Hi,

I have a HK AVR120.
http://www.harmankardon.com/specific...0120&sT ype=H

I have this reciever for 5 years and it is dying on me... again.

First the right channel was gone within the first year (covered by the
warranty). Now the center channel was done.

I paid $350 for this reciever.
They will probably charge a hundred buck to repair it... will they not?

So... I am thinking to just trash the old crap and buy a new one.
I've nailed down to two models. Both cost about the same ($400-$450 street
price) but the Pioneer is labled "THX Certified" where the Yamaha is not.


Pioneer VSX-1015TX
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...686388,00.html

Yamaha RX-V659
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/receivers/RXV659.htm

The reciever will be driving a pair of JBL 6 1/2" 2-way floor speakers and a
pair of Sony 5" bookshelf. So, I don't really need to concern about the
watts, do I not?

So... I think what I am really asking is what I should look for and what to
compare the receivers. Is the THX thingy really important or it is just a
hype?

On the other hand, I do want a cooler running receiver.

I used to have a Technique that ran really really hot. It would burn my
hand if I touched
it. I didn't remember the spec but the Technique sounded very very good to
me.







--
There is no answer.
There has not been an answer.
There will not be an answer.
That IS the answer!
And I am screwed.
Deadline was due yesterday.

There is no point to life.
THAT IS THE POINT.
And we are screwed.
We will run out of oil soon.

http://spaces.msn.com/bzDaCat

Tom wrote:

I have a HK AVR120.
http://www.harmankardon.com/specific...0120&sT ype=H

So... I am thinking to just trash the old crap and buy a new one.
I've nailed down to two models. Both cost about the same ($400-$450 street
price) but the Pioneer is labled "THX Certified" where the Yamaha is not.

Pioneer VSX-1015TX
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...686388,00.html

Yamaha RX-V659
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/receivers/RXV659.htm

The reciever will be driving a pair of JBL 6 1/2" 2-way floor speakers and a
pair of Sony 5" bookshelf. So, I don't really need to concern about the
watts, do I not?

Probably not. Do you listen at really loud volumes? Are your speakers
inefficient? Do you need to handle really wide dynamic range material
(i.e. live mics)? Are you looking for that sensoround experience?

While headroom is a good thing, if you are like most people, you rarely
push more than a watt or two.

Anyway, the difference between 100 watts and 120 watts is less than one
dB, which is somewhere between inaudible and extremely subtle. I
wouldn't sweat over the wattage differences between the two.


So... I think what I am really asking is what I should look for and what to
compare the receivers. Is the THX thingy really important or it is just a
hype?

THX is mostly marketing hype, coupled with a licensing fee paid to Lucas
& co. I wouldn't reject something because it was THX certified, but I
wouldn't pay extra for it either.

Bottom line is look at the features. Do you want XM ready? etc.

//Walt

"Tom" wrote in message
. com
Hi,

I have a HK AVR120.
http://www.harmankardon.com/specific...0120&sT ype=H

I have this reciever for 5 years and it is dying on me...
again.

Just goes to show that paying premium prices does not necessarily guarantee
an exceptionally reliable product.

First the right channel was gone within the first year
(covered by the warranty). Now the center channel was
done.

Bummer.

I paid $350 for this receiver.

Well, you paid $70 a year for the center of your AV system. Not all that
bad.


They will probably charge a hundred buck to repair it...
will they not?

They might change the better part of $100 just to look at it.

So... I am thinking to just trash the old crap and buy a
new one. I've nailed down to two models. Both cost about the same
($400-$450 street price) but the Pioneer is labled "THX
Certified" where the Yamaha is not.

THX is more about branding than superior technology or execution.

Pioneer VSX-1015TX
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...686388,00.html

price $369-499

120 wpc

Yamaha RX-V659
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/receivers/RXV659.htm

100 wpc

Basically the same price range and power.

The reciever will be driving a pair of JBL 6 1/2" 2-way
floor speakers and a pair of Sony 5" bookshelf. So, I
don't really need to concern about the watts, do I not?

No significant difference vis-a-vis power in the specs.

So... I think what I am really asking is what I should
look for and what to compare the receivers. Is the THX
thingy really important or it is just a hype?

Hype.

On the other hand, I do want a cooler running receiver.

How would you know, from the evidence availble to you?

I used to have a Technique that ran really really hot. It would burn my
hand if I touched
it. I didn't remember the spec but the Technique sounded
very very good to me.

If you want a cool-running receiver, make sure it gets lots of ventilation.

One is saying:
high-power drivability, ultra-efficient amplification, stable imaging,
extremely low energy loss, and ultra linear ouput to all channels.


The other one is saying:
a.. Digital ToP-ART and High Current Amplification
a.. Pure Direct for High Quality Sound Reproduction


My old crappy Harman says similar thing... although it is 50 watts but it is
a high power 50watts. hmm... yea... whatever...

All these terms confuse me. Any opinion? Everything being equal, should I
just use the actual physical weight as the standard? i.e. the heavier the
better the sound it is.

I think I am going toward the Yamaha because it has more input plugs in the
back.

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Tom wrote:

I have a HK AVR120.
http://www.harmankardon.com/specific...0120&sT ype=H

So... I am thinking to just trash the old crap and buy a new one.
I've nailed down to two models. Both cost about the same ($400-$450
street
price) but the Pioneer is labled "THX Certified" where the Yamaha is not.

Pioneer VSX-1015TX
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...686388,00.html

Yamaha RX-V659
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/receivers/RXV659.htm

The reciever will be driving a pair of JBL 6 1/2" 2-way floor speakers
and a
pair of Sony 5" bookshelf. So, I don't really need to concern about the
watts, do I not?

Probably not. Do you listen at really loud volumes? Are your speakers
inefficient? Do you need to handle really wide dynamic range material
(i.e. live mics)? Are you looking for that sensoround experience?

While headroom is a good thing, if you are like most people, you rarely
push more than a watt or two.

