Originally Posted by craigsub
The issue I have with this short term burst stuff is pretty simple: Look at the more recent waterfall charts, and we find a lot more intense bass scenes which are much longer than the short term ability of the amp to deliver sufficient power.
I know many will suggest I am wrong and CEA is right, but I still think long term output is more important than a short term burst.
Maybe not if you were measuring full range and you wanted to know how punchy a snare drum hit is going to be?
I would think that things like rumblings from movie soundtracks, five string bass lines and the "shake" down low from a loose kick drum would tax peak power.
Does a peak measurement have value? Of course it does.
Is it the best indicator of perceived loudness by the human ear when a unit is driven near it's limits? Probably not. I think it has more value with higher frequency content than the type of low frequency content we generally hear from todays soundtracks in the lowest octave. You need some sustained power and thermal handling to get through the famed "WOTW" scene because some of that stuff, just doesn't quit.
I would say that how an amp behaves when pushed to the brink with regards to soft clipping and how the built in limiters operate is more relevant to perceived loudness than "peak power". If it "acts up" something fierce, you have to lower the level. If you don't believe me, then how can I run a 50 watt tube guitar head in a 400 seat club and have the sound engineer yell "Hey Jeremy, you have to turn down, I can't get you in the PA!" ?
This is an extreme example of course of heavy compression and apparent volume. Of course, I would not suggest regularly running a sub into heavy clipping just because you can get away with it with a certain model.
But it illustrates the point. And why a side by side listening test accompanied by measurements is probably just the right mixture when loudness is what is being determined.