Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Overstating AV Receiver Power -

Hello All
I am dismayed to learn that some manufacturers are still over stating their receivers power, are all manufacturers guilty of this do they take us for fools... I work in construction and a 2x4 is a 2x4 and a 2x6 is a 2x6 what is the point of publishing specs if they are false..?
I just bought a yammie rx-v1400 should I return the goddamn thing, yammie claims 7 x 110 but from what I have learned its about 35 per channel whats up?/////

*sigh*
Even a 2x4 isn't a 2x4...

In reply to:

---

Manufactured dimensions depend on the state of manufacture; a surfaced-dry softwood 2x4 is required by the American Softwood Lumber Standard (USDC 1970) to be a minimum of 1.5 inches by 3.5 inches. Actual dimensions are obtained by measuring individual pieces with calipers.

---

source

does it sound good to you at 35w per channel?

I personally feel they are lieing to us customers, and will no longer buy their product. My previous receiver was a Yamaha 2090.

What matters is how you like the sound. I just do nto liek being lied to, so they no longer get my money(for a receiver, that is).

Yup. As I recall, the 2x4 dimension is how they are cut prior to being dried. Shrinkage occurs during the drying process.

AXEL, a 10 year old 2x4 is not the same as a 50 year old, or 2 year old 2x4 is it. they surely don't measure 2 inches by 4 inches.

well ok maybe a 2x4 wasnt the best comparison...
and yes there are good and bad 2x4s spf dry and green warped ones so on & so on
you guys are killing me! LOL
cheers

There was an earlier thread where a large listing of claimed power vs. actual power was linked. The H/Ks appeared to be the best, as they in some cases UNDERstated the power.

Perhaps a better comparison would be a tape measure or something. Where an inch is always an inch...

Check out this review. It's for the 2400 but it may be helpful. This review states that the 2400 will achieve full power with two channels running but drops with all channels running. I'm sure this applies to the 1400 as well.
www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/YamahaRXV-2400Receiver-p1.html

So, Ken, if my Denon is 17.7 inches wide, how many wpc is that?

Don't get hung up on specs. I'm sure the Yamaha 1400 is a fine piece of gear, and that Yamaha is no more guilty of creative statistical interpretation than any other manufacturer.

Also, if you have a powered sub and reasonably efficient speakers (like Axioms), you are very unlikely to ever push your receiver to its limits without damaging your hearing. If you regularly listen very loudly, you probably should be looking at separates. For most folks, a good quality receiver is going to have plenty of juice for virtually any application.

Axel, in my view power ratings aren't being "overstated"; the ratings are accurate in the light of different rating standards applied by different groups. As the 2400 review which Mike has linked points out, driving all channels at full power for an extended period of time isn't a realistic requirement for real-world operation. Music doesn't work that way, but instead has brief moments requiring high power, even less frequently in the surround channels, so this shouldn't be a matter of great concern.

To me, purposely making it seem liek it is all channel driven is bad business.

Like I said, if it sound right to you, it is ok. I loved my Yamaha 2090. I will not support a line that is purposely misleading customers, though. I will buy their DVD or CD players, but I will no longer invest in their receivers.

That may be true of music, but I think most people purchse 7.1 receivers for their HT functions. The surrounds may indeed not be taxed very often, but the three front channels are certainly working. The fact is if they say it's a 100 watt receiver, people expect they're getting 100 watts PER channel.

Having said that, the bottom line is - how does it sound? Marketing trickery aside, if the unit does what you need, and sounds good. In the end does it matter that they cheat with their ratings?

I would agree that wattage ratings are a very poor indicator of the quality or even the level of sound you can expect. A family member has Martin Logan electrostats (notoriously inefficient) pushed by a 200 watt per channel Macintosh stereo receiver. There are 2 big meters showing the output power on the front panel, and even when the sound is what I consider "loud enough" they rarely indicate much over 1 watt.

does anyone have the thread to how each receiver's true power rating is?
I am more interested in a denon to yammy comparison.

Ask and ye shall receive(r)

OK...yeah, I know. Bad pun.

JimmyTango, Spiff, JohnK, all,

Putting it in a crude, Brookynese manner: "Whadda ya want for $600? Seven channels at 100 watts per channel, all channels driven?? No way."

The EIA standards for measuring multichannel receiver power output were diluted, to permit manufactureres to sell you relatively inexpensive 7-channel receivers that in many installations will be quite satisfactory (reference JohnK's comments) but that simply have nothing like the power output of the old era of stereo, 2-channel receivers. With the latter, continuous power was measured from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, both channels driven, into 8 ohms and 4 ohms. Now, it's usually measured at a single frequency (1 kHz) with one or two channels driven, and the remainder at 1/8th of rated power output.

To sell a receiver with seven on-board amplifiers that deliver continuous power output with all channels driven would cost multi thousands, with huge heat sinks.

