View Full Version : Receiver weight a significant factor?
GregoriusM
05-25-05, 11:32 PM
Hi.
If my Rotel 1056 doesn't come back fixed (which I hope it does), I have chose the following in my price range to consider (Rotel included for comparison).
I was quite surprised to see quite a difference in weight.
[COLOR=DarkRed]NAD T753 [/COLOR] $1500 CAD 90 w/ch 6.1 ch - weighs [COLOR=DarkGreen]45.1 lbs.[/COLOR]
http://www.nadelectronics.com/av_receivers/T753_frameset.htm
[COLOR=DarkRed]Rotel 1056 [/COLOR] $1999 CAD 75 w/ch 5.1 ch - [COLOR=DarkGreen]37.4 lbs.[/COLOR]
http://www.rotel.com/products/specs/rsx1056.htm
[COLOR=DarkRed]Denon 3805 [/COLOR] $1920 CAD 120 w/ch 7.1 ch - weighs [COLOR=DarkGreen]37.5 lbs.[/COLOR]
http://www.usa.denon.com/catalog/pdfs/AVR-3805%20Final.pdf
[COLOR=DarkRed]Marantz 8500 [/COLOR] $1800 CAD 125 w/ch 7.1 ch - [COLOR=DarkGreen]33.1 lbs.[/COLOR]
http://us.marantz.com/shop/_templates/Proddetail.asp?model=25&cat=15
There is a significant difference between the Marantz at 33.1 lbs. and the NAD at 45.1 lbs.
If price was taken into consideration, that makes the NAD even more of a buy if weight is taken into a consideration.
Does anyone see what is included or missing in these receivers that I should be worried about, since a lot of us "audio enthusiast" equate weight with quality?
Better transformer, power supply, copper shielding, fans instead of larger heat shields, ?????
Any comments are appreciated.
I gave the links so that you could maybe point out something of value that adds to the weight of the component, or something that actually is heavier, but not as technically proficient as a lighter component.
Thanks!
-------
Edit:
Hmmmmm......... I auditioned the Marantz today and liked the sound.
The NAD was good too, but not quite as "strong" sounding, and not quite as detailed, although it had a nice, warm sound.
I'm bringing the Denon home for the weekend to check it out.
And I've got my 2nd Rotel home (with the buzz - waiting for the 3rd to be shipped) to compare to the Denon.
Now, if the Rotel still isn't working, it's the Marantz that I liked the sound of the most, but it's a skimpy 32 pounds. That's hardly more than the Denon 2805.
Why is this so doggone frustrating?
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
---------
Okay:
NAD for the weight?
Marantz for the sound?
Denon for the price (it is on sale for $1498 at A&B and Advance)?
Or Rotel for the buzz ;-) and the weight? It is also only 5.1 channel, which is fine for me, but is heavier than the Denon and Marantz which are 7 channel.
The sound of each one of these is within my "hearing" parameters, so which should I go for?
Generally the weight difference between receivers is in the transformer/power supply. NAD receivers/amplifiers are famous for being able to produce the rated power output with all channels being driven at the same time. I would be really surprised if any of the other receivers you listed could do the same. The exception may be the Rotel. It would become most noticable with large dynamic swings in the source material. It may take extended listening to notice and appreciate the extra headroom receivers like the NAD provide.
mark russ
05-28-05, 10:19 PM
Well, the Marantz has a torrodial transformer and the NAD (Rotel and Denon either for that matter) doesn't. The Marantz also has copper shielding on the chasis bottom.
CCarncross
05-28-05, 11:35 PM
I'm seriously thinking about getting into the amp/receiver business. I'll be building the absolutely cheapest crap I can get away with, but I'll be adding 40-50lbs of lead to the chassis so you guys that shop by weight will eat it up.
;)
There can be alot of weight in the larger heatsinks these days as well. Beefier amp sections need more cooling capacity, and if they want to keep the design passively cooled....well...
[QUOTE=CCarncross]I'm seriously thinking about getting into the amp/receiver business. I'll be building the absolutely cheapest crap I can get away with, but I'll be adding 40-50lbs of lead to the chassis so you guys that shop by weight will eat it up.[/QUOTE]
It would probably be better to just use cast iron for the chassis, heatsinks or something else.
Because you don't want any kind of possible "lead" contamination lawsuits hounding you later on..... ;)
Kevin. W
05-29-05, 10:06 AM
[QUOTE=GregoriusM]Hi.
If my Rotel 1056 doesn't come back fixed (which I hope it does), I have chose the following in my price range to consider (Rotel included for comparison).
I was quite surprised to see quite a difference in weight.
[COLOR=DarkRed]NAD T753 [/COLOR] $1500 CAD 90 w/ch 6.1 ch - weighs [COLOR=DarkGreen]45.1 lbs.[/COLOR]
http://www.nadelectronics.com/av_receivers/T753_frameset.htm
[COLOR=DarkRed]Rotel 1056 [/COLOR] $1999 CAD 75 w/ch 5.1 ch - [COLOR=DarkGreen]37.4 lbs.[/COLOR]
http://www.rotel.com/products/specs/rsx1056.htm
[COLOR=DarkRed]Denon 3805 [/COLOR] $1920 CAD 120 w/ch 7.1 ch - weighs [COLOR=DarkGreen]37.5 lbs.[/COLOR]
http://www.usa.denon.com/catalog/pdfs/AVR-3805%20Final.pdf
[COLOR=DarkRed]Marantz 8500 [/COLOR] $1800 CAD 125 w/ch 7.1 ch - [COLOR=DarkGreen]33.1 lbs.[/COLOR]
http://us.marantz.com/shop/_templates/Proddetail.asp?model=25&cat=15
There is a significant difference between the Marantz at 33.1 lbs. and the NAD at 45.1 lbs.
If price was taken into consideration, that makes the NAD even more of a buy if weight is taken into a consideration.
Does anyone see what is included or missing in these receivers that I should be worried about, since a lot of us "audio enthusiast" equate weight with quality?
Better transformer, power supply, copper shielding, fans instead of larger heat shields, ?????
Any comments are appreciated.
I gave the links so that you could maybe point out something of value that adds to the weight of the component, or something that actually is heavier, but not as technically proficient as a lighter component.
Thanks!
-------
Edit:
Hmmmmm......... I auditioned the Marantz today and liked the sound.
The NAD was good too, but not quite as "strong" sounding, and not quite as detailed, although it had a nice, warm sound.
I'm bringing the Denon home for the weekend to check it out.
And I've got my 2nd Rotel home (with the buzz - waiting for the 3rd to be shipped) to compare to the Denon.
Now, if the Rotel still isn't working, it's the Marantz that I liked the sound of the most, but it's a skimpy 32 pounds. That's hardly more than the Denon 2805.
Why is this so doggone frustrating?
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
---------
Okay:
NAD for the weight?
Marantz for the sound?
Denon for the price (it is on sale for $1498 at A&B and Advance)?
Or Rotel for the buzz ;-) and the weight? It is also only 5.1 channel, which is fine for me, but is heavier than the Denon and Marantz which are 7 channel.
The sound of each one of these is within my "hearing" parameters, so which should I go for?[/QUOTE]
Honestly your best bet is too take them all home one at a time and give them a demo to see which one sounds the best in your situation. Then you have to look at your room layout, determine what your listening levels are and which feature set from which receiver offers the most. I would rule out the Rotel just because you've had 2 buzzing units and its only 5.1. Personally I've heard a Marantz SR5400, Denon 1801 and now a NAD T773. Marantz had a bright detailed sound, Denon was warm and laid back. I found the NAD to have a warm detailed sound with tremendous bass.. NAD is also know for meeting their published specs and being able to power tough loads. Did you ever price out a T763 or T773.
Kevin
[QUOTE=CCarncross]I'm seriously thinking about getting into the amp/receiver business. I'll be building the absolutely cheapest crap I can get away with, but I'll be adding 40-50lbs of lead to the chassis so you guys that shop by weight will eat it up.
;)
There can be alot of weight in the larger heatsinks these days as well. Beefier amp sections need more cooling capacity, and if they want to keep the design passively cooled....well...[/QUOTE]
Hah!:D
Yeah, if I was a receiver manufacturer I'd make cases out of heavier-gauge steel. It'd be much cheaper than major power supply or amp heatsink changes, and it would give the impression the receiver was very solidly built.
