Now that's the kind of post that elevates a discussion from "roll your eyes while reading" to "hey, this is actually getting interesting and educational." Thanks for contributing and not running away screaming when many of us weren't taking you seriously.
For the most part, I have to agree with what you (and JC) say. It's not the average power consumption that's important, but the peaks. That's where the true tests of equipment are. Randy (sirquack) drove this point home very firmly when he was unable to get his new Emotiva amp to perform up to snuff in his "underground cavern" of a basement.
I must point out a flaw in some of your reasoning, however.
Quote:
Also, by Mojo not testing what is going on below 40 hz and not running a subwoofer also puts in jeopardy the validity of his “test.” To be able to test out two pieces of equipment, you not only need to compare dynamics, but also most people would want to compare how clean or tight it runs the bass, especially low bass (aka below 40hz). Some receivers may sound fine on the upper frequencies and possibly even midrange, but will tend to sound either “boomy” or light or muddy in the bass, and to be able to tell this, you need to be able to hear it.
Most subwoofers have onboard amps. When you enable the sub out on a receiver, it peels off the audio signal below the crossover point and sends it out the line level sub output -- unamplified. This results in a lighter, more easier to drive load going to the high level speaker outputs to which the rest of the speakers are connected.
I believe he got better results by not including the subwoofer in the test.