If you recall, we now get 7.1-channel A/V receivers for what 2-channel stereo receivers used to sell for, or even less money.

Regards,

Thanks for that you have put things in perspective nicely, I think I went off the deep end when a competing salesmen trashed my Yamaha RX-V1400. In the end I understand, my listening pleasure is what counts, I think it sounds great.

Thanks for your insight.
Axel

In reply to:

---

in my view power ratings aren't being "overstated"; the ratings are accurate in the light of different rating standards applied by different groups.

---

I believe they are very much being overstated if the white paper specs cannot match a real world bench test of that statement regardless of how the company hides behind the legal fenangling behind some obscure definition of the standards.
It is true that in a real world application at home this is of less concern, but ultimately if they state a unit can produce 100W /ch then i expect it to put out 100W /ch when i take it into the lab and plug it into a source which can draw that much power from it. This is how it is marketed and this is how people read it and the companies know that.
Enough of this creative marketing crap.
I'm fed up with it.
Where is the damn honesty and integrity gone in this world?
Or was it ever there to begin with?

Yes that's where I was originally coming from, but I guess life is a series of trade-offs for better and worse......

Seems like Denon is only overstating a little more than 10% for their 380x series. My 3802(110W) should still get at least 95W per channel.

WOW. I woke up this morning and checked our stats logs and noticed high Axiom Audio hits which is usually uncommon. I came here and found people in disarray regarding my comments on power rating of the RXV-2400 review and thought I should comment.

First I would like to say the whole concept of power is one of the most widely misunderstood topics in consumer audio. In reality, most people doing home theater use high efficient speakers (>90dB SPL @ 1 meter) and place their multi channel speaker packages in medium sized, usually lively living rooms. This being the case, the receiver/power amp spends most of its time at the low end of the spectrum in terms of power delivery. Usual power draw is between 4-5 watts rms/channel to achieve 80-85dB SPL at the listening position. Which is quite loud! Also, consider that most people doing home theater have actively powered subwoofers (this is where power is needed most!) the headroom of their receivers is greatly improved since it is not taxed to deliver all of that raw bass power to the speakers. That being the case, it is critical for an amp to be very clean, and noise free to preserve low level details. In that regard, the Yamaha does an impeccable job.

When you consider the $1000 price point, what do you expect? As a processor alone, this receiver outguns most costlier dedicated processors. IF you feel you need more power down the road, add another amp and preamp out the receiver!

I certainly don't hope people look at my power estimates and start bring their receivers back because they feel as if they have been robbed!

The RXV-2400 has a 640VA Xformer, one of the biggest in its price class! I don't know of any other 7CH receiver for $1000 retail that will deliver more power (>10wpc or so) than this one does, so please don't feel as if you are being ripped off.

It is funny how people never question cable vendor claims of cables that cost more than this receiver, and how they don't even require cable metrics to measure or compare their performance.

I know I am new to this forum and don't want to solicite links to Audioholics, but I encourage you to read some of our articles on these topics. We even have an SPL calculator that talks about how much power you need in your room based on room dimensions, #of speakers, liveliness, etc.

On a closing note, consider that average power of your receiver is about 1 watt /channel (to reach 75dB SPL at listening position with moderately sensitive speaker system), if you consider 20dB of dynamic headroom required for music as a good rule of thumb (THX recommendation as well) then to reach 95dB peaks, would require 100wpc which the Yamaha WILL deliver to each channel for short periods of time. Music is peaky in nature, not continuous with all channels driven. Also note that most receivers and amps use unregulated power supplies and most audio reviewers hold the line voltage constant (another unrealistic condition) when making power measurements. This helps to inflate the power numbers to make products look better. Stay tuned as we are currently working on building a 5CH power test load and we will be making accurate power measurements (without holding the line voltage constant.


Now if you plan on using low efficient ESL's or wish to blast your neighbors out with 100dB SPL levels continuosly, for example, an external amp would be advised.

Off topic: Have you ever measured a 2x4 or a 2x6? :-)

Well said Gene. Thanks for clearing that up for some of us here. I've had my 2400 for about two month and have never felt like I needed more power even with the Magnepan MG12s as mains. As far as features go, I'm just delighted with the 2400. It's a great machine at a great price.

That's a great clarification Gene and certainly it needs to be reiterated constantly.
However, i'm still annoyed at the marketing propaganda that is very misleading for consumers in this regard.

truth in advertising is hard to come by these days.

The truth is, numbers sell. Many consumers believe more is better, thus in a sense, the industry is advertising what consumers believe they need. There is one particular company which I will not name that is the King of boasting unrealistic power #'s and claims, yet very few people have beef with them. Yamaha is playing the game everyone else is, but IMO at least they are providing a value product that will satisfy a majority of their target customer base.

