Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 5:34:45 GMT -5
"..... by reducing the overall weight, the new ones are easier to lift, easier and cheaper to ship, and (hopefully) less likely to get shipping damage......"
I own the original XPA-5. I'm 100% happy with it. So it was slightly heavy the several times (maybe twice) I had to lift it. Lighter weight for me is not a buying decision for an amp I might have to move once in a blue moon.
"The Gen3 Amplifiers are built to order. Please allow up to 7-10 days for shipment." This new policy seems to be an excellent way to keep inventory costs down for Emotiva and I would have no issue with waiting a few extra days for shipment.
However, if I had a choice I would be happy to pay $25 or more shipping costs for the much heavier XPA-2 Gen2 over the XPA-Two Gen3.
Weight, XPA-2 Gen2, 72.6 lbs ----- XPA-Two G3, 35.5 lbs
To me, in power amps: Weight Matters!
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Jul 27, 2016 6:11:29 GMT -5
"..... by reducing the overall weight, the new ones are easier to lift, easier and cheaper to ship, and (hopefully) less likely to get shipping damage......"I own the original XPA-5. I'm 100% happy with it. So it was slightly heavy the several times (maybe twice) I had to lift it. Lighter weight for me is not a buying decision for an amp I might have to move once in a blue moon. "The Gen3 Amplifiers are built to order. Please allow up to 7-10 days for shipment." This new policy seems to be an excellent way to keep inventory costs down for Emotiva and I would have no issue with waiting a few extra days for shipment. However, if I had a choice I would be happy to pay $25 or more shipping costs for the much heavier XPA-2 Gen2 over the XPA-Two Gen3. Weight, XPA-2 Gen2, 72.6 lbs ----- XPA-Two G3, 35.5 lbs To me, in power amps: Weight Matters! Yer showing your age, Chuckster! I think it's just us old, set in our ways, audiophiles who associate weight with quality. Heavy amps, heavy speakers, heavy turntable platters, etc. Of course, in many cases, there's certainly merit to it all. But what do we do to blindly determine quality in an age of lightweight switching power supplies and class D gear? Oh, dear. Oh, dear...
|
|
|
Post by rcheliguy on Jul 29, 2016 6:34:44 GMT -5
It's a typical mindset. I love hardwood and stainless steel and think they are pretty. How you feel about something when you see it or feel its heft does impact your perceptions about it.
I recently detailed my car and for some reason it feels smoother and more powerful to me when it looks like a solid block on onyx and not spotted with dirt.
I made a comment about this and was told that other people got that same feeling. We are crazy subjective about things. It's just a fact of life.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 29, 2016 9:06:11 GMT -5
That's absolutely true..... but, to take your great example..... your car. "Feeling better about driving it" because it's all nice and shiny clean is just fine; and it's also "good" because you understand what's going on. HOWEVER..... because you understand that fact you can compensate for it.... so... 1) if you were SELLING that car, you'd probably be smart enough to run it through a car wash before a prospective buyer came by to look at it. 2) if you were BUYING a car, you're probably realize your bias, and so not pay $5k more for one simply because the seller had run it through the car wash before YOU came by to look at it My point, though, is that it's important to keep the information in its proper compartments.... I've certainly paid more for equipment because I like the way it looks, or the feel of the knobs... And, maybe, the piece with the nicer controls "makes my experience of using it more pleasant"... However, I would prefer NOT to pay a lot for it BECAUSE I imagine it will sound better. The problem is that today one of the major goals of marketing is to skew our perceptions based on presumptions we make.... Which comes back to the subject of this thread..... Will an amplifier that has 1% THD sound better than one that has 10% THD? Absolutely; unless, of course, you're a triode tube fan, in which case you may PREFER the way 10% second harmonic distortion sounds. Will an amplifier with 0.1% THD sound better than one with 1% THD? Maybe... because you're getting to a level where the distortion may or may not be audible (so other factors may make more of a difference). Will an amplifier with 0.001% THD sound better than one with 0.01% THD? Well, to put it bluntly, I've never heard a legitimate study that suggested that anyone could hear THAT difference. The problem with test reports is that they're sort of like the results of "medical studies". They show exactly what they show, and you have to be able to read them to understand what they MEAN. (And, and more to the point, if you don't understand them, then there's a good chance that you'll mis-understand what they say.) Just to pick a generalized example.... (the numbers I'm using do NOT come from any current model). With virtually all modern solid state amplifiers, the distortion is very low at low power levels. It remains low until a certain power level is reached, at which point it rises suddenly. So, for example, a given amplifier might be: 0.01% at 1 watt 0.02% at 2 watts 0.02% at 5 watts 0.05% at 10 watts 0.02% at 20 watts 0.03% at 50 watts 0.04% at 100 watts 0.1% at 120 watts 1% at 150 watts So, should we rate that amplifier as "120 watts at 0.1% THD", or should we call it "150 watts at 1% THD", or how about 100 watts at 0.04% THD? In point of fact, they're ALL perfectly correct, and equally "informative"... so the answer to that question is going to be a marketing decision. Do more of OUR potential customers consider getting the most power more important or are they more worried about super-low distortion? I picked a very simple example; in many cases the choices are far less obvious. My point is that test results are a great TOOL, and they can tell a lot TO SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW TO READ THEM. However, far too many people simply don't now how to read them, and instead "latch onto" some particular number, and read more into it than makes sense. (And, of course, manufacturers encourage this: The guys with the highest power will do their best to convince you that power is all that matters. And the guys with the lowest distortion, or the flattest response, will do the same to convince you that those are the most important. It also extends to things like types of circuits. Isn't it odd how everyone who makes Class A amps says all the rest sound bad; but the people who don't make Class A amps don't seem to agree? And how a lot of people WHO HAVEN'T HEARD THEM COMPARED "just know" that power supplies with big transformers sound better than ones with switch-mode power supplies.... and how a few seem equally convinced that the exact opposite is true.) To put this back into the context of your comment..... If you WERE buying that car, it might be reasonable to say that "it feels nicer" because it has a perfectly clean unflawed paint job. And it might even be reasonable to say that it suggests that the previous owner took reasonably good physical care of it. But it probably would be a mistake to assume that the ENGINE was well cared for (it could have sat in a garage for ten years, under a cover, with no maintenance). (And, while I'd cheerfully spend more money for a great paint job, it would really suck to buy a total lemon, for a horribly inflated price, because you're gaga over its gorgeous paint job... ) I would ABSOLUTELY encourage people to learn what the tests and measurements really mean.... But I would strongly suggest that people AVOID making too much of the numbers they DON'T actually understand. (And, sadly, I would suggest extreme caution about placing too much focus on this or that number because someone suggests that you should..... unless you're darned sure they really know what they're talking about, and their priorities and areas of interest align reasonably well with yours. ) It's a typical mindset. I love hardwood and stainless steel and think they are pretty. How you feel about something when you see it or feel its heft does impact your perceptions about it. I recently detailed my car and for some reason it feels smoother and more powerful to me when it looks like a solid block on onyx and not spotted with dirt. I made a comment about this and was told that other people got that same feeling. We are crazy subjective about things. It's just a fact of life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 16:35:54 GMT -5
So, should we rate that amplifier as "120 watts at 0.1% THD", or should we call it "150 watts at 1% THD", or how about 100 watts at 0.04% THD? In point of fact, they're ALL perfectly correct, and equally "informative"... so the answer to that question is going to be a marketing decision. Sorry Keith, but I have to disagree on some of your post. The 3 examples above at 0.1%, 1% and 0.04% (with different power) might be correct in that they are accurate but they are not what should be published by the manufacturer. Many newbies are not aware that 1% THD is what is considered "clipping". This should not be published unless it is specifically noted to be at amplifier clipping. Many folks can detect 1% distortion and some down to 0.5 or slightly less (perhaps 0.25%). I think it is important for a reputable manufacturer to choose and keep consistent throughout their line of amps a standard method of stating amp specs and distortion. This would be great if it were clear, simple and industry wide. The varied use of IHF, EIA, FTC, PMP and others "standards" were more of an effort to confuse buyers in the past. I have been following amp specs closely for about 47 years since I bought my first receiver. In those old days the standard accepted procedure by reputable companies, stereo magazines and even at the Mac clinics was for example to list RMS (yes I know RMS was a slightly incorrect term) continuous power per channel at 8 ohms with both channels from 20-20kHz with stated distortion rate (usually about 0.1% or lower). Mac used to offer 0.25% in their spec because they said folks couldn't detect less than that. There was a race on in the 70's in receivers to see who could produce the highest power results. A typical legitimate and conservative power rating of a receiver would be something like: 70 watts continuous per channel (both channels operating) from 20-20,000Hz into 8 ohms with no more than 0.05% THD+noise. This was the stated rating of my Marantz 2270 if I remember correctly. It was quite conservative and actually tested out in the Mac Clinic at 80 watts per channel at specified distortion. Later especially in cheap products cheating was common with inflating power by using peak versus continuous plus high distortion, etc.
