The Roksan Blak total power and the misleading WHF review

MaxD

New member
Jun 15, 2014
6
0
0
First of all, I have to say I do own a Roksan K3 and it is such a strong machine: It can pretty much play everything if you feed it with a quality source and it is rated probably little more than 70 + 70 watt per channel on 8 ohm like advised. I didn't know Roksan before K3 Whathifi review, and it was a pleasure to discover such a fantastic amp. It does the best with my Tannoy Revolution XT 8F, another great, great bargain.

K3 is also very well priced, over the internet you can get it for even € 1,000 (new) and it is enormous value for money.

So, considering I just got some ATC SCM40 (2013 revision) for another room, I wanted something more powerfull for my new other speakers and I didn't want to spend such enormous money to buy Macintosh or Bryston, so I was looking to get a good, trusted Roksan Blak. This one too can be bought over the Internet for a lot less than the suggested price, so after reading the entusiastic WHF review and after my very good esperience with K3, I bought blind with confidence (considering I also had 14 days to send it back for a total refund.

And here start the wrong part.

According with WHF review, the Blak was tested by them as a 150 Watt (per channel!) on 8 ohm. Here them statement in the review copy and pasted:

"But if you need a fully equipped unit that can connect to your computer, smartphone, turntable and headphones, the Blak makes a mighty strong case for itself.

Particularly when you consider its impressive muscularity - it's rated at 150W per channel into an eight-ohm load, rising to 230W as impedance halves."

This is wrong, according with a Roksan representative I contacted via e-mail to ask why this amp power was pretty much the same of my K3 with the difference the new thing went in protection when volume control was positioned at 65 per cent of the power after one hour of use (with both ATC and Tannoy speakers) and K3 can play as hard and clear as it goes even at 75/80 per cent of his total power. And in this case it just runs hot, never ever too hot, when Blak become hot as hell and simply turns off, one after the other, the two speaker connected to it.

Here the e-mail reply I got from a Roksan representative contacted by me to complain about how poor compared to K3 was my Blak sample:

"Hello Massimo

Firstly, I'm sorry that you are experiencing a problem.

Secondly, K3 power is 140wpc in to 8R and Blak is 150wpc in to 8R.

May I suggest that you contact your local dealer or the distributor for Italy to see if they can be of assistance. If necessary, they in turn can contact us.

Thank you."

For privacy reasons, I wont expose Roksan representative e-mail addresses here, then if WHF representative need more info, I'm here for him in private.

Obviously I reply to the Roksan representative mail asking them to contact WHF to point them about the totally wrong review of Blak; in alternative, if the review wasn't wrong, Roksan sent some special sample to them. I never had a reply from Roksan.

Me, I sent back the Blak and I had a total refund, very disappointed, now the ATC SMC40 runs really good with the same, old, good NAD C375BEE (the one WHF dismissed with a 3 star review and some complains), surely not an esoteric amp, then it does his job pretty well and his sound is like an old Roksan (like the K3) with less steroids.

Just a final note on two days with my Blak: it has nothing to do with K3, musically it is a completely redisagned amp, the sound is like more smooth (less NAD we can say), the onboard DAC is quietly ok, then I didn't need this DAC becouse I can't even heard about a different DAC then Chord DACs,

Thats all, just - please WHF - revise your misleading review.

PS: I also said to Roksan they should clarify better about product specs. On many sites (like for example the italian distributor site) it is rated 150 WATT per channel, in some Roksan own site is rated correctly, in other parts it isn't.
 

Pedro

New member
May 31, 2016
4
0
0
MaxD said:
First of all, I have to say I do own a Roksan K3 and it is such a strong machine: It can pretty much play everything if you feed it with a quality source and it is rated probably little more than 70 + 70 watt per channel on 8 ohm like advised. I didn't know Roksan before K3 Whathifi review, and it was a pleasure to discover such a fantastic amp. It does the best with my Tannoy Revolution XT 8F, another great, great bargain.

