Leaderboard

Going through I don't think they meant you were bashing the company/nick but others. I don't see how they're being sarcastic. Impious, tirefryr and shizzzon were trying to explain. M5 was the only one being sarcastic and was only doing it because tenacious is annoying and ignorant. I don't understand why you guys don't listen to these guys... Zero tact and constantly talking in circles rather than being direct. Discredits whatever they see fit without truly explaining why everyone else should discredit. They act as though they're %100 right, but fail to fully disclose why they are correct and someone else is incorrect. They scream tolerances and calibrations yet never give any real numbers. They never ask what the given tools tolerances are and if they have been calibrated or when the last time they were calibrated. Just because you have technical training behind you and some real world exercise, doesn't mean you have the right to discredit everyone else. It's easy to sit behind a computer and seem all so intelligent. There's a common factor of why a lot of people don't like this forum. Maybe you should go and seek some education and then you might understand just how much money, time, equipment, etc... goes into testing, measuring, certifying etc. Right now it seems that all these guys are "talking circles rather then being direct" but you clearly do not understand this subject. Once you go out and find the necessary knowledge, then you will realize how right these few guys are. Until then, argue on and have fun!! I more than understand this subject. This shit is simple, yet you tech team dick riders and "tech team" want to make this complicated. Maybe you should take some laxative and the rest of the tech team to get rid of the bull shit you guys are full of. I swear you guys could ruin a wet dream because one of her nails was .05mm too long. Yet, every post you make shows how little you do understand and your inability to comprehend. If you understood what was happening and comprehended what has actually been discussed and challenged here, you would never have posted. You keep stating people are typing in circles, yet the ones whom keep complaining about it are in fact the ones doing it. Everything has been explained to you; you just won't allow yourself to understand it as you would have to admit to yourself that you don't really know as much as you think you do. Don't get upset, this happens to us all. How about taking a step back, and just thinking, these guys ARE right and why they are. The simple fact is, the man who did the "testing" and posted this information is simply a hobbyist. His results can not be relied on, yet many people whom don't understand this WILL rely on his "testing" simply because they don't know any better. As long as there are uncontrollable variables, the "testing" is pointless. If ANY of us conducted this "testing" in a similar matter, the "tests" would also be invalid. If these "tests" were being conducted by a lab, by a professional, all testing parameters would have laid out, explained, and discussed in length before any testing had begun. Than and only then could the results be relied upon and only after many amplifiers had been tested not just one or ten.

Exactly. If you challenge them, then you're %100 wrong. This whole thread is dancing in circles. The tools used to do these tests are published. It's not like they're hiding... If you're so worried about certain things, go fucking look them up. Also, it wasn't just a "clamp test" But lets only focus on one aspect of this whole damn thing. God forbid we open our eyes wider This shit reminds me about the argument over linear vs progressive spiders. Shit was completely ridiculous. You guys focus on one little aspect. the burden of proof is always on those who made the claim. in this case the person who conducted the testing. he is responsible for providing accurate information. in simple terms, the results of his clamp test are invalid because they are not complete results (and any conclusions or comparisons he makes are not only false but misleading). this should be very easy to understand.

