saz1500d v.1 v.s dd m1a?

[aimone 4]

so this guy is wantin to buy my saz1500 for $300(which i turned down) or trade me a dd m1a. i told him id be screwin myself out of 300w rated power and more "real" power. then he says saz is rated at 1500 @ 14.4v so i brought up jacobs testing thread and proved that it does well over 1500 at 12.8. so he goes on to say the dd is actually a better quality built amp and will be about even with the saz at 1ohm cuz the dd's 1200 rating is at 11.4v. and he said he needs a amp thats half ohm stable even though they r both 1ohm stable he knows the the saz can take a .5 load. which the saz can actually go lower ohm wise. i told him to throw something or some 80 cash (i need a recone) with the m1a and id do it which he declined. but anyway is the m1a as tough & and powerful as the saz1500 at 1ohm?

i just dont believe its better built or just as powerful.....plus its not as sexy as a sundown lol

[Kanaworm$ 292]

Don't let him kid you the SAZ-1500v.1 is a monster of an amp and yes the Sundown can operate daily at .5. The DDM1A is a good amplifier in itself but just not on par with the SAZ-1500D in terms of stability at .5 ohm.

Keep the SAZ-1500D you will be glad you did.

[ssh 924]

Don't let him kid you the SAZ-1500v.1 is a monster of an amp and yes the Sundown can operate daily at .5. The DDM1A is a good amplifier in itself but just not on par with the SAZ-1500D in terms of stability at .5 ohm.

Keep the SAZ-1500D you will be glad you did.

Where are you getting this information?

[jcarter1885 995]

I only used Sundown equipment before but when recently shopping for new amps I gave DD a look at as well. When I went to visit a local dealer he was telling me to stick with Sundown as far as amps go, he said DD are great amps for there money and they do there job but Sundown is what they preferred and what works better for them. They still use DD subs in there competition vehicles and just recently became a Sundown Dealer, one of the only ones in my area. Usually a shop will take your money but I appreciate there input as the amp I was looking for was twice the price of the one I bought. Just my .02 and what I have heard from someone who dealt with the two.

As far as the DD having more power and being better built, only an engineer on amplifiers can tell you that. Even if it is 300 watts more power or less power, you will never notice it at all.

[smashedz28 110]

no experience with the DD amps either but my saz 1500 is a tank, never had an amp that i was as happy with before. wouldnt trade it for any amp on the market in its power range.

[ssh 924]

no experience with the DD amps either but my saz 1500 is a tank, never had an amp that i was as happy with before. wouldnt trade it for any amp on the market in its power range.

Only monoblock amp(s) I have owned are saz1500ds, never had any problems. But since I haven't owned anything else, I honestly can't compare it to anything, or in this case a DD amp.

[ford302redneck 15]

I don't know if the switch is really in your favor.

Until you know somebody who has tested both, your not going to get a real answer.

[dvalue 17]

I and Bassahaulic are good friends with the local DD dealer and know many people running DD.

DD amps are just as bulletproof as the sundowns. One person we know is running 8 m2a's at .5 ohm each, and none of them get warm at all, even with decent voltage drop. As far as power, I'd believe it that both will output similar power, but there wouldnt be much loss or gain in switching.

[Shogen 325]

Moral of the story.... Keep what you got unless it was like a M2a you were getting out of the deal....

[ibanender 2]

so this guy is wantin to buy my saz1500 for $300(which i turned down) or trade me a dd m1a. i told him id be screwin myself out of 300w rated power and more "real" power. then he says saz is rated at 1500 @ 14.4v so i brought up jacobs testing thread and proved that it does well over 1500 at 12.8. so he goes on to say the dd is actually a better quality built amp and will be about even with the saz at 1ohm cuz the dd's 1200 rating is at 11.4v. and he said he needs a amp thats half ohm stable even though they r both 1ohm stable he knows the the saz can take a .5 load. which the saz can actually go lower ohm wise. i told him to throw something or some 80 cash (i need a recone) with the m1a and id do it which he declined. but anyway is the m1a as tough & and powerful as the saz1500 at 1ohm?

i just dont believe its better built or just as powerful.....plus its not as sexy as a sundown lol

You've already done your research to find what I was going to tell you. The Sundown amps are rated at 12v, not 14v. Something you really need to ask yourself here is; if the DD is built better, and does more power, why does he want to trade for what he feels is an inferior amp? He seems very eager to get rid of it.

I and Bassahaulic are good friends with the local DD dealer and know many people running DD.

DD amps are just as bulletproof as the sundowns. One person we know is running 8 m2a's at .5 ohm each, and none of them get warm at all, even with decent voltage drop. As far as power, I'd believe it that both will output similar power, but there wouldnt be much loss or gain in switching.

Wasn't it the M1 that had nearly every one of them go back for repair, only they weren't getting replacements back out to people for over 6 months? Those things were dieing like it was their job. I wouldn't exactly call that "bulletproof".

[Impious 1,476]

The Sundown amps are rated at 12v, not 14v.

........

Tested Voltage & THD : 14.4V & Less than 1% THD

According to the website they are rated at 14.4v. It's certainly possible they will output their rated power at 12V (though I've never seen any actual bench test results). It's also possible Jacob actually used 12V to come up with the power ratings and decided to list the rated voltage at 14.4v instead.

But the website and manual state 14.4V.

[Impious 1,476]

i told him id be screwin myself out of 300w rated power

Which is actually pretty irrelevant for daily driving type of listening, unless you are also worried about numbers on a meter. The difference on music more than likely wouldn't even be audible, though you could measure the difference on a meter.

and more "real" power. then he says saz is rated at 1500 @ 14.4v so i brought up jacobs testing thread and proved that it does well over 1500 at 12.8.

Jacob's tests don't prove a whole heck of a lot, other than 90% of forum members misinterpret the information.

That said; by all means keep the Sundown if you are happy with it.

[bassahaulic 155]

I'll ignore the fact that Sundown under rates their amps a STUPID amount. As in the "1,500" is a "2000" rated a 1500. And so on and so forth.

I and Bassahaulic are good friends with the local DD dealer and know many people running DD.

DD amps are just as bulletproof as the sundowns. One person we know is running 8 m2a's at .5 ohm each, and none of them get warm at all, even with decent voltage drop. As far as power, I'd believe it that both will output similar power, but there wouldnt be much loss or gain in switching.

I'd say the M1A/M1B is equal to the 1500 on normal 12v system as the M1A is rated at 11.9v and the 1500 is not.

Wasn't it the M1 that had nearly every one of them go back for repair, only they weren't getting replacements back out to people for over 6 months? Those things were dieing like it was their job. I wouldn't exactly call that "bulletproof".

Your kidding right? Friend of ours runs his M1A's at .25ohm daily with NO issues.

[ibanender 2]

The Sundown amps are rated at 12v, not 14v.

........

Tested Voltage & THD : 14.4V & Less than 1% THD

According to the website they are rated at 14.4v. It's certainly possible they will output their rated power at 12V (though I've never seen any actual bench test results). It's also possible Jacob actually used 12V to come up with the power ratings and decided to list the rated voltage at 14.4v instead.

But the website and manual state 14.4V.

I realize the website says that and the manual says that, but that's part of how the business is operated. Under promise, over deliver. They are rated so you WILL get the power it says it will do in a car on 12v. When they rate an amp, they don't go "well this is what the build house says it will do on 14v, so we'll rate it that".

Jacob's tests don't prove a whole heck of a lot, other than 90% of forum members misinterpret the information.

How is that? That's real world numbers. It does xxxx watts on xx.x volts at x impedance, you can't really misinterpret that.

Your kidding right? Friend of ours runs his M1A's at .25ohm daily with NO issues.

No, there was a time when DD forum was FILLED with complaints of dead amps and not getting them back for big events and finals. Maybe they fixed it, I dunno, but there was a time probably 90% of their amps failed. Also, just because 1 person uses 1 and it's fine, doesn't mean there isn't a problem most others experience.

[Impious 1,476]

I realize the website says that and the manual says that, but that's part of how the business is operated. Under promise, over deliver. They are rated so you WILL get the power it says it will do in a car on 12v. When they rate an amp, they don't go "well this is what the build house says it will do on 14v, so we'll rate it that".

Which was pretty much the point I was getting at with the last 2 sentences. I don't know that I'd call them "rated" at 12V since that's not really how they are represented in the company literature...but I certainly can't disagree with making the statement that they will provide atleast rated power at anything 12V and up (assuming that it's an accurate statement). It's really just an issue of semantics, assuming the later is accurate.

Jacob's tests don't prove a whole heck of a lot, other than 90% of forum members misinterpret the information.

How is that? That's real world numbers. It does xxxx watts on xx.x volts at x impedance, you can't really misinterpret that.

Yes, you can.....and it's pretty obvious that almost everybody does. The lone virtue of being "real world numbers" does not make them particularly useful or meaningful. Let's look briefly at why.

For the sake of discussion, for the moment we'll ignore the fact that it was measured on a reactive load and the associated issues, we'll ignore that we don't know the accuracy of the equipment, etc etc etc....we'll ignore all of the other issues right now and focus on just one for the moment (It makes the conversation a little easier to focus on one rather than everything).

Distortion. He didn't measure it. Sure, the measurement equipment read X watts, but at what level of distortion? That makes the measurement completely useless to anyone wanting to use the amplifier for actual listening duties (and the other factors we aren't discussing right now make it useless for about anybody else). How useful is that power if it's at 10% or higher distortion? What if the amp was clipping? What if, what if, what if. You can get a lot more power out of any amplifier if you completely ignore distortion. So what does that really "prove" ? Not much, for all intents and purposes.

But what do people do? "Sundown's test proves their amps are underrated !! .....proves their amps output rated power on 12V !! .... shows "real world" power !! "

No, it doesn't. Rated power is measured into a specific load with a specific power supply voltage at a specific level of distortion (and really, continuous power would also need to be rated for a specific length of time. I believe CEA-2006 specifies 1 minute). If we ignore distortion, we can not compare the measured numbers to the rated power. The two are simply different measurements that can not be compared. And if we ignore distortion during the measurement, how do we know the distortion level of the signal is at an acceptable level? We don't. It's useless for determining "real world" usable power output. If those are your idea of a "real world" power measurement, then you and I must live in completely different worlds because a necessary condition for any valid, useful and meaningful power measurement in my world is an accompanying distortion measurement (among other things). And when you add in the other issues involved in that measurement "test", it makes the test essentially useless in general for determining the actual, useable power output of the amplifier.

Just because it was measured in the "real world" does not mean it's an accurate or useful measurement. In fact it makes it less likely to be either of those things. Normally these "real world" measurements are neither of those things. "Real world" is generally just a synonym for "not properly conducted, therefore inaccurate and invalid". Variables aren't controlled or isolated, accuracy verifications aren't in place, procedures and conditions can't reliably be repeated....and in this case not all of the relevant information was even measured. The very last statement alone makes it useless in the "real world". The rest is just icing on the cake.

I'm not saying the Sundown's aren't underrated. In fact I wouldn't surprise if they were intentionally rated lower than their actual power output. It's a great marketing tool, used since the days of "cheater amps". However, what would need to be performed to verify this is a properly conducted bench test, not a "real world clamp test" as is so often performed. That test doesn't actually prove anything other than most forum members are willing to accept information (especially from manufacturer's) at face value and not think critically about what information is actually being provided, or how to properly interpret the results.

[mccleery3 166]

Very nice explanation sir

[ibanender 2]

Yes, you can.....and it's pretty obvious that almost everybody does. The lone virtue of being "real world numbers" does not make them particularly useful or meaningful. Let's look briefly at why.

