Suspect amp power ratings

Greg Cameron

Senior
Jan 11, 2011
618
0
16
To those in the know about Crest Audio Pro series amps, can you answer me a question? I'm comparing spec sheets (always a dangerous thing) between the older Crest 7001 and the newer Crest 7200 series power amps. They're suppose to be comparable amps. Here's what's bothering me. Using the full power output (4 ohm bridge) spec for comparison at 1kHz, the 7001 is listed for 1700 watts at <.02%THD+N. The 7200 lists output at 3300 watts at <.1%THD+N. or about double. However, the rms voltage swing for the 7001 is listed higher at 83V vs 75v for the 7200. Does pushing the 7200 into slightly more distortion and measuring truly equate to double the power? I thought you really had to be hard clipping to get that kind of power increase at the load.

Something seems fishy with the numbers, they don't add up for me unless I'm missing something (am I?). This doubling of output power ratings appears to be across the board with the Pro x001 series vs. the newer Pro 200 series...
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

To those in the know about Crest Audio Pro series amps, can you answer me a question? I'm comparing spec sheets (always a dangerous thing) between the older Crest 7001 and the newer Crest 7200 series power amps. They're suppose to be comparable amps. Here's what's bothering me. Using the full power output (4 ohm bridge) spec for comparison at 1kHz, the 7001 is listed for 1700 watts at <.02%THD+N. The 7200 lists output at 3300 watts at <.1%THD+N. or about double. However, the rms voltage swing for the 7001 is listed higher at 83V vs 75v for the 7200. Does pushing the 7200 into slightly more distortion and measuring truly equate to double the power? I thought you really had to be hard clipping to get that kind of power increase at the load.

Something seems fishy with the numbers, they don't add up for me unless I'm missing something (am I?). This doubling of output power ratings appears to be across the board with the Pro x001 series vs. the newer Pro 200 series...

Looks like not apples to apples comparison.

83v @ 4 ohm is 1700W

75V @ 4 ohm is 1400W

The difference between low distortion and 1% distortion is perhaps single digit percent power difference.

3300W @ 4 ohms is 115V . An 83v clean sine wave driven into a square wave by hard clipping is 116V but that is a lot more than .1% THD :-)

JD Bennet is still at PV AFAIK, maybe ask him?

JR
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

I threw a post up on the Peavey forums. Maybe someone will provide an answer. The 9200 vs. 9001 and the 5200 vs. the 4801 don't appear to have the same discrepancy. However, the 8200 vs the 8001 does. 8001 specs reports 2800W at 4 ohms bridge with a 91V rms swing. The 9200 specs report 4500 watts with a 90V rms swing. Hmm. I suspect they might be presenting those bloated figures by using peak voltage reading rather than rms. That's something I see with Behringer power ratings. On the 8001 spec sheet, they give both rms and peak voltages (91V/129V). If you use Vpk instead for the wattage calculation, you get 4160W instead of the the 2800W the put in the specs. But why would they mix that up between models? Strange stuff. The peak V figure for the Pro 200 series isn't listed in the spec sheets, so I can't be sure.
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

Isn't Josh Millward doing some PM duties for Crest amps these days? maybe PM him here.. or wait for him to see this thread. JD would know more about old and new amp designs.

"Specmanship" is always a difficult discipline since there is no reward (only lost sales) for being the most conservative, but ample reward for pushing the margins.

JR
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

The peak power of a sine wave is exactly twice its average power, so it sounds like this is what they are spec'ing. Didn't Peavey used to use the term "continuous average sinewave power", or "CASP" when describing their amplifiers?

The home HiFi spec race went crazy back in '70s with this kind of nonsense until the FTC stepped in and told the manufacturers they had to use "RMS watts" (really a misnomer: power is not RMS, it's average). There appears to be no such edict for the car and pro audio worlds. Yet.

GTD
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

I think I may have figured out what's going on here. The voltage swing ratings are for *single channel*. When you bridge, it doubles. It appears on paper that the 7200 can source more current before limiting. In theory with a 75V/channel swing, you would have 150Vrms available bridging the outputs. If current supply at 4 ohm was capable of being relatively unlimited, you could theoretically produce over 5600 watts. So that could mean the older 7001 is current limiting at a much lower rail level than the newer 7200 though it has bit of a higher swing capability with higher impedance loads.
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

@ Greg Perhaps that's it... back in old days real men didn't operate their power amps at 2 ohms (4 ohms bridged).

@ Geoff is that CASP very very old or very new? During my 15 years at Peavey we just used plain old Watts. While the duty cycle amps make these watts for still is not quantified, and a slippery slope to confuse same power amp comparisons. The old school CS800 was 800W all day and all night, but then the competition started pimping 2 ohm operation with better power numbers from the same amp.. So 800W became the new 1200W but forget about all day and all night duty cycle.

I am optimistic that new generation of class D amps will improve the situation.