Going through I don't think they meant you were bashing the company/nick but others. I don't see how they're being sarcastic. Impious, tirefryr and shizzzon were trying to explain. M5 was the only one being sarcastic and was only doing it because tenacious is annoying and ignorant. I don't understand why you guys don't listen to these guys... Zero tact and constantly talking in circles rather than being direct. Discredits whatever they see fit without truly explaining why everyone else should discredit. They act as though they're %100 right, but fail to fully disclose why they are correct and someone else is incorrect. They scream tolerances and calibrations yet never give any real numbers. They never ask what the given tools tolerances are and if they have been calibrated or when the last time they were calibrated. Just because you have technical training behind you and some real world exercise, doesn't mean you have the right to discredit everyone else. It's easy to sit behind a computer and seem all so intelligent. There's a common factor of why a lot of people don't like this forum. Maybe you should go and seek some education and then you might understand just how much money, time, equipment, etc... goes into testing, measuring, certifying etc. Right now it seems that all these guys are "talking circles rather then being direct" but you clearly do not understand this subject. Once you go out and find the necessary knowledge, then you will realize how right these few guys are. Until then, argue on and have fun!! I more than understand this subject. This shit is simple, yet you tech team dick riders and "tech team" want to make this complicated. Maybe you should take some laxative and the rest of the tech team to get rid of the bull shit you guys are full of. I swear you guys could ruin a wet dream because one of her nails was .05mm too long. You understand the subject? How about you present your credentials? Perhaps you can share with the forum how to properly conduct amplifier testing? Thats right, you can't even begin to describe how to conduct any scientific testing, can you? Keep your childish comments to yourself. this thread was really informative until you guys got your little feelings hurt.

Another fact, man who did the testing came on here and didn't say squat. Tells a story now doesn't it. If he now decides to post, may his first post just share the uncertainty in his measurement. Here is my analogy again, but now with graphics. You need to measure length. Here is your tool. If you report that what you measure is 3 63/128" of an inch we will laugh at you. If you report 3 63/128" +/-1/4" it would be nearly acceptable although a rather strange way to report. And the sad part is, the actual claim is off WAY further than my analogy. Do the math once and you will understand. If you can't do the math, you don't understand the measurement obviously which really gives your posts credibility.

Umm, obviously you don't. This is what started the thread and what we are discussing. Followed by this. And on top of it, if you did you wouldn't have posted about the temperature. No shit sherlock that is part of the UNCERTAINTY that hasn't been shared. Open your mind for once and think instead of reciting some garbage you misinterpreted. Metrology is very scientific and VERY easy to understand. I don't quite see why this is confusing to those attempting to make this an argument.

lol

I sense you starting to get into the troll realm considering you already said you had no reason to post on this thread anymore...I see all of this as pointless bickering at this point, the point has been proven for all parties. The point is, this test is neither pinpoint accurate or inaccurate to the point of being invalid. It was performed to give a general idea of amplifier power. And it does just that. Everyone can dance around that fact all that they want, but it's still true.It's not true, now matter how many times you type it. And that clearly is not how people are interpreting the results consider the number of people using this test as "proof" the amp is "over rated", and then apparently using this single test to question the integrity of the entire brand. Blind leading the blind.

I sense you starting to get into the troll realm considering you already said you had no reason to post on this thread anymore... I see all of this as pointless bickering at this point, the point has been proven for all parties.

Be ready to build one stout set of doors. I personally would suggest looking for a neo driver as weight will add up quick.

That and IMO you are looking for the wrong things. In general a low xmax driver will sound much better in a 2 way. I still wouldn't do a 12 2 way though. The real question is why a 12? Seems to me you need something that plays from 50-1kHz or so. A 12 will never do that and off axis it is even hard for an 8.

A 12 inch driver will not play high enough to blend with tweeters.

Bought myself a berfday present this morning.

Do not use the IB drivers in a ported enclosure. The response will be terrible. That is not at all what they were designed for. If you are wanting to go ported then most definitely sell the IB drivers and purchase something else.

What do you mean by play with? That oscope is a toy, not a tool. And for playing there are many other ways I'd spend $90. Unfairly I have a >$30k scope at my disposal, but that being said the only time I've ever used it on an amplifier was for troubleshooting internals on a failed unit.

No Neal. From what I've seen they only sell the blue caps new anymore and those are 2.7v 3kf.The black ones are 2.5v 2600F. The black ones I have come used around $20-25 each. The blue ones are $60-80. Ok, so you are using the K2 series?

BTW, no need to answer on the Software. I googled. Starting to play with WinISD now.

Wow. I hope you have no influence on the design of any of your products. Citing the meter is laughable as that is the easily calibrated portion of the test. Measuring voltage is rather simple.

The air ride wasn't working, the DS window switch works intermittently, the return spring on the column for the turn signals is broken, it's got a burr in the rack, and there is a small rust bubble through on the PS quarter. For some reason, the guy thought it needed thousands of dollars or repairs. I replaced the air ride switch with one I had lying around and fixed that, so the only thing I need to purchase is a new rack, and fix the little rust bubble. No big deal here.

Yeap, I have no idea what's going on. I'm completely clueless. By no means have I been bashing or soiling Nick or IA's rep. I have no reason to that. Maybe you guys forget what they've done for me. I haven't. No one has answered my questions yet but I knew that would happen. It's always a dick measuring contest. Who can be the better sarcastic prick! Soup sandwich.

Ah, I was confused since your first post was right. 60-300Hz is a midbass. Midwoofer can be either a midbass or a midrange, but generally I'd consider it a midrange. If you are truly stuck on 6.5 then the Peerless will fit, but at slightly larger sizes (maybe even nominal) there are equal if not better choices.

Unless you are an electrical engineer and also have the accompanying schematics, then pictures of any amp are meaningless. People on the internet like to ooh and ahh over pics, but 99.9% of the members commenting on or who are impressed with those pictures haven't a clue what they are looking at or should be looking for. They just see a lot of big parts or a high parts count and assume that makes it better. To make matters worse dozens of members post comments talking about how awesome these amps look in the pics when they have no idea what they are looking at, so novice members take those comments as fact.Amp guts pics are as useless to the average user as clamp tests. Another case of money-see monkey-do internet boners where a bunch of people talk and brag about something when they really have no clue.

There are a couple things I would like to point out here... First, any modeling program is going to force a midbass driver into a ported application, based on the higher Fs which boosts EBP. Please bear in mind that EBP (efficiency bandwidth product) is simply Fs/Qes. The majority of the modeling programs are looking to achieve a very flat FR and the lowest F3 possible. So take that with a grain of salt. Why? Because you don't really need to worry about the low F3. First, this is a midbass driver, so an F3 of 30Hz is going to be unnecessary. Second, cabin gains in the car will help fatten up anything around 100Hz or less (I know I will get an argument from someone saying 80Hz, and vehicle specific, or whatever... I am just making a quick generalization here), so you don't necessarily want to see a flat anechoic response curve that low, or you will have to skinny up the bottom end via EQ if you are looking for a flat response. Second, I suggest you not focus on a single crossover slope. Different vehicles with different driver combination will respond differently to various slopes. While we like to use steep crossover slopes on tweeters, and midranges, we don't necessarily want to use them on midbass drivers. Why? Well, the lower we extend in the frequency range the more air the driver has to move in order to maintain linear output. Tweeters have very small diaphragms, and too much extension can cause distortions, and can be mechanically dangerous to the driver (if you would like to see a ring radiator I have one torn apart, and I may even have a silk dome torn down, just let me know and I will get a few shots for you.). So rather then demand them to go beyond their physical limitations we elect to cross them sharply. The same can be said with midrange drivers, and I don't mean extended range midrange/midbass drivers, I mean 3 or 4 inch midrange. We don't want to start seeing them overextend themselves and fall apart (audibly I mean), but where we want to cross a tweeter at say a 24 octave slope, we would be more comfortable crossing the midrange at 18 or even 12db slopes. Keep in mind, the frequency range per octave is very broad when we get into higher frequencies, where they get much smaller at lower frequency ranges... for example a 1 octave slope from a 60Hz crossover point is only 30Hz, where a 1 octave slope from a 5000Hz crossover point is 2500Hz, which is 1 reason why we are more comfortable using a more gradual slope when we cross lower and lower. With a midbass driver, it should be pretty capable of getting down low without much breakup, and our slopes are significantly more steep, just based on how narrow an octave becomes at such low frequencies. So don't go worrying so much about your bottom end slope with regards to the crossover point in the car. It is really something you should just play with until you find what works best. I think the reason you pushed the Auras is because they are pretty sterile. They just don't seem to deliver quite as loud as a distorted driver. I like to remind people that the very limits of our hearing are the places where music becomes emotion, not sound. This is why a linear, undistorted subwoofer (as well as midwoofers) sounds so sterile, because it is more of a feeling then an audible perception. So you shouldn't try to hear the music, in as much as you should try to gather the emotion of it... That is what sound quality is all about.