On that note, I personally feel this receiver is a great match for Axiom Audio speakers which is why we included a whole Yamaha/Axiom Audio package in our HT Recommended Systems Guide.

Hi Gene,

Thanks for your thoughtful and informative contribution here. I do find many of the ads misleading, kind of reminiscent of what used to go on with car stereo amps, where power output would be spec'd to 10% distortion levels (it may still be happening), especially with in-dash head units with self-contained power amps.

Regards,

In reply to:

---

I personally feel this receiver is a great match for Axiom Audio speakers

---

System matching is one thing that has always been a little confusing to me. I know you don't mean decor wise, so is it generally a matter of impedence/sensitivity? Because some experts say that it is ok to use 4ohm speakers with an 8/6 ohm rated receiver .

BTW, I noticed that the review for the 2400 has made it to the front page www.audioholics.com. I'm so glad someone finally came out with an indepth review of the RX-V2400 and I'm glad its Audioholics! I like how you guys think over there...no BS(or at least very little). BTW, I know I speak for many of us here when I say we appreciate that you take the time to post here.

I tried the "Adventure and Spectacle" DSP modes and you're right, it does "enhance the movie watching experience". I wouldn't even have thought of using it if you hadn't suggested it because I've always thought DSPs were just a mass market gimick(me being an uppity stereophile who knows what the the absolute sound should sound like and all). But it sure sounded better than the THX mode(at least it did to me watching Bad BoysII last night).

I afraid that your "(hint hint)" concerning the front effects went over my head. Would you be kind enough to elaborate?. BTW, I do use the front effects and I do like it. I'd love to know the procedure for using the front effects and rear channels.

I don't mean to monopolize your time....but I will if you let me.

I'm sure that the clarifying comments of Alan, Gene and Clint are much appreciated. A convenient summary of current amp rating standards of various groups(in particular the EIA/CEA standard mentioned by Alan) can be found in the table in this paper. These days clean amp power is cheap and plentiful and shouldn't be a cause of concern. It would be nice if more of the manufacturers clearly stated the standard used to rate their amps, but it's somewhat ironic to note that when Sony told S&V that they used the EIA/CEA standard that they were subjected to considerable criticism.

MWC;

No problem, seems like I am getting no real work done todays anyway and my review made it on a few other websites and people are asking the same questions.

My hint hint, probably needs to be deleted at this point since apparantly you can set the receiver up in 9.1. Based on my FAQ interview with Yamaha, I was lead to believe it couldn't, not a fault on their part, but in my interpretation of their response.

OK, sorry guys, but I have to post a self promoting link to my site so you know what I am talking about:

Yamaha RXV-2400 FAQ Part I


I promise not to post any more audioholics links, at least today

Anyways, I was under the impression you could not do 9.1, even with an external amp, thus I didn't test it in my review.

Upon consulting with Yamaha Engineering yesterday, they informed me that if you enable "Surround Back", the "Surround/Back/Presence" preamp outs reroute to the actual "Presence" channels. Then you can connect an external two channel amp to power those channels and have a full 9.1 set-up featuring their propietary DSP.

I would have preferred rerouting the main channels to the "Presence" channels, and used a dedicated amp for the main channels where it would be needed most. But you can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially for $1000!

The very fact that you can do Yamaha 9.1 in a sub $1000 receiver IMO is awesome! I believe this holds true for the RX-V1400 as well?

If any owners here have this unit, and and an extra amp and speakers, please confirm. I already disconnected this receiver from my set-up and it would involve considerable work to set-up again.

I am waiting on feedback from Yamaha on my review, and would love to add some of this to the addendum. Thanks all!

Gene,

Don't sweat the self-promoting links. I'm pretty sure I speak for most people here when I say I have no problem with it. Besides, we like your site.

In reply to:

---

Upon consulting with Yamaha Engineering yesterday, they informed me that if you enable "Surround Back", the "Surround/Back/Presence" preamp outs reroute to the actual "Presence" channels. Then you can connect an external two channel amp to power those channels and have a full 9.1 set-up featuring their propietary DSP

---

ARRRG!!! It aggrevates the crap out of me that this sort of info isn't covered in the owner's manual. Is there some comprehensive alternative to the owner's manual?

Excellent review!!! By chance is there a possibility of a review for a Pioneer Elite TX series to compare their MCACC Auto-calibrating software.

Saturn

Gene, to confirm your question, the 9.1 works with an external amp... hooked to the presence out jacks. It even works with DPIIx. I don't know what it sounds like, as I have had the 9.1 (actualy 9.2 for me as I have 2 subwoofers) hooked up since day one. I should really turn off the second amp to see if there is a difference.

Thanks Dave. My test unit didn't have PLIIx

Oh well, guess I will test that feature on the RX-Z9

Axel,
I have found this to be a pretty informative site with regard to receiver ratings.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm


Rick

AMEN Tom!