My problem with this is the 1969 uses the same power amp that's in the Landmark 300, and I've compared it to my SVT and the SVT spanks it hard.
Am I missing something?
That "test" is so bullshit, it's not funny. First, the "100 mv input signal" is never explained. From the video, it appears to be a 400 Hz tone. So, OK they're using a 100mv 400 Hz tone to drive both amps on the scope, then how about they show what their respective output looks like and what AC voltage it measures? Until I see a 34 volt reading for the SVT and a 37 volt reading for their amp, both at clipping, I don't believe those power figures. Second, instead of using that test tone to drive the amps, there's suddenly a bass player. There's no way in hell that bass is putting out anything that drives the amps the same as the test tone. That's bait and switch, pure and simple. Thirdly, just for the sake of argument, lets say that the test is actually an equal test of volume (which it isn't); even
that is invalid as both amps are on different cabinets loaded with who-knows-what as drivers by a microphone cleverly positioned slightly off-axis of the SVT's cabinets.
Most of the tonal information driving that meter is upper midrange. It is clearly set to "A" tonal weighting which does not take the human ear's volume curve into account and is mostly a measure of midrange volume. The other position on the meter,"C" weighting, is a more accurate reflection of the human ear. Even after all that, the Tech 21 amp clearly is more muted in the upper midrange, yet it somehow manages to drive the meter harder. That's because its cabinets are aimed at a spike in the polar pattern of the microphone not because of any 60 watts of fake "headroom."
Tech 21 pedals are nice. I really like them myself, but if they put out this video as means of validating a marketing claim, I have lost quite a bit of respect for them. Don't believe the hype.
