|
|
Post by william218 on Feb 11, 2021 0:09:37 GMT -5
I have a Definitive Technology 5.1.2 speaker system with a Denon AVR-X3500H Receiver. My fronts are the BP-6B and my center is the CLR-2002. For more power I first added a Russound P75 Amp for my center.
While researching to add power to my fronts I discovered Emotiva and added the BasX A 300.
I noticed a big difference in power however I am now looking for more detail sound from my home theater system.
Is it worth upgrading to the XPA3 GEN 3 to power my front stage and try to sell my Russound and BasX A 300 Amps?
Will this give me a noticeable difference in power and sound detail for my home theater system?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ex_Vintage on Feb 11, 2021 8:33:06 GMT -5
My guess is the A-300 should have plenty of power for the BP-6B speakers. 150 watts for a 91db sensitivity speaker should drive them nicely. Detailed sound will also involve source material and room effects along with whatever the room correction software is doing to the system EQ.
|
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Feb 11, 2021 9:46:11 GMT -5
Source material and the room plays a big part in this, I built 8 acoustic absorption panels to help with reflections and that made a huge difference in what I hear from my speakers without the reflection from walls and ceilings hitting my ears as well masking the speakers, issue is not everyone can do this usually do to aesthetics and the wife haha, you can also buy them that look like art of even have ones made with pictures you submit to the company that makes them so they look like pictures.
Also moving from my Yamaha receiver to an UMC-1 and then to a XMC-1 and so on has made a big difference as well, the detail that the Sherbourn and Emotiva proessors I have owned easily sounded much better than my once owned Yamaha receiver.
Chad
|
|
|
|
Post by william218 on Feb 11, 2021 21:08:25 GMT -5
If I keep the BasX A-300 to power my fronts do you have any recommendations for upgrading the Russound P75 Amp to power my center?
|
|
|
|
Post by teaman on Feb 11, 2021 21:13:09 GMT -5
I'd upgrade the amp to the XPA-3. I have 102 db sensitive Klipsch KLF-30's and they sound fantastic on my XPA-1 monoblocks with 600 watts on tap. Every time I have upgraded the amp to a more powerful amp, the speakers respond better to the increase in power. Better driver control, deeper bass.
If you can afford to do so, I think your speakers will thank you.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 12, 2021 2:01:30 GMT -5
If it were me I would go in a different direction here. I would go with the XPA-3 Gen 3 and get the headroom and damping beyond the a-300. Sell the Russound, and use the a-300 in a zone 2 great 2 channel 2nd room setup. It would be a waste using the a-300 as a Surround amplifier for instance. Let the Denon drive the rest in your theater.
|
|
|
|
Post by william218 on Feb 15, 2021 12:52:15 GMT -5
Thank you
Still considering to upgrade to the XPA-3 but after doing more research it seems that I must also upgrade my front stage speakers to get more out of my home theater system. I was am thinking about purchasing the Klipsch RP-8000F for the fronts and the RP-504c for the center. I believe this will be a better match with my emotiva amp.
|
|
kilglas
Minor Hero
The best audio set will never be good enough if your hearing isn´t in the same level...
Posts: 14
|
Post by kilglas on Apr 13, 2021 12:52:46 GMT -5
Source material and the room plays a big part in this, I built 8 acoustic absorption panels to help with reflections and that made a huge difference in what I hear from my speakers without the reflection from walls and ceilings hitting my ears as well masking the speakers, issue is not everyone can do this usually do to aesthetics and the wife haha, you can also buy them that look like art of even have ones made with pictures you submit to the company that makes them so they look like pictures. Also moving from my Yamaha receiver to an UMC-1 and then to a XMC-1 and so on has made a big difference as well, the detail that the Sherbourn and Emotiva proessors I have owned easily sounded much better than my once owned Yamaha receiver. Chad |
|
kilglas
Minor Hero
The best audio set will never be good enough if your hearing isn´t in the same level...
Posts: 14
|
Post by kilglas on Apr 13, 2021 12:52:58 GMT -5
Hi folks..
first of all, my pleasure to be part of this lounge.
I have EMO A-300 paired with PT-100, which I like a lot.
However, I´ve been thinking about "upgrade" the A-300 to XPA 100 monoblocks. Anyone can tell me if this move would be just a "sidegrade" more than a real upgrade?
