When is 100W not 100W? - HDTVoice.com - High-Definition Television Talk

57U · 07-08-2005, 11:58 AM

...When it's 30 Watts?...

I just read an interesting review in the July/August Sound & Vision on 3 "low end" receivers (US$3-400). The receivers were all rated at close to 100W/ch, 7 channels driven.

In the S&V test, the Sony STR-DE698 receiver was only able to manage about 30 W/ch, 7 channels driven, and that was with the "easy" 1kHz spec, not the more stringent 20-20kHz spec. The other receivers produced about 60W/ch.

Very sad. I was kind of wondering how not that long ago, most receivers were at or under 100W/ch (2 channels driven) and now almost all receivers are rated close to 100W/ch, with 5 or 7 channels driven.

Power isn't everything, but I don't recall a power rating that optimistic before.

This post is not intended to slag Sony, or Sony Receiver owners.

gparris · 07-08-2005, 01:21 PM

I think probably the most honest of receiver manufacturers, IMO,could be Denon as this manufacturer has ratings for under 100W at 8 ohms driven on several of its models.

Based on my own experiences of the 3805 vs. the Sony 997 (have both),
the Denon receiver seems to be more true to spec.
The Pioneer THX Ultra2 (I also have), has good power at its rated 130W at 8ohms, too, but again, it is a high-end model, but seems to be the same as the Denon in audio power delivery (better be due to certification).

In all cases, I played the same material at the same levels before any distortion became apparent, so I have tried this since I was already curious.

All of this is of course, perception and experience, but my Sony seems weak in the sound delivery at 110W at 8ohms over the other two similarily rated, now I know why.

Thanks for bringing that up as I thought it was my imagination.
Now I wonder what my 997 is really rated at?

Matt27 · 07-08-2005, 02:26 PM

I know my JVC receiver is honest,100watts x5 and 100w x2 2 channel.

Only paid $170 for it at BJ's a year ago.. it has the standard DTS and DD and DP2.

Not bad for a low cost receiver

oman321 · 07-08-2005, 02:29 PM

Makes me wanna

. That's ok though, cause i'm pretty happy with my system. It handles all my needs and then some. My audio is clear, plenty loud, & exhibits more than enough thump and bump from the sub. That's with the volume set at a marginal level.

57U · 07-08-2005, 03:13 PM

Here's a link to the results:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...&page_number=1

The Sony cost $300, rated at 90, tested at 31
The Pioneer cost $365, rated at 100W, tested at 61
The Marantz cost $430, rated at 80W, tested at 64

The Marantz does cost 43% more than the Sony, but S&V liked the Pioneer best, for reasons other than power.

mjones73 · 07-08-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt27

I know my JVC receiver is honest,100watts x5 and 100w x2 2 channel.

Only paid $170 for it at BJ's a year ago.. it has the standard DTS and DD and DP2.

Not bad for a low cost receiver

How did you test it to verify it does what it states?

Fore left! · 07-08-2005, 05:35 PM

Many times receivers are rated per one chan driven...................even those that say "all chans driven" are fibbing a bit. A lot of amps are even guilty of this. Looking at the max power consumption of the unit, you can do the math & pretty much figure it isn't capable of doing what it states. It's efficiency also depends on what class amp it is (pure A, A/AB,G, etc.). If it says it only draws 500 watts from your AC outlet it can't possibly produce 100wpc for a 5.1 unit. I don't have the formula but I think a GOOD amp is only about 75% effic...........receivers are less.

Sorry matt, but the chances of your JVC doing what you think it does is almost nil.

57U · 07-08-2005, 05:42 PM

For discrete amps, you could have 5 x 100 and 2 x 100, but in most receivers there are no discrete amps, therefore available power decreases with the number of channels driven.

cnyreject · 07-08-2005, 06:42 PM

I paid about $230 online for my Harman Kardon 6.1 Receiver. It is rated at 40 watts per channel.However, IMO It blows the water out of my older 100 watts per channel Sony 5.1 receiver that it replaced. It does better in both clarity and power.

Harman Kardon RULES!!

mech · 07-08-2005, 07:09 PM

I would have to agree, the lower end SONY receivers seem to be a bit under powered in my opinion. Step up to the ES grade like an ES3000 which has now dropped to about 500 and it will blow away either of those two receivers. If I were to go with a sub 300.00 receiver it would be Onkyo hands down!

Splicer · 07-08-2005, 07:41 PM

Onkyo is one of the few brands that is CONSERVATIVE on their ratings meaning they are rated LOWER than the actual output.

skylolow · 07-09-2005, 09:13 AM

My understanding is most of your run of the mill "lower end receivers" are rated at a peak wattage. Basically right when you turn it on. After that they sustain a wattage of "XXX". This a very abused system in car audio amps. Alot of speakers are also rated like this. For your easy to find and not over the top expensive receivers, HK are the most accurate in rating there wattage. Onkyo and Denon ratings are also quite accurate. You get what you pay for is usually a pretty good statement when it comes to home audio equipment. Even though there are some diamond's in the rough out there for very good prices.

gparris · 07-09-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mech

I would have to agree, the lower end SONY receivers seem to be a bit under powered in my opinion. Step up to the ES grade like an ES3000 which has now dropped to about 500 and it will blow away either of those two receivers. If I were to go with a sub 300.00 receiver it would be Onkyo hands down!

You are SO right...I sold my Sony ES receiver to a friend who needed more power and connections and against the cheaper Sony receiver, the ES sound was day and night going from 90W x 5 on the old to 110W x 6 with the ES.

The '98 models are probably all underpowered against the ES line, but that was my experience and of course, the buyer thought it, too from that time.

Matt27 · 07-10-2005, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjones73

How did you test it to verify it does what it states?

Not sure, i never actually knew that receivers don't give what they claim untill now

I can check the manual and see what it says?

57U · 07-10-2005, 02:15 PM

Receiver manufacturers have been "all over the map" for years in terms of Claimed power. The more reputable manufacturers are either close to, or meet their specs. There are many ways to state wattage.

- Max output
- output at 1khz
- output at 20hz to 20kz
- output at a certain distortion
- certain number of channels driven
- combinations of the above.

It's often difficult to compare since the specs are often stated differently by various suppliers.

The "better" manufacturers have been mentioned in this thread. Have a look at the following chart showing "claims" verses "actual". Also make a note of the distortion and S/N.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm

cnyreject · 07-10-2005, 03:05 PM

I stand by what I said before... Bottom line it is not necessarily the wattage of a receiver that dictates the overall sound quality or ass kicking sound. There are more that go into a receiver then just wattage. So the debate for who's wattage is better or more accurate is really not that big of a deal. Need to look at the bigger picture. What components go into any receiver and even more importantly, how do they match up with any given set of speakers.

My opinion only.

57U · 07-10-2005, 03:21 PM

.... and that's exactly why you can spend $3000 for a receiver with a little over 100W/ch... or $300 for a receiver with 100W/ch... or even $10k+ for separates with the same wattage.

In addition to listening, of course, one factor I often look at for getting good sound is damping factor. It tells you how quickly the amp can react to changes in sound.

Fore left! · 07-10-2005, 04:05 PM

Another good indicator of a receiver that may be close to it's stated power is the actual weight of the unit. Good power supplies require a a hefty transformer which will weigh a lot. My previous Yamaha 5.1 receiver stated it was 100wpc & weighed about 25 lbs. My present Yamaha is a 6.1 rated at 130 wpc but weighs twice that. It's easy to see that the transformer is also twice as big.

If you want good power you'll have to pay for it. Having a good active sub will take a load off of the receivers power supply but good current still costs $.

Matt27 · 07-10-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnyreject

I stand by what I said before... Bottom line it is not necessarily the wattage of a receiver that dictates the overall sound quality or ass kicking sound. There are more that go into a receiver then just wattage. So the debate for who's wattage is better or more accurate is really not that big of a deal. Need to look at the bigger picture. What components go into any receiver and even more importantly, how do they match up with any given set of speakers.

My opinion only.

Could'nt agree more!

Well here are my specs for my JVC if anybody's curious:

At stereo operation:
Front channels: 100 W per channel,min. RMS, driven into 8ohms 40Hz to 20khz with no more than 0.8% total harmonic distortion.

At surround operation:
Front channels: 100 W per channel, min. RMS, driven into 8ohms at 1 kHz with no more than 0.8% total harmonic distortion.

Center channel: 100 W min. RMS, driven into 8ohms at 1 kHz, with no more than 0.8% total harmonic distortion.

Surround channels: 100 W per channel, min. RMS, driven into 8ohms at 1 kHz, with no more than 0.8% total harmonic distortion.

Signal -to- noise Ratio: CD,TAPE/CDR,VCR,TV SOUND,DVD: 87dB/78dB

Frequency response: CD,TAPE/CDR,VCR,TV SOUND,DVD: 20 Hz to 20 kHz (+ or -1 dB)

Tone control: Bass: (100Hz): + or- 10dB
Treble: (10 kHz): + or - 10dB

Power consumption: 180 W/230 VA (at operation)
2 W (in standby mode)

Mass: 8.8 kg (19.5 lbs)

What do you guys think, is it a good receiver?

I know JVC make quality electronics, i never heard a problem with any of their electronics,i've heard nothing but good things about them with past experiance.

Fore left! · 07-10-2005, 05:54 PM

If it works for you then it's a good receiver............especially for what you paid.

Interesting.........I've never seen a unit rated from 40-20kHz.

Here are some key specs for a Yamaha RX-V1500, which is a decent, mid-range receiver...........

Power..........120w @ 0.04% THD from 20-20kHz @ 8 ohms

Power consumption............500w

weight............34.2 lbs.

damping factor............140 or more

Essentially, most receivers are rating the potential of any one channel, not all at the same time. It's not possible for this unit to output 120w to all chans at once, which it would most likely never be asked to do anyhow.

07-08-2005, 11:58 AM	#1
57U Runner/Cyclist/X-C Skier Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 17,173	When is 100W not 100W? ...When it's 30 Watts?... I just read an interesting review in the July/August Sound & Vision on 3 "low end" receivers (US$3-400). The receivers were all rated at close to 100W/ch, 7 channels driven. In the S&V test, the Sony STR-DE698 receiver was only able to manage about 30 W/ch, 7 channels driven, and that was with the "easy" 1kHz spec, not the more stringent 20-20kHz spec. The other receivers produced about 60W/ch. Very sad. I was kind of wondering how not that long ago, most receivers were at or under 100W/ch (2 channels driven) and now almost all receivers are rated close to 100W/ch, with 5 or 7 channels driven. Power isn't everything, but I don't recall a power rating that optimistic before. This post is not intended to slag Sony, or Sony Receiver owners. __________________ 57U - Toronto, Rogers Cable, SA8300HD, 500GB HDD & Panasonic TC-P65S1, Denon AVR4310Ci, Martin Logan Speakers. Photos --> 57U's HT New Equipment & Photos. SA8300HD, 250GB HDD & KDL40W3000 (Upstairs) Please don't PM me with questions that can (and should) be asked in the forum, thanks. Personal Question? Fire away.

07-08-2005, 01:21 PM	#2
gparris A/V Consultant Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Racine, Wisconsin Posts: 2,413	Difference is power between my three 7.1 setups I think probably the most honest of receiver manufacturers, IMO,could be Denon as this manufacturer has ratings for under 100W at 8 ohms driven on several of its models. Based on my own experiences of the 3805 vs. the Sony 997 (have both), the Denon receiver seems to be more true to spec. The Pioneer THX Ultra2 (I also have), has good power at its rated 130W at 8ohms, too, but again, it is a high-end model, but seems to be the same as the Denon in audio power delivery (better be due to certification). In all cases, I played the same material at the same levels before any distortion became apparent, so I have tried this since I was already curious. All of this is of course, perception and experience, but my Sony seems weak in the sound delivery at 110W at 8ohms over the other two similarily rated, now I know why. Thanks for bringing that up as I thought it was my imagination. Now I wonder what my 997 is really rated at? __________________ Great Room: Samsung HL67A750 Denon AVR-4306 Panasonic DMP-BD210for Blu-ray/Toshiba HD-A3 for HDDVD (2)Sony 995V changers for DVD collection Sony BD changer 8300HD DVR Master Bedroom: Samsung LN55B650 Denon AVR-2807 Panasonic DMP-BD210 for Blu-ray/Toshiba HD-A3 for HDDVD 8300HD DVR Last edited by gparris; 07-08-2005 at 01:27 PM.

07-08-2005, 02:26 PM	#3
Matt27 A/V Enthusiast/Gamer Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,606	I know my JVC receiver is honest,100watts x5 and 100w x2 2 channel. Only paid $170 for it at BJ's a year ago.. it has the standard DTS and DD and DP2. Not bad for a low cost receiver __________________ Flat out like a lizzard drinking R.I.P Steve Irwin "The Crocodile Hunter"..you will be missed.. 1962-2006.

