An Interesting Look At Watts

Marty913

I was reading through the April issue of Sound and Vision magazine and noticed back-to-back reviews of the Sony STR-DA5400ES and the Marantz SR6003 receivers. I normally don’t put too much stock in their listening perceptions but the Test Bench results can be interesting. I’m posting this simply because there seems to be a lot of “this has more watts than that has” type discussions and questions lately. I don’t have either brand and haven’t looked at the features etc. I just thought it interesting to see the test results versus the stated watts / price difference for number of channels driven.

Sony STR-DA5400ES ($2,000) - Stated Watts Overall 120 X 7
Tested: 160 X 2, 64 X 5, 45 X 7

Marantz SR6003 ($999) - Stated Watts Overall 100 X 7
Tested: 130 X 2, 111 X 5, 96 X 7

The above measurements were all at 8 ohms, same frequency / distortion levels.

cnh

I saw that article as well and am not surprised. Sony has always had those disparaties, only now they seem to be appearing in their ES series where I don't think they had in the past lines there?

cnh

Falcon01

Wow the Sony goes down to 45 watts when using all 7 channels? Thats B-R-U-T-A-L.

I've always thought Sony products sucked and the only reason I bought a PS3 was because it was the cheapest bluray player at the time. Besides, for home theatre use Marantz has a great reputation.

thuffman03

Very interesting. You would think for the extra $1k the Sony would kick butt. Just to show you that you have to look hard into what you are getting and not go only by price.

Falcon01

thuffman03 wrote: »

You would think for the extra $1k the Sony would kick butt.

Goes to show you that Sony products are still overpriced. Besides even if these 2 products had the same wattage output at 7 channels the Marantz would probably still sound better as they are known for being one of the best sounding receivers.

ben62670

Thanks Kex. I miss my HK-245. Gotta love the watt game.

treitz3

Don't mean to throw a wrench in the discussion here fellas but I will throw this out there for you. I have heard 7 and 8 watt amps blow the snot out of 375 watt amps. I have also seen my two channel rig go all the way up to 3200 watts, all the way down to 8 watts. Currently I'm at 190 watts. As soon as I stopped paying attention with the #'s associated with a particular amp and just went off the sound, my rig started sounding better.

Marty913

I agree treitz3 and that was kind of my point. Some recent posters have made comments or asked questions like "if I replace receiver-A at 100 watts with receiver-B at 130 will I hear the difference". The answer may be yes, no, or maybe and the difference you may or may not hear could be the the sound of LESS watts. Regardless, it's the wrong question.

Having said that, it should be noted that more than a few old timers, veterans, and people who should know better on the forum usually advise the poster that "yes, more watts is always better".

Face

Watts = headroom.

I agree with Tom, it has NOTHING to do with sound quality.

The 20 watt triode and 30 watt class A amps I have are the best sounding amps I've owned, and I have/had a few over 250wpc.

cnh

All points well taken. And there is still a lot of subjectivity involved...the amps mentioned above inherently sound better because they are of a different class of amplification than standard solid state receivers which are perhaps more honestly comparable in terms of watts...although other variables in design also come into play there.

Harman Kardon is a good example. With their instantaneous current available ratings (one of those other factors besides simple watts). Yet we shouldn't throw out watt figures entirely...instead we should complement those figures with other factors, including what we hear (and there will never be complete agreement there).

cnh

Marty913

cnh wrote: »

All points well taken. And there is still a lot of subjectivity involved...the amps mentioned above inherently sound better because they are of a different class of amplification than standard solid state receivers which are perhaps more honestly comparable in terms of watts...although other variables in design also come into play there.

Harman Kardon is a good example. With their instantaneous current available ratings (one of those other factors besides simple watts). Yet we shouldn't throw out watt figures entirely...instead we should complement those figures with other factors, including what we hear (and there will never be complete agreement there). cnh

You are correct of course. I do value real watts as an important statistic and certainly no one would disagree that real watts minus utilized watts = headroom (a very good thing). All this assumes acceptable distortion levels. My only point was that manufacturer's watts are not always real watts.

treitz3

Another good example? The Odyssey Stratos. It's only 150 watts but due to the design it sounded like a much, much more powerful SS amp. Especially in the lower octaves.

VR3

I'll tell you about watts.

I worked around a 6,000 watt PA system all day -- you couldnt pay me to own any of that gear for music reproduction. I know that is not the design purpose -- but at 6,000 watts - youd expect it to be decent!

oifvet0608

Another thing you have to consider when looking at wattage...

Sony may say that they will push more wattage than an HK or Marantz but you have to look at the internals.

Clean power produces much better sound quality at any volume level than dirty, so a 100w/channel dirty amp will sound like crap compared to a 45 w/channel clean amp in the same price range.

Disclaimer: I'm a sony audio hater, they sucked years ago and they still suck now. Even the ES series.

Goth child

Unfortunately with ht receivers there are a LOT of other features to take into consideration.The Sony is a full 7 channel amp fully specced to support lossless surround for bluray,has pre ins and pre outs,as well as being able to run up to 3 zones throughout the home etc etc.I question why the 2 were even compared,the strda2400es still has more features than the Marantz.
There are many good reviews on the Strda5200es/5300es/5400es from all around the world.I dont believe its a good idea for anyone to completely dismiss every product a supplier ever makes,I know a lot of audio snobs who feel that way about about Polk!The ES cd players in particular are regarded by many audiophiles as world class several receiving "A"ratings from Stereophille for example.Having said that it would be fantastic if all amps were measured the same way and adverised their REAL watts per channel!

Pedler

So I am going to ask the million dollar question..

What sould you look at to determine better sound quality?

You are saying a 8 watt amp can sound better than a 100 watt amp,
and a 45 watt X7 channel receiver can sound better than a 85 watt x7 receiver.
So what do we look at for the specs in sound and vision and other mags?
to determine what is better?

I ask because I have a SC-07 on order but if you look at the specs it should
Suck! It fails the 4 ohm test, and sound and vision didn't even do a all 7 channel watts test.

But... It is Highly rated by many on this site and What HiFi, and Sound and Vision, and several others.

I am perplexed... What is the missing link...

I hope I don't come across harsh, but It does get confusing.

P.S. I Can't wait for my SC-07!!!!

mhardy6647

Unfortunately, you've just got to use your ears.

For example: A single-ended 45 amplifier is capable of about 2 watts continuous; you won't hear much more realistic reproduction, either (for my tastes). Can 2 watts possibly be adequate for full-range music reproduction? Yes, but only with very carefully matched, high-sensitivity loudspeakers. Many folks prefer to biamp and use a more powerful and/or solid state amplifier for bass... but fleapower can be brilliant, full-range.



photo of one of Gary Kaufman's 45 SET amps from http://www.enjoythemusic.com/bostonbash99/

Pedler

I understand, but their is so much gear out there it can be hard to get to listen to it all.

I figure there has to be a way to cut out the bad designs vs the good ones. That all..

Maybe that is why people have to sell and buy and sell again..
(I have been their and done that and am still doing it)

mhardy6647

If you're quite serious about sound, a reasonable rule of thumb is just to skip the mass market brands.

Pedler

mhardy6647 wrote: »

If you're quite serious about sound, a reasonable rule of thumb is just to skip the mass market brands.

I am just talking.. in general.

I don't mean to sound like I am some mad Hatter ... I guess that may be how I am coming off.. Sorry.:)

For the new people that comes to learn and get the wisdom from people like you and others... It was overwelming for me. When I started out.

I went through 3 receivers and 3 sets of speakers trying to get the system to sound right. ( I can't do HT and 2 channel due to space)It can even be a let-down to some one trusting a store that is selling this stuff.

You are supposed to trust these people and they can lead you in the wrong path...

I have been an on and off reader for about 2 years and over time you can pick out some that know their stuff and some that think they do...well have good intentions any way.

All in all it is ALLWAYS better to listen to what you want to buy.

When you say skip the mass market brands which are you saying to look at?

