Impious

Personally wouldn't run them sealed. They are really geared towards ported enclosures.

Similar question is currently being discussed in another thread. Read this post: Click Me to Read It !

And here is my problem, and the entire reason I responded to this thread to start with and then continued to respond. Hardly anybody takes these test for "what they are". I couldn't even begin to count the number of times someone just on this forum has referenced that Sundown amp test as "proof" of one thing or another (how underrated they are, that they do rated power at 12V, that they are more powerful than another amp, etc etc etc). They aren't taken "for what they are" by the general population because they don't have the critical thinking skills to understand what a test like that actually "proves", which is not much of anything. They are taken as fact without realizing the limitations of any particular test or measurement. The OP of this very thread made this mistake, which seems "simple" when you look at one individual. But when you realize how many people misinterpret the results, how many times it's used as "proof" of something it does nothing to prove.......it just exponentially spreads ignorance. And, to me, that's not acceptable.....atleast not on this forum.

Actually if you read my last post, I've proven conclusively that Sundown is in fact overrated. It won't do 1500w because it's not .97db louder than a 1200w amplifier. So do you want an amplifier that isn't underrated, or an amplifier that is overrated? <---- Still using ibanender logic.

How about another example. This time I'll take the opposite stance and agree with ibanender. Real world testing is valid and meaningful, and results can't be misinterpreted. RAM measured the Sundown to be .6db louder than the DD M1a. Sundown is rated at 1500w @ 12V (according to ibanender), the DD 1200w @ 12V. The test load was .5ohm nominal, but after rise it'll probably be somewhere around 1ohm or close to the rated power output. We know that 10*log(1500/1200) = .9691, or the Sundown should be .97db louder than the DD. But RAM only measured a .6db difference. This is a real world test, right? It really happened in RAM's vehicle. So what can we conclude from this test? Well, since the Sundown was less than .97db louder than the DD, we can obviously and correctly conclude that the Sundown is overrated. It couldn't possibly provide 1500w if it's only .6db louder than the DD, which is 1200w. That's a real world test. In the real world, Sundown amps are overrated. A real world test is meaningful and valid in the real world, right? It's numbers, black and white. Numbers don't lie. They can not be misinterpreted. The conclusions drawn from them are accurate, valid, reliable and meaningful. So there it is, definitive proof from the real world that Sundown is overrated. How many people would have a problem with this statement? How many of you could now find a reason to disprove my conclusion from the test? I'm sure ibanender would be up in arms and could find all kinds of reasons to invalidate RAM's test and my conclusion if I started making this claim based on RAM's test, even though it fits every single one of his criteria and I've simply followed his logic. See how the standards of what's valid, reliable and meaningful can suddenly change when a different conclusion is drawn ? One that maybe isn't so flattering to the product you're selling, promoting or you personally like better? It's the same information, I've just presented it differently.

