• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Modern AV vs QX 949A Quad

gbroot

gbroot

Super Member
I recently purchased my 2nd QX 949 but it is the A model. It is near mint if not actually new. Original box and packing too. Anyway, I have had several modern AV surround sound receivers including a high end Denon. Am listening to The Eagles Farewell 1 Tour DVD playing from my Denon DVD 2900 running into the QX 949A and 2 sets of KLH Model 23's and a JBL Center speaker being driven by an Onyko A-5 amplifier. I run the front and surround outputs from the denon into front and rear tape inputs on the QX949 and the center output from the denon to the onkyo. I've got to say the QX 949 is hands down better than anything modern I have heard. It is bright and clear and has very good bass.To heck with power ratings. I don't know where these new receivers get off on their exagerated ratings. I have had problems clipping with my 120 watt/channel Denon running the KLH's but have plenty of headroom with this 70's QX 949A 40watts/channel quad unit. Would appreciate others thoughts if I am being accurate in my assesment or if I just didn't have the right AV setup.
 
Register to hide this ad
I've never done a side to side comparison like that, but it's interesting to hear your assessment.

I lived with a Kenwood 9340 quad receiver that I bought new for many years. I loved it. In later years I bought a Kenwood home theater receiver and I liked that too, though I will say the surround modes sounded a bit 'muffled' compared to the bypass mode (2 channel)
 
I really enjoyed my 949A before it started having issues. Really great sound in stereo. I picked up a "little" QX646 4x10 watt unit last weekend at a garage sale and it's waiting for me to throughly deoxit. Enjoy it!
 
Last edited:
Power rating can be "Photoshopped" like X AVR would say 300 watts per channel at 1KHz vs Y AVR at 100 watts from 20 hz to 20,000. From a newbie, the 300 watts seems a lot more powerful, but its was rated at 1Khz which is an easy frequency to produce vs the full audio spectrum of 20 hz to 20000 hz
 
So as I see it power ratings can be deceiving and seems to be a marketing ploy. I recently had my SX-980 into a tech to have the FM aligned. The tech told me that power supplies are not anywhere close in most modern AVR's to the one in my 980.
 
There used to be a variety of methods for rating power output, until a somewhat universal rating method was adopted. For a long while, every receiver I got my hands on used that method; x watts RMS into 8 ohms, 20 to 20,000 Hz, both channels driven with x amount of distortion.

In the '90s, I noticed some of the lower in the line Radio Shack receivers using x watts RMS into 8 ohms, 40 to 20,000 Hz, both channels driven.

Since the advent of Dolby Digital, I have noticed that a lot of AV receivers use different ratings that look impressive on paper, until you look closely. My Yamaha was rated at 1 KHz instead of the full range. Others are measured with only one channel driven. I even recall some HTIB thing by a reputable maker (maybe Sony, I'm not sure) that was 10 % THD at the rated power output.
 
When and if I do decide to try some new gear I will go to separates and stay away from new AVR set ups. I just gave away my Denon AVR. For now, I'll stay with my vintage pioneer and onkyo receivers and amps. They are all in very good shape. In fact pretty much everyone who has heard them and have only heard modern equipment are "stunned" at the sound. Of course, my KLH Model 23 speakers might have something to do with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom