Well gents, I got a replacement amp and I'm not really sure what to think. They weigh about half of what the others did and now don't support the seperate phase/gain/xover panel. Check it out...if some one can post them, I have no idea how...
I can confirm as well that these new amps have very low output compared to the older ones. I don't know why or what is the reason, but it's disappointing to say the least. The amp is at 75% and I might as well turn the gain all the way up to 100%. The output seems to barely match what the old one did at 50%.
I may have to do what KlipschHead did and replace the new with the older one.
The only thing He Who Shall Not Be Named did with that list is verify that he was on the ghost payroll. He probably was offered a piece of blue sky and is now being rewarded with the bashing he deserves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crOwcaine /forum/post/18676697
The only thing He Who Shall Not Be Named did with that list is verify that he was on the ghost payroll. He probably was offered a piece of blue sky and if now being rewarded with the bashing he deserves.
The MFW-15's we have here were the original units as designed by Mark Seaton. Here is the response curve taken at the time:
The MFW-15 as it exists today appears to not have much in common with the unit designed by Mark. While I cannot speak for Mark Seaton, I don't think he would apply his name to the current MFW-15. The amp is different, and it's a good guess that the driver is also not the same as specified by Mark Seaton 3 years ago.
For over 14 months, this qualifier has been listed with the MFW-15:
(Note: As of 3-09, based on many reports of amp failures due to what has been called faulty parts being substituted into the MFW-15's amplifier, this rating is under question until the amp issue is resolved.)
From recent reports, it appears the MFW-15 now has added more than just failing amps to its detriment: It also looks as if the response curve is considerably weaker than the original.
What is being delivered today should really be called the MFW-15 Mark II, and any mention of Mark Seaton being the designer should be removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crOwcaine /forum/post/18676697
The only thing He Who Shall Not Be Named did with that list is verify that he was on the ghost payroll. He probably was offered a piece of blue sky and if now being rewarded with the bashing he deserves.
Where did you get your info? Looks like libel to me.
I think this puts it into perspective.
Quote:
(Note: As of 3-09, based on many reports of amp failures due to what has been called faulty parts being substituted into the MFW-15's amplifier, this rating is under question until the amp issue is resolved.)
The MFW-15 duals I used to own performed exactly as advertised by Craigsub. Must of got lucky with mine never had any issues with them. Recently sold them to upgrade to..."better wait till it is released before I mention it" sub. Set one of them up in a dedicated media room with soundproofing. Measured 17hz in room response with REW and the slam was like having duals. Upstairs floating floor sure helps but what a difference vs a concrete untreated living room.
Is my Audioholics post libel? It is looking like my opinion on the subject matter, (v1/v2 vs. v3) is supported by fact, the v3 is not up to the performance of the previous amplifiers. Now... can you please define POS for us?
I would say that my choice of words in this forum are appropriate. Can the same be said for (the rather extreme) post I commented on earlier, Post #79?
Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions. (Nietzsche)
Yea, but you said it's a POS. Care to elaborate? What's the long term reliability of the amp? How is it a POS? Sounds like libel to me from your perspective. And the word libel is a bit over the top don't you think? Are you a lawyer?
With the exception of some comments by KH about it's output and missing options, I haven't heard anybody say (other than you) that it's a POS. I'm no fan of Schifty but care to elaborate. Tess, I wouldn't be throwing that libel term about so carelessly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo238 /forum/post/18677279
Yea, but you said it's a POS. Care to elaborate? What's the long term reliability of the amp? How is it a POS? Sounds like libel to me from your perspective. And the word libel is a bit over the top don't you think? Are you a lawyer?
With the exception of some comments by KH about it's output and missing options, I haven't heard anybody say (other than you) that it's a POS. I'm no fan of Schifty but care to elaborate. Tess, I wouldn't be throwing that libel term about so carelessly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo238 /forum/post/18677279
Yea, but you said it's a POS. Care to elaborate? What's the long term reliability of the amp? How is it a POS? Sounds like libel to me from your perspective. And the word libel is a bit over the top don't you think? Are you a lawyer?
With the exception of some comments by KH about it's output and missing options, I haven't heard anybody say (other than you) that it's a POS. I'm no fan of Schifty but care to elaborate. Tess, I wouldn't be throwing that libel term about so carelessly.
I am saying that one day, I may need a replacement amp for my MFW-15. Based on what others have experienced, the v3 isn't a suitable replacement. This concerns me.
I stand by the statement I made at Audioholics, until the matter is shown to be otherwise. Care to contribute to the collective view, one way or another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigsub /forum/post/18676882
The MFW-15's we have here were the original units as designed by Mark Seaton. Here is the response curve taken at the time:
The MFW-15 as it exists today appears to not have much in common with the unit designed by Mark. While I cannot speak for Mark Seaton, I don't think he would apply his name to the current MFW-15. The amp is different, and it's a good guess that the driver is also not the same as specified by Mark Seaton 3 years ago.
For over 14 months, this qualifier has been listed with the MFW-15:
(Note: As of 3-09, based on many reports of amp failures due to what has been called faulty parts being substituted into the MFW-15's amplifier, this rating is under question until the amp issue is resolved.)
From recent reports, it appears the MFW-15 now has added more than just failing amps to its detriment: It also looks as if the response curve is considerably weaker than the original.
What is being delivered today should really be called the MFW-15 Mark II, and any mention of Mark Seaton being the designer should be removed.
Let's just keep this on track, once Captain Padded Numbers name gets involved, everything turns to headache. I bought 3 MFW's for me and 2 for friends because of his list and have been through 7 amps and 2-3 drivers. I don't want to start anything with you, honestly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crOwcaine /forum/post/18677629
Let's just keep this on track, once Captain Padded Numbers name gets involved, everything turns to headache. I bought 3 MFW's for me and 2 for friends because of his list and have been through 7 amps and 2-3 drivers. I don't want to start anything with you, honestly.
I don't see how the comparison list is to blame for our sub problems. Especially with the caveat added.
My concern now is the fact that I may someday be headed down to the same merry-go-round ride as some of you guys, and I would like to see a decent replacement amp once and for all.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!