rated power test results sound & vision mag

Here's a link to the original article.

I've been saying for a few years now that most of the surround sound receivers on the market are pitiful in performance. Not only does their power drop as more channels are engaged, their output at lower impedances REALLY tends to suffer. When i made previous statements pertaining to this, others challenged my comments. As such, i had provided previous lists of a few units that actually did okay, both in multi-channel mode and at lower impedances. I have since disposed of that info, so i won't be of much help here.

As such, if one is going to use a receiver, don't expect much overall sound quality out of it. If you want to obtain the best results out of one of these "lame duck" units as they are, stick to higher impedance speakers that are also higher than average sensitivity. This reduces the load on the amplifier two-fold i.e. in terms of current requirements due to the higher impedance and voltage requirements in terms of the higher sensitivity. Using anything but speakers that fit BOTH of those descriptions basically sets yourself up for very poor performance.

Obviously, there are a few units that are better than others, but as you can see, most units don't even come close to meeting spec's. Now you know why "vintage" receivers are going for so much money on Ebay now. That is, as bad as some of those old boat-anchors sound compared to good quality individual components, they still sound MILES better than some of the best receivers available today. Sean
>

As a side note, the last receivers that i purchased for friends / family were quite a while back. As it turns out, these units were on this list and actually did MUCH better than the average. I'm talking about the Sherwood AM-9080, which was rated at 120 wpc and actually delivered 108 wpc. While it didn't quite meet spec, it didn't fall too far below that. Newer Sherwood's appear to be "gutless wonders" like many of the other products out there.

It is pathetic to see units like the SONY STR-DA4ES. This receiver was rated at 110 wpc for 7 channels, yet when all 7 channels were driven, the receiver shut down. They couldn't even obtain a power output measurement due to the protection circuitry kicking in. The Sony SONY STR-DB1070 wasn't much better as it was rated at 100 wpc with 6 channels and could only must 31 wpc at clipping with all channels driven. This is almost as bad as the KENWOOD VR-7080, which was rated at 100 x 6 channels and clipped at 35 wpc. Then again, if you really want to see how bad things could get, take a look at the MARANTZ SR7200. Rated at 105 wpc x 6 channels, it was only able to deliver 27 wpc at clipping. PATHETIC !!!

The scary thing that i've noticed about this is that some brands do pathetically poor, regardless of the cost or power rating. As such, one almost has to know exactly which models from which brands are worth looking at or knowing to avoid. While none of their models were "piss poor", even the highly respected Denon's didn't do all that well. A couple of Onkyo's and Yamaha's knocked them out of the ballgames too.

The only brand that i see truly conistent performance from is Harman Kardon. Given HK's reputation "way back when", i'm glad to see that they aren't just a name anymore. The NAD's and the lone Outlaw didn't do "too bad", making them possibly worth looking into. Other than that, those looking for a receiver are in for some slim pickings. Sean
>

My rec is if you cannot afford a pre-pro / amp setup, get a reciever that has pre-outs so upgrading the amp quality is less expencive as the reciever can be used as a pre-pro after you buy some external amps.

ive been running a denon avr 3805 and think the sound is great for a reciever (my amp broke and is about to be sent in for repair), but i do miss my amp.