Yes, I did read the paper you posted, thank you, it is quite informative. Do you know why a new standard was not created from it? Why does no one rate their amps with this longer duration? I agree with you that it is a more realistic test method then the short 20ms standard (thank you again for showing me that), which is why it should be considered by the CAF group. One test of about 30 that can be improved should not cause you to poo poo the whole idea.
I have been pontificating about this since before Bink's power amp shoot out, any here still remember that?
The problem with such a spec is that amp makers would then engineer to beat the test, to look better on paper just like they did with 1/3rd power FTC preconditioning etc. Not a bad thing if the resulting amps were better for all applications but if the test is too hard, we saddle consumers with unnecessary cost.
Sorry, this has too many variable for an easy single answer, and back in the '80s I used the old IHF headroom test for my amp because at least it was a test that meant something to somebody (albeit classical music hifi pukes).
Danley could test their amp to the old IHF dynamic headroom spec and (apparently that variant also embraced by some others) and there would be a number that could be compared, as soon as other amp manufactures use the same test.
I have long since given up trying to solve this problem (it's been a long time and it's not the only spec problem i couldn't resolve... Q). I advocate for consumers using powered speakers, where real speaker and real amp engineers make these design trade-off decisions for them.
Short of that ask for and listen to hands on user experience with these amps used in similar applications with similar speaker loads.
Sorry for the cop out.
JR
