It is consistent,it point's the knee of the graph and that's ok,it's been a thread about it.
Yes it was. it was commenting on the graphs above. He then shows the boxem graph and says you can compare the results.
The reading of the knee point by Amir is a subjective judgement. the actual thd level us different in every test. I showed this above with his measurement points varying from 0.001% to 0.85%. amir was complaining about thin blue using 1% as a level to rate power. well, if not 1% then what? 0.001%? 0.85%?
So you argued for the sake of arguing and you admit that your argument "it was not comparing the two amps" was actually false. I have a feeling that you have an agenda and I will not be part of it. I will stop responding to you.
It varies as knee points vary,it's faithful if you see the pattern.
What pattern? it's different on every test. if you want to compare onexamp to another you must do it at the same thd level. Anyway I'm off to watch the soccer
See it the other way.
Quite, that's why amir let it slip to 0.85% for that tube amp. thin blue then gets criticised for 1%.
It's an arbitrary decision but not a subjective one. I would personally prefer "Max Power at rated THD" than "Max power at best case THD+N" but whatever if you specify a fix THD metric or a variable one based on what is the linear specification of the measured amp, neither is fundamentally incorrect, what is creating this debate is that there is no real firm enforced standards. It's not Amir's fault, it's not the manufacturers fault, it's not third party reviewer's fault. Where I am more critical is when ASR present itself as being right and anybody else being wrong. Again, It's OK to say: It's how we rate max power here and we want consistency. It's Amir website and it's his prerogative. But with the absence of consistency, at the very least we want clarity. Thin Blue Line is clear on the number he gives us, Purifi as well. Other manufacturers, not so much. Those are the one we want to be critical about and expose their deceptive claims. Lately Amir himself stated in a review thread for a cheap Fosi amp that it was the norm for low cost amps to inflate their power spec, that if they wouldn't they would not be competitive, that he was ok with this and gave full recommendation. See that's more problematic and that's what can stir debate. I much prefer that a review can expose that a product can or can't do what it says it does, like what is being done here, than something in the realm of. "Don't worry about what the spec sheet say, only our measurments have validity anyway". I am exagerating a bit but it's this idea that is put forward. I want to be able to read a spec sheet that mean something, that's what matters. Publish the testing conditions, that's what matter, not my way is the right way, your's is deceptive. What is deceptive is when we have no idea and we should push manufaturers for clarity.
I agree he should not have gone that route, technical reviewers do have this tendency to falsely assume their readership are able to analyse a graph. Even more so assuming that their readership can convert ratio to dB. I don't think there is any misleading intentions there, just being overly optimistic of the readership understanding.
I'm not going to have an argument on semantics, but my view is the point Amir chooses is a personal opinion that as you say is arbitrary and it's formed without specific consistent parameters. it is just Amirs opinion where it should be. Thus subjective
So is Amir being clear to less technically aware readers about the variable conditions he rates max power at? I know how to read the graphs and find the actual thd level, but many will just see the headline red text on the graph. do they realise this headline is not comparable to the previous or next review?
Yes, I include Amir in "technical reviewers".
Why is it bad news?
That's the point though, it isn't consistent. it's a variable thd level. I have no problem with conservative. I also think 1% is too high, but I also think levels of 0.001% as an example, are completely inaudible, so don't represent a realistic view of an amplifiers max usable power. especially in the context of a speaker distorting at 1%.
To point 'the point where THD begins to go vertical to determine amp power' is not that easy and simple.
Lack of Zoomed in view of inflection area(erased by accident) and I couldn't get other data requested by members.