Anyway, the difference between 100 watts and 120 watts is less than one
dB, which is somewhere between inaudible and extremely subtle. I wouldn't
sweat over the wattage differences between the two.


So... I think what I am really asking is what I should look for and what
to
compare the receivers. Is the THX thingy really important or it is just
a
hype?

THX is mostly marketing hype, coupled with a licensing fee paid to Lucas &
co. I wouldn't reject something because it was THX certified, but I
wouldn't pay extra for it either.

Bottom line is look at the features. Do you want XM ready? etc.

//Walt

Any hand-on real experience with these two recievers?

This is hard to pick since you are guessing and I am guessing... and not
until I pick one up and try it in my house, there is no way to see what I
like.

I also have an old Pioneer Elite stereo receiver. This one is driving a
pair of big-ass-man-size-5-feet-tall-80-pound floor speakers. I really like
this Pioneer but it is not an AV reveiver. This Pioneer runs really cold
too.



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Tom" wrote in message
. com
Hi,

I have a HK AVR120.
http://www.harmankardon.com/specific...0120&sT ype=H

I have this reciever for 5 years and it is dying on me...
again.

Just goes to show that paying premium prices does not necessarily
guarantee an exceptionally reliable product.

First the right channel was gone within the first year
(covered by the warranty). Now the center channel was
done.

Bummer.

I paid $350 for this receiver.

Well, you paid $70 a year for the center of your AV system. Not all that
bad.


They will probably charge a hundred buck to repair it...
will they not?

They might change the better part of $100 just to look at it.

So... I am thinking to just trash the old crap and buy a
new one. I've nailed down to two models. Both cost about the same
($400-$450 street price) but the Pioneer is labled "THX
Certified" where the Yamaha is not.

THX is more about branding than superior technology or execution.

Pioneer VSX-1015TX
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...686388,00.html

price $369-499

120 wpc

Yamaha RX-V659
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/receivers/RXV659.htm

100 wpc

Basically the same price range and power.

The reciever will be driving a pair of JBL 6 1/2" 2-way
floor speakers and a pair of Sony 5" bookshelf. So, I
don't really need to concern about the watts, do I not?

No significant difference vis-a-vis power in the specs.

So... I think what I am really asking is what I should
look for and what to compare the receivers. Is the THX
thingy really important or it is just a hype?

Hype.

On the other hand, I do want a cooler running receiver.

How would you know, from the evidence availble to you?

I used to have a Technique that ran really really hot. It would burn my
hand if I touched
it. I didn't remember the spec but the Technique sounded
very very good to me.

If you want a cool-running receiver, make sure it gets lots of
ventilation.

Tom said:

Any hand-on real experience with these two recievers?

Pioneer VSX-1015TX
Yamaha RX-V659

Don't listen to Krooger. He has a track record for shilling low-end Pioneer
boxes. This is part of Krooger's warped agenda to "prove" everything sounds the
same regardless of price.

This is hard to pick since you are guessing and I am guessing... and not
until I pick one up and try it in my house, there is no way to see what I
like.

Generic entry-level receivers are not designed to last for a long time. You
didn't say why you narrowed your choices to these two models. My general
experience with Yamaha vs. Pioneer boxes is that Yamaha has excellent surround
processing and the Pioneer is more likely to produce loud volumes without
problems. That said, all receivers at this price point have major compromises in
features and performance. Do they both have enough input jacks? Do you like the
OSD for changing settings? Is there a difference between the remotes? How about
FM reception -- is that a factor? How about video upsampling? This is a nice
feature if you have an HD TV set, or if you plan to get one before you change
electronics.


--


A day without Krooger is like a day without radiation poisoning.

Tom wrote:

One is saying:
high-power drivability, ultra-efficient amplification, stable imaging,
extremely low energy loss, and ultra linear ouput to all channels.

The other one is saying:
a.. Digital ToP-ART and High Current Amplification
a.. Pure Direct for High Quality Sound Reproduction

All these terms confuse me.

Me too. I don't parse marketingspeak very well. Who knows what they're
trying to say? Most likely it's written by somebody who's engineering
curriculim stopped at "Physics for Poets".


Any opinion? Everything being equal, should I
just use the actual physical weight as the standard? i.e. the heavier the
better the sound it is.

Well, heavier weight usually means that they haven't cheaped out on the
power supply and heat sinks, but it could just mean that they include a
free brick in every box.

I think I am going toward the Yamaha because it has more input plugs in the
back.

If you think you might need that many inputs, go for it. Really, look
at the features and see which ones you find useful.

//Walt

Yes... both of these two only carry a one-year warranty. My old crappy
Harman carries a two-year warranty... Feature wise... they both have
smiliar features... both have video upsampling which I guess it is a nice to
have feature... since I don't have to run a bunch of cables from the
receiver to the TV.

Would you tell me how good (or bad) the upsampling thing is please? very
good? or "nag"... better to just use different cables...

a-n-y-w-a-y...

So... according to you... you have no opinion on any cheapest chicken
receiver... ($500 is not cheap... can buy alot of fried chicken... IMO).

How about something in the $700 range? Any recommandation?




"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Tom said:

Any hand-on real experience with these two recievers?

Pioneer VSX-1015TX
Yamaha RX-V659

Don't listen to Krooger. He has a track record for shilling low-end
Pioneer
boxes. This is part of Krooger's warped agenda to "prove" everything
sounds the
same regardless of price.

This is hard to pick since you are guessing and I am guessing... and not
until I pick one up and try it in my house, there is no way to see what I
like.

Generic entry-level receivers are not designed to last for a long time.
You
didn't say why you narrowed your choices to these two models. My general
experience with Yamaha vs. Pioneer boxes is that Yamaha has excellent
surround
processing and the Pioneer is more likely to produce loud volumes without
problems. That said, all receivers at this price point have major
compromises in
features and performance. Do they both have enough input jacks? Do you
like the
OSD for changing settings? Is there a difference between the remotes? How
about
FM reception -- is that a factor? How about video upsampling? This is a
nice
feature if you have an HD TV set, or if you plan to get one before you
change
electronics.


--


A day without Krooger is like a day without radiation poisoning.

You didn't say why you narrowed your choices to these two models.

Oh... mostly price range and brand.

I have a Technics, Yamaha, Pioneer Elite, and the Harman.

My Technics was around $350 back then 10 years ago.
My Yamaha was $700.
My Pioneer was a grand. (!!!)
And the Harman was $350.

All three except this crappy Harman work and sound great for so many years.

My first choice was another Technics but they didn't make it anymore. When
I was a kid, Harman was the name brand. And I kinda liked their JBL
speakers. So I gave Harman a try. BAD MOVE.

So... it is either Yamaha or Pioneer simply because of previous experience
with them. And I am not crazy to spend another grand for receiver
anymore... As Krooger has said... they all sound the same.







A day without Krooger is like a day without radiation poisoning.

Tom said:

Yes...

First off, you have to stop top-posting.

Generic entry-level receivers are not designed to last for a long time.
You didn't say why you narrowed your choices to these two models. My general
experience with Yamaha vs. Pioneer boxes is that Yamaha has excellent
surround processing and the Pioneer is more likely to produce loud volumes
without problems. That said, all receivers at this price point have major
compromises in features and performance. Do they both have enough input
jacks? Do you like the OSD for changing settings? Is there a difference
between the remotes? How about FM reception -- is that a factor? How about
video upsampling? This is a nice feature if you have an HD TV set, or if you
plan to get one before you change electronics.

both of these two only carry a one-year warranty. My old crappy
Harman carries a two-year warranty... Feature wise... they both have
smiliar features... both have video upsampling which I guess it is a nice to
have feature... since I don't have to run a bunch of cables from the
receiver to the TV.

Would you tell me how good (or bad) the upsampling thing is please? very
good? or "nag"... better to just use different cables...

I find it a major convenience, but that's because I switch sources a lot and I
do have an HD TV set. When I was shopping, which was about a year ago, I ruled
out several preamps because they did not have it.

a-n-y-w-a-y...

So... according to you... you have no opinion on any cheapest chicken
receiver... ($500 is not cheap... can buy alot of fried chicken... IMO).

How about something in the $700 range? Any recommandation?

The more expensive receivers have more significantly robust power supplies and
usually a couple more input jacks. The surround processing and other built-in
functions are not likely to be different from the baby ones. (It's cheaper for
the mfrs. to design one circuit board and put the same SW in every box.)

Usability is a big factor for me. You really can't judge usability without
trying the remote and using the OSD software. I wouldn't make a decision without
seeing them in action. I can tell you that I find Yamaha software very easy to
learn and use, and HK less so, but YMMV. BTW, the 'borg approach to usability is
that it's a non-issue. Any doubts about that, just check out Krooger's horrific
website.


--


A day without Krooger is like a day without radiation poisoning.

On 10 May 2006 13:06:19 -0700, George Middius
wrote:


The more expensive receivers have more significantly robust power supplies and
usually a couple more input jacks. The surround processing and other built-in
functions are not likely to be different from the baby ones. (It's cheaper for
the mfrs. to design one circuit board and put the same SW in every box.)

Usability is a big factor for me. You really can't judge usability without
trying the remote and using the OSD software. I wouldn't make a decision without
seeing them in action. I can tell you that I find Yamaha software very easy to
learn and use, and HK less so, but YMMV. BTW, the 'borg approach to usability is
that it's a non-issue. Any doubts about that, just check out Krooger's horrific
website.

This is a very nice--if uncharacteristic--post on-topic, George, and
helpful to the OP. No one will ever again be able to accuse you of
only posting off-topic and of attacking newbies.

I especially liked the way you worked another attack on Arnold into
the denouement.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On 10 May 2006 13:06:19 -0700, George Middius
wrote:


The more expensive receivers have more significantly
robust power supplies and usually a couple more input
jacks. The surround processing and other built-in
functions are not likely to be different from the baby
ones. (It's cheaper for the mfrs. to design one circuit
board and put the same SW in every box.)

Usability is a big factor for me. You really can't judge
usability without trying the remote and using the OSD
software. I wouldn't make a decision without seeing them
in action. I can tell you that I find Yamaha software
very easy to learn and use, and HK less so, but YMMV.
BTW, the 'borg approach to usability is that it's a
non-issue. Any doubts about that, just check out
Krooger's horrific website.

This is a very nice--if uncharacteristic--post on-topic,
George, and helpful to the OP. No one will ever again be
able to accuse you of only posting off-topic and of
attacking newbies.

I especially liked the way you worked another attack on
Arnold into the denouement.

As if anybody wondered whether you were terribly bitter from all the hits
you've taken from me over the years, Paulie. ;-)

paul packer said:

BTW, the 'borg approach to usability is that it's a non-issue.
Any doubts about that, just check out Krooger's horrific website.

This is a very nice--if uncharacteristic--post on-topic, George, and
helpful to the OP. No one will ever again be able to accuse you of
only posting off-topic and of attacking newbies.

I especially liked the way you worked another attack on Arnold into
the denouement.

Sorry to disillusion you, but that was the punchline. The rest of it was
just the setup.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

paul packer said:

BTW, the 'borg approach to usability is that it's a
non-issue. Any doubts about that, just check out
Krooger's horrific website.

This is a very nice--if uncharacteristic--post on-topic,
George, and helpful to the OP. No one will ever again be
able to accuse you of only posting off-topic and of
attacking newbies.

I especially liked the way you worked another attack on
Arnold into the denouement.

Sorry to disillusion you, but that was the punchline. The
rest of it was just the setup.

Yup Middius is just as bitter as ever. More than six years of being hoisted
on his own petard, and he still wants to play again.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 08:41:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On 10 May 2006 13:06:19 -0700, George Middius
wrote:


The more expensive receivers have more significantly
robust power supplies and usually a couple more input
jacks. The surround processing and other built-in
functions are not likely to be different from the baby
ones. (It's cheaper for the mfrs. to design one circuit
board and put the same SW in every box.)

