RMS Power?

@kijanki -

Wliliewonka - It is "watt" and not "Watt" (units start with small letter - but I’m sure you don’t care). You can go back to sleep now.

Peace - I really have no quarrel with you.

Might I suggest that since you have so eloquently demonstrated the incorrect use of the term - that you try contacting at least one of the offending manufacturers and ask them why they still elect to use this invalid term.

"We" might all agree that it is incorrect. But it does no good to preach to the choir.

Perhaps some feedback from the industry could shed some light as to why they continue this practice?

Without it, the reasoning behind it's continued use is just conjecture.

Regards... 

Williwonka, Peace!  I'm sorry for the tone of my comments toward you.  
Changing industry might not be possible, but we can start with our forum.

@kijanki - all is OK! - I sort of asked for it :-)

When it comes to watts, there never seems to be enough to satisfy some, regardless of how it's measured.
Ultimately, if you can't stay in the same space with it, it ought to be enough.  Unless you're hooked on the smell of things starting to fry.  Then I'd suggest you might need a therapist instead of more wattage.

Just teasing,  but MHO...;)

In Radiography (x-ray), the characteristics of the beam are controlled by varying the kVp across the x-ray tube and the mA in the filament.
The actual dosage to the patient is really dependant on the mA and kV rms, as is the amount of contrast in the image; analogous to dynamic range in audio.
The kV rms varies greatly with the quality of the power supplied to the input of the transformer and even more with the form of rectification. Since the degree of rectification varies so greatly with various audio technologies from tubes to op amps to class D, maybe RMS is at least as meaningful as peak.

....or maybe radiography and audio have nothing in common and I'm full of s#!t. Happens all the time.