FTC may end amplifier rule! ACTION NEEDED

This is a fair question and I'm not trying to stir any pots... but do you think the future is well made class D amps?

I think we are currently in the time of well made, good sounding class D amplifiers.

I think we have to realize that music lovers don't necessarily want a big room with 1/3rd of their floor space taken up by big gear.  Lots of music lovers are looking for small and simple.  It's now the early part of the 21st century and there are getting to be some great examples of this.

Take a look at the Anthem STR integrateds and HT receivers for instance. I don't own one, but imagine it.  Class D, built in bass management, DSP, Streaming, DAC all in one.

What is my real justification for having right now:

• Streamer
• DAC
• Integrated

I mean, to stay with separates, and stay with linear I have to really really love the sound.  Class D, along with full functional integrateds or receivers are the bulk of equipment sales to music lovers.

What will I personally do?  I am not sure.  I'll have to wait and see after my new room gets fully set up.  Perhaps I'll begin auditioning gear in earnest to see how well a full function integrated with Class D can do.

I was fully Class D in the past.  It was the equal of my previous A/B amps.  However my current A/B amp beats that, and I don't want to give that up.

I think the current rules are too lax. The consumer deserves a truth in advertising code that actually helps with purchase of an amp for a given loudspeaker.

@jaytor yes I think the hard-core audiophiles will be just fine but the fledgling and intermediate audiophiles will be lost trying to figure out what amp is best for them when the listed specs do not match with what they can actually get out of their system and what they think they purchased. Imagine the confusion of trying to select the best amp, which is difficult enough as it is, when the specs you are seeing are not even close to truth.

@itsjustme I agree. Part of this call to action is that we can request and demand amendments to the policy. Ie gene has suggested that multi channel amps list their power ratings based on 3 channels driven. I do think peak contious power is important given the transients that come up in both music and HT.

@unsound yes! Please comment in the link I posted. Hopefully it will make a difference in keeping the rule alive.

@erik_squires thank you for your candor. Most audiophiles in this forum are all about what’s "best". The truth is we are all trying to make it work within our environments and our budgets. A retiree who saves up has a chance of spending whatever they want on their system. A go getter who’s trying to make it might be living in an apartment with a tiny listening area. Not suggesting you are one or the other but the point is we are all audiophiles striving for a great sounding system. That is the definition of audiophile. There are no right or wrong answers. I’m not saying specs are the end all... but they are a great start to inform consumers what they are purchasing.

Sad to note how many discussions are quickly taken off the rail by the lunatic Libertarian faction here.  Would be nice to focus on the audio. I certainly immediately no longer trust the opinion of those folks. Reflects poorly on the brands they are oddly passionate about. 

That said, I love the idea of government rules about amplifier output. Experienced audiophiles know that this measure is only the beginning of the conversation, and that manufacturers regularly fudge their estimates.  Not unlike other industries.  But keeping some regulatory attention does seem like a good idea, especially for consumer goods.

@gone..."lunatic Libertarian faction here."...Are you talking to me?

@jwl244 BTW, I disagree with Gene re: 2/3 channels. While I understand his why, it fails to consider that the other channels might have different load demands. I'd rather bring the base line back to actual capabilities for each channel.