K3 is also very well priced, over the internet you can get it for even € 1,000 (new) and it is enormous value for money.

So, considering I just got some ATC SCM40 (2013 revision) for another room, I wanted something more powerfull for my new other speakers and I didn't want to spend such enormous money to buy Macintosh or Bryston, so I was looking to get a good, trusted Roksan Blak. This one too can be bought over the Internet for a lot less than the suggested price, so after reading the entusiastic WHF review and after my very good esperience with K3, I bought blind with confidence (considering I also had 14 days to send it back for a total refund.

And here start the wrong part.

According with WHF review, the Blak was tested by them as a 150 Watt (per channel!) on 8 ohm. Here them statement in the review copy and pasted:

"But if you need a fully equipped unit that can connect to your computer, smartphone, turntable and headphones, the Blak makes a mighty strong case for itself.

Particularly when you consider its impressive muscularity - it's rated at 150W per channel into an eight-ohm load, rising to 230W as impedance halves."

This is wrong, according with a Roksan representative I contacted via e-mail to ask why this amp power was pretty much the same of my K3 with the difference the new thing went in protection when volume control was positioned at 65 per cent of the power after one hour of use (with both ATC and Tannoy speakers) and K3 can play as hard and clear as it goes even at 75/80 per cent of his total power. And in this case it just runs hot, never ever too hot, when Blak become hot as hell and simply turns off, one after the other, the two speaker connected to it.

Here the e-mail reply I got from a Roksan representative contacted by me to complain about how poor compared to K3 was my Blak sample:

"Hello Massimo

Firstly, I'm sorry that you are experiencing a problem.

Secondly, K3 power is 140wpc in to 8R and Blak is 150wpc in to 8R.

May I suggest that you contact your local dealer or the distributor for Italy to see if they can be of assistance. If necessary, they in turn can contact us.

Thank you."

For privacy reasons, I wont expose Roksan representative e-mail addresses here, then if WHF representative need more info, I'm here for him in private.

Obviously I reply to the Roksan representative mail asking them to contact WHF to point them about the totally wrong review of Blak; in alternative, if the review wasn't wrong, Roksan sent some special sample to them. I never had a reply from Roksan.

Me, I sent back the Blak and I had a total refund, very disappointed, now the ATC SMC40 runs really good with the same, old, good NAD C375BEE (the one WHF dismissed with a 3 star review and some complains), surely not an esoteric amp, then it does his job pretty well and his sound is like an old Roksan (like the K3) with less steroids.

Just a final note on two days with my Blak: it has nothing to do with K3, musically it is a completely redisagned amp, the sound is like more smooth (less NAD we can say), the onboard DAC is quietly ok, then I didn't need this DAC becouse I can't even heard about a different DAC then Chord DACs,

Thats all, just - please WHF - revise your misleading review.

PS: I also said to Roksan they should clarify better about product specs. On many sites (like for example the italian distributor site) it is rated 150 WATT per channel, in some Roksan own site is rated correctly, in other parts it isn't.
Ciao Massimo.

Am I right in deducing the amp is 75W/channel @8ohms?

If it is so the Roksan website and manual are misleading, because usually the specs represent the power output per channel and they know it.

Regarding the WHF review, they don't measure anything, yet they think they write technical reviews, even the "most trusted in the world". It's just having a look at the manufacturer's quoted specs + some audiophool jargon and voilà. Like most magazines.

I hope you're enjoying your ATCs.
 

MaxD

New member
Jun 15, 2014
6
0
0
Pedro said:
Am I right in deducing the amp is 75W/channel @8ohms?

If it is so the Roksan website and manual are misleading, because usually the specs represent the power output per channel and they know it.

Regarding the WHF review, they don't measure anything, yet they think they write technical reviews, even the "most trusted in the world". It's just having a look at the manufacturer's quoted specs + some audiophool jargon and voilà. Like most magazines.

I hope you're enjoying your ATCs.
Yes, they really are.

