FTC may drop amplifier rules

[Blumlein 88]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ftc-proposes-eliminating-its-amplifier-rule

Seems strange and short sighted to drop the whole rule rather than modify it. Then again it appears there is pretty much zero enforcement. Still hard to see how this benefits the consumer. Heck they need a new rule for AVRs.

 

[Doodski]

I have issue where the article indicates that users never need to output such amounts of power and are therefore paying for something they don't need. I've seen many integrated amps, power amps and receivers that had baked brown PCBs, fusible resisters with brown heat stress rings around them and transistors that have a sort of white powdery sheen from the excessive heat they have endured. That is not uncommon for some users and if their amps never had the reserve heat sinking capability they would have blown up fast. Related but unrelated is a example of car audio with class AB amps and users driving 2 Ohm loads. That requires a large heatsink and the same goes for home audio amps driving low impedance loads. Reducing heatsink capability at the expense of reliability and longevity is a bad move.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ftc-proposes-eliminating-its-amplifier-rule

Seems strange and short sighted to drop the whole rule rather than modify it. Then again it appears there is pretty much zero enforcement. Still hard to see how this benefits the consumer. Heck they need a new rule for AVRs.

The Stereophile article is worthless--it spends almost all of its time on preconditioning, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand and has already been addressed in revisions to the Rule. I was assigned to Rule issues during my tenure at the FTC and updated the Rule in certain areas and fixed the preconditioning requirement, but applying the Rule to multichannel receivers proved a stumbling block. We launched a rulemaking proceeding to do that in 2000, but we received only one public comment. That was from the Consumer Electronics Association, who asked for time to seek voluntary industry adoption of their proposed protocol for rating multichannel amplifiers.

We suspended the Rulemaking to allow time for that to happen. Industry members didn't support the protocol or just ignored the question, and the Commission didn't want to wade into a complex rulemaking on its own in an area where it had little expertise, so we punted. I was able to get through an interpretation of the Rule that requires the most prominent power output claim for any amplifier, whether stereo or multichannel, to be the power it can deliver in stereo mode following the FTC requirements (both channels operating, continuous output into 8 Ohms over a stated bandwidth, not just 1 kHz, and with maximum THD disclosed.)_ That would at least put other output claims for additional channels in perspective and prevent stand-alone claims such as "100 watts X 7" when the amplifier might only be able to produce 60 WPC or less in stereo using the FTC protocol.

However---the Commission has never enforced any part of the Rule, and the current situation is almost as chaotic as when the Rule was published in 1974. If we could just get the Commission to enforce what it's got, consumers would stand a better chance of at least figuring out whether an amplifier or receiver had enough power for 2-channel music production with the speakers they owned or were considering. I plan on submitting detailed comments to the FTC before the Feb. 16 deadline, but anyone can file short support for the Rule using the ftc.gov comment link on the top right-hand side of the Federal Register Notice: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FTC-2020-0087-0001

 

[bigguyca]

Anyone expecting the FTC to do anything that benefits the consumer on this issue (or many others) is delusional.

The good news is sites like ASR that are actually interested in the consumer and encouraging the production of higher quality equipment. The measurements in ASR arm the consumer with data to allow a more informed decision. Discussion here adds to that knowledge base. Throw in a few pictures of the interior of the units to help judge construction quality and heat sink size, and we are far ahead of the FTC.

 

[mhardy6647]

A couple of reminders of the good old, bad old days pre "FTC '74" -- and the coming of the "RMS Watt"

LRE LA-44 1 1972 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
LRE LA-44 2 1972 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

LRE LR-810 1973 enh by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

... and good old Heathkit, from back in 1961
source: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Catalogs/Consumer/Heathkit-1961-Fall-Winter.pdf

Indeed, the "Heath HiFi rated" power for some amplifiers in that catalog look to be about right (e.g., the AA-151; push-pull EL84 rated at 14 wpc "Heath" or 16 wpc IHFM "Music Power" -- but with THD constrained to 0.7%).

 

[Dennis Murphy]

"Anyone expecting the FTC to do anything without consumers pushing them is delusional. Benign governance does not exist, nor has it ever existed. All advocacy devolves into self-interest."
Wow--that's pretty heavy stuff. The FTC is actually one of the best federal agencies, partly because it's insulated from direct executive branch pressure, partly because it's small and manageable, and partly because it has an independent bureau of economics offering objective advice. What it doesn't have is a staff of in-house experts specializing in technical areas such as electronics. It's perfectly understandable that the Commission has been reluctant to dive into the costly and uncertain business of developing testing standards for multichannel amplifiers. However, enforcing the requirements that are already in play is relatively straight forward and not very resource intensive, and that's what I think we should be urging the Commission to do.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

If enforcing the rules already in place were relatively straight forward and not very resource intensive, then what good reason does the Commission have for not employing them?

My phrase, " ... consumers pushing them ..." and your phrase, " ... urging the Commission ...." are, I believe, somewhat equatable.

Fair enough question. Most of it is because no one there has any particular interest in or knowledge of matters audio. Also, and in line with your comment, consumers don't seem to be unhappy with their amplifier purchases. During my 500-year tenure at the Commission, we never received a single consumer complaint about power ratings. Complaints about credit matters, car dealers, privacy, warranty service.....................Billions and Billions.

