http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...6200&rd=1&rd=1

On 22 Jan 2007 05:20:44 -0800, "elkhound"
wrote:

http://cgi.ebaysnip

This spam, from Charlie Nudo, 160 Bear Run Dr. of Drums, PA, aka
"66fourdoor" on eBay, violates eBay's rules regarding Usenet spamming:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/usenet_policy.html

It also violates Google's Terms of Service regarding spamming. Please
take a moment to forward this well documented spammer/fraudster's
spam, along with headers, to:

(be sure to include a link to their own Usenet policy,
above)
(main Epix account email address:
)


More information on this notorious fraudster and spammer can be found
on:

http://nudowatch.blogspot.com

And you are lucky if the 1000TW is more than about 15 watts per channel.
This model predates the FTC enforcements of the '70s.

People should stop selling amps based on power consumption rather than
output. Either it's ignorance or dishonesty. Take your pick.


Mark Z.

On Jan 24, 7:08 am, "Mark D. Zacharias"
wrote:
And you are lucky if the 1000TW is more than about 15 watts per channel.
This model predates the FTC enforcements of the '70s.

People should stop selling amps based on power consumption rather than
output. Either it's ignorance or dishonesty. Take your pick.

Mark Z.

That model is rated at 50wrms/ch.
http://www.classic-audio.com/pioneer/SX1000TW.html

If anything, audio amps made during the 70s were *underrated* in terms
of output power.

'Specially compared to the consumer junk produced today.

"boardjunkie" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Jan 24, 7:08 am, "Mark D. Zacharias"
wrote:
And you are lucky if the 1000TW is more than about 15 watts per channel.
This model predates the FTC enforcements of the '70s.

People should stop selling amps based on power consumption rather than
output. Either it's ignorance or dishonesty. Take your pick.

Mark Z.

That model is rated at 50wrms/ch.
http://www.classic-audio.com/pioneer/SX1000TW.html

If anything, audio amps made during the 70s were *underrated* in terms
of output power.

'Specially compared to the consumer junk produced today.


I'm pretty skeptical. As I recall, this model has pretty small heat sinks.
Pioneer didn't really get with the program til after the SX-828 etc. Many
models were over rated prior to that time.

If I remember I'll look it up at work - I've got most of the old Pioneer
manuals.

In any case the guy selling this piece overstated the power by at least a
factor of 3X .

Mark Z.

Meat Plow wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:04:38 +0000, Mark D. Zacharias Has Frothed:


"boardjunkie" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Jan 24, 7:08 am, "Mark D. Zacharias"
wrote:
And you are lucky if the 1000TW is more than about 15 watts per
channel. This model predates the FTC enforcements of the '70s.

People should stop selling amps based on power consumption rather
than output. Either it's ignorance or dishonesty. Take your pick.

Mark Z.

That model is rated at 50wrms/ch.
http://www.classic-audio.com/pioneer/SX1000TW.html

If anything, audio amps made during the 70s were *underrated* in
terms of output power.

'Specially compared to the consumer junk produced today.


I'm pretty skeptical. As I recall, this model has pretty small heat
sinks. Pioneer didn't really get with the program til after the
SX-828 etc. Many models were over rated prior to that time.

IIRC 45 watts/ch @8ohms.

I checked at work. It was 45 watts IHF per channel. You'd have to derate it
somewhat for RMS. Also, the heat sinks were simply too small to maintain the
output for very long. Power consumption from the wall was rated 175 watts
max.

To get 150 per channel from this would be a miracle indeed.

Like I said. Ignorance or dishonesty, take your pick.

Mark Z.