Yep, a lot of confusion on this amp, and related to WHF, they should just had an immediate feel about the real amp power like I had it myself the very first moment I attached them to my speakers. It was so obvious (unless they had a different unit from mine) in the first, before the Roksan representative e-mail, I was wondering mine was a faulty item, then it wasn't.

Now, if they didn't had a different unit from mine, first thing WHF should do, is to revise the review and apologize.

PS: another weirdness in them review (in this case IMHO) is when they call it muscular. It isn't at all, K3 is muscular, Blak is totally remade of Roksan sound, and you can like it, then you can't call it muscular. Then, this are opinions, power is not an opinion (all this not apply in case they had a different unit from mine).
 

gasolin

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2013
1,326
265
19,570
what is the problem?

Roksan rates the amplifier to 150 watt 1 khz in 8ohm. nothing about it being 2x75watt or for that matter 2x150watt, i would also think they rate it pr channel

People asume it's pr channel, roksan say: The blak[/b] Integrated Amplifier USB has 150 watts of refined power for a smooth yet authoritative performance. Not if it's 2x75 watt or 2x150 watt........ would you think ist 150 watt pr channel or 2x75 watt i wouldn't think it's 2x75 watt

It might only be 2x75 watt since they rated it at 1khz and 5khz (thd) where a company like nad rates there power in 20-20khz, not 1 khz or 5 khz like roksan does.

http://www.roksan.co.uk/products/blak-integrated-amplifier/
 

MaxD

New member
Jun 15, 2014
6
0
0
gasolin said:
what is the problem?

Roksan rates the amplifier to 150 watt 1 khz in 8ohm. nothing about it being 2x75watt or for that matter 2x150watt, i would also think they rate it pr channel

People asume it's pr channel, roksan say: The blak Integrated Amplifier USB has 150 watts of refined power for a smooth yet authoritative performance. Not if it's 2x75 watt or 2x150 watt........ would you think ist 150 watt pr channel or 2x75 watt i wouldn't think it's 2x75 watt

It might only be 2x75 watt since they rated it at 1khz and 5khz (thd) where a company like nad rates there power in 20-20khz, not 1 khz or 5 khz like roksan does.

http://www.roksan.co.uk/products/blak-integrated-amplifier/
?

Roksan representative said it is 75 x 75 on 8 ohm. And this is confirmed by me in real world use.

K3 is rated 70 x 70 on 8 ohm and it really is.

NAD is out of the picture in this case.

i still report this sentence in WHF review:

‘Particularly when you consider its impressive muscularity - it's rated at 150W per channel into an eight-ohm load, rising to 230W as impedance halves. ‘

[font="ProximaNova-Light, arial, verdana, sans-serif"]No, it isn’t and it even seems.[/font]
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
1,182
636
12,070
MaxD said:
gasolin said:
what is the problem? 

Roksan rates the amplifier to 150 watt 1 khz in 8ohm. nothing about it being 2x75watt or for that matter 2x150watt, i would also think they rate it pr channel

 

People asume it's pr channel, roksan say:  The blak Integrated Amplifier USB has 150 watts of refined power for a smooth yet authoritative performance. Not if it's 2x75 watt or 2x150 watt........ would you think ist 150 watt pr channel or 2x75 watt i wouldn't think it's 2x75 watt

 

It might only be 2x75 watt since they rated it at 1khz and 5khz (thd) where a company like nad rates there power in 20-20khz, not 1 khz or 5 khz like roksan does.

http://www.roksan.co.uk/products/blak-integrated-amplifier/
?

Roksan representative said it is 75 x 75 on 8 ohm. And this is confirmed by me in real world use.

K3 is rated 70 x 70 on 8 ohm and it really is.

NAD is out of the picture in this  case.

i still report this sentence in WHF review:

‘Particularly when you consider its impressive muscularity - it's rated at 150W per channel into an eight-ohm load, rising to 230W as impedance halves. ‘

No, it isn’t and it even seems.
I'm sorry but Roksan representative did not say that. At least not what you wrote in post #1.

Also K3 is most definitely not "70 x 70 on 8 ohm". Below taken from manual:

Output Power:
>150 W Into 8Ω Both Channels Driven
>300 W Into 4Ω Both Channels Driven

Looking at Blak manual even though it does not state "both channels driven" its not a difficult guess looking at 800W max power draw to say that the figures quote are per channel:
Power output @ 1kHz, 8ohm > 150W
@ 1kHz, 4ohm > 230W

I do feel for you. It must be frustrating and Roksan could/should be more specific.

I would not pay any attention however to volume level and how far you turn the dial.
 

gasolin

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2013
1,326
265
19,570
Rated Power Consumption 480W

My nad 3020E (yes i have 2 nad 3020) is rated at 2x72 watt in 2ohm dynamic power consupmtion is 140 watt

480watt is alot for a 2x75watt amp in 8 ohm, mabye 2x115 or 150 watt in 4 ohm it uses 800 watt?

Nad C375BEE is rated at 290 watt, max power is 1200watt in 1 channel or about 2x600 watt in 4 ohm
 

MaxD

New member
Jun 15, 2014
6
0
0
insider9 said:
I'm sorry but Roksan representative did not say that. At least not what you wrote in post #1.

I do feel for you. It must be frustrating and Roksan could/should be more specific.

I would not pay any attention however to volume level and how far you turn the dial.
he did, reread my original post. And in copy of that e mail was another Roksan representative and that was the honest reply

and yes volume knobs count like it count the real power output of the amp.

and Roksan representatives admitted in the mail they sent to me, this is just rated 10 watt globally more than Venerable k3 at 8 ohm.

so they should be more clear about them products and WHF should me more carefull when they give 5 star to a product and when they test it. This roksan case was a big fail expecially for WHF rewing team if the amp they tested was like the one I bought, and they should correct them review to avoid any misleading purchase like the one I did. Lucky I got my money back, then a well reputated magazine should be a lot more carefull
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
MaxD said:
gasolin said:
what is the problem?

Roksan rates the amplifier to 150 watt 1 khz in 8ohm. nothing about it being 2x75watt or for that matter 2x150watt, i would also think they rate it pr channel

People asume it's pr channel, roksan say: The blak Integrated Amplifier USB has 150 watts of refined power for a smooth yet authoritative performance. Not if it's 2x75 watt or 2x150 watt........ would you think ist 150 watt pr channel or 2x75 watt i wouldn't think it's 2x75 watt

It might only be 2x75 watt since they rated it at 1khz and 5khz (thd) where a company like nad rates there power in 20-20khz, not 1 khz or 5 khz like roksan does.

http://www.roksan.co.uk/products/blak-integrated-amplifier/
?

Roksan representative said it is 75 x 75 on 8 ohm. And this is confirmed by me in real world use.

K3 is rated 70 x 70 on 8 ohm and it really is.

NAD is out of the picture in this case.

i still report this sentence in WHF review:

‘Particularly when you consider its impressive muscularity - it's rated at 150W per channel into an eight-ohm load, rising to 230W as impedance halves. ‘

No, it isn’t and it even seems.
The K3 is rated at (greater than) 140 watts into 8 ohms, 220 watts into 4 ohms.

The Blak is similarly rated, 150 and 230 watts respectively. In all cases this is per channel.

In both cases the amplifier power supply ratings (as given) are consistent with this level of output power.

To all intents and purposes, they are identical in terms of power output and input sensitivity is not that different 500mv for the K3, 440mv for the Blak. In both cases the output from a CD player or other digital source (typically 2 volts) will be sufficient to drive either amplifier to full power well before the maximum settings on the volume control.

Any percieved difference in volume at comparable settings will be caused by the different volume circuit designed for each model.

If the amplifier is shutting down in use then either it is being overdriven or the protection circuitry os set incorrectly.

PS. I have just re-read the WHF review, and as far as I can see it is factually correct.
 

