Pretty personal accusations aside, what is your explanation to the findings in his video?
Edit: Nothing wrong with having a go at Andrew, Randy, Darko is there? Also if you don't get his thick sarcasm you would misunderstand a lot of his comments. Which is probably the case when he said that Andrew is all about measurements.. Which he obviously is not.
I agree with you. This is just sarcasm and has no relation to his results.
What I found interesting in his results is primarily the way the Fosi collapses between 45 and 150Hz in his sweep test. This cannot be attributed to the speakers or the room because the same measurements taken with his more traditional amplifier did not show this issue at all. It is, in all likelihood, related to the V3.
What's surprizing is that the Fosi kept up with the Yamaha up to 45Hz.
We discussed this a bit in the video comments. He attributed it to the fact that bass requires more power for the same sound level. So, the Fosi would have shown its limitations here, even though it could handle higher frequencies reasonably well.
The problem with this explanation was that it doesn't account for the fact that the Fosi is as good as the Yamaha at even lower frequencies. We should expect the opposite.
His theory is that the Fosi used up its "reserve for peaks" (these are my approximate words) at these very low frequencies, and therefore it couldn't keep up when the signal reached 45Hz (sweep signal, so rapid). He would have only recovered in more manageable frequencies, starting from 150Hz.
I proposed a test, and he seemed interested. We would need to send a continuous signal in the problematic frequency (eg 45hz). If his hypothesis about low frequencies and the "reserve" is true, then we should observe the dB levels outputted by the Fosi decreasing over time.
What do you think about it?
