as has often been stated, an ht receiver's power specs are hugely misleading because there is no established standard for how they're published. since most consumers buy on the basis of claimed power ratings, many manufactuturers claim power ratings based only on one or two channels driven (or on the basis of all channels driven at some ridiculously high distortion level). i had a yamaha htr which claimed 100w x 5; when i read the actual lab-tested specs, it actually produced 40w with all channels driven in real-world conditions.
hk, nad, rotel and some others are much more scrupulous about their power ratings--that 75w/ch hk unit may in reality have more oomph than some japanese-branded unit claiming 130w. i would look closely at actual bench test results (frequently published in sound and vision et al) and at the dynamic headroom rating, which is a better indicia of how the receiver will actually perform. my nad integrated, for example, is rated at "only" 50w x 2, but goes to 180w for short transient bursts and never lacks for power.
all that said, if you like the hk i wouldn't be dissuaded on the basis of its printed specs.
hk, nad, rotel and some others are much more scrupulous about their power ratings--that 75w/ch hk unit may in reality have more oomph than some japanese-branded unit claiming 130w. i would look closely at actual bench test results (frequently published in sound and vision et al) and at the dynamic headroom rating, which is a better indicia of how the receiver will actually perform. my nad integrated, for example, is rated at "only" 50w x 2, but goes to 180w for short transient bursts and never lacks for power.
all that said, if you like the hk i wouldn't be dissuaded on the basis of its printed specs.