Number 3, That's what I hope also.
As said I'm enormous satisfied with these amplifiers and I received these lab-reports the day before yesterday and I thought that's strange I remember specifications by the manufacturer of 1200 Watts at 4 Ohms at 1% distortion. I'll keep them even if the made measurements are correct and wil not blame or even bother anyone with deep pockets as you state.
That said, I think your response was unnecessary defensive and rude to me.
Last edited:
1. I'm interested in those complete files and I assume when you talk about well founded in the construction facts that you made a deduction regarding the 600 and 1200 Watts specification?
2. I've done that also but I'm always interested in the opinions of the best audio community online and especially in your view of the matter...;-)
3. I've did that also, but he's in a hospital so he asked me to bother him further next week.
Sorry, should have provided the link instead.
I gather that the given specifications by Pass as provided and available on their website, do not comply with those rules because the context is not given properly?
But before jumping to conclusions I can contact the engineer that made those measurements next week due to illness on his side.
I don't need measurements, but EN61000-3-2 very clearly states that any PFC testing is mandatory for audio devices with a power over 75W (Class A, as in Class A of the guideline, not amplifier Class). From experience I can tell that in general a linear power supply above 75W is not gonna comply with this these days.
Meaning that Pass Labs is compliant with US, 16 CFR Part 432 but NOT with EN61000-3-2.
In simple terms that means they can't be sold to consumers in EU.
Oh btw, if I am not mistaken (but correct me if I am wrong), a standard breaker in the US is 13A ?
Meaning any amplifier can't go over 1495W continues anyway.
But that's without any (additional) safety margin.
Last edited:
Okay clear, but they have the CE compliant sticker on it:
Attachments
That's is VERY interesting to say the least 🙄
Again, as far as I know from following EN61000-3-2 and assuming that this device has a linear power supply, I don't think this product is compliant to be sold and imported within Europe.
Fact is that CE is within the responsibility of the company itself.
CE also holds al lot more than just this, like safety standards etc (which is a different thing)
But since EN61000-3-2 is mandatory, they must be able (and have the obligation) to provide their test results from the notified body (aka "lab") they went with.
As far as I understand, the X600.5 was produced in 2016?
That would mean it also had to comply with EN61000-3-2.
Assuming ONLY for sales within EU, for US there are other regulations.
Attachments
Last edited:
A very slight addition to point 3 in post #40 could also be ... I'm also seeking to understand how the distortion measurements were taken both in the study and by PL.=> therefore where the power rating was set. The ratings in discussion are power delivery at 1% distortion. Personally, I think that's a component of consideration, and I hope it's part of the conversation between the OP and PL.
I perhaps mistakenly assumed just based on my good faith that you had paid for a professional engineering study of your amplifiers. In post #37 you state "Yes the tests were made in 2015 and for the serial 18142 the powerratings were 498,3 Watts at 8 Ohm and 721,9 Watts with 1% THD."
Now, I assume this is just a study you obtained somehow. Correct? So, were any measurements conducted on YOUR amplifiers. Can you post the full report for review? Otherwise, this discussion is simply academic. It may have merit, but it's not what I'd originally thought. Also, while it adds a bit of color and a related point, the discussion re: the 1000.5 amplifier has no bearing.
Really, it seems to me, that it's incumbent upon you to see what PL will share with you re: their test procedures and compare those to how the report states the tests were conducted.
You'll have many potential conclusions, among them might be...
1) The tests were done differently enough to provide meaningfully different results. Were they conducted in the same manner, it's within reason to assume the same results would have been obtained (within error).
2) The tests were done similarly enough to where they should not have provided meaningfully different results, therefore test error, operator error, and/or a malfunctioning amplifier could be among the causes for the reported differences.
My guess is that #1 is more than likely the situation. So, seeking to understand how PL conducts the tests would be very valuable. THEN, and only then, could you potentially determine with a level of fairness if the stated specs are to your liking / understanding.
It seems the core contention / question at hand is not with how the amplifiers perform, but potentially with reconciliation of two different sets of measurement techniques. Yes / No?
I admit I'm not a huge fan of the spec sheets' lack of units for some measurements/specs. It leaves a bit more ambiguity than I think necessary, but those in the industry and/or more skilled in the art may 'just know'. I also appreciate that space can be at a premium and inundating potential buyers with too many figures may not be the best strategy. However, with a spec sheet and a calculator, we can see a few ties. As a novice DIYer, I'm probably more informed than many consumers, but I also admit that I don't know a ton. Here's where I might review the results in the study to see how they compare until you get more definitive answers.
Rated Maximum Output => Peak voltage - 99V => ~69Vrms => ~600W @8R & 1200W @4R
Rated Maximum Output => Peak Current - 36A => The amp won't be current starved with a 4 ohm load.
Gain => 26dB => 20X
Full Pwr @ 26 dB gain (V) - 3V46 (assume rms) => 3V46*20 = ~69V
So, since you have the report, you should be able to see in the documentation what the input and output voltages were at the power ratings the engineer associated with the 1% distortion.