JR

PS: back in the 60s-70's the consumer power amp merchants were worse than used car salesmen using all kinds of artifice to inflate published power ratings. As government is wont to do, the FTC regulations over reacted with preconditioning at 1/3 power for an hour that was good for the aluminum (heat sink) and copper (transformer) industries but didn't save consumers a penny. I am kind of glad that we don't have duty-cycle specs too, or that would be another metric for amp designers to game and consumers to misunderstand.
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

@ Geoff is that CASP very very old or very new? During my 15 years at Peavey we just used plain old Watts.

I think it goes back to the eighties, so perhaps before your time there. And I may not be remembering the acronym exactly right.

IIRC, Peavey also printed maximum output voltage at the binding post outputs too (a CS800 said "40 Vrms"), and did the same on the speakers. It made a lot of sense to me, but I've got a formal electronics education, so I'm looking at this from a different POV than the typical consumer/DJ/musician/car audio guy. I've run into a couple DJs lately who are obsessed with "how many watts" the system I'm running (or they're running) has. Nobody ever asks, "Does it sound good?", or "Is it loud enough?".

GTD
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

I think it goes back to the eighties, so perhaps before your time there. And I may not be remembering the acronym exactly right.

IIRC, Peavey also printed maximum output voltage at the binding post outputs too (a CS800 said "40 Vrms"), and did the same on the speakers. It made a lot of sense to me, but I've got a formal electronics education, so I'm looking at this from a different POV than the typical consumer/DJ/musician/car audio guy. I've run into a couple DJs lately who are obsessed with "how many watts" the system I'm running (or they're running) has. Nobody ever asks, "Does it sound good?", or "Is it loud enough?".

GTD

Yes, power amps actually are voltage sources that put out voltage, and speakers take that voltage and make SPL, but the customer (who is always right) buys amps and speakers based on watts. Go figure.

JR
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

Yes, power amps actually are voltage sources that put out voltage, and speakers take that voltage and make SPL, but the customer (who is always right) buys amps and speakers based on watts. Go figure.

JR

I guess I'm wondering if something occurred or an anomaly surfaced while the amp in question was being used, causing a need for investigating further the capabilities as described on paper.

Geri O
 
Last edited:
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

Yes, power amps actually are voltage sources that put out voltage, and speakers take that voltage and make SPL, but the customer (who is always right) buys amps and speakers based on watts. Go figure.

JR
And unfortunately, when it comes to musical low frequency power, the watts and voltage specifications don't tell the customer (who is always right) what they need to know.

Using music and pink noise I tested all the amps I had in house at the time, a mono SpeakerPower SP1-4000 plate amp, a Crest CC2800, a Crest CA-9, an old Crown PSA 2 (weighs 8 times more than the SP-4000 !) and a QSC PLX-3602.

All the rack amps are capable of 4 ohm bridged mono operation, so a single four ohm load was used.
Bridged mono 4 ohm the CC2800 is rated for 2800 watts, the CA-9 at 1800 watts, the PSA 2 at 1210 watts, the 3602 at 3600 watts, SP-4000 at 2400 watts.

With music and pink noise (30-100 Hz) into a B&C18SW115-4 loaded bass reflex sub run to just under clip or limit lights illuminating, the SP1-4000 equaled the SPL output of the CA-9 and the PLX 3602 (though one 3602 died during testing) put out about 4 dB more than the PSA 2, and 5 dB more than the CC-2800.

The 44 pound CA-9 could be driven another 3 dB or more louder than the other amps and still "sound good", while the limiters in the other amps kept level from increasing.
The CC-2800 limiter made the speaker sound like it was flapping as soon as it hit, horrible.

Although all the amps bench tested according to their specs, they didn't "sound" like their specs would indicate, and the difference was rather huge.

Art
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

To those in the know about Crest Audio Pro series amps, can you answer me a question? I'm comparing spec sheets (always a dangerous thing) between the older Crest 7001 and the newer Crest 7200 series power amps. They're suppose to be comparable amps. Here's what's bothering me. Using the full power output (4 ohm bridge) spec for comparison at 1kHz, the 7001 is listed for 1700 watts at <.02%THD+N. The 7200 lists output at 3300 watts at <.1%THD+N. or about double. However, the rms voltage swing for the 7001 is listed higher at 83V vs 75v for the 7200. Does pushing the 7200 into slightly more distortion and measuring truly equate to double the power? I thought you really had to be hard clipping to get that kind of power increase at the load.

Something seems fishy with the numbers, they don't add up for me unless I'm missing something (am I?). This doubling of output power ratings appears to be across the board with the Pro x001 series vs. the newer Pro 200 series...

I used to produce the Crest spec sheets, including those for the Professional Series, some twenty years ago. The 200 Series came well after I left. But you seem to be comparing a bridged mono output voltage for the 7001 to a single-channel output voltage for the 7200. The 7200's voltage and power ratings seem reasonably close to the old 8001.
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

I think I may have figured out what's going on here. The voltage swing ratings are for *single channel*. When you bridge, it doubles. It appears on paper that the 7200 can source more current before limiting. In theory with a 75V/channel swing, you would have 150Vrms available bridging the outputs. If current supply at 4 ohm was capable of being relatively unlimited, you could theoretically produce over 5600 watts. So that could mean the older 7001 is current limiting at a much lower rail level than the newer 7200 though it has bit of a higher swing capability with higher impedance loads.

Ah! Don't mind my previous post.
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

And unfortunately, when it comes to musical low frequency power, the watts and voltage specifications don't tell the customer (who is always right) what they need to know.
As i think I already mentioned, there is no accepted quantification for duty cycle. Since we entered the age of 2 ohm operation (like 4 ohm bridged) there are no continuous operation amps sold to consumers that I know of.
Using music and pink noise I tested all the amps I had in house at the time, a mono SpeakerPower SP1-4000 plate amp, a Crest CC2800, a Crest CA-9, an old Crown PSA 2 (weighs 8 times more than the SP-4000 !) and a QSC PLX-3602.

All the rack amps are capable of 4 ohm bridged mono operation, so a single four ohm load was used.
Bridged mono 4 ohm the CC2800 is rated for 2800 watts, the CA-9 at 1800 watts, the PSA 2 at 1210 watts, the 3602 at 3600 watts, SP-4000 at 2400 watts.

With music and pink noise (30-100 Hz) into a B&C18SW115-4 loaded bass reflex sub run to just under clip or limit lights illuminating, the SP1-4000 equaled the SPL output of the CA-9 and the PLX 3602 (though one 3602 died during testing) put out about 4 dB more than the PSA 2, and 5 dB more than the CC-2800.

The 44 pound CA-9 could be driven another 3 dB or more louder than the other amps and still "sound good", while the limiters in the other amps kept level from increasing.
The CC-2800 limiter made the speaker sound like it was flapping as soon as it hit, horrible.
As i think I also mentioned (recently if not in this thread), all clip limiters are not created equal. IIRC and I am not an expert on Crest, but I knew them as a competitor (before PV bought them). Their version of clip limiting used a somewhat slower attack time, that actually delivered a louder signal, with the mostly inaudible leading edge or complete very brief transients passing unmolested and allowed to clip. In my experience consumers always liked louder better, so the Crest variant was successful in the marketplace while not preventing as much clipping as other more conservative clip limiters.

Worst clip limiter I ever heard was one Yamaha amp model (no I don't recall which one) we were bench testing, but I wouldn't expect all of them to sound that bad (they couldn't).
Although all the amps bench tested according to their specs, they didn't "sound" like their specs would indicate, and the difference was rather huge.

Art

When operating at the limits of amplifier current capability (2 ohm) this is not very surprising. Add the variables of loudspeakers that are not pure resistive loads, and some amps with VI (secondary breakdown) limiting protection. This secondary breakdown protection is a variant on current limiting that involves both current and voltage across the power device, so different than simple current limiting. Audible perturbations could occur related to protection circuits tripping when driven hard with marginal loads. Not to mention different duty cycle capability. This may not show up with resistive loads.

This is yet another reason I don't advocate routine 2 ohm operation... Spec your system to work well within the capability of the amps (4-8 ohm) and use the extra drive capability to use in emergencies if an amp failure occurs so you can double up a load to finish the gig. If all amps are loaded to the max you have no option to limp along. (Back in the day I've heard anecdotes of finishing shows loaded to 1 ohm but it wasn't pretty.)

Customers are attracted to driving amps at 2 ohms since it seems like free power. Nothing in life is free... That said I expect the modern generation class D amps to be somewhat less affected by load impedance (ignoring frequency response interaction with output filters).

It is difficult to make listening evaluations of amps driving loudspeakers. One test we tried at Peavey during development of one amp series, was to load up an amp with some PA speakers, in parallel with a second pair of low efficiency studio monitors in a different isolated sound space, so we could drive the amps hard but listen over the studio monitors without hurting ourselves (I still wore plugs).

We kind of explored this duty cycle issue (or at least I raised it) back when Bink did his amp shoot-out years ago.

JR
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

Yes, power amps actually are voltage sources that put out voltage, and speakers take that voltage and make SPL, but the customer (who is always right) buys amps and speakers based on watts. Go figure.

JR

Torque wins races, but horsepower sells cars. :)~:-)~:smile:

Although we call them "power amps," they're really voltage amps. Voltage multipliers, IOW. I learned long ago to think in terms of voltage and then do the calculations for power when dealing with marketing and end users.
 
Re: Suspect amp power ratings

Worst clip limiter I ever heard was one Yamaha amp model (no I don't recall which one) we were bench testing, but I wouldn't expect all of them to sound that bad (they couldn't).

"Although all the amps bench tested according to their specs, they didn't "sound" like their specs would indicate, and the difference was rather huge.
Art "

When operating at the limits of amplifier current capability (2 ohm) this is not very surprising.

JR
All the amps I tested maintained their sonic quality fairly well regardless of the load impedance- the Crest CC2800 clip limiter sounds bad at 4-8 ohms too, a Crest CA-4 bridged at 8 ohms (rated at 400 watts) had more usable (clean sounding) full range SPL than the CC 2800 (rated at 1935 watts) bridged in to the same speaker (an 8 ohm DSL SH-100).

Like you say, "all clip limiters are not created equal".