For the sake of discussion, for the moment we'll ignore the fact that it was measured on a reactive load and the associated issues, we'll ignore that we don't know the accuracy of the equipment, etc etc etc....we'll ignore all of the other issues right now and focus on just one for the moment (It makes the conversation a little easier to focus on one rather than everything).

Reactive loads is what makes it REAL power. Resistive loads don't prove anything, you don't listen to resistors, and it's called impedance because it changes. You don't have x ohms all the time. If it's rated for 1 ohm, you may never go below 1.6 during play, that 1 ohm power isn't what you're getting.

Distortion. He didn't measure it. Sure, the measurement equipment read X watts, but at what level of distortion? That makes the measurement completely useless to anyone wanting to use the amplifier for actual listening duties (and the other factors we aren't discussing right now make it useless for about anybody else). How useful is that power if it's at 10% or higher distortion? What if the amp was clipping? What if, what if, what if. You can get a lot more power out of any amplifier if you completely ignore distortion. So what does that really "prove" ? Not much, for all intents and purposes.

Please tell me you don't look at THD spec on an amp to compare them. There is no standard for THD measurement. Distortion could vary at a given frequency, voltage, anything. Beyond that, do you have any idea how distorted subs are to start with? I'd be willing to bet up to 10% distortion, the ear can't differentiate. Distortion will increase power on a meter, fully clipping however will show LESS power.

But what do people do? "Sundown's test proves their amps are underrated !! .....proves their amps output rated power on 12V !! .... shows "real world" power !! "

No, it doesn't. Rated power is measured into a specific load with a specific power supply voltage at a specific level of distortion (and really, continuous power would also need to be rated for a specific length of time. I believe CEA-2006 specifies 1 minute). If we ignore distortion, we can not compare the measured numbers to the rated power. The two are simply different measurements that can not be compared. And if we ignore distortion during the measurement, how do we know the distortion level of the signal is at an acceptable level? We don't. It's useless for determining "real world" usable power output. If those are your idea of a "real world" power measurement, then you and I must live in completely different worlds because a necessary condition for any valid, useful and meaningful power measurement in my world is an accompanying distortion measurement (among other things). And when you add in the other issues involved in that measurement "test", it makes the test essentially useless in general for determining the actual, useable power output of the amplifier.

CEA-2006 is a joke. An amp could be rated at 1000 watts @ 14.4v @ 1 ohm under that system, but in a car it will get something like 650 watts in a car. Why? Because you don't have 14.4v, you have 12.6v, and then you have impedance rise. You don't have any of the conditions the amp is rated at. Is there a distortion standard? What equipment is being used to measure that distortion? Is that equipment equally calibrated to each other? What frequency is it tested at and is it tested the same way for every amp? Is the same output level being used to check that? Are all those same standards used to get the power rating? Your same reasons for "real world" numbers not being accurate also apply to every manufacturer rating their amp, even in a "standard of measurement".

Just because it was measured in the "real world" does not mean it's an accurate or useful measurement. In fact it makes it less likely to be either of those things. Normally these "real world" measurements are neither of those things. "Real world" is generally just a synonym for "not properly conducted, therefore inaccurate and invalid". Variables aren't controlled or isolated, accuracy verifications aren't in place, procedures and conditions can't reliably be repeated....and in this case not all of the relevant information was even measured. The very last statement alone makes it useless in the "real world". The rest is just icing on the cake.

Yes, real world DOES mean it's accurate and useful. In THAT vehicle with THOSE conditions it did THAT number. Will you have those exact conditions? Maybe, maybe not, but at least you get an idea of what it's capable of in a vehicle and not on a bench with a resistor. The only way a test isnt properly conducted is if you fail at basic math and can't multiply 2 numbers. Can those conditions be recreated? Sure, that same vehicle has the same conditions, if you test one against another, you have accurate results. You've used the same scenario with the same test equipment. Bottom line is anybody who is concerned with actual output probably has their aim at SPL, where distortion doesn't matter. Power is power, it does it or it doesn't, and an SPL meter doesn't discriminate. If 1 amp does more power than another amp, odds are, SPL went up.