Usability is a big factor for me. You really can't judge
usability without trying the remote and using the OSD
software. I wouldn't make a decision without seeing them
in action. I can tell you that I find Yamaha software
very easy to learn and use, and HK less so, but YMMV.
BTW, the 'borg approach to usability is that it's a
non-issue. Any doubts about that, just check out
Krooger's horrific website.

This is a very nice--if uncharacteristic--post on-topic,
George, and helpful to the OP. No one will ever again be
able to accuse you of only posting off-topic and of
attacking newbies.

I especially liked the way you worked another attack on
Arnold into the denouement.

As if anybody wondered whether you were terribly bitter from all the hits
you've taken from me over the years, Paulie. ;-)

Yep, your sense of humour is as sharp as ever, Arnold. That's to say,
as sharp as a beach ball. Keep it up.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...

The more expensive receivers have more significantly robust power supplies

I have been reading the posts in the AVFORUM. I guess people there like
Harman and Pioneer. They have alot of different opinions on these two
brands. After reading the posts for couple hours, I think I find the common
ground. They all agree that the sound will be better if the receiver has a
"High Current" power supply to drive the speakers.

Though the ultimate answer for the ultimate question is 42, I really don't
know what the question should be. So... I am guessing that the real
question is...

What "High Current" is high current? or How high is high enough to have
good quality sound? Is the Yamaha I mention a "High Current" receiver?
Where in the spec can I find this "High Current" information?

"paul packer" wrote in message

On 10 May 2006 13:06:19 -0700, George Middius
wrote:


The more expensive receivers have more significantly
robust power supplies and usually a couple more input
jacks.

You might want to test that hypothesis about a more robust power supply by
taking the quotent of pounds and watts. If its way off the norm for a
particular receiver, then you probably have a receiver with switchmode power
supply. But you'll usually find that the quotient is close to being uniform,
regardless of price. Figure you need at least 25% more pounds per watt to
make a significant difference.

Tom wrote:
"George Middius" wrote in message
...

The more expensive receivers have more significantly robust power supplies

I have been reading the posts in the AVFORUM. I guess people there like
Harman and Pioneer. They have alot of different opinions on these two
brands. After reading the posts for couple hours, I think I find the common
ground. They all agree that the sound will be better if the receiver has a
"High Current" power supply to drive the speakers.

Though the ultimate answer for the ultimate question is 42, I really don't
know what the question should be. So... I am guessing that the real
question is...

What "High Current" is high current? or How high is high enough to have
good quality sound? Is the Yamaha I mention a "High Current" receiver?
Where in the spec can I find this "High Current" information?

I don't think you can.... and last I read the Harmon label on their
receivers as being "high current" was pretty much a crock.

Typically the way to determine if an amp really has high current
capability is its power output will double as the load impedance halves
down to something below 4 ohms.
Do any of your receivers on the spec list accomplish this? I don't
think so.
I've heard Harmons high current claim is a bunch of marketing crap.

As far as Georges comments that the bigger receivers have more robust
power supplies, I think that can be deceiving as the gadgetry they add
can significantly complicate power supply design for things like self
calibration without having any real impact to the amplifier sections
performance. I can say that when they pack all those channels and
features into only a slightly larger box, they can get quite warm which
will impact reliability.
My cheopo 5.1 channel bottom of the line Pioneer ran obviously cooler
than the bigger feature laden 7.1 jobs.

ScottW

ScottW said:

What "High Current" is high current? or How high is high enough to have
good quality sound? Is the Yamaha I mention a "High Current" receiver?
Where in the spec can I find this "High Current" information?

Typically the way to determine if an amp really has high current
capability is its power output will double as the load impedance halves
down to something below 4 ohms.

That's an oversimplification. I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.

As far as Georges comments that the bigger receivers have more robust
power supplies, I think that can be deceiving as the gadgetry they add
can significantly complicate power supply design for things like self
calibration without having any real impact to the amplifier sections
performance.

If that were true, wouldn't such miscalibrations be easily audible in
Normal listening?

The value of a "high current" amp is quite dependent on your speakers.
Some say they can read a spec sheet and determine if an amp will be
overmatched by a given set of speakers. That claim presupposes that the
spec sheet is accurate for real-world performance, which some are not.
(Especially cheesy brands like Pioneer and, some say, H-K.) The specs
published by speaker manufacturers are more likely to be realistic. The
factors that would cause speakers to overtax an amplifier are efficiency
and sensitivity. If the nominal sensitivity is listed at 90 dB or above,
and the efficiency is 8 ohms (nominal) with a minimum of 4 ohms, any
receiver can handle them. And even if the sensitivity is a little lower,
you'll probably be OK unless you want to really crank them. That doesn't
mean the speakers would sound the same with every box, though.

I would never make a serious investment without a trial. It sounds like
you know even less about electronics than most of us, including me, so
if you're really worried about performance, try getting some info from
the manufacturer of your speakers.

I can say that when they pack all those channels and
features into only a slightly larger box, they can get quite warm which
will impact reliability.

That might or might not be a reasonable assumption. I once owned a hefty
receiver with lots of features and great big power supplies, but it
never got hot. Not too hot to touch, anyway. So your assumption about
reliability leaves a big gray area when it comes to "quite warm".



--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


ScottW said:

What "High Current" is high current? or How high is high enough to
have
good quality sound? Is the Yamaha I mention a "High Current" receiver?
Where in the spec can I find this "High Current" information?

Typically the way to determine if an amp really has high current
capability is its power output will double as the load impedance halves
down to something below 4 ohms.

That's an oversimplification. I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.


So, if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that the
word "High" really does not have any meaning in the sense of comparing, in
this case, this particular Yamaha, Pioneer, and this HK of mine.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


ScottW said:

What "High Current" is high current? or How high is high enough to
have
good quality sound? Is the Yamaha I mention a "High Current" receiver?
Where in the spec can I find this "High Current" information?

