FTC to kill amplifier rule?

[joeinid]

 

[Calvin]

The amp world will become much more like some of the cable world - dishonest. It's going to take a lot of phone calls and emails to stop this IMO.

 

[Mikado463]

The amp world will become much more like some of the cable world - dishonest. It's going to take a lot of phone calls and emails to stop this IMO.

and with that said I've already sent mine in, so boys and girls get crackin' !

 

[mep]

So, do people think that reputable high end companies that manufacture amplifiers are going to start fudging their specifications?

 

[Mike]

So, do people think that reputable high end companies that manufacture amplifiers are going to start fudging their specifications?

Pay careful attention to HiFi news or Stereophile (hint: the measurements section).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[CPP]

I think the key thing here resides more on the AVR side than the two chl side.l

 

[mep]

Pay careful attention to HiFi news or Stereophile (hint: the measurements section).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The real truth is that measurements taken by reputable engineers like JA show that some manufacturers take liberties with their specifications. Sensitivity for speakers is one spec that is often not met. True power output from amplifiers is another. There really is no governmental body that's interested in measuring every piece of audio gear sold to the public and the percentage of gear that is reviewed and measured is extremely small. This creates the opportunity to inflate your specs with little to no worries that you will ever be called out on it. The question here is will it become worse? Personally I doubt it because no one has been held accountable. Those who fudge will continue to fudge.

Years ago I posted on another forum that specifications weren't measurements because too many people confused the two. Lots of people assumed that all gear met their specifications. As Mike pointed out, actual measurements show that is often not the case.

 

[Mikado463]

I think the key thing here resides more on the AVR side than the two chl side.l

I agree, to which they already do manipulative marketing. Regardless, I believe it's a rule that should remain.

 

[Puma Cat]

The real truth is that measurements taken by reputable engineers like JA show that some manufacturers take liberties with their specifications. Sensitivity for speakers is one spec that is often not met. True power output from amplifiers is another. There really is no governmental body that's interested in measuring every piece of audio gear sold to the public and the percentage of gear that is reviewed and measured is extremely small. This creates the opportunity to inflate your specs with little to no worries that you will ever be called out on it. The question here is will it become worse? Personally I doubt it because no one has been held accountable. Those who fudge will continue to fudge.

Years ago I posted on another forum that specifications weren't measurements because too many people confused the two. Lots of people assumed that all gear met their specifications. As Mike pointed out, actual measurements show that is often not the case.

Let's not get apples confouned with oranges. Specification and measurements are fundamentally different things.

Specifications are not "measurements". Specifications are a formal, written document of a set of functional and quality attributes. Some of the things documented in a set of specifications may be measurements of a specific function or quality attribute. It could be a specification of a continuous data variable, e.g. power output, that a product must produce under specified conditions, or it could be material specification, e.g. the chassis is comprised of a steel alloy. It can also be description of various quality attributes, e.g. reliability or durability, or any of the Design for X "-ilities", e.g. serviceability, repairability, etc.

As for testing products by measurement or attribute analysis to determine if they conform to "specification", any measurements should be first underpinned by a formal Measurement Systems Analysis to know that the measurement system provides sufficient statistical precision, effective measurement resolution, and repeatibility and reproducibiity to be a "capable" measurement system. This includes the variance contributed by the gauge itself, the Part*Gauge interaction variance, and last but not least, the Part*Operator interaction variance.

And FWIW, I've never seen JA publish a formal MSA on his measurement system, which should look something like this:

 

[BlueFox]

This was posted on another site, but it is related to this discussion. Not sure what the original post is about since I don't watch videos posted to a forum.

Can Sound United Bring Honest Power Ratings to AV Receivers? | Audioholics

 

[mep]

Let's not get apples confouned with oranges. Specification and measurements are fundamentally different things.

Specifications are not "measurements". Specifications are a formal, written document of a set of functional and quality attributes. Some of the things documented in a set of specifications may be measurements of a specific function or quality attribute. It could be a specification of a continuous data variable, e.g. power output, that a product must produce under specified conditions, or it could be material specification, e.g. the chassis is comprised of a steel alloy. It can also be description of various quality attributes, e.g. reliability or durability, or any of the Design for X "-ilities", e.g. serviceability, repairability, etc.

As for testing products by measurement or attribute analysis to determine if they conform to "specification", any measurements should be first underpinned by a formal Measurement Systems Analysis to know that the measurement system provides sufficient statistical precision, effective measurement resolution, and repeatibility and reproducibiity to be a "capable" measurement system. This includes the variance contributed by the gauge itself, the Part*Gauge interaction variance, and last but not least, the Part*Operator interaction variance.

And FWIW, I've never seen JA publish a formal MSA on his measurement system, which should look something like this:

Did you not read what I said?

 

[mep]

Puma Cat, JA doesn’t need any advice from you on how to take measurements that are repeatable and verifiable. You aren’t a EE are you?

 

[Puma Cat]

Puma Cat, JA doesn’t need any advice from you on how to take measurements that are repeatable and verifiable. You aren’t a EE are you?

What does being a EE have to do with it?

And, if he has hasn't done an MSA, then the accuracy and precision of his measurement system has not been validated with statistical rigor.

 

[mep]

What does being a EE have to do with it?

And, if he has hasn't done an MSA, then the accuracy and precision of his measurement system has not been validated with statistical rigor.

Total nonsense. How do you earn your living?

 

[a.wayne]

Let's not get apples confouned with oranges. Specification and measurements are fundamentally different things.

Specifications are not "measurements". Specifications are a formal, written document of a set of functional and quality attributes. Some of the things documented in a set of specifications may be measurements of a specific function or quality attribute. It could be a specification of a continuous data variable, e.g. power output, that a product must produce under specified conditions, or it could be material specification, e.g. the chassis is comprised of a steel alloy. It can also be description of various quality attributes, e.g. reliability or durability, or any of the Design for X "-ilities", e.g. serviceability, repairability, etc.

As for testing products by measurement or attribute analysis to determine if they conform to "specification", any measurements should be first underpinned by a formal Measurement Systems Analysis to know that the measurement system provides sufficient statistical precision, effective measurement resolution, and repeatibility and reproducibiity to be a "capable" measurement system. This includes the variance contributed by the gauge itself, the Part*Gauge interaction variance, and last but not least, the Part*Operator interaction variance.

And FWIW, I've never seen JA publish a formal MSA on his measurement system, which should look something like this:

Go easy on JA he has to thread delicately to protect the innocent, McIntosh will love this new rule for one and others who tend to grossly undersize their heatsinks, the old FTC rule actually favors audiophiles who like to leave their stuff on for hrs before playing, not so for the class D world , hence why the change IMO ..


Regards

 

[mep]

Go easy on JA he has to thread delicately to protect the innocent, McIntosh will love this new rule for one and others who tend to grossly undersize their heatsinks, the old FTC rule actually favors audiophiles who like to leave their stuff on for hrs before playing, not so for the class D world , hence why the change IMO ..


Regards

JA doesn’t pull any punches with his measurements.