And inability to perform a better test doesn't validate the results of an improper test. It's an excuse not to perform a better test, and a good one since some of that stuff is expensive. But it doesn't make the results of an inaccurate test anything more than they are, inaccurate. Which makes the results unreliable and not meaningful or useful. I wouldn't go about testing amplifiers because I don't possess or have access to the proper equipment. That doesn't mean I go about testing amplifiers in an inaccurate manor without properly identifying where the uncertainty lies, which in turn leads people to draw completely incorrect conclusions from the information I provide. We don't know with certainty that the ratings are accurate. Does that mean manufacturer's should stop rating amplifiers? No. There is a general level of acceptance that a manufacturer accurately rate their products. There are obvious business reasons to wish to do so. And there are obviously businesses who don't follow this policy. Which is where independent third party testing is useful, it can verify the accuracy of a given manufacturer's equipment. Are you going to be able to do it yourself? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that the ability does not exist. And that doesn't mean that any ability to test an amplifier, regardless of how high the uncertainty may be, is accurate and useful. Up until that point....you are buying based on reputation and a hope and a prayer that the manufacturer is honest. Which is where the companies with a high reputation have gained their high reputation and companies with a low reputation have gained their low reputation. Correct. Nobody you know. That doesn't mean nobody in general. See above. Reputation, hope and a prayer. But that doesn't make inaccurate (high uncertainty) measurement methods any more accurate or meaningful. If he measures two amps in a method with high uncertainty, how useful is his help? Less useful than having no numbers at all because you'll incorrect assume you are armed with knowledge that you actually do not possess. First you have to know what you are trying to measure. Second you need to reduce the uncertainty of the measurement, or control variables. Third you need to properly understand what was measured and where the uncertainty lies. I wouldn't call it nearly impossible. An extremely in-depth analysis would require more tools than most amateurs have access to. That doesn't make the test impossible, just extremely challenging for a given amateur individual with limited tools at their disposal. Other less in-depth analysis would be closer to within the grasp of the amateur. Understand what you are measuring, though. Don't misinterpret the information as something it is not. Understand where the uncertainty lies and how useful or usable the results are. Certainly there are ways to know. Some of the tests may be really expensive to conduct which makes them financially infeasible for an individual. Agreed. It sucks it's really hard to find out. But that still doesn't make some numbers better than no numbers at all, and it doesn't increase the usefulness of any result regardless of test method. Jacob didn't do it intentionally to mislead, or to demonstrate how underrated his amps are. It's been a while since I've read the thread, but IIRC he was extremely careful in his wording and how he represented the test. If you read through the thread, don't just read what he does write....rather, think about what he doesn't write. IMO he fully understood what the test did and did not demonstrate, and chose his words accordingly as to not misrepresent the results. That hasn't stopped everyone else from clearly misrepresenting the results, however.

I typed this up fairly quickly, so I probably didn't articulate everything as clearly or plainly as I would have liked to, but..... It's not mythical. Ibanender likes to live in la-la land and likes to ignore facts to make himself feel right. Like I said; It's an amplifier, not black magic. If none of these things can be accurately measurement (within uncertainty, which can be reliably determined as well).....how does any engineer go about designing them? How do they verify that the actual product performs as predicted by their models? They wouldn't be able to, everything would just be a shot in the dark and a "well, let's just hope for the best". There are accurate and accepted means of measuring them. There are proper ways to control and limit uncertainty of the measurement. Maybe not in ibanender's fantasy world, but in "the real world" he is so fond of these things exist. Is it possible to inaccurately measure an amplifier? Sure, lots of them. That doesn't mean an accurate measurement method does not exist. It doesn't mean we should abandon the practice all together. Does that mean that every test can be believed? No. Does that mean that no test can be believed? No. With the proper information, you can know the accuracy of the measurement. Numbers for numbers sake isn't very meaningful or useful. First, not if the numbers aren't accurate. There would be no meaningful scale as all of the numbers would be measured on a set of different scales. They would be incomparable. Second, you would need to know the intended use of the information, or for what use the numbers can be applied to. SPL'ers might not care about clipping or distortion. Those of us who listen to music will. So how useful is a measurement of an amplifier driven into full clipping if that's not the information we need to know because we plan to actually listen to music? We can't know how useful the measurement is for our purpose because not all of the necessary information was measured. Only in his misapplied, inaccurate test condition. In a more accurate test (less uncertainty), maybe he'd have the opposite result. Maybe amp 2 really is more power or louder than amp 1 when properly tested. As we reduce and identify uncertainty, the results become more meaningful. Wouldn't that be more useful information? But if we don't think about this, we'd blindly believe the first test. Too many quotes, see part 2 below....