The testing you want will never be done, because every manufacturer would have to use the same test equipment, calibrated before every use, under standards that would only be adhered to by honest people.

[Adrian_D 520]

Yes, you can.....and it's pretty obvious that almost everybody does. The lone virtue of being "real world numbers" does not make them particularly useful or meaningful. Let's look briefly at why.

For the sake of discussion, for the moment we'll ignore the fact that it was measured on a reactive load and the associated issues, we'll ignore that we don't know the accuracy of the equipment, etc etc etc....we'll ignore all of the other issues right now and focus on just one for the moment (It makes the conversation a little easier to focus on one rather than everything).

Reactive loads is what makes it REAL power. Resistive loads don't prove anything, you don't listen to resistors, and it's called impedance because it changes. You don't have x ohms all the time. If it's rated for 1 ohm, you may never go below 1.6 during play, that 1 ohm power isn't what you're getting.

Doesn't matter if the load is resistive or reactive as long as in testing I have the same impedance...

Resistive loads are much better for repeatability.

Distortion. He didn't measure it. Sure, the measurement equipment read X watts, but at what level of distortion? That makes the measurement completely useless to anyone wanting to use the amplifier for actual listening duties (and the other factors we aren't discussing right now make it useless for about anybody else). How useful is that power if it's at 10% or higher distortion? What if the amp was clipping? What if, what if, what if. You can get a lot more power out of any amplifier if you completely ignore distortion. So what does that really "prove" ? Not much, for all intents and purposes.

Please tell me you don't look at THD spec on an amp to compare them. There is no standard for THD measurement. Distortion could vary at a given frequency, voltage, anything. Beyond that, do you have any idea how distorted subs are to start with? I'd be willing to bet up to 10% distortion, the ear can't differentiate. Distortion will increase power on a meter, fully clipping however will show LESS power.

Obviously it counts for measurement comparisons. We're not talking about differences in listening here, we are talking about measurements on 2 amps, don't try to sway the argument there with subwoofer distortion

A simple oscilloscope and making sure the signal is perfect at the moment of measurement clears things up. Or at least gives a valid reference point.

Fully clipped signal contains more power than a clean signal of the same amplitude...

That signal in testing could have been clipped to all hell for all I know and if I measure with a clean signal I probably won't get the same result. The more distortion, the power...simple...

Personally I've seen systems that kept gaining score as long as I could turn the gain knob. And it was serious clipping there... for me arguing that the score was a certainty the signal was clean is not going to work.

[Impious 1,476]

You might as well stop responding. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make those results anything more than what they are. They are not "real world", they are useless and meaningless. You obviously don't understand why. But nothing you can say will change that fact.

Reactive loads is what makes it REAL power. Resistive loads don't prove anything, you don't listen to resistors, and it's called impedance because it changes. You don't have x ohms all the time. If it's rated for 1 ohm, you may never go below 1.6 during play, that 1 ohm power isn't what you're getting.

Reactive load doesn't make it "real" power. You obviously don't understand the difference between resistive and reactive loads and the important differences in the results of a measurement.

Resistive loads are used, first and foremost, for consistent and repeatable results, and second for simplification of obtaining accurate results as the measurement and calculation is much less complicated.

With a reactive load the voltage and current will be out of phase and other issues to deal with. The measurement isn't a simple volts * amps measurement. If you understood this, you would understand why the results of a clamp test on a reactive load aren't reliable unless you know exactly how the power figure was measured and calculated. If it was simply volts * amps, toss the results out the window....that's how useful they are. If you don't know how it was measured and calculated, toss the results out of the window. They are useless.

The fact it was a reactive load does not make it "real world", useful, accurate or meaningful. Definitely not more meaningful than a resistive load. In fact it makes it less likely to be an accurate measurement because it's more likely to have been measured and calculated incorrectly.

Though even if you could prove the power on the reactive load was properly and accurately measured, there is still the issue of no distortion or signal measurement which makes the test useless and meaningless.

