S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 7/9/2004 9:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"
Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
Got to say amen goFab,
Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.
That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV
without
actually listening to the product.
I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.
Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.
How am I making presumptions?
You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.
I find that you are the one who is extremely presumptious. I *know* that
I do not want to listen to a 2W amp. How could you possible assume that
I would find such an amp worth listening to?
If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?\
Obviously someone did in this particular case.
But not me.
Maybe you would too if you
didn't know ahead of time what you were listening to.
There, you are being presumptious.
Maybe you wouldn't. A lot
of maybes. I found an actual audition of a WAVAC amp to far more informative
than speculation and presumption.
Go ahead and listen for yourself, but please don't argue with me that I
may like a 2W amp.
I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".
It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much
more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.
Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad.
It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.
There's no accounting for taste.
I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.
And your point being?
Read the next line I wrote.
Which was totally irrelevant to my statement that there is no accounting
for taste. Meaning you can't argue about someone else's taste. Meaning
there are many people with taste that you would consider poor.
Are you now saying
that MF may simply have inferior taste?
"Simply"?
Yes, I said simply.
It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.
How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.
Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?
I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.
Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.
If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.
Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.
You mean as in lying?
No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to make
that acusation.
Well, if it's not lying, then it's gross incompetence. Or gross
negligence. Or cheating. Which is it? A typo?
All amps clip at a
certain point.
You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.
We seem to have very different understanding of the word broken.This is my
understanding...1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having undergone or been subjected
to fracture a broken leg : disrupted by change
It's really simple. An amp spec'ed at 150W that clips at 2W is broken
IMO. You can argue semantics all you want.
Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the
signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to
it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?
I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....
You didn't answer the question.
The point is that now you are starting to realize the enormity of the
problem by trying to find out what clipping at 2W means. Now it's your
turn to do some research.
Lets put it another way. An amp that is rated
at 150 watts can produce about 111 db from a speaker that is rated at about 90
db in efficiency right?
111.8 dB SPL at 1 meter.
an amp that clips at 2 watts can do what?
93 dB SPL at 1 meter, or was that a rhetorical question?
You think an amp that clips at 93 dB SPL at 1m is good enough to handle
the dynamics of the kind of music you listen to? Well, it certainly
saves you a lot of money...unless you want this amp by WAVAC.