P.S. Depleted uranium is even more dense than lead. Just a wee bit more dangerous. Perhaps the "do not open, no user-serviceable parts inside" label could be made a bit more insistent.;)
[QUOTE=Fraoch]Hah!:D
P.S. Depleted uranium is even more dense than lead. Just a wee bit more dangerous. Perhaps the "do not open, no user-serviceable parts inside" label could be made a bit more insistent.;)[/QUOTE]
Heck you can maybe even make it self powering that way. Not to mention, all the glow in the dark possibilities...;)
newfmp3
05-29-05, 06:45 PM
i agree, this whole weight thing is a bit silly.
maybe we should all go buy some old amps from the early 80's late 70's.... ha ha
hdkhang
05-30-05, 01:52 AM
@GregoriusM
"since a lot of us "audio enthusiast" equate weight with quality?"
My uncle did the same thing, keeps getting conned by sales folk. "Here.. try to lift that, see that weight, quality stuff."
Cheers...
Duy-Khang Hoang
I don't think that anyone is advising GregoriousM to shop by weight. But the weight of a receiver IS an indication of the robustness of the power supply AND the build quailty.
[QUOTE=rbrb] But the weight of a receiver IS an indication of the robustness of the power supply AND the build quailty.[/QUOTE]
Not always. Just because something weighs more, that alone is no guarantee of either of those!
If you are looking at receivers that weigh in at over 50 Lbs., they should have a torroidal power transformer.
I'm sure there are many in this category: flagship from H/K, NAD, etc.
[QUOTE=Fraoch]Hah!:D
Yeah, if I was a receiver manufacturer I'd make cases out of heavier-gauge steel. It'd be much cheaper than major power supply or amp heatsink changes, and it would give the impression the receiver was very solidly built.
[/QUOTE]
Why not just put a brick in the chassis..
[QUOTE=Johnla]Not always. Just because something weighs more, that alone is no guarantee of either of those![/QUOTE]
If the AVR amplifiers are analog and required to put out solid, continuous power output into 8 and 4 Ohms.. A few things are needed..
1. Enough inches of heat sink, these are made from extruded aluminum
2. Enough power supply rail voltage capability, requires a bigger transformer here a torroidal is more efficient but still a large size is required..
3. Large electrolytic capacitors, high uF (>20K uF) and high voltage (>50V) for high storage capability
All of the above cost more and weigh more...
A good comparison would be to take a comparable rated AVR to a quality power amplifier... Though weight isn't the only spec, it does provide some insight to an AVR's power output capability..
To date we haven't seen a lite weight AVR to be capable of delivering high continuous power and then be just a few pounds..
Or can somebody else provide an example.. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=M Code]
All of the above cost more and weigh more...:
[/QUOTE]
So you will PERSONALLY guarantee, that just because something weighs more, that it is absolutely and automatically of better quality? There are many ways to design a powerful amplifier, and not all of them require a massive amount of weight to do so. And no, I am not just talking about digital amp, like in the low end Panasonics.
[QUOTE=M Code]
All of the above cost more and weigh more...:
[/QUOTE]
So you will PERSONALLY guarantee, that just because something weighs the most, that it is absolutely and automatically of better quality than something else in the same category that weighs less? There are many ways to design a powerful amplifier, and not all of them require a massive amount of weight to do so. And no, I am not just talking about digital amp, like in the low end Panasonics.
[QUOTE=Johnla]There are many ways to design a powerful amplifier, and not all of them require a massive amount of weight to do so. And no, I am not just talking about digital amp, like in the low end Panasonics.[/QUOTE]
My original question remains..
Do you have an example.. :rolleyes:
Of an anlaog amplifier (or AVR) that is capable of delivering of continuous high power into 8 and 4 Ohms..
Note that I said continuous, many lite weight analog amplifier designs can deliver high power for short instantanteous peaks <200mS) but not continuous..
Post back.. With the examples..
We are curious to know about these as certain laws of physics will need to be rewritten.. .. ;)
[QUOTE=M Code]My original question remains..
Do you have an example.. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
You can roll your eyes until they are permanently stuck in the back of your head if you want!
I am certainly not going to dig up all the reviews and tests results of every amp made.
Just look up ALL the major players in high end amps! Do they ALL weigh the same? No they do not! Are the heaviest ones, when they are rated for the same output, are they ALWAYS the ones that test out the best, and have the highest power outputs? No they are not! Because one can make a lighter amp that has better cooling, just by going with something like cooling fans, and that amp may very well indeed outperform the heavier amp!. Just because something has more weight, that in itself, is not any guarantee of better/higher quality and or more power! And again, it also depends upon what "type" of amp design is used, and what's it efficiency is. Some amps waste a lot of more of their AC power input into heat instead of a usable power output, than other designs do.
[QUOTE=M Code]My original question remains..
Do you have an example.. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
You can roll your eyes until they are permanently stuck in the back of your head if you want!
I am certainly not going to dig up all the reviews and tests results of every amp made.
Just look up ALL the major players in high end amps! Do they ALL weigh the same? No they do not! Are the heaviest ones, when they are rated for the same output, are they ALWAYS the ones that test out the best, and have the highest power outputs? No they are not! Because one can make a lighter amp that has better cooling, just by going with something like cooling fans, and that amp may very well indeed outperform the heavier amp! So just because something has 15lbs of extruded cooling fins instead another way of cooling, is not any quality assurance. Just because something has more weight, that in itself, is not any guarantee of better/higher quality and or more power! And again, it also depends upon what "class/type" of amp design is used, and what's it efficiency is. Because some amp designs waste a lot of more of their AC power input into heat instead of a usable power output, than some other designs do.
[QUOTE=Johnla]You can roll your eyes until they are permanently stuck in the back of your head if you want!
I am certainly not going to dig up all the reviews and tests results of every amp made.
Just look up ALL the major players in high end amps! Do they ALL weigh the same? No they do not! Are the heaviest ones, when they are rated for the same output, are they ALWAYS the ones that test out the best, and have the highest power outputs? No they are not!
[/quote]
My point precisely..
Because all of the separate component amplifiers..
They are all heavy weights..
No lite weights..
They have additional areas of component over-design such as heat sinks, power transformers and power supply capacitors....
Because one can make a lighter amp that has better cooling, just by going with something like cooling fans, and that amp may very well indeed outperform the heavier amp! So just because something has 15lbs of extruded cooling fins instead another way of cooling, is not any quality assurance. Just because something has more weight, that in itself, is not any guarantee of better/higher quality and or more power!
Yes..
Cooling fans can be used but fans make noise when running and are audible in a quality home theater system..
So as stated before..
A quality brand analog component amplifier (or AVR)... will design its products to deliver reasonable, continuous (>200mS) power into an 8 or 4 Ohm load without the gimmicks.. And some may use fans but their operation is only activated when its design limits have been pushed and additional cooling is required to keep it from shutting down thermally....
I PERSONALLY said "indication" not gaurantee
millwood
05-30-05, 08:37 PM
rbrb: you will have to excuse Johnla: his reading comprehension isn't as good as he thought. To Johnla, you wrote what he thought you wrote, which usually is different from what you wrote.
and this exchange is one particular example of that.
Obviously the amp circuit and/or power supply has to be taken into account. All the Sunfire amps, the Linn Klimax amps, and the good digital switching amps like BelCanto, etc (including HK dpr2005, and the upcoming Samsung 250 w/ch digital amp) are not going to be comparable weight-wise to a similar rated analog and conventional power supply unit.
Doesn't mean it equates to better sound, but not necessarily worse, either. More efficient = less cooling = less weight for the same output.
[QUOTE=millwood] you will have to excuse [/QUOTE]
And what's the excuse for you?
[QUOTE=M Code]My point precisely..
Because all of the separate component amplifiers..
They are all heavy weights..
No lite weights..
They have additional areas of component over-design such as heat sinks, power transformers and power supply capacitors....[/QUOTE]
No the point is, that the heaviest of them all, is not necessarily the best of them all...
And that is what you are missing!
And yes, when you take some of the very heaviest ones made, then some of the others do indeed look like lightweights in comparison. Even though they still may weigh in at 100lbs or more. And yet they still may perform as good or better than the heaviest ones. And YOU yourself, have even tried to say somewhat the same things a few times about the H/K 2005, that weighs only 26lbs, as being a better performer than many heavier AVR's.
But if you want to go back to AVR's. Then something like the 30lb Sunfire Ultimate, also proves that massive weight alone in a AVR does not always make it the most powerful. The Sunfire weighs in at about 1/2 the weight of most flagship AVR's, and yet it puts out as much or more power in a actual testing, than most that weigh in at 60lbs+. And that even includes into 4ohm loads.
Weight alone simply does not automatically = better.
[QUOTE=Johnla]No the point is, that the heaviest of them all, is not necessarily the best of them all...
And that is what you are missing!
And yes, when you take some of the very heaviest ones made, then some of the others do indeed look like lightweights in comparison. Even though they still may weigh in at 100lbs or more. And yet they still may perform as good or better than the heaviest ones.
[/quote]
There are extremes for weight..
Check out the Mark Levinson power amplifiers..
But when looking at average unit weights for component power amplifiers, one can clearly see there is a minimum weight.. This can/will change by the number of channels, brand philosophical position and $ cost...
For example a 100W x 7 (8 Ohms) Newcastle A 965 component (power amplifier) typically weighs more than 70 LBs...
Next compare an AVR such as the Yamaha RX-V2500 that claims even higher 130W x 7 (8 Ohms) power ...
But its unit weight is only 34 LBs..
So the Yamaha AVR's unit weight is only 50% of the Newcastle power amplifier.. And we further know that the Yamaha will only meet its rated power with a single channel driven..
This is even more evident when one consider the AVR has several other circuits onboard including DSP. tuner, video and preamplifiers as well..
And YOU yourself, have even tried to say somewhat the same things a few times about the H/K 2005, that weighs only 26lbs, as being a better performer than many heavier AVR's.
The HK 2005 is a digital design and uses an SMPS power supply...
As we have said from the beginning...
Our comments are directed to analog amplifiers..
But if you want to go back to AVR's. Then something like the 30lb Sunfire Ultimate, also proves that massive weight alone in a AVR does not always make it the most powerful. The Sunfire weighs in at about 1/2 the weight of most flagship AVR's, and yet it puts out as much or more power in a actual testing, than most that weigh in at 60lbs+. And that even includes into 4ohm loads.
Weight alone simply does not automatically = better.
I failed to find anywhere we commented that the better amplifier is determined by only weight..
But we did say that weight played a significant contribution to an amplifier and how it determines the ability of an analog amplifier to deliver continuous output power (200mS) into an 8 and 4 Ohms load..
Then we detailed what components are required to deliver this and its higher weight..
Now if we want to start another thread on what determines a good sounding amplifier... :rolleyes:
mark russ
05-31-05, 12:20 AM
Well a few years ago Sony DA4ES receivers which were pretty heavy, over 40 lbs. if I remember correctly, had power measurements so poor in a bench test that Sony had the results not published.
On the flip side of that, Cambridge Audio has an AV receiver which is relatively light in weight, about 20 lbs. which I'd be willing to bet will more than meets specs.
The Marantz SR8400 does have a torrid. trans. and the NAD T753 doesn't even though the NAD weighs somewhat more.
So there ARE some exceptions, but all in all, it is a pretty good indicator.
[QUOTE=M Code]There are extremes for weight..
Check out the [/QUOTE]
Hey ya woke up, yes indeed there is extremes. And again, it does not always mean they are better.
And just like you used the Sherwood A-965 to support your lust for weight.......
Then most Sunfire products can also be used to show the opposite. And that just having more weight, is not always any indication at all of how powerful something is.
[QUOTE=M Code]The HK 2005 is a digital design and uses an SMPS power supply...
As we have said from the beginning...
Our comments are directed to analog amplifiers.. [/QUOTE]
No, "WE" did not say that from the very beginning! You said it later, after amp designs were brought up. And now you want to use it as a way "out". I said right from the beginning that with the various designs or amp topologies that can be used to build a amp, that there are also reasons for weight differences, which was also the main point of why there can be differences. I also specifically excluded the low cost Panny digitals. But even with using analog only, with the various ways/topologies that can be used to make up a amp. There are also reasons why one good design could probably weigh more or less than another good design.
Nice try tho...
[QUOTE=M Code]But we did say that weight played a significant contribution to an amplifier and how it determines the ability of an analog amplifier to deliver continuous output power [/QUOTE]
There you do with that "we" again, when it was mostly you that said it.
[QUOTE=M Code]Now if we want to start another thread on what determines a good sounding amplifier...[/QUOTE]
Sounds good to who, you?
[QUOTE=Johnla]Hey ya woke up, yes indeed there is extremes. And again, it does not always mean they are better.
And just like you used the Sherwood A-965 to support your lust for weight.......
Then most Sunfire products can also be used to show the opposite. And that just having more weight, is not always any indication at all of how powerful something is.
[/quote]
Sunfire products..
Have you heard of Bob Carver..
The Sunfire products use very dated technology (class G) from the 70s'..
Also used by Yamaha...
The market didn't accept it then and doesn't now..
High IM distortion and it sounds like a chain saw..
Yes, alot of power on paper but unlistenable..
Similar to the present task of spec stretching... peak power revisited..
No, "WE" did not say that from the very beginning! You said it later, after amp designs were brought up. And now you want to use it as a way "out". I said right from the beginning that with the various designs or amp topologies that can be used to build a amp, that there are also reasons for weight differences, which was also the main point of why there can be differences. I also specifically excluded the low cost Panny digitals. But even with using analog only, with the various ways/topologies that can be used to make up a amp. There are also reasons why one good design could probably weigh more or less than another good design.
Since we have owned an HK2005 for over a year..
We are very familiar with its inner workings.. And performance..
But as stated in my threads for the 9th time.. The subject points were about analog amplifiers.. :rolleyes:
Nice try tho...
;)
There you do with that "we" again, when it was mostly you that said it.
Sounds good to who, you?
Comparing LBs is a start..
But I/we...
Still suggest that one listens to the target amplifier before purchasing..
[QUOTE=M Code]Sunfire products..
Have you heard of Bob Carver..
The Sunfire products use very dated technology (class G) from the 70s'..
Also used by Yamaha...
The market didn't accept it then and doesn't now..
High IM distortion Yes, alot of power on paper but unlistenable..
Similar to the present task of spec stretching... peak power revisited..[/quote]
WTF?
The Sunfire is A/AB. From their site: (http://www.sunfire.com/pdf/sunwhiteall.pdf)
It is heavily biased into the Class A region for small signals and Class AB region for large signals.
The Carver amps are Class T (http://www.carverpro.com/zrampspecs.html) and their site quotes IM distortion of .05 and .2% at 4 ohms.
Where’s your bench test results to refute them?
.....and it sounds like a chain saw..
:rolleyes:
You're wrong about the weight stuff too.;)
Edvard_Grieg
05-31-05, 01:03 PM
While the boys are bickering ;) ......
I have a Marantz 7400 (no torroid like the 8400/8500 series) and it is definetely lighter than many other receivers, but I absolutely love the sound (compared to Denon, Nad, Yamaha, etc)
I remember someone from another thread mentioning that the Marantz uses a more efficient cooling system and can get away with a lighter design. Power-wise, the Marantz units also tend to be quite true to their published specs.
I recommend you do what you are already doing, and get which ever sounds the best to you in your own listening environment. You might also want to demo an HK 635 as the HK and Marantz tend to sound very similar (Although I'm still not sold on the 'spaceship' design of the current HK units)
Ed
newfmp3
05-31-05, 01:34 PM
[QUOTE=M Code]Sunfire products..
Have you heard of Bob Carver..
The Sunfire products use very dated technology (class G) from the 70s'..
Also used by Yamaha...
The market didn't accept it then and doesn't now..
High IM distortion and it sounds like a chain saw..
Yes, alot of power on paper but unlistenable..
Similar to the present task of spec stretching... peak power revisited..
[/QUOTE]
Carver amps are some of the best power amps ever made. You obviously have had little experience with them. I've used plenty over the years and they are reliable and clean. They are still till this day an awesome amp. Very little distortion, good clean power, lots of headroom and why you would say they sound like a chainsaw is beyond me.
Personally, I'd take a Sunfire amp over "just about "any hk/denon/yammie and so on. But I don't have the $$$ for them anymore so I'm settling for a 3805.
imho, your nuts for even saying it.
anyways, back on topic, this is all reminds me of how my father and grand father used to test a cars quality by slamming the door lol
[QUOTE=sullyj]
their site quotes IM distortion of .05 and .2% at 4 ohms.
Where’s your bench test results to refute them?
You're wrong about the weight stuff too.;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah..
The IM distortion spec of 0.2% shouldn't be audible.. :rolleyes:
Regarding the weight stuff..
Thanks for the update.. ;)
But it still seems strange....
That the quality audio brand component amplifiers and AVRs are heavier but then maybe I am spending too much time listening to the differences...
rather than just reading spec sheets and throwing out hypothetical bunk.... :D
Despite what everyone else is saying. Weight is still a good indicator of an amps power handling capabilities. But it is only important to a point.