AD-1 would solve this bs.

I hate that other forum..

lol. This thread makes me think back to my engineering measurement lab papers. It's been a while since I've read audio forum drama. I'm glad I could get a laugh.

fuck dude

Pot meet kettle. The amusing part is an argument occurs when people discuss different views and when your view ignores science and fact it is pretty funny to keep commenting. And yes, I must be closed minded. I discredited a clamp test. Only fucking morons would say that a clamp test doesn't measure power...Perhaps you can open my mind. Why not share why it is a valid test instead of spouting it is because X did it and X knows his shit. Understanding is the key to opening a mind and if there is something that the forum should be open to why not share? You sure haven't so far.

The correct way can EVEN be done with what he has. All that has to be done is to report the uncertainty of the measurement. Very simple. The difficult part will become for the things for which there is no published uncertainty. There at least a calculation and stating what was calculated would give a ton of credibility to the test. If you are looking for a laundry list of components to do that you shouldn't ask me. Last system I sold for doing testing on an amplifier was over $150k. There are definitely significantly cheaper methods, but that again depends on what uncertainty you would like to measure to. So again, we are back to the goal of the test if equipment is to be recommended...which is backwards as the first step should be what I described first. It is dumbfounding to me that this search wouldn't be done by anyone measuring anything. Wanting to understand things is more than half the fun of life.

brown chicken brown cow!!!! look at that sexy on wheels!! ex or sig?what year? sweet dude, the navi i just bought makes 32 lincolns for me.

Being a business in this market I'm curious.. I don't think you guys make amps but let's say you did. You spend a shit ton having it properly tested and this guy goes telling everyone it does xx and spreads it like wild fire. Would you question his methods then?

Valid measurement procedures and processes don't change regardless of the area of interest. Car audio and quantum mechanics are exactly the same thing as far as measurement criteria are concerned...in order to provide meaningful results, proper test methodologies must be followed otherwise the results are meaningless. Again the fact this is lost on everyone hanging their hat on this and other clamp tests is part of the problem. I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. Until proven otherwise it's an assumption that must be brought into question in order to objectively evaluate the results. Not just this clamp test, but any of them.Just to clarify that isn't the only objection. But it's a fundamental one, and everything else isn't even worth discussing until the accuracy of the equipment and uncertainty of the measurement has been properly verified and stated. Again the fact this is lost on everyone hanging their hat on this and every other clamp test is part of the problem.

That's an ironic statement considering you are going off of this assumption that his tools are accurate.If we knew for certain the dmm and clamp meter were calibrated and remotely accurate (ie: 5100watts vs 5150.5watts) then I could see using them for this situation, but if you don't know for certain how accurate they are then that's troublesome. Then the next issue I see is measuring distortion. If you don't know what the THD is when you're measuring then it's pointless. On top of that you would need to know how accurate the measuring device for distortion is. The results of these tests is a sum of using multiple measurement devices where none of the measurement devices are calibrated or compared to some standard. If each is off some, all together that could be a substantial difference, or perhaps it's not, but if you don't know then how can you possibly trust the results? I don't know much about electronics or amps, but there's probably a lot more factors that go into accurately measuring an amp besides voltage, amperage, impedance, and THD, but that's all I can point out. :shrugs:

