Energy Owners Thread - Page 1507

Originally Posted by biggwebb 

My budget is around $300. I like a loud, crisp sound. Long lasting and durable tower speakers. Not against book shelf speakers.
I have seen a little bit Energy towers but haven't heard about them or seen them.

Originally Posted by enthusiast8 

One stop shop for him.
Batpig - did u get a chance to look at a question I had earlier in Post#45150

Originally Posted by enthusiast8 

Ah ok. Does the 4311 have any such profile options buried in its cant-be-readwithout-batpigsdictionary manual? Would be cool if it did.

And by the way have you ever considered changing your name to Batman . I have seen people waiting around here for you to be logged on for help. There needs to be a bat signal or something for people to call out for you.

Originally Posted by caloyzki 

when we say that we need to timbre/match the front three speakers, where is that applies? listening to music or watching tv cable/ movies blu rays?

Originally Posted by batpig 

You are in luck! http://bakersfield.craigslist.org/ele/3627616048.html

Originally Posted by afrogt 

to me that means all of the time. When voices or music pan across the front of the room you want them to have the same tonal sound as it hits each speaker. You would't want a voice to sound different in the left and right speakers as it would from the center speaker.

Originally Posted by losservatore 

all my questions about the power ratings and watts started after I read this.

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/home-theater-gear/66883-claimed-wattage-vs-real-power-post-if-you-dare.html

Q: Why does a 35 watt Marantz sound better and louder than many 100 watt receivers?
A: Because 35 watts/channel as specified by Marantz in the 1970's meant...

" The unit can deliver 35 watts into 8 ohms for one hour, from all channels at the same time, with no significant change in distortion, or other specifications, at any time during, or after, the test hour."

...while 100 watts/channel today (for instance, in my JVC surround system) means...

" The unit can deliver 100 watts for a fraction of a second, in one channel only, if the other channels aren't running and nothing else high energy has happened to drain the power supply of stored energy in the last few seconds."

In fact, my JVC 5-channel Dolby surround receiver claims 500 watts RMS, but the power consumption label on the back panel tells the story:

320 Watts

If my JVC receiver was 100% efficient, meaning that every bit of power it took from the wall was delivered to the speakers as audio power (which it isn't), that'd give you only 64 watts a channel, about 2/3rds of the claimed power rating (which is 100 watts per channel, remember, 500 delivered as 100 per each of the five channels.)

But since the receiver can only (at best) convert about 50% of the available energy to the speakers, and the available energy is what is left over after the heat is generated (did I mention that this model JVC runs almost too hot to touch on top, even when making no sound at all?) and the watts that go to lighting the panel and powering all of the other circuitry are accounted for, the system can perhaps, when brand new, on a good day, generate 32 watts a channel continuously with all the channels going, which is pretty sorry compared to the claimed 100 watt per channel rating. That is less power per channel than an old 2235 receiver. Shocking, eh?

Turning it around, because of the way that the units were rated in the 1970's, that classic 2235 Marantz receiver, rated at 35 watts a channel, can dependably produce much more than 35 watts in both channels at the same time for a minute or two (far longer than the peaks in a modern receiver.) An honest rating for use with music for the power amplifiers of an older Marantz is generally in the range of 120% of rated power or even higher.

These ratings were instituted because of many false claims for power output that were being made using many different types of power measurement and general baloney at that time. IHF, RMS, Peak, Peak Music Power, Average, etc. RMS is what was settled on, and it's still widely used today, but the one hour rating was dropped some time back.

Interestingly, the situation that caused the RMS for one hour ratings to be made standard is now recurring - as I mentioned above, my JVC's ratings are pretty obviously designed to deceive the consumer to an extreme degree. Certainly there is no way that they can claim that those ratings paint an accurate picture of the amount of power the receiver can actually deliver in real world conditions - loud music and cinema surround takes a lot of power, in a lot of channels. Try listening to Jurassic Park... wait till the Tyrannosaur walks up behind you, or there is something exciting going on. Those 32 watts are pretty puny...

JVC isn't alone in this, however, many manufacturers you might think would be more honest in their claims are just as deceitful. For instance, my Sony car stereo suffers from the same kind of exaggeration: Right on the front it claims a very high wattage, but reading the manual, it turns out that the actual RMS power is far, far less than the front panel claims. I guess it's time for someone to step in again and slap these people around.

To the relatively straightforward power issue, you can add the fact that the design of the audio and RF circuitry in a Marantz is absolutely top-notch, and you can hear that in the character of what little distortion there is, in the way the bass, midrange and treble controls (and loudness contour and filters) affect the signals, in the way the FM signals come out sweet and clean, and so on. As an engineer, I really don't like to drop into using descriptive terms meant for food or lovemaking and so on for sound, but you know, when you A:B a Marantz against other units that are supposedly equivalent, the bottom line is it sounds better, and obviously so.

Originally Posted by batpig 


Don't buy it with the expectation of improved performance. It's not going to make audio or video quality better. That part is 100% snake oil.

If your expectation is for a good power strip with some added protection for your gear then you will be happy. Even then it's not really necessary unless you have bad power in your area, although I certainly appreciate that it's nice for clearing up wires on the floor . But it's much easier to be happy with the purchase if you don't believe the hooey claims of PQ/SQ improvement.[/quote


This is the product I use to provide some measure of protection for my AV setups: http://www.panamax.com/Products/A-V-Components/M5400-PM.php



I purchased my first Panamax in January, 1995; I needed my Panamax 1000 to keep guard over my (circa 1992) Pioneer VSX-D901S AV receiver and the rest of my electronic components. Panamax lived up to its dependable reputation in 1998 when a furious thunderstorm produced a lightning strike which took out my Panamax 1000 after it saved my entire home theater system. At that time Panamax offered a LIFETIME guarantee up to one million dollars on its protection systems.

The company quickly paid for a minor repair, a blown channel, on my receiver and replaced the 1000 with brand new Panamax 1000+. That unit has remained faithfully on guard duty until my beloved Pioneer finally died in February.



I replaced the Pioneer AVR on April 1, 2012 with a new Marantz SR7005 AV receiver, and, of course I bought a new Panamax M5400-PM to monitor what the receiver eats. My old Panamax 1000+ is still on duty regulating voltage on the TV and AV equipment in my bedroom. I had the Pioneer's power supply replaced and it is back in operation in my bedroom setup under the protection of its old Panamax companion. It should be obvious that I am a Panamax fanboy. Wonderful products that function and perform from a dependable, reliable company!

My new Panamax has accommodations for ten items to be connected on its rear, as well as one additional item on the front panel.

Originally Posted by losservatore 

all my questions about the power ratings and watts started after I read this.

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/home-theater-gear/66883-claimed-wattage-vs-real-power-post-if-you-dare.html

given the price, I thought I'd wait a while before I spend those bucks on an conditioner, rather than on some more additions to my AV setup

Originally Posted by losservatore 

Batpig I did my test with the denon and Marantz in direct mode. do pure direct mode also disable all the same features? Or it Just prevent from all the current to run through other parts of the receiver for more pure power?

Originally Posted by enthusiast8 

erhurd - I saw the M5400-PM too in several nice AV setups, and I too agree its a great unit. I had shopped for one for a while, but given the price, I thought I'd wait a while before I spend those bucks on an conditioner, rather than on some more additions to my AV setup.

Originally Posted by Fears4Ears 

That's what I as thinking. "For the price", I would start with the $50 voltage regulator. Most people already have some kind of surge protection but most are not aware of the potentially damaging voltage fluctuations that occur. I've been researching this because I have a bunch of old Fender Tweed guitar tube amps. They want to see 117 volts and from what I've read, utility companies are heading for 130 volts now. That's a sure way to burn up my tubes and they can easily be $50 each. I've also experienced brown outs. Under-voltage can be just as damaging.

Originally Posted by losservatore 

bagpig do the direct mode set the towers to full range and disable all eq settings?not only bass management?


I will be doing another test both with factory settings in direct mode lets see if that change any perception of what I hear first.


I will be talking about sound, not power or volume knobs differences.



I will make sure that everything is setup equally in both receivers after factory reset.

Originally Posted by baron2 

My Monster HTS1000 MKIII have a digital voltage display. I use one on all my different setups. When I lived on my farm in Missouri I
was always getting power surges. Same here now in the state of Washington. Fried a number of audio components on the farm before I got these. You dont find them around only in a few places. It has a 6125 juoles rating, which is good compared to most protectores that have a 3rd to half that rating. Well worth the money spent while living in areas of lots of power surges. If I didnt have that problem I would spend money elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Fears4Ears 

The Monster conditioners have a visual display that shows the voltage but it doesn't regulate it in any way. I've got a cheap Radio Shack analog meter that just plugs into an outlet. It shows 127 volts, which is right at the top of the red section of the meter. I've known about this for a while but really haven't had anything plugged in that i was that worried about. Now that I'm putting bucks into my sound system and looking into the prices of re-tubing my guitar amps, voltage regulation seems like the first line of protection. After that yeah, prolly gonna get one of the monster things.

Originally Posted by losservatore 

well now I was paying really good attention to the same tracks ,I reset both receivers settings to factory,both on the same configurations in direct mode.


now I was trying to pay very good attention to the bass in the song will i am scream and shout both performed equally.

Then I switch to the song Norah Jones - Don't Know Why this is the part where the marantz sounded cleaner, very evenly more balanced and detailed sound.


also besame mucho Andrea Bocelli - Besame Mucho sounded cleaner, very evenly more balanced and detailed sound.

I cant really believe that this small receiver beat my denon avr 1911 in sound quality.


I cant judge about other denon models but this little marantz beat my denon in sound quality.

now the question is how my marantz will perform in movies? I dont know but its been said that denon are real good for movies and I had been a witness of that, it really do a excellent Job in movies.

but because music is my preference I might be sell the denon to get another marantz, but first I have to check how it will perform with movies.

I dont want to ditch my denon because my marantz sounded best for music.I want to try some movies first.


remember that Im judging my denon receiver I cant said the same with other models and Im doing my impression because a member asked.

Originally Posted by losservatore 

why? what it matter to me is what my ears are listening ,more than 20 years of guitar experience is sufficient to me to judge the sound.


now I need to know how it perform with a movie. that's another 5 cents, because with movies the receiver is using multiple speakers also the sound maybe no be as good for movies.




For music it did sound best than my denon without question.


Im not trying to bring a battle here about denon and marantz is my option to choose what I think it sound best to me.