I am very curious about using monoblocks here in my set, but I don´t want to change, as we say here in Brazil, half-dozen for six.
Besides, it´s been very difficult to find the XPA 100, even on Ebay. This lounge has some kinda classifields stuff?
Thank you all
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Apr 13, 2021 13:35:54 GMT -5
Hi folks.. first of all, my pleasure to be part of this lounge. I have EMO A-300 paired with PT-100, which I like a lot. However, I´ve been thinking about "upgrade" the A-300 to XPA 100 monoblocks. Anyone can tell me if this move would be just a "sidegrade" more than a real upgrade? I am very curious about using monoblocks here in my set, but I don´t want to change, as we say here in Brazil, half-dozen for six. Besides, it´s been very difficult to find the XPA 100, even on Ebay. This lounge has some kinda classifields stuff? Thank you all The xpa100 is a very nice sounding amp. However you have two better sounding choices. A used xpa2 gen 1 or gen 2 (not gen 3) or used Emotiva pa1 mono blocks. My nod would be for the pa1 or an xpa2 gen 2. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 13, 2021 15:36:08 GMT -5
I'd upgrade the amp to the XPA-3. I have 102 db sensitive Klipsch KLF-30's and they sound fantastic on my XPA-1 monoblocks with 600 watts on tap. Every time I have upgraded the amp to a more powerful amp, the speakers respond better to the increase in power. Better driver control, deeper bass. If you can afford to do so, I think your speakers will thank you. Tim I rather doubt a 'level controlled' comparison. And with 102db sensitive speakers? (IF they ARE actually 102db) Klipsch has been know to be a little......optimistic? As for amps? I'd MATCH front L/C/R amps for both GAIN and Timbre. So a 3-channel solution makes perfect sense. I'm in favor of spending NOW and retaining gear thru several upgrade cycles. One listener here has great love of his Parasound A31 which is a VERY good and powerful choice. Keep in mind that a proper (better watts ARE better) solution will get you evicted with 20 watts per speaker continuous....... Even IF the speaker is really 'only' 98 or 99db sensitive.... |
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Apr 13, 2021 15:53:02 GMT -5
however I am now looking for more detail sound from my home theater system. You will get a far greater improvement in detail sound by upgrading your receiver (pre-amp) than you will by changing amps. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 16:15:03 GMT -5
I'd upgrade the amp to the XPA-3. I have 102 db sensitive Klipsch KLF-30's and they sound fantastic on my XPA-1 monoblocks with 600 watts on tap. Every time I have upgraded the amp to a more powerful amp, the speakers respond better to the increase in power. Better driver control, deeper bass. If you can afford to do so, I think your speakers will thank you. Tim I rather doubt a 'level controlled' comparison. And with 102db sensitive speakers? (IF they ARE actually 102db) Klipsch has been know to be a little......optimistic? .... Sensitivity is defined at 1 watt. That the impedance of the speaker is 4ohms, artificially INFLATES the measurement by 3db when done at 2.83 volts. Yes, the speaker DOES produce a certain output level...but at 2 watts. The idea of a sensitivity spec is to be able to compare speakers across manufacturers lines by the same yardstick.... I'd have NO beef were the speaker 8 ohms. And as it turns out? Manufacturers are a little free and easy with sensitivity 'spec'. The Klipsch Forte III when measured by Stereophile (a trusted source?) was over 3db below the manufacturers value. There is also some controversy (minor) about 'In-Room' or 'Anachoic' versions of this spec....... Like many other specs / values? Ya' Gotta read 'em in detail and have some idea what can and can't be relied on....and to what extent.... And yes, Maggies are typically not a very 'reactive' load. You can think of reactance as a form of energy storage. This characteristic makes them OK with Tubes or SS..... Well, you could always buy only 8 ohm speakers with ratings at 2.83 volts. There should be no variation then at 1 watt. Problem solved. That is, unless the room they are tested in varies. Is there a standardized type of anechoic chamber across the industry? And exactly as you stated, what if a manufacturer rates their speakers in actual room and not an anechoic chamber? In all seriousness, there is no standardized sensitivity rating. Either verify the process used by the company in their manufacturer's rating [call them and find out how they came to that spec] or deviate from it. Other than that one could appeal to some government office to involve themselves in governing the audio industry. That's worked out well in every case! |
|
|
|
Post by teaman on Apr 13, 2021 16:31:10 GMT -5
I'd upgrade the amp to the XPA-3. I have 102 db sensitive Klipsch KLF-30's and they sound fantastic on my XPA-1 monoblocks with 600 watts on tap. Every time I have upgraded the amp to a more powerful amp, the speakers respond better to the increase in power. Better driver control, deeper bass. If you can afford to do so, I think your speakers will thank you. Tim I rather doubt a 'level controlled' comparison. And with 102db sensitive speakers? (IF they ARE actually 102db) Klipsch has been know to be a little......optimistic? As for amps? I'd MATCH front L/C/R amps for both GAIN and Timbre. So a 3-channel solution makes perfect sense. I'm in favor of spending NOW and retaining gear thru several upgrade cycles. One listener here has great love of his Parasound A31 which is a VERY good and powerful choice. Keep in mind that a proper (better watts ARE better) solution will get you evicted with 20 watts per speaker continuous....... Even IF the speaker is really 'only' 98 or 99db sensitive.... You can look up the Klipsch KLF-30 if you like. If you don't think a larger amp brings out more from your speakers, you are probably in the wrong group. When I called Emotiva and spoke with their techs when I was first venturing into their separates, I was told that I should step up in power from the UPA-200 to the XPA-02. That extra power would be needed to push the 15 inch woofer in my Infinity SM-152 at the time, which were also rated at 102db efficiency. If you want to argue with them, you can. All I can tell you is that each time I stepped up in power the speakers sounded better. I have a lot of friends in my audio group discussions that have found the same findings. Tim |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 16:38:22 GMT -5
I rather doubt a 'level controlled' comparison. And with 102db sensitive speakers? (IF they ARE actually 102db) Klipsch has been know to be a little......optimistic? As for amps? I'd MATCH front L/C/R amps for both GAIN and Timbre. So a 3-channel solution makes perfect sense. I'm in favor of spending NOW and retaining gear thru several upgrade cycles. One listener here has great love of his Parasound A31 which is a VERY good and powerful choice. Keep in mind that a proper (better watts ARE better) solution will get you evicted with 20 watts per speaker continuous....... Even IF the speaker is really 'only' 98 or 99db sensitive.... You can look up the Klipsch KLF-30 if you like. If you don't think a larger amp brings out more from your speakers, you are probably in the wrong group. When I called Emotiva and spoke with their techs when I was first venturing into their separates, I was told that I should step up in power from the UPA-200 to the XPA-02. That extra power would be needed to push the 15 inch woofer in my Infinity SM-152 at the time, which were also rated at 102db efficiency. If you want to argue with them, you can. All I can tell you is that each time I stepped up in power the speakers sounded better. I have a lot of friends in my audio group discussions that have found the same findings. Tim I've had a very similar experience. Upon closer examination though it appears that my speakers dip down to 2.3 ohms at around 100hz:  I imagine not all amplifiers can deal w/ such an impedance dip. To make matters even more complicated depending on who I speak w/ the theoretical current [amperage] of an amplifier of less than powerful equipment are perfectly suitable to drive my speakers - though my ears say differently. |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 13, 2021 16:49:21 GMT -5
I rather doubt a 'level controlled' comparison. And with 102db sensitive speakers? (IF they ARE actually 102db) Klipsch has been know to be a little......optimistic? As for amps? I'd MATCH front L/C/R amps for both GAIN and Timbre. So a 3-channel solution makes perfect sense. I'm in favor of spending NOW and retaining gear thru several upgrade cycles. One listener here has great love of his Parasound A31 which is a VERY good and powerful choice. Keep in mind that a proper (better watts ARE better) solution will get you evicted with 20 watts per speaker continuous....... Even IF the speaker is really 'only' 98 or 99db sensitive.... You can look up the Klipsch KLF-30 if you like. If you don't think a larger amp brings out more from your speakers, you are probably in the wrong group. When I called Emotiva and spoke with their techs when I was first venturing into their separates, I was told that I should step up in power from the UPA-200 to the XPA-02. That extra power would be needed to push the 15 inch woofer in my Infinity SM-152 at the time, which were also rated at 102db efficiency. If you want to argue with them, you can. All I can tell you is that each time I stepped up in power the speakers sounded better. I have a lot of friends in my audio group discussions that have found the same findings. Tim I agree. In line with my own experience. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Apr 13, 2021 20:50:30 GMT -5
I rather doubt a 'level controlled' comparison. And with 102db sensitive speakers? (IF they ARE actually 102db) Klipsch has been know to be a little......optimistic? .... Sensitivity is defined at 1 watt. That the impedance of the speaker is 4ohms, artificially INFLATES the measurement by 3db when done at 2.83 volts. Yes, the speaker DOES produce a certain output level...but at 2 watts. The idea of a sensitivity spec is to be able to compare speakers across manufacturers lines by the same yardstick.... I'd have NO beef were the speaker 8 ohms. And as it turns out? Manufacturers are a little free and easy with sensitivity 'spec'. The Klipsch Forte III when measured by Stereophile (a trusted source?) was over 3db below the manufacturers value. There is also some controversy (minor) about 'In-Room' or 'Anachoic' versions of this spec....... Like many other specs / values? Ya' Gotta read 'em in detail and have some idea what can and can't be relied on....and to what extent.... And yes, Maggies are typically not a very 'reactive' load. You can think of reactance as a form of energy storage. This characteristic makes them OK with Tubes or SS..... Well, you could always buy only 8 ohm speakers with ratings at 2.83 volts. There should be no variation then at 1 watt. Problem solved. That is, unless the room they are tested in varies. Is there a standardized type of anechoic chamber across the industry? And exactly as you stated, what if a manufacturer rates their speakers in actual room and not an anechoic chamber? In all seriousness, there is no standardized sensitivity rating. Either verify the process used by the company in their manufacturer's rating [call them and find out how they came to that spec] or deviate from it. Other than that one could appeal to some government office to involve themselves in governing the audio industry. That's worked out well in every case! There IS a standard which is INTENTIONALLY skewed by manufacturers of 4ohm speakers to make them seem more sensitive than they actually are. 1 watt(2.83volts) / 1 meter / 8 ohms =SPL? couldn't be easier. Few manufacturers have access to an Anachoic chamber so, I'll suspect that most of those values are 'in-room'.......It is expensive to rent such a facility than setup and do the measures. SEE LINK! Wow! I tend to trust Stereophile in this measure. They have a good history and knowledge base. Even amp standards are into a resistor which represents no speaker available. And amps differ in there ability to drive reactive loads. This is why I"ve been yowling about 'specs are advisory' for years. FTC is the Federal Trade Commission and has standards for lots of stuff. Than you can get your measurement gear calibrated to NIST standards (Real, Real $$$) on an annual basis. www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-seeks-comment-amplifier-rule-part-regular-rule-reviewwww.borndigital.com/2015/10/16/canadian-tech-company-creates-worlds-quietest-room-2015-10-16 |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 14, 2021 11:34:17 GMT -5
Just an interesting historical note here - about the FTC - and audio gear.
Back in the 1960's (when people still rode dinosaurs and banged the rocks together).....
There were no real standards for measuring amplifier power.
Or, rather, there were LOTS of standards... and the results for each were often very different.
One of the least likeable was known as IPP (instantaneous peak power)... This was jokingly referred to as
"connect the output stage to a power supply, turn the knob up, and note the highest number on the meter before the smoke gets too thick to see". (It was quite common to see amplifiers and receivers that today would rate as 10 watts/channel turn in specs of "200 watts IPP". )
Several manufacturers who always used more reputable specifications anyway got together and asked the government to get involved. It turned out the FTC (Federal TRADE Commission) could get involved because they have the ability to set regulations for interstate commerce
(and audio gear often gets shipped across state lines).
In 1974 the FTC published a document that spelled out in excruciating detail EXACTLY how audio amplifiers should be measured... And those regulations also spelled out specific details about advertising... For example, the power rating was spelled out as "continuous power, both channels driven, after 1 hour preconditioning at 1/3 power". (In those days there were only two channels... and a normal Class A/B amp will produce the most heat at around 1/3 power.) They even specified that, even though you could list multiple other specs, you had to list the other ones in a smaller typeface in advertising.