But, but, but, it didn't do rated. It has to be flawed.... I understand their view, and their concern is not legitimate in this case, in my opinion. The results may not be 100% precise, but they're accurate enough for the purpose they serve. If you require an amp test to be accurate within 10 watts for your personal use.... so be it. I don't. You're the only one name calling here... So you think it's just barely off? For one, the testing method is not consistent. Like others have stated before, it's used for TROUBLESHOOTING, not for proper power measurement. Second, did you know it was recently retested by the same person and now it's went fro 13.5 to 14.6v and gained 3,200w? Now it's over 10k clipped. People are "guessing" in that topic as to how much THD that is.. Bam- guessing.. that method of measuring power is for troubleshooting. For accurate results, testing must be consistent. The 2 tests are not consistent and not controlled due to human error and the lack of THD measurement. You can't state you obtained a certain amount of power without other factors. Tfade has not done anything wrong to defer his measurements. It's the lack of knowledge the audience has that concludes what they think they obtained from that information. The same thing goes for many SMD devices as well but don't get me started on that. So the measurements show a lack of output power.. Well.. that's not right.. Test again.. now we have massively increased power... Lack of consistency and other measurements. Tfade isn't trying to replace proper means of measuring with a low cost technique. He's basically just trying to see if the equipment holds true to it's ratings. The problem is messing with amps of this caliber is not easy because the higher the numbers go, the greater the inconsistency in his testing method. The audience should take THAT as a big potential problem that is hard to control. Even on low power, his method will net him closer to actual ratings but still not concrete enough because of a lack of tools and technique. A power rating consists of a lot more than just 1 power rating with a voltage and a THD rating and not even those 3 things have been met in sync in one test yet. Like i've said many times before, I defer to the manufacturer's testing themselves as they are more equipped for the task. The second test was to prove a point... To get the 10k that people claim out of the amp, it was clipped to hell and back. The first test was "around" but not exactly at the THD rating that the manufacturer gives. I guess we have to throw something on an amp dyno to make you guys happy.. lol So, all other tests done by anyone in this aspect was not to prove a point? Every test is to prove a point however inaccurate it might be. And nothing is making us unhappy. I personally do not care about the output results because i know because of inaccuracies, the results are pointless. That's why i do not comment on how good or bad so and so amp is. What I may comment on, like i am here, is the lack of understanding people get from the numbers. We can go about this this way too- on SMD a while back, someone dyno'ed a 5kw amp on the burst setting and it put out over 9k. Just that alone went on for weeks and weeks across forums about how awesome the amp is.. it can do 9k, etc.. In reality, that test is not to test output but headroom potential which is another debate that i am not a fan of either because the reasoning makes no sense. Then many people across the forums finally begin to understand how worthless the test is when you see how an amplifier is actually used. This is the same way.. It's going to take a while for it to dig in but once people understand that testing must be controlled on a level that is not done here, then results are for troubleshooting, not for obtaining the ratings themselves.

Ha, that isn't a build house problem. Before any measurement you need to ask why youre doing a measurement . Take an automotive dyno. Absolute hp is not what they measure but relative. No secret tthere are huge variances but for doing a baseline and making changes it is fine. For stating an absolute no way. The uncertainty in the test may be huge. I've seen setups where it is well over 50%. Super easy to add up which anyone doing any sort of basic metrology would undersfand. And no I am not implying any percentage off on this test, but that unless the uncertainties are reviewed the result is inappropriate. Quoting digits beyond accuracy is a lie. Thought my ruler analogy would give you a clue

