![modifying drive channel in marshall avt 50h modifying drive channel in marshall avt 50h](https://i.ibb.co/HnrzjsS/1.jpg)
I did an A/B test for and hour just listening to the famous Jurassic park scenes (sad i know i should get a life) and the T Rex growl had more detail and texture with the Arcam. I know at decent levels I need the quality sound of the more expensive amp and also even at moderate levels i can hear more detail from the Arcam So the original question would they sound the same? It depends on the users needs and ears. I currently have 7 smaller ATCs for home theatre and they are power hungry and I find the Emotiva lacking hence in part my amplifier decision.īut we all hear differently and make up our on minds that's why we love a discussion right? I've been lucky enough over the years to own amps from Chord Electronics Bryston Atc and similar all with different internal designs running both ATC and PMC 3 ways and I've always needed large quality amps to get the best out of them ie control and detail at high volumes. I don't know what's going on inside I just listen and make a decision that way. I listen at reference volume levels and i can notice that the Emotiva does begin the struggle where as the Arcam doesn't which is why I'd spend the extra money. If both amps can achieve similar amounts of clean power, why go with the more expensive, more complex option? That's a $1400 difference that could go toward actual audibly beneficial improvements. So, for almost twice the ducats, the Arcam might, might, approach the absolute power of the Monolith for dynamic signals. No, if one can actually hear rails commute (the primary difference b/t the Arcam and Monolith, and something that happens at power levels where speaker induced distortion wildly dwarfs that from the electronics), they either have superhuman senses or delusions of such powers. Modern amp tech renders obsolete such approaches anyway, but OP was asking about class g. In the real world, listening to music, I doubt that there's a hill of beans difference between those amps, maybe a db or two of headroom? I have no idea what Arcam specifies or what salesmen believe, but amp performance is all reducible, if only that info was disclosed.
![modifying drive channel in marshall avt 50h modifying drive channel in marshall avt 50h](https://www.ivisionmobile.com/assets/images/marketing-channels.jpg)
It's a ratings game that NAD has historically engaged in, as one example, touting their IHF rated power specs. The standard 'continuous power' rating will reflect the lower voltage rail's limits, where with dynamic program material the class g amp might punch above what it's continuous rated power suggests. A class g amp's power supply will have a low voltage rail that can run 24/7, and a high voltage rail that can operate for a second or two. As mentioned, such supplies are of necessity more complex, with much higher parts count and increased chance of failure.Īlso, it throws a wrench into amp comparisons when using continuous power as the metric. They use the same class a/b output stages, but the power supplies are dual rail (or variable, in the case of 'class h').
![modifying drive channel in marshall avt 50h modifying drive channel in marshall avt 50h](https://c1.zzounds.com/media/productmedia/fit,2018by3200/quality,85/AVT50HAV-63a9c850e892cb56e84b49449e212cec.jpg)
Class g (and h) are/were just methods to reduce heat in conventional a/b amps.