Typically the way to determine if an amp really has high current
capability is its power output will double as the load impedance halves
down to something below 4 ohms.

That's an oversimplification.

Why?

I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.

Ok...then none are truly high current.

As far as Georges comments that the bigger receivers have more robust
power supplies, I think that can be deceiving as the gadgetry they add
can significantly complicate power supply design for things like self
calibration without having any real impact to the amplifier sections
performance.

If that were true, wouldn't such miscalibrations be easily audible in
Normal listening?

Huh? I just said the ancillary circuitry complicate power supply designs
requiring things like +/-12v or 5V or even 3.3 v or less for memory
etc. None of which are used for the power amp sections.


The value of a "high current" amp is quite dependent on your speakers.

True.

Some say they can read a spec sheet and determine if an amp will be
overmatched by a given set of speakers. That claim presupposes that the
spec sheet is accurate for real-world performance, which some are not.
(Especially cheesy brands like Pioneer and, some say, H-K.) The specs
published by speaker manufacturers are more likely to be realistic. The
factors that would cause speakers to overtax an amplifier are efficiency
and sensitivity. If the nominal sensitivity is listed at 90 dB or above,

Uh...this is usually efficiency for a speaker but I suppose you could
call it sensitivity...

but the following is definitely impedance...not efficiency.


and the efficiency is 8 ohms (nominal) with a minimum of 4 ohms, any
receiver can handle them.

But take a look at the 3 Recievers specs. The HK brags about some
bogus Instantaneous High Current Capability while its actual amp specs
are really suspect in that the rated power output diminishes with number
of active channels. That really points to either a weak power supply or
a thermal problem.
The Pioneer doesn't provide any detail but at least is consistent power
no matter how many channels are active.
The Yamaha actually provides power output as a function of load
and indicates stability down to 2 ohms and while not doubling
power even from 8 to 4, they are at least stable.

And even if the sensitivity is a little lower,
you'll probably be OK unless you want to really crank them. That doesn't
mean the speakers would sound the same with every box, though.

I would never make a serious investment without a trial. It sounds like
you know even less about electronics than most of us, including me, so
if you're really worried about performance, try getting some info from
the manufacturer of your speakers.

I can say that when they pack all those channels and
features into only a slightly larger box, they can get quite warm which
will impact reliability.

That might or might not be a reasonable assumption. I once owned a hefty
receiver with lots of features and great big power supplies, but it
never got hot. Not too hot to touch, anyway. So your assumption about
reliability leaves a big gray area when it comes to "quite warm".

You're right...it is a grey area. For example my Krell runs very warm
but its made to run that way. Often the problem in the receivers isn't
the power section (that is made to run warm) but the logic and DSPs
that don't really like to be cooked. And many useres stuff them
into closed cabinets to make a marginal situation problematic.
But you're touch test is a reasonable guide. A person can usually
put their hand on something in the 55c range without serious discomfort
for as long as they want. So if you can't put your hand on the cover of
a receiver without it getting too hot to leave it there, I'd keep looking.

ScottW

Tom said:

That's an oversimplification. I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.

So, if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that the
word "High" really does not have any meaning in the sense of comparing, in
this case, this particular Yamaha, Pioneer, and this HK of mine.

"High current" has migrated from the argot of hardcore audio enthusiasts
into a mainstream marketing buzzword.

I'm still not clear what kind of info you're looking for. I don't have
any direct experience with any current receivers. If that's what you
want, try audioreview.com. You might also try posting your questions on
alt.hometheater.misc.

Personally, I think a $300 receiver is just a stopgap measure until you
can afford something better. To use my own situation as an example, I
bought a multichannel power amp on ebay for $150 and a new preamp for
$1200. IMO, I get performance that's better than almost any receiver.
But if you're planning on the cheapo box as the centerpiece of your
system for several years, then I suggest making your decision based on
features and usability. All those receivers you've mentioned have a
one-year warranty, and that should tell you where the manufacturers
don't spend money.

One final note: Several mass-market mfrs. have an upscale line of
products. Some of them have 3-year warranties included. The basement
offerings start higher than $300 but it might be worth a look.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"Tom" wrote in message
om...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


ScottW said:

What "High Current" is high current? or How high is high enough to
have
good quality sound? Is the Yamaha I mention a "High Current"
receiver?
Where in the spec can I find this "High Current" information?

Typically the way to determine if an amp really has high current
capability is its power output will double as the load impedance halves
down to something below 4 ohms.

That's an oversimplification. I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.


So, if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that the
word "High" really does not have any meaning in the sense of comparing,
in this case, this particular Yamaha, Pioneer, and this HK of mine.

As I said to George, the HK unit while bragging about high current
is probably the least capable of the 3.

I have a Pioneer VSX D412 and I understand that, at the time,
Pioneer was using the same power amp module for all its receivers
100W/channel. That thing works fine for movies driving 4 ohm speakers
and cost me $150.
Its only 5.1 and runs very cool. But I don't think it sounds that
great on music....but I'm spoiled.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Personally, I think a $300 receiver is just a stopgap measure until you
can afford something better.

So, if I understand correctly, what you are saying is that I should use the
cost of the receiver as a standard. Rather it is Yamaha or Pioneer or
whatever, the most it costs the better it sounds. And anything that is not
expensive is basically cheap stuff that won't sound any good no matter what
the box says.

And to determind whether the receiver is a cheap receiver, I should not, on
the other hand, just look at the price. I should look how many year they
offer for the warranty. The Yamaha and the Pioneer cost around $500 bucks
but only carry 1 year warranty. My HK costs $350 but carry 2 year. So,
even my HK is cheaper (in price) but the components they use may be... just
may be, twice as good as the $500 Yamaha or Pioneer.

Am I understanding correctly?

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
said:



ScottW said:

What "High Current" is high current? or How high is high enough to have
good quality sound? Is the Yamaha I mention a "High Current" receiver?
Where in the spec can I find this "High Current" information?