Your goal seems to be an understanding of some jurisdictions' requirements for sale and advertising. I'm steering far clear of that area by intention. At least one other poster seems to be pretty knowledgeable.
Also as a side note - you should not associate a percentage change in AC mains power voltage with a commensurate linear percentage change in potential power delivery of an amplifier of this type and with this type of PSU. It's important to discuss the mains voltage, but it's not fair to imply that the difference between 220 and 240VAC mains while being less than 10% should contribute <10% difference in rated power. Do a quick and dirty calc from AC Mains => Step down => Assume some rectified DC => Assume +- rails => Assume Vpp is "to the rails" => Calc Vrms => Calc Power into load assuming proper current.
Cheers
Same caveats - All with good intention, all within context, I may have some or all of this just plain wrong. I should just put that in my signature.
I perhaps mistakenly assumed just based on my good faith that you had paid for a professional engineering study of your amplifiers. In post #37 you state "Yes the tests were made in 2015 and for the serial 18142 the powerratings were 498,3 Watts at 8 Ohm and 721,9 Watts with 1% THD."
Now, I assume this is just a study you obtained somehow. Correct? So, were any measurements conducted on YOUR amplifiers. Can you post the full report for review? Otherwise, this discussion is simply academic. It may have merit, but it's not what I'd originally thought. Also, while it adds a bit of color and a related point, the discussion re: the 1000.5 amplifier has no bearing.
Really, it seems to me, that it's incumbent upon you to see what PL will share with you re: their test procedures and compare those to how the report states the tests were conducted.
You'll have many potential conclusions, among them might be...
1) The tests were done differently enough to provide meaningfully different results. Were they conducted in the same manner, it's within reason to assume the same results would have been obtained (within error).
2) The tests were done similarly enough to where they should not have provided meaningfully different results, therefore test error, operator error, and/or a malfunctioning amplifier could be among the causes for the reported differences.
My guess is that #1 is more than likely the situation. So, seeking to understand how PL conducts the tests would be very valuable. THEN, and only then, could you potentially determine with a level of fairness if the stated specs are to your liking / understanding.
It seems the core contention / question at hand is not with how the amplifiers perform, but potentially with reconciliation of two different sets of measurement techniques. Yes / No?
I admit I'm not a huge fan of the spec sheets' lack of units for some measurements/specs. It leaves a bit more ambiguity than I think necessary, but those in the industry and/or more skilled in the art may 'just know'. I also appreciate that space can be at a premium and inundating potential buyers with too many figures may not be the best strategy. However, with a spec sheet and a calculator, we can see a few ties. As a novice DIYer, I'm probably more informed than many consumers, but I also admit that I don't know a ton. Here's where I might review the results in the study to see how they compare until you get more definitive answers.
Rated Maximum Output => Peak voltage - 99V => ~69Vrms => ~600W @8R & 1200W @4R
Rated Maximum Output => Peak Current - 36A => The amp won't be current starved with a 4 ohm load.
Gain => 26dB => 20X
Full Pwr @ 26 dB gain (V) - 3V46 (assume rms) => 3V46*20 = ~69V
So, since you have the report, you should be able to see in the documentation what the input and output voltages were at the power ratings the engineer associated with the 1% distortion.
Your goal seems to be an understanding of some jurisdictions' requirements for sale and advertising. I'm steering far clear of that area by intention. At least one other poster seems to be pretty knowledgeable.
Also as a side note - you should not associate a percentage change in AC mains power voltage with a commensurate linear percentage change in potential power delivery of an amplifier of this type and with this type of PSU. It's important to discuss the mains voltage, but it's not fair to imply that the difference between 220 and 240VAC mains while being less than 10% should contribute <10% difference in rated power. Do a quick and dirty calc from AC Mains => Step down => Assume some rectified DC => Assume +- rails => Assume Vpp is "to the rails" => Calc Vrms => Calc Power into load assuming proper current.
Cheers
Same caveats - All with good intention, all within context, I may have some or all of this just plain wrong. I should just put that in my signature.
Last edited:
As for power, the only thing that is relevant, is the values of the power supply rails.
Additionally maybe they could specify the mains voltage as well.
The RMS voltage can calculated accordingly.
However, 1% distortion does NOT equal RMS voltage perse!!
So it could be that like a bias circuit has wandered or so.
Which could result in that the amplifier is distorting sooner for example.
Additionally maybe they could specify the mains voltage as well.
The RMS voltage can calculated accordingly.
However, 1% distortion does NOT equal RMS voltage perse!!
So it could be that like a bias circuit has wandered or so.
Which could result in that the amplifier is distorting sooner for example.
I respectfully disagree. I think we're missing some context. Many amps run the same rails and have VASTLY different power outputs.
Also, the power rating being discussed is at 1% distortion. That cannot be ignored in this context. We're (to the best of my knowledge) not discussing peak power. Which, if we were, may arguably, but very deceptively, be 3564W (36A*99V into some load and at some distortion level and using, IMO, a very deceptive / wrong calculation).
