FTC Amplifier Rule

[gene]

I'm sorry I wasn't faster on the uptake concerning the .1% figure. I didn't know where that came from, but now I understand the concern about amplifier clipping above .1%, assuming the amplifier is capable of sub-.1% distortion before clipping. The problem is that not all amplifiers can provide such low distortion, and they wouldn't be able to make power claims. For the record, the 1% figure originally was just a suggestion by CEA. There is no 1% requirement in the current Rule. You just have to disclose distortion, whatever it is at the rated power.

Let's save the world from bad amplification. LOL. Disclosing distortion at rated power seems most logical.

 

[3db]

I wonder if this ruling will now persuade manufacturers to up their game in their product releases or will be inundated with the same old stuff which now looks worse on paper?

 

[3db]

Finally, some more standardization going on but with cell phones

The EU will require all cellphones to have the same type of charging port

New phones and handheld electronic devices sold in the European Union will be required to have a USB-C charging port by the end of 2024, a move expected to affect the iPhone and its lightning charger.

www.npr.org

 

[djtetei]

"Recommendations" means nothing for greedy and unreliable audio equipment manufacturers.
If we are to ensure respect, both for the manufacturer and the customer, we need mandatory standards and certification procedures in order to eliminate the bad boys from the industry.
As long as I am a paying customer I have to be able to know all the technical specifications, testing conditions and safe operating level of the audio equipment that I am paying for. I have to be able to trust a manufacturer's published power rating when I'm designing a sound reinforcement system.
The audio equipment has to be able to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at its maximum capabilities without missing a beat, so "normal consumer use" is out of the question. If I am paying for a 1000 watt continous power amplifier, it has to deliver 1000 watt of power continous for at least 2 years (warranty period), even if I sometimes choose to use it in normal conditions, inside a house or residence, at 1/8 power.
Manufacturers who don't want to abide by the established standards and certify their products, can do so at their own risk, knowing that the potential customers may not choose to buy their products exactly because of the lack of certifications.

 

[M Code]

The 1st statues for power output disclosures by the Federal Trade Commission goes back 50 years to 1973. Though certain test conditions have been revised for various reasons, such as the amplifiers being multi-channel and the relaxing of the pre-conditioning tests. However the FTC has no expertise in monitoring the situation plus no enforcing capability the amplifier disclosure statue so basically it is up to each brand and their respective adherence... The only real case I am aware of for the FTC enforcing the subject amplifier power output disclosure statue was back in late 1979 when Marantz complained about the fraudulent advertising of output power specs by Pioneer... Supporting objective test data for the Pioneer models was submitted to the FTC, next Pioneer was served with a Cease & Desist order by the FTC. Pioneer conceded the lawsuit was valid and abruptly discontinued their models under scrutiny. Another point is now the audio component amplifier business is global... All tied together by the internet as the other global markets such as Europe, Australia, Far East have their own respective local standards for power output disclosures as well...

Just my $0.02...

 

[Replicant 7]

The 1st statues for power output disclosures by the Federal Trade Commission goes back 50 years to 1973. Though certain test conditions have been revised for various reasons, such as the amplifiers being multi-channel and the relaxing of the pre-conditioning tests. However the FTC has no expertise in monitoring the situation plus no enforcing capability the amplifier disclosure statue so basically it is up to each brand and their respective adherence... The only real case I am aware of for the FTC enforcing the subject amplifier power output disclosure statue was back in late 1979 when Marantz complained about the fraudulent advertising of output power specs by Pioneer... Supporting objective test data for the Pioneer models was submitted to the FTC, next Pioneer was served with a Cease & Desist order by the FTC. Pioneer conceded the lawsuit was valid and abruptly discontinued their models under scrutiny. Another point is now the audio component amplifier business is global... All tied together by the internet as the other global markets such as Europe, Australia, Far East have their own respective local standards for power output disclosures as well...

Just my $0.02...

Yep! With AVR's, amps being mostly built overseas, who's gonna stop them? That's why I have always stated beware of an implied warranty. Crossing State lines and or another country's for that matter could be a daunting task legally for the end user

 

[Verdinut]

The 1st statues for power output disclosures by the Federal Trade Commission goes back 50 years to 1973. Though certain test conditions have been revised for various reasons, such as the amplifiers being multi-channel and the relaxing of the pre-conditioning tests. However the FTC has no expertise in monitoring the situation plus no enforcing capability the amplifier disclosure statue so basically it is up to each brand and their respective adherence... The only real case I am aware of for the FTC enforcing the subject amplifier power output disclosure statue was back in late 1979 when Marantz complained about the fraudulent advertising of output power specs by Pioneer... Supporting objective test data for the Pioneer models was submitted to the FTC, next Pioneer was served with a Cease & Desist order by the FTC. Pioneer conceded the lawsuit was valid and abruptly discontinued their models under scrutiny. Another point is now the audio component amplifier business is global... All tied together by the internet as the other global markets such as Europe, Australia, Far East have their own respective local standards for power output disclosures as well...

Just my $0.02...