Actually, not really. Again not reported within uncertainty and when you add those up they will eclipse more than the .6dB he found. Also, like Impious I am not ripping on the test or findings, but the absurd comment that Ibanender made about the other tests being real. Is Ram's scientific? No. Is it repeatable? I doubt it. Will the same amp likely be louder when tested again? Perhaps and its probably even likely. Its just that VERY minimal changes can make that happen in the situation from all sorts of variables. Hell its so close it could almost be any one of them. I wasn't trying to argue or anything. But RAM got info from his test. And isn't that the reason from testing to begin with? I agree there are a lot of variables, but I just think his counted, to him at least. That is all. I understand the point you are trying to make. He got numbers and that was his goal. But really, if the numbers aren't reliable, how useful and reliable is the resulting conclusion. For example, he said he left gains to minimum. What's to say the "minimum" setting on the Sundown wasn't actually higher than the "minimum" setting on the DD? What if he properly set the gains and the DD had higher numbers after properly level matching the gains? Or if the DD experienced higher impedance rise or more power compression because the subs were hotter when they were measured? Maybe if the subs were the same temperature, the DD would have been louder? As M5 has pointed out, there are enough variables that small changes across multiple variables will add up to the variance he measured in the numbers. So really, if the numbers aren't reliable, and test isn't valid, how useful is the actual result and conclusion. It's not. Just because he now has "numbers" doesn't guaranty the "numbers" actually mean anything. Control a few variables and the resulting numbers could be different, which means the conclusion will be different. So which set of numbers will be more meaningful, which conclusion will be more useful? The later, of course. Inaccurate numbers are just as useful as no numbers at all, actually more dangerous because with inaccurate numbers you think you have knowledge you don't actually have. And really the factor that is more important to me is in how information gets interpreted and spread by others. It simply breeds ignorance and wrong information, which isn't helpful or useful to anyone. Just look at how many times people bring up the Sundown test as "proof" they are underrated, that they output X power, that they make "rated power" at 12V, etc. I've been saying the same thing since that test came out. It doesn't prove anything of the sort. It simply perpetuates ignorance. Nobody learns anything and everybody gets mislead. Not intentionally on Sundown's part, and it's not only Sundown (obviously). It's not so much about "that test" or any particular test, but in people understanding how to properly interpret and understand results of any test, not draw the wrong conclusions, and how to improve the test or understand the uncertainty in any particular test. I don't care what amp it is or who's doing the test, it increases the knowledge base as a whole, as well as any particular testing situation, if people understand the information and draw the correct conclusions from it, and it starts with a better test method. As M5 pointed out, you can't eliminate uncertainty, but you can sure reduce the amount of certainty you have, or correctly identify the uncertainty involved. If people understand how to properly interpret results of a test, and how to more accurately perform their own tests, it will increase the usefulness of the results both for themselves and for everyone on the whole.

What's weird is I remember the name from other forums and for some reason thought he was fairly not-stupid. But for fuck's sake, all I've done the past couple weeks is go rounds with him, which makes me want to bash my head against a wall because he just does not get it ("it" being whatever we are discussing) and changes the topic of the argument to what he wants to argue about when he knows he can't actually respond. So you end up arguing something irrelevant to the original conversation.

Please don't take anything I'm saying about your results personally. I'm not trying to beat you up here, and honestly wasn't going to say anything about it until ibanender decided to use that as more "proof from the real world". So it sort of got thrown into the gauntlet. But really, even with your added comments there, it doesn't really prove much of anything.

Yes, I am arguing his test isn't valid. No, measuring a difference on a meter does not make it meaningful test, period. What part of this are you not getting? I thought my explanation was pretty well laid out. You do not know all of the variables were equal, therefore you do not know how valid the results of his test are. Do you know the gains were set exactly to match? If not, how is the test valid ? What would it prove? It wouldn't prove anything useful or meaningful. Do you know the power compression and impedance rise was exactly the same? If not, how is the test valid? What would it prove? It wouldn't prove anything useful or meaningful. That's just the short list. I could go on, but there's no point as if you're not understanding it by now there's going to be no getting through to you. The variables are too numerous to list, and you don't know any of them. Therefore, test invalid. Period. My issue isn't that they report numbers on the website. My issue is that you don't understand why you are wrong and completely missing the mark. You aren't even close to making a useful point right now, much less contradicting anything I've said. The sad part is, you still don't understand why. I'm done trying to explain it to you. Perhaps you should go back and reread all of those posts you claim you haven't read. They will explain it to you. No, the only point you are making is that you don't understand why you are wrong. I've explained it, in detail, multiple times. You are doing absolutely nothing to contradict any of my statements. You're just making yourself look like an ignorant fool. Go back and reread all of those replies you claim not to have read. They will explain it to you. No, nothing you have said has even remotely correlated to anything I have said. Other than my last quote about arguing with a fool, because so far you've done a good job of demonstrating yourself to be one so it's not going to be much longer before you begin beating me with experience. Go back and reread all of the replies you claim not to have read. It will explain everything, including why you are wrong. The funny part is that I don't give a shit about any of the actual products involved. I'm simply trying to combat ignorance and, in this particular case, explain to people why the results of a given test don't prove or demonstrate the conclusions they were drawing. Hopefully people increase their knowledge a little in the process. You seem to be the only one in this conversation with an actual financial and personal stake regarding the specific products, and unfortunately perpetuate the ignorance in the process. Ignorance, and a specific product, are what you're defending right now.

