• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

does Sony overadvertise the power of their amps?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Astrallite said:
I dont think any pre/pro is worth it until hdmi 2.0 ones atart coming out. 4k tvs will be affordable soon and being stuck at 30hz imo is a big handicap.
Click to expand...

Since many of us stream or use HD-Cable/Satellite. I don't see 4K dominating in the next lifecycle.

I like emotiva products. You have to definitely pick your fights though.
 
alkemyst said:
Since many of us stream or use HD-Cable/Satellite. I don't see 4K dominating in the next lifecycle.
Click to expand...

I don't, either. 4K isn't going to be any use to anyone with a normal-sized TV unless they are planning on sitting at half the distance they do now.

And even then, it's not going to help unless there is some 4K content. How long will it take for the studios to remaster everything that is now in Blu Ray to 4K?

I think the next "big thing" will be OLED. Now, it might be in 4K, but the reason it's going to be a big improvement isn't going to be because of the resolution.

Personally, I'd skip the 4K as a gimmick for now, unless I was burning for an LED/LCD set that costs a bunch.
 
Astrallite said:
I dont think any pre/pro is worth it until hdmi 2.0 ones atart coming out. 4k tvs will be affordable soon and being stuck at 30hz imo is a big handicap.
Click to expand...

lulz, we don't even get full bitrate 1080p feed from cable/satellite. I doubt we will be doing 4k any time soon.
 
Pacfanweb said:
Nobody said anything about balanced out. Pre-outs. Balanced is a waste of money, a LOT of money.
Click to expand...

i t really depends on what you are connecting to, Sure adapters are cheap however its a lot easier if all your amps run XLRs to just have your AVR/PrePro do it as well
 
Wattage is usually the last thing I look at. Unless you're having a rave party or really large room, 50rms each speaker is often plenty for most typical living rooms and volume levels. They say most people don't even push more than a couple dozen watts most of the time when watching TV anyway. I would look at all the other features and quality first. Don't let a few dozen watts determine your choice.

If a sound gets louder by 3 decibels or "slightly louder," it takes twice as much electrical power from your receiver or amp to produce that modest increase. Therefore, a 100-watt amplifier will produce sound only slightly louder than a 50-watt amplifier.
Click to expand...
 
sdifox said:
lulz, we don't even get full bitrate 1080p feed from cable/satellite. I doubt we will be doing 4k any time soon.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying...in case you ever hook up the PC to the TV.

Anubis said:
i t really depends on what you are connecting to, Sure adapters are cheap however its a lot easier if all your amps run XLRs to just have your AVR/PrePro do it as well
Click to expand...

And I think ground loops are generally a bigger problem in home systems than EMI since it's not really a recording environment with all the mics and miles of cables and electronics.
 
Astrallite said:
I'm just saying...in case you ever hook up the PC to the TV.



And I think ground loops are generally a bigger problem in home systems than EMI since it's not really a recording environment with all the mics and miles of cables and electronics.
Click to expand...

My projector is 1080p and I doubt I'll be upgrading any time soon.
 
HeXen said:
Wattage is usually the last thing I look at. Unless you're having a rave party or really large room, 50rms each speaker is often plenty for most typical living rooms and volume levels. They say most people don't even push more than a couple dozen watts most of the time when watching TV anyway. I would look at all the other features and quality first. Don't let a few dozen watts determine your choice.
Click to expand...

You are probably correct for most people.....and I ASSume that most who post here are more serious about HT than "most people", and perhaps that is a mistaken assumption.

I know that on a regular basis I sustain well over 100 watts. To do that requires peaks that are much higher. I have lots of headroom, so it's no problem. Nobody complains about having "too much power". You're always better off with more than less.
 
Pacfanweb said:
You are probably correct for most people.....and I ASSume that most who post here are more serious about HT than "most people", and perhaps that is a mistaken assumption.
Click to expand...
Many people also use relatively efficient speakers and powered subs, which reduces the amplification power requirements.

