|   Can just about any reciever handle a instantaneous 2ohm load | Keith
Aug 26, 2002 1:54 PM | | I see that Yamaha rates it's recievers all the way down to a 2ohm load,but can't just about all recievers handle a instantaneous 2ohm load for a millasecond?And that 2ohm rating that Yamaha uses is not a constant 2ohm load is it?It's most likely a millasecond 2ohm dip right?Thanks for any answers...PEACE. |
| re: Can just about any reciever handle a instantaneous 2ohm load | muralman1
Aug 26, 2002 5:25 PM | | two ohms call for the big boy amps, Keith. A load like that will fry your system if it isn't up to the task. I have Speakers that dip down that far. |
| re: Can just about any reciever handle a instantaneous 2ohm load | skeptic
Aug 27, 2002 4:42 AM | | It is hard to imagine an instantaneous 2 ohm load. Here is how it could be accomplished (hypothetically.) Say that an amplifier is connected to two four ohm loads (each four ohm load could consist of two eight ohm speaker loads in parallel.) Lets say that they are connected through a "make before break" speaker selector switch or relay. During the transition of switching, there would be a brief moment when the amplifier is confronted with a two ohm load (all loads in parallel.)
the answer to your question is probably not all amplifiers could handle such a load but not for the reason stated by the other respondant. It has nothing to do with the size of the amplifier. What is has to do with is the nature of the power supply protection for overdriving the output transistors. If the transistors are severely over driven even momentarily, it could fry them. Well designed amplifiers usually are capable of either handling this type of load continuously or protect their transistors against it. (Thermal sensors are probably not enough since the interanl heat buildup could destroy the junctions long before the case got hot enough to trip them.) The Yamaha amplifier probably can sustain a continuous 2 ohm load. The reason for this requirement is that some people may want to drive 2 pairs of loudspeakers in parallel or one very difficult pair. Loudspeaker impedence is only specified as a nominal number and the actual impedence depends on frequency. The design of the crossover network further complicates it. So some so called 8 ohm speakers can be 2 ohms or less at some frequencies. |
| Why did you even include the first paragraph? | spacedeckman
Sep 3, 2002 7:56 PM | | You really answered the question, most of it, with the last two sentences.
A 2 ohm impedance dip is certainly not uncommon in 4 ohm speakers. Add to it the other nasties that come along with driving speakers (you mentioned the crossover, but not dynamic effects) and situations that reach or simulate a 2 ohm impedance are not all that uncommon in some speakers, if only for a few milliseconds at a time.
Many budget receivers are set up to go into protect at the first sign of anything approaching this for more than a handful of milliseconds. Like you said, protect the output devices. |
| re: Can just about any reciever handle a instantaneous 2ohm load | wanderingbob
Aug 27, 2002 7:10 AM | | Magnepan MG 20.1 speakers (with ribbon drivers) dip down to 1 Ohm at one point in their impedance curve. A number of electrostatic designs have extremely low impedance minima in their curves also. This means that your amplifier must be rated for that impedance to drive those loudspeakers reliably and to reproduce music accurately. Although, as skeptic points out, the impedance of loudspeakers is not constant, but varies with frequency, I would want an amplifier rated to drive my loudspeakers at their lowest impedance.
The ability to drive a 2 Ohm load is not common among receivers or even amplifiers. I think there is a general consensus that Yamaha is one of the better brands for receivers (IMO, better than Sony (perhaps not the "ES" models), Kenwood, Pioneer, JVC, etc). I would tend to believe Yamaha's specifications, based on their reputation.
Bob Gardner
wanderingbob@yahoo.com |
| re: Can just about any reciever handle a instantaneous 2ohm load | skeptic
Aug 27, 2002 8:45 AM | | Speakers such as magnepan should be driven with the best quality separate power amplifiers which are stable at any load impedence. These unique designs do not lend themselves to just any old amplifier or receiver. When you select stereo equipment, you should take a systems approach. By choosing the speaker first, you can determine what kind of amplification is suitable for it. By purchasing the amplifier or receiver first, you limit your choices if you are looking for something out of the ordinary. |
| re: Can just about any reciever handle a instantaneous 2ohm load | A
Aug 27, 2002 11:41 AM | | I think that you are mistaken about the needs of Magnepan speakers. Or, at least your comments do not apply to all of the Magnepan line. According to:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/1199/donibbles.htm
The MMG does not have any severe dips in their impedance, and the 4 ohm rating seems very honest. They say they only go below 4 ohms in high treble:
<img src="http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/1199/donibbles_files/image007.gif">
And even then, not much below 4 ohms. I have a brother who is using his MMGs with an old Pioneer receiver (about 25 years old), and he is very happy with his system. Of course, the receiver is rated for 4 ohm use. But that is all that is needed for the Magnepan MMG (with power output at least in their recommended range).