07-08-2005, 02:29 PM	#4
oman321 Reged User Tier 2 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Boston Posts: 1,205	Makes me wanna . That's ok though, cause i'm pretty happy with my system. It handles all my needs and then some. My audio is clear, plenty loud, & exhibits more than enough thump and bump from the sub. That's with the volume set at a marginal level. __________________ Panasonic PT-50LC14 Motorola 3412 STB (Comcast) SA-VE367T 7.1 Sony Home Theater Speaker System STR-DE897S 7.1 Sony Surround Sound Receiver X-Box, Panasonic DVD-RV30, Lutron Maestro IR, Harmony 880 Audio/Video Enthusiast

07-08-2005, 03:13 PM	#5
57U Runner/Cyclist/X-C Skier Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 17,173	Here's a link to the results: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...&page_number=1 The Sony cost $300, rated at 90, tested at 31 The Pioneer cost $365, rated at 100W, tested at 61 The Marantz cost $430, rated at 80W, tested at 64 The Marantz does cost 43% more than the Sony, but S&V liked the Pioneer best, for reasons other than power. __________________ 57U - Toronto, Rogers Cable, SA8300HD, 500GB HDD & Panasonic TC-P65S1, Denon AVR4310Ci, Martin Logan Speakers. Photos --> 57U's HT New Equipment & Photos. SA8300HD, 250GB HDD & KDL40W3000 (Upstairs) Please don't PM me with questions that can (and should) be asked in the forum, thanks. Personal Question? Fire away.

07-08-2005, 05:35 PM	#7
Fore left! Damn.....hooked it again Join Date: May 2005 Location: Everett,WA Posts: 250	Many times receivers are rated per one chan driven...................even those that say "all chans driven" are fibbing a bit. A lot of amps are even guilty of this. Looking at the max power consumption of the unit, you can do the math & pretty much figure it isn't capable of doing what it states. It's efficiency also depends on what class amp it is (pure A, A/AB,G, etc.). If it says it only draws 500 watts from your AC outlet it can't possibly produce 100wpc for a 5.1 unit. I don't have the formula but I think a GOOD amp is only about 75% effic...........receivers are less. Sorry matt, but the chances of your JVC doing what you think it does is almost nil.

07-08-2005, 05:42 PM	#8
57U Runner/Cyclist/X-C Skier Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 17,173	For discrete amps, you could have 5 x 100 and 2 x 100, but in most receivers there are no discrete amps, therefore available power decreases with the number of channels driven. __________________ 57U - Toronto, Rogers Cable, SA8300HD, 500GB HDD & Panasonic TC-P65S1, Denon AVR4310Ci, Martin Logan Speakers. Photos --> 57U's HT New Equipment & Photos. SA8300HD, 250GB HDD & KDL40W3000 (Upstairs) Please don't PM me with questions that can (and should) be asked in the forum, thanks. Personal Question? Fire away.

07-08-2005, 06:42 PM	#9
cnyreject Lifelong PC Nerd Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Central New York Posts: 411	I paid about $230 online for my Harman Kardon 6.1 Receiver. It is rated at 40 watts per channel.However, IMO It blows the water out of my older 100 watts per channel Sony 5.1 receiver that it replaced. It does better in both clarity and power. Harman Kardon RULES!! __________________ My Audio / Video System TV: Hitachi 57F510 1080i & Hitachi 47v6511080p HDTV Displays Reception Format: HD Receiver from Direct TV AV Receiver: Onkyo TX S605 (7.1 channels) Front Speakers: Cambridge Soundworks Newton MC300's Center Speaker: Energy Take FPS S-1 (200 Watts) Surround Speakers: 4 Cambridge Soundworks Newton S100's Subwoofer: Jensen SW-100 (12"@100 watts) DVD Player: Panasonic BD30 Blu-ray Player "Cambridge Soundworks, the audiophiles best kept secret"

07-08-2005, 07:09 PM	#10
mech HDTV God.... Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: So. Cal Posts: 458	I would have to agree, the lower end SONY receivers seem to be a bit under powered in my opinion. Step up to the ES grade like an ES3000 which has now dropped to about 500 and it will blow away either of those two receivers. If I were to go with a sub 300.00 receiver it would be Onkyo hands down! __________________ Samsung LN-T4665F (1080P) Samsung 1080P7 -dvd ES3000 -rcvr SSK90-ED -towers SS-CNK10ED -center SSK10-ED -back 6.1 ATHEENA ASP400 -Sub MOTOROLLA DCT6412-200 -HD DVR APC S10 -POWER COND, BACK UP XBOX 360 -XBOX LIVE HD DVD add on Remote -Logitech Harmony 880 Last edited by mech; 07-08-2005 at 07:15 PM.

07-08-2005, 07:41 PM	#11
Splicer "Don't taze me bro!!!" Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Blanchester, Ohio Posts: 2,761	Onkyo is one of the few brands that is CONSERVATIVE on their ratings meaning they are rated LOWER than the actual output.

