No, what I am saying is, its power supply does not look big enough for a 2 Ohm rating. It looks like it has 2X10 A slow blo fuses, that indicate it has two transformers with VA rating up to 750 VA each but not larger. Also, the spec says power consumption is 550 W typical and 1200 W high output. That sort of collaborate with 2X750 VA transformers. From available pictures it looks like it has 10X8,200 uf or 82,000 uf filter capacitance total. That's a lot being shared but not very much compared to the likes of the Monolith, Outlaw and Parasound amps that don't share or at least not to the same extent for all channels (Anthem claimed "the new MCA525 shares its two power supply between all channels. The result is full bursts of power – instantly – without affecting channel separation.") The fact that each channel can in fact suck from the two mother pig, 600 W into 2 Ohms is theoretical possible, though I would still maintain that the "continuous" rating claim is not creditable, not literally continuous anyway, but I'll edit my previous post, now that I remember the unusual power supply sharing scheme.
I think the main difference between the MCA and the Halo 5 channel amps power output it that the Anthem could do very well in 1,2 channel driven conditions and the Halo amp will do better in 3,4,5 channel driven conditions. The Halo amp should have much higher truly "continuous" rating as well. So in practice, I think the MCA amp is more efficient, and that's why it is so much lighter, while rated only 25 W lower per channel. I am just unsure about its channel separation, regardless of their claim of "not affected" by the shared PS. It also has relatively low input impedance, only 10 kOhm for RCA inputs.
I would love to see one bench measured.
