NEW MFW-15 amps (May 2010) *pics* - Page 4

when you say something is a pos, that is an opinion. he did say "from what i am seeing". there are facts behind that, where other users posted.

saying someone took money to do something without proof is libel. where are the facts behind this, the proof.

also KH already mentioned that the power seemed to be lacking

Are you a lawyer? Apparently not. Please, in between your defense of crOwcaine's post, define POS.

Then let's get back on topic. The v3 amplifier doesn't seem to perform as expected.

Ok, so your saying that it's not a sorry POS. Carry on then.

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?

Ok, I think I got it then. It's a sorry POS-unsuitable replacement. You won't here any more from me on this unless your MFW needs a replacement amp.

No research needed, I know what is what.

I am still trying to figure this out...

Didn't you throw the first stone? I think the reply you received was very even handed and informative.

Your reply is not very professional. Why not attempt instead to stay on the topic you created?

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.

Here are some tweezers, now pluck the bug out of your ass.

Mark Seaton IS a professional, if you had any reading comprehension, you would understand what Craig is trying to say.

Great job making yourself look like a clown.

Since the MFW-15 has been on your subwoofer list/ranking since the beginning(and still is), and is what drove many to buy it(and currently is a factor in purchasing decisions), maybe you should, in good due diligence, speak with your friend/associate, Mark Schifter, and/or at least try to find out when the subwoofer stopped resembling the units you tested, and perhaps add that or some sort caveat to your list.

Might as well blame all the folks who have stated that they like their sub as well, it makes as much sense as piling onto Craigsub. The comparison is done and over, the caveat has been in place for a long while. I almost DID NOT buy the sub because of the caveat, but a couple of conversations with MLS persuaded me to give it a go.

The blame for the MFW-15 amplifier issues belongs with the people who sell and warranty it. And should I need another amplifier, those are the folks I will direct my concerns to.

Jeez, the never-ending drama of the MFWs! As I see it, the original MFW as designed by Seaton was well reviewed by Craigsub, and by all accounts the first run was a relatively problem free and good performing product. After that things get murky, with finger pointing at parts suppliers and/or cost cutting measures resulting in amps that were plagued with problems. A second amp version was introduced, but this version also suffered from numerous problems, and wasn't the cure everyone hoped it to be. Finally a third amp version was released, but the initial reviews show a radically different design, with fewer features and reportedly diminished performance. Add to this the speculation that the driver itself has been downgraded and you've really got to wonder how they are able to sell any of these, especially in light of all the legal troubles the head honcho is now going through. Do I have this right?

You do.

Wow, this went south real quick. I don't think Craigsub should be held responsible for what's going on with people deciding to buy anyway. Having a note on the review gives people enough info to know that something is up with the MFW. If people still buy after reading the note that's their problem. If people are looking for someone to blame, try Mark Shifter, I hold him 100% responsible for 100% of what's going on.

People can still decide to buy the subwoofer, for whatever reason, and Mark Shifter would be responsible for the status of the sub. I don't care if a vendor switched out parts, pissed on transformers or crapped on them. If they end up in the hands of a consumer the owner of AV123 bears 100% of the blame.

So, can we discuss the amplifier issues and leave libel talk and crap that has nothing to do with the discussion for a different thread, please.

I'll digress back to the topic. Amplifier v3 is down on output, I have no idea if the amplifier section is weaker or not than previous versions. Kyle states 500va vs 350va so if that is indeed the case something else is causing the lower output and that would be the preamp section.

I'm going to talk to kyle tomorrow and see what they recommend or can do because I do know this, I am NOT going to be using the v3 amplifier in any MFW that suffers a v2 amplifier failure.

How they absorb that and react to it will dictate where I go from there.

WOW,

I didn't mean to cause all of this and this was far my intent. It is just completely frustrating to read this whole nightmare and it never seams to end.

True dat, it doesn't seem to end. Hopefully we start to get answers, it would have been nice if we were givin more information about this amp but it was released during a sale with only mention of it now being built in the USA.

Everything else we had to guess on until they made it to consumers, now that we have them we can discuss it with AV123. Perhaps all they had to do legally was put anything in the box, I don't know but I'm going to try and find out.

All,

This was sent to me by our Engineer today. Please call or email if you have any questions.

Kyle,

I have noticed on avs forum that there is a concern regarding the latest generation of amplifiers now shipping for the MFW-15.

This new amplifier is a further evolution from the design put into place some months back. This design is a more integrated solution. We developed this product from scratch rather than having to adapt a replacement board to an existing design as was done with the previous amplifiers. This has allowed us to offer both a more powerful and a more reliable product.

This new generation of amplifier board is more powerful than the previous versions. The previous version, using the replacement amp board, produced approximately 400 watts at the rated distortion. This new amp produces approximately 500 watts at the same rated distortion (1%). The increased power can be attributed primarily to a larger mains transformer. The new transformer is a Toroid type which, besides being more efficient, produces less stray magnetic field than the older EI Core type.

The new pre-amp board is highly integrated and allows for flexibility in tailoring the equalization and features so it can be used in a family of products without redesign. The circuit boards do not look similar to the older design due to the exclusive use of surface mount components and sophisticated circuit layout. In addition to circuit design, consideration was also given to ease of manufacturing. This allows the design to be produced on an automated assembly process which produces higher quality, more reliable products.

I know that TADG has submitted this board for Agency Approvals that include CE, FCC and UL, but we will not screen the metal work to indicate this until all approvals are in house. Later units will reflect this, including the new av123 logotype.

The new amp is constructed in Colorado and will appear in many future products. We like the increase in power, but we also like the simple and very straightforward final execution of the design. Labor costs being what they are here, rather than The PRC, we feel that the design goals have been met or exceeded in every category.

If the new amp has an increase in power, why do users report that it is not as loud at a given gain setting as the old version?

Kyle, maybe I am not understanding, but can you find out and explain why there is a significant decrease in output compared to the other amps? The new one sounds good, and the back panel is a lot cooler than prev. models, but output is very low.
Thanks for any feedback on this

I absolutely agree, but there is no caveat about the sub not being the same as tested, just that the amp has problems. The sub being different than what was tested, and not designed by Mark Seaton is completely different caveat.

The comparison may be done and over, the list/ranking lives on.

I would like to replace my amp, but I do not have confidence in the v3. I would encourage anyone that has run REW or taken any other measurements with the v1/v2 amps to measure the v3 for us, given the chance. It would be nice to see exactly how the new amp compares.

This is the neverending saga. I really wonder how "good" a deal these sorts of fly-by-night audio components really are when you factor in the hassle and heartache. At this point buying a MFW subwoofer is just a very small step up from buying one out of the back of a white van parked in front of Best Buy.

Fly by night? There is more to this saga than you seem to know.

As for buying a sub right now, that is not the main concern for most of us (although it is something to be concerned about). We just want support for our past purchase!

Sorry to say, but I fear you are in the same situation as those who invested with Bernie Madoff... hope I'm wrong, for your sakes!

Who is the engineer that designed the new amp?

And KH, I thought your earlier comment regarding the preamp section bore serious consideration.

With respect to the output power differences (400 vs 500), what were the input voltages for the two power ratings?

I have no idea but is this standard procedure to release electronics to the public that has not yet been cleard for approval? We don't need the house to burn down at this point.