And what will that Adcom do on the bench? If you don't know, then there isn't a way to adequately compare them and say that they are equivalent or not.
The simple fact is, he already has the amp and I can't give a good reason why one would NOT want to use it in that instance, unless he was driving some tiny little satellite speakers. The external amp WILL decrease the total draw on the receiver and it also means the mains are using a completely separate power supply. Though it may be mainly noticeable during very loud listening, there WILL be a noticeable difference using the external amp. Please provide evidence to the contrary if possible.
Peng has time and time again provided his measured data with and without external amps.
As to evidence, you are only claiming it will be noticeable but that is not real evidence either, is it anymore than it will not without some credible testing, right.
Having another power supply would come in handy, only when the other channels, 3 through 5 would also be driven to high levels at the same instant in which case one is invoking that 'all channel driven' stuff for which no soundtrack has been shown to demand.
I don't know what that Adcom will do on the bench, but Adcom doesn't claim anything spectacularly different power capability in the manual than the Yam does. But, you forget what led to this exchange; your claim that the Yam 100 watts is not the same as the Adcom 100 watts, isn't that correct?
For that, I have shown you the data that the Yam's 100 watts are indeed at least 100 watts continuous power. And, if that Adcom measures the same or even better, no reason to doubt Adcom, then your claim holds no merit, correct as both will deliver 100 continuous watts, or more. That is all what this is about.
