exactly. i was thinking about voulenteering at an animal shelter so i could have the ability to freely choke a kitten every time someone fcuks a thread up by bringing up the rc challenge. that has killed more real discussions that it has helped people. you state "well within power range", well, you get a decent amount under available power, and you will no longer be putting a real load on the amps in question. putting a real load on an amp is where it really shows it's characteristics. take for instance, sony explode 1200watt amp vs jl 250/1. while the sony can actually do close to 600, given different variables, and the jl is rated at 250rms. at about 150watts rms, and under, both amps perform similarly in sub use. however, at 250, the jl has far greater solid output than the sony will at any level. the sony has "poppy" short thumps, as it does quickly deplete the rail voltage supply, and this continues as it finds recovery periods before demanded to output once again. the sum of the jl's rail supply/power management features could be best described as sag prevention and supply sustainability. much of what you are hearing between pretty much all compared amps, is a direct correlation of power management, before the output stage. so, if you demand 95% of the output capability, then you are going to get 95%. however, that is 95% of what? and, how much higher will that supply idle? how long will it take to deplete the stored energy, and what rate will it recover? i would say that the best way is to build different types of bare outputs, and give them the same power supply, switching off different identical preamp ic's/circuits, but to do that, you would need them all powered at the same time from one source, to keep the bias loads active on the power supply the whole time, and i do not know how one stage will effect the other. then, the high voltage needed for tube amps for the same output would not make a tube section feasible.