Of course continuous power is not normal in music but it was used as an industry standard so all could compare different receivers and amps on an even basis. It seems lately these standard type specs have become less stringent. I would prefer to see Emotiva use the spec standard used by quite a few brands over the last 10 years or more. These are also the spec standards used in testing by some of the most objective review magazine and sites. More and more the reviews are strictly subjective with no expensive lab tests performed. These best standards IMO are testing amps at 0.10% distortion for normal operation with all channels operating into 4 and also 8 ohms at 20-20kHz. A spec of 1.0% could be given if it is clearly stated that this is at or near the clipping point. Testing at 2 channels is OK if they also give the all channels results.
I would prefer to see Emotiva always test in their AP tests at 0.10% for both 4 and 8 ohms so we could compare all amps based on the same distortion level. They could also publish lower specified %THD, say at 0.05%, etc. if they wished to show how low the amp's distortion goes. A published spec of 200 watts w/0,1% (etc.) that produced in the AP test 210 watts w/0.1 % (etc.) would actually show that the Emotiva spec was conservative if desired.
Explaining in the owner's manual the careful amp power ratings specs by Emo would help convince the buyer that Emo was consistent and conservative in all their amp power specs. For example, having in the past some amps in the AP test at +/- 0.10% and another amp at 0.370% has been confusing to me as well as other buyers. Be sure the power ratings and tests are accurate and consistent and let us who know how to read them use them as a buying tool.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 29, 2016 17:21:14 GMT -5
Couple comments: VERY low distortion numbers can sometimes indicate large amounts of NEGATIVE FEEDBACK which can have other bad effects.
Distorion perception is VERY frequency dependent. You can probably tolerate 5% or so or maybe MORE below 100hz. At 5khz to 10khz? 1% might offend.
Continuous power into a resistor? Almost worthless, but at least theoretically can be compared between brands. Give me amp power into a REAL speaker load, which is easily simulated. OR come up with a test box and test amps at +45degrees / -45degrees (inductive and capitative at 4 and 8 nominal ohms impedance. Publish THAT and lets see where the equities lie.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 29, 2016 17:44:48 GMT -5
I agree with you for the most part - but we may have to agree to disagree just a tiny bit on some of the details. There was never much agreement about how amplifiers should be rated.... after much confusion, and lobbying by the reputable companies, who (rightly) felt they were getting the short end of the stick trying to compete against bogus inflated specs published by less reputable ones, the FTC published an actual RULE stating how "home audio amplifiers" would have to be rated (this was in 1972). It spelled out in tiny detail how to take the measurmeent, and how long to warm up the amp, but it did NOT require that you take your power reading right below clipping. Virtually all solid state amps have very low distortion over most of their range, which rises suddenly as you approach clipping. While you may feel that it would be more consistent to rate everything at the same 0.1%, many people feel that it's more representative to pick the value of distortion you're going to experience over most of the operating range, and then rate the power at the point where the graph starts to rise. Without getting into long arguments, the fact remains that there are several different opinions about how power should be rated. (And, to be honest, since there is in fact no agreement on a standard, we tend to pick the one that looks good. If we have an amplifier that measures 0.05% at 190 watts and 0.1% at 200 watts, we'll probably call it "200 watts at 0.1%"; but, if it was 0.01% at 190 watts and 0.1% at 200 watts, we'd probably call it "190 watts at 0.01%" because that 0.01% is a really impressive number, and we'd like to show it off. (This is no different than the fact that my car can go from zero to 60 in 8 seconds if you floor it, and gets 28 mpg highway, but sure won't get that mileage if you floor it very often. You know darn well that they had a professional driver drive it like a little old lady to get the mileage rating.) However, just between me and you (and everyone else reading this), I've had a lot of practice testing equipment. And, after all that, I can't tell exactly how a given piecce of equipment will sound by reading a few specs. Sure, I can get an idea what to expect by carefully pondering a dozen pages of graphs, and I can certainly pick out a really bad problem which is likely to be audible, but I'm not going to be able to tell very much from one or two numbers, whether they're in the format you suggested, or one of the ones we use, or some other one. Each of the numbers contains useful information. And, with a LOT of experience, I can learn something from a bunch of them, but no idividual number will tell