or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Marathon and Cerwin Vega actual output?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Marathon and Cerwin Vega actual output? - Page 3

post #61 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

Arguably it is about watts because it is power that does the work.
It's about watts because that's what the industry has made it about for the last sixty odd years, thus it's the only gauge that the consumer has to judge by, even though it's about as useless a gauge as can be imagined. That's understandable enough, as asking the average consumer to deal with Ohm's Law, impedance, displacement, sensitivity, frequency response, voltage swing and current draw is a bit much. But most of those who frequent this particular forum do not fall into the category of 'average consumer'.
post #62 of 93
Quote:

that's all i was saying. if it doesn't double down, then it is compromised in some way. less power for less duration, etc. etc. not that it can't work. it can an does all the time.

There is nothing compromised if an amp doesn't double down. Again, double down ratings are just a marketing illusion the majority of the time. If the true output of most "double down" amps was published straight up, they wouldn't be "double down" amps because almost certainly the 8 and 4 ohm ratings are sandbagged/conservatively listed to give the appearance of doubling down.

Any amp can be rated to show double down but nobody in pro audio is going to buy an amp with specs advertising less watts at 4 or 8 ohms than comparable models at comparable or lower price point because for the most part the pro audio professionals understand the numbers games.
post #63 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

It's about watts because that's what the industry has made it about for the last sixty odd years, thus it's the only gauge that the consumer has to judge by, even though it's about as useless a gauge as can be imagined. That's understandable enough, as asking the average consumer to deal with Ohm's Law, impedance, displacement, sensitivity, frequency response, voltage swing and current draw is a bit much. But most of those who frequent this particular forum do not fall into the category of 'average consumer'.

I agree and disagree.

Watts is not a useless gauge. It is a fantastic gauge since it is a physical unit that can be easily measured. The problem is since it is such a fantastic gauge it really does expose weaknesses of designs that manufacturers will claim. Manufacturers will do anything they can do to skirt around it or manipulate it. Why? Because their amps cannot do what they say the nameplate will do. If an amps says 5000W, in to 4 ohms from 5 Hz to 20kHz, any tech could easily make a test to VERIFY those claims. The problem is, the amp CANNOT do that. But the real problem is the amp DOESN'T need to do that. Worse yet, the industry knows this but they don't want to agree on a rating system because it would greatly decimate their marketing ability to either oversell or overcharge; which is where profit is derived form.
post #64 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trepidati0n View Post

Watts is not a useless gauge. It is a fantastic gauge since it is a physical unit that can be easily measured.
How does one easily measure the power going into speakers? With a wattmeter? confused.gif
post #65 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

There is nothing compromised if an amp doesn't double down.

You may be right, perhaps someone could explain to me why it wouldn't compromise fidelity.

Scenario;
Two essentially* identical amplifiers, feeding two identical loudspeakers.
*(the only difference being one is a robust design able to double down)

The identical loads possess a demanding impedance trough, whereby the robust design accurately doubles down, the lesser design does not.

How is that not a compromise?
Thanks
post #66 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

You may be right, perhaps someone could explain to me why it wouldn't compromise fidelity.

Scenario;
Two essentially* identical amplifiers, feeding two identical loudspeakers.
*(the only difference being one is a robust design able to double down)

The identical loads possess a demanding impedance trough, whereby the robust design accurately doubles down, the lesser design does not.

How is that not a compromise?
Thanks

Because the "doubling down" is a sham.

Here are two amps

Amp A:

425W @ 8
850W @ 4
1700W @ 2

Amp B:

700W @ 8
1100W @ 4
1700W @ 2

Amp A is advertised to double down, Amp B is not.

What does amp a have on amp b, other than probably a premium price tag?

Amp b delivers just as much, or more, by rating and certainly you agree if you want to look at it in tems of doubling down then amp b is there too, because if it can do 700w @ 8 and 1100 @ 4, certainly it can also do 425 @ 8 and 850 @ 4.