I had information from one of my old friends who managed audio shops in Montreal, that Pioneer was not alone in publishing inflated power ratings. Yamaha too did it for several years.

 

[Replicant 7]

I had information from one of my old friends who managed audio shops in Montreal, that Pioneer was not alone in publishing inflated power ratings. Yamaha too did it for several years.

Radio Shack was famous for inflated spec's back in the day

 

[lovinthehd]

Radio Shack was famous for inflated spec's back in the day

Radio Shack still had good stuff in a lot of ways, they did play the marketing game with watts/numbers a bit much for my taste back in the day but they weren't really competing for my shopping of components (I simply looked elsewhere for that, but cables/connectors and doo-dads RS was great for and was everywhere). They did actually have some decent stuff hidden behind the marketing specs, too.

 

[Replicant 7]

Radio Shack still had good stuff in a lot of ways, they did play the marketing game with watts/numbers a bit much for my taste back in the day but they weren't really competing for my shopping of components (I simply looked elsewhere for that, but cables/connectors and doo-dads RS was great for and was everywhere). They did actually have some decent stuff hidden behind the marketing specs, too.

Chris, back in 70's up till the late 80's, town I lived in only had one Radio Shack and one audio independent owner. I knew the manager and owner of both stores. The independent audio store sold Advent speakers, JBL, Polk and Bose speakers, plus Pioneer and Marantz gear. I was in both stores no less than once a week. Didn't know it than but I was definitely a Audioholic, wife at the time hated both of those stores cause I was always coming home with something. Now there is No audio store's at all here. I don't count Walmart, two of those stores here now, they ran both out of business plus we had 4 electronics privately owned stores sold TVs they're gone to.

 

[Verdinut]

If there is no success in attracting the young generations to home hi-fi and HT, because of their extensive use of streaming devices, I'm afraid there's a risk of a serious decline in the production of AVRs, CD, DVD, BD players, any type of CD production, and to some extent loudspeakers in the not so far future.

 

[M Code]

I recall the majority of the brands/models that failed the original FTC(73) power output disclosure statue were the high powered receivers and amplifiers...

I had information from one of my old friends who managed audio shops in Montreal, that Pioneer was not alone in publishing inflated power ratings. Yamaha too did it for several years.

In the late 70s when the market in the categories of stereo receivers and power amplifiers... Many brands and their products that had amplifiers sections rated @ 125W.Ch or higher the majority of these products had limited power supply capacity and undersized heat sink area so they typically FAILED the FTC pre-conditioning tests. However 1 brand whose products did pass the FTC tests with additional margin was Marantz, and who also rated their products into 4 Ohms as well..

Just my $0.02...

 

[D Murphy]

Yep! With AVR's, amps being mostly built overseas, who's gonna stop them? That's why I have always stated beware of an implied warranty. Crossing State lines and or another country's for that matter could be a daunting task legally for the end user

Hmmm. I was assigned to the Rule in 1979 and don't have any recollection of that. We had a suit against Pioneer involving resale price maintenance, but we've never issued a Cease and Desist order involving the amplifier rule as much as I may have wanted us to. Are you sure that wasn't a private law suit? Or maybe I was taking one of my frequent naps.

 

[Replicant 7]

Hmmm. I was assigned to the Rule in 1979 and don't have any recollection of that. We had a suit against Pioneer involving resale price maintenance, but we've never issued a Cease and Desist order involving the amplifier rule as much as I may have wanted us to. Are you sure that wasn't a private law suit? Or maybe I was taking one of my frequent naps.

Yes it was a private lawsuit. Was just stating that implied warranties can be a financial burden to the end users. Especially with online purchases. I apologize Mr Murphy, wasn't trying to derailed the thread.

 

[D Murphy]

Yes it was a private lawsuit. Was just stating that implied warranties can be a financial burden to the end users. Especially with online purchases. I apologize Mr Murphy, wasn't trying to derailed the thread.

I was just trying to make sure I hadn't missed anything--the post said the FTC had brought the matter. But at least the Rule does make it easier for injured parties to bring private suits, since the FTC already determined that violations were deceptive acts.

 

[D Murphy]

The Federal Register Notice concerning the proposed amendments to the FTC Rule has finally been published:

Federal Register :: Request Access

The main issue with the stereo testing requirements will be the .01 limit on THD. As excepted, the FTC is still punting on specific proposals for testing multichannel amps. The Notice reports some of the suggestions made in the last comment period, and then states that the authors presented no evidence that the proposed testing requirements represent common consumer usage (e.g., specifying that the surround channels should be run simultaneously at some reduced percentage of rated power for the mains, or that all channels should be run at full rated power simultaneously. So the ball hasn't been advanced on the most critical issue. Public comments are due by September 26.

 

[PENG]

The Federal Register Notice concerning the proposed amendments to the FTC Rule has finally been published:

Federal Register :: Request Access

(e.g., specifying that the surround channels should be run simultaneously at some reduced percentage of rated power for the mains, or that all channels should be run at full rated power simultaneously. So the ball hasn't been advanced on the most critical issue. Public comments are due by September 26.