07-09-2005, 09:13 AM	#12
skylolow Reged User Tier 2 Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 256	My understanding is most of your run of the mill "lower end receivers" are rated at a peak wattage. Basically right when you turn it on. After that they sustain a wattage of "XXX". This a very abused system in car audio amps. Alot of speakers are also rated like this. For your easy to find and not over the top expensive receivers, HK are the most accurate in rating there wattage. Onkyo and Denon ratings are also quite accurate. You get what you pay for is usually a pretty good statement when it comes to home audio equipment. Even though there are some diamond's in the rough out there for very good prices.

07-10-2005, 02:15 PM	#15
57U Runner/Cyclist/X-C Skier Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 17,173	Receiver manufacturers have been "all over the map" for years in terms of Claimed power. The more reputable manufacturers are either close to, or meet their specs. There are many ways to state wattage. - Max output - output at 1khz - output at 20hz to 20kz - output at a certain distortion - certain number of channels driven - combinations of the above. It's often difficult to compare since the specs are often stated differently by various suppliers. The "better" manufacturers have been mentioned in this thread. Have a look at the following chart showing "claims" verses "actual". Also make a note of the distortion and S/N. http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm __________________ 57U - Toronto, Rogers Cable, SA8300HD, 500GB HDD & Panasonic TC-P65S1, Denon AVR4310Ci, Martin Logan Speakers. Photos --> 57U's HT New Equipment & Photos. SA8300HD, 250GB HDD & KDL40W3000 (Upstairs) Please don't PM me with questions that can (and should) be asked in the forum, thanks. Personal Question? Fire away.

07-10-2005, 03:05 PM	#16
cnyreject Lifelong PC Nerd Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Central New York Posts: 411	I stand by what I said before... Bottom line it is not necessarily the wattage of a receiver that dictates the overall sound quality or ass kicking sound. There are more that go into a receiver then just wattage. So the debate for who's wattage is better or more accurate is really not that big of a deal. Need to look at the bigger picture. What components go into any receiver and even more importantly, how do they match up with any given set of speakers. My opinion only. __________________ My Audio / Video System TV: Hitachi 57F510 1080i & Hitachi 47v6511080p HDTV Displays Reception Format: HD Receiver from Direct TV AV Receiver: Onkyo TX S605 (7.1 channels) Front Speakers: Cambridge Soundworks Newton MC300's Center Speaker: Energy Take FPS S-1 (200 Watts) Surround Speakers: 4 Cambridge Soundworks Newton S100's Subwoofer: Jensen SW-100 (12"@100 watts) DVD Player: Panasonic BD30 Blu-ray Player "Cambridge Soundworks, the audiophiles best kept secret"

07-10-2005, 03:21 PM	#17
57U Runner/Cyclist/X-C Skier Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 17,173	.... and that's exactly why you can spend $3000 for a receiver with a little over 100W/ch... or $300 for a receiver with 100W/ch... or even $10k+ for separates with the same wattage. In addition to listening, of course, one factor I often look at for getting good sound is damping factor. It tells you how quickly the amp can react to changes in sound. __________________ 57U - Toronto, Rogers Cable, SA8300HD, 500GB HDD & Panasonic TC-P65S1, Denon AVR4310Ci, Martin Logan Speakers. Photos --> 57U's HT New Equipment & Photos. SA8300HD, 250GB HDD & KDL40W3000 (Upstairs) Please don't PM me with questions that can (and should) be asked in the forum, thanks. Personal Question? Fire away.

07-10-2005, 04:05 PM	#18
Fore left! Damn.....hooked it again Join Date: May 2005 Location: Everett,WA Posts: 250	Another good indicator of a receiver that may be close to it's stated power is the actual weight of the unit. Good power supplies require a a hefty transformer which will weigh a lot. My previous Yamaha 5.1 receiver stated it was 100wpc & weighed about 25 lbs. My present Yamaha is a 6.1 rated at 130 wpc but weighs twice that. It's easy to see that the transformer is also twice as big. If you want good power you'll have to pay for it. Having a good active sub will take a load off of the receivers power supply but good current still costs $.

07-10-2005, 05:54 PM	#20
Fore left! Damn.....hooked it again Join Date: May 2005 Location: Everett,WA Posts: 250	If it works for you then it's a good receiver............especially for what you paid. Interesting.........I've never seen a unit rated from 40-20kHz. Here are some key specs for a Yamaha RX-V1500, which is a decent, mid-range receiver........... Power..........120w @ 0.04% THD from 20-20kHz @ 8 ohms Power consumption............500w weight............34.2 lbs. damping factor............140 or more Essentially, most receivers are rating the potential of any one channel, not all at the same time. It's not possible for this unit to output 120w to all chans at once, which it would most likely never be asked to do anyhow.