tmtomh
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 3,154
- Likes
- 9,431
If you can't see how hypocritical your comments are, I really can't help you.
Oh, the irony.
If you can't see how hypocritical your comments are, I really can't help you.
ICYMI, the FTC spec has nothing to do with real life.When I buy a product I appreciate honest, real life specifications that accurately represent true performance. What I'm seeing here is:
This is important. It should not be a mere assembly.Building an amp without necessary tools to properly evaluate, test and analyze performance before mass production is not as unusual as one might think. Sometimes it's as much art as science to get the best build combination.
No. They just need more attention to specs verification. And it can be done even without the AP, at fractional costs.As discussed in the other thread, they are garbage and need to go.
No. They just need more attention to specs verification. And it can be done even without the AP, at fractional costs.
Any test regime that is decided upon should be configured so that a $100k expense for test gear is not required. It should be possible for a electronic technician and higher to be able to complete the test regime.No, the FTC test as it stands needs to go. It's not fit for purpose. Furthermore the FTC should have no involvement in defining any subsequent test regime. They are not competent to do so.
An appropriate test standard could be devised by a reputable international technical agency.
Buckeye and his designer have access to far more sophisticated test tool than you do. I suggest you get your facts right before making claims like this.This is important. It should not be a mere assembly.
Maybe wait until we know with our judgement? Both, JA and Buckeye might find out what we don’t know yet. In case of doubt for the accused. And until further clarification there is room for doubt to me.Judging by this debacle, running before you can walk springs to.mind.
This is hardly provided anymore. Many companies barely provide any data and what they provide as far as single figures, is not useful.When I buy a product I appreciate honest, real life specifications that accurately represent true performance. What I'm seeing here is:
Companies will get challenged to explain the discrepancy vs reviews as we clearly see here. I routinely get feedback from people saying they showed my reviews to companies and asked for explanation. So pressure is there to correct misleading specs.1. As long as orders still come in for a product that doesn't achieve it's disclosed specifications, there is little enticement for a company to immediately update specs or expedite submitting the device for 3rd party testing.
Power measurements are not standardized. And analog gear can have variability. I suggest waiting to see the next chapter after Buckeye re-tests the amp. I have worked with him and his designer and we routinely exchange data this way, and find differences, explanations or issues to be resolved.2. As long as an audio amp provides substantial power - even if 30-50% less than what is represented by the company that's OK for some buyers. The same applies to a grossly misrepresented input impedance spec as well as a significant rise in HF distortion.
Companies in every space get away with all kinds of "false advertising." Just go look at shop vac specs with claims of 5 horsepower and other nonsense. Or tell me if you get the same mileage on an ICE car as EPA mandates. In this case, we know the module can produce higher power. And we have manufacturer saying it has tested the finished amp and it too produced more power than JA found. So before jumping on false advertising, let's wait to see what happens next.I'm quite sure in just about any other commercial transaction in America from auto, appliances, energy star ratings or other electronics that this could easily be considered false advertising. I hope this gets sorted out soon in a way that protects consumers.
This is true,specially for 9040 which must be treated with respect.There's crazy builds in diyaudio and around trying to meet its specs.This is hardly provided anymore. Many companies barely provide any data and what they provide as far as single figures, is not useful.
In the case of module provider, their specification/data sheet puts every finished commercial amplifier vendor to shame.
Companies will get challenged to explain the discrepancy vs reviews as we clearly see here. I routinely get feedback from people saying they showed my reviews to companies and asked for explanation. So pressure is there to correct misleading specs.
That is NOT what is done. Please quit making assumptions. Take caution in your next post.Again, manufacturing and selling the completed product based on amplifier module is not as easy as ABC, as putting it into a box, add power supply, connectors and wires, and copy and paste module datasheet specs.
Let's keep this civil and respectful please.Judging by this debacle, running before you can walk springs to.mind.