"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Richard Wall
wrote:


Cheap CD/DVD players usually are cheap, and are compromised. I wouild
assume the same to be true of cheap amps vs better built products.

That seems to me to be a reasonable assumption.

In the sense of a similar effect of global forces, yes.

Basically, both cheap amps and cheap optical players can, due to the
positive effects of technological change, perform in a nearly ideal fashion.

However I'd also
expect this to depend on the conditions of use. e.g. a cheap amp
might sound fine (and similar/indistinguishable from) a more
expensive/better one if the required power/current levels were
modest, but sound very different when asked to play at high levels
into a speaker tha was a 'nasty' load.

If you pick cheap amps carefully, not even relatively high levels (for the
actual size of the amp) into nasty loads are much of a problem. The most
common problem with cheap amps is that their actual maximum power output is
often grotesquely overstated. If you derate them to what they really are,
they are often really pretty good. And, I'm not talking about special
derating for nasty loads. I'm talking simply about calling an amp that can
put 50 watts into a resistive load, a 50 watt amp and not a 200 watt amp. It
will also put gobs of power into a nasty load, within its actual capacity.

What drives all this technical goodness? Mostly, the lack of desire to see
returned goods.