While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit too sanguine, it
seems, but maybe it's just my sample. With a little more conservative
speccing the numbers could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

Aczel said it is not as well made in some respects as more expensive
products, but the sound is transparent. There is a slight rolloff at 20kHz
but most people would not be able to hear it, and he considers that a bit
too much. The face plate is somewhat flimsy, but the heat sinks are
substantial as is the transformer.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at $180.00 and a one year
warranty it's still a bargain and worth taking a chance on.

Certainly it would be excellent as a subwoofer amp and with only a .6dB
rolloff at 20 kHz, there's no reason it couldn't be the amp for driving main
speakers.

The A 500 also holds up well into 2 ohm loads which is very unusual for an
inexpensive amp.
So, if you are looking for the first set of separates and want a power amp
and want to save a heap of money, there is nothing else that compares.

wrote in message
nk.net...

FRAUD ALERT!!!!!

duh-Mikey is apparently auditioning to be a shill for K-Mart.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at $180.00 and a one year
warranty it's still a bargain and worth taking a chance on.

Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

duh-Mikey is apparently auditioning to be a shill for K-Mart.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at $180.00 and a one year
warranty it's still a bargain and worth taking a chance on.

Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

FRAUD ALERT!!!!!



So, you're finally confessing?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


duh-Mikey is apparently auditioning to be a shill for K-Mart.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at $180.00 and a one year
warranty it's still a bargain and worth taking a chance on.

Sounds cheesy.

Speaks to your inability to understand what makes an amplifier work.
The faceplate may be flimsy but the transformer and the heatsinks are
massive.
Who else makes an amp for $180.00 that can handle 2 ohm loads?

Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

Bad advice, since the A500 is an excellent choice for a first system or for
somebody on a tight budget, or for someone who wants to beef up the power to
a subwoofer. 500 watts in bridged mode should make most subwoofers very
happy.

wrote in message
.net...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


duh-Mikey is apparently auditioning to be a shill for K-Mart.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at $180.00 and a one
year
warranty it's still a bargain and worth taking a chance on.

Sounds cheesy.

Speaks to your inability to understand what makes an amplifier work.
The faceplate may be flimsy but the transformer and the heatsinks are
massive.
Who else makes an amp for $180.00 that can handle 2 ohm loads?

**NAD did for less money more than 2 decades ago.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a better
job.

wrote:

While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

It is *shockingly* UGLY though !

Graham

"George M. Middius" wrote:

duh-Mikey is apparently auditioning to be a shill for K-Mart.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at $180.00 and a one year
warranty it's still a bargain and worth taking a chance on.

Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

It's $180 because Behringer don't make the 'mark-up' that most other companies
do.

I've examined some of their gear very closely and it's hard to fault.

Never *exceptional* performance - but competent - and excellent value.

Graham

RapidRonnie wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a better
job.

Behringer's EP series amnplifers are a near 'clone' of QSC's RMX series.
Right down to the internal layout, the size of the heatsink and the output
transistors used.

I question the morality of apparently 'ripping off' other companies'
designs but you're mistaken if you think their product is defective by
design in any way.

They had a bad rep years back but many pros are in fact happy to recommend
them these days. I've done so myself on occasions. Check out the pro groups
if you don't believe me.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
RapidRonnie wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a better
job.

Behringer's EP series amnplifers are a near 'clone' of QSC's RMX series.
Right down to the internal layout, the size of the heatsink and the output
transistors used.

I question the morality of apparently 'ripping off' other companies'
designs but you're mistaken if you think their product is defective by
design in any way.

It's not a ripoff to use a common configuration with another
manufacturer unless they have secured some form of trade protection for
their configuration. The small block Chevy V8 engine, the Fender guitar
and bass, the M1911 pistol are all examples where everyone makes their
stuff interchange. Indeed the computer you are at now is probably an
IBM "ripoff" to some degree. Even Apple Macintosh use "industry
standard" ATX motherboards, USB keyboards and mice, and ATA (IDE)
interface hard drives.

I don't call Behringer defective. I do call them cheap, really cheap.

