[MichaelJHuman]

I personally am a Yamaha fan. It bothers me to see them accused of lying. I wanted to address a few points in this thread.


First off, I feel total system power commonly used in HITB ads is misleading. Cleary a 900W system does not produce 900watts. Yamaha does this same sort of rating. FTC is not doing their job by putting a stop to this. Why would a fairly respected company like Yamaha follow this misleading practice? I guess they need to compete with the other HITB makers. On the bright side, if a consumer is looking at only HITB systems they should not be too off base comparing total system power ratings wrong as they are.


As for AVRs, Yamaha is totally within their rights to say 100x5, or whatever. The FTC appears to only require one channel driven for multi-channel amps. And almost every manufacture does it.


Not only is it within acceptable FTC practices, it's not invalid to say 100x5 for an AVR. It's commonly accepted that movie soundtracks don't drive all channels at the same level very often.


I for one don't like the way the FTC is going. They are weakening the rules rather than strengthing them. When reading some FTC documents on proposed rules changes it seemed they were catering to the manufacturers and not the consumers.


I would like to see these changes made:

* Companies can't claim total system power numbers based on one channel driven

* Companies should explicity make it clear that ratings are one channel driven where applicable; something like 100x5 (One channel driven)


Link
Changes to the FTC amp rating rules

 

[Jakeman02]

I agree with most of what you're staying but why even mention Yamaha, why pick on them? Everybody does it. Some more than others but it's common practice so why even mention a name?

 

[oztech]

it would be better if all companies had to list all channels driven

20hz to 20khz under .5% distortion.

 

[MichaelJHuman]

The problem with requiring all channels driven is addressed over at Audioholics. The gist of the argument is that multi-channel sound does not usually require all channels driven. Therefore someone can save money by buying a cheaper amp.


The same thing is true of buying an amp that doubles down into 2ohms when your speakers are well behaved 8ohm speakers. You are paying for a feature you don't use.

 

[misterjensen]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/0


Not only is it within acceptable FTC practices, it's not invalid to say 100x5 for an AVR. It's commonly accepted that movie soundtracks don't drive all channels at the same level very often.

Aren't the levels all the same if it's 100x5 "RMS"? Don't many of the new receivers have an "RMS" rating?

 

[M Code]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/0


The problem with requiring all channels driven is addressed over at Audioholics. The gist of the argument is that multi-channel sound does not usually require all channels driven. Therefore someone can save money by buying a cheaper amp.


The same thing is true of buying an amp that doubles down into 2ohms when your speakers are well behaved 8ohm speakers. You are paying for a feature you don't use.

The importance of having a standard with All Channels Driven is that this standard has been used for years in earlier consumer 2-CH products as well as the higher end, more expensive multi-channel component amplifiers...


Yes..

One can question that having All Channels Driven may be too hard on a price-sensitive consumer AVR but at least one got an honest answer regarding power output so that products/brands could be compared.


Unfortunately certain brands and their marketing departments decided to create their creative power rating system..

The end-result is total confusion..


A better approach would have been for the industry and the FTC to agree upon a more functional method of standards...

If a brand wanted to deviate and make its own secondary disclosure with only 1 channel driven or @ 6 Ohms or @ 1KHz then go for it...

But at least...

They should make their primary disclosure the same consistent way, with All Channels Driven...


Think about a brand that has an AVR model @ 100W x 5 @ $199 and then another AVR model of the same brand @100W x 7 @ $1499... I bet you can quess which one has the real 100W amplifier built-in..

Just my $.02 worth..

 

[MichaelJHuman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjensen /forum/post/0


Aren't the levels all the same if it's 100x5 "RMS"? Don't many of the new receivers have an "RMS" rating?

The way most AVRs are rated is that each channel is capable of 100 watts when it's the only channel driven. All those channels share the same power supply in most AVRs. Therefore you can't drive all 5 channels at 100 watts at the same time.

 

[psychdoctor]

Funny you bring up this thread as I was just thinking the same. I had the Yamaha 6090 at over 800 watts, but after bench testing by others, they said the receivers' true watts were about 35 per channel! Some receivers give me accurate specs but unless there is regulation, it is hard for the average consumer to know what the or she is getting per channel.

 

[Alimentall]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/0


Why would a fairly respected company like Yamaha follow this misleading practice?

Because they're not any more virtuous than any of the other Japanese companies. And because it's perfectly legal to mislead, they just can't lie. When the FTC considers changing "the rule", guess who lobbies against it? The CEA. If you want honesty, you'll have to buy an NAD, H/K, Rotel, Arcam, etc. Nothing wrong with buying from people who aren't trying to mislead you.

 

[SiriuslyCold]

psychdoctor,


a few questions-

do you like your Yamaha, now that you have it?

would you have even bought the Yamaha if it had said 35W per channel, 20Hz~20kHz All channels driven? or did the 100W per channel (1Khz, stereo) grab you?

do you still like the sound, after finding out its actually 35W per channel?



I agree with regs, but I also think consumers (having been sold the idea) making a big deal about 100W per channel is contributing to the confusion

 

[AvGeek07]

pwnd.

 

[tlf9999]



Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code /forum/post/0


The importance of having a standard with All Channels Driven is that this standard has been used for years in earlier consumer 2-CH products as well as the higher end, more expensive multi-channel component amplifiers...

so if a standard has been used for years it should continue to be used? so we will never have new standards. what kind of sick logic is that?


you use a standard that best measure for the intended applications. all channels driven is a pipe dream of some people who apparently do not understand what they are talking about for most CE devices. it is in the same category of "high current output", or PMPO.

 

[SiriuslyCold]

IMO it doesn't matter which measurement is used, as long as all AVRs and amps use that same measurement from now on. If the prevailing standards aren't realistic by all means change them, but only as long as they remain consistent across the board


thats not to say things weren't all over the place before - you'd have "audiophile" stereo amps specced with "RMS" watts at 20hz~20Khz into 8Ohms, and boomboxes with PMPO. And now you have AVRs with 1Khz into 6Ohms.