Oldphrt

New member
Oct 21, 2016
2
1
0
MaxD said:
First of all, I have to say I do own a Roksan K3 and it is such a strong machine: It can pretty much play everything if you feed it with a quality source and it is rated probably little more than 70 + 70 watt per channel on 8 ohm like advised. I didn't know Roksan before K3 Whathifi review, and it was a pleasure to discover such a fantastic amp. It does the best with my Tannoy Revolution XT 8F, another great, great bargain.

K3 is also very well priced, over the internet you can get it for even € 1,000 (new) and it is enormous value for money.

So, considering I just got some ATC SCM40 (2013 revision) for another room, I wanted something more powerfull for my new other speakers and I didn't want to spend such enormous money to buy Macintosh or Bryston, so I was looking to get a good, trusted Roksan Blak. This one too can be bought over the Internet for a lot less than the suggested price, so after reading the entusiastic WHF review and after my very good esperience with K3, I bought blind with confidence (considering I also had 14 days to send it back for a total refund.

And here start the wrong part.

According with WHF review, the Blak was tested by them as a 150 Watt (per channel!) on 8 ohm. Here them statement in the review copy and pasted:

"But if you need a fully equipped unit that can connect to your computer, smartphone, turntable and headphones, the Blak makes a mighty strong case for itself.

Particularly when you consider its impressive muscularity - it's rated at 150W per channel into an eight-ohm load, rising to 230W as impedance halves."

This is wrong, according with a Roksan representative I contacted via e-mail to ask why this amp power was pretty much the same of my K3 with the difference the new thing went in protection when volume control was positioned at 65 per cent of the power after one hour of use (with both ATC and Tannoy speakers) and K3 can play as hard and clear as it goes even at 75/80 per cent of his total power. And in this case it just runs hot, never ever too hot, when Blak become hot as hell and simply turns off, one after the other, the two speaker connected to it.

Here the e-mail reply I got from a Roksan representative contacted by me to complain about how poor compared to K3 was my Blak sample:

"Hello Massimo

Firstly, I'm sorry that you are experiencing a problem.

Secondly, K3 power is 140wpc in to 8R and Blak is 150wpc in to 8R.

May I suggest that you contact your local dealer or the distributor for Italy to see if they can be of assistance. If necessary, they in turn can contact us.

Thank you."

For privacy reasons, I wont expose Roksan representative e-mail addresses here, then if WHF representative need more info, I'm here for him in private.

Obviously I reply to the Roksan representative mail asking them to contact WHF to point them about the totally wrong review of Blak; in alternative, if the review wasn't wrong, Roksan sent some special sample to them. I never had a reply from Roksan.

Me, I sent back the Blak and I had a total refund, very disappointed, now the ATC SMC40 runs really good with the same, old, good NAD C375BEE (the one WHF dismissed with a 3 star review and some complains), surely not an esoteric amp, then it does his job pretty well and his sound is like an old Roksan (like the K3) with less steroids.

Just a final note on two days with my Blak: it has nothing to do with K3, musically it is a completely redisagned amp, the sound is like more smooth (less NAD we can say), the onboard DAC is quietly ok, then I didn't need this DAC becouse I can't even heard about a different DAC then Chord DACs,

Thats all, just - please WHF - revise your misleading review.

PS: I also said to Roksan they should clarify better about product specs. On many sites (like for example the italian distributor site) it is rated 150 WATT per channel, in some Roksan own site is rated correctly, in other parts it isn't.
It isn't a machine.
 

MaxD

New member
Jun 15, 2014
6
0
0
davedotco said:
PS. I have just re-read the WHF review, and as far as I can see it is factually correct.
WHF review statement:

"Particularly when you consider its impressive muscularity - it's rated at 150W per channel into an eight-ohm load, rising to 230W as impedance halves."

How the review can be correct if this is - according to Roksan - a FALSE statement?