IE if you find a 7-20 lbs analog amp which advertises 110x5@8ohms. It probably cannot produce 550w at a time. But a 35 or 50lbs amp, is more likely able to produce that type of power
Of course weight is not the end all of power capabilities and quality is not on a 1 to 1 scale with weight.
In the end, weight is still something to consider. Obviously if its a 7lbs analog amp(advertising 5x110), its not worth considering. But the true test is how it sounds.
[QUOTE=M Code]Sunfire products..
Have you heard of Bob Carver.. [/QUOTE]
I sure have. And I still have a 350wpc Carver M1.5T that can short term peak at up to 600wpc, and that is still kicking some serious heinie for stereo use!
[QUOTE=M Code]Yes, alot of power on paper but unlistenable.. [/QUOTE]
And that is just pure BS on your part!
[QUOTE=M Code]Since we have owned an HK2005 for over a year..
We are very familiar with its inner workings.. And performance..[/QUOTE]
Yeah and seeing how you just love to brag about H/K so much. How come there is not even a peep from you when one of your "mighty" H/K products bombs out in a power test? The DPR 1005 which is rated for 70wpc, only managed to hit a "massive" 30.8wpc with 5 channels driven when tested....
http://www.hometheatermag.com/loudspeakers/405hk/index4.html
You just love to bash Yamaha and other brands of products for stuff like that. But not a word from you when a H/K product does it..... Sure it did good in a 2 channel test, but so do the Yamaha's and others.
Speaking of Carver amps, has anyone else seen that monstrous Cinema Grand 400 Seven:
http://www.sunfire.com/400SevenFrontPR.htm
400 Watts x 7 into 8 ohm, 800 Watts x 7 into 4 ohm (that's RMS, not peak!)
I think Mr. Carver may be onto something here, amps that run at 233% efficiency (assuming 20 amp circuit). Put in 2400VA and get back 5600 watts!!! This could be the answer to our energy crisis. No more relying on Middle East oil imports, no more competing with China for oil, no more terrorism. Hell, he deserves a Nobel Prize in physics. And while we're at it, give him a Nobel Peace prize for solving our problem with terrorism. When can I see fat, electric SUVs powered by these ultra efficient power supplies?
millwood
05-31-05, 05:06 PM
[QUOTE=ti97]Put in 2400VA and get back 5600 watts!!! [/QUOTE]
depending on how / when those numbers are measured, it is entirely possible to get something out of nothing. Remember, an amp is disconnected from the ac outlet 90% of the time, when it is outputing lots of watts.
That's why we have capacitor banks and chokes in the power supply. And the more capacitors / chokes you have, the less time your amp is connected to A/C.
Anybody can charge up a few capacitors and have a brief burst of kilowatts, or even megawatts. My point is, there's no way in the world that amp can keep up with that kind of power continuously. Isn't that what the definition of rms power? That's outright false advertising. Now if he said peak power, I might believe that.
[QUOTE=Johnla]I sure have. And I still have a 350wpc Carver M1.5T that can short term peak at up to 600wpc, and that is still kicking some serious heinie for stereo use! [/quote]
Since we have known Bob Carver for over 25 years, and actually worked for Carver Corp. in a product development position... :rolleyes:
That does qualify me as knowing something about their products... ;) :)
You just love to bash Yamaha and other brands of products for stuff like that. But not a word from you when a H/K product does it..... Sure it did good in a 2 channel test, but so do the Yamaha's and others.
Check my threads very closely..
We have not bashed Yamaha or any other brands directly but simply reported certain shortcomings.. Where they work and where they fall short..
As Walter Cronkite used to say..
We tell it the way it is..
Some may like it and others may disagree.. :rolleyes:
And since we have been in the A/V system biz for over 25 years and have a 7 month waiting list of clients wanting our home theater system install expertise..
There is an audience that does appreciate knowing the frank/candid differences between various brand/components and respective performance capabilities..
[QUOTE=ti97]Speaking of Carver amps, has anyone else seen that monstrous Cinema Grand 400 Seven:
http://www.sunfire.com/400SevenFrontPR.htm
400 Watts x 7 into 8 ohm, 800 Watts x 7 into 4 ohm (that's RMS, not peak!)
I think Mr. Carver may be onto something here, amps that run at 233% efficiency [/QUOTE]
Yeah the Sunfire rep already admitted in the forums here a few months back, that it can not do it with all 7 channels driven (he "claimed" they just made a mistake, and used the 5 channel Sig specs and automatically applied them to the 7 channel, and then forgot to rewrite/correct them for the 7 channel version). But do they then correct their web page info, for it? No they do not... So that in itself is just BS and basically a outright lie on their part, as they do make the claim for 400wpc with all 7 channels driven.
[QUOTE=M Code]Since we have known Bob Carver for over 25 years, and actually worked for Carver Corp.
And since we have been in the A/V system biz for over 25 years, and have a 7 month waiting list of clients wanting our home theater system install expertise.. [/QUOTE]
That's a lot of "25 years", here and there. So you must be about 75-100 years old by now.....
[QUOTE=M Code]Check my threads very closely..
We have not bashed Yamaha or any other brands directly [/QUOTE]
Oh yes you have!
mark russ
05-31-05, 05:52 PM
[QUOTE=Edvard_Grieg]Power-wise, the Marantz units also tend to be quite true to their published specs.
Ed[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I remember the Marantz 7200 speced out by S&V to something like 27 watts per channel when all were driven simutaneously. It might have been a defective unit, but that was pathetic.
[QUOTE=Johnla]That's a lot of "25 years", here and there. So you must be about 75-100 years old by now.....
[/quote]
Nope like Jack Benny I am only 39... :rolleyes:
We met Bob Carver in 1976 when he was running Phase Linear..
1977-2005 = 28 years...
Simple math..
[QUOTE=M Code]Yeah..
The IM distortion spec of 0.2% shouldn't be audible..[/quote]
That you think you can hear it is hypothetical bunk.
Regarding the weight stuff..
Thanks for the update.. ;)
You're welcome.
But it still seems strange....
That the quality audio brand component amplifiers and AVRs are heavier....
No hypothetical bunk here – it’s real bunk now.;) Many folks do buy by the pound. Especially when dealers like you and manufacturers tell them it’s a determining factor of quality. Sounds great and it’s heavy. Nice pitch.:rolleyes:
.....but then maybe I am spending too much time listening to the differences...
That you think you’re listening to differences is also hypothetical bunk.;)
.....rather than just reading spec sheets and throwing out hypothetical bunk.... :D
Damn, mcode You seem to be the major hypothetical offender. :D
[QUOTE=M Code]Since we have known Bob Carver for over 25 years, and actually worked for Carver Corp. in a product development position... :rolleyes:
That does qualify me as knowing something about their products... ;) :)[/quote]
You didn't even know what type of amplifiers they are. :D Product development, eh? Got an axe to grind? He didn't let you play with the test equipment enough? ;)
Check my threads very closely..
We have not bashed Yamaha or any other brands directly but simply reported certain shortcomings.. Where they work and where they fall short..
"Chainsaw" isn't bashing?
..And since we have been in the A/V system biz for over 25 years and have a 7 month waiting list of clients wanting our home theater system install expertise..
There is an audience that does appreciate knowing the frank/candid differences between various brand/components and respective performance capabilities..
Now we're impressed. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=M Code]We met Bob Carver in 1976 when he was running Phase Linear..
1977-2005 = 28 years...
Simple math..[/QUOTE]
Actually, you are not very good with your simple math, if you met him in 1976.
And the correct answer would then be 29 years, and not 28.....
But there is a LOT of people who have met him since 1976, or even back since 1970 when Phase Linear first went into business. But that don't mean that they also have had a constant communication with him since then either, like you are trying here to "imply" that you have. Sorry, but I just don't buy into your "implied" close association with Bob Carver for over 25 years.
hdkhang
06-01-05, 01:25 AM
You are 39, known him since 28... that makes you what... 11 when you met him. Child prodigy? Can just imagine it... when he spoke of transformers to you you weren't thinking of Optimus Prime or Megatron and energon cubes. (couldn't resist).
Cheers...
Duy-Khang Hoang
Edvard_Grieg
06-01-05, 02:13 AM
[QUOTE=mark russ]I don't know, I remember the Marantz 7200 speced out by S&V to something like 27 watts per channel when all were driven simutaneously. It might have been a defective unit, but that was pathetic.[/QUOTE]
I remember seeing that (I think you're referring to this, http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm ), and it had to be a fluke, if you look at the ratings for the 5400 and the other Marantz units for that matter, they test almost right at or above their published specs.
[QUOTE=Edvard_Grieg]I remember seeing that (I think you're referring to this, http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm ), and it had to be a fluke, .[/QUOTE]
It was either a fluke, or that one they tested was a pure lemon. Unless the 7200 was a bad model that year...
Or even it's maybe possible also, that list was just not complied with 100% accuracy.
Because both the 4500 and the 5400 tested out very well. And quite a bit higher than what that shows for the 7200.
http://hometheatermag.com/receivers/205marantz/index2.html
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1222003153655.pdf
Chu Gai
06-01-05, 06:24 AM
Weren't the original Phase Linears aka Flame Linears?
[QUOTE=Johnla]It was either a fluke, or that one they tested was a pure lemon. Unless the 7200 was a bad model that year...
Or even it's maybe possible also, that list was just not complied with 100% accuracy.
Because both the 4500 and the 5400 tested out very well. And quite a bit higher than what that shows for the 7200.
http://hometheatermag.com/receivers/205marantz/index2.html
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1222003153655.pdf[/QUOTE]
I read in the x200 (and up to the x300) series they were having power supply problems.
[QUOTE=Chu Gai]Weren't the original Phase Linears aka Flame Linears?[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely correct, the original Phase Linear 400 ($499) and 700 ($799) power amplifiers would blow their fuses when pushed and when you put in bigger values they would self-destruct..
Not many people go back to that time when Bob actually sold the company to Pioneer... ;)
Also he had a stack of Bob's special features including the Holosonic Generator and his loudspeakers.... Very creative guy..
[QUOTE=sullyj]
Now we're impressed. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
No need to be impressed.. :rolleyes:
Though we have designed/installed several systems of >$125K and had these presented both in major publications such as A/V Interiors, Robb Report and featured on various TV shows..
When one make their income from selling and installing audio/video products.. One quickly finds out which brands/products that deliver.. and which ones fall short.. If someone spends alot of $ you want to be sure that he gets the best value/performance components....
[QUOTE=M Code] Very creative guy..[/QUOTE]
He is creative enough, that AV123 and Sherbourn, as well as the Carver line that he sold off to Phoenix Gold International. In that they all are using his Theater Grand IV design as the main core in their new Pre-Pros. Which means they are also paying him something for the rights to do so.
[QUOTE=M Code]No need to be impressed.. .[/QUOTE]
Don't flatter yourself, no one is impressed...
[QUOTE=M Code]No need to be impressed.. .[/QUOTE]
Don't flatter yourself, no one is impressed...
[QUOTE=M Code]Not many people go back to that time when Bob actually sold the company to Pioneer... ;)[/quote]
Carver left Phase Linear in 1977. Pioneer bought it in 1979 and sold it to Jensen in 1982.
Also he had a stack of Bob's special features including the Holosonic Generator and his loudspeakers.... Very creative guy..
Creative enough to make a great “chainsaw” apparently.
What’s a “Holosonic Generator”? You mean ‘Sonic Holography’?
For a guy that knows Mr. Carver that’s like three strikes so far.
[QUOTE=M Code]No need to be impressed.. :rolleyes:[/quote]
Don't worry....:D
Though we have designed/installed several systems of >$125K and had these presented both in major publications such as A/V Interiors, Robb Report and featured on various TV shows..
Oops, I’m impressed again;)
I used to read Robb Report occasionally. Watch the pretty houses and boats go by. IIRC, $125K was pretty much chump change years ago, probably more so now unless it’s a used car. I’d love to read the article or whatever though. Got a link or issue info?
When one make their income from selling and installing audio/video products..
Oh, I get this part…..
One quickly finds out which brands/products that deliver.. and which ones fall short.. If someone spends alot of $ you want to be sure that he gets the best value/performance components....
And you supply this important service based on the subjective “hypotheticals” you post here? You know, heavy sounds better.;)
millwood
06-01-05, 04:06 PM
[QUOTE=Johnla]Don't flatter yourself, no one is impressed...[/QUOTE]
Johnla, please speak for yourself.
[QUOTE=millwood] speak for yourself.[/QUOTE]
Yeah well some people are very easy to BS and impress.... So are you now saying that you are one of those?
That's not surprising......
[QUOTE=Johnla]He is creative enough, that AV123 and Sherbourn, as well as the Carver line that he sold off to Phoenix Gold International. In that they all are using his Theater Grand IV design as the main core in their new Pre-Pros. Which means they are also paying him something for the rights to do so.
[/quote]
If you knew Bob better... like we do.. :rolleyes:
You would know his major sources of income are not from audio.. :) :D
Don't flatter yourself, no one is impressed...
As long as as our customers appreciate our services they pay our bills.. ;)
Kevin. W
06-01-05, 04:22 PM
You know what guys, you can pick apart each other threads, make smart a$$ comments back and forth and throw in a smiley face or two, but in the end all its going to do is have the thread closed. The original poster asked a simple question and ventured into one aspect of the units he mentioned. Why don't those who own these units do us a favour and open them up, take a pic of the inside and we can see what makes up the weight of these units. Personally I have a NAD T773 and its a heavy SOB, because of its Dual Toroidal Transformers, and massive heatsinks. From everything I've read up on NAD receivers, they are one of the few companies that can actually meet their claims for output with All Channels Driven Simultaneously I believe alot off us here on AVS are fairly knowledgable when it comes to knowing what it takes to deliver the power manufacturers claim. M. Code hit it on the head when he mentioned these characteristics, 1. Enough inches of heat sink, these are made from extruded aluminum. 2. Enough power supply rail voltage capability, requires a bigger transformer here a torroidal is more efficient but still a large size is required. 3. Large electrolytic capacitors, high uF (>20K uF) and high voltage (>50V) for high storage capability are need to to ensure a unit can hit its advertised specs. Why can't we just all agree that weight is only one of many aspects that we the consumer have to look for when making a purchase.
Kevin
[QUOTE=sullyj]
Oops, I’m impressed again;)
[/quote]
:rolleyes:
And you supply this important service based on the subjective “hypotheticals” you post here? You know, heavy sounds better.;)
Since our customers pay for our expertise..
It is more than subjective, BS generalizations....
When one makes a sizeable $ investment they appreciate and deserve objective comparsions...
Regarding heavy and sounding better..
Apparently you missed the original points.... ;)
For analog AVRs/amplifiers..
Larger heat sinks..
Larger power transformers..
Larger power supply capacitors..
All assure a higher probability of delivering, their rated continuous power for more channels..
[QUOTE=Kevin. W]Why can't we just all agree that weight is only one of many aspects that we the consumer have to look for when making a purchase.[/QUOTE]
Because just having more weight is not always a factor!
millwood
06-01-05, 05:04 PM
[QUOTE=Johnla]Yeah well some people are very easy to BS and impress.... So are you now saying that you are one of those?
That's not surprising......[/QUOTE]
I am asking you to keep your BS to yourself.
Kevin. W
06-01-05, 05:17 PM
[QUOTE=Johnla]Because just having more weight is not always a factor![/QUOTE]
Did you miss this part of my post "weight is only one of many aspects. Guess you also missed this part of my post "I believe alot off us here on AVS are fairly knowledgable" Like I said I think most off us understand what weight should represent when it comes to receivers. I'm sorry if you don't.
Kevin
[QUOTE=millwood]I am asking you to keep your BS to yourself.[/QUOTE]
Coming from you................. That is, almost funny.....
[QUOTE=millwood]I am asking you to keep your BS to yourself.[/QUOTE]
Coming from you................. That is, almost funny.....
millwood
06-02-05, 05:16 AM
[QUOTE=Kevin. W]Did you miss this part of my post "weight is only one of many aspects. Guess you also missed this part of my post "I believe alot off us here on AVS are fairly knowledgable" Like I said I think most off us understand what weight should represent when it comes to receivers. I'm sorry if you don't.
Kevin[/QUOTE]
Thanks Kevin for pointing it again for Mr. Johnla who apparent isn't capable of reading and understanding such a simple sentence.
I did the same thing a while back but it was way over Mr. "I cannot read" Johnla's head, unfortunately.
and M Code specifically said, [quote=M Code in Post #15]Though weight isn't the only spec, it does provide some insight to an AVR's power output capability.. [/quote]
and Mr. Johnla followed up with [quote=Johnla in Post #16]So you will PERSONALLY guarantee, that just because something weighs the most, that it is absolutely and automatically of better quality than something else in the same category that weighs less? [/quote]
I will let other knowledgeable folks judge for themselves who is twisting the truth here.
No, Johnla, by "Knowledgeable", I didn't mean to include you as well.
BTW, this isn't the first time Johnla has argued with his imaginary enemy and I doubt it will be his last so we all better get used to it.
newfmp3
06-02-05, 08:05 AM
My carver power amps are pretty heavey and they sound great.
