Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="n2audio" data-source="post: 2534508" data-attributes="member: 540940">1) that was for the 1500d2) the 981w (not 930) was at 13v and .66% thdI think that test might have been intended specifically to make HF look bad.I don&#039;t know why they would have recorded power at 13v and .66%.&nbsp; If they had at least given it 1% it probably would have eclipsed 1kw and wouldn&#039;t have looked quite so bad.And the THD spec at 1360w is skewed, too.If you look at a THD curve for any amp (any chart I&#039;ve ever seen) THD increases very slowly vs power up to about 1%.&nbsp; Usually, right around 1% THD rises at a MUCH higher rate than power.The point is, at 1% thd there wouldn&#039;t have been much decrease in power vs 10%.&nbsp; I&#039;d be willing to bet it was right around 1300w, which is about what most of us would expect out of a 1500w brutus.&nbsp; And there wouldn&#039;t have been that 10% jumping out so negatively.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="n2audio, post: 2534508, member: 540940"] 1) that was for the 1500d 2) the 981w (not 930) was at 13v and .66% thd I think that test might have been intended specifically to make HF look bad. I don't know why they would have recorded power at 13v and .66%. If they had at least given it 1% it probably would have eclipsed 1kw and wouldn't have looked quite so bad. And the THD spec at 1360w is skewed, too. If you look at a THD curve for any amp (any chart I've ever seen) THD increases very slowly vs power up to about 1%. Usually, right around 1% THD rises at a MUCH higher rate than power. The point is, at 1% thd there wouldn't have been much decrease in power vs 10%. I'd be willing to bet it was right around 1300w, which is about what most of us would expect out of a 1500w brutus. And there wouldn't have been that 10% jumping out so negatively. [/QUOTE]

Verification