Not according to their own specs. 1 channel driven into 4 ohms would be 700W. I know they are being conservative.

1 channel full and 6 channels at 1/8th power is also 700W into 4 ohms.

He is quite informed about it and not alone in his views; he didn't need much encouragement from me on that one. The main problem with parametric equalization is that the filters introduce ringing and phase errors which can make sound audibly worse especially in the mid and high range. I use manual equalization sparingly and only in the bass regions where those side effects are less noticeable. Auto-equalization, like the current Audessey stuff, is an unfortunate bullet which rarely works well but does seem to have found a niche with people who aren't comfortable with manual adjustments or like the placebo effect they provide.

Dan D'Agostino designs wonderful Class A amps. I'm a big fan of Krell products. Five years ago I would have agreed with his views about Class D amps but todays designs are much different than what was available when he designed the Krells and easily challenge the best linear amps. Having read some of his comments, I'd say he is out of touch with developments in Class D and agree with Mojo that his comments are somewhat self serving. With the improvements in switching technology and the natural advantages of Class D in weight, size, cost and heat, its inevitable that the Class D amps will continue to displace Class As.

Good point John. Like Jason said Axiom is being conservative with the specs. For people (like me) who have 20 amp circuits the Axiom amp should be renamed an A-2000-8. However any one channel is limited to 1440W by the protection circuit. If running all channels under the same loads, you should get close to 1000w in stereo mode or 633w in 3 channels, 500W into 4 channels etc. In reality most of the power will be dynamically allocated to whatever channel requires more.

Yep.... hehe, but I typed to fast .. I meant to say the PA2000 is taller than the A1400 but the A1400 is far more powerful (doesn't make much sense when you leave out "but the A1400".. sorry about that).

Nope, that's exactly what I wrote. I mis-typed it. So much for me knowing 'a littl bit' about amps LOL. As you see from my corrected post - that is what I meant to say (and did say,in my head, my fingers got a little ahead though and forgot to type that part in).

That's why I'm so interested. Here you got an amp that is not only smaller, but offers 8 channels of amplification, and is far more powerful, then my bridge PA2000 (hope that reads better lol).

Like I mentioned though, the big thing now is sound quality. From what I've read so far, that should also be a big improvement (not that H/K sounds bad).

I think the sound quality is probably about the same as long as you are with in the useable range of the amp. However, those with the A1400 say it does have better attack/reaction, better low notes etc. to the music than the other amps/receivers they have used, even at low volumes, which makes me really want to hear one, I keep waiting for Mojo to buy one so I can have a listen.

Mojo will never buy one if he keeps spending his time on these boards instead of making a buck.

That summarizes it well.

= slew rate?
This is how Tom Cumberland summed up the A1400. Tons of power + better slew rate/speed = better amp.

When I asked how much power the M80s need, Debbie gave the usual "any 100wamp will do" answer. Tom didn't miss a beat... "A kilowatt."

It took a bit of browbeating by Debbie to get Tom to admit you could drive the M80s with a 100w amp, but he really believes you need a lot more power to get the best out of them. The exchange was quite entertaining.