(A certain well known 400 watt/channel amplifier was so prone to overheating that it ended up with a new rating of about 17 watts / channel.)
This rule has been revised several times... Notably to take into account the differences in both modern circuitry and amplifiers with more than two channels (it was written in the days of stereo). (Also note that it applies to "home audio amplifiers" - so usually doesn't apply to automotive equipment and the amplifiers built into subwoofers.)
But it's why you still see amplifiers described using RMS continuous power and the number of channels driven is included in that spec.
The point, however, is that the rule was created because it was somewhat obvious that power ratings were often MISLEADING. (Specifically in the sense that there is a financial motive for deliberately misrepresenting how much power an amplifier puts out.) This DOES NOT apply to speaker efficiency because the efficiency of a speaker is NOT specifically tied to price. More efficient speakers don't necessarily sound better or cost more than less efficient ones... Therefore you cannot reasonably claim that there is a significant economic motive to mislead consumers about it. (In general government regulations are enacted to prevent consumers from being cheated... not to ensure that you are well informed in general.)
Well, you could always buy only 8 ohm speakers with ratings at 2.83 volts. There should be no variation then at 1 watt. Problem solved. That is, unless the room they are tested in varies. Is there a standardized type of anechoic chamber across the industry? And exactly as you stated, what if a manufacturer rates their speakers in actual room and not an anechoic chamber? In all seriousness, there is no standardized sensitivity rating. Either verify the process used by the company in their manufacturer's rating [call them and find out how they came to that spec] or deviate from it. Other than that one could appeal to some government office to involve themselves in governing the audio industry. That's worked out well in every case! There IS a standard which is INTENTIONALLY skewed by manufacturers of 4ohm speakers to make them seem more sensitive than they actually are. 1 watt(2.83volts) / 1 meter / 8 ohms =SPL? couldn't be easier. Few manufacturers have access to an Anachoic chamber so, I'll suspect that most of those values are 'in-room'.......It is expensive to rent such a facility than setup and do the measures. SEE LINK! Wow! I tend to trust Stereophile in this measure. They have a good history and knowledge base. Even amp standards are into a resistor which represents no speaker available. And amps differ in there ability to drive reactive loads. This is why I"ve been yowling about 'specs are advisory' for years. FTC is the Federal Trade Commission and has standards for lots of stuff. Than you can get your measurement gear calibrated to NIST standards (Real, Real $$$) on an annual basis. www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-seeks-comment-amplifier-rule-part-regular-rule-reviewwww.borndigital.com/2015/10/16/canadian-tech-company-creates-worlds-quietest-room-2015-10-16 |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 14, 2021 12:00:32 GMT -5
An anechoic chamber is by definition "standardized" (since it is, by definition, "a room with absolutely no acoustic reflections"). The problem is that this is like saying "pure water"... We have a few really expensive rooms that come really really close... And a lot that don't come quite so close... HOWEVER, you can in fact come pretty close without too much work. Dig a big hole in your back yard... Mount your speaker in a big plate, making sure the front of the speaker is dead flush with the plate, and the plate is dead solid... Now sit the plate in the hole, flush with the ground, with the speaker facing up... Now, if you hang the microphone above the speaker, from a really narrow beam, you have no reflections in front of the speaker... (You get bass reinforcement at low frequencies because the speaker is "radiating into a half space"... but that can be calculated.)You can also just sit the speaker, facing sideways, in a big flat empty field, and have a relatively predictable "quarter space". (Actually at very low frequencies, it's also a half space... but the math can be worked out.)
(This works pretty well for measuring subwoofers... as long as you take the geometry into consideration.)
However, since none of these in any way approximates a real room, the measurements you get are of limited value anyway.
Remember that different speakers that measure identically in an anechoic chamber will sound VERY different in an actual room. The anechoic chamber eliminates both room acoustics and directional acoustics. (But, because of that, the response will be very different than it will be in any real room... because NOBODY builds an anechoic home theater.)
You can take accurate measurements at multiple angles... which will give you the speaker's directional characteristics. But that won't tell you what it will all sound like when they all add together in a real room. (So, while these measurements are all very useful to a speaker designer, they don't really help a consumer know what a speaker will sound like.)
