• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Buckeye Purifi Eigentakt 1ET9040BA monoblock power amplifier Stereophile Measurements

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I buy a product I appreciate honest, real life specifications that accurately represent true performance. What I'm seeing here is:

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.

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.

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.
 
I haven't noticed anyone taking issue with the specs on this amp module from the manufacturer, Purifi. Wonder why? I have always found Bruno to be a straight shooter and find it very hard to believe that he would so grossly misrepresent the amp's performance.
 
The Purifi modules appear to meet spec. However, the input board, wiring, layout design, case, PS and components used can impact performance. No one starts out wanting to create a design that negatively impacts measurements, but it can happen. Two different company designs that use the same 9040 modules can measure differently. 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.
 
Last edited:
Plain and simple,that's the big Purifi module.
It's made to do serious power and drive low loads like a train if done right.

Failing to meet this specs makes it loosing it's purpose and remain with what?The inaudible SINAD which one can do just as well with an 90dB one if noise is at check and shows only distortion?

It's price and selling point is just that,nothing more.At the measured specs one can get away with $500 less for a just as good pair of 7040.
This has to be resolved,can very well be a faulty module.
 
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.
This is important. It should not be a mere assembly.
 
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.
 
No. They just need more attention to specs verification. And it can be done even without the AP, at fractional costs.
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.
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. :D
 
This is important. It should not be a mere assembly.
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.
 
Judging by this debacle, running before you can walk springs to.mind.
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.
 
When I buy a product I appreciate honest, real life specifications that accurately represent true performance. What I'm seeing here is:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
 
As an aside, I hope we can get more reviewers to run the same tests. As you may have noticed, I have started to run some of stereophile tests in my reviews. I hope we can converge in more tests that way so that we don't have to guess how a test is run.
 
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.
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.
We talking crazy power here,specially going low on loads where efficiency falls too.

With all the problems shown combined (power,IMD,no recovery from protection) something is at play there.
 
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. It is a serious job based on skills and knowledge. At least at the beginning, at the design and prototype phase. Then, set the production control routine to meet the rated specs of the complete product.
 
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.
That is NOT what is done. Please quit making assumptions. Take caution in your next post.
 
Judging by this debacle, running before you can walk springs to.mind.
Let's keep this civil and respectful please.

Legitimate challenge is fine but overly derogatory comments to a fellow member will not be tolerated. Thanks.

As an aside to all members , let's try and keep this discussion around the stereophile results to this thread please. I note a similar discussion in the original thread for this amp too which will get confusing .

Thanks
 
There you go, mistery is solved.

eed803c7-29d1-4fae-b506-3a4a11acacba-1_all_92494.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom