The AD-1 amp dyno is comparatively a simple instrument, but given it's primary function of rating Subwoofer amplifiers, it's rated power is highly unlikely to under deliver on any musical passage. The amp dyno also does burst, which was done in that very video and showed another ~150wpc on the NAD 2200.
Indeed PENG, your own clipped quote claims that the amp levels out between "100 and 200 watts " once it's fed a constant test tone. Given that this was what you quoted, why would you then question that it can perform at the 200 end of the spectrum they claim?
I wasn't questioning the 200 W output into 8 ohm as it was demonstrated in the ASR review too. I was wondering if the mod has done something to it. If the mod only involved replacing the old caps with new ones of the same specs than it wouldn't matter, but if the new caps have say a higher voltage rating then the mod'ed amp would have done better with the ITH measurements.
It is the ITH output that the 2200 (most NAD amps I would think) are excellent at, right?
Anyway, my key point is about audio_tony's post#23, he said:
"Most power amps I've used over the years are rated for full power either at 0.775V or 1V"
then Simple Theater asked him what those amps were and he listed 6 of them, of the 6, the 2200 indeed has input sensitivity spec of 0.7 V, even much better than the 1 V he thought it was.
Then I pointed out the following:
- 0.7 V was for 100 W output into 8 ohm, for 200 W it would have required a little more than 1 V, I thought that's it but then he claimed the 2200 was rated 140 WX2, and I told him (post#132 already) that was at clipping, not at the rated 0.03% THD
There are just too many back and forth so unless you follow all of them, like Simple Theater and I because we were responding to his claims, you may not have the full picture.
Here's a summary of the back and forth, I hope you can see why we seem to be still arguing (hat that term, but it is becoming to look like that..):
Claimed by the OP in his first post#23:
1) most power amps used are rated for full power either at 0.775V or 1V (that clearly reference to ASR's 2 V base line for pre out measurements).
2) Simple Theater asked what those amps were
3) OP responded with 6 examples, further claimed there were many more amps that would support his claim.
4) I pointed out (post#99) if those amps were rated around the 100 W, 1 V okay, but for 250 W and higher amps, higher would be needed.
5) OP responded (post#120) that the 2200 was rated 140 W and measured over 200 W at ASR
6) I clarified that NAD specs (post#132), stated that 140 W was at clipping, and for 140 W or 200 W, then 0.7V won't do it, need higher V anyway.
It was after post#132 that he started trying to stick with the 2200's >200 W output, and I simply want to emphasize what the NAD could do on the bench based on higher THD level such as 1%, or on non continuous average output power, such as the short burst, IHF dynamic power, has nothing to do with our original discussion on how true, or whether it is realistic to expect that 0.775 or 1 V was enough to drive amps to "full power", that the OP implied in his post#23.
So at that point, I think we were done with his need of only 0.775 to 1 V claim based on most amps he had used. I am not even disagreeing, because he would be right for a lot of amps rated around the 100 WPC continuous rated at reasonable low, say based on the NAD example of -70 dB THD but I highlighted that most AVR users would likely pair their unit with higher power amps, like 200 WPC ore more.
==============================================================================================
Below has little to do with the original topic, and is just a recap of the out of scope discussion. That is, we have already digressed into a new topic, and it has become the output power rating, using the 2200 as the focal point.
Still, now that I provided the full picture of how it got started, you can see that I was also
not questioning the Dyno test though I did say I only trust the likes of the Stereophile, AH, ASR kind of bench tests) the measured 200 W (or higher..). Reason being they have more detailed measurements, using the highly regarded AP instrument and operated by very experienced individuals such as JA, and/or EE with related experience from their previous employments.
On this new topic, my points are:
a) the amp is in fact rated only 100 W continuous 0.03% THD, the higher ratings as confirmed on various benches I supposed, were measured under certain conditions, one example would be the IHF standard, another example would be if based on <1% THD (that's just -40 dB)
b) that if one wants to take advantage of the excellent short burst capability of that Amp, that is, based on the IHF ratings, one would need more than the 0.7 V NAD specified for the rated output of just 100 W at 0.03% THD. Note: About 1.43 V for 400 W (again IHF only).
c) As I mentioned in my last post, when considering the IHF ratings (I shouldn't have used the term marketing hype there..), one has to be careful, not that they are not valid, but you have read the fine prints.
Also note that 0.03% is about -70.45 dB so SINAD would have been about 70 dB assuming noise is not much of an issue with this amp. So we are to compare apples to apples, say with the SR6014, we do have to base on the "continuous output, 20-20,000 Hz so in that case the NAD 2200 is rated 100 W per NAD specs.
Based on Amir's measurements, NAD's spec for this amp is very conservative, assuming an unmodified version would measured equally good on the ASR bench.
Again, not questioning, but we should compare apples to apples, 100 W continuous at 0.03% (SINAD 70) is not the same as 230 W at 1% (-40 dB) in the Dyno test.
No doubt the NAD 2200 is a very good power amp, I have said so in my responses to him but then again we would have digressed from the original topic of input sensitivity vs whether ASR's baseline of 2 V/4 V (RCA/XLR) pre-out voltage is appropriate. I am saying it is very appropriate, based on the fact there are far more power amps rated 200 WPC (continuous rating) into 8 ohms have gain less than the NAD 2200's 32 dB.
Dr. Rich, the EE with a PhD obviously also agreed, that HDAM, while good for something, might have introduced additional distortions.