 

[Wes]

The Stereophile article is worthless--it spends almost all of its time on preconditioning, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand and has already been addressed in revisions to the Rule. I was assigned to Rule issues during my tenure at the FTC and updated the Rule in certain areas and fixed the preconditioning requirement, but applying the Rule to multichannel receivers proved a stumbling block. We launched a rulemaking proceeding to do that in 2000, but we received only one public comment. That was from the Consumer Electronics Association, who asked for time to seek voluntary industry adoption of their proposed protocol for rating multichannel amplifiers.

We suspended the Rulemaking to allow time for that to happen. Industry members didn't support the protocol or just ignored the question, and the Commission didn't want to wade into a complex rulemaking on its own in an area where it had little expertise, so we punted. I was able to get through an interpretation of the Rule that requires the most prominent power output claim for any amplifier, whether stereo or multichannel, to be the power it can deliver in stereo mode following the FTC requirements (both channels operating, continuous output into 8 Ohms over a stated bandwidth, not just 1 kHz, and with maximum THD disclosed.)_ That would at least put other output claims for additional channels in perspective and prevent stand-alone claims such as "100 watts X 7" when the amplifier might only be able to produce 60 WPC or less in stereo using the FTC protocol.

However---the Commission has never enforced any part of the Rule, and the current situation is almost as chaotic as when the Rule was published in 1974. If we could just get the Commission to enforce what it's got, consumers would stand a better chance of at least figuring out whether an amplifier or receiver had enough power for 2-channel music production with the speakers they owned or were considering. I plan on submitting detailed comments to the FTC before the Feb. 16 deadline, but anyone can file short support for the Rule using the ftc.gov comment link on the top right-hand side of the Federal Register Notice: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FTC-2020-0087-0001

who is "we"?

The FTC? Did a group petition the FTC for a rule under the APA?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

"We" is "Me"and one other dude when I was at the FTC. I was the only one who knew anything about amplifiers, so I was teamed up with a lawyer to handle the rule revisions, like lowering the preconditioning requirement, applying the rule to self-powered speakers, and an ill-fated attempt to adapt the rule to multichannel amplifiers.

 

[pma]

They probably want for the new toys to pass the tests, maybe the industrial pressure?

 

[Tks]

This country man.. Why is it whenever something decent rolls through, it needs to be tossed out like we suffer some sort of cyclical bouts of amnesia. It's almost not worth learning/remembering history here because we repeat it anyway.

 

[JSmith]

It's almost not worth learning/remembering history here because we repeat it anyway.

There is a saying about that, you know doing the same thing over and over yet expecting a different result, doomed to failure etc.



JSmith

 

[DonH56]

The FTC is woefully behind in updating amplifier specs but IIRC their hands were tied and as Dennis said enforcement is, well, not enforced. But comparing it to some of the other government agencies the FTC is a light in the darkness... I remember wading through FCC rules many years ago, more on the commercial broadcast side, and watched it get more and more politicized over the years in an effort to control the airwaves too often for the party in power -- IMO! I did know a few folk in the FCC that were pretty fed up by the time I quit any involvement (that was ca. early 1990's).

@Dennis Murphy has written gobs of papers and participated in many of the FTC standards -- a search will turn up a lengthy list, at least if he is the guy I am thinking about. Correct me if I am wrong, Dennis, but your background was economics or something like that? I seem to have a vague memory of a lot of FTC stuff being routed through the Bureau of Economics or something like that, and in youthful superiority (1970's/1980's) wondering how/why an economist was doing all those technical specs... I eventually wised up (or at least grew up, wisdom is questionable) and whilst dealing with some other (medical device) issues years later realized it was the same guy and learned just what "generalist" really meant... The FTC is a fairly small agency with extremely broad coverage. It's a shame the long-awaited updates to the 1974 rule set were watered down and major pieces shelved.

 

[Judas]

No doubt part of the mindless deregulation that is pervasive nowadays. Would you be able to judge the price of a car without knowing the horsepower? Or a house without knowing the square footage? If the FTC is not enforcing the current rule the answer is to start enforcing it. Scraping the rule creates a "Wild West" atmosphere. It screws the consumer and and puts honest manufacturers at a distinct disadvantage.

 

[restorer-john]

Here's the link for comments:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FTC-2020-0087-0001

Only a few (5) days left for comments, gentlemen.

 

[Doodski]

Here's the link for comments:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FTC-2020-0087-0001

Only a few days left for comments, gentlemen.

I already commented.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I already commented.

At last count there were over 300 comments posted, mostly as a result of Gene's great work on Audioholics. As I recall, during all of my decades at the FTC working on this rule, with some 4 separate Federal Register Notices, we received a total of 4 comments. Lets keep those cards and letters coming.

 

[mhardy6647]

Ahh, this link was posted Elsewhere.
https://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/sound-united-receiver-power-ratings

I mention it mostly in regard to this statement found therein.

It seems the FTC has become too complacent with validating and enforcing amplifier power claims since their efforts to rule on multi-channel power amplifiers ceased over a decade ago and manufacturers are taking advantage of it. This is especially true since, other than Audioholics, there are NO major AV publications or 3rd-party advocacy groups in the USA measuring AV receiver amplifier power claims. Sadly, Sound & Vision magazine has recently abandoned measurements in their product reviews.

[emphasis added]

This made me sad. I thought all y'all were, by this point, a "major AV publication[] or 3rd-party advocacy group[]"!

 

[Rottmannash]

Are there manufacturers lobbying for this change?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Are there manufacturers lobbying for this change?

Excellent question. There are some fairly large players like NAD that already are publishing specs that would probably conform with any amendment to the Rule, so you would think they might weigh in. My best guess is that they don't know anything about the FTC's review of the rule or the Federal Register Notice.