BHK said Someone on the forums had asked about IM distortion.
Another thing much to my surprise, and it may be measurement error, the damping factor of the mono was quite a bit more than twice what I measured on my Sig 250 at about 640 at low frequencies. The Sig 250 was more like 140 but over a wider frequency range. I will probably do these over again. I will pass on my measurements to PS Audio soon and some of them will be included for more complete data on the amps.
Thanks Bascom, that was me, but post Paul's interview with you.
I had been asking about Slew rates pre-interview, but now understand Damping factor / output impedance to be more relevant (beyond a minimum slew rate).
Interesting result, a touch more than four times (2 squared ?) the 250. Is that per Mono ? I guess it would be per Mono - hard to test anything else without including Speakers in the load calculation & that wouldn’t seem to be a standardised test (CCIF test mentioned).
Interesting, beyond the result itself, once confirmed, as it may play into the Parallel amplification line of inquiry that seems to be Paul’s hunch on why the Mono amaze him.
Wonder if you have any insights into what may be occurring, mathematically, or intuitively? EDIT : or perhaps combining both concepts… electrically (a.k.a. the dark art of RF).
I’ve been playing with two sets of speakers off monoblocks, & I’m wondering if at a basic level whether two signal paths within the mono is similar, but doubt this guess is helpful as I recall reading the BHK design is fully balanced from input to output.
Thanks again. I’m still amazed (delighted) that you are available to discuss your creation here. Thanks for your patience !