Come on, kill your idols and be real.
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
MaxD said:
davedotco said:
PS. I have just re-read the WHF review, and as far as I can see it is factually correct.
WHF review statement:

"Particularly when you consider its impressive muscularity - it's rated at 150W per channel into an eight-ohm load, rising to 230W as impedance halves."

How the review can be correct if this is - according to Roksan - a FALSE statement?

Come on, kill your idols and be real.
The statement is correct. The amplifiers are rated as I said in my earlier post. It was whoever told you that it was 75 watts per channel that made the 'false statement'. The Roksan website states 150 watts, though not stated by Roksan, the usual convention applies, this is per channel.

The two amplifiers are, pretty much identical in terms of power output but it is my understanding that the Blak is more refined than the K3 and has higher quality phono stage and Dac.

As I said earlier, the WHF review is factually correct, the fact that you appear to believe that both the amplifiers are actually 70 or 75 watts per channel suggests that there might be a language problem. However in this instance, WHF are not making a 'false statement' and the review is correct in factual terms.
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
1,182
636
12,070
I'm not sure it's language problem. Not sure where the issue is coming from.

Below is in relation to Blak. I think we don't have to speak Italian to understand what it says.

AMPLIFICATORE INTEGRATO STEREOFONICO CON CONVERTITORE DAC INCORPORATO - POTENZA 150 WATT PER CANALE SU 8 OHM, 230 WATT PER CANALE SU 4 OHM
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
insider9 said:
I'm not sure it's language problem. Not sure where the issue is coming from.

Below is in relation to Blak. I think we don't have to speak Italian to understand what it says.

AMPLIFICATORE INTEGRATO STEREOFONICO CON CONVERTITORE DAC INCORPORATO - POTENZA 150 WATT PER CANALE SU 8 OHM, 230 WATT PER CANALE SU 4 OHM
I was just trying to be polite!
 

insider9

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2016
1,182
636
12,070
davedotco said:
insider9 said:
I'm not sure it's language problem. Not sure where the issue is coming from.

Below is in relation to Blak. I think we don't have to speak Italian to understand what it says.

AMPLIFICATORE INTEGRATO STEREOFONICO CON CONVERTITORE DAC INCORPORATO - POTENZA 150 WATT PER CANALE SU 8 OHM, 230 WATT PER CANALE SU 4 OHM
I was just trying to be polite!
I hope I didn't sound rude as didn't intend to. Genuinely baffled by this miscommunication.
 

Pedro

New member
May 31, 2016
4
0
0
Well, the original post led me to believe the quoted output power wasn't per channel and it seems it is.

We can only wonder if the quoted power is a real one without measurements.
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
radiorog said:
K3 is definitely 2x150
Certainly in terms of manufacturers specifications. The OP has been given some duff information which he then uses in a completely unwarranted attack on WHF.

Reading between the lines, I think the OP bought the amp under the impression that it was twice the power of the K3, which it is not. Since it did not 'blow him away' with all the extra power and volume that he expected, he is looking for someone to blame.

The only area that might be a genuine issue is the onset of the protection circuitry. This might be due to the OP trying to get the amp to deliver substantially more than the K3 (it can't) or the protection circuit might be poorly setup. Impossible to know without testing.
 

Electro

Well-known member
Mar 30, 2011
43
3
18,545
I seem to remember Vladimir mentioning the power figures of the amplifiers published by Roksan seem to vary depending on what month they were made and the country they were sold in, they even have different figures printed on the back of the amps, I think he posted some pictures.

This could lead to confusion and dissapointment.
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
Electro said:
I seem to remember Vladimir mentioning the power figures of the amplifiers published by Roksan seem to vary depending on what month they were made and the country they were sold in, they even have different figures printed on the back of the amps, I think he posted some pictures.

This could lead to confusion and dissapointment.
That is a very poor show if that is the case.

