3e audio A7/A7 Mono Amplifier Review

[Groovy]

Maybe a PA amp would be a better choice for you?

 

[Roland68]

I believe an amplifier's power reserve can't be excessive. Depending on the style of music being listened to, 10 watts may be sufficient for 98% of the listening time, while 100 watts (for example) may be required for the remaining 2%.
If a combination of high-volume listening and a short-term peak in the music occurs, distortion may increase exponentially during that 2% of the listening time.

In my opinion, for Rock and Classical, the maximum available (in financial terms) power reserve is useful.

If you had even taken a quick look at the review and measurements for the A7, you would know that this statement regarding the A7 is nonsense.

100 watts of continuous power poses no problem whatsoever for the A7—though for most loudspeakers, it would certainly pose a problem for your hearing.
Unused headroom in an amplifier—whether it’s 20 watts or 1000 watts—has the exact same effect: absolutely none. The rest is purely in your head; it has neither sonic nor measurable consequences.

 

[TurtlePaul]

If feel like there are plenty of videos online of TPA3255 amps, Fosi in particular, doing 100 watts per channel continuous. Unfortunately I can’t find a test of an a7, but I don’t doubt it could do it.

 

[Argentum 05]

If you had even taken a quick look at the review and measurements for the A7, you would know that this statement regarding the A7 is nonsense.

In fact, I looked into both the measurements and the specifications of the A7 before purchasing the two A7monos.

Unused headroom in an amplifier—whether it’s 20 watts or 1000 watts—has the exact same effect: absolutely none. The rest is purely in your head; it has neither sonic nor measurable consequences.

At the same time, amplifier parameter measurements taken on a test bench provide an idea of its capabilities, but they cannot reflect all possible combinations of factors that may arise during operation with specific speakers and specific musical compositions.
A real-life situation may differ slightly from a laboratory one.
I believe we don't possess ABSOLUTE knowledge that takes into account ALL possible factors.

In this case, any existing power reserve in an amplifier can, if necessary, compensate for such deviations, even if they are a figment of my imagination.
Furthermore, any device whose power is not constantly used at 100%, but is operating at, say, 80% of its capacity, will last longer. Therefore, in my humble opinion, a power reserve of both 20W and 1000W will have an effect. And this effect is positive.

 

[TurtlePaul]

same time, amplifier parameter measurements taken on a test bench provide an idea of its capabilities, but they cannot reflect all possible combinations of factors that may arise during operation with specific speakers and specific musical compositions.
A real-life situation may differ slightly from a laboratory one.
I believe we don't possess ABSOLUTE knowledge that takes into account ALL possible factors.

This is the classic “factors we can’t measure” BS.

The review on page 1 test distortion per power level. Power at low frequency and sweep per frequency. Power into various impedance loads. Power at various phase angles into capacitive and reactive loads.

The only thing missing here is long term (1 minute, 10 minute, 1 hour) sustained load test. However, I think everyone has to admit that isn’t actually relevant for audio.

The test throughly demonstrates the power capabilities of this amp for audio. A lot of people just have trouble believing that these 2 pound class D boxes can put out 100 watts x2 continuous all day long - but they really really do!

 

[Argentum 05]

This is the classic “factors we can’t measure” BS.

Oh, thank you! Classics are always appreciated. That's what you meant, right?

Physics is an exact science (?) But for some reason, it develops through errors, which, for some time, serve as fulcrums for various theories supported by respected scientists.
For example, the ether theory. Tesla, Young, Descartes... It was probably considered the dominant paradigm for 200 years. Where is that theory now? Such respected scientists, and yet they spoke BS...
Another example is classical mechanics. Did Newton know it was just a special case? After all, before that troublemaker, Einstein, everything was so obvious.

So I stand by my opinion.:

I believe we don't possess ABSOLUTE knowledge that takes into account ALL possible factors.

_

The review on page 1 test distortion per power level. Power at low frequency and sweep per frequency. Power into various impedance loads. Power at various phase angles into capacitive and reactive loads.

The only thing missing here is long term (1 minute, 10 minute, 1 hour) sustained load test. However, I think everyone has to admit that isn’t actually relevant for audio.

What if the amplifier's excess power is needed not only to amplify the signal, but also to convey an emotional component unknown to modern science???
I think you need more power when listening to Iggy - The Stooges, Kinchev - AlisA, or Lemmy - Motörhead.
Smile - this forum is about music as much as science.

P.S. It's good that they've stopped burning astronomers at the stake for their theories that contradict public opinion. Even though those theories are complete BS

 

[TurtlePaul]

What if the amplifier's excess power is needed not only to amplify the signal, but also to convey an emotional component unknown to modern science???

If you put two amps behind a screen and you can't identify which amp is which when playing any music material of your choice through speakers of your choice, then does the difference exist?

 

[SnakeLord]

@Argentum 05

But what if a plane is flying because it is held by a bunch of tiny invisible fairies in the air? :O

Are you really trying to tell us, that the current state of our understanding of electrics, audio signaling and processing is at the hypothesis state of early pioneers?