....(runs and hides) :)
Weight is an important factor. To produce 120x5@.07%THD@8 OHMs All channels Driven, the AMP will need high quality parts.
High Quality parts are heavier. So if the AMP is too lite, you can almost definately eliminate the AMP from your choices... if you want 120x5@.07thd@8ohms.
Heavy amps doesnt always = better. But Light amps(less than 20lbs for 5CH or above) almost always = Overrated. Except for Digital Amps...(which I can not state for or against)
I could be wrong. Are there any analog amps which truly make that type of power(100x5 <.07%THD and weighs less than 20 lbs
I wouldnt let the weight be the deciding factor, if you are comparing 2 high quality units though. And usually, 2 high quality units >30lbs ea.
I had to use a refrigerator dolly to get my Elite 59txi into the basement. I paid over $32 a pound for it. My car, on the other hand, only cost $7 a pound...
[QUOTE=millwood]BTW, this isn't the first time .[/QUOTE]
BTW.... Take a look at your own history........
[QUOTE=tqlla]I could be wrong. Are there any analog amps which truly make that type of power(100x5 <.07%THD and weighs less than 20 lbs[/QUOTE]
In a amp alone and not a receiver it's unlikly you would find anything under 20lbs. In a receiver you probably can find a lot that are around 20lbs, but it also won't do what the amp alone can do. Just about everyone knows that a stand alone deadicated amp is not made the same as the amp section in a reciver is.
Comparing stand alone amps to receivers is probably always going to favor the amps. Just about every receiver made is also made with a lot of compromises, and usually the majority of them are primarily made in the amp section.
[QUOTE=tqlla]I could be wrong. Are there any analog amps which truly make that type of power(100x5 <.07%THD and weighs less than 20 lbs[/QUOTE]
In a stand alone amp and not a receiver it's unlikely you would find anything under 20lbs in 5 channels. In a receiver you probably can find a lot that are around 20lbs, but they also won't do what the amp alone can do. Just about everyone knows that a stand alone dedicated amp is not made the same as the amp section in a receiver is.
Using a Sherwood A-965 amp again. But this time not using it to bash a Yamaha product, like someone else did before..... Instead lets be a bit more fair and compare it to another Sherwood product. The Sherwood R-965, which many people are trying to say is the receiver version of the P-965 A-965 combo. No not quite, it has to be lacking in something somewhere.
The Sherwood A-965 amp weighs 70lbs
And the Sherwood R-965 receiver weighs 51lbs
Now the Sherwood P-965 pre-pro weighs 26lbs
So that means maybe the R-965 has a amp section that only weighs around 20-25lbs, when you look at what the pre-pro alone weighs. And it could be, because the R-965 and the P-965 look like they probably use the same enclosure.
But yet the pre-pro/amp combo of the P-965 and A-965 together, would total just under 100lbs
Comparing stand alone amps to the amp section in receivers is probably always going to favor the amps, and it is not really a fair comparison. Because in a sense, they are two different kinds of products. Just about every receiver made from the cheap ones all the way to the flagships, is also made with a lot of compromises, and usually the majority of those compromises are primarily made in the amp section.
[QUOTE=newfmp3]My carver power amps are pretty heavey and they sound great.[/QUOTE]
It depends on which Carver amp you have, and what you consider heavy to be. Many were considered very light for their output, but there was also some that were fairly hefty when compared to their other amps.
[QUOTE=tqlla]I could be wrong. Are there any analog amps which truly make that type of power(100x5 <.07%THD and weighs less than 20 lbs[/QUOTE]
In a stand alone analog amp and not a receiver, it's unlikely you would find anything under 20lbs in 5 channels. In a receiver you probably can find a lot that are around 20lbs, but they also won't do what the amp alone can do. Just about everyone knows that a stand alone dedicated amp is not made the same as the amp section in a receiver is.
Now if you up the weight level to the 30-35lb range, then there is one receiver and a two power amps that will actually output even more than 100 watts into multiple channels at the same time. And again, it's the Sunfire Ultimate receiver and the Cinema Grand series of amps.
Using a Sherwood A-965 amp again. But this time not using it to bash a Yamaha product, like someone else did before..... Instead lets be a bit more fair and compare it to another Sherwood product. The Sherwood R-965, which many people are trying to say is the receiver version of the P-965 A-965 combo. No not quite, it has to be lacking in something somewhere.
The Sherwood A-965 amp weighs 70lbs
And the Sherwood R-965 receiver weighs 51lbs
Now the Sherwood P-965 pre-pro weighs 26lbs
So that means maybe the R-965 has a amp section that only weighs around 20-25lbs, when you look at what the pre-pro alone weighs. And it could be, because the R-965 and the P-965 look like they probably use the same enclosure. But yet the pre-pro/amp combo of the P-965 and A-965 together, would total just under 100lbs
Comparing stand alone amps to the amp section in receivers is probably always going to favor the amps, and it is not really a fair comparison. Because in a sense, they are two different kinds of products. Just about every receiver made from the cheap ones all the way to the flagships, is also made with a lot of compromises, and usually the majority of those compromises are primarily made in the amp section.
[QUOTE=tqlla]I could be wrong. Are there any analog amps which truly make that type of power(100x5 <.07%THD and weighs less than 20 lbs[/QUOTE]
In a stand alone analog amp and not a receiver, it's unlikely you would find anything under 20lbs in 5 channels. In a receiver you probably can find a lot that are around 20lbs, but they also won't do what the amp alone can do. Just about everyone knows that a stand alone dedicated amp is not made the same as the amp section in a receiver is.
Now if you up the weight level to the 30-35lb range, then there is one receiver and a two power amps that will actually output even more than 100 watts into multiple channels at the same time. And again, it's the Sunfire Ultimate receiver and the Cinema Grand series of amps.
Using a Sherwood A-965 amp again. But this time not using it to bash a Yamaha product, like someone else did before..... Instead lets be a bit more fair and compare it to another Sherwood product. The Sherwood R-965, which many people are trying to say is the receiver version of the P-965 A-965 combo. No not quite, it has to be lacking in something somewhere.
The Sherwood A-965 amp weighs 70lbs
And the Sherwood R-965 receiver weighs 51lbs
Now the Sherwood P-965 pre-pro weighs 26lbs
So that means maybe the R-965 has a amp section that only weighs around 20-25lbs, when you look at what the pre-pro alone weighs. And it could be, because the R-965 and the P-965 look like they probably use the same chassis and enclosure. But yet the pre-pro/amp combo of the P-965 and A-965 together, would total just under 100lbs. But there is probably about a 10lb difference/penalty, just because it take up two "boxes" instead of one.
Comparing stand alone amps to the amp section in receivers is probably always going to favor the amps, and it is not really a fair comparison. Because in a sense, they are two different kinds of products. Just about every receiver made from the cheap ones all the way to the flagships, is also made with a lot of compromises, and usually the majority of those compromises are primarily made in the amp section.
[QUOTE=tqlla]I could be wrong. Are there any analog amps which truly make that type of power(100x5 <.07%THD and weighs less than 20 lbs[/QUOTE]
In a stand alone analog amp and not a receiver, it's unlikely you would find anything under 20lbs in 5 channels. In a receiver you probably can find a lot that are around 20lbs, but they also won't do what the amp alone can do. Just about everyone knows that a stand alone dedicated amp is not made the same as the amp section in a receiver is.
Now if you up the weight level to the 30-35lb range, then there is one receiver and a two power amps that will actually output even more than 100 watts into multiple channels at the same time. And again, it's the Sunfire Ultimate receiver and the Cinema Grand series of amps.
Using a Sherwood A-965 amp again. But this time not using it to bash a Yamaha product, like someone else did before..... Instead lets be a bit more fair and compare it to another Sherwood product. The Sherwood R-965, which many people are trying to say is the receiver version of the P-965 A-965 combo. No not quite, it has to be lacking in something somewhere.
The Sherwood A-965 amp weighs 70lbs
And the Sherwood R-965 receiver weighs 51lbs
Now the Sherwood P-965 pre-pro weighs 26lbs
So that means maybe the R-965 has a amp section that only weighs around 20-25lbs, when you look at what the pre-pro alone weighs. And it could be, because the R-965 and the P-965 look like they probably use the same chassis and enclosure. But yet the pre-pro/amp combo of the P-965 and A-965 together, would total just under 100lbs. But there is also probably about a 10lb difference/penalty, just because it take up two "boxes" instead of one.