Pooh Bear wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote:

duh-Mikey is apparently auditioning to be a shill for K-Mart.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at $180.00 and a one year
warranty it's still a bargain and worth taking a chance on.

Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

It's $180 because Behringer don't make the 'mark-up' that most other companies
do.

I've examined some of their gear very closely and it's hard to fault.

Never *exceptional* performance - but competent - and excellent value.

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

"RapidRonnie" wrote in message
ups.com
Pooh Bear wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote:

duh-Mikey is apparently auditioning to be a shill for
K-Mart.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at
$180.00 and a one year warranty it's still a bargain
and worth taking a chance on.

Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that
bottom-out imitation, donate the money to a charity and
stick with your walkman.

It's $180 because Behringer don't make the 'mark-up'
that most other companies do.

Behringer also seems to know how to keep production costs low, while
maintaining reasonable quality.

I've examined some of their gear very closely and it's
hard to fault.

Never *exceptional* performance - but competent - and
excellent value.

Agreed.

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

If you look at how msot Berhinger gear is made, its likely that the direct
labor content is very low.

RapidRonnie wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
RapidRonnie wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a better
job.

Behringer's EP series amnplifers are a near 'clone' of QSC's RMX series.
Right down to the internal layout, the size of the heatsink and the output
transistors used.

I question the morality of apparently 'ripping off' other companies'
designs but you're mistaken if you think their product is defective by
design in any way.

It's not a ripoff to use a common configuration with another
manufacturer unless they have secured some form of trade protection for
their configuration.

Behringer appear to have copied more than just the 'configuration'. I've only
seen pics of the internals so can't comment in too much detail but I *can* tell
you that Sekaku also copied the RMX design *down to the level of even using the
same component reference numbers* on the circuit boards.

The small block Chevy V8 engine, the Fender guitar
and bass, the M1911 pistol are all examples where everyone makes their
stuff interchange. Indeed the computer you are at now is probably an
IBM "ripoff" to some degree. Even Apple Macintosh use "industry
standard" ATX motherboards, USB keyboards and mice, and ATA (IDE)
interface hard drives.

I don't call Behringer defective. I do call them cheap, really cheap.

To be accurate, they're inexpensive. Anyone thinking the performance is 'cheap'
as in 'cheap and cheerful' is very mistaken.

Graham

RapidRonnie wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote:

duh-Mikey is apparently auditioning to be a shill for K-Mart.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at $180.00 and a one year
warranty it's still a bargain and worth taking a chance on.

Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

It's $180 because Behringer don't make the 'mark-up' that most other companies
do.

I've examined some of their gear very closely and it's hard to fault.

Never *exceptional* performance - but competent - and excellent value.

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

What *isn't* these days ?

Graham

RapidRonnie said:

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

So these are "sweatshop" electronics built by children working in
indentured servitude in disgraceful and inhumane conditions?

Poopie said:

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

What *isn't* these days ?

Cars, televisions, dishwashers, loudspeakers, furniture, and government.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Poopie said:

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps
too.

What *isn't* these days ?

Middius shows how out of touch he is with reality:

Cars,

Some cars. Chinese cars to be imported in 2007 or 2008.

televisions,

Many brands now made in PRC

dishwashers,

http://xiangying.en.alibaba.com/prod...ishwasher.html

loudspeakers,

Much consumer JBL, Berhinger, etc.

furniture,

Apprently Middius doesn't know how to spell Ikea

and government.

See sources listed above. ;-)

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


RapidRonnie said:

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

So these are "sweatshop" electronics built by children working in
indentured servitude in disgraceful and inhumane conditions?



I want to stamp out the eveil perps, with my Nikes.

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie said:

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

What *isn't* these days ?

Cars, televisions, dishwashers, loudspeakers, furniture, and government.

Your list is mistaken. Maybe you just haven't seen them yet.

You won't see many Chinese cars for a bit. The home Chinese market can
absorb as many as they can make. Furniture is probably too heavy to be
economical to transport even by sea freight.

Televisions ( and all types of consumer electronics ) are made in Asia.

Government is your own problem !

Graham

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Poopie said:

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

What *isn't* these days ?

...................., and government.

Can't we outsource that to southeast Asia?

Clyde Slick wrote:

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


RapidRonnie said:

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

So these are "sweatshop" electronics built by children working in
indentured servitude in disgraceful and inhumane conditions?


I want to stamp out the eveil perps, with my Nikes.

You're a cretin.

Graham

"George M. Middius" wrote:

RapidRonnie said:

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

So these are "sweatshop" electronics built by children working in
indentured servitude in disgraceful and inhumane conditions?

Oh yeah - sure. Duh !

I've been round several Chinese factories btw. Including one formerly
used by Behringer and one of the Oritron plants ( QSC's subcontractor
).

http://www.kwanasia.com.cn/kwanasia/.../fac_visit.htm

When the kids are worn out they get taken out - shot and prepared for
lunch too.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


"George M. Middius" wrote:

RapidRonnie said:

Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

So these are "sweatshop" electronics built by children working in
indentured servitude in disgraceful and inhumane conditions?

Oh yeah - sure. Duh !

I've been round several Chinese factories btw. Including one formerly
used by Behringer and one of the Oritron plants ( QSC's subcontractor
).

http://www.kwanasia.com.cn/kwanasia/.../fac_visit.htm

When the kids are worn out they get taken out - shot and prepared for
lunch too.


and an organ harvest, too.

Pooh Bear wrote:
RapidRonnie wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a better
job.

Behringer's EP series amnplifers are a near 'clone' of QSC's RMX series.
Right down to the internal layout, the size of the heatsink and the output
transistors used.

I question the morality of apparently 'ripping off' other companies'
designs but you're mistaken if you think their product is defective by
design in any way.

They had a bad rep years back but many pros are in fact happy to recommend
them these days. I've done so myself on occasions. Check out the pro groups
if you don't believe me.

Graham


I'm not too anxious to support the NYOB's Readers Digest filling up
this forum but copying from here and there he is bound to hit by chance
onto something valuable once or twice amongst the ocean of thrash he
sees fit to reprint.
I own two Behringer equalisers (one for the woofers one for for
midrange.). I bought them on recommendation of Roger Sanders the ELS
man. I had owned quite a few equalisers including two "professional"
brands. Everyone of those cost more and everyone annoyed me by adding
something undesirable of its own to the sound as well as performing its
job.
Behringer is the first equaliser I can not "hear". In addition it does
a great job of equalising narrow bands without overlapping on the
neighbourhood.
One I had was defective and was cheerfully replaced by the Seattle
distributors.
If the amps are of the same quality then we need more cheap stuff like
that.
Ludovic Mirabel

Pooh Bear a écrit :

Clyde Slick wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


RapidRonnie said:


Being built entirely by very, very cheap labor helps too.

So these are "sweatshop" electronics built by children working in
indentured servitude in disgraceful and inhumane conditions?


I want to stamp out the eveil perps, with my Nikes.


You're a cretin.


This is very true.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

quoted:

"What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"


Obviously, that's not enough for you ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


duh-Mikey is apparently auditioning to be a shill for K-Mart.

Reliability is the big unanswered question, but at $180.00 and a one
year
warranty it's still a bargain and worth taking a chance on.

Sounds cheesy.

Speaks to your inability to understand what makes an amplifier work.
The faceplate may be flimsy but the transformer and the heatsinks are
massive.
Who else makes an amp for $180.00 that can handle 2 ohm loads?

**NAD did for less money more than 2 decades ago.


This is today. Nobody else does it TODAY.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


RapidRonnie wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
RapidRonnie wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your
walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC
amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a
better
job.

Behringer's EP series amnplifers are a near 'clone' of QSC's RMX
series.
Right down to the internal layout, the size of the heatsink and the
output
transistors used.

I question the morality of apparently 'ripping off' other companies'
designs but you're mistaken if you think their product is defective by
design in any way.

It's not a ripoff to use a common configuration with another
manufacturer unless they have secured some form of trade protection for
their configuration.

Behringer appear to have copied more than just the 'configuration'. I've
only
seen pics of the internals so can't comment in too much detail but I *can*
tell
you that Sekaku also copied the RMX design *down to the level of even
using the
same component reference numbers* on the circuit boards.


Apparently they don't copy the fans, as I understand the Behringer fans are
more noisy thatn the QSC.


The small block Chevy V8 engine, the Fender guitar
and bass, the M1911 pistol are all examples where everyone makes their
stuff interchange. Indeed the computer you are at now is probably an
IBM "ripoff" to some degree. Even Apple Macintosh use "industry
standard" ATX motherboards, USB keyboards and mice, and ATA (IDE)
interface hard drives.

I don't call Behringer defective. I do call them cheap, really cheap.

To be accurate, they're inexpensive. Anyone thinking the performance is
'cheap'
as in 'cheap and cheerful' is very mistaken.

Graham

wrote in message
oups.com...

Pooh Bear wrote:
RapidRonnie wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a better
job.

Behringer's EP series amnplifers are a near 'clone' of QSC's RMX series.
Right down to the internal layout, the size of the heatsink and the
output
transistors used.

I question the morality of apparently 'ripping off' other companies'
designs but you're mistaken if you think their product is defective by
design in any way.

They had a bad rep years back but many pros are in fact happy to
recommend
them these days. I've done so myself on occasions. Check out the pro
groups
if you don't believe me.

Graham


I'm not too anxious to support the NYOB's Readers Digest filling up
this forum but copying from here and there he is bound to hit by chance
onto something valuable once or twice amongst the ocean of thrash he
sees fit to reprint.
I own two Behringer equalisers (one for the woofers one for for
midrange.). I bought them on recommendation of Roger Sanders the ELS
man. I had owned quite a few equalisers including two "professional"
brands. Everyone of those cost more and everyone annoyed me by adding
something undesirable of its own to the sound as well as performing its
job.
Behringer is the first equaliser I can not "hear". In addition it does
a great job of equalising narrow bands without overlapping on the
neighbourhood.
One I had was defective and was cheerfully replaced by the Seattle
distributors.
If the amps are of the same quality then we need more cheap stuff like
that.
Ludovic Mirabel

You would have most likely done as well, or better,albeit at a higher price,
with Rane or other EQ's.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised, it still winds
up
being a helluva bargain.

It is *shockingly* UGLY though !

Graham

Eye of the beholder.

Never a problem for me anyway. I just want stuff that works and is in the
price range I'm considering. If I can't find something in that range, then
I have to go higher, but with things like amps which have not changed much
in decades, I figured it wouldn't be that hard to do a decent one for a low
cost, otherwise the pro amp market would be considerably smaller.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
quoted:

"What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"


Obviously, that's not enough for you ;-)


They're bridgeable. So maybe it won't be 500 watts, but still enough to
avoid clipping and fine for a sub.
--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


RapidRonnie wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
RapidRonnie wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Sounds cheesy. Instead of flushing away $180 on that bottom-out
imitation, donate the money to a charity and stick with your
walkman.

Behringer is cheap for a reason. I work in the musical instrument
industry and there is a GOOD reason pros pay more for Crown or QSC
amps
over Behringer, Stewart, or other junk amps. Even Peavey does a
better
job.

Behringer's EP series amnplifers are a near 'clone' of QSC's RMX
series.
Right down to the internal layout, the size of the heatsink and the
output
transistors used.

I question the morality of apparently 'ripping off' other companies'
designs but you're mistaken if you think their product is defective by
design in any way.

It's not a ripoff to use a common configuration with another
manufacturer unless they have secured some form of trade protection for
their configuration.

Behringer appear to have copied more than just the 'configuration'. I've
only
seen pics of the internals so can't comment in too much detail but I *can*
tell
you that Sekaku also copied the RMX design *down to the level of even
using the
same component reference numbers* on the circuit boards.


Apparently they don't copy the fans, as I understand the Behringer fans are
more noisy thatn the QSC.

I assume they use a different brand. They are both standard 80mm sq 24V DC
'boxer style' fans. In their intended application ( sound reinforcement ) one
expects some fan noise from the amp rack anyway. It's hardly likely to figure on
one's decision list.

Graham

said:

"What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"


Obviously, that's not enough for you ;-)


They're bridgeable. So maybe it won't be 500 watts, but still enough to
avoid clipping and fine for a sub.


I know, I was teasing you a little.

But I still wonder why I never felt the need for more than 20 V rms at
the speaker's terminals, that is incredibly loud to me.
And my speakers don't have average sensitivity, they're only 84 dB/w/m
(2.83V) per channel.
Granted, there are 2 in parallel on each channel, which would make a
total of 87 dB/w/m per channel.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit too sanguine, it
seems, but maybe it's just my sample. With a little more conservative
speccing the numbers could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low bias, Class AB design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough amplifiers of this type to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated, expectations should be
minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does that mean we really
want it in our systems? This is not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity."

Most people on r.a.o. want the best. That's what "high fidelity" is about.

Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit too sanguine, it
seems, but maybe it's just my sample. With a little more conservative
speccing the numbers could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low bias, Class AB design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough amplifiers of this type to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated, expectations should be
minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does that mean we really
want it in our systems? This is not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity."

Most people on r.a.o. want the best. That's what "high fidelity" is about.

What makes you think it's narrow bandwidth ? What part of the specs made you
think that ?

Graham

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised,
it still winds up being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit
too sanguine, it seems, but maybe it's just my sample.
With a little more conservative speccing the numbers
could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"
The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth,

Where in the spec sheet do you find that?

low bias,

Where in the spec sheet do you find that?

Class AB design.

OK

Sure, it generates power, but I've
heard enough amplifiers of this type to expect
mediocrity.

All the time avoiding level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests.

And when specs are exaggerated, expectations
should be minimized.

Actually, there's a lot to be said for listening with an open mind.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does
that mean we really want it in our systems? This is not
"high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity."

Actually Bob, it probably sounds better than the tired worn-out carp you say
that you diefy.

Most people on r.a.o. want the best. That's what "high
fidelity" is about.

I think that what most of us really want is the best sound quality possible
given our budget and other resources. If the A500 passes a straight-wire
bypass test with a real-world speaker load, then it's doing its job.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is advertised, it still winds
up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit too sanguine, it
seems, but maybe it's just my sample. With a little more conservative
speccing the numbers could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed
of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low bias, Class AB
design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough amplifiers of this type
to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated, expectations should be
minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does that mean we really
want it in our systems? This is not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity."

Most people on r.a.o. want the best. That's what "high fidelity" is
about.

What makes you think it's narrow bandwidth ? What part of the specs made
you
think that ?

Graham

It's -1dB around 25 kHz. Reviewer remarked it's a little soft.
My Acoustats have a 300 kHz full power bandwidth.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message ...


Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...
While not quite as powerful in reality as is
advertised, it still winds up
being a helluva bargain.

An excerpt: "The specifications of the A500 are a bit
too sanguine, it seems, but maybe it's just my sample.
With a little more conservative speccing the numbers
could be right-on and still nothing to be ashamed of.
What's wrong with a 120/120-watt amplifier?"

The specs reveal that this is a narrow bandwidth, low
bias, Class AB design.
Sure, it generates power, but I've heard enough
amplifiers of this type to
expect mediocrity. And when specs are exaggerated,
expectations should be minimized.

Of course, it's cheap, and it weighs 18 lbs, but does
that mean we really want it in our systems? This is
not "high fidelity." It's "OK fidelity." Most people on r.a.o. want the
best. That's what "high
fidelity" is about.

What makes you think it's narrow bandwidth ? What part
of the specs made you
think that ?

Graham

It's -1dB around 25 kHz. Reviewer remarked it's a little
soft.

-1 dB at 25 KHz is highly unlikely to be audible. Most SS amps are -0.5 dB
or more down at 20 KHz into their rated load.

My Acoustats have a 300 kHz full power bandwidth.

Sonically irrelevant, but since Bob believes it is true, he *hears* it.