Most of them are mass market..:cool: or are you saying to go with the slower to adopt to the new formats because they don't want to put out a faulty product with HDMI Issues... or that Shuts down on it's own due to Heat. ( If you know what I mean )

LuSh

Why would one care if a products spec'd well with all channels driven? Do you know how much power is usually sent to your surround or surround back channels? Sony was more powerful then spec'd with the front two channels driven, the two channels that matter the most. It would be like trying to spec a plasma screen, ever measured one with full 255 white output? You wouldn't like the results, yet somehow everybody (myself included) agree it's the best flat panel technology.

The ultimate conclusion should be how the unit sounds, spec's in this world are meaningless. They say no knowledge is a dangerous thing, I think a little knowledge can sometimes be more dangerous.

nooshinjohn

a good 7.1 receiver is one with preouts... I used to care about a receiver's power specs as well, but now it is only about the quality of their decoding and what type of input/outputs it has. External amplification is the way to go in most cases, and you can choose what works best for your ears and your preferences

Marty913

I don't disagree with anything that's been said, especially the bottom line regarding how it sounds. In the end companies (most anyway) design their products for target user groups and price points and spin the marketing toward that goal.

Still, I'm not ready to abandon accurate specifications and statistics altogether. They are a good starting point for comparing similar items within a defined category. Ultimately, accurate specifications and your own ears are the only real truths. Everything else is just some guy's opinion.

mhardy6647

Nothing wrong with specifications per se, of course!

Specifications are only "accurate" if they are referenced to either commonly-accepted standards (e.g., FTC requirements for two-channel home hifi amplifier power) or the conditions are well-documented for comparative purposes (e.g., referencing loudspeaker sensitivity as dB SPL at 1 meter for a 2.83 VAC input). This latter specification is often represented as dB/m/watt, but "1 watt" could be ambiguous, since the impedance of a speaker is frequency-dependent. 1 watt at 8 ohms is 2.83 VAC, but 2.83 VAC is 2 watts into 4 ohms; a 4 ohm speaker could be subtly misrepresented in its sensitivity by 3 dB (and plenty of manufacturers know this and don't bother to clarify their 'specification'). As always, caveat emptor.

treitz3

Pedler wrote: »

What should you look at to determine better sound quality?

Don't ever rely on spec's. They are a "general" guideline but often skewed or very misleading. Spec's will not guarantee great sound.

Pedler wrote: »

You are saying a 8 watt amp can sound better than a 100 watt amp, and a 45 watt X7 channel receiver can sound better than a 85 watt x7 receiver.

Yes and yes.

Pedler wrote: »

So what do we look at for the specs in sound and vision and other mags? to determine what is better?

Well, here's the kicker, you can't tell from spec's what will sound great and what will sound like crap. There are way to many variables to look at starting from where your musical tastes and past experience may lay with regard to musical reproduction, to what type of music you generally listen too, leading to what type of speaker(s) you are trying to amplify. That is also just the tip of the iceburg.

I know my answers must be very frustrating for you to hear and I completely understand. About the only thing you can do, and this has been recommended over and over on this and many audio boards, is to go out and listen to as many pieces of gear that you would be interested in. This is not an overnight learning curve. Experience with gear and how it reacts and pairs with certain gear and certain listening environments can be priceless when building a system but it can and will give you a better understanding of how things will sound than relying on just the numbers.

It's called your audio journey. How far will it take you? Well, that's up to you and how far you want to go. Some folks stop with just the first rig they build and only replace something when an item goes bad. Others will buy, sell and swap gear relentlessly for years or even decades and stumble across a rig of their liking. Some never find what they are looking for but settle on the best they can afford or find. Then I have known some that kept looking for that "holy grail" of sound until they hit the grave.

It all comes down to your preferences and your musical tastes. Just be sure to enjoy the journey along the way. I sure am. Good luck in your journey and happy listening.

Pedler

It's the Journey that never ends. I here you...

RyanJoz

anyone have tested info for an onkyo 876 or 906 or a denon 3808?

cnh

Here's a link for the Onkyo 805 which shares a lot of the audio of the 875?

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_3/onkyo-tx-sr805-receiver-9-2006-part-5.html

The most recent issue of Home Theater Mag. April, 09 has a review of the Onkyo Integra 9.9 that although just a bit upscale from the 906 is pretty close to it?

cnh