But, but, but, it didn't do rated. It has to be flawed.... I understand their view, and their concern is not legitimate in this case, in my opinion. The results may not be 100% precise, but they're accurate enough for the purpose they serve. If you require an amp test to be accurate within 10 watts for your personal use.... so be it. I don't. You're the only one name calling here... So you think it's just barely off? For one, the testing method is not consistent. Like others have stated before, it's used for TROUBLESHOOTING, not for proper power measurement. Second, did you know it was recently retested by the same person and now it's went fro 13.5 to 14.6v and gained 3,200w? Now it's over 10k clipped. People are "guessing" in that topic as to how much THD that is.. Bam- guessing.. that method of measuring power is for troubleshooting. For accurate results, testing must be consistent. The 2 tests are not consistent and not controlled due to human error and the lack of THD measurement. You can't state you obtained a certain amount of power without other factors. Tfade has not done anything wrong to defer his measurements. It's the lack of knowledge the audience has that concludes what they think they obtained from that information. The same thing goes for many SMD devices as well but don't get me started on that. So the measurements show a lack of output power.. Well.. that's not right.. Test again.. now we have massively increased power... Lack of consistency and other measurements. Tfade isn't trying to replace proper means of measuring with a low cost technique. He's basically just trying to see if the equipment holds true to it's ratings. The problem is messing with amps of this caliber is not easy because the higher the numbers go, the greater the inconsistency in his testing method. The audience should take THAT as a big potential problem that is hard to control. Even on low power, his method will net him closer to actual ratings but still not concrete enough because of a lack of tools and technique. A power rating consists of a lot more than just 1 power rating with a voltage and a THD rating and not even those 3 things have been met in sync in one test yet. Like i've said many times before, I defer to the manufacturer's testing themselves as they are more equipped for the task.

Going through I don't think they meant you were bashing the company/nick but others. I don't see how they're being sarcastic. Impious, tirefryr and shizzzon were trying to explain. M5 was the only one being sarcastic and was only doing it because tenacious is annoying and ignorant. I don't understand why you guys don't listen to these guys... Zero tact and constantly talking in circles rather than being direct. Discredits whatever they see fit without truly explaining why everyone else should discredit. They act as though they're %100 right, but fail to fully disclose why they are correct and someone else is incorrect. They scream tolerances and calibrations yet never give any real numbers. They never ask what the given tools tolerances are and if they have been calibrated or when the last time they were calibrated. Just because you have technical training behind you and some real world exercise, doesn't mean you have the right to discredit everyone else. It's easy to sit behind a computer and seem all so intelligent. There's a common factor of why a lot of people don't like this forum. Maybe you should go and seek some education and then you might understand just how much money, time, equipment, etc... goes into testing, measuring, certifying etc. Right now it seems that all these guys are "talking circles rather then being direct" but you clearly do not understand this subject. Once you go out and find the necessary knowledge, then you will realize how right these few guys are. Until then, argue on and have fun!!

Reread the thread. 95Honda and M5 both posted reasons why. No one supporting the test even responded to those posts with a meaningful reply. And frankly we've discussed clamp tests on this forum a couple dozen times. Last I checked the search function worked fine.... And if you were paying attention, you would have understood this was M5's point. The READER shouldn't HAVE to ask. A valid test conducted in a meaningful and useful manor would have that information presented as part of the details of the test. The very fact we would NEED to ask in itself supports the test's lack of credibility and the fact the tester either isn't aware of these factors or doesn't know how to calculate them, or more likely both. But because he's posted numbers, the internet assumes it's valid and meaningful and it's everyone else's job to prove why this isn't the case. That is exactly ass backwards of how science and metrology actually works in the "real world". The onus is on the tester to prove it's validity, not the other way around. And he hasn't done that, nor have you or anyone else supporting the test....but that doesn't keep the lemmings from jumping on board with it. Though you blissfully skipped over 95Hondas post where he stated he's had Fluke meter with a 25% variance while ranting about nobody citing examples of why the test is flawed. Selective memory? Because they like to believe "numbers" regardless of whether or not those numbers actually mean anything, but don't want to put forth the effort into considering why those numbers don't mean anything. They prefer subjectivity and "experience" over true objectivity......because that's all I see when I visit other forums. Threads like this and that thread on CACO are prime examples of that.