I know that on a regular basis I sustain well over 100 watts. To do that requires peaks that are much higher. I have lots of headroom, so it's no problem. Nobody complains about having "too much power". You're always better off with more than less.
Click to expand...
Have you done power measurements? Unless you have a huge room and/or have inefficient speakers, sending 100 watts to a speaker placed in a living room is going to result in painfully loud and unbearable audio to the vast majority of people.
 
Accord99 said:
Many people also use relatively efficient speakers and powered subs, which reduces the amplification power requirements.


Have you done power measurements? Unless you have a huge room and/or have inefficient speakers, sending 100 watts to a speaker placed in a living room is going to result in painfully loud and unbearable audio to the vast majority of people.
Click to expand...

Give organ music a try.

OR

http://www.amazon.com/Tchaikovsky-18...ords=dvd-audio


That is a technically superior but musically disastrous recording of 1812. Wear earplugs when you listen to it at reference level.
 
Last edited:
Accord99 said:
Many people also use relatively efficient speakers and powered subs, which reduces the amplification power requirements.


Have you done power measurements? Unless you have a huge room and/or have inefficient speakers, sending 100 watts to a speaker placed in a living room is going to result in painfully loud and unbearable audio to the vast majority of people.
Click to expand...

One of my amps has watt meters. I would assume it is reasonably accurate.

My speakers are very efficient. Some people just like it loud and clear.
 
sdifox said:
They are not the only ones that provide deceptive description of power output.
Click to expand...

Yep - it's basically industry standard.

Even when they do state it as, "75W/channel, 8-ohm, 0.01% THD" - there is no true guarantee that, in reality, the amp will deliver 75W.
Many will over-inflate, based on perhaps peak power when driving one very specific frequency tone (and not a whole mess of frequencies, like in reality). There's likely some kind of point where fewer variations in the audio is being amplified means the circuity can be more efficient, or something. Haven't looked into the physics and whatnot of this, but it sounds possible based on what I am familiar with.

I know some brands, like Harman/Kardon, are praised for underrating their own power ratings. I think my previous receiver (an H/K AVR247), rated at 50w per channel, could deliver far more at 50w.
There's also a distinct possibility that, perhaps it's accurate at that power and THD rating, but when you push it (they might built in tolerance of extra power?) closer to max volume, perhaps the distortion rises? I suspect I had heard more audible distortion when I got near the max volume number, but it may have just been too unbearably loud and that's why I refrained. That volume on low-quality sources also makes it easy to hear said low quality in a source (like low bitrate audio files).
I do know that H/K model seemed to have much headroom for loudness than the Marantz NR1403, which I have also heard praised for exceeding it's own rating. Either way, with the speakers I have now (which, with even more money on better, higher-sensitivity speakers, this can only get better), I can't even approach max volume on good sources. I CAN approach it now, not comfortably, or, more to the point, not without annoying apartment neighbors immediately, when watching cable. Our cable broadcasts with basic DD 5.1 at best, probably low bitrate. It's either because of that, or other reasons, but I have to use a higher volume on the dial. I can get the same loudness, with much better imaging and sound-stage presence to boot, at lower volume numbers when watching Netflix (DD+, health bitrate too) or, better yet, watching DD TrueHD or DTS HD-MA sources on Blu-ray. Of course the sound quality itself is better, but that definitely means I know for sure, on current speakers, I couldn't tolerate max power on this receiver. Not unless I was utilizing a massive TV and had speakers no closer than 20ft from ears all around.
 
Accord99 said:
Many people also use relatively efficient speakers and powered subs, which reduces the amplification power requirements.


Have you done power measurements? Unless you have a huge room and/or have inefficient speakers, sending 100 watts to a speaker placed in a living room is going to result in painfully loud and unbearable audio to the vast majority of people.
Click to expand...

lol i have a tiny room and very efficient speakers, with lots of power

woo woo
 
lol im the exact opposite, all my speakers are 4ohm with 85db sensitivity and I'm in a 9000 cu ft. office room. So that's why I'm reppin a 80 pound receiver (Yamaha RX-Z11).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top