I think you mean watts per channel. HK is probably rating the power properly with all channels running. Most companies rate 7 or 5 channels with only 2 channels running. That grossly inflates the power in general--particularly on most commercial receivers under $1,000.
Many receivers that say they are 7 x 100 watts perform at 7 x 50 watts. They perform 2 x 100 watts. You generally have to read review graphs, if there are any, to find the true amplification.
A real clue on a receivers power is to check the watts it takes to run the receiver. You'll find many so-called 7 x 100 watt receivers only pull 500 watts and sometimes less. Hence there is no way they can put out 700 watts total. Also you can check the power fuse on the amp (not the receiver). The higher the number on the amp fuse for the amplifier section--the more power the receiver cranks out.
I would take a 50-80 watt HK over most other 100 watt receivers in the sub $1,000 range.
thanks, I like here in thailand and i looked at the catalogue for HK receiver amp the avr 3550 which will power five speakers at 120w each, but when i go to HK web site it says 60w to each speaker. im a little confuse. so if u can help me out here be great. i would like my amp to power the KEFs q1 all 4. would the marantz do a better job. sorry for so many question. but thanks again.
Lokk at the total watts the receiver consumes. I bet the HK consumes about 500 watts or more. Take a look how many watts the Marantz consumes.
You notice I say consume, not put out. A receiver or an amp cannot put out more power than it consumes.
I often find an HK system rated at lower watts consumes far more wattage than a receiver rated at much higher watts. Easy to figure out which out has a higher potential output and has stricter ratings.
I would have no problem getting the HK and being confident it is driving your speakers as loud as you could ever want.
This HK model is a foreign model I think. So I can't speak to the exact figures. But if you compare the watt usage of the HK to other receivers you will get a far more true idea of the output.
so the avr3550 would be ok with the kef q1. thanks gregory for your advice. its just confusion at times to find the right system i just do not want to under power the speakers, since the kef are 120w. i hope im not brothering u with so many questions. thanks
here's how it works' guys. Every time you double your power (all things being equal) you will gain 3dB. It takes 1.5dB on steady state sound to begin to notice a difference in volume. On music even 3dB is negligible. To get what most people percieve as louder you have to get twice as loud which requires 10dB. That is the same as 10 times the power. There is occassionally a spec on power amps that is stated as dB/W. This refers to a system that was introduced over 20 years ago to try to explain the relationship between power and volume.
The most important part of this is all things equal. Within the HK line things are equal. This does not mean a Pioneer, a HK and a Krell are equal. Go pick up each one and you will get an idea of why they are not equal. What you feel is power supply and that is what makes a better amp and what makes a better amp more expensive. It is also why looking at current draw is not an indicator of power output. The idea is to have a power supply that has reserves for any demand. That means heavy transformers and capacitors to store current. Without that the amp will be sucking juice directly from the wall outlet trying to keep up. That is not the way to build a better amp.
Here are the numbers, all things equal. The diference between 10 and 20 watts is 3dB. The difference between 100 and 200 watts is 3dB. The difference between 1000 and 2000 watts is 3dB. If 75 watts is not loud enough for you you will probably not hear much difference by going to 150 watts other than what you convince yourself you should hear because you just spent a bunch of money. To play louder than 75 watts you really should be looking at 750 watts which will probably fry your speakers.
Now anyone who has been around audio for awhile knows things are not equal and there are plenty of 40-50 watt amps that will destroy most 100 watt receivers. That is a subject for later.
If you want volume look at the sensitivity spec on your speakers. Remember every 3dB is the same as doubling your power. To go from 89dB to 92db is the same as going from 100 to 200 watts. Going from 89dB to 99dB is the same as going from 100 to 1000 watts. Get your volume in the speaker not the amp. You will be happier if volume is your goal and you won't be clipping the amp and blowing tweeters.
The last thing here is the trade off of speakers. Three things are interrelated and when you change one you affect the other two. Box size, sensitivity and bass frequency response (not how much bass a speaker has that's easy to change). But a discussion of those three items are also an item for anothet time. Just remember there is no free lunch.