Confined area being anything other than open air "free space". A lot of people downplay the importance of certain modeled or predicted performance characteristics because the modeling programs can only model performance in basically open air without any close boundaries. This is true for certain performance characteristics such as frequency response. Others are going to be consistent for the most part regardless of the air space the system is playing in. any recommendations for me to try? This will be in quite the open air environment, all subs and port will be facing up, and its a hatchback with an open area to the entire car. Open air as in outside, not in a vehicle. Vehicle, room, etc.....they're all confined spaces acoustically. As for suggestions.....yes, try what 95Honda suggested.

You have an extremely shady past history, here is an opportunity to demonstrate yourself a quality business person and offer a quick refund to satisfy a customer, potentially losing a little money in the short run but saving face and building a new reputation which is worth more than you'd lose on this single sale. Instead it's all about the short term money with you and needing to prove the customer to be at fault. And ofcourse, since it wasn't 1800woofers this customer isn't important, right? That's what you just said. Great way to operate a business. You continue to live up to your reputation.

Confined area being anything other than open air "free space". A lot of people downplay the importance of certain modeled or predicted performance characteristics because the modeling programs can only model performance in basically open air without any close boundaries. This is true for certain performance characteristics such as frequency response. Others are going to be consistent for the most part regardless of the air space the system is playing in.

\ THAT is real world testing, funny how that works out..... Might be "real world", but still not meaningful unless you can verify that all variables were constant, accurately measured and what information is needed. How meaningful is that result if the gains were set differently? What if the subs were hotter and had higher power compression or more impedance rise when the DD was tested? Or other variables were changed? What if, what if, what if. There are dozens of variables that could have affected the results. How meaningful is the result to someone not worried solely about SPL numbers if the Sundown was clipping and the DD was not? If the Sundown had excessive distortion and the DD did not? Hell, a .6db difference isn't even close to being audible, so that itself is meaningless to someone not interested solely about SPL numbers. Yet again another reason why "real world" testing is "real meaningless" unless all variables are known and controlled. Yet another instance of ibanender incorrectly assuming all results are meaningful and accurate because it was measured in the "real world". "Real world" proof the Sundown is better in all circumstances and for all situations right? Wrong. Funny how that works. That's as much as I read, because you can't teach somebody who isn't willing to learn. But lets just look at something here. According to the standards you say manufacturers adhere to, these 2 amps will sound just as good as each other and do the same power: http://zapco.com/Reference.html REF1100.1 4 ohms: 1 x 825 Watts 2 ohms: 1 x 1100 Watts T.H.D. + Noise: <0.03% @ 4 ohms. http://www.legacycar...?model=LA1110BK 1 x 1100 Watts 2 Ohm Stable S/N Ratio: >95dB THD: <0.04% And why is it that most manufactures don't even list THD as a spec? Now you are just being intentionally ignorant. First, you don't understand the difference between a "THD" amplifier specification and power output being measured at a specific THD? The two are not the same. Second, you apparently don't even understand the difference between continuous and max power? LOL....wow. Also, just because a given manufacturer may not choose to accurately measure or rate their equipment or follow standard practices, that does not mean such a method does not exist. It's still possible to accurately measure the amplifier. I never argued that manufacturer ratings are definite and accurate. You are still completely missing the boat. You're either really getting desperate now, or demonstrating your sheer ignorance. A THD spec isn't very meaningful by itself. What is meaningful is knowing the THD of the signal at the rated power output. We can then measure and verify the rating as accurate or not accurate. If they don't list a THD for rated power, it's generally assumed to be 1% or less. Regardless, if they don't list the THD at the rated power, we can accurately measure the amplifier and determine what the THD would be. The point is, regardless of manufacturer rating, it's still possible to accurately measure the amplifier. You are barking up the wrong tree. A power measurement is only useful if you know what the THD was for the measurement. Otherwise you can not compare that measurement to any other measurement (of the same amplifier or different amplifier) and you do not know how useful that measured power is. You can't seem to grasp this concept. Though I do find it interesting you'd rather bask in your own ignorance than learn something new. Says a lot about a person. I had started out thinking you were fairly intelligent. After our discussions, I question my hypothesis. "Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

Amplifier efficiency has nothing to do with that formula. It's just Ohms Law.

If you are absolutely trying to save space, they are fine as long as they are not up/downfired as noted. But really, unless space is an absolute concern I don't see the point considering high displacement PR's are not cheap. Why spend the money when a ported enclosure can do the same thing?

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. I'm guessing no, for the reasons I just explained. LOL....you can keep trying to play the "no standard measurement" card. But I do believe if you look up AES standards, there is indeed an accurate and establish method for measuring distortion. Regardless, it's a fucking amplifier, not magic. People (other than yourself) understand how they work and how to measure them and make the measurements mean something. Have for decades. Machines can be accurate and calibrated. You're trying a cop out which just utterly fails. Your "real world" experience, just like that "real world test", isn't worth two shits. You can do something a hundred times. If you do it wrong every time, all that "experience" isn't worth anything. You read it, but didn't bother responding because you couldn't. Simple fact of the matter is that you basically just admitted you can't say anything to make those tests anything more than what they are....worthless. Though I'm glad to know you apparently don't care about distortion and could happily drive around all day with your amp driven into full clipping.....because these things are apparently not important to you, not in the "real world". You therefore incorrectly assume that these things also don't matter to anyone else and, again incorrectly, assume that there's no value in a proper amplifier measurement (obviously because you don't understand them). Even if that misleads people and causes them to draw conclusions which don't actually exists. That's apparently fine with you. God forbid someone try to correct misinformation and get people to actually think and understand.

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.

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 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. 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? 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? 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.

P&S isn't a sound deadener, much less "sound deadener with a really cheap price tag". Functioning as an effective CLD was not it's intended purpose, and not surprisingly performs extremely poorly when used as such.

I would recommend you give the Anarchy's a try As for full range, if you run without a tweeter they would have to be on-axis. And if high output exteneded listening is your goal, probably not the best option.

Actually if you click the pictures to the right of the "large" picture there is both an FR and impedance graph. Frequency Response Impedance Additionally, Zaph has tested these: Zaph FR Zaph Distortion They do have a cone breakup node up in the 4khz range and looks like some diffraction from the surround around 2khz in Zaph's measurment which isn't extremely significant in level, so it's pretty well behaved up until the breakup node. HD is pretty good up until the breakup node as well. I don't think it'd be accurate to say they are geared more towards midbass than midrange. Kevin designed them for 2-ways to be crossed in the 2-2.5khz region. Kevin's not a charlatan, he's generally pretty up front and realistic about performance, and his products generally perform as advertised. Zaph's independent measurements show they'd do well in a 2-way as well, given you cross low enough to stay under that breakup node. I would stay within the recommended 2.5khz or lower xover point. I have 6 of them in my closet right now, with HT duties in mind, meant to give them a listen before now but haven't had time to mock anything up. The few subjective comments I've seen on their performance give them pretty good marks as well.

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. 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.

I wasn't trying to imply they were "bad". But considering long-term high stress usage I'd be more concerned about the potential for issues related to ability to deal with heat, etc. The OEM casing, layout and OEM-style parts might not have been designed for those types of higher heat/higher stress situations. It would be more a concern with life span than strictly amperage output.