"...reduced percentage of rated power for the mains...", would make sense. "...full rated power..... would not as it would forced the consumers to potentially pay a lot more for the capability they don't need. Some AVR manufacturers such as Anthem, no longer rate some of the surround channel amps (even the flag ship model) the same, period, let alone simultaneously.

Anthem® | MRX 1140 | Specifications (anthemav.com)

Main channels 1-5: 140 W, 2 channels driven into 8 ohms, 1% THD
Remaining channels, there are 6 such channels: 60 W, 2 channels driven into 8 ohms, 1% THD

To borrow Anthem's logic/idea, FTC could consider lowering THD to 0.1% and the power output to be rated for two front 2 channels driven and the remaining channels running simultaneously at 30, 40 or 50 (whatever people can agree to) of the two or more main channel's rated output.

And again time duration for the test should be specified, the existing one says something like:

"..Rated power shall be obtainable at all frequencies within the rated power band without exceeding the rated maximum percentage of total harmonic distortion after input signals at said frequencies have been continuously applied at full rated power for not less than five (5) minutes at the amplifier's auxiliary input, or if not provided, at the phono input..."

It is also time for them to provide the two channel driven into 4 ohms rating, at 0.1%. Technically speaking, amplifier output rating should not be specified in power, but in current (amperage) at specified voltage though I realize most consumers don't have the knowledge to understand and compare more technically correct and useful output specs.. So just by including the "W" into 4 ohms, plus the duration, will go a long way already.

 

[highfigh]

"Recommendations" means nothing for greedy and unreliable audio equipment manufacturers.
If we are to ensure respect, both for the manufacturer and the customer, we need mandatory standards and certification procedures in order to eliminate the bad boys from the industry.
As long as I am a paying customer I have to be able to know all the technical specifications, testing conditions and safe operating level of the audio equipment that I am paying for. I have to be able to trust a manufacturer's published power rating when I'm designing a sound reinforcement system.
The audio equipment has to be able to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at its maximum capabilities without missing a beat, so "normal consumer use" is out of the question. If I am paying for a 1000 watt continous power amplifier, it has to deliver 1000 watt of power continous for at least 2 years (warranty period), even if I sometimes choose to use it in normal conditions, inside a house or residence, at 1/8 power.
Manufacturers who don't want to abide by the established standards and certify their products, can do so at their own risk, knowing that the potential customers may not choose to buy their products exactly because of the lack of certifications.

Consumer audio equipment falls under the heading of 'lifestyle', so it doesn't really need to be able to run constantly or under extreme conditions, as 'life safety' audio equipment does.

Your conditions for 'continuous power' mean that you should look at commercial/industrial amplifiers.

 

[djtetei]

@highfigh Since when consumer audio equipment falls under the heading of lifestyle?
Audio equipment, no matter what it is, should be able to perform at its maximum operational specifications without a sweat.
Power amplifiers, no matter if they are used in home environment or in professional or commercial environment, must be able to function at their maximum operational specifications and still deliver high fidelity sound, because, ultimately, this is their purpose.
What one considers to be a "lifestyle" equipment, another may consider to be just an audio equipment with some manufacturers specifications that, when used within its operational limits, should be able to perform and deliver its best at any level within its operational limits.
So, if I like to play my music at full operational capabilities for 2, 5, 9 hours or 9 days, continuously, that piece of equipment must be able to deliver its goods without missing a beat.

 

[highfigh]

@highfigh Since when consumer audio equipment falls under the heading of lifestyle?
Audio equipment, no matter what it is, should be able to perform at its maximum operational specifications without a sweat.
Power amplifiers, no matter if they are used in home environment or in professional or commercial environment, must be able to function at their maximum operational specifications and still deliver high fidelity sound, because, ultimately, this is their purpose.
What one considers to be a "lifestyle" equipment, another may consider to be just an audio equipment with some manufacturers specifications that, when used within its operational limits, should be able to perform and deliver its best at any level within its operational limits.
So, if I like to play my music at full operational capabilities for 2, 5, 9 hours or 9 days, continuously, that piece of equipment must be able to deliver its goods without missing a beat.

Consumer audio is a choice- we can life without it. The electronics industry classifies AV and other entertainment as 'lifestyle' but audio systems that need to continue operating during a fire, like a PA that announces where exits and safe places are during a storm, fire, attack, etc are called 'life safety'. In those systems, the specs call for the amplifiers to continue operating up to and including the point of destruction. Lifestyle vs life safety are real categories in the electronics industry- among others, alarm and video surveillance systems, medical monitors, various detectors and anything else that will keep people safe are in the latter group.

There is no requirement that an AV system operate at its maximum for a long time, other than maybe what a user demands. The FTC or any other government agency don't require it, but some manufacturers still use long term application in their specs because system designers want to know what to expect. Most people don't operate their system at maximum and anyone who does, needs to make sure the SPL isn't so high that it will damage their hearing if they want to hold a conversation in their later years. .