On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:55:23 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/14/04 9:23 PM, in article w0lJc.80361$MB3.79518@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:20:24 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John
Atkinson" wrote:
Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.
And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.
Not the point. If *any* amp is rated at 150 watts and only puts out a
couple of tens of watts before clipping, and only 2 watts at 1%
distortion, then it can be dismissed out of hand as a hi-fi amplifier,
as it is basically broken. That some people might *prefer* that
horribly distorted sound is an entirely different matter, having
nothing to do with *high fidelity* sound (see any reference to SET
amps). There are literally dozens of sonically transparent amps on the
market, and none of them approach the ludicrous price level of that
fundamentally incompetent Wavac.
Does it clip? Meaning the saturated output power of the amp stops at less
than 150W meaning there is no level of drive to move the power to 150W? If
so, then the datasheet is wrong.
The datasheet is wrong. Also, consider the excellent Bryston 4B-SST,
which at less than one *hundredth* of the cost of the Wavac, totally
destroys it as a high fidelity amplifier.
While I couldn't afford it - even if I wanted to - it is an abstract notion
of "goodness" vs. "badness" to me. About as useful as how many angles can
dance on the head of a pin.
That would be about 360......... :-)
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering