@simao yes you can. Which is what I said in my response. Feel free to read it again if you were offended. I was referring you being able, if you wanted, to comment on the govt regulations site that you don't care about the amplifier rule and think it should be removed. |
@simao I honestly do not know the answer to that ie whether or not companies will start being misleading all of a sudden. Certainly I would hope not. The other way I look at this... since I don't know how the ruling will or will not affect things... and it takes me no time at all to just comment on the public website they set up... its that easy. I just get on and post something and hope it makes a difference. It may not be a grand issue in the world but what is when posted on audiogon? If we are all here posting we could easily have taken 1 minute to post on the govt website. |
@millercarbon if that is your opinion could you please explain why it would not be good to have the amplifier rule in place? Or conversely, the positives if the rule was terminated? I'm asking earnestly as I'm not seeing how the rule hurts the industry or doesn't help the industry.
@winoguy17 same |
@russ69 yes. Class AB is the boss but it has hit a ceiling I feel. Innovation is harder to come by in class AB. Mind you I currently run a 5 channel parasound in my HT and love it. On the other hand class D has room to grow. I can say the NAD amp I referenced was cool to the touch but capable of reference levels with a very clean and neutral presentation. I would up returning it because it was almost too neutral and a little dry for my tastes. |
@audio2design I agree with everything you said. If the rule was removed due to lack of action from the community I don't want to hear a single complaint against faulty and misleading specs. |
@rodman99999 why not expect truth in specs? Specs are supposed to tell you the technical aspects of components. An average consumer may assume the denon to produce 140 watts per channel 11 channels driven. The only reason I can quote the 64 wpc is because someone bothered to measure it. |
@winoguy17 yes. Point taken. Was hoping for a discussion about the rule and not so much a blanket statement that the government is incompetent. While that is a completely different topic I am more interested in what the FCC is going to do with the amplifier act.
@ebm why does this not matter to a community that obsesses over specs and manufacturer claims? We argue about amp tech and wpc and distortion etc but a policy that can change all that is not important? Could you explain any further why you do not care about this and think this post is laughable? |
Russ. I think we both can agree on this. There's something special about heavy amp. You bitch and complain as you get it into place but a part of you knows it's the real deal. I love 5 channel amps with two toroids. I auditioned the NAD c298 and it was sp clean and pristine. Class D purifi tech at 180 wpc. It was ultimately too neutral for my liking but I'm sure most would love it.
@eric_squires yes. This is a fair question and I'm not trying to stir any pots... but do you think the future is well made class D amps? I feel like class AB has hit its peak and class A can't get any better. That leaves room for improvement in class D and H. |
@mitch2 yes that us exactly the concern that if the regulations did actually do what they were intended to do, ie hold companies accountable for publishing more accurate specs... then removing the amplifier rule would allow those faulty claims to return. Some audiophiles will argue that specs aren't that important but this is audiogon. Specs are what everyone talks about. I think perhaps the audiophiles here may also have the mentality that they are experienced and already know what companies are good or bad? If one ascribes to this then it completely leaves out the beginners or even intermediate level listeners.
@glupson I honestly do not know the answer to that question but I do think it's equally important. |
@russ69 thank you I appreciate your response. I domt disagree with you. I do think it matters more in the realm of home theater than it does in 2 channel stereo. In 2 channel the reputable players are all fairly reliable. In multichannel home theater however it is a different story. I had a denon x6500h for example that is rated 140 wpc 2 channels driven. Gene tested it with 7 channels driven and the wattage was only 64 wpc or so. I have a 25 wpc naim atom that drives my martin logan speakers just fine. That 25 wpc does not reflect its abilities. |
@rodman99999 first, the statement about my experience with denon was to give an example of what russ was bringing up. It’s an understanding of what he brought up. Denon does not publish their power ratings for 7 channels driven is the "point". They publish it at 140 wpc for 2 channels driven. So without an amplifier rating policy in place (whether or not this would be actually enforced) they could presumably publish their rating as 140 wpc for 7 channels driven. This would be completely false by any count of course. They could also publish distortion at 120db across the whole frequency spectrum if they wanted. Isn’t that point enough for an audiophile to care? |
@unsound yes ideally a manufacturer lists power per channel with all channels driven. The "standard" is 2 channels driven with THD. This would be ideal but I dont think would be enforced any time soon. I would love to see that though. I think Gene is more so thinking to power the LCR and what ratings that might look like. It makes sense if you are running an external power amp or just plain separates. Thanks for your input.
@gone please click the link and comment if you feel that the rule is important. We have until Feb 16th |
@jaytor yes I think the hard-core audiophiles will be just fine but the fledgling and intermediate audiophiles will be lost trying to figure out what amp is best for them when the listed specs do not match with what they can actually get out of their system and what they think they purchased. Imagine the confusion of trying to select the best amp, which is difficult enough as it is, when the specs you are seeing are not even close to truth.
@itsjustme I agree. Part of this call to action is that we can request and demand amendments to the policy. Ie gene has suggested that multi channel amps list their power ratings based on 3 channels driven. I do think peak contious power is important given the transients that come up in both music and HT.
@unsound yes! Please comment in the link I posted. Hopefully it will make a difference in keeping the rule alive.
@erik_squires thank you for your candor. Most audiophiles in this forum are all about what’s "best". The truth is we are all trying to make it work within our environments and our budgets. A retiree who saves up has a chance of spending whatever they want on their system. A go getter who’s trying to make it might be living in an apartment with a tiny listening area. Not suggesting you are one or the other but the point is we are all audiophiles striving for a great sounding system. That is the definition of audiophile. There are no right or wrong answers. I’m not saying specs are the end all... but they are a great start to inform consumers what they are purchasing.
|
@sgreg1 I hope you are right and agree there is now am online community that can hold these companies accountable for bs claims. Frankly seeing the lack of care or maybe just trolls sheds light that many audiophiles feel great about what they know but may not have much sympathy for newbies and the general consumer.
@barts would be hilarious to see someone go into a store and basically lift test a few amps and just walk out with the heaviest one... its really not a bad place to start.
@simao this involves the FTC and not your local reps. By all means I hope you are taking the time to speak up for any of those causes that you listed and actually care about. If this one doesn't strike your fancy you can choose not to comment at all or even comment against the cause and say the amp rule is not necessary (on the regulations.gov site I listed). |
@g_nakamoto If you haven't done so already please comment on the govt response page. The deadline is Feb 16th. That is exactly what this measure aims to stop. |
