![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() ![]() |
Yamaha RX-V795 Posted by Jeff Helmes [IP: 209.122.207.17] on October 28, 1998 at 19:32:26: In Reply to: Yamaha RX-V795 posted by Graham Evans on October 27, 1998 at 20:16:51: I feel your pain. I had been eagerly awaiting the 595 & 795. First the 595 specs came out with the 80 damping factor--indicating a cheaper amp. And now the 795 is only 80. There is an excellent technical article on amplifier power called "POWER and IMPEDANCE EXPLAINED" at http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4133/know.html ... It explains that "an ideal amp may be specified for 8/4/2 Ohms as 100W/200W/400W (approached by Krell-style amps), while a good specimen will behave more like 100W/180W/320W (your typical NAD/Rotel), and a pretty pathetic one is more like 100W/110W/140W (smells like tubes or mass-market crap) or so. And yet, all three amps are rated the same 100W." Note the RX-V795's spec for 8/4/2ohms at 115/170/200W is smack between Rotel and mass-market (seems about right.) The 793, with its higher damping factor, is spec'ed for 8/4/2 ohms at 130/200/240W. Obviously a higher damping factor is a result of a beefier, more stable amp (again check out the above article for amp stability.) Whether the 793's amp is 200/80 times better than the 795, or 1.85/1.74 times better...who knows? Reality is somewhere inbetween for sure. All I know is that I'm far too neurotic to deal with knowing my receiver has an 80 damping factor when another could be had cheaper with 200! Damn these infernal tech specs!
Follow Ups:
Return to the new SMR Forums Menu
|
|
|||
![]() © SMR Group 2001-2004 - http://www.smr-group.co.uk/ |
|||||