If you are not comparing amps at the same minimum impedance/max load they'll encounter in your use then you're not comparing apples to apples.
Edited by whoaru99 - 9/23/13 at 11:58am
post #67 of 93
I think what is more important than doubling down is amps actually giving the correct power that the manufacturer says they do. If the amps did that than this would be a non topic. Behringer says that their ep4000 puts out 4000 watts. When bench tested it put out 1900 watts bridged @2ohms. The inuke6000 was listed at 6000 watts and when bench tested it produced 1800 watts per channel stereo @4ohms. Both amps listed had documented issues doing that as well.
post #68 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

How does one easily measure the power going into speakers? With a wattmeter? confused.gif

Yes. But it isn't your day to day kill-o-watt for $19.99 from amazon.

Your definition of easy and mine are probably different. That is the reason why I said a "technician" and not "home enthusiast". But you are correct that measuring "real power" going into a speaker is a bit more difficult, but it isn't much harder as long as you believe what your amplifier can do.

Once our basement is done, I plan on doing a bit of this since it would be "fun" (what geeks find fun is always amusing). It is probably something of value I can share with the community since I have access to that gear in spades. Might as well use my MSEE for something other than 1MW+ power converters. tongue.gif There is a huge mass of learned knowledge in this sub-forum. By huge...I mean, it could take me a year to even start getting a 1/10th of the wisdom some of you have learned by hard-knocks. However, I understand physics pretty darn well; usually that wisdom can be "measured".

Note: I very much dislike heavy amplifiers. It almost always stinks of passive rectification, excessive capacitance, and over-iron'd transformers. While tried and true, the massive current spikes at line voltage peaks makes me cry a little inside. Active front ends are superior in nearly every way as long as engineered properly (they do need feed forward compensation). They are lighter, cheaper, more reliable, and most importantly allows you more complete access to that lovely dedicated breaker you installed for your amplifier smile.gif While Class D,G,H, etc front ends are very prolific..it took a while for the backend to catch up. Probably a reason why the IPR2 series from Preavy makes me giggle a bit. Finally it seems that for things where you need "thump", there is a good and cost effective solution.
post #69 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pain Infliction View Post

I think what is more important than doubling down is amps actually giving the correct power that the manufacturer says they do. If the amps did that than this would be a non topic. Behringer says that their ep4000 puts out 4000 watts. When bench tested it put out 1900 watts bridged @2ohms. The inuke6000 was listed at 6000 watts and when bench tested it produced 1800 watts per channel stereo @4ohms. Both amps listed had documented issues doing that as well.

Sure. Giving real power output specs would be great. FTC ratings for consumer gear tried to put some common methodology to it many years ago when mfgs were giving all kinds of crazy high figures, but not sure that applies to pro gear or if that rating methology is even in use anymore or has been watered down.
post #70 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

Arguably it is about watts because it is power that does the work.
It's about watts because that's what the industry has made it about for the last sixty odd years,

Its about steady state watts of a pure sine wave because in the beginning, audio power amps were equated with AC power generating stations illuminating light bulbs, and measured basically the same way. A steady amount of power at a single frequency being delivered to a constant resistive load. Simple, common sense.

FTC power is a pretty good way to measure that.

Of course that is not how we use audio power amps, and never was.
Quote:
thus it's the only gauge that the consumer has to judge by, even though it's about as useless a gauge as can be imagined. That's understandable enough, as asking the average consumer to deal with Ohm's Law, impedance, displacement, sensitivity, frequency response, voltage swing and current draw is a bit much. But most of those who frequent this particular forum do not fall into the category of 'average consumer'.

The biggest deviation between FTC power and real world power is the crest factor of the audio signal. FTC power's sine waves have a crest factor of 3 dB, while the practical minimum crest factor for audio signals is 6 dB and runs up to 20 dB or more. This comes about because music is both dynamic and also composed of multiple frequencies.

The other large deviation comes from the impedance curves of loudspeakers. A few speakers actually have fairly consistent impedance curves (Magnepans for example). But the rest generally have impedance curves that vary by 10:1 or so. Some of the largest variations in speaker impedance happen right smack dab in the range where subwoofers operate.

