Power Ratings and their Significance or Insignificance

[laatsch55]

yeah, but being a mod I would just reinstate myself, so why go thru the trouble.

 

[Elite-ist]

yeah, but being a mod I would just reinstate myself, so why go thru the trouble.

There's corruption, even, in Wyoming? Back on topic: when the wattage-wars were on in the late 70's were those power ratings as close to the real numbers worthy of trusting. Were there some manufacturers who would fudge the numbers? I know, the figures you got from the post-mods of Larry's PL-700B prove that the numbers were good.

Nando.

 

[laatsch55]

When I load tested my Specs , 8 ohm loads, both channels driven, left channel was 322, the right 324 just before clipping. What i don't know is what the distortion was at that point, BUT, now with the Daqarta program I'll be able to tell. what my ears can tell you is when playing them through my Kornerhorns at that level they are just louder, not noisier.
So.....I'm guessing 1979 or 80 was probably the last CONSERVATIVE RMS ratings we saw.

 

[Elite-ist]

I have this little Pioneer SA-9500 II integrated amplifier which is a gem. The first time I used it, I thought this sounds too good for only 80 wpc. Even with all the tone controls set flat, it had punch on the bottom end and nice mid and high frequency response. I missed out on a SA-9900 a few years, back.

Nando.

 

[laatsch55]

What are the specs on it??

 

[Elite-ist]

From the OM;

Continuous Power Output of 80 watts per channel, min. RMS, at 8 ohms from 20hertz to 20,000hertz with no more than 0.05% total harmonic distortion.

And of course, there are other power amplifier specs for IM Distortion, FR, Damping Factor, Hum and Noise, etc.

Nando.

 

[laatsch55]

Probably good for over a hundred.

 

[orange]

The one that really matters is 0 to 1.21 gigawatts in 88.

 

[stuwee]

I kicker is, from the OM;

"Continuous Power Output of 80 watts per channel, min. RMS" dynamic power is well over 110wpc I bet.

It's funny how the auto industry put out very conservative hp ratings to keep the Insurance fiends off their backs (us car guys knew better than what the printed ads stated ).

I wonder why dynamic power outputs weren't usually stated in the stereo ads? It's almost like they were shy about it.

 

[stuwee]

Good one Orangester

When I got my Marantz 2270, I loved the sound with the Logans, this was back in my AK days. They all screamed don't push that receiver with those speakers. I found out Marantz from the early 70s do not like 4ohm loads, very bad things happen!

Were the others, Pioneer, Sansui, Kenwood and Technics rated for 4ohms back then?

 

[Elite-ist]

I kicker is, from the OM;

"Continuous Power Output of 80 watts per channel, min. RMS" dynamic power is well over 110wpc I bet.

It's funny how the auto industry put out very conservative hp ratings to keep the Insurance fiends off their backs (us car guys knew better than what the printed ads stated ).

I wonder why dynamic power outputs weren't usually stated in the stereo ads? It's almost like they were shy about it.

Stuwee,

The ads from some of my stereo magazines began emphasizing the power ratings more boldly in the 70's; even as far as quoting their competitors' numbers, which their product bested. Technics, Marantz, Rotel monster receivers were prevalent in their advertising.

As far as hp ratings for musclecars: Buick took a different approach. For instance the 1970 Buick 455 Stage 1 engine was rated from the factory at 360 hp at 4,600 rpm. All true: it's just the peak hp wasn't realized until 5,500 rpm.

Nando.

 

[orange]

The big difference, Nando is that you didn't have to insure your amp so it was in the best interest of the car makers to be QUIET

 

[speakerman1]

That is a name you don't hear much is Rotel. My 1st real amp was a Rotel. It would kick some serious butt.

May have to look for another one.

Larry

 

[stuwee]

That is a name you don't hear much is Rotel. My 1st real amp was a Rotel. It would kick some serious butt.

May have to look for another one.

Larry

I bet you'd love a Rotel now, a fine British company, not unlike your Creek, I think Mike Creek may have worked for Rotel. The rarest of the rare Rotel's is their entry into the 'Power Wars', the 1976 Rotel RX-1603 receiver, 180wpc @8 and 220 @4, you could separate the power amp section from the pre/tuner to save room, like the big Sansui's.

No WAF with the interconnects looping over the back and the that antenna?? I think they made a bigger one with an 'atrium' like hole in the middle, or was that the big Setton? theblacknight aka Henry would remember that , anyhoo a couple for ya's

Woof!

No power meters

 

[laatsch55]

Bryston!! i wanna hear one. Larry, you get a Rotel send 700 back to PAPA!!!

 

[speakerman1]

I get a Rotel there will be a 4th rack in that room. Wonder if I can find some Omega Z-7000 speakers?

Larry

 

[nakdoc]

Still in need of research.
We had some funny piower ratings:
MOM = My Own Method. Very popular in car stereos, which were exempt from the RMS power rating rules.

ILS = If Lightning Strikes Again, credit little 1" thick car stereo booster/EQs with 200 watt power ratings (actual power 8 watts RMS).