The rail voltages are a key contributor, but they are certainly not the only relevant factor even in addition to ignoring the distortion component. What current can be delivered? Yes, it's an A/B amp, but it's not irrelevant. Also, in many amplifiers the voltage loss from the output devices generally will not allow the output voltage to swing to the rails. That may or may not apply in this specific instance, but rail voltages are not the only relevant factor, IMO. In an absurd (for illustration only) example, if the rails are +- 10V, and the loss through the output devices is 4V... Vpp at output is not 20V; it's 12V => (assuming current delivery) => peak output power is not ~24W @ 8ohms; it's ~9W.
I'd like to hear more re: why you say this, if I'm just not understanding your point, or I may just have it wrong.
I'd love to see what the engineer measured, but with this type of (I think) unregulated PSU, the rail voltage will be a direct result of the mains voltage. Again, w/o access to the full study/report and/or an understanding of how PL measures their amps, I'm just speculating for the sake of discussion.
What?
I agree. Many other issues could also contribute to lower power output at a specified distortion.
I'm specifically disagreeing with this... what do you mean, and/or what did I miss?
Edited for my lousy attempt at getting two post replies into one... - Where did you "quite literally" say that? I missed it.
I think I'm understanding you now. Different ways of expressing possibly the same point. 🙂. Also, we clearly have different definitions of "literally".
I don't understand, "However, 1% distortion does NOT equal RMS voltage perse!!", at all. That's on me. If you say that it means literally the same as "Many amps run the same rails and have VASTLY different power outputs.". OK.
Where I am coming from is that to me your statement -
1) "As for power, the only thing that is relevant, is the values of the power supply rails"
and my statement...
2) Many amps run the same rails and have VASTLY different power outputs.
are in contradiction to one another. Thus, I disagreed.
Glad we're on the same page regardless of the words we each chose to use and our differing definitions of "literally". 😉
Cheers
I don't understand, "However, 1% distortion does NOT equal RMS voltage perse!!", at all. That's on me. If you say that it means literally the same as "Many amps run the same rails and have VASTLY different power outputs.". OK.
Where I am coming from is that to me your statement -
1) "As for power, the only thing that is relevant, is the values of the power supply rails"
and my statement...
2) Many amps run the same rails and have VASTLY different power outputs.
are in contradiction to one another. Thus, I disagreed.
Glad we're on the same page regardless of the words we each chose to use and our differing definitions of "literally". 😉
Cheers
1. only PL can give these
2. why posting that first here, then asking manufacturer?
3.I'm personally testing Crankability only when I'm sure that everything is set by spec; if he doesn't know what specs are, so performing what he performed, validity/data obtained by tests can be only informative.
conclusion - Title of thread should be - Measured vs Specified power ratings of my Pass X600.5 ....... or What is wrong with my X600.5
Friendship with Big Honcho aside, I believe in Papa's Kung Fu - he started making and measuring them when I was still in Speilhosen
OP still hasn't clarified or provided links to or scans of the supporting documents. It also seems like the study was done sometime in 2015 on an amp of unknown origin (to us). Not saying that there is anything at all wrong with that, but until it's clarified ... My impression, so far, is that it should be...
Claims of Measured performance vs Specified power ratings of someone's Pass X600.5 ....... or I'd like to compare the measurement processes and findings of Pass Labs vs. an unknown engineer with claimed expertise b/c I'm both curious about and perhaps skeptical of the manufacturer's claims.
No disrespect meant / intended etc. to the OP or anyone. I just think after everything I've read that this is the gist. Corrections welcome.
I could have the factory look at some typical 600.5 Graphs and see what they looked like. The typical US house breaker these days is 20 amps at 120 Volts.
Due to the power levels if I remember correctly the 600 and 1000 were not certified for consumer use but commercial use in industrial applications.
We spec it as measured during a sweep at 1KHz it was not a sustained sort of measurement.
Due to the power levels if I remember correctly the 600 and 1000 were not certified for consumer use but commercial use in industrial applications.
We spec it as measured during a sweep at 1KHz it was not a sustained sort of measurement.
Thank you mr. Colburn I'm interested what they look like.
So you did not sell any to consumers because of these certifying issues?
I suppose it's the correct assumption that you call your poweramplifiers according to their 8 Ohm ratings? Hence the X600 and X600.5 and X600.8 have a rating of 600 Watts at 1% THD and the X1000 and 1000.5 have a rating of 1000 Watts at 1% THD.
I had the impression that, without any further context in your advertised powerratings apart from 8 and 4 Ohm and the 1% THD, that the specification was the standard 20Hz to 20kHZ, But what I gather now that it is a peak power 'music power' rating at 1 KHz so now I understand why the continuous ratings or RMS values are lower.
If so why don't you give these RMS powerratings and the momentous ratings at 1kHz, as described above in your reply, in the brochures and on your website so the potential customer can make a more valid and precise comparison if they want to do so? Isn't that what the Amplifier Rules of the FTC is about?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.