The biggest problem I see with testing amps under realistic conditions is figuring out and agreeing on which realistic condition that everybody will use.
post #71 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trepidati0n View Post

Yes. But it isn't your day to day kill-o-watt for $19.99 from amazon. Your definition of easy and mine are probably different. That is the reason why I said a "technician" and not "home enthusiast". But you are correct that measuring "real power" going into a speaker is a bit more difficult, but it isn't much harder as long as you believe what your amplifier can do.
I'm more than a bit familiar with how one measures the actual power delivered to a speaker, and it's by no means an easy task. Where quantifying the capacity of an amp to give, and a speaker to receive, voltage swing is a far more useful measurement than watts, it's a very easy measurement to deal with, and a $19.99 meter is all you need to do it. In pro-sound we seldom talk about watts at all, it's usually volts, because we use limiters to protect our speakers, and you set limiters based on volts, not watts, because measuring the output voltage of an amp is such a simple affair.
post #72 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trepidati0n View Post

Yes. But it isn't your day to day kill-o-watt for $19.99 from amazon. Your definition of easy and mine are probably different. That is the reason why I said a "technician" and not "home enthusiast". But you are correct that measuring "real power" going into a speaker is a bit more difficult, but it isn't much harder as long as you believe what your amplifier can do.
I'm more than a bit familiar with how one measures the actual power delivered to a speaker, and it's by no means an easy task.

Agreed, but it is also far from mission impossible, nor does it require specialized hardware, Just a 2 channel audio interface and the right software, as I'm sure you know.

But such a measurement has questionable utility.
Quote:
Where quantifying the capacity of an amp to give, and a speaker to receive, voltage swing is a far more useful measurement than watts, it's a very easy measurement to deal with, and a $19.99 meter is all you need to do it.

Agreed. Current wisdom is that we can find what we need to know from a speaker impedance curve, and a simple voltage measurement. I can't think of what useful thing we can't find from those.
Quote:
In pro-sound we seldom talk about watts at all, it's usually volts, because we use limiters to protect our speakers, and you set limiters based on volts, not watts, because measuring the output voltage of an amp is such a simple affair.

+1
post #73 of 93
SAME AND LIKE BUILD QUALITY SOMEONE SAID. HERE IS A 35 LB STEEL BARBELL WEIGHT, THE APPROXIMATE DIFFERENCE IN THE WEIGHT OF THESE TWO AMPLIFIERS. Marathon at 58 lbs Cerwin vega at 88lbs
post #74 of 93
When this thread started out it should have been titled, marathon vs pyle pro actual output. as both those name brands do not produce an amplifier anywhere near the quality of the cerwin vega cv 5000. Thats why my marathon ma 5050s are paperweights now, and why i bought four cerwin vega cv 5000. SUC51657.JPG
Edited by johnplayerson - 9/24/13 at 12:20pm
post #75 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post


Because the "doubling down" is a sham.

Here are two amps

Amp A:

425W @ 8
850W @ 4
1700W @ 2

Amp B:

700W @ 8
1100W @ 4
1700W @ 2

Amp A is advertised to double down, Amp B is not.

What does amp a have on amp b, other than probably a premium price tag?

Amp b delivers just as much, or more, by rating and certainly you agree if you want to look at it in tems of doubling down then amp b is there too, because if it can do 700w @ 8 and 1100 @ 4, certainly it can also do 425 @ 8 and 850 @ 4.

If you are not comparing amps at the same minimum impedance/max load they'll encounter in your use then you're not comparing apples to apples.

Doubling down is generally a physical impossibility unless someone goes to the trouble to add a negative impedance power supply or some such technical hijinks. Doable, but why?

I have to admit that since switchmode power supplies are coming into vogue, we may actually see negative impedance power supplies. The last one I know of in a commercial amp was the Dyna 120:

http://home.comcast.net/~g.e.dunn/ST120/schem1.jpg

If an amp is rated to double down, the feature was probably obtained by derating it at the higher load impedances.
post #76 of 93
I know an amp company that told me about the double down BS going on and companies using that as a marketing tool. They told me their amps were tested at 250 watts per channel into 8 ohms, 450 watts into 4 ohms, and 700 watts into 2 ohms. A competitor would rate a similar amp at 150, 300, and 600 watts. Since it doubled down it was considered higher current, higher end, and more expensive. So the company started rating their amps as 200 watts at 8 ohms, 400 watts into 4 ohms, and 700 into 2. It is a numbers game! Doubling down is crap.
post #77 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Doubling down is generally a physical impossibility unless someone goes to the trouble to add a negative impedance power supply or some such technical hijinks.

If an amp is rated to double down, the feature was probably obtained by derating it at the higher load impedances.