In reality the power output of a typical amplifier measured on a robust UK 240volt supply will be higher than when measured on a typical continental 220volt supply but I can not see how that would lead to a halving of the power on any compedent design.
 

gasolin

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2013
1,326
265
19,570
davedotco said:
radiorog said:
K3 is definitely 2x150
Certainly in terms of manufacturers specifications. The OP has been given some duff information which he then uses in a completely unwarranted attack on WHF.

Reading between the lines, I think the OP bought the amp under the impression that it was twice the power of the K3, which it is not. Since it did not 'blow him away' with all the extra power and volume that he expected, he is looking for someone to blame.

The only area that might be a genuine issue is the onset of the protection circuitry. This might be due to the OP trying to get the amp to deliver substantially more than the K3 (it can't) or the protection circuit might be poorly setup. Impossible to know without testing.
Extra power? 150 watt is only 3 db more than 75 watt and as i remember it' has to be an increase of 10 db where people start to think it's twice as loud https://recording.org/threads/twice-as-loud-6db-or-10db.24495/
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
0
0
gasolin said:
davedotco said:
radiorog said:
K3 is definitely 2x150
Certainly in terms of manufacturers specifications. The OP has been given some duff information which he then uses in a completely unwarranted attack on WHF.

Reading between the lines, I think the OP bought the amp under the impression that it was twice the power of the K3, which it is not. Since it did not 'blow him away' with all the extra power and volume that he expected, he is looking for someone to blame.

The only area that might be a genuine issue is the onset of the protection circuitry. This might be due to the OP trying to get the amp to deliver substantially more than the K3 (it can't) or the protection circuit might be poorly setup. Impossible to know without testing.
Extra power? 150 watt is only 3 db more than 75 watt and as i remember it' has to be an increase of 10 db where people start to think it's twice as loud https://recording.org/threads/twice-as-loud-6db-or-10db.24495/
But that is a separate issue.

The OP thought he was buying an amp that was twice the power and expected a substantial increase in power and volume because of that.

He didn't get it as the amps are more or less the same power so was upset and perhaps thinking he had been 'conned'.

Few people, even on this forum, really have a grasp on the relationship between amplifier power, measured SPL and subjective loudness, it is pretty clear that the OP was expecting a lot 'more' and didn't get it.

The Blak is supposedly a lot more refined than the K3 which is not I think, what the OP was after.
 

MaxD

New member
Jun 15, 2014
6
0
0
This discussion become hilarious.

Facts

This BLAK amp is half the power of the NAD C375BEE rated at the same 150 watt PER CHANNEL on 8 ohm, this is tested by me. The NAD replaced the Blak on my setup against both ATC SMC40 and Tannoy Revolution XT 8F.

Roksan representative confirmed personally to me (@roksan.co.uk mails) this amp is rated 75 x 75 watt loaded on 8 ohm.

Roksan K3 is corre tly rated at 70 x 70 watt per channel at 8 ohm and actually fron my tests is a lot more reliable at the same power compared at the Blak. I still own and like the K3 and it can drive ATC speakers quietly loud qhen the Blak goes in protection at the same level.

My blak amp was bought in UK from UK valuable seller and payed in UK pounds cery little money wrll under 2000 euro becouse of the poprly value of UK pounds this days. BLak serial was correcrly recognised when regiatered to Roksan site for warrantly purposes.

i don’t personally like the sound of this amp then this is another story and it is related with personal tastes.

All this write up makes little sense becouse this amp need just rated as per what it is, a globally 150 watt on 8 ohm and 230 on 4 ohm.

Whathifi should corrext his review becouse it is factually wrong when theu affirm it is a 150 watt per channel on 8 ohm load.

Roksan is aware pf this thread and I’m expexting they official clarify this mess of specs on the web.

Lucky, working wirh a lot of equipment in recording studios, I can affirm this Blakisn’t a 150 watt per channel on 8 ohm.

Finally, I read someone probably not oening a K3 say it is a 150 x 150 watt on 8 ohm. It is a great amp, strong and very nicr sounding, then it is a 70 x 70 watt on 8 ohm like admitted by Roksan.

that’s definitely all.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts