Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greg Cameron" data-source="post: 99836" data-attributes="member: 42">Re: Suspect amp power ratingsI threw a post up on the Peavey forums. Maybe someone will provide an answer.&nbsp; The 9200 vs. 9001 and the 5200 vs. the 4801 don&#039;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&#039;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&#039;t listed in the spec sheets, so I can&#039;t be sure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greg Cameron, post: 99836, member: 42"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification