When is 100W not 100W?

[57]

...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.

[sharkman]

This has been a pet peeve of mine, and a determining factor in the receiver I ended up purchasing. Only a small minority of all receivers can achieve their rated power with all channels driven. All Harmon Kardon, mid to high end Denon and high end Yamaha are a few that can.

I wonder if part of the decline is due to the upsurge in sub usage, which have their own amps for the power hogging low frequencies. therefore the manufacturers feel they don't have to build the amps to produce the lows.

Anyway, a 100 watts should be a 100 watts.

[JohnnyG]

This is the 2nd time I've seen test number like that for a Sony receiver. Last time, there was a sidenote about it. They asked Sony why the numbers were so low and Sony's reply was that the receiver was never meant to drive all channels at full power simultaneously! F'ing hilarious!

[hugh]

I never have a problem with my receiver. It has an 11 power setting so when I need it loud, I just up that extra 1 of power.

[JesseJ]

LOL! Nice Spinal Tap reference!

Isn't that power rating the Max power it may spit out at a given time per channel?
I have a good write up about power in one of my mags. If I can summarize it well, or find it, I'll post it.

[otown47]

This discussion has been around since they started using transistors in amps. Saying that an amp is capable of 100W per channel is an advertsing gimic. Read this:

http://www.epanorama.net/documents/a...ier_power.html

[casscarr2002]

57, as a note, I think the Marantz in that square off almost managed it's full rating with all 7 channels driven. I'll have to find where I put that issue.
This is a good example where buyers need to do their research before buying, even if buying lower priced equipment. Lower priced equipment still doesn't mean lower quality as that test showed.
No I'm not bias seeing as I own Marantz

[57]

Here's a link to the lab 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.

[Scottatah]

It'd be nice if the home audio industry followed what car audio did, when they incorporated a rule/standard rating system (can't remember the exact name) for rating power on produts. I think it's still abused and products still don't always put out what they say, some put out others. But it's at least a step in the right direction.

[sharkman]

This discussion is kind of related to another thread here about high end receivers at FS. Some feel there is absolutely no difference in the sound quality of an entry level brand vs a top of the line model as long as they are both solid state. I detected a difference in sound staging between my old Denon receiver and my new one.(1802 vs 3803), but I seem to be in the minority.

Power ratings are another area where to an extent, you get what you pay for. I read Sound and Vision as well, and whenever they test the power ratings, it has only been the higher end that can achieve rated power with all channels driven. Marketing hype strikes again!

[Chris Auld]

No, this thread is not related to the other thread on sound quality. In the other thread it was explained at length that perceived differences in sound quality DO NOT necessarily indicate there is an actual difference in sound quality. Misleading advertising claims about power output are a completely unrelated issue.

[sharkman]

Sorry, but I feel it is related. However, I would rather not get into another 'yes it is, no it isn't' with you Chris. It really gets us nowhere and I've found that you are never willing to consider the possibility that someone else may come to a different conclusion than you.

[Chris Auld]

Why do you "feel" the two issues are related? I can't think of any reason why the two issues are related, and you fail to articulate any reason why you think they are.

I explained my position at length in the other thread and referred to the vast amount of empirical evidence on which my position rests. You simply disagreed without providing any reason or evidence as a basis for your argument -- much as you do immediately above, where you simply say "sorry I feel different" rather than actually explaining why. This is not a case of "yes it is, no it isn't" -- one of us is actually supporting our position.

Of course I acknowledge that "someone else may come to a different conclusion than me" but if that conclusion is unsupported, unreasonable, and in stark conflict the evidence then, yes, I tend to conclude that that conclusion should carry little weight. In each disagreement we have had over the last week the underlying issue has been the same: you draw conclusions from anecdotal evidence which cannot validly be drawn from such evidence and then stick to your guns after it's pointed out to you that compelling evidence contradicts your position. You even repeatedly disagreed with me over high school level economics and lectured me on the absurdity of my comments on economics --- and I'm an economics professor! In the future you might want to consider other people's conclusions, specifically the *reasons* other people come to different conclusions than your own.

[sharkman]

Originally Posted by Chris Auld

I explained my position at length in the other thread and referred to the vast amount of empirical evidence on which my position rests. You simply disagreed without providing any reason or evidence as a basis for your argument -- much as you do immediately above, where you simply say "sorry I feel different" rather than actually explaining why. This is not a case of "yes it is, no it isn't" -- one of us is actually supporting our position.

own.

While I agree that you explained your position at length, you never offered any links to studies that backed up your claim. You only mentioned that 'controlled level double blind' studies existed and therefore you were right. And then you attacked my position as selling snake oil and how I was illogical.

When people do that to me I don't bother to go any further, it is plain to see that they are closed minded to anything other than what their own conclusions are on the matter. As for high school economics, are you refering to our differences over gas consumption? You must be aware that economics is not an exact science and given the same set of facts, 10 economists will come up with at least 5 different opinions on the matter. To be blunt with you I think what I find objectionable is you infer if someone disagrees with you they are wrong period and here are the reasons why. I have found that most things are not that cut and dried, but in responding to you I only seem to irritate you. I don't see where I 'lectured you on the absurdity' of what you were saying, maybe as a prof. you felt belittled, but I didn't do anything but disagree with you.

I actually wondered if you were a scientist or something because your approach is very left brained, which is what a good scientist will do under controlled circumstances. However, we are going to have to agree to disagree. If we were in a science lab testing amps I would be more willing to see the evidence, but we are not.

