Actually if the PS3 is set for bitstreaming, it is sending the signal for the receiver to decode, not the PS3 to decode. A true 50 watts vs 100 watts equals only to 3db of more sound. The AVR 1700 will NOT output 100 watts all channels driven at once, it is not rated to do so if you read the specs carefully. It's power is rated with 2 channels driven, not 5 channels driven like your AVR 247. Judging by that and the similar amperage ratings, they're probably equal as I said previously. If you want a TRUE 100 watt per channel receiver, you're going to have to spend around $1,000 or more to get one that can do at least 100 watts all channels driven. You would notice a big difference in sound between the AVR 1700 and a $1,000 receiver obviously. I made an earlier post describing my experiences with the AVR 1700. I would have kept it but I was able to buy a higher end Onkyo receiver from a buddy of mine that produces 130 watts with all channels driven and there was a huge difference in sound versus the 1700. But there we're comparing a $499 receiver with a $1,099 receiver. So yes, your Polk speakers would probably sound better with a true 100 watt receiver, not necessarily the AVR 1700. The good news is that you shouldn't lose any sound quality and be able to gain all the modern features the AVR 1700 offers.
Originally Posted by skerr71
corchid, thanks for the info. I absolutely agree on the decoder upgrades, hdmi port # and other features, that alone is reason enough.
Right now my PS3 decodes and I am unsure of any performance loss. Does allowing the receiver to decode rather than the PS3 make a difference? I believe my PS3 is set to bitstreaming, it is one of the fatter models. I was always under the impression that getting a receiver to do the decoding would improve the quality.
So not a real difference between 50 watts and 100watts? Someone told me my rm6750's would sound much better with a 100w amp rather than my 50 w.