 Re: Inexpensive Amplifier
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
buff
|
OP
buff
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Thanks for people's suggestions so far. I do plan on getting the RX-V659 first and try it in my system before deciding if I need a separate external amp. My concern about the 659 is that its specs show it consumes only 400 W as a whole unit. That's an average of less than 60 W per channel. On the other hand, the Emotiva's specs states that it consumes up to 1200 W, so I don't worry about it hitting 125 W on each channel. I realize that not all the channels will need that much power all the time, though that's still a significant difference in power. I won't know until my house is finished whether I need that difference. I'm also still trying to decide between the M60's vs. M80's. If I do go with the M80's, I'd like to have lots of power to feed them; otherwise, what would be the point in getting them? 
|
|
|
Re: Inexpensive Amplifier
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,833
axiomite
|
|
axiomite
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,833 |
Quote:
My concern about the 659 is that its specs show it consumes only 400 W as a whole unit. That's an average of less than 60 W per channel. On the other hand, the Emotiva's specs states that it consumes up to 1200 W, so I don't worry about it hitting 125 W on each channel
The consumtion rating of a unit has nothing to do with the power rating.
Rick
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
Re: Inexpensive Amplifier
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,102
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,102 |
>>My concern about the 659 is that its specs show it consumes only 400 W as a whole unit. That's an average of less than 60 W per channel.
Audioholics.com did a review on this budget RX-V659 reciever and discoverered that it delivers MORE than the 100wpc rating that Yamaha gave it. It actually delivers 120wpc all channels driven.
In short, the RX-V659 is a helluva deal.
|
|
|
Re: Inexpensive Amplifier
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
buff
|
|
OP
buff
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Quote:
Quote:
My concern about the 659 is that its specs show it consumes only 400 W as a whole unit. That's an average of less than 60 W per channel. On the other hand, the Emotiva's specs states that it consumes up to 1200 W, so I don't worry about it hitting 125 W on each channel
The consumtion rating of a unit has nothing to do with the power rating.
Really? I figured that the consumption rating is the ceiling of the possible output from the receiver. The actual amount to the speakers is less than that due to powering the circuitry and generated heat. Am I missing something? I assume it's not possible for an AVR/amp to output more power than it consumes ...
|
|
|
Re: Inexpensive Amplifier
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
buff
|
|
OP
buff
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Quote:
>>My concern about the 659 is that its specs show it consumes only 400 W as a whole unit. That's an average of less than 60 W per channel.
Audioholics.com did a review on this budget RX-V659 reciever and discoverered that it delivers MORE than the 100wpc rating that Yamaha gave it. It actually delivers 120wpc all channels driven.
In short, the RX-V659 is a helluva deal.
I agree the at the RX-V659 is a great deal, that's why it's my top choice currently. However, it does not do 120wpc ALL CHANNELS driven. If you look at the last page of the Audioholics review, the 120wpc is for 2 channels.
|
|
|
Re: Inexpensive Amplifier
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,833
axiomite
|
|
axiomite
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,833 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My concern about the 659 is that its specs show it consumes only 400 W as a whole unit. That's an average of less than 60 W per channel. On the other hand, the Emotiva's specs states that it consumes up to 1200 W, so I don't worry about it hitting 125 W on each channel
The consumtion rating of a unit has nothing to do with the power rating.
Really? I figured that the consumption rating is the ceiling of the possible output from the receiver. The actual amount to the speakers is less than that due to powering the circuitry and generated heat. Am I missing something? I assume it's not possible for an AVR/amp to output more power than it consumes ...
It happens all the time. Take the Rotel RB 1080 for instance. It's consumption rating is 550 watts but it is rated 330 x 2 watts @ 4 ohm. The same goes for the RMB 1095 a 5 channel amp, its consumption rating is 1200 watts but can produce 330 per channel.
I'll let someone better suited to explain why, you reading this JonhK 
Rick
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
Re: Inexpensive Amplifier
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
shareholder in the making
|
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654 |
Okay, Dennis, the misunderstanding is over the fact that the 400 watt consumption rating is an average rating and isn't a rating at maximum power(and never is, unless it specifically says maximum or full power). The most commonly used consumption rating is one with all channels driven at 1/8th power(this is taken from a UL required test for overheating, lasting 30 continuous minutes), which is very roughly the average power that would be used in playing a CD. While the usual class AB amplifiers are about 50% efficient at full power, efficiency continually drops off at lower power and is around 20% at 1/8th power. For example, a 7x100 watt unit operated at 1/8th power would put out a little under 90 watts total, and at around 20% efficiency would consume 400-450 watts in doing so. So, there's no inconsistency between seven 100 watt channels and a 400 watt consumption rating, although those not familiar with the consumption rating sometimes loudly claim that this is impossible and is evidence of fraud.
As Audioholics among others has made clear, an all-channels driven test is a torture test which can be done in the lab, but doesn't represent a realistic scenario for home use. The basic two-channels driven required by the FTC for a power rating is more realistic. The 659 and other similar units has plenty of power for the vast majority of home setups.
-----------------------------------
Enjoy the music, not the equipment.
|
|
|
Re: Inexpensive Amplifier
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
buff
|
|
OP
buff
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
John, thanks for the very informative post. So, if I'm trying to add up the total power draw of my components in order to determine if I'm overloading my circuit (or to determine if I need an additional circuit), what value should I use for the 659? 700W?
|
|
|
Re: Inexpensive Amplifier
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
shareholder in the making
|
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654 |
Dennis, don't even try to add up the power draws; there're too many variables. However, in theory, if all seven channels would put out 100 watts(extremely unlikely in the real world, even momentarily)the power consumption at about 50% efficiency would be around 1400 watts. The average figure is about the closest approach to reality.
-----------------------------------
Enjoy the music, not the equipment.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,990
Posts442,736
Members15,646
| |
Most Online2,699
Aug 8th, 2024
|
|
|
0 members (),
557
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
