Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ctesibius" data-source="post: 6253719" data-attributes="member: 564131">Really?&nbsp; Because the few objective measurements I can find are as follows;<a href="http://pasmag.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;task=view&amp;amp;id=367&amp;amp;Itemid=104" target="_blank">http://pasmag.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;task=view&amp;amp;id=367&amp;amp;Itemid=104</a>Rated:50W x 4 into 4Ω60W x 4 into 2Ω50W x 2 + 120W x 1 (3-channel mode)Measured:53.1 W/ch @ 4Ω74.2 W/ch @ 2Ω73.1W x 2 @ 2Ω + 157.1W bridged @ 4Ω (3-channel mode)<a href="http://www.caraudiomag.com/testreports/0109cae_sony_xm_1502sx_car_amplifier/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.caraudiomag.com/testreports/0109cae_sony_xm_1502sx_car_amplifier/index.html</a>Rated:150 watts x 2 @ 0.04% THD380 watts x 1Measured:195 watts x 2 @ 1.0% THD344 watts x 1 @ 12.6V<a href="http://www.carsound.com/artman2/publish/amplifiers/Sony_XM-D500X_299.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.carsound.com/artman2/publish/amplifiers/Sony_XM-D500X_299.shtml</a>Rated:250w @ 4ohm500w @ 2ohmMeasured:346W @ 4 Ohms553W @ 2 ohmsThe PasMag review seems to be of a pretty current product from the Sony lineup (still available @ Crutchfield), the other 2 are older but still within what most consider to be Sony&#039;s &quot;crap years&quot;.So, again......where are the objective measurements showing Sony are horrendously overrated?&nbsp; Because from the reputable objective measurements I can find, they appear to meet and exceed &quot;RMS&quot; power ratings.As an aside; That slim Sony also had flat frequency response out well beyond both ends of the audible spectrum, and the mono tested by carsound had an impressive efficiency of 90% @ 4ohm &amp;amp; 84% @ 2ohm (full power).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ctesibius, post: 6253719, member: 564131"] Really? Because the few objective measurements I can find are as follows; [URL="http://pasmag.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=367&Itemid=104"]http://pasmag.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=367&Itemid=104[/URL] Rated: 50W x 4 into 4Ω 60W x 4 into 2Ω 50W x 2 + 120W x 1 (3-channel mode) Measured: 53.1 W/ch @ 4Ω 74.2 W/ch @ 2Ω 73.1W x 2 @ 2Ω + 157.1W bridged @ 4Ω (3-channel mode) [URL="http://www.caraudiomag.com/testreports/0109cae_sony_xm_1502sx_car_amplifier/index.html"]http://www.caraudiomag.com/testreports/0109cae_sony_xm_1502sx_car_amplifier/index.html[/URL] Rated: 150 watts x 2 @ 0.04% THD 380 watts x 1 Measured: 195 watts x 2 @ 1.0% THD 344 watts x 1 @ 12.6V [URL="http://www.carsound.com/artman2/publish/amplifiers/Sony_XM-D500X_299.shtml"]http://www.carsound.com/artman2/publish/amplifiers/Sony_XM-D500X_299.shtml[/URL] Rated: 250w @ 4ohm 500w @ 2ohm Measured: 346W @ 4 Ohms 553W @ 2 ohms The PasMag review seems to be of a pretty current product from the Sony lineup (still available @ Crutchfield), the other 2 are older but still within what most consider to be Sony's "crap years". So, again......where are the objective measurements showing Sony are horrendously overrated? Because from the reputable objective measurements I can find, they appear to meet and exceed "RMS" power ratings. As an aside; That slim Sony also had flat frequency response out well beyond both ends of the audible spectrum, and the mono tested by carsound had an impressive efficiency of 90% @ 4ohm & 84% @ 2ohm (full power). [/QUOTE]

Verification