HOWEVER, the bottom line here is that a 3 dB difference between efficiencies due to different measurement techniques is pretty much meaningless. You're going to see much greater variations due to things like room acoustics and the directionality of the speakers anyway. And you're going to have to use the trim adjustments to eliminate those other variations anyway.
Well, you could always buy only 8 ohm speakers with ratings at 2.83 volts. There should be no variation then at 1 watt. Problem solved. That is, unless the room they are tested in varies. Is there a standardized type of anechoic chamber across the industry? And exactly as you stated, what if a manufacturer rates their speakers in actual room and not an anechoic chamber? In all seriousness, there is no standardized sensitivity rating. Either verify the process used by the company in their manufacturer's rating [call them and find out how they came to that spec] or deviate from it. Other than that one could appeal to some government office to involve themselves in governing the audio industry. That's worked out well in every case! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2021 12:26:50 GMT -5
Just an interesting historical note here - about the FTC - and audio gear.
Back in the 1960's (when people still rode dinosaurs and banged the rocks together).....
There were no real standards for measuring amplifier power.
Or, rather, there were LOTS of standards... and the results for each were often very different.
One of the least likeable was known as IPP (instantaneous peak power)... This was jokingly referred to as
"connect the output stage to a power supply, turn the knob up, and note the highest number on the meter before the smoke gets too thick to see". (It was quite common to see amplifiers and receivers that today would rate as 10 watts/channel turn in specs of "200 watts IPP". )
Several manufacturers who always used more reputable specifications anyway got together and asked the government to get involved. It turned out the FTC (Federal TRADE Commission) could get involved because they have the ability to set regulations for interstate commerce
(and audio gear often gets shipped across state lines).
In 1974 the FTC published a document that spelled out in excruciating detail EXACTLY how audio amplifiers should be measured... And those regulations also spelled out specific details about advertising... For example, the power rating was spelled out as "continuous power, both channels driven, after 1 hour preconditioning at 1/3 power". (In those days there were only two channels... and a normal Class A/B amp will produce the most heat at around 1/3 power.) They even specified that, even though you could list multiple other specs, you had to list the other ones in a smaller typeface in advertising.
(A certain well known 400 watt/channel amplifier was so prone to overheating that it ended up with a new rating of about 17 watts / channel.)
This rule has been revised several times... Notably to take into account the differences in both modern circuitry and amplifiers with more than two channels (it was written in the days of stereo). (Also note that it applies to "home audio amplifiers" - so usually doesn't apply to automotive equipment and the amplifiers built into subwoofers.)
But it's why you still see amplifiers described using RMS continuous power and the number of channels driven is included in that spec.
The point, however, is that the rule was created because it was somewhat obvious that power ratings were often MISLEADING. (Specifically in the sense that there is a financial motive for deliberately misrepresenting how much power an amplifier puts out.) This DOES NOT apply to speaker efficiency because the efficiency of a speaker is NOT specifically tied to price. More efficient speakers don't necessarily sound better or cost more than less efficient ones... Therefore you cannot reasonably claim that there is a significant economic motive to mislead consumers about it. (In general government regulations are enacted to prevent consumers from being cheated... not to ensure that you are well informed in general.)
There IS a standard which is INTENTIONALLY skewed by manufacturers of 4ohm speakers to make them seem more sensitive than they actually are. 1 watt(2.83volts) / 1 meter / 8 ohms =SPL? couldn't be easier. Few manufacturers have access to an Anachoic chamber so, I'll suspect that most of those values are 'in-room'.......It is expensive to rent such a facility than setup and do the measures. SEE LINK! Wow! I tend to trust Stereophile in this measure. They have a good history and knowledge base. Even amp standards are into a resistor which represents no speaker available. And amps differ in there ability to drive reactive loads. This is why I"ve been yowling about 'specs are advisory' for years. FTC is the Federal Trade Commission and has standards for lots of stuff. Than you can get your measurement gear calibrated to NIST standards (Real, Real $$$) on an annual basis. www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-seeks-comment-amplifier-rule-part-regular-rule-reviewwww.borndigital.com/2015/10/16/canadian-tech-company-creates-worlds-quietest-room-2015-10-16Ah, yes, those were the good ol days. Ya could buy an amp made by Pyramid open it up and all was there were a bunch of 9 volts batteries dishing out 400 watts per  |
|