(Incidentally, he also uses a cheap Technics CD player with this system, so he has pretty much done what I recommend to people on a fairly low budget.) |
| re: Can just about any reciever handle a instantaneous 2ohm load | skeptic
Aug 27, 2002 4:45 PM | | I am not surprised that older recievers would be completely stable with low impedence loads. The cheapening of low cost receiver design where so many of them are not able to handle low impedence loads seems to be a relatively recent phenomena. I can remember one exception. I had a friend who blew up his 1965 vintage HH Scott mosfet receiver with AR3s an early acoustic suspension speaker rated at 4 ohms. Scott claimed that the speaker had an impedence as low as one ohm or less at certain frequencies. From then on after it was repaired, he ran it with 2 ohm resistors in series. |
| re: Can just about any reciever handle a instantaneous 2ohm load | A
Aug 28, 2002 8:19 AM | | Impedance ratings on speakers are misleading when there are severe dips below the "nominal" impedance. 1 ohm loads are too difficult for most amplifiers. I think all speakers should also list the minimum impedance. Too bad this is not required.
The general cheapening of receivers seems to me to have begun in the early 1980's (the exact year will depend on the particular brand, though they seemed to mostly go cheap at about the same time). More plastic than ever before was used in their construction. In the 1970's, virtually every receiver was designed to handle 4 ohm loads, but now most receivers are labeled "8 ohms minimum", or they have a special switch to accommodate lower impedances. When I purchased a surround receiver a few years ago, one of my requirements was that the receiver be capable of handling 4 ohm speakers in all channels, without a switch (and it had to be in writing, either in the owner's manual or on the back of the unit, not simply the claim of someone in customer service). This requirement eliminated most receivers from consideration. Even so, the Carver receiver that I ended up with is still inferior to my old Pioneer SX-1250 in many ways. (I have kept the Pioneer, and use it in a different room.) |
| Maggies are actually a pretty easy speaker load | spacedeckman
Sep 3, 2002 9:04 PM | | Primarily resistive, no flaky impedance swings, funky capacitance or inductance issues. Any amp that isn't a complete piece of dog doo will do fine. Sound good? I don't know, but shouldn't shut down in normal use. You would be hard pressed to find a more polite speaker to hook up. Just a bit shy on sensitivity, but not bad.
PS, I've driven bigger Maggies with 20 watts of 70's receiver and then with a Dyna Stereo 70. Both played loud enough to hack my wife off on another floor of the house. |
| What do they say is the min. impedance speaker to actually use? | A
Aug 27, 2002 12:05 PM | | I looked at the manual for the HTR-5130; see:
http://www.yamaha.com/menuitems/manuals/yec/HTR-5130.pdf
Here is their specification page for it (with a link to Adobe Acrobat, which you will need for the pdf file above):
http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/Specs/?gAVR00010HTR-5130
and although they rate them for "dynamic" (NOT RMS) power into 2 ohms (page 45 of the owner's manual), they do not say that you can use 2 ohm speakers with them; they refer you to whatever is printed on the back of the receiver (page 12 of the owner's manual). My guess is that this is just a marketing gimmick. I would be very surprised if they have printed on the back of the receiver that it is okay to actually use 2 ohm speakers with it. The next time you are at a dealer who sells Yamaha, I recommend taking a look.
Their flagship model RX-Z:
http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/Specs/?gAVR00010RX-Z1
Again, there is a listing for "dynamic" power into 2 ohms, but no claim is made there that you can actually use 2 ohm speakers with it. (They don't seem to have the manual online for this model.) |
| Looking a little closer, I see something very bad... | A
Aug 27, 2002 12:15 PM | | ...on page 12, in the diagram, you can see a switch for speaker impedance. Good amplifiers don't have those switches....
Just for fun, I also looked at the RX-V995, which is a fairly high end model. They say the same sort of thing. But if you magnify the diagram on page 26, it says to use a minimum of 8 ohm speakers on all channels -- unless you flip their silly little switch, in which case the minimum is 4 ohms for all front speakers and 6 ohms for the rear. Not exactly high end at all.
So, Yamaha is basically misleading people into supposing their amplification is better than it is. Scum bags. |
| why is that bad? | JasonRF
Aug 28, 2002 9:05 AM | | My understanding is that the switch is supposed to effect the
power supply settings for lower voltage/higher current - of course
you won't double your power going from 8 to 4 ohms with such a
system, but why does that matter? Or are you only against it in
gear that costs enough such that it shouldn't need such a
cost-saving "feature".
I've recently been looking at budget 2-channel gear and found that
many of the older NAD integrates/receivers have the impedence
switch (the newer models use circuitry to automate this, it seems),
yet folks recommend those units and claim that they are superior
to say, a new Onkyo TX-8211 or Harman HK3370 receiver that has
no such switch. So are the recommendations unfounded or is the
switch irrelevant compared to other design choices that have greater
impact on the actual audible performance?
Cheers.
Jason |
| why is that bad? | A
Aug 28, 2002 4:06 PM | | It means that the amplifier is not really designed to deal with 4 ohm loads. Many years ago, virtually all amplifiers were designed to handle 4 ohms (e.g., in the 1970's), and there was no switch. It is not difficult for designers to make amplifiers capable of 4 ohm loads. Go to your local thrift store and look on the backs of cheap old receivers and see what impedances they can handle (if it has digital tuning, it may not be old enough). But times have changed, and now manufacturers are cutting corners every way they can. Not only are things made largely of plastic, but they now put inferior tuners in receivers as well. In the case of the amplifier, not having it capable of properly handling a 4 ohm load is a way of saving money. The models with a switch are ones which the manufacturer chose to save money rather than simply making the amplifier for lower impedances. And, the power output into 4 ohms is likely to be very unimpressive (I don't have the unreasonable expectation of a doubling of power for 4 ohms, but I don't want the power output to be less than for 8 ohms). So if you plan on actually using 4 ohm speakers (if you don't then the switch is irrelevant), then finding out the power output into 4 ohms will be important.
In the context of this thread, it is all very bad because of the suggestion that their receiver could be used for a 2 ohm load, which it plainly cannot, even with the switch. Furthermore, it is, perhaps, excusable in an inexpensive receiver, but it is not something one would expect in an expensive model, at least if the company is not simply overcharging for their products. (If you don't want surround sound, you would be far better off buying an old used receiver that can handle 4 ohms, not only for the amplifier, but also the tuner is likely to be far superior to almost all tuners put in receivers today -- even the ones costing thousands of dollars -- not to mention the quality of construction.)
Of course, the ability to drive 4 ohm speakers may not matter if one has speakers that are a very easy load, (such as speakers that are nominally 8 ohms and have a minimum impedance of 7 ohms). But "nominally" 8 ohm speakers sometimes have fairly low minimum impedances, and without knowing for certain, you may be straining a poorly designed amplifier with a speaker from a manufacturer who has chosen to label their speakers "8 ohms".
Now, a receiver with a switch for dealing with 4 ohm speakers is certainly no worse than one without the switch that cannot handle anything below 8 ohms. The presence of a switch to enable the amplifier to deal with the lower impedances is inferior (all else being equal) to an amplifier that was designed to simply deal with the lower impedances without any problems. |
| This is a creation of "spec headed" consumers | spacedeckman
Sep 3, 2002 8:56 PM | | Look at those old receivers. Back in the 70s, a basic 40-50 watt two channel receiver, no remote, analog tuner, with a brushed aluminum faceplate and genuine vinyl woodtone veneer would set you back $500-600. In today's money you are pushing $1k.
However, for todays $500, consumers expect 6 (SIX!!!!) channels of amplification, 100 watts each of course, DD/DTS/DPLII/ES/EX, a fancy remote, video switching, and a bunch more stuff. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something has to give.
Funny thing is, many of the new receivers sound better than those old dogs. They aren't built like them, that's a fact, but many of the old ones sound kind of muddy. I've owned a few of them.
Sure, I wish customers were smarter. I wish they wanted to listen rather than buy by the numbers. I wish sound were really important to the end users. Typically it isn't, usually not even considered as a reasonable request, since "they all sound the same, don't they?" I wish the watt race had never started, and people were still happy with 30-40 watts. I wish the THD wars of the 80s had never started. I wish the "channel wars" of the 90s never happened. But it all did.
BTW, poorly designed amplifiers break and/or don't sound good, and/or can't drive speakers well. I have just described far too many of todays entry level receivers. Who cares about a dang switch. I have a feeling you wouldn't pay the difference, or would complain that the Yamaha's were a rip-off if they did charge more to fix your "huge" problem. |
| This is a creation of "spec headed" consumers | A
Sep 4, 2002 9:07 AM | | You state:
] However, for todays $500, consumers expect 6 (SIX!!!!) channels of amplification, 100 watts each of course, DD/DTS/DPLII/ES/EX, a fancy remote, video switching, and a bunch more stuff.
We agree on something. But that does not excuse misleading people about the performance of the products in question, which is the basic objection I have to what Yamaha is doing.
You state:
] Funny thing is, many of the new receivers sound better than those old dogs. They aren't built like them, that's a fact, but many of the old ones sound kind of muddy. I've owned a few of them.
Have you conducted any of your listening in level matched, blind tests? If not, I suggest you try such a listening test, as the results may surprise you.
You state:
] Who cares about a dang switch. I have a feeling you wouldn't pay the difference, or would complain that the Yamaha's were a rip-off if they did charge more to fix your "huge" problem.
You obviously know nothing about me. I looked for a surround receiver that the manufacturer claimed, in writing (not some telephone call to some customer service person who contradicts the owner's manual), that it could handle 4 ohm speakers for all channels, without a switch. It was one of the requirements I had before I was willing to buy anything to replace my old 2 channel receiver.
Furthermore, I did not call the presence of a switch a "huge" problem; I said: "So if you plan on actually using 4 ohm speakers (if you don't then the switch is irrelevant), then finding out the power output into 4 ohms will be important." I said that the switch would be irrelevant for anyone not using 4 ohm speakers, which means that it is not a problem at all for most people.
In the context of this thread (which is something you seem to consistently overlook), the presence of the switch is an indication that their rating for 2 ohms is misleading. This whole thread is about Yamaha and their ratings for their receivers for 2 ohms. I expect that you will again ignore this, as I already stated this. |
| The switch is what? | spacedeckman
Sep 4, 2002 9:10 PM | | There is no rating for continuous 2 ohm output in my owners manual, I'm looking at it as I type. I don't understand the logic of condemning them for the 2 ohm rating. I think it is stated quite clearly.
The switch being an indicator of poor quality, I don't buy. If that was the thing that kept you from including a Yamaha in your final decision, that decision was yours. My wife bought a car because she thought the blue was pretty. That decision was hers, and just as relavent. It is an adaptation to the current market situation that works pretty well, all things considered. In reality, the Yamahas typically react better into 4 ohm loads than most others in their respective classes. Yamaha can't legally tell you that, but a good dealer will stand behind an application THEY designed as long as the product is being used within reason. Your lack of understanding is the limiting factor here.
I'm not overlooking anything. You are still miffed about the IHF rating that you didn't, or still don't understand. It has been used by many different manufacturers, some, most, more high end than Yamaha. You are riding a dead horse. The original poster had the same question as you when you made your choice. Instead of answering it, you got up on your soapbox and started pounding on Yamaha being misleading. It may have been more appropriate to start a new thread, maybe asking the question "Is Yamaha being Misleading", in which case I would have answered that the IHF rating is an internationally recognized rating that isn't often used anymore. I would then explain the concept of dynamic power, and end up by saying that Yamaha is much LESS misleading than most of the companies out there. You would then complain about the switch, I would agree in concept, but counter that it works well in real applications, and that is what really matters. |
| The switch is what? | A
Sep 4, 2002 9:55 PM | | You state:
] There is no rating for continuous 2 ohm output in my owners manual, I'm looking at it as I type. I don't understand the logic of condemning them for the 2 ohm rating. I think it is stated quite clearly.
If you look at what other people have said in this thread, you would realize that some people were confused by it. I was not one of them; I never thought that Yamaha receivers were suitable for 2 ohm speakers.
You state:
] You are still miffed about the IHF rating that you didn't, or still don't understand. It has been used by many different manufacturers, some, most, more high end than Yamaha.
Some of them take greater care in not misleading people. For example, Sunfire gives ratings for power output into 2 ohms, but they are careful to explain to people that that does NOT mean that the amplifier in question should be used with 2 ohm speakers. If you visit the Sunfire web site and compare what they say with what is at Yamaha, you will find that they are more obvious about this matter, which indicated to me that they are not wanting to confuse anyone on this. Again, I NEVER believed that Yamaha receivers were suitable for 2 ohm speakers, but if you look at what others have said about this, you will find that it was misleading for some people.
You state:
] The original poster had the same question as you when you made your choice.
Not at all. I never asked if Yamaha receivers were suitable for 2 ohm speakers. The original poster was concerned about the meaning of the 2 ohm rating. I explained that it did NOT mean that the receiver was suitable for 2 ohm speakers. And, to find the answer to the question of what impedance speaker would be suitable for a Yamaha receiver, some further investigation would be necessary. You do not seem to read threads carefully before you respond. I strongly recommend that you do in the future.
Since, in fact, it did mislead people, it is misleading. Nor do I think that the people who were confused by this are stupid; it was listed by Yamaha in a way that is likely to confuse consumers. This is what matters. |
| This is a creation of "spec headed" consumers | Pat D
Sep 6, 2002 5:04 PM | | For the actual function of impedance selector switches, the following link is interesting:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/buyingguides/avhardware/receivers.php#what_doesnt_matter |
| Interesting, perhaps, but... | A
Sep 6, 2002 8:00 PM | | One of the things they claim is:
> In order to meet UL requirements, a receiver cannot be rated down to 4 ohms without having this switch onboard.
Aside from a couple of receivers I have that are UL listed and rated for 4 ohms without the switch in question (which someone might dismiss as they are not current models, and regulations could have changed), this seems implausible on the face of it. Why would they require such a switch, since a receiver can be made to deal with 4 ohms without it? Would there be such a requirement for a power amp as well? If not, why not?
I suspect that the McIntosh MHT 100 surround receiver is UL listed. It is a current model, and it is rated for 4 ohms for all channels. There also appears to be no switch for this use. The pictures at their site, however, are not as high resolution as would be good for a careful examination of the back panel.
You can find more information about the McIntosh MHT 100 at:
http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/
A trip to the local McIntosh dealer could settle that issue. |
| I hear no difference in sound quality in either 4or8ohm position | Keith
Aug 28, 2002 5:37 PM | | On my Yamaha HTR-5280 and Sony STR-DB930,and Yamaha is one of those like god brands along with Denon and marantz and HK on this board and the Yamaha has "The Switch"I won't get people going on the Sony as we all know how folks on this board feel about Sony,even though my DB930 has performed flawlessly for almost 4 years.PEACE.... |
| I hear no difference in sound quality in either 4or8ohm position | A
Aug 29, 2002 8:33 AM | | At low power levels, you should hear absolutely no difference regardless of the position of the switch. When you drive your amplifier to its limits, then you may hear a difference. And there may be a difference in whether the amplifier is overheated and destroyed. |
| In theory it would even out | spacedeckman
Sep 3, 2002 8:59 PM | | The lower voltage at the outputs would be offset by a larger current draw. It isn't going to be a perfect tradeoff, but, more than adequate for the intended use.
With good quality output devices and an effective protection circuit, the amplfier won't be destroyed. That is a bigger problem with cheaper receivers using substandard output devices and poorly designed protection circuits. |
| Looking a little closer, I see something very bad... | Aris
Aug 28, 2002 3:07 PM | | I saw a recent advertisement that said the receiver "supplies the same high power to all channels", 100 X 6. Problem was it didn't say at the same time, so yes, what they said was true, what they implied and led you to believe was a different matter altogether. Ironically, receivers started being labeled "high current" right around the time they stopped being that. |
| Looking a little closer, I see something I don't understand | spacedeckman
Sep 3, 2002 8:36 PM | | What a receiver will do and what can be printed due to UL and other government agency restrictions are often two different things.
I have personally seen a 995 drive a Martin Logan home theater pack to fairly stupid levels and not sound strained. It actually sounded pretty dang good. I could have been fussy, and found some little things to complain about, but for a $1000 receiver driving $6500 of fairly difficult to drive speakers, there wasn't much of a point. Most receivers on the market then and now would go thermal on that load and shut down. Especially at the volume levels we were talking about...full range, no sub.
I find that hard to call misleading. "High End"...receiver? Let's get some context here. Is Yamaha high end for a receiver? You may have something there. Is it high end in the "big picture"? No, and they have never claimed to be. Then again, I sold 995s. Really easy sale when they dusted the Denon 5700. I made a lot of money on 995s and don't recall ever getting one back.
You complain about all you want to. You are preaching about things that are a function of our current market reality. It would have been nice for Yamaha to be able to put a better amp in the box, but it would have brought the price up another $200-300 and they wouldn't have sold any. Having spent 15 years in the business, the one thing I took away was that customers are stupid. Quantity is more important than quality, and most of them spend too much time comparing specs or actually believing magazine reviews rather than listening. I got to impart some reality.
Again, complain all you want. You find something that does what a Yamaha does, sounds better than anything in its class like a Yamaha does, is as reliable as a Yamaha has been for years, and makes customers as happy...let me know. It isn't high end, never claimed to be, but it is far better than your penny ante potshots.
BTW, I got to know some of those guys you are calling Scumbags. They are far from it. Most of the people involved in upper end audio are far from scumbags. I've met guys from Denon and Marantz too, among others. Outside of a couple of sales managers, I would hesitate to call any of them scumbags. Too many of them are stuck making the audio products that customers WANT to buy, not what they SHOULD be buying. I'm just happy that one of them is also trying to make stuff sound good. Can't say that about too many.
Learn something before you start the next rant, ...please. |
| Yes, you don't understand. | A
Sep 4, 2002 8:47 AM | | You state:
] What a receiver will do and what can be printed due to UL and other government agency restrictions are often two different things.
If it can do it, they can legally say it can do it. But if a receiver gets so hot it is regarded as a fire hazard, then UL won't want to say that it is okay.
You state:
] I have personally seen a 995 drive a Martin Logan home theater pack to fairly stupid levels and not sound strained. It actually sounded pretty dang good. I could have been fussy, and found some little things to complain about, but for a $1000 receiver driving $6500 of fairly difficult to drive speakers, there wasn't much of a point. Most receivers on the market then and now would go thermal on that load and shut down. Especially at the volume levels we were talking about...full range, no sub.
Did you ever stop and think about what that kind of use is likely to do to the life expectancy of the amplifier? Many amplifiers can be used with impedances lower than what the manufacturer recommends...for a while.
In my statement "Just for fun, I also looked at the RX-V995, which is a fairly high end model", by "fairly high end", I meant toward the high end of their receiver line, not the "high end" of the audiophile world.
As for Yamaha being scummy in all of this, my point is that they are misleading people regarding their receivers. If you bothered to actually read the start of this thread, you would see someone who got the impression that Yamaha receivers were suitable for 2 ohm speakers. But Yamaha says otherwise (though you have to look much harder to find that out), and has included the 2 ohm specification to impress people who don't examine the matter with sufficient care. The decision to include this 2 ohm rating is obviously a marketing decision, and it seems fairly obvious that its sole purpose is to mislead consumers. You have stated that specifications should be ignored:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.ef8f67d/23">spacedeckman 9/3/02 10:29pm</a>
In this case, I agree with you regarding the 2 ohm specification.
You state:
] It would have been nice for Yamaha to be able to put a better amp in the box, but it would have brought the price up another $200-300 and they wouldn't have sold any.
On their higher end models, $200-300 is not that significant of a difference in the price. I will grant you that on the lower end of their line, that would be a very significant difference in price. But if you bothered to read what I said on this matter (and you should have, since you responded to the post in which I said this), you would know that my complaint about the quality of the amplifier is primarily directed at their more expensive models: "Furthermore, it is, perhaps, excusable in an inexpensive receiver, but it is not something one would expect in an expensive model, at least if the company is not simply overcharging for their products." I stated that at:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.ef8f67d/13">A 8/28/02 5:06pm</a>
I do, however, object to their misleading inclusion of a 2 ohm rating on all of their models when they don't make it clear that their receivers are not suitable for 2 ohm speakers. If they are going to include a 2 ohm rating, then they should be absolutely clear that they don't want you to hook up 2 ohm speakers to it. But you have to look a lot harder to find that out than to see the 2 ohm rating. This results in misleading consumers; see what others have said in this thread to get some ideas about this.
You state:
] Outside of a couple of sales managers, I would hesitate to call any of them scumbags.
When I referred to them as scum bags, I was referring to their marketing of their products through the use of misleading specifications.
Pay attention to what is actually stated before you start your next rant, please. |
| I'm not ranting | spacedeckman
Sep 4, 2002 8:46 PM | | Again, the 2 ohm rating is clearly stated as a standard IHF Dynamic Power rating. You are ranting because you didn't understand it, and felt misled. Learn and move on.
As for Yamaha's more expensive models, the RX-V1 was hard to beat from a real world performance aspect. It bettered many that were significantly more expensive. The Z1 is supposed to have even a better amplifier (rumor is another 4-5 lbs of power transformer). Why would I complain about specifications when they work so good in real world applications? That's right, it wasn't me, was it? Same could be said for the 2095, 3000, 3200, etc. You are complaining about misunderstanding numbers, not how the product performs in use.
I understand that this concept can be a bit hard to wrap your head around, but numbers do have some meaning, but only if you understand the context they are used in. When you don't understand what the numbers are supposed to mean outright, it's kind of hard to add the whole concept of context which further complicates the issue. But an illustration would be "100 watts". Placed on a Sony or Kenwood receiver, I wouldn't expect much. On a Yamaha or Denon, I would expect some pretty respectable power in real use. On a Krell or Levinson, I would expect toe curling power driving speakers. One number, three different meanings, three different contexts. You are trying to insert Krell/Levinson numbers into something that doesn't fall into that category. That's why I don't have much use for numbers in these conversations. But I wouldn't hesitate to use them with the guys I hang out with because they understand this whole thing.
Forget the numbers, that is what is getting you into this mess. Start looking at audio products for their capabilities and limitations, and use them accordingly.
BTW, I would expect the 995 driving the Logans to last upwards of 10 or 15 years. |
| But you are. | A
Sep 4, 2002 10:13 PM | | You state:
] Again, the 2 ohm rating is clearly stated as a standard IHF Dynamic Power rating. You are ranting because you didn't understand it, and felt misled. Learn and move on.
I was never misled by it, which you would realize if you bothered to read this thread with greater care. I NEVER believed that Yamaha receivers were suitable for use with 2 ohm speakers. However, some people did wonder about this, and were confused by what Yamaha had to say about the matter. Yamaha did not try to make sure that their ratings would not confuse people; to see how that might be done, I suggest you visit the Sunfire web site, as they give power ratings into low impedances, but when they do, they are careful to point out that that does not mean that the amplifier is suitable for use with speakers of that impedance. Yamaha is evidently unconcerned with whether their ratings will confuse many consumers, or they are too stupid to realize what might confuse consumers.
You state:
] You are complaining about misunderstanding numbers, not how the product performs in use.
I am saying that they are not as clear as they should be for the average consumer. This shows either that they are too stupid to know what people will think when they see their brochures, or they want to mislead people. Either way, this does not say anything good about Yamaha.
You state:
] But an illustration would be "100 watts". Placed on a Sony or Kenwood receiver, I wouldn't expect much. On a Yamaha or Denon, I would expect some pretty respectable power in real use. On a Krell or Levinson, I would expect toe curling power driving speakers. One number, three different meanings, three different contexts. You are trying to insert Krell/Levinson numbers into something that doesn't fall into that category.
100 watts RMS at a particular amount of distortion over a particular set of frequencies into a particular impedance should be rated the same by all manufacturers. If they don't, then some of them are being misleading.
In any case, this is irrelevant to the issue at hand: Was anyone confused by the Yamaha ratings? The answer is yes. Since these people were not merely stupid, we are therefore left with the alternative that Yamaha was misleading in the way they said what they said. |
| Never mind, you just explained where you are coming from | spacedeckman
Sep 5, 2002 5:46 PM | | "100 watts RMS at a particular amount of distortion over a particular set of frequencies into a particular impedance should be rated the same by all manufacturers. If they don't, then some of them are being misleading."
That's all I need to know. |
| What do they say is the min. impedance speaker to actually use? | JasonRF
Aug 28, 2002 8:19 AM | | Yep. Just look at the yamaha faq:
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/customer/faqs/av_receivers/faq13b.htm
The dynamic power into 2 ohms is measured with a 1 kHz signal for
20 milliseconds. The FAQ also implies that none of the amps/receivers can
truly handle a 1 or 2 ohm load without melting. No surprise.
