"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Since the consensus here seems to
indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler
amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to
obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier.

Your typical Crown, QSC, or Hafler would probably
bury a Carver when it comes to difficult loads.

"would probably"... how would you know, Mr. no-empirical-experiences?

Given the rather conspicious reliable evidence that I've got considerable
emperical experience with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask
what the heck are you ranting about, Powell?

Krell, Levinson and others
could be said to "bury" your biased picks, too.

True, there's no theoretical limit to how much an amp can be underrated.

I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms.

Consider the fact that your typical Crown, QSC or Hafler has
4-ohm bridged ratings. That correspond to a 2 ohm load.

Why is that relevant (bridging) to the poster's
application/needs?

See former comments about "difficult loads" and comment just above about "2
ohm load".

RMS load rating is not
the major determinant in high fidelity reproduction.

So Powell, does that mean that your main system with speakers has power amps
rated at 100 milliwatts, RMS? Of course not. There's at least a loose
relationship between RMS power ratings and ability to drive speakers to
useful volume levels. In fact there's no other spec that is vastly
different, and more relevant.

It is only one factor of many to consider.

Name a commonly-used amplifier spec that is vastly different and also a
better predictor of an amps ability to drive speakers to satisfying levels.

I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power
meters on the front.

I'd trade a really sensitive, accurate clipping light for fancy
meters in a heart beat.

Quack, quack, quack...

So Powell, does that mean that given the chance, you took the fancy meters
that impress visiting-firemen and small children?