I fully agree, hence the "sham" comment.

Sure, there may be a few that actually (as opposed to those that merely claim to) come close to truly doubling down without the derating game, but those are quite rare having stiffly regulated output rails or other hijinks as you say.

And, I agree too, why?

If the amp covers the needs of the lowest impedance load you have, then whether it gets there by doubling down, or not, is irrelevant.
post #78 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Current wisdom is that we can find what we need to know from a speaker impedance curve, and a simple voltage measurement. I can't think of what useful thing we can't find from those.
Just to ask a possibly daft question...


... is it possible / worthwhile to add in a simple tool inbetween the amp and the drivers to show what voltage is being passed?

I'm just thinking re: the 95v max safe input that seems to be suggested by the Josh Ricci test results of the SI18 sealed box, as I am aiming for a CV5000 giving 1250w to each SI18, so if the above is possible/worthwhile then you could monitor the volts easily??
post #79 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemX View Post

... is it possible / worthwhile to add in a simple tool inbetween the amp and the drivers to show what voltage is being passed?
A voltmeter.
Quote:
I'm just thinking re: the 95v max safe input that seems to be suggested by the Josh Ricci test results of the SI18 sealed box, as I am aiming for a CV5000 giving 1250w to each SI18, so if the above is possible/worthwhile then you could monitor the volts easily??
You can monitor it, but damage can occur in the blink of an eye. A limiter that brickwalls the amp output voltage is what you need if you're in the habit of running the speakers near their limit.
post #80 of 93
http://www.design-mate.com/

Here is the Company that makes the cerwin vega 5000 as well as licences its amplifiers to the many names of Samson, cerwin vega, american audio, b52 power amplifiers
etc. They make a quality product, and obviously many companies are willing to pay to put their name brand on the amplifier. The prices are good because economic scale can be achieved. Marathon is just a little spec of dust on the earth trying to make some money. I don't know who makes their amplifier other than some company in china. There amplifiers are only theirs and no one elses.

HPA electonic. Looks like they have a really nice class d series too.
post #81 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

If you are not comparing amps at the same minimum impedance/max load they'll encounter in your use then you're not comparing apples to apples.

But I am, the loads are the same;
"The identical loads possess a demanding impedance trough"



I understand your other contentions, and you make valid points.

However, your previous statement;
"There is nothing compromised if an amp doesn't double down."
How can that possibly be, by definition?


Respectfully, I disagree, I'd characterize it as clearly compromised.
An amp that has a capability to appropriately "double down" at the most demanding bottom of the saddle impedance point of the load, is more desirable than the same amplifier that doesn't possess that capability.


Now I do agree with regard to bogus claims, there's often spec'manship, etc, and all kinds of smoke and mirrors. I'm merely saying/(asking ?), ... a less robust amp, that can't appropriately double down into whatever the load minimum is, as opposed to the otherwise same but more robust amp, that can double down into the minimum load, one is compromised relative to the other. The compromise is the overall robustness, or current capability into low impedances.



Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

I fully agree, hence the "sham" comment.

Sure, there may be a few that actually (as opposed to those that merely claim to) come close to truly doubling down without the derating game, but those are quite rare having stiffly regulated output rails or other hijinks as you say.

And, I agree too, why?

If the amp covers the needs of the lowest impedance load you have, then whether it gets there by doubling down, or not, is irrelevant.

Here's an example why I think it would be relevant.
Stereo, 2 channel playback, the loudspeakers present a tough load approaching 2-3ohms at some frequencies. All else being equal, playback with the compromised amp would be more anemic than playback with the more robust amp.


How is this incorrect? Perhaps we're discussing two different things, I don't know. Amplification isn't squarely in my wheelhouse, so if I'm wrong I'm quite interested in understanding the point you're trying to convey.

Thanks
post #82 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

But I am, the loads are the same;
"The identical loads possess a demanding impedance trough"

Ahh, but you are not comparing apples to apples. You qualified the load, but left out of the snip/quote the part I said about amp performance being the same at that point.

Of course if one amp can't put out as much power as another at 2 ohms (or whatever) it's compromised in comparison regarding output. But, that has nothing to do with doubling down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post


Here's an example why I think it would be relevant.
Stereo, 2 channel playback, the loudspeakers present a tough load approaching 2-3ohms at some frequencies. All else being equal, playback with the compromised amp would be more anemic than playback with the more robust amp.


How is this incorrect? Perhaps we're discussing two different things, I don't know. Amplification isn't squarely in my wheelhouse, so if I'm wrong I'm quite interested in understanding the point you're trying to convey.

Thanks

The point you're stuck on is the backwards approach many seem to have when thinking about this.

To imply that doubling down is better (or somehow necessary for uncompromised performance) means one fundamentally approached amp selection backwards. Why are you looking to the 8 ohm specifications and doubling down from there as a means to get what you want/need for the 2-3 ohm impedance trough you mentioned? Why not just pick the amp based on knowing what you need/want at that 2-3 ohm point?

IOW, if you pick the amp based on meeting your requirements at the point of lowest impedance, then everything at higher impedance/less load works out automatically, i.e., the amp "halfs up".

Refer back to my earlier examples of Amp A and Amp B. I don't know how make it any more clear than that. Both amps have the same power at your point of concern, and Amp B will " half up" just fine to 850 @ 4 or 425 @ 8, if that's what the impedance curve dictates will happen the load on the amp. Hence, the doubling down of Amp A is irrelevant if you are actually comparing apples to apples in terms of amp capability at the point of max load/min applied impedance.

Maybe a more clear way to put it is if you want/need (for example) 2000W at 2 ohms, then buy an amp that does 2000W at two ohms. It does not have to double down to get there because Ohms Law dictates it will inherently "half up" at 4 ohms and again at 8 ohms, precluding the illusion of compromise you're stuck on.
Edited by whoaru99 - 9/26/13 at 12:30pm
post #83 of 93
smile.gif

It's all good, you are perfectly clear. I understand your example and that's not what I take exception to.

If you're merely focusing on amp selection, not amp design/capability, then we're just going in circles unnecessarily. If not, I always thought amp designers attempting to make an amplifier possess greater low impedance capability/performance was a worthy endeavor.


It's ok if you disagree, no problem it's my opinion. The less robust design is a compromise in my opinion.

The example you gave .. came after what I disagreed about. I've got no problem with the amp selection angle.

However, my example in the above post, is that incorrect?
"Stereo, 2 channel playback, the loudspeakers present a tough load approaching 2-3ohms at some frequencies. All else being equal, playback with the compromised amp would be more anemic than playback with the more robust amp."

And if that doesn't apply, that's cool too.
post #84 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

smile.gif


However, my example in the above post, is that incorrect?
"Stereo, 2 channel playback, the loudspeakers present a tough load approaching 2-3ohms at some frequencies. All else being equal, playback with the compromised amp would be more anemic than playback with the more robust amp."

And if that doesn't apply, that's cool too.


In this context, this point isn't even relevant because you've already laid out the amp you're holding as example is fundamentally compromised because it has less output, but that has zero to do with doubling down.

So, if your bottom line point is that you can choose a weakling amp, sure, of course, but, again, that has nothing to do with doubling down. That's just basic choice of the wrong amp.
post #85 of 93
"So now we have broken through the voltage limits of the input stage. Power
Mosfets are commonly available to 200 volt ratings, which sets the next
voltage limitation at +/-100 Volt rails. This could give us 600 watts rms into 8
ohms. Probably best not to try that with this particular circuit."

The above quoted from a published amplifier diy build. Note you need approx 100 volt rails to get 600 watts RMS. RMS is usually near one half of the peak power
performance. Pro amps keep mentioning watts per channel and leaving out the RMS part. They are usually giving us peak power ratings.

"Power bandwidth: 5 Hz to 60,000 Hz. This is the frequency range over which the amplifier can put out
substantial amounts of power. Although not mentioned, it is likely that the frequency limits given represent
the "half power" points. In other words, In the case of an amplifier rated at 1000 watts.
the amp can put out (at least) 500 watts at 5 Hz and also at 60,000 Hz.
At points in between it will put out more power (the full 1000 watts a channel is valid for frequencies of 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz).
Basically, the wider the power bandwidth the better, although in some cases an extra wide band can lead to problems."