I agree with you that the numbers are a marketing gimmick. Even more telling is
the fact that many receivers claim the ability to drive 4 ohm loads, but only give you
specs for 8 (or sometimes 6) ohm loads. The 4-ohm specs must be very poor indeed!
Jason |
| What is your point? | spacedeckman
Sep 3, 2002 8:07 PM | | There are a lot of 4 ohm speakers that spend some time in the 2 ohm area. They are saying they have the current capacity to deal with it (and the output section). Not a real wild claim as you are trying to state.
No offense, but you seem to be a bit long on bravado, and a bit short on audio basics. They are numbers, and all numbers are suspect. But they aren't really stupid numbers, and they are given in context. Yamaha is a "standup" company with far more class than most. One of the few that has made any attempt to make their electronics sound better rather than spec'ing the "brag parts". Understand the context, and it will make sense...at least as much sense as you can expect from specs. |
| What is your point? | A
Sep 4, 2002 9:21 AM | | It is funny that you are defending their numbers here but elsewhere in this thread you say that basically the numbers are worthless:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.ef8f67d/20">spacedeckman 9/3/02 9:56pm</a>
If you bothered to pay attention to what this thread is about, you would see that some people seem to get the idea that Yamaha is claiming that their receivers are suitable for 2 ohm speakers when they see a rating for 2 ohms. And if you bothered to look at the information that Yamaha gives, they will tell you that they are not suitable for 2 ohm use, though that information is far less prominent than the 2 ohm rating. What Yamaha is doing is misleading people with their ratings. This is the source of my complaint against them. I object to any company that misleads people.
Now, if you want to blame consumers for being misled, that is another matter that can be explored (though I believe that manufacturers should try to NOT be misleading, regardless of what a consumer should or should not do). In my case, when I saw the rating for 2 ohms, I figured that that was probably not an indication that the receiver would really be suitable for 2 ohm use (because that would be very unusual in a receiver), and I checked into the matter a little and found that they were not. So Yamaha is giving a false impression with their ratings.
People should investigate matters carefully before they believe what appears to be the case when they take a superficial look at specifications and the claims of manufacturers, as they are often misleading. |
| Not really | spacedeckman
Sep 4, 2002 8:21 PM | | If you want to talk about numbers, as you were, you often have to refer to the numbers being talked about by the other person.
So, anyway, I broke out the manual for my RX-V620, and Lo and Behold, there is an RMS 20-20, and RMS 1k, ratings for other countries, and a clearly stated IHF Dynamic power rating, separated away from the regular power rating, and with both the words Dynamic and Power in capital letters. In the speaker hookup section, they clearly state that 4 ohm speakers are the lowest recommended.
Understanding the concept of dynamic power, how speakers work, and what Yamaha must say to stay on the right side of UL and CE, I really don't see a problem. They are only trying to give you an indication of how their amplifiers work into speaker loads using IHF standards. Do I really care what the numbers are?, no. Do they appear suspect? No more than any other numbers. Are they possible under the testing parameters used. Certainly. What do they mean? They would seem to indicate a competently designed amplifier section for a receiver. You still wouldn't know until you hooked up a set of speakers and tried.
I still don't see your problem. You misunderstood a specification, investigated, and found out what it meant. You then got mad at Yamaha because you didn't originally understand the specification and felt misled. All this resulting in a bunch of off-base name calling in a public forum claiming that a respectable company is scamming consumers. I'm sorry I have a problem with that. I would have a problem with you saying that about a bunch of companies, not just Yamaha. Your lack of understanding is NOT their fault. If you are going to live and die by specifications, you had best learn what they mean before you start complaining. It would make you look much better. |
| Not really | A
Sep 4, 2002 10:21 PM | | You state:
] I still don't see your problem. You misunderstood a specification, investigated, and found out what it meant. You then got mad at Yamaha because you didn't originally understand the specification and felt misled. All this resulting in a bunch of off-base name calling in a public forum claiming that a respectable company is scamming consumers.
I did not misunderstand the specification. Please provide a link to a post in which I show a misunderstanding of the specification or stop making libelous statements about me.
If you bothered to actually read this thread carefully, you would find that some other people were confused by the Yamaha rating. In my opinion, Yamaha has demonstrated that they are either clueless about what consumers will think when reading what they say, or they simply want to mislead people. Either way, they should not do what they have done. |
| For crying out loud, you've got to be kidding | spacedeckman
Sep 5, 2002 5:49 PM | | "stop making libelous statements about me"
The picture is getting even clearer. |
| Yamaha is full of crap. | A
Aug 27, 2002 12:17 PM | | See my posts above. |
| Sorry A, you fail to make your point in my book | spacedeckman
Sep 3, 2002 9:29 PM | | Most appears to be due to lack of understanding on your part. You trash on a decent company (not perfect, but certainly decent) for reasons that don't have a whole lot to do with reality, and more to do with your perception of specifications, and their "be all end all" to all of the worlds problems. Problem is, all specs are pretty much crap...from everybody (Krell and Levinson included). They have nothing at all to do, for the most part (power specs especially) with how you use the product in the real world, and how the product actually performs in the real world, rather than your specification Utopia.