Typically the way to determine if an amp really has high current
capability is its power output will double as the load impedance halves
down to something below 4 ohms.

That's an oversimplification. I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.

As far as Georges comments that the bigger receivers have more robust
power supplies, I think that can be deceiving as the gadgetry they add
can significantly complicate power supply design for things like self
calibration without having any real impact to the amplifier sections
performance.

If that were true, wouldn't such miscalibrations be easily audible in
Normal listening?

The value of a "high current" amp is quite dependent on your speakers.
Some say they can read a spec sheet and determine if an amp will be
overmatched by a given set of speakers. That claim presupposes that the
spec sheet is accurate for real-world performance, which some are not.
(Especially cheesy brands like Pioneer and, some say, H-K.) The specs
published by speaker manufacturers are more likely to be realistic. The
factors that would cause speakers to overtax an amplifier are efficiency
and sensitivity. If the nominal sensitivity is listed at 90 dB or above,
and the efficiency is 8 ohms (nominal) with a minimum of 4 ohms, any
receiver can handle them. And even if the sensitivity is a little lower,
you'll probably be OK unless you want to really crank them. That doesn't
mean the speakers would sound the same with every box, though.

I would never make a serious investment without a trial. It sounds like
you know even less about electronics than most of us, including me, so
if you're really worried about performance, try getting some info from
the manufacturer of your speakers.

I can say that when they pack all those channels and
features into only a slightly larger box, they can get quite warm which
will impact reliability.

That might or might not be a reasonable assumption. I once owned a hefty
receiver with lots of features and great big power supplies, but it
never got hot. Not too hot to touch, anyway. So your assumption about
reliability leaves a big gray area when it comes to "quite warm".


I fear now someone is forging *your* posts, George ...
All audio content, and nowhere a mention of Krueger. ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal said:

I fear now someone is forging *your* posts, George ...
All audio content, and nowhere a mention of Krueger. ;-)

Oops, my bad. If anybody's still reading this, please append the following
thought to my earlier post:

If you ask a 'borg about electronics, the first rule is "Cheaper is
better." The second rule is "Cheaper is better." The third rule is "Cheaper
is better." Only when you get to the fourth rule and beyond do factors
important to Normals come in to the 'borg picture.



--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Tom said:

That's an oversimplification. I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.

In fact it is technically impossibile for *any* real-world power amps actual
power to double when the impedance drops to half . It is possible to do this
on the spec sheet by simply derating the component at the higher load
impedance.

Therefore this is an invalid criteria for judging equipment because it can't
happen, and when it appears to happen, it is just a numbers game.

So, if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that
the
word "High" really does not have any meaning in the sense of comparing,
in
this case, this particular Yamaha, Pioneer, and this HK of mine.

"High current" has migrated from the argot of hardcore audio enthusiasts
into a mainstream marketing buzzword.

It always was what it is: marketing-speak.

IME the so-called "High current" HKs are usually rated for less power at 8
ohms than their competition at the same price point. One accomplishes this
by shaving a few turns off off the secondary windings of the power
transformer and using slightly heavier wire.

I'm still not clear what kind of info you're looking for. I don't have
any direct experience with any current receivers. If that's what you
want, try audioreview.com. You might also try posting your questions on
alt.hometheater.misc.

I just bought a 2-channel receiver for TV 2-channel sound. I don't think it
is worth the trouble to keep a whole multichannel system powered up just to
watch the news, Discovery or History channel. This slot was filled for years
by a Pioneer that fried just lately while testing out a Sony 32" TV that
turned out to have a broken TV sound receiver section. It was apparently
putting out a lot of HF noise, and one channel of the power blew.
Surprizingly the associated tweeter is still fine. I replaced the bottom-end
Pioneer that had served well for about 5 years with a bottom-end Sherwood.

Personally, I think a $300 receiver is just a stopgap measure until you
can afford something better. To use my own situation as an example, I
bought a multichannel power amp on ebay for $150 and a new preamp for
$1200. IMO, I get performance that's better than almost any receiver.

Looking at the specs and test results for many consumer separates, I see
things that are a lot like mid-line receivers spread over two chassis. What
to call a so-called high current power amp that is not rated for loads below
4 ohms?

But if you're planning on the cheapo box as the centerpiece of your
system for several years, then I suggest making your decision based on
features and usability. All those receivers you've mentioned have a
one-year warranty, and that should tell you where the manufacturers
don't spend money.

In many cases warrantees are like insurance policies. If a low-end
component fails during the warranty period, from a profit standpoint it is a
big loss for the manufacturer. Therefore there is plenty of incentive to
build even low-priced equipment to respectible quality standards.

One final note: Several mass-market mfrs. have an upscale line of
products. Some of them have 3-year warranties included. The basement
offerings start higher than $300 but it might be worth a look.

In many cases, the upscale products are very similar to the mid-line
products in terms of core technology and technical performance. Some people
want something with a few more features, nicer looks, and a higher price, so
let them eat cake.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sander deWaal said:

I fear now someone is forging *your* posts, George ...
All audio content, and nowhere a mention of Krueger. ;-)

Oops, my bad. If anybody's still reading this, please append the following
thought to my earlier post:

If you ask a 'borg about electronics, the first rule is "Cheaper is
better." The second rule is "Cheaper is better." The third rule is
"Cheaper
is better." Only when you get to the fourth rule and beyond do factors
important to Normals come in to the 'borg picture.

Ironic coming from someone who just bragged about how cheaper is better when
it comes to his own purchases:

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...

"To use my own situation as an example, I bought a multichannel power amp on
ebay (sic) for $150 and a new preamp for $1200."

If cheaper isn't better, why buy on eBay?

duh-Arnii lines up in the El Stupido brigade.

If you ask a 'borg about electronics, the first rule is "Cheaper is
better." The second rule is "Cheaper is better." The third rule is
"Cheaper is better." Only when you get to the fourth rule and beyond
do factors important to Normals come in to the 'borg picture.

"To use my own situation as an example, I bought a multichannel power amp on
ebay (sic) for $150 and a new preamp for $1200."