The above quote a slight modification from Joeys power amplifier page. You are basically looking at half the 20 to 20000 spec
at the 5hz level and going up as frequency increases. For subwoofer duty you will get half the rated power rms or half the
peak power RMS, Given most crossover frequencies used for home audio are very low, (I use 67 hz) and most are well under 150 hz,
makes the lower specification, and lower frequency reproduction, much more important.

Not that you can rely on marathons specs, lets face it, they can't even get the weight right!. However they list the bottom
range at 15hz, where the cerwin vega cv 5000 goes below 5 hz! but has a sub rolloff circuit at 5 hz. Therefore the marathon
loses half its power much earlier than the cerwin vega power amp. While i trust the 5hz spec of the vega amp. I do not believe
the 15 hz spec of the marathon, because i personnally had to cut out everything below 30 hz just to get a more controlled
cone motion. I would rate the marathon at losing half its power at 30 hz, based on actual use. The cerwin vega cv 5000s
I now run with the low cut set to "OUT". I no longer need the low cut setting and have 100 percent accurate and controled
cone motion. (no undesirable waving in the wind from uncontrolled sub audio).

It is obvious the marathon amplifier was made a cheaply as possible to get by with the needs of banquet hall use etc,
where only 40 hz and up bass would be required. It is unfortunate many bought these for home theater use, However this happened
because before 2003, marathon was the only cheap high powered amplifier vs what else was available at the time. For the cheap price
the amplifier served its purpose.

In 2003 Hpa electronic corporation was established and engineers hired etc. They began making power amplifiers under the Hpa name
in Europe. At the same time all of HPA electronics offerings were licenced to names like American audio V 6001, Samson SX series, Cerwing vega
Cv series, Stanton A series, (before cerwin vega), etc in the American and Western markets. B52 Us 6000 and b52 us series
amplifiers being the newest companies to licence same amplifiers, under their own name.

It is this new Company that brought us these great amplifiers that you can find people raving about all over the planet, talking of there
good sound , and robust output, at an extremely attractive price point. The Amplifiers were created from scratch by engineers and
Hpa electronics, and they did in fact make them with pretty good quality.

Samson sx series and cerwin vega cv series, are the same amplifiers from Hpa. All of them are Hpa amplifiers , just some are higher output
and some lower. Although I have 4 cv 5000, 4 sx 3200 and 5 cv 2800, you may as well call them all Hpa amplfiers as this is what they all are.
Lots who do not do the research think they are buying a name brands proprietary manufacturing, but this is not the case!!.
Edited by johnplayerson - 9/28/13 at 7:26am
post #86 of 93
Here is to the person who said Weight vs performance is another whole thread lol.

2000 va toroid 14.65 kgs
1200 va toroid 10 kgs
1000 va toroid 8.8 Kgs.

It is a matter of fact that weight is directly proportional to power supply output in these high output unregulated designs.
So there it is in a nutshell in only one post, not a whole thread!!.
I found a 2000 va toroid for 299.00 It was 7.5 inch wide, 3.7 inch high and weighed 14.65kg.

How much you want to bet you measure the toroids and find the cv 5000 with the biggest , the older marathon ma 5050 with the next biggest, and the newer marathon ma 5050 with the smallest!!!. You need a 2000 va toroid to produce 1000 watts rms.

Or is that a whole new thread?
Edited by johnplayerson - 9/29/13 at 1:55pm
post #87 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnplayerson View Post

Pro amps keep mentioning watts per channel and leaving out the RMS part.

Most reputable pro companies don't use the RMS term because it's an erronious way to reference power.
post #88 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

Most reputable pro companies don't use the RMS term because it's an erronious way to reference power.
And peak power, music power, peak music power, or any of the other spurious terms used to artificially inflate power ratings aren't? 'RMS watts' may not be a technically correct term, but it's still the best method of comparison devoid of advertising BS.
post #89 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

Most reputable pro companies don't use the RMS term because it's an erronious way to reference power.

It isn't that it is erronious (sic), it is that RMS isn't a real unit. Since it isn't real, people can easily misuse it. A fair rant on the topic: http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/misc/rmspower.htm

However, "crest factor" is almost as bad for me when people reference it to "power" since it uses that same "RMS" feature and people use that wrong repeatedly. Then they miss the square on top of it and it boggles my mind.
post #90 of 93
"rms power" is just jargon/shorthand for "power based on rms voltage" me thinks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Marathon and Cerwin Vega actual output?