Comparing stand alone amps to the amp section in receivers is probably always going to favor the amps, and it is not really a fair comparison. Because in a sense, they are two different kinds of products. Just about every receiver made from the cheap ones all the way to the flagships, is also made with a lot of compromises, and usually the majority of those compromises are primarily made in the amp section.
millwood
06-02-05, 05:42 PM
Let me break it down for you, Mr. "I-cannot-read" Johnla.
M Code stated plainly that while weight is a general indicator of quality, it is not THE only indicator of quality. That means that you will have plenty of examples where heavier amps don't perform as well as their lighter counterparts.
Unfortunately, you jumped out of nowhere, as usually I may add, insisting that M Code had said that weight is the only indicator, in spite of what M Code had written one post earlier to the exact opposite?
You still claim you can read, Johnla?
You would have gained a lot of respect had you simply acted like a man.
[QUOTE=M Code]If you knew Bob better... like we do.. :rolleyes:
You would know his major sources of income are not from audio.....[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
One thing we can know is that Bob Carver ain’t your friend the way you bash his products without even knowing what they are. You remember – chainsaw and unlistenable?
C’mon mcode, you’ve already shown you don’t know jack about Carver. What is it now? He’s your pharmacist or stock broker as well?;)
Kevin. W
06-02-05, 08:30 PM
[QUOTE=Johnla]In a stand alone analog amp and not a receiver, it's unlikely you would find anything under 20lbs in 5 channels. In a receiver you probably can find a lot that are around 20lbs, but they also won't do what the amp alone can do. Just about everyone knows that a stand alone dedicated amp is not made the same as the amp section in a receiver is.
Now if you up the weight level to the 30-35lb range, then there is one receiver and a two power amps that will actually output even more than 100 watts into multiple channels at the same time. And again, it's the Sunfire Ultimate receiver and the Cinema Grand series of amps.
Using a Sherwood A-965 amp again. But this time not using it to bash a Yamaha product, like someone else did before..... Instead lets be a bit more fair and compare it to another Sherwood product. The Sherwood R-965, which many people are trying to say is the receiver version of the P-965 A-965 combo. No not quite, it has to be lacking in something somewhere.
The Sherwood A-965 amp weighs 70lbs
And the Sherwood R-965 receiver weighs 51lbs
Now the Sherwood P-965 pre-pro weighs 26lbs
So that means maybe the R-965 has a amp section that only weighs around 20-25lbs, when you look at what the pre-pro alone weighs. And it could be, because the R-965 and the P-965 look like they probably use the same chassis and enclosure. But yet the pre-pro/amp combo of the P-965 and A-965 together, would total just under 100lbs. But there is also probably about a 10lb difference/penalty, just because it take up two "boxes" instead of one.
Comparing stand alone amps to the amp section in receivers is probably always going to favor the amps, and it is not really a fair comparison. Because in a sense, they are two different kinds of products. Just about every receiver made from the cheap ones all the way to the flagships, is also made with a lot of compromises, and usually the majority of those compromises are primarily made in the amp section.[/QUOTE]
Here's a quote straight from Sherwoods website:
"Our R-965 flagship receiver is identical to its more advanced parents except for the necessary compromises due to the use of a single power supply for both the preamp and main amp sections and in its ultimate power capability.
The A-965 has 2 toroidal transformers compared to the R-965's one. As far as the Sunfire Ultimate, I think at a price of $4500+, I'll stick with my Dual Toroidal NAD T773. One of the few receivers that can hit their rated spec. And it can be had for half the Sunfire.
Kevin
Kevin
[QUOTE=M Code]Since our customers pay for our expertise..
It is more than subjective, BS generalizations....
When one makes a sizeable $ investment they appreciate and deserve objective comparsions...[/quote]
I’ve not seen any evidence of objectivity in your postings regarding sound quality. A lot of ‘because I think so and I install a lot of stuff’. Could you share an experience with a customer where you furnished objective data that helped make an objective decision in that regard? Maybe one that wasn’t self serving?;)
Oh, and how about that Robb Report issue you claim you’re in? Got a link or issue # yet? I really would like to read it. I’d have thought you’d carry that around with you.;)
Regarding heavy and sounding better..
Apparently you missed the original points.... ;)
For analog AVRs/amplifiers..
Larger heat sinks..
Larger power transformers..
Larger power supply capacitors..
All assure a higher probability of delivering, their rated continuous power for more channels..
Let’s try and get away from your ‘BS generalizations’ and narrow the field……….
Two seven channel amps rated at 200 watts continuous all channels driven according to the manufacturer. One at 56 pounds (http://www.lexicon.com/products/specs.asp?ID=4) and the other at 115 pounds (http://www.sherbourn.com/products/7_2100.php).
Which one’s a ‘better’ indication of ‘quality’? How much weight would you give weight?
[QUOTE=Kevin. W]Here's a quote straight from Sherwoods website:
"Our R-965 flagship receiver is identical to its more advanced parents except for the necessary compromises due to the use of a single power supply for both the preamp and main amp sections and in its ultimate power capability.
The A-965 has 2 toroidal transformers compared to the R-965's one. As far as the Sunfire Ultimate, I think at a price of $4500+, I'll stick with my Dual Toroidal NAD T773. One of the few receivers that can hit their rated spec. And it can be had for half the Sunfire.[/QUOTE]
Like I said. Usually when making a receiver, the companies that also make pre-pros and power amps, will make compromises in the amp section of the receivers they also make, some of them even will admit they do like Sherwood. And most everyone pretty much expects it. Even Sunfire has said/admitted that they do it, and that their Ultimate receiver can not drive the same 2ohm loads that their stand alone amps can. The only receiver that might be somewhat the exception, possibly may be the Lexicon RV-8.
As far the price of the Ultimate, well no one was really setting any real price limits here, and yes your NAD and even the Sherwood R-965 MSRP for about 1/2 the MSRP of the Sunfire. So you were not even buying any product in the Sunfire's price range, and you bought into a different price level/range. And there is nothing wrong with that, that is why there are different price ranges/levels. But like it or not the Ultimate can also outpower your NAD. Which also one of the reasons why it does cost more. It was mentioned primarily to show that a receiver that weighs less than 35lbs, can also output more than 100wpc with multiple channels driven (183wpc x 5 and more than 150wpc for 6 according to S&V magazine). No matter "how" the more power is made, either by large transformers & caps or by different and unconventional amp designs. It all still ends up usually costing more money in the end to buy the products with the higher power outputs.
[QUOTE=Kevin. W]Here's a quote straight from Sherwoods website:
"Our R-965 flagship receiver is identical to its more advanced parents except for the necessary compromises due to the use of a single power supply for both the preamp and main amp sections and in its ultimate power capability.
The A-965 has 2 toroidal transformers compared to the R-965's one. As far as the Sunfire Ultimate, I think at a price of $4500+, I'll stick with my Dual Toroidal NAD T773. One of the few receivers that can hit their rated spec. And it can be had for half the Sunfire.[/QUOTE]
Like I said. Usually when making a receiver, the companies that also make pre-pros and power amps, will make compromises in the amp section of the receivers they also make, some of them even will admit they do like Sherwood. And most everyone pretty much expects it. Even Sunfire has said/admitted that they do it, and that their Ultimate receiver can not drive the same 2ohm loads that their stand alone amps can. The only receiver that might be somewhat the exception, possibly may be the Lexicon RV-8.
As far the price of the Ultimate, well no one was really setting any real price limits here, and yes your NAD and even the Sherwood R-965 MSRP for about 1/2 the MSRP of the Sunfire. So you were not even buying any product in the Sunfire's price range, and you bought into a different price level/range. And there is nothing wrong with that, that is why there are different price ranges/levels. But like it or not the Ultimate can also outpower your NAD. Which also one of the reasons why it does cost more. It was mentioned primarily to show that a receiver that weighs less than 35lbs, can also output more than 100wpc with multiple channels driven (183wpc x 5 and more than 150wpc for 6 according to S&V magazine). No matter "how" the more power is made, either by large transformers & caps or by different and unconventional amp designs. It all still ends up usually costing more money in the end to buy the products with the higher power outputs.
[QUOTE=sullyj]I’ve not seen any evidence of objectivity in your postings regarding sound quality. A lot of ‘because I think so and I install a lot of stuff’. Could you share an experience with a customer where you furnished objective data that helped make an objective decision in that regard? Maybe one that wasn’t self serving?;)
Oh, and how about that Robb Report issue you claim you’re in? Got a link or issue # yet? I really would like to read it. I’d have thought you’d carry that around with you.;)
[/quote]
How about we send you one of our logo T-shirts..
Forward me your PayPal account # by PM and we will get you one out right away..
However note we may not have your size if it is bigger than XXXL.. :D :rolleyes:
Also note we ship only to street addresses, NO PO boxes..
Let’s try and get away from your ‘BS generalizations’ and narrow the field……….
Two seven channel amps rated at 200 watts continuous all channels driven according to the manufacturer. One at 56 pounds (http://www.lexicon.com/products/specs.asp?ID=4) and the other at 115 pounds (http://www.sherbourn.com/products/7_2100.php).
Which one’s a ‘better’ indication of ‘quality’? How much weight would you give weight?
OK lets clear out the BS (stands for Best Sound.... ;) )...
As mentioned previously and at least 5 times, the unit's weight is a good qualifier for build.. quality.. However build quality is only a single part of the buying criterria for which one makes his purchase decision on..
A few other areas of quality and concern to address before putting the $ down.. These are:
1. Sonic quality How does it sound? If you have a Bose Wave radio than this is the end of the discussion.. But to our customers it is #1..
2. ID Design quality Does it match well with the other system components?
3. $ Budget Is it affordable? How does it price compare to other competitive products?
I am sure you don't buy a car without a Test Drive..
At least you would like to take it around the block....
Oops..
Sorry we didn't answer your original question regarding LBs...
We would take the 115 LBs amplifier as if it didn't sound good.. We could use it either as jack stand for the race car or an anchor for our fishing boat.. :D :)
[QUOTE=millwood]you jumped out of nowhere, as usually I may add[/QUOTE]
You beyond a doubt! Are the undisputed king of jumping out from nowhere just to argue in the forums here!
[QUOTE=millwood]you jumped out of nowhere, as usually I may add[/QUOTE]
You, beyond a doubt! Are the undisputed king of jumping out from nowhere just to argue in the forums here!
millwood
06-03-05, 05:18 AM
[QUOTE=Johnla]You, beyond a doubt! Are the undisputed king of jumping out from nowhere just to argue in the forums here![/QUOTE]
no. You jumped out of nowhere because you couldn't understand the topic of the discussion.
Chu Gai
06-03-05, 09:05 AM
Out of curiousity, what's the definition of quality? Wouldn't it tend to vary somewhat, in terms of say a weighting factor based upon the users needs, expectations, and what they're willing to trade off?
For some, they place a premium on enormous sustained power and reserve capability and are willing to trade heat sinks for fans. For others, they may be fans of a particular topology, say pure Class A, irregardless of whether it's sonically superior to some other implementation, and for that they embrace the weight and the heat sinks. For others, quality might be fit and finish or uniqueness in design. I just don't see how one can honestly come up with an answer to the poster's question until one can narrow the definition of quality somehow.
FWIW, many companies in China specialize in certain aspects of audio reproduction. No surprise I'm sure. There are several manufacturers that build, to spec of course, what are known as audiophile cases. Their primary distinguishing feature is their weight and those companies that buy them are fully aware that heft is a factor in some people's minds when trying to evaluate quality. For the extra yen or dollars, the manufacturer is able to substantially mark up a unit and generate additional profits.
I'm sure some of us have read StereoPhile reviews where units garner top awards. They're impressive looking, built like tanks, exclusive, yet the reviewer notes that getting the unit properly grounded to avoid hums was especially problematic. So is it quality?
Some of us like J. Lo's butt, others go for Jenna Jameson. The only thing I know, is I'm not ever gonna get to evaluate either one's :D
millwood
06-03-05, 09:33 AM
to me, quality means a blend of performance (truthful reproduction of input), reliability (works as designed, always), construction (being able to withstand daily use or abuse and pleasing to users).
But it is hard to put a definitive "number" on them all.
The point is that if we were given no information other than weight of amps/avrs, would we generally go with lighter or heavier amps?
Chu Gai
06-03-05, 10:07 AM
That's a hell of a hypothetical millwood but I think people would tend to opt for weight. I'd sure hate to be that person though.
[QUOTE=millwood]no. You jumped out of nowhere because you couldn't understand the topic of the discussion.[/QUOTE]
Wrong, go back and look again. My first post in this was #5 and it was not from out of nowhere. Take a look at yourself if you want to see posts that were off topic and from out of nowhere, because it was not until your last one #81, that you finally made a comment that was actually on the topic itself, and not one of your usual argument attacks
Deckman37
06-03-05, 10:35 AM
I think this thread has been beaten to death. Can we let it rest quietly for a while?
Kenrosencpa
06-03-05, 10:39 AM
Linn makes the AV 5125 its rated at 125w x5 into 8 ohms and 230 into 4 ohms. The whole thing only weighs 11lbs. They keep the weight down with their switch mode power supply
Chu Gai
06-03-05, 10:41 AM
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/349868/2/istockphoto_Body_with_toe_tag__monochrome_349868.jpg
millwood
06-03-05, 10:41 AM
[QUOTE=Chu Gai]That's a hell of a hypothetical millwood but I think people would tend to opt for weight. I'd sure hate to be that person though.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with your approach as well. Yeah, that's not an enviable position to be in, but unfortunately the framework of this particular discussion.
well, at least for all except one particular poster who just couldn't understand it.
millwood
06-03-05, 10:43 AM
[QUOTE=Kenrosencpa]Linn makes the AV 5125 its rated at 125w x5 into 8 ohms and 230 into 4 ohms. The whole thing only weighs 11lbs. They keep the weight down with their switch mode power supply[/QUOTE]
the use of SMPS has been the latest rage in the pro audio industry, because it takes care of weight and cost issues at the same time. transofmers are some of the most expensive parts in an amplifier and it is hard to produce productivity gains against it.
In comparison, the use of digital pro audio amps isn't nearly as popular, even among the manufacturers.
Chu Gai
06-03-05, 10:51 AM
I tell you, one day it'll come. 5 x 100 wpc 20-20 and all that in a sound card.
millwood
06-03-05, 11:02 AM
[QUOTE=Johnla]Wrong, go back and look again. My first post in this was #5 and it was not from out of nowhere. Take a look at yourself if you want to see posts that were off topic and from out of nowhere, because it was not until your last one #81, that you finally made a comment that was actually on the topic itself, and not one of your usual argument attacks[/QUOTE]
no need to go back that far to look as I have reproduce the interesting part of the exchange for you Johnla. It is clear to any sane person that you had tried to twist M Code's words.
so I tried to bring you back into this conversation but failed miserably there.
[QUOTE=millwood]no need to go back that far to look .[/QUOTE]
Yeah, of course you would not want to go back far enough to see that... Because it proves you wrong about your accusations of jumping out from nowhere.
[QUOTE=millwood]no need to go back that far to look .[/QUOTE]
Yeah, of course you would not want to go back far enough to see that... Because it proves you wrong.
millwood
06-03-05, 01:04 PM
[QUOTE=Johnla]Yeah, of course you would not want to go back far enough to see that... Because it proves you wrong.[/QUOTE]
I am wrong, Johnla. Please go back as far as you like and let me know what you have learnt about your ability to read others' posts correctly.
Thanks.
[QUOTE=millwood]I am wrong, .[/QUOTE]
Yep, you sure are!
I have seen this same debate many times before. My thoughts are always the same. Anyone who equates weight as a determing factor of sound quality performance will soon be seperated from their money.
I btw, am not saying that the original poster did this! His question to me was more along the lines of"does weight indicate any features I need to be aware of when choosing a receiver"? Far from a stupid question to my mind.
However, if I were somehow chosen to personally review all of the components on the Absolute Sounds or Stereophiles recomended components list & did not have a service elevator or a serious dolly handy it occurs to me that I would be in big , big trouble!!!
Mark
rschleicher
06-03-05, 06:06 PM
I realize that this is stating the obvious, but added weight can be associated with design features that help the sound (like larger transformers in the power supply section(s), lots of big caps on the power supply rails, maybe even separate power supplies for all channels, etc.), but it is also easy to make things heavier with no benefit (such as the trend for thicker and thicker front faceplates on higher-end amps). Somehow I don't think 10mm thick aluminum faceplates sound any better than 3mm thick faceplates!
In speakers extra weight can definitely indicate cabinets with lack of resonances, etc., but how much is sufficient? I forget the name, but I recall seeing photos of some simple 2-way (1 in. tweeter and something like a 7 in. mid-bass driver), floorstanders (basically skinny towers about 40 inches tall) that had cabinets made of solid slate. I think they weighed 250 lbs apiece! I'm sure they were nice and inert in terms of cabinet resonances, but it would sure make it a pain to play around with speaker placement, toe-in, etc.
vBulletin v3.0.6, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.