Peavey's never been a company to lie about specs. I see no reason to believe it's not a 200w amp judging from their good track record. The psycho-acoustics thing, though...that is a bit of a red flag. Still, maybe when Bobby's done rocking in the new year, he can clarify.
Peavey's web site shows both amps - WITH IDENTICAL NAMES The specs on the first Max 112 are 35 W RMS while the spec for the new Max 112-II just says "200W" so it's almost certainly a peak rating i.e the RMS rating would be half, or even less.
It's specked 200 watts continuous into 8 ohm (in the manual). So it's not a peak rating.
__________________
Art Pro Channel -> Crown XLS 1000 -> fEarful 15/6
***? Why would anyone buy the 35 watt version for the same weight, and schlep when they could have the 200 watt version.
BTW I had a PEavey Max 15 inch combo for a while, ended up returning it, was nto thrilled, didn't have the classic Peavey sound at all! Was hoping it would sound like the classic Peavey TNT and it did not. Not one BIT.Just be aware.
The specs on the first Max 112 are 35 W RMS while the spec for the new Max 112-II just says "200W" so it's almost certainly a peak rating i.e the RMS rating would be half, or even less.