If cheaper isn't better, why buy on eBay?

It's not my week to abuse you, Turdy. If you need to be put in your place,
I believe Sander is the current Punishment Master. Please supplicate your
slimy self before him in order to receive your daily dose of denigration.




--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


duh-Arnii lines up in the El Stupido brigade.

If you ask a 'borg about electronics, the first rule is "Cheaper is
better." The second rule is "Cheaper is better." The third rule is
"Cheaper is better." Only when you get to the fourth rule and beyond
do factors important to Normals come in to the 'borg picture.

"To use my own situation as an example, I bought a multichannel power amp
on
ebay (sic) for $150 and a new preamp for $1200."

If cheaper isn't better, why buy on eBay?

It's not my week to abuse you, Turdy.

You can say that again. ;-)

It is better for you to receive than give!

Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Tom said:

That's an oversimplification. I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.

In fact it is technically impossibile for *any* real-world power amps actual
power to double when the impedance drops to half . It is possible to do this
on the spec sheet by simply derating the component at the higher load
impedance.


That is such a crock of crap.... you're basically saying its ok to
drive an amp to beyond its max rated voltage output... and then claim
if that can be done the amp is derated.

Thats just head in the ass stupid AFAIAC. How do you get an amp
voltage above rating anyway? Overdriving the input maybe?

ScottW

"ScottW" said:


In fact it is technically impossibile for *any* real-world power amps actual
power to double when the impedance drops to half . It is possible to do this
on the spec sheet by simply derating the component at the higher load
impedance.


That is such a crock of crap.... you're basically saying its ok to
drive an amp to beyond its max rated voltage output... and then claim
if that can be done the amp is derated.


I really hate to say this, but Arny is actually correct here.
Another way of saying this is to rate an amplifier in class A with say
8 ohms, whereas the behaviour in 4 ohms and lower will shift to class
AB, as is the case with some of my hybrid MOSFET amps.
This actually makes it possible to "double" power with each halving of
load impedance.

Up to a certain limit, of course.
And even then, no power supply is sufficiently stiff as to provide an
actual stable voltage under each and every load condition.
Not even your Krell (assuming you have a class A model) will
accomplish that.


Thats just head in the ass stupid AFAIAC. How do you get an amp
voltage above rating anyway? Overdriving the input maybe?


He didn't say that.
Derating the power at a high load impedance is simple enough, just
shift the distortion factor down to 0.001 % or so.

If you look at a real world amplifier, you'll find that, even if it
doubles power in half the impedance, distortion will rise.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

George M. Middius said:


It's not my week to abuse you, Turdy. If you need to be put in your place,
I believe Sander is the current Punishment Master. Please supplicate your
slimy self before him in order to receive your daily dose of denigration.


This hasn't been one of my better weeks, actually.
I promise to behave myself in the future.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

George M. Middius said:


It's not my week to abuse you, Turdy. If you need to be put in your place,
I believe Sander is the current Punishment Master. Please supplicate your
slimy self before him in order to receive your daily dose of denigration.


Rest assured Arny, I'll leave you alone for now.
It's no fun kicking a cripple, after all.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote
in message ...

Tom said:

That's an oversimplification. I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.

In fact it is technically impossibile for *any* real-world power amps
actual
power to double when the impedance drops to half . It is possible to do
this
on the spec sheet by simply derating the component at the higher load
impedance.

That is such a crock of crap....

Sorry Scotty, but if you knew the laws of physics as well as your Star Trek
namesake...

you're basically saying its ok to
drive an amp to beyond its max rated voltage output...

No hifi amp is rated to run at its max possible voltage output - there's
always some margin.

The maximum power rating of any hifi amp is somewhat less than clipping. An
amp's output can therefore go somewhat above the volage that is implied by
its rated output.

A logical consequence of this fact is that *every* amp can easily and safely
(safely in the sense of no permanent damage to the amp) put out quite a few
more volts than is implied by its ratings.

and then claim if that can be done the amp is derated.

*All* amps *are* derated Scotty. It's just a matter of degree.

Thats just head in the ass stupid AFAIAC.

No, it makes perfect sense if you understand how amps are rated. Amps are
subject to some natural variations in their actual output. How do you make
sure that every amp will meet spec? You make up the spec by derating the
amp!

How do you get an amp voltage above rating anyway? Overdriving the input
maybe?

Exactly, you overdrive the input, in some sense.

Everybody who has ever clipped an amp has done this, including Scotty I
daresay you.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" said:


In fact it is technically impossibile for *any* real-world power amps
actual
power to double when the impedance drops to half . It is possible to do
this
on the spec sheet by simply derating the component at the higher load
impedance.


That is such a crock of crap.... you're basically saying its ok to
drive an amp to beyond its max rated voltage output... and then claim
if that can be done the amp is derated.


I really hate to say this, but Arny is actually correct here.

Thanks for admitting that you hate to tell the truth, Sander.

Another way of saying this is to rate an amplifier in class A with say
8 ohms, whereas the behaviour in 4 ohms and lower will shift to class
AB, as is the case with some of my hybrid MOSFET amps.

This is such a rare occurance that its a pathological example at best.
There are in fact very, very few push-pull amplifiers with substantial
output (say 35 watts or more) that operate in Class A with an 8 ohm load.

This actually makes it possible to "double" power with each halving of
load impedance.

Very much beside the point.

All real world power supplies have internal resistance and all real-world
output stages have internal resistance. This resistances make it
*impossible* for a power amp to double its actual maximum power output when
the load impedance is halved.

Up to a certain limit, of course.
And even then, no power supply is sufficiently stiff as to provide an
actual stable voltage under each and every load condition.

That would be the internal resistance that I was talking about.

Not even your Krell (assuming you have a class A model) will
accomplish that.

Right, its well known that the Krell models that double their power into
halved load resistances achieve this by means of spec sheet magic. Put them
on the bench, and you quickly find that the 8 ohm power rating is
exceptionally conservative.