Please tell me you don't look at THD spec on an amp to compare them. There is no standard for THD measurement. Distortion could vary at a given frequency, voltage, anything. Beyond that, do you have any idea how distorted subs are to start with? I'd be willing to bet up to 10% distortion, the ear can't differentiate. Distortion will increase power on a meter, fully clipping however will show LESS power.

Since the signal itself wasn't measured, we don't even know if the amplifier was heavily clipping when it produced those power figures. So I assume next you are going to argue that it's okay to run the amplifier at full on clipping every day. Because this is the argument you are supporting by default. We don't know what the signal looked like during those measurements.....making them fully useless. You can't argue this point. In order to argue that this test represents "real world" usable power, you would have to be able to demonstrate the amplifier wasn't clipping and the distortion was at an acceptable level. You simply can not do this because it wasn't measured. If the signal were measured, you would then need to demonstrate that the distortion was at an acceptable level. You can't do this either. Because it wasn't measured. You can't compare those measurements to the "rated power" because the rated power figure is limited to a certain THD percentage. Which makes the measurement useless for comparing to their rated power.

That necessarily makes those measurements useless as "real world usable power" figures unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to run an amplifier at full on clipping every day for both competitions and daily music listening. Because without a measurement of the signal, you have no way to prove that wasn't the case, to prove the amplifier wasn't clipping and distortion was at an acceptable level and to prove the distortion was 1% or less as the amplifier is rated at.

And let me save you the trouble. You're probably going to come back with "well you prove the amplifier was clipping." That's the point. I can't prove it was, you can't prove it wasn't. So how useful is that measurement? It's not, because we don't know. If you don't understand this, I'm sorry.....you are too ignorant to help.

Clipping will increase the measured power from an amplifier assuming you are correctly measuring the signal.

You didn't argue my point that you can get more power out of any amplifier if we ignore distortion, because you can't. That, also, makes the test useless. Ignoring distortion and the signal doesn't make the test accurate, useful or "real world".......it makes it useless and meaningless. Why don't we just measure all amps without considering distortion or clipping and make them all look really underrated?

CEA-2006 is a joke. An amp could be rated at 1000 watts @ 14.4v @ 1 ohm under that system, but in a car it will get something like 650 watts in a car. Why? Because you don't have 14.4v, you have 12.6v, and then you have impedance rise. You don't have any of the conditions the amp is rated at. Is there a distortion standard? What equipment is being used to measure that distortion? Is that equipment equally calibrated to each other? What frequency is it tested at and is it tested the same way for every amp? Is the same output level being used to check that? Are all those same standards used to get the power rating? Your same reasons for "real world" numbers not being accurate also apply to every manufacturer rating their amp, even in a "standard of measurement".

First, you took something that was nothing more than a side comment and spent half of your paragraph responding to that. Really? You think CEA-2006 really has any bearing on the crux my argument? It was a side bar comment. You take one comment that wasn't even relevant to the point being made and spend half of your time responding to it because you can't actually argue against the material that was relevant to the conversation. My entire point was about distortion. I make one comment about not ignoring time frame either, and you focus on that ? My argument had nothing to do with the relative accuracy of CEA-2006. Typical discourse from you and your inability to argue against my points.

So your proposal here is to completely eliminate a distortion measurement, I presume? So far you again haven't argued against my point, which is that power measurements with and without distortion measurements aren't comparable, which makes this test useless when trying to compare it to rated power or knowing how much of that measured power is "usable"......Because you can't. If the amplifier was clipping, or distortion above 1%, you can't compare the results of that test to rated power or know that all of that power is actually usable in practice. You are just trying to come up with reasons to invalidate all other tests. Another stereotypical ibanender tactic. Can't argue the point, so you sideline the argument to one you think you can win.

