Post by KeithL on Feb 28, 2014 10:49:47 GMT -5
Tests are tests..... true.
Unfortunately, especially with AVRs, the specs often don't tell the whole story.
Several years ago I had a "mid-priced" A/V receiver from a respected manufacturer - who I won't name (rated at 100 WPC x 7; able to "run" 11 speakers - by switching for different modes; MSRP $349). It seemed like an unbeatable value for the price, and it had a few reasonably good reviews. And, while it didn't deliver that power with all channels driven, it still had decent measured specs with two channels driven. In short, it SHOULD have sounded at least OK. Unfortunately, the reality was that it sounded pretty bad; in fact, it sounded really bad. (I assume that it used some rather poor digital amps which, while they measured OK, and were pretty efficient, simply didn't sound good.)
Now, while I would say that the situation has improved lately, there are still plenty of low-cost AVRs, made by "reputable mass market brands" which simply don't sound very good. (I'm not just talking about the inability to deliver full power with all channels driven, which is important, but does show up in the measurements; it goes beyond that to more subtle things which don't show up well in the standard measurements, but are pretty obvious when you listen to them.)
The Fusion 8100 simply sounds good - it sounds sort of like a UMC and a UPA power amp (which is pretty much what it has inside it - so no surprise there); unfortunately, many of its competitors, even some with decent specs, simply do not sound good.
Let's agree that we disagree here.
Using "extrapolated" ratings isn't the same as hard, tested results. The easiest way to resolve this would be for Emo to run the AP tests for 20-20k and post them just as they have for the 1kHz results. Even better, it would be interesting to see if they could get S&V to do a review and run the unit under the same test regime as for the higher-priced spreads so that we have a common ground for comparison. Until we have either or both of those BOTH you and I are speculating.
I'm sure the Fusion 8100 is a decent piece, but for the price it isn't half as much the power, but the lack of HDMI inputs and other features that put it at a disadvantage to Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer, HK, NAD and even the $499 Sony AVRs. At the end of the day this, like much in this hobby, becomes a matter of personal choice and taste along with meeting the buyers' individual requirements for things such a amplifier power, DAC quality, EQ system, connectivity and streaming services (again, there is the lack of DLNA and internet radio here that is a major miss at the price point), ease of use, upgradeability, and much more.
What's right for you might not be right for me or the next guy. That's what makes it a ballgame.
I hope Emo can help here by posting 20-20K test results and then we'll be better able to do comparisons.
Unfortunately, especially with AVRs, the specs often don't tell the whole story.
Several years ago I had a "mid-priced" A/V receiver from a respected manufacturer - who I won't name (rated at 100 WPC x 7; able to "run" 11 speakers - by switching for different modes; MSRP $349). It seemed like an unbeatable value for the price, and it had a few reasonably good reviews. And, while it didn't deliver that power with all channels driven, it still had decent measured specs with two channels driven. In short, it SHOULD have sounded at least OK. Unfortunately, the reality was that it sounded pretty bad; in fact, it sounded really bad. (I assume that it used some rather poor digital amps which, while they measured OK, and were pretty efficient, simply didn't sound good.)
Now, while I would say that the situation has improved lately, there are still plenty of low-cost AVRs, made by "reputable mass market brands" which simply don't sound very good. (I'm not just talking about the inability to deliver full power with all channels driven, which is important, but does show up in the measurements; it goes beyond that to more subtle things which don't show up well in the standard measurements, but are pretty obvious when you listen to them.)
The Fusion 8100 simply sounds good - it sounds sort of like a UMC and a UPA power amp (which is pretty much what it has inside it - so no surprise there); unfortunately, many of its competitors, even some with decent specs, simply do not sound good.
Using "extrapolated" ratings isn't the same as hard, tested results. The easiest way to resolve this would be for Emo to run the AP tests for 20-20k and post them just as they have for the 1kHz results. Even better, it would be interesting to see if they could get S&V to do a review and run the unit under the same test regime as for the higher-priced spreads so that we have a common ground for comparison. Until we have either or both of those BOTH you and I are speculating.
I'm sure the Fusion 8100 is a decent piece, but for the price it isn't half as much the power, but the lack of HDMI inputs and other features that put it at a disadvantage to Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer, HK, NAD and even the $499 Sony AVRs. At the end of the day this, like much in this hobby, becomes a matter of personal choice and taste along with meeting the buyers' individual requirements for things such a amplifier power, DAC quality, EQ system, connectivity and streaming services (again, there is the lack of DLNA and internet radio here that is a major miss at the price point), ease of use, upgradeability, and much more.
What's right for you might not be right for me or the next guy. That's what makes it a ballgame.
I hope Emo can help here by posting 20-20K test results and then we'll be better able to do comparisons.