I've seen too many beautifully spec'ed products get stomped by "inferior" products at a fraction of the price on the sales floor. You are barking up the wrong tree. The downside of all this mess is that some newbies will mistakenly think you have some idea of what you are talking about. Sorry I had to "bag and tag" you, but if you are going to be "the expert", I would prefer to see you NOT on the Dark Side. All that will get us is more future specheads, and less concern with sound. Sony already realizes that they crapped in their cornflakes since SACD would have to be "better than perfect sound forever". Yes, SACD sounds better, but people don't care, they want MP3s. They may sound horrible, but you can cram a whole lotta songs on one disc. Aint that cool? |
| It would help if you paid attention to what the point is. | A
Sep 4, 2002 9:42 AM | | You state:
] Most appears to be due to lack of understanding on your part. You trash on a decent company (not perfect, but certainly decent) for reasons that don't have a whole lot to do with reality, and more to do with your perception of specifications, and their "be all end all" to all of the worlds problems.
I object to any company that misleads people with their brochures and sales information. Yamaha is doing this with their 2 ohm rating and by making the information about the appropriate impedances for their receivers far less prominent. People are getting the false impression that Yamaha receivers are appropriate for 2 ohm speakers.
You state:
] Problem is, all specs are pretty much crap...from everybody (Krell and Levinson included). They have nothing at all to do, for the most part (power specs especially) with how you use the product in the real world, and how the product actually performs in the real world, rather than your specification Utopia.
Here we disagree. Specifications <i>can</i> tell you a lot about how an amplifier (and other components) performs, if the manufacturer wishes to provide them. The trouble is, they often leave out too much information that is important to the overall performance, and sometimes include things that are not very useful. For example, since real world speakers are not a single impedance, stating the output into a single impedance is not going to tell you enough about the amplifier. So in many cases, the specifications are fairly worthless, but that does not mean that all specifications must be worthless.
In the case of the 2 ohm specification that Yamaha gives, it is worse than something that is merely useless, as it is being used in a manner that misleads people.
The point is that Yamaha is misleading people. This is not about whether or not they make good equipment, or whether one should pay any attention to specifications. And this has nothing to do with different formats of digital music. The point is that Yamaha is misleading people with their specifications. That is what I am objecting to in this thread. |
| Again, the misunderstanding is yours | spacedeckman
Sep 4, 2002 9:14 PM | | But now you are starting to mimick me. The FTC 8 ohm rating system we currently have is seriously lacking. You seem to be taking the first steps to understanding the concept of context in audio specifications.
Another analogy: You are suing McDonalds because their coffee is hot. |
| Again, the misunderstanding is yours | A
Sep 4, 2002 10:24 PM | | I suggest you reread the thread, when you are calm and sober. |
| Oh, you libelous, slanderous, %&^*#$@ | spacedeckman
Sep 5, 2002 6:11 PM | | And now you get personal. Kind of funny how I never did. Doesn't bother me though. I guess I misunderstood your point. So you were trashing Yamaha for using an accepted specification that you did understand, but felt compelled to protect the rights of the less educated among us, when there has to be a good result in a web search using IHF+Dynamic+Power. Behold the power of the internet. Or you could just post on this site and maybe someone could give you a literate well thought out answer...nah, never happen. Better to further an agenda at this point.
I still think the appropriate place to do so would have been to start up a new thread. The original poster deserved an answer in this thread, not this disaster.
May all your amplifiers and speakers sound the same from 100Hz on up using FM source material. The spirit of Julian lives on...Although I still think you are way off base, you have the right to be so, to a certain extent.
See Ya. |
| Oh, you libelous, slanderous, %&^*#$@ | A
Sep 6, 2002 12:20 PM | | You state:
> And now you get personal. Kind of funny how I never did.
Are you really that clueless? Do you really have no idea of what you have stated? Consider some of your remarks:
> Most appears to be due to lack of understanding on your part.
> You trash on a decent company (not perfect, but certainly decent) <b>for reasons that don't have a whole lot to do with reality</b> [emphasis added]...
> They have nothing at all to do, for the most part (power specs especially) with how you use the product in the real world, and how the product actually performs in the real world, rather than <b>your specification Utopia</b> [emphasis added].
> Sorry I had to "bag and tag" you, but if you are going to be "the expert", I would prefer to see you NOT on the Dark Side.
Not personal? Get a clue. All of the above is from just ONE of your many insulting posts:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.ef8f67d/23">spacedeckman 9/3/02 10:29pm</a>
I won't bother with pointing out the insults in other posts of yours; anyone interested can look at them all for themselves. You either have no idea what you have been saying, or you like to state obvious lies. |
| No. | sam9
Aug 29, 2002 3:41 PM | | Some don't deal with 2 ohms well at all, instantaneous or otherwise. In a few cases it triggers the short circuit protection. |
| 2 don't deal well with any load???? | musbdeaf
Sep 8, 2002 9:43 PM | | Peter Piper spiked a pair of pickled speakers.
No wait I already did that one,,,UUMMMHHH...
Let it go fellas, or report to the anger management discussion board! :) |
| |
