I think a lot of the self-proclaimed scientists on both sides of the argument are clouding the issue here, as are the apologists.
Here, as I see it, are the facts:
1) TC published a rating for an amplifier that was beyond optimistic, broaching fraudulent, rather than post the actual rating as tested by somewhat uniform methods throughout the industry, as would affect sales and pricing.
2) This is somewhat common practice in MI, although there are many exceptions to the rule as well as many who go so far as to double or triple the actual rated output of their products on their marketing... using phony figures, murky science, "proprietary" testing methods designed to produce more marketable results or justify inflating the results of more standardized testing
3) The ubiquity of this sort of misleading and dishonest practice does not excuse its use, and manufacturers who engage in the practice take great pains to hide or otherwise obfuscate both their testing methods, and the degree to which marketing overrides engineering precisely because it is a "bad thing" that they dont want their customers privy to, as would affect sales and pricing, given the maker's interpretation of what the market will bear.
4) Right or wrong, strict adherence to Mirriam-Webster's definitions of technical terminology and that terminology's appropriate usage in common practice and how it relates to real world experience put completely aside.... output wattage has been the benchmark by which end-users make pre-purchase conclusions on a given amplifier's overall volume and *loudness* capabilities and, more recently, it's ability to reproduce extended low frequency at a certain volume given the use of an appropriate enclosure. In most cases, these conclusions are made bearing in mind the size of the speaker enclosure the end user intends to mate to the amplifier.....so, being that this is the number the end-user gets the most use out of in making these very important conclusions, the industry has responded by making that it's most visible published spec, as will affect sales and pricing. "loudness", "Perceived Loudness", "Headroom" etc all obfuscate to some degree, what it is the end-user is most interested in....
how loud will this amplifier get?. The market demands this information in making a decision to purchase, and the industry has responded.
5) Given the same signal and the same enclosure, and given a variety of different situations apples to apples (same room size, acoustics, band setting, equalization etc.) a 223 watt amplifier will not be able to perform accurately to the same *overall volume (for lack of a better general term as relates to objective listeners) as a 450 watt amplifier with all other factors being equal, although in some cases the differential will be negligible. No matter what way you spin it... a given preamp circuit, with a given bass and enclosure, in a given room..... a 500 watt amplifier will exhibit a number of different and varying but always audible symptoms of having reached one or more of it's mechanical limits at a much lower *overall volume than a 1000 watt amplifier. Any attempts by anyone, manufacturer or player to obfuscate, apologize for or explain away this differential has some strong motivation for doing so not related to the truth.
6) That being said, many amps of similar ratings sound *louder or seem to have more *headroom than others, and this has everything to do with signal reproduction and fidelity, inherent equalization, and how the human ear interprets sound. That is why some cabinets of equal configuration and capacity often sound *louder than others, on account of engineered or more often inherent emphasis on certain frequency ranges.
7) Many people will buy whatever you want to sell them, if you sell it colorfully enough. If the TC unit being discussed sounds good to you, and is loud enough to support your needs given your sound, your enclosures and in the rooms you play, and you can afford it.... buy it. The Wattage Spec approaches zero meaning for you. It could be rated at 100 watts or 1000, and it will still be good enough for you. HOWEVER.... many manufacturers feel that
in order to attract you to the product to begin with as opposed to watching you make the "it works for me" decision on a competitors product, they need to inflate published specs to a point more in line with competing products in the same price range, taking into account other features offered by the product. Inflating the number on paper is a great deal less expensive then engineering the amp to actually perform at that number.... and achieving a better profit margin was and is the source of all this issue to begin with.
8) TC is not the first to do this, not even the first to be called out on it... although they may wear the current crown of to what
degree they have lied and inflated their numbers. The also may wear the current crown for the most preposterous excuse. Marketing is marketing..... ways and means by which makers entice you to their product. Sadly, wattage specs are, and will likely remain, at the determination of the Marketing side of the business, not the engineering side. So, as
is always the case.... let the buyer beware, and let your ears be your judge.... ignore all the colorful language and people arguing semantics, as clouds the issue.
Mods, feel free to sticky this post, and lavish praise on its author........
.
