New Buckeye Measurements

[Mort]

Frankly, yes, I would expect it

You should pay for that service then.

 

[David_M]

Frankly, yes, I would expect it. It is a good practice. Based on my own experience, I know it can be done even in a small lot production. If I did not know, I would not comment.

Test every module? Probably not realistic in high volumes. But test every amp that is shipped out? Most definitely.

 

[Holmz]

Luckily I can stay here at ASR and skip stuff like that.

That may not be the most gentlemanly response that I would imagine to be possible to write.

The @John Atkinson fellow posted measurements, and there is not some sort of holy text that gives ASR exclusive inside information to truth.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Test every module? Probably not realistic in high volumes. But test every amp that is shipped out? Most definitely.

Functional testing of every unit we send out? Yes.

Benchtop measurements of every unit we send out? No.

 

[tmtomh]

Test every module? Probably not realistic in high volumes. But test every amp that is shipped out? Most definitely.

Realistic isn’t @pma ’s concern. He just wants to keep flogging the same point.

 

[David_M]

Functional testing of every unit we send out? Yes.

Benchtop measurements of every unit we send out? No.

I believe the AP allows you to generate test scripts that enable you to run quick but functional tests for a fast-moving production environment. By the way, do you ship test data with your amps?

You could also charge a fee for those who want complete AP test reports, if they are ok with the increase in shipping time.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

I believe the AP allows you to generate test scripts that enable you to run quick but functional tests for a fast-moving production environment. By the way, do you ship test data with your amps?

You could also charge a fee for those who want complete AP test reports, if they are ok with the increase in shipping time.

We no longer have an AP setup due to what I will gently say was below average customer support/experience.

 

[Fidji]

Interestingly nobody has sent neither 9040 nor 6525 Purifi module to Amir to measure. Only bench test was in audioxpress AFAIK

I have 2 9040 based monoblocks and would like to see, whether there has been any improvement on rising distortion with frquency, which was always one weakness of D Class amps

 

[welwynnick]

I have 2 9040 based mono-blocks and would like to see, whether there has been any improvement on rising distortion with frequency, which was always one weakness of D Class amps

Me too! The 1ET6525 and 1ET9040 seem to have gone further than any previous class D amps towards better HF linearity, but I'd also like to see Amir's tests. Maybe it's already in the queue.

 

[Golfx]

Interestingly nobody has sent neither 9040 nor 6525 Purifi module to Amir to measure. Only bench test was in audioxpress AFAIK

I have 2 9040 based monoblocks and would like to see, whether there has been any improvement on rising distortion with frquency, which was always one weakness of D Class amps

Luckily that weakness is perfectly offset by my declining hearing at upper frequencies.

 

[David_M]

Interestingly nobody has sent neither 9040 nor 6525 Purifi module to Amir to measure. Only bench test was in audioxpress AFAIK

I have 2 9040 based monoblocks and would like to see, whether there has been any improvement on rising distortion with frquency, which was always one weakness of D Class amps

Someone will have to send them in for review, right??? If no one is willing to do so, then we shouldn't be surprised at the lack of 9040-based reviews. Purify sent in their DIY amp based on the 1ET400 module. Maybe they'll do the same for their 9040-based modules.