me what an amp will sound like.... (Since you mentioned it by name, I had a Marantz 2270 a very long time ago - when it was a current model. I thought it sounded very nice, but it absolutely had some of that "warm and smooth Marantz house sound", and sounded a lot different than an XPA Gen3, and that nice 0.1% THD spec wouldn't help you guess to expect that until you listened to it.) To be totally honest, I do agree that it would be nice if we settled on one standard way of doing our measurements.... (We've tried a few times, but we keep changing our minds.) But, regardless of what standard we follow, the numbers still aren't going to help you know much about how our amps sound compared to someone else's. (Well, they'll point out if our competitor is especiall bad, or really far from neutral, but they won't "prove" how good ours sound... really.) So, should we rate that amplifier as "120 watts at 0.1% THD", or should we call it "150 watts at 1% THD", or how about 100 watts at 0.04% THD? In point of fact, they're ALL perfectly correct, and equally "informative"... so the answer to that question is going to be a marketing decision. Sorry Keith, but I have to disagree on some of your post. The 3 examples above at 0.1%, 1% and 0.04% (with different power) might be correct in that they are accurate but they are not what should be published by the manufacturer. Many newbies are not aware that 1% THD is what is considered "clipping". This should not be published unless it is specifically noted to be at amplifier clipping. Many folks can detect 1% distortion and some down to 0.5 or slightly less (perhaps 0.25%). I think it is important for a reputable manufacturer to choose and keep consistent throughout their line of amps a standard method of stating amp specs and distortion. This would be great if it were clear, simple and industry wide. The varied use of IHF, EIA, FTC, PMP and others "standards" were more of an effort to confuse buyers in the past. I have been following amp specs closely for about 47 years since I bought my first receiver. In those old days the standard accepted procedure by reputable companies, stereo magazines and even at the Mac clinics was for example to list RMS (yes I know RMS was a slightly incorrect term) continuous power per channel at 8 ohms with both channels from 20-20kHz with stated distortion rate (usually about 0.1% or lower). Mac used to offer 0.25% in their spec because they said folks couldn't detect less than that. There was a race on in the 70's in receivers to see who could produce the highest power results. A typical legitimate and conservative power rating of a receiver would be something like: 70 watts continuous per channel (both channels operating) from 20-20,000Hz into 8 ohms with no more than 0.05% THD+noise. This was the stated rating of my Marantz 2270 if I remember correctly. It was quite conservative and actually tested out in the Mac Clinic at 80 watts per channel at specified distortion. Later especially in cheap products cheating was common with inflating power by using peak versus continuous plus high distortion, etc.
Of course continuous power is not normal in music but it was used as an industry standard so all could compare different receivers and amps on an even basis. It seems lately these standard type specs have become less stringent. I would prefer to see Emotiva use the spec standard used by quite a few brands over the last 10 years or more. These are also the spec standards used in testing by some of the most objective review magazine and sites. More and more the reviews are strictly subjective with no expensive lab tests performed. These best standards IMO are testing amps at 0.10% distortion for normal operation with all channels operating into 4 and also 8 ohms at 20-20kHz. A spec of 1.0% could be given if it is clearly stated that this is at or near the clipping point. Testing at 2 channels is OK if they also give the all channels results.
I would prefer to see Emotiva always test in their AP tests at 0.10% for both 4 and 8 ohms so we could compare all amps based on the same distortion level. They could also publish lower specified %THD, say at 0.05%, etc. if they wished to show how low the amp's distortion goes. A published spec of 200 watts w/0,1% (etc.) that produced in the AP test 210 watts w/0.1 % (etc.) would actually show that the Emotiva spec was conservative if desired.
Explaining in the owner's manual the careful amp power ratings specs by Emo would help convince the buyer that Emo was consistent and conservative in all their amp power specs. For example, having in the past some amps in the AP test at +/- 0.10% and another amp at 0.370% has been confusing to me as well as other buyers. Be sure the power ratings and tests are accurate and consistent and let us who know how to read them use them as a buying tool.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 29, 2016 18:57:55 GMT -5
But Keith by using specs like Frequency response being flat and THD, we can conclude that all amps sound the same as long as they are not audibly clipping! All amps sound the same darn it! You are just being fooled by your gullible brain (Tongue in cheek).