Thats just head in the ass stupid AFAIAC. How do you get an amp
voltage above rating anyway? Overdriving the input maybe?

He didn't say that.

There would be nothing wrong with saying that.

Derating the power at a high load impedance is simple enough, just
shift the distortion factor down to 0.001 % or so.

It's all numbers, Sander. You can put any number you want on a spec sheet if
it errs on the conservative side. There is no spec for derating. If you want
to rate a 100 watt amp to 50 watts there's nothing to stop you. There's no
moral imperitive to shave your safety margins, even if they are relatively
large compared to the rest of the market.

If you look at a real world amplifier, you'll find that, even if it
doubles power in half the impedance, distortion will rise.

Again, that's just spec sheet magic.

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you
with experience. -

I violate that rule just about every day on RAO, and with some degree of
success.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...

George M. Middius said:

It's not my week to abuse you, Turdy. If you need to be put in your place,
I believe Sander is the current Punishment Master. Please supplicate your
slimy self before him in order to receive your daily dose of denigration.

Rest assured Arny, I'll leave you alone for now.

Just a lame excuse for running out of gas.

It's no fun kicking a cripple, after all.

I know that all too well, from years of scrapping with you RAO trolls.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" said:


In fact it is technically impossibile for *any* real-world power amps
actual
power to double when the impedance drops to half . It is possible to do
this
on the spec sheet by simply derating the component at the higher load
impedance.


That is such a crock of crap.... you're basically saying its ok to
drive an amp to beyond its max rated voltage output... and then claim
if that can be done the amp is derated.


I really hate to say this, but Arny is actually correct here.
Another way of saying this is to rate an amplifier in class A with say
8 ohms, whereas the behaviour in 4 ohms and lower will shift to class
AB, as is the case with some of my hybrid MOSFET amps.
This actually makes it possible to "double" power with each halving of
load impedance.

Thanks for actually proving Arny is wrong.

What part of this statement has squat to do with Arny's derating
of the amp at 8 ohms?

Think about the amp as black box with gain.
I don't care what kind of technology it employs.
That is totally irrelevant to the basic argument.
He basically is claiming if he squeezes a few more
watts out into an 8 ohm load then the amp must be derated.
Well how will he do this? He'll have to get more than rated
max output voltage and if the amp is linear he'll have to drive
it with more than max input to get there.
Is that really fair?
What the hell do you too expect amp designers to do?
Either provide absolutely zeo headroom on the output
or clamp the input at max in. Anything else results in the
sin of derating.

Up to a certain limit, of course.
And even then, no power supply is sufficiently stiff as to provide an
actual stable voltage under each and every load condition.
Not even your Krell (assuming you have a class A model) will
accomplish that.

Down to somewhere below 2 ohms it will.


Thats just head in the ass stupid AFAIAC. How do you get an amp
voltage above rating anyway? Overdriving the input maybe?


He didn't say that.

In effect he did. How do you get more than rated power
into an 8 ohm load. Only 1 way I know of.
Apply more voltage to the load.

Derating the power at a high load impedance is simple enough, just
shift the distortion factor down to 0.001 % or so.

I agree its easy to do... and actually necessary to building a quality amp.
It isn't some kind of sin.
Think about this... what would you have to do to build an amp that
wasn't derated in one or more of these categories.
Max input
Max output voltage
Distortion.


If you look at a real world amplifier, you'll find that, even if it
doubles power in half the impedance, distortion will rise.

As long as it stays within spec... and many amps have distortion
and power specs into various loads down to 2 ohms.
Arny's argument that amps only really double their power simply
because their derated at 8 ohms is a crock of crap and
defies logic.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Personally, I think a $300 receiver is just a stopgap measure until you
can afford something better. To use my own situation as an example, I
bought a multichannel power amp on ebay for $150 and a new preamp for
$1200. IMO, I get performance that's better than almost any receiver.
But if you're planning on the cheapo box as the centerpiece of your
system for several years, then I suggest making your decision based on
features and usability. All those receivers you've mentioned have a
one-year warranty, and that should tell you where the manufacturers
don't spend money.

One final note: Several mass-market mfrs. have an upscale line of
products. Some of them have 3-year warranties included. The basement
offerings start higher than $300 but it might be worth a look.

I was searching this topic, and found this site.
Will any of these receivers... hmm... I guess these are receivers... sound
any good compared to the Yamaha or Pioneer?

http://www.vinylparadise.com/vinylfa...l/richardl.htm

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote
in message ...

Tom said:

That's an oversimplification. I doubt any receiver on the market
achieves a doubling of power when the impedance drops to half the
nominal.

In fact it is technically impossibile for *any* real-world power amps
actual
power to double when the impedance drops to half . It is possible to do
this
on the spec sheet by simply derating the component at the higher load
impedance.

That is such a crock of crap....

Sorry Scotty, but if you knew the laws of physics as well as your Star
Trek namesake...

you're basically saying its ok to
drive an amp to beyond its max rated voltage output...

No hifi amp is rated to run at its max possible voltage output - there's
always some margin.

The maximum power rating of any hifi amp is somewhat less than clipping.
An amp's output can therefore go somewhat above the volage that is implied
by its rated output.

A logical consequence of this fact is that *every* amp can easily and
safely (safely in the sense of no permanent damage to the amp) put out
quite a few more volts than is implied by its ratings.

and then claim if that can be done the amp is derated.

*All* amps *are* derated Scotty. It's just a matter of degree.

Thats just head in the ass stupid AFAIAC.

No, it makes perfect sense if you understand how amps are rated. Amps are
subject to some natural variations in their actual output. How do you make
sure that every amp will meet spec? You make up the spec by derating the
amp!

So why is this a sin? and why can't an amp be built that will double
rated power into 8/4/2 ohm loads?

How do you get an amp voltage above rating anyway? Overdriving the
input maybe?

Exactly, you overdrive the input, in some sense.

Brilliant... drive an amp beyond its rating and complain
that they gave you some headroom.
Can you make can openers too?

ScottW