Yes, there are means by which to accurately measure distortion and power. There are proper ways in which to conduct the measurement, and there is accurate measurement equipment. If the amplifier is rated at less than 1% THD and the manufacturer used a less accurate method of measuring either distortion or power, then it's easily explained as the manufacturer either being ignorant or intentionally being deceptive. Are there improper ways to measure it and inaccurate equipment? Sure, just like there is improper ways to measure power But that doesn't invalidate every test that does make those measurements. It doesn't invalidate an accurate measurement process and equipment. It doesn't invalidate the proper method of obtaining a useful power measurement (i.e. including a proper and accurate distortion measurement, or hell even the shape of the signal). It doesn't invalidate properly bench testing an amplifier to determine performance. And it also does absolutely nothing to validate the results of this test or make them "real world", useful or meaningful to anyone at all. He can't demonstrate distortion or even the shape of the waveform.....which makes it neither useful, accurate, valid or meaningful much less "real world".

You also haven't demonstrated why it wouldn't be important to know the distortion of the signal or if the amplifier is clipping, other than you don't personally think someone could hear distortion from an amplifier up to 10% THD (you ignored the possibility of the amplifier clipping). So for the sake of discussion, let's just assume you are right. I'm not conceding the point, but it would be another 5 page discussion which isn't needed. So for right now we'll say you can't hear distortion from an amp up to 10%. That test is still useless simply because we don't know whether or not the amp was clipping. So, do you think it's completely acceptable to run an amplifier into full clipping constantly and for all purposes? Because in order to support your argument that the results represent real world usable power, you would have to answer this question yes. If you answer the question "No", you are by default admitting the test as useless since the signal wasn't measured.

So, what's your answer?

Yes, real world DOES mean it's accurate and useful. In THAT vehicle with THOSE conditions it did THAT number. Will you have those exact conditions? Maybe, maybe not, but at least you get an idea of what it's capable of in a vehicle and not on a bench with a resistor. The only way a test isnt properly conducted is if you fail at basic math and can't multiply 2 numbers. Can those conditions be recreated? Sure, that same vehicle has the same conditions, if you test one against another, you have accurate results. You've used the same scenario with the same test equipment. Bottom line is anybody who is concerned with actual output probably has their aim at SPL, where distortion doesn't matter. Power is power, it does it or it doesn't, and an SPL meter doesn't discriminate. If 1 amp does more power than another amp, odds are, SPL went up.

The testing you want will never be done, because every manufacturer would have to use the same test equipment, calibrated before every use, under standards that would only be adhered to by honest people.

Well, atleast we are getting closer. You finally admitted those results wouldn't be accurate, useful or meaningful to anyone except that one specific scenario. Even though you are wrong, it's not useful to anyone at all, that's definitely a step in the right direction.

It's not even accurate and useful in that particular vehicle because there wasn't a measurement of the signal to determine clipping and/or distortion, and we don't even know if the power was properly measured and calculated in that particular test and the accuracy of the measurement equipment. The first statement alone makes it useless to anyone including in that vehicle and including comparing that number to it's rated power, the later makes it useless to everybody else. It's not "real world", it's "real meaningless".

Power isn't power. You obviously don't understand the different power measurements on a reactive load. And yes, the test isn't properly conducted if the power isn't measured and calculated properly. It's not as simple as multiplying two numbers on a reactive load. Google it sometime.

And that test is important to people outside of SPL. Just look at the OP in this thread. That test was his "proof" that Sundown was underrated when the test proves nothing of the sort. Forum members and customers are looking at that test and taking the information for something it is not.

Though I find it interesting you've stated multiple times on here that SPL goes down with a clipped signal.....but when it comes to the Sundown test, having a clipped signal would be perfectly acceptable since distortion doesn't matter to SPL guys. You can't even keep your story straight.

That test proves nothing. It's not "real world". It's not useful to anyone. Not even in that vehicle. It doesn't demonstrate the amplifiers are underrated. A bench test would be infinitely more useful for determining "real world" results. If you don't understand this or understand why, you don't understand the basics of the science which you probably learned back in 4th grade. That's what it boils down to. Proper procedures and methods for obtaining accurate and useful results. Being an accurate, valid and meaningful measurement isn't less "real world" just because it's not done in a vehicle. In fact they are much more meaningful and relevant to the real world than anything done "in the real world" that isn't done by the proper methods, doesn't measure all of the necessary info, and provides results that are not consistent and repeatable under any other circumstance (and probably not even repeatable under those same circumstances since gain position was "eyeballed"). This is the very basis of scientific testing.

The results of that test are useless and meaningless. That simple. There is nothing you can say that will change that simple fact. Though you seem to have a penchant for participating in debates you can't possibly win.

[ssh 924]

Quite the handful Imp, if you keep replying to all his statements your gonna have carpal tunnel lol

[Impious 1,476]

Quite the handful Imp, if you keep replying to all his statements your gonna have carpal tunnel lol

If this one goes like our other discussions, it will get to the point where his responses become so useless and generally unimportant that I'll simply give up on trying to meaningfully respond. He likes to ignore the main points and focus instead on the minor and insignificant comments or he likes to try to take the conversation away from the main points because he can't actually refute them. He realizes when he's wrong and tries to make it look like he's in the right by changing the conversation and ignoring the information he can't rebut.

[ssh 924]

He could make for a politician

[aimone 4]

wow look wut i started lol.....

the dude was wantin to trade me amps because he needs one that is .5ohm stable which the dd m1a is not. theres no way im tradin cause in my new build this summer i plan on runnin .5 daily.

but thanks for the advice and input.

btw if ur interested in jacobs tests of all the class d's saz1000-4500 heres a link(cant find the one on ssa):

http://www.*****.com/board/topic/50753-sundown-amp-clamp-tests/

[ssh 924]

wow look wut i started lol.....

the dude was wantin to trade me amps because he needs one that is .5ohm stable which the dd m1a is not. theres no way im tradin cause in my new build this summer i plan on runnin .5 daily.

but thanks for the advice and input.

btw if ur interested in jacobs tests of all the class d's saz1000-4500 heres a link(cant find the one on ssa):

http://www.stevemeadedesigns.com/board/topic/50753-sundown-amp-clamp-tests/

Did you not just read everything Imp typed out?

[ibanender 2]

Doesn't matter if the load is resistive or reactive as long as in testing I have the same impedance...

Resistive loads are much better for repeatability.

Correct, power at a given condition is what it is. In a given vehicle, the reactive load is repeatable, over and over.

Obviously it counts for measurement comparisons. We're not talking about differences in listening here, we are talking about measurements on 2 amps, don't try to sway the argument there with subwoofer distortion

A simple oscilloscope and making sure the signal is perfect at the moment of measurement clears things up. Or at least gives a valid reference point.

Fully clipped signal contains more power than a clean signal of the same amplitude...

That signal in testing could have been clipped to all hell for all I know and if I measure with a clean signal I probably won't get the same result. The more distortion, the power...simple...

Personally I've seen systems that kept gaining score as long as I could turn the gain knob. And it was serious clipping there... for me arguing that the score was a certainty the signal was clean is not going to work.

A simple oscilloscope will show if it's clean or not, it won't give a specific percentage. That takes a more advanced device. And again, if 10% is inaudible, does it matter if it's perfectly clean? No.

If the systems kept gaining, it wasn't clipping a lot. When you reach major clipping, your score will go DOWN. Your power doesn't go up, your heat does. Since you don't believe in real world testing, you wouldn't know that from actually testing things.

You might as well stop responding. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make those results anything more than what they are. They are not "real world", they are useless and meaningless. You obviously don't understand why. But nothing you can say will change that fact.

I am going to stop responding, because there is absolutely nothing anybody can say to get you off of this idea that all specs must be measured to a standard that is uniform to have an accurate result, when there isn't a standard that is followed precisely because of equipment variance, user error, not not specific enough conditions. I didn't even bother reading all of that because quite frankly, I don't give a shit. I measure power with amperage and current, it directly reflects my score, and if it sounds fine I don't care how much distortion is or isn't there. That's how everybody outside of anal retentive people work, they don't need a spec to tell them it sounds good, they just listen to it.

Did you not just read everything Imp typed out?

I'm guessing no, for the reasons I just explained.