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 30, 2016 0:04:33 GMT -5
I have always been an advocate of 'real world load'. Without regard to the manufacturers need to advertise a power / distortion number, the REAL test continues to be into a REAL reactive load. 2 amps can measure identically into a resistor and be worlds apart when asked to drive a reactive load. Poor performance into a real speaker load CAN ACCOUNT for differences in audible performance, even though they may 'measure' the same into a resistor. That's the solution to 'Garbulky's Conundrum'. This system, linked, integrates nicely with the AP gear and provides a very good characterization of amp performance into real world loads. www.ap.com/technical-library/measuring-power-amplifiers-with-reactive-loads/
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Jul 30, 2016 6:17:40 GMT -5
Cool discussion on the distortion characteristics and real loads and all. Yeah .01 vs. 001 etc. Yep, been there done that. I think sure I want a clean sounding amplifier no doubt that is tolerable on reactive loads no doubt. Absolutely.
I think we are really missing the Elephant in the room. Actually 2. Source, and the loudspeaker for instance. Do you suppose they approach anything the distortion of a quality power amplifier? I can assure they don't. So lets say your amplifier is .01 THD. Okay even 1%. I'll bet you, and watch me get all you vinyl junkies coming after me. Vinyl on playback is much higher in THD than your amplifier will be. Same with your speaker. A speaker is going to be way more on the distortion radar than an amplifier. Okay people with any speaker now hate. Wow, just isn't my day. But I think ultimately I agree low distortion in an amp is important, but what happens before and after the amp is far more distorting. Just saying. Your mileage may vary. We are looking at a speck through an Electron Microscope when we ignore the more larger item in plain sight.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 30, 2016 13:38:42 GMT -5
Cool discussion on the distortion characteristics and real loads and all. Yeah .01 vs. 001 etc. Yep, been there done that. I think sure I want a clean sounding amplifier no doubt that is tolerable on reactive loads no doubt. Absolutely. I think we are really missing the Elephant in the room. Actually 2. Source, and the loudspeaker for instance. Do you suppose they approach anything the distortion of a quality power amplifier? I can assure they don't. So lets say your amplifier is .01 THD. Okay even 1%. I'll bet you, and watch me get all you vinyl junkies coming after me. Vinyl on playback is much higher in THD than your amplifier will be. Same with your speaker. A speaker is going to be way more on the distortion radar than an amplifier. Okay people with any speaker now hate. Wow, just isn't my day. But I think ultimately I agree low distortion in an amp is important, but what happens before and after the amp is far more distorting. Just saying. Your mileage may vary. We are looking at a speck through an Electron Microscope when we ignore the more larger item in plain sight. You're missing the third elephant, which is the fact THD is meaningless without specifying important details like what level each *type* of harmonic distortion is at. For example, crossover distortion at a given THD is much more audible than clipping distortion at the same THD, and, for another example, high order harmonic distortion is (generally) much more audible than low order harmonic distortion. The audible difference between even order harmonic distortion and odd order harmonic distortion also plays a part, and so does the presence of types of distortion other than harmonic distortion. So the fourth elephant in the room is the audibility of harmonic distortion is changed as a direct result *from* the presence of these other types due to how human hearing *factually* works as opposed to how laypeople *assume* it works. (The fifth elephant is the fact the fourth one is standing in the room regardless of whether all vinyl junkies will come after you).
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jul 30, 2016 14:22:08 GMT -5
The sixth elephant is the fact WE ALL hear thing differently.....
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 30, 2016 19:21:22 GMT -5
The sixth elephant is the fact WE ALL hear thing differently..... He already said "your mileage may vary" so I think five is probably more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jul 30, 2016 21:02:16 GMT -5
The sixth elephant is the fact WE ALL hear thing differently..... He already said "your mileage may vary" so I think five is probably more realistic. Thanks! You just saved me from having to read the whole thing again...
|
|
|
Post by charlieeco on Jul 31, 2016 23:18:36 GMT -5
The seventh elephant is the doubt: TO BUY OR NOT TO BUY (GEN 3)
|
|
|
Post by Mike Ronesia on Aug 10, 2016 18:56:15 GMT -5
OK guys...... it's an AMPLIFIER. The only reason to replace a Gen2 amp would be if you need more channels, and it's a choice between adding more channels by buying an additional amp, or selling off your current amp and buying an amp with more channels. Well not the only reason. My XPA-5 decided to blow up when I was using the remote to turn the volume down. Cheers Mark
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Aug 10, 2016 19:04:48 GMT -5
OK guys...... it's an AMPLIFIER. The only reason to replace a Gen2 amp would be if you need more channels, and it's a choice between adding more channels by buying an additional amp, or selling off your current amp and buying an amp with more channels. Well not the only reason. My XPA-5 decided to blow up when I was using the remote to turn the volume down. Cheers Mark Yikes! Sorry to hear that Mark.... Did it spark all over the place or just start smoking? Have you had any problems prior? Man I'm heart broken for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 22:58:51 GMT -5
OK guys...... it's an AMPLIFIER. The only reason to replace a Gen2 amp would be if you need more channels, and it's a choice between adding more channels by buying an additional amp, or selling off your current amp and buying an amp with more channels. Well not the only reason. My XPA-5 decided to blow up when I was using the remote to turn the volume down. Cheers Mark Yeah Mark, sorry to hear about your XPA-5, I own one and it's a great amp. Did, that happen during one of the wild parties at your place? I warned you not open that bottle of gin I sent to you when you have the music turned way up. Was one of these sober girls the person who spilled the gin on your amp?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Ronesia on Aug 11, 2016 0:54:24 GMT -5
MML, no not during a party, though we've had some good ones. Just home alone doing some listening. Had it at -10 for a couple of songs and someone pulled up to the house so I started lowering the volume and it went pop and started smoking. Tried to boot it and on the 4th test light it would shut down. Took it apart and the PWB for one of the channels was fried. If it was a gen-3 and modular I might have been able to just pull it out and keep using it, but now it is just an anchor. I'm stuck with my UPA-2 for now. Just spent all my disposable income on another toy.
Cheers Mark
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 11, 2016 9:30:25 GMT -5
I've got to put my two cents in here...... First off, I do personally kind of like analog meters..... Although my preference is more for darker blue..... And I rather DON'T like chrome plated fronts (they take fingerprints, they reflect the lights in the room, and they distract me). Brushed silver is OK, but I prefer black. (If you want to see my idea of probably one of the best LOOKING amplifiers, even though it isn't black, Google a vintage Marantz 140... ) However, I also like a well designed LED bar graph .... they're also cool, cost a lot less, and are far more reliable. Second, if you really want to spend a lot of money on a meter, it's not that much more effort to make a meter that can actually show "real watts into any load". (It actually takes a bit of analog circuitry, or a processor to control the meter, but that part costs lots less than a physical big blue analog meter anyway.) However, the actual cost of a big analog meter isn't trivial, and they are somewhat delicate and failure prone. As to meters that show things OTHER THAN power (like the Bias meters on the Pass amps, or the single meter that showed the Power reserves in the old Sunfire amps...... ). I'm not really a fan of those at all.... because, for the most part, they don't DO anything useful. (If a meter is going to just sit there, then twitch when something goes wrong, then you might as well just have a warning light.) I sort of LIKE being able to see the power from minute to minute, and it can be interesting to see how various music requires wildly different amounts of power.... but, to me, putting a meter on the bias would be like putting a big blue meter on your car's dash - showing tire pressure.... big woop . (I also sort of get the feeling that they decided to dress up the front panel with a single pretty meter - then scurried desperately to find something for it to DO that was at least vaguely useful.... ) I really don't want to watch my amplifier. It's about as exciting as watching grass grow. However once in a great while I do want to get an indication of whether I'm pushing it too hard. The reason I drug the Pass System into it was it makes FAR more sense than a 'power' meter which is at best good at ONE impedance. Though such meters typically have both a 4 ohm AND an 8 ohm scale. Same difference. The Pass Meter measures bias CURRENT which is without regard to whatever load is applied to the amp. passlabs.com/articles/leaving-class-aInteresting article from Pass about 'class 'A' and the bias condition associated with the different classes of amp. With the meter motionless, somewhere mid-scale, you are biased to class 'A'. As the meter deflects, it is indicating increasing amounts of A/B bias. I note this ONLY for the fans of 'amps with meters'. I'm generally on YOUR side, Rcheliguy, but for those who somehow feel the 'need' for a meter, it might as well DO something useful.
|
|