When reviewing amplifier specs, it's important to know how the testing procedures are done. First of all, amplifiers are tested using 8ohm load resistors. They are tested using sine waves swept in frequency from 20hz to 20khz. Power is then measured into that resistor. A few problems arise here vs real world listening. First, you don't listen to resistors. You listen to speakers which are not a resistive load, but a reactive load; constantly fluctuating. Secondly, you don't listen to sine waves. You listen to music. These two real world issues make most amplifier specs essentially worthless. I want to know what my amp does with REAL MUSIC driving REAL SPEAKERS. Don't you? Some amplifiers deliver one tenth their rated power at up to 1000 times their rated distortion when playing music thru speakers. Thats also why some "sound" more powerful though they have lower "rated power specs" Just better design. Simple as that.
While it is true that there is a difference between playing an amp through a resistor rather than through a reactive and varying imppedance load of a speaker, it would be very impractical for manufacturers to test their amp sections through speakers for general judgement. Unless every amp manufacturer decided on the exact speaker to test the amp through.
That is why I usually recommend people buying budget to medium priced systems to purchase reasonably efficient 8 ohm speakers that don't vary enormously in their resistance.
If you are driving Quads and other difficult speakers, then you really have to be careful about matching the amplifier.
Of course, it is preferable (when possible) to listen to your receiver or amp through the speakers you are interested in buying before you make your purchase. It is amazing how many people listen to amp sections that are clipping a good amount of the time. It often happens on low-powered tube designs, but the owner thinks it sounds great because the clipping is fairly soft and of the harmonic variety---but it is clipping nonetheless and not an accurate portrayal of what the signal "wants" to portray. Certainly it happens with solid state amps too and more harshly. But again I am suprised how used to hearing clipping many people seem to be.
I happen to have purchased an HK reciever (AVR80)back in 1997 that was, for all intents, the identical product that was also being sold by Marantz (SR-96). They were both multichannel home theater recievers, the Marantz was rated at 110 watts into an 8 Ohm load for the front three channels. Distortion on the Marantz was rated at 0.05%, no power stated. The HK was rated at 85 watts (average) for the front three channels into an 8 Ohm load @ 0.05% distortion. The HK had A/D and D/A converters but otherwise the feature layout of the two was identical. The Marantz included a far better universal remote while the HK gave a learning remote. The HK sold for $100 more (MSRP) than the Marantz. Under test, according to "The Steroephile Guide to Home Theater", Winter 1996 issue, p. 112-117, the Marantz clipped at 111 watts @ 0.1% distortion @ 1kHz while the HK clipped at 112 watts for the same conditions. The HK would also drive, for a short time, a two Ohm load(where it produced 240 watts) while the Marantz would immediately shut down inprotection at anything under four Ohms. Additionally, as is true to HK's design philosophy of the past thirty plus years, the HK performed much better on square wave response which, it has been argued, is much more reflective of the nature of music than a single sine wave. (Yes, I do know that there is no such thing as a square wave in nature. I am simply stating an argument that has existed in high end audio for decades. I also know that most tube amolifiers do not do as well on square waves as solid state designs but if you will look at the well respected designs of McIntosh, Marantz, the original HK Citation tubes and Audio Research, to name a few, those tube amps will generally swamp a competitive solid state amp in square wave resopnse performance.) What does all this mean? As always numbers and statistics can be made to look anyway the partisan wishes and are always subject to interpretation by the reader. Clearly in this instance the on paper specifications were all but meaningless. And the specs did nothing to convey how these two amlifiers actually reproduced music.
Gregory, EXACTLY my point. Most specs on audio equipment mean very little if anything at all. Power is just one of them. THD specs are even MORE misleading. Manufacturers know if they increase the amount of global negative feedback in the amp, two things "look better" on paper: THD and bandwith specs. However, increased negative feedback drastically raises transient distortions that are much more audable than harmonic distortions, so the amp sounds much worse. Again, common sense.....LISTEN with your ears not your eyes.
how do you hook up a 160 watt amp.to your car stereo? Someone give me directions.