At any rate I saw your latest comment on the 'gas price' thread in response to my comment and I had decided not to answer you. Unfortunately we seem to rub each other the wrong way, and it's not my intent to spoil your time here on this forum.

[Chris Auld]

Originally Posted by sharkman

While I agree that you explained your position at length, you never offered any links to studies that backed up your claim. You only mentioned that 'controlled level double blind' studies existed and therefore you were right.

No, I did not "mention that controlled level double blind studies exist and therefore [claim] I was right." What I said was that there have been many contolled double-blind experiments which show that there cannot be large differences in the sound quality of solid-state amps. Notice that statement draws on evidence to settle an empirical claim: "there are large differences in the sound quality of solid state amps" is a claim about the way the world is and is open to empirical verification or falsification . It is not a claim like "I prefer `Fern Hill' to `The Wasteland,'" which is a statement about preferences. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the claim that there are huge differences in the sound quality of solid state amps is false and NO reasonable observer makes that claim in light of the evidence.

You could have asked for links before. You could look at, for example:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_pwr.htm

(The "different" results involve tubed or clipping amps.) You could also consider tests such as:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

Which documents a blinded experiment on power cables. I draw your attention to the comments of one of the listeners, who was sure the test design was invalid because "SPL levels should have been matched. The difference in volume made the cables identifiable." Yet this listener guessed correctly exactly 50% of the time --- he wasn't picking out actual differences, he was perceiving differences which weren't actually there. Incidentally, the engineers at the National Research Council --- the institution largely responsible for the quality of those Paradigm speakers you were recommending in the other thread --- exclusively use blind tests.

And then you attacked my position as selling snake oil and how I was illogical.

Your position is illogical: as a matter of logic, it does not follow from "I perceived differences in the sound" that there were actually differences in the sound. "Snake oil" is an allegory: you are "selling" differences in sound quality in a manner similar to the marketing of apocryphal snake oil, as I explained in the other thread. Moreover, you blazed in insulting me, insisting I must have a tin ear so the subtle differences you perceived were lost on me. That is both an ad hominem argument and illogical: I could be stone deaf or have the world's finest hearing, it makes no difference to the argument I'm making.

As for high school economics, are you refering to our differences over gas consumption? You must be aware that economics is not an exact science and given the same set of facts, 10 economists will come up with at least 5 different opinions on the matter.

Nonsense. When economists disagree it is usually over normative questions and those disagreements amount to value differences. And when we disagree it is not over matters as simple as the one in the other thread: There is not one single economist on the face of the planet who would agree with the comments you made in that thread. Indeed, there is not one single student who obtained a passing grade in Economics 101 who would agree with your argument, which was simply and demonstrably mistaken. But my point was simply that your behavior in that thread mimics your behavior here: you don't ask for clarification, or make polite comments of disagreement, or change your opinion when new evidence is presented to you, you make an assertion based on anecdotes and guesswork and then stick to it at all costs. Ironically, you then accuse others of being closed-minded.

To be blunt with you I think what I find objectionable is you infer if someone disagrees with you they are wrong period and here are the reasons why.

I don't think that if "someone disagrees with me they are wrong period." The latter part of your sentence is the key one: I want to know "the reasons why" they disagree. If someone points out evidence which contradicts my position, or a fault in my logic, I am grateful and change my position. If someone makes an assertion that I know to be contradicted by logic or evidence, then I state why I disagree, drawing on logic and evidence. If all they do in response is repeat the assertion and insult me, then no, I will tend not to be swayed by their argument.

I actually wondered if you were a scientist or something because your approach is very left brained, which is what a good scientist will do under controlled circumstances. However, we are going to have to agree to disagree. If we were in a science lab testing amps I would be more willing to see the evidence, but we are not.

You should ask yourself why anyone should be swayed by your opinion if you are not willing to "see the evidence." Simply, your idea that because you perceived a difference between two amps then there must have been a difference between those amps is wrong. The evidence -- much of which was collected in living rooms with simple equipment to control levels and pieces of fabric to hide brand names -- indicates that there are not "huge differences" in the sound quality of solid state amps. All you have done to confront this evidence is repeat the same anecdote over and over again whilst utterly failing to confront the reasons why the conclusions you draw from that anecdote are invalid. And I do not "agree to disagree" -- when you state your opinions in public you invite public disagreement, and your opinions are likely to induce people to waste their money.

I recall very clearly hearing differences between a Nad amp connected to expensive Monster Cable wires and lesser amps and wires. I wound up spending the equivalent of, at the time, three months rent on that setup. I also recall hearing the huge differences using a green marker on the outer rim of a CD made, and the differences using vibration-isolating feet made on a solid-state amp, and the myriad subtle differences between CD players. In all of these cases my perceptions fooled me: none of those differences existed, and in some cases my mistaken perceptions cost me a lot of money. I would prefer that others avoid my mistakes.

Again, do you think wine tastings should be done with the labels visible? Why do you think wine tasters, and psychologists, and medical researchers, and engineers, and, well, everyone else prefers blind tests to sighted tests? Why does that reasoning go out the window when it comes to audio equipment? At a wine tasting do you rip the blinds off the wine labels, demanding to know why the other tasters are treating the tasting as if they were in a science lab? Do you just generally disregard all reason and evidence -- the domain of the scientists you sneer at -- and if so why do you think that anyone should take your opinion seriously? If not, why are you disregarding reason and evidence in this particular case?