Reread the thread. 95Honda and M5 both posted reasons why. No one supporting the test even responded to those posts with a meaningful reply. And frankly we've discussed clamp tests on this forum a couple dozen times. Last I checked the search function worked fine.... And if you were paying attention, you would have understood this was M5's point. The READER shouldn't HAVE to ask. A valid test conducted in a meaningful and useful manor would have that information presented as part of the details of the test. The very fact we would NEED to ask in itself supports the test's lack of credibility and the fact the tester either isn't aware of these factors or doesn't know how to calculate them, or more likely both.But because he's posted numbers, the internet assumes it's valid and meaningful and it's everyone else's job to prove why this isn't the case. That is exactly ass backwards of how science and metrology actually works in the "real world". The onus is on the tester to prove it's validity, not the other way around. And he hasn't done that, nor have you or anyone else supporting the test....but that doesn't keep the lemmings from jumping on board with it. Though you blissfully skipped over 95Hondas post where he stated he's had Fluke meter with a 25% variance while ranting about nobody citing examples of why the test is flawed. Selective memory? Don't you find the statement about one fluke meter being around 25% off from the actual results rather anecdotal? I've never heard of that issue being had elsewhere.And don't you find the fact we know nothing about the accuracy of the equipment used a little troubling before trusting the results? Obviously not, and that's the problem. You promote the results and how useful they are when you or anybody else knows nothing about them. You claim they are "close enough to count".....but the fact is you don't know, nor does anybody else. And that's one of the problems. Especially when people are using this test of unknown credibility and comparing it to manufacturer's rated power which is a specific measurement, and then making a determination of the amplifier based on that test. Think about it for just a second. Ask yourself why actual amplifier designers and manufacturer's and other's in the audio electronics industry spend tens of thousands of dollars on test equipment if a kid in a basement is capable of duplicating the results for a few hundred dollars? I don't think it's because these multi-million or billion dollar companies are that gullible, but I certain would think it's because the engineers understand proper testing methodology and what is necessary to achieve meaningful, repeatable results. Just because he can post some numbers doesn't mean they are useful, "real world" or "close enough to count".

all the ford panther body's changed in 03 you can still do it.. they just stick out...

Here we go talking about misinterpretation...lol...so now we all know that you can misread or misinterpret or just not understand what you read as was so shown last night. It takes a real man to admit his faults and a real coward to hide from his faults. Where do you lay?

I sense you starting to get into the troll realm considering you already said you had no reason to post on this thread anymore... I see all of this as pointless bickering at this point, the point has been proven for all parties. The point is, this test is neither pinpoint accurate or inaccurate to the point of being invalid. It was performed to give a general idea of amplifier power. And it does just that. Everyone can dance around that fact all that they want, but it's still true.

But the tech team said it's not accurate so it must not be

Exactly. If you challenge them, then you're %100 wrong. This whole thread is dancing in circles. The tools used to do these tests are published. It's not like they're hiding... If you're so worried about certain things, go fucking look them up. Also, it wasn't just a "clamp test" But lets only focus on one aspect of this whole damn thing. God forbid we open our eyes wider This shit reminds me about the argument over linear vs progressive spiders. Shit was completely ridiculous. You guys focus on one little aspect.

A lot your guy's responses remind me of soup sandwiches.

Going through I don't think they meant you were bashing the company/nick but others. I don't see how they're being sarcastic. Impious, tirefryr and shizzzon were trying to explain. M5 was the only one being sarcastic and was only doing it because tenacious is annoying and ignorant. I don't understand why you guys don't listen to these guys... Zero tact and constantly talking in circles rather than being direct. Discredits whatever they see fit without truly explaining why everyone else should discredit. They act as though they're %100 right, but fail to fully disclose why they are correct and someone else is incorrect. They scream tolerances and calibrations yet never give any real numbers. They never ask what the given tools tolerances are and if they have been calibrated or when the last time they were calibrated. Just because you have technical training behind you and some real world exercise, doesn't mean you have the right to discredit everyone else. It's easy to sit behind a computer and seem all so intelligent. There's a common factor of why a lot of people don't like this forum. Maybe you should go and seek some education and then you might understand just how much money, time, equipment, etc... goes into testing, measuring, certifying etc. Right now it seems that all these guys are "talking circles rather then being direct" but you clearly do not understand this subject. Once you go out and find the necessary knowledge, then you will realize how right these few guys are. Until then, argue on and have fun!! I more than understand this subject. This shit is simple, yet you tech team dick riders and "tech team" want to make this complicated. Maybe you should take some laxative and the rest of the tech team to get rid of the bull shit you guys are full of. I swear you guys could ruin a wet dream because one of her nails was .05mm too long.

You need to start coming off more pics or stop posting.

Going through I don't think they meant you were bashing the company/nick but others. I don't see how they're being sarcastic. Impious, tirefryr and shizzzon were trying to explain. M5 was the only one being sarcastic and was only doing it because tenacious is annoying and ignorant. I don't understand why you guys don't listen to these guys... Zero tact and constantly talking in circles rather than being direct. Discredits whatever they see fit without truly explaining why everyone else should discredit. They act as though they're %100 right, but fail to fully disclose why they are correct and someone else is incorrect. They scream tolerances and calibrations yet never give any real numbers. They never ask what the given tools tolerances are and if they have been calibrated or when the last time they were calibrated. Just because you have technical training behind you and some real world exercise, doesn't mean you have the right to discredit everyone else. It's easy to sit behind a computer and seem all so intelligent. There's a common factor of why a lot of people don't like this forum. Maybe you should go and seek some education and then you might understand just how much money, time, equipment, etc... goes into testing, measuring, certifying etc. Right now it seems that all these guys are "talking circles rather then being direct" but you clearly do not understand this subject. Once you go out and find the necessary knowledge, then you will realize how right these few guys are. Until then, argue on and have fun!! I more than understand this subject. This shit is simple, yet you tech team dick riders and "tech team" want to make this complicated. Maybe you should take some laxative and the rest of the tech team to get rid of the bull shit you guys are full of. I swear you guys could ruin a wet dream because one of her nails was .05mm too long. Yet, every post you make shows how little you do understand and your inability to comprehend. If you understood what was happening and comprehended what has actually been discussed and challenged here, you would never have posted. You keep stating people are typing in circles, yet the ones whom keep complaining about it are in fact the ones doing it. Everything has been explained to you; you just won't allow yourself to understand it as you would have to admit to yourself that you don't really know as much as you think you do. Don't get upset, this happens to us all. How about taking a step back, and just thinking, these guys ARE right and why they are. The simple fact is, the man who did the "testing" and posted this information is simply a hobbyist. His results can not be relied on, yet many people whom don't understand this WILL rely on his "testing" simply because they don't know any better. As long as there are uncontrollable variables, the "testing" is pointless. If ANY of us conducted this "testing" in a similar matter, the "tests" would also be invalid. If these "tests" were being conducted by a lab, by a professional, all testing parameters would have laid out, explained, and discussed in length before any testing had begun. Than and only then could the results be relied upon and only after many amplifiers had been tested not just one or ten. What you idiots don't understand, is I understand what you guys are saying. It's not I'm trying to understand swahili. I've not claimed I know everything, I've not claimed you guys are wrong, I've not claimed Taylor is %100 right. Most of the information requested is readily available. Even if you're testing in a lab, there can still be unforeseen variables. Slight change in humidity, maybe the temperature dropped two degrees. First test netted you 9,620 watts, then all of a sudden your next test nets 9,800. This test wasn't to be accurate down to a millionth. Just because it didn't go directly over second base, doesn't mean it's a foul ball or of the park. CEA testing is about as useless as tits on a hog.

I sense butthurt