Yamaha R-S202 rated at 100w per channel.

Max input consumption is 175 watts.

At maximum output, it actually creates power!

(Or another bogus, non FTC rating).

Salvation for the science deniers!

I think it causes global cooling!

Rated 40Hz to 20kHz...

In reality it's about 45W per channel.

By the time you load it up with a full compliment of speakers, you'd be lucky to get 30wpc out of the thing.

"One channel driven", is the key term used here.

The caveat on nearly every manufacturer's spec sheet, with the exception of NAD, who give their ratings as "All channels driven". Their specs don't look nearly as impressive on paper, but at least you know what you're getting.

Pity they weren't more reliable; They're my favourite for sound quality.

Tom,
I know you're joking about bogus power ratings, but it's different from what you say. The manual does indeed list that it consumes 175 watts, but things differ after that. I will confine myself to the information in the manual, only giving numbers for the US market.

(8 Ohm, 40 Hz to 20 kHz, 0.2% THD)
[North America etc ................................................. 100 W + 100 W

So, yeah, it claims to output 25watts more than it draws!

And

Dynamic power per channel
(8 ohm/6 ohm/4 ohm/2 ohm IHF).................... 125 W/150 W/165 W/180 W

And sure enough, all of those, driving two channels, are more than the unit draws.

Unfortunately, that series of product is most likely to be considered by people who don't understand that those figures manipulate people to make them seem greater than they can be (the figures, not the people).

It sucks when manufacture do this and leave no reliable information about what performance the unit can actually do.

I have installed 2 of them, neither time did I put one on my bench and load test/measure for actual output. But I can say it is absolutely more than the 30-45 watts speculated in this thread.
One of the installs is running 4 rooms of in-ceiling speakers on A output. And some Triad outdoor speakers on B output. It sounds to have about the same power as the old SONOS Connect:Amp (@55watts per channel). So probably close to that. Sound quality was about the same as well, which is to say it's ok.
For the price, it's as good as any other cheap 2 channel stereo receiver out there from Onkyo, Denon, or others. It will do for budget offerings.

[edit]: One thing I do like about the Yammy that I don't think the other budget 2ch receivers do, is the programming of the volume levels just like on the AVR receivers. You can set the max volume and a turn on volume.

Companies used to be far more careful about only posting per FTC requirements. It must be like the do not call list, there are requirements but zero enforcement.

Like the new Sonos amp... I can find that it's 125W @ 8ohms, but there's no specifics beyond that.
1 channel driven?
50% THD?
Who knows?


Bose started it, no specs whatsoever, then Sonos did it too.
Many audio gurus ignored it because it was deemed to be 'lifestyle' audio, but then the likes of Sony receivers / Pioneer and Onkyo all went down that path.

Only the very entry level Yamaha's (AS201 / RN402 / RXV483) offer up 'heavily' marketed specs for 2-channels driven. However next to no one lists 5-7 channels driven as noted further up the thread.

The marketing guys have won... after all, how many customers (let alone pros) actually check everything they purchase?

Detailed specs? That doesn't sound "easy". Today, its all about "easy".

I would say that a vague spec sheet is better than Beast Buy adding the power from all channels and putting it on the card near that piece on their shelf. Showing that an AVR outputs 1350W does nothing but confuse people who don't already understand.

highfigh has hit it on the head!


Yup. But power and relative perceived sound levels are screwy. I wrote my usual term paper just now but here are the highlights. Newbies might want to look into the numbers at the two websites linked below.

The difference between 50 watts and a hundred watts is a bit more than the slightest increase in volume we perceive! Perceived doubling volume is about a tenfold increase in power! Exclamation points, because this doesn't sound like it makes sense.

I will quote one number: A spec of, say, 100 watts plus or minus 1 dB (ONE, yes ONLY ONE DECIBEL) is 74 to 126 watts!

Look at [Link: sengpielaudio.com] and plug in some numbers. Read [Link: sounddeadsteel.com]

If it were a linear scale, the 10x power = twice as loud might be more intuitive, but since it's logarithmic, people are left blinking at the explanation.

BTW- 1dB is the usually mentioned smallest increment that most people can perceive- 3dB from doubling power is clearly audible. If you want to hear for yourself, go into an AVR menu and play with the speaker level and distance controls, to listen for the smallest increments that you can hear.

I think that there is a difference between "trained" and "untrained" listener thresholds. In this context a "trained" listener is someone who has spent some time in a studio or similar where fine level discrimination was practiced.

buzz has it. In general our clients are untrained, so double the volume is more likely to be in the rabge of 10 dB.