Btw. Newtons Laws and Classic Mechanics are still valid. It just depends on the use case, scale and precision when you apply those.
Simple math tasks dont require complicated Einsteins relativistic equations to be solved.

 

[Argentum 05]

It seems I stepped on the tail of the dragon called Stereotype of Thinking and now I will have to pay)))

But what if a plane is flying because it is held by a bunch of tiny invisible fairies in the air? :O

Oh, yes! These little fairies, undetectable by our senses and instruments, are attracted to a certain curve of an airplane wing. As soon as an engineer shapes the wing, these fairies flock to it, but only if the wing is moving at a certain speed. And we thought it was the lift generated by the air.

Descartes would have been equally surprised if someone had told him the ether doesn't exist. Ha-ha! And how do magnetic fields propagate???

Are you really trying to tell us, that the current state of our understanding of electrics, audio signaling and processing is at the hypothesis state of early pioneers?

Yes, that's what I said)
All cutting-edge science is the hypotheses of early pioneers.
What do you think 20th-century scientists would have answered this question? Or 19th-century scientists? Or 18th-century scientists? Would they have said, "Our theories are incomplete or flawed. Come back later, maybe in 2026. Then we'll know for sure."

 

[Dave TR3A]

Thank goodness for the forum’s “Ignore” capability.

 

[Argentum 05]

If you put two amps behind a screen and you can't identify which amp is which when playing any music material of your choice through speakers of your choice, then does the difference exist?

You took my quote with a hypothetical example.

I agree that the resolving power of human hearing is the final authority in this matter. If a person hears no difference in a blind test, then most likely there's no practical difference for them when choosing between these two amplifiers.
However, this doesn't prove there's no difference at all. I often hear people mention things like "fatigue." I don't know what they mean. Psychoacoustics, self-hypnosis, or something else?
I just want to say that one cannot a priori claim that by obtaining measurements (which certainly have useful practical value) we gain complete and absolute knowledge.

If a person drinks a glass of regular water and the same glass of water with a radioactive isotope, they most likely won't notice a difference in such a blind test. Especially if they know nothing about gamma radiation. But that doesn't mean there's no difference at all.

 

[RandomEar]

You took my quote with a hypothetical example.

I agree that the resolving power of human hearing is the final authority in this matter. If a person hears no difference in a blind test, then most likely there's no practical difference for them when choosing between these two amplifiers.
However, this doesn't prove there's no difference at all. I often hear people mention things like "fatigue." I don't know what they mean. Psychoacoustics, self-hypnosis, or something else?
I just want to say that one cannot a priori claim that by obtaining measurements (which certainly have useful practical value) we gain complete and absolute knowledge.

If a person drinks a glass of regular water and the same glass of water with a radioactive isotope, they most likely won't notice a difference in such a blind test. Especially if they know nothing about gamma radiation. But that doesn't mean there's no difference at all.

You continue to stretch the already overstretched idea of your argument further and further. If one amp repeatedly and for multiple listeners causes "fatigue" in a blind test and the other doesn't, then clearly, they do not sound the same, do they? And how do you suppose this fatigue-effect would come to be if not due to existing and therefore measurable differences between these amps? And how do you know the current theories of psychoacoustics don't already predict those measured differences to be audible?

Constructing more and more hypothetical cases of what-if's and could-be's about theorized differences which current measurements supposedly don't reflect is not a helpful or productive way to discuss amplifier performance. If you have concrete evidence that amps which - according to the ideas often discussed on ASR - measure transparent are nonetheless distinguishable in a blind test, please bring it forward now.

Also, this discussion is mostly off-topic on a thread about a specific amplifier review (3e audio A7).

 

[antcollinet]

Another example is classical mechanics. Did Newton know it was just a special case?

(etc)

Oh ffs.

Audio reproduction gear is not operating at the envelope of known physics. Nowhere near it in fact.

And in any case newtons "special case" is perfectly acceptable for predicting the majority of the typical physical interactions we encounter on a day to day basis. It still works.



EDIT : NInjad by @SnakeLord

 

[antcollinet]

But what if a plane is flying because it is held by a bunch of tiny invisible fairies in the air? :O

Don't be ridiculous, of course it isn't

They all fly because I make them fly with the power of my mind. If you look into the pupils of my little owly eyes, you can see it happening.

 

[Ruediger]

What if the amplifier's excess power is needed not only to amplify the signal, but also to convey an emotional component unknown to modern science???
I think you need more power when listening to Iggy - The Stooges, Kinchev - AlisA, or Lemmy - Motörhead.
Smile - this forum is about music as much as science.

Gotta disagree with the Stooges or Lemmy requiring more power. Where are the frequencies and levels producing that in their records. I would argue synth/electronic/bass heavy/merciless 20-80 Hz content tracks.

Regardless of the scientific dispute - the only alternative to amp power is more amp power, isn't it?

 

[john61ct]

Are you really trying to tell us, that the current state of our understanding of electrics, audio signaling and processing is at the hypothesis state of early pioneers?

Not at all.

But the gap between our current incomplete knowledge and that say in a century from now will (hopefully) make us appear ignorant indeed!

It's funny that the mechanisms behind wing design were selected as an example

Hannah Fry on Instagram: "The best response I've had from a pilot when I asked this question was: "I have no idea - you're asking the wrong person. I just push the buttons.""

121K likes, 1,774 comments - fryrsquared on April 2, 2026: "The best response I've had from a pilot when I asked this question was: "I have no idea - you're asking the wrong person. I just push the buttons."".

share.google

Bernoulli's Principle vs Newton's Third Law

Science does not yet **fully agree** how a wing works at the outer limits of our theories, too much chaos in fluid dynamics (that Oxford professor's specialisation)

However, we do understand the science well enough to MODEL the behaviour and actually use the technology.

 

[Groovy]

Gotta disagree with the Stooges or Lemmy requiring more power.

My A7se has plenty of power for good old Lemmy and Rock'n'Roll. It is always loud enough.

 

[TurtlePaul]

However, this doesn't prove there's no difference at all. I often hear people mention things like "fatigue." I don't know what they mean. Psychoacoustics, self-hypnosis, or something else?

Two points:

- "doesn't prove there is no difference at all." Sure, it is great to challenge the conventional wisdom. But the measurements that we show reflect decades of audio research. It is too lazy to just throw out "you can't prove a negative" unless you offer an alternative proposal. If you challenge specific finding in an AES paper or a Bruno Putzeys lecture then it would show that you understand the decades of science of amplifier design. If you propose a testable thesis for why class-D amps should sound different than a similar measuring class AB amp, then I would also respect that. If you just say that the science doesn't prove there is no difference, then there needs to be at least some attempt on your part to assert that there is a difference. If there is a difference that we don't know about yet, who is to say that class-D PFFB amps aren't better? What we can say is that when we hide the amp, suddenly nobody can reliably tell a 2 lbs amp from China from a 50 pound old school class AB behemoth.

- "I often hear people mention" is a straw man. Have you heard these amps? Do you find them fatiguing? Are "people" mentioning it actually users of e3 A7 amplifiers? Are these "people" users of other class-D PFFB modern amps (Hypex, Topping, etc.)? Are these "people" referring to their impressions of other class-D or Chinese affordable amps? Are they basing this on some Crown class-D PA amp they heard 30 years ago? Are they basing this on 'common knowledge' and haven't actually themselves personally experienced listening fatigue switching between amps? I personally own a 3e A7 amplifier which resides in my living room system and I listen for hours without fatigue.

 

[Argentum 05]

Two points:

- "doesn't prove there is no difference at all." Sure, it is great to challenge the conventional wisdom.

I believe that challenging public opinion is a factor in the development of individuals and societies.
I always question accepted dogmas. At the same time, I am interested in the opinions of competent people, and I respectfully take them into account.

But the measurements that we show reflect decades of audio research.

I've been reading Amir M's reviews for quite some time now. I find them very interesting and useful, as are the measurements.
You can compare reviews from eight years ago with current ones. I think you'll easily notice the evolution: the number and variety of tests has doubled.
I believe the tests added over the years help take into account more factors influencing sound. And this process is not complete.
That's why:

I believe we don't possess ABSOLUTE knowledge that takes into account ALL possible factors

_

If you challenge specific finding in an AES paper or a Bruno Putzeys lecture then it would show that you understand the decades of science of amplifier design. If you propose a testable thesis for why class-D amps should sound different than a similar measuring class AB amp, then I would also respect that. If you just say that the science doesn't prove there is no difference, then there needs to be at least some attempt on your part to assert that there is a difference. If there is a difference that we don't know about yet, who is to say that class-D PFFB amps aren't better? What we can say is that when we hide the amp, suddenly nobody can reliably tell a 2 lbs amp from China from a 50 pound old school class AB behemoth.

With all due respect, you make many statements that I did not make, and you refute them yourself.
I asked a question about comparing D and AB classes more than a month ago, and then the discussion was exhausted.

- "I often hear people mention" is a straw man. Have you heard these amps? Do you find them fatiguing? Are "people" mentioning it actually users of e3 A7 amplifiers?

Actually, I never wrote this about the A7.
It wasn't even an argument, but more of a question. I was referring to the fact that I often read about "fatigue" or "engagement" when discussing various audio equipment. And that perhaps this is due to factors that haven't yet been taken into account. I also expressed doubt that "fatigue" objectively exists, relative to equipment.

I personally own a 3e A7 amplifier which resides in my living room system and I listen for hours without fatigue.

I have two A7 mono amplifiers connected to the low frequencies in passive biamping. They perform their function flawlessly.

 

[Argentum 05]

Regardless of the scientific dispute - the only alternative to amp power is more amp power, isn't it?

I completely agree with you! The only limiting factor is the available capacity of the local nuclear power plant. We can't be selfish – other people need electricity too