the 1909 which is the comparable Denon model from last year:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15822896

112wpc into 5 channels @ 0.5%

Here's a bench test for the Marantz 5003 which was last year's model as well:
http://hometheatermag.com/receivers/...er/index3.html

103.8wpc into 5 channels @ 0.1% and 88.2wpc into 7 channels @0.1%.

Add all this up and the conclusion one can reach is this: with the exception of HK, all manufacturers lie; some just lie more than others
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 62
12/3/09 at 5:03pm
It's not clear to me that some are worse as a general rule. Proving that is impossible anyway. You would have to agree on the protocol. There's too many variables.

Better to compare the models you are thinking of buying when possible. Otherwise, you are guessing at real world power.

I understand some people will always have brand bias. Some people think Denon can do no wrong, etc. Some people are convinced HKs sound better. That's fine. In some ways, it's going to be easier to buy if you eliminate some brands because you have a bias against them. You might rule out some great receivers, but you will be less likely to suffer from analysis paralysis

There are also buying decisions besides power, obviously.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Wattage Specs - Receivers