Most powerful receiver ever manufactured?

[acdc7369]

The Pioneer SX-1980 was rated at 270 wpc...however, in the September 1978 issue of Audio Magazine, Leonard Feldman did a spec test on the SX-1980 and concluded that the rating of 270 watts per channel was too conservative. He stated in his report, "Though the new [IHF mandated] 'Dynamic Headroom' measurement is specified in dB, it should be mentioned that based upon the short-term signal used to measure the 2.3 dB headroom of this amplifier, it was producing nearly 460 watts of short-term power under these test conditions!"

At 460 watts per channel (2.3 dB dynamic headroom) into 8 ohm loads with THD 0.03%...even beating the Technics SA-1000... doesn't this technically makes the Pioneer SX-1980 the most powerful receiver ever manufactured? What do you guys think?

[Jon S]

I think the Marantz 2600 receiver was the highest rated receiver at 300wpc. marnzt also was very conservative in rating their units so it is possible that this unit could even exceed your Pioneer.

[Inkara1]

We'd need to see the same test done on the Technics to know for sure.

[Glen B]

Sansui G33000, also 300 w.p.c. ?

[mhardy6647]

In terms of FTC-compliant power specification, it was the Technics SA-1000 at 330 wpc.

[Soran]

why bother anyway ? it's the sound quality that matters, 10 watts of perfect music on a pioneer or sansui sounds more powerfull than 1000 watts on a disco amp.
be serious ! 270wpc i saw the mighty quadral titans of 260lbs/piece almost killing at 2x300 watt on the pioneer meters. wich speakers can handle this amount of power perfectly pure without any more distortion than usual ?

[ManFromPorlock]

Power levels like that are probably better delivered by separates, anyway. Easier to lift, if nothing else.

[KlipschFan61]

That Technics would sure look good next to my SL1210..

[toxcrusadr]

Originally Posted by ManFromPorlock

Power levels like that are probably better delivered by separates, anyway. Easier to lift, if nothing else.

Ohh, m'groin...

[Gibsonian]

"Though the new [IHF mandated] 'Dynamic Headroom' measurement is specified in dB, it should be mentioned that based upon the short-term signal used to measure the 2.3 dB headroom of this amplifier, it was producing nearly 460 watts of short-term power under these test conditions!"

The Marantz 2600 and the Technics SA-1000 would need to be tested with the same conditions to compare. I'm thinking the Pioneer would come in last place here.

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by Soran

...10 watts of perfect music on a pioneer or sansui sounds more powerfull than 1000 watts on a disco amp....

Surely you jest?

[acdc7369]

Originally Posted by Soran

why bother anyway ? it's the sound quality that matters, 10 watts of perfect music on a pioneer or sansui sounds more powerfull than 1000 watts on a disco amp.
be serious ! 270wpc i saw the mighty quadral titans of 260lbs/piece almost killing at 2x300 watt on the pioneer meters. wich speakers can handle this amount of power perfectly pure without any more distortion than usual ?

The SX-1980 was designed for Pioneer's HPM series of speakers, wasn't it?

[John L]

I have a question: why is it so important to be able to have a sound system that can work within the entire SuperDome? Who gives a contential Damn about the most powerful amplifier.

I guess you may be able to tell that I am a big valve person, so anything over 35-40 watts RMS is overkill anyway.

[AnalogDigit]

Has anyone who had these receivers had it up to their max power? I wonder if listening at those levels for a extended period of time would effect your hearing.

For myself, I have an SX-950 that I only crank it up to 1/4th of the way up. I don't like it too loud anyways. I once had it to 12:00 position and I could not hear myself talk or yell.

[Njord Noatun]

Based on nominal power output, the answer is simple: Technics SA-1000.