Rumored that the new Energy Efficiency Directive of Electronic Devices in the European Union currently under assembling by some of the leader institutes involved would ban sells/import most of the largely energy inefficient  devices, included conventional linear amplifiers, like class-AB, class-H, most high power products with bad power factor ( conventional low frequency transformer powered devices above a certain power, maybe 400 or 1000W ).

What do you think? Anybody has more informations about this thing?

The whole power audio thing is just a very narrow segment of the electronics, compared to the number of LCD TV, hair dryers or microwave owens. Thats why this move is so surprising, if becomes real.

However I would welcome if they say at least 80% true overall input / output efficiency above 1000W where most of PKN devices would fit :-) somehow...

If its true then it does sound a lot like just another blanket EU law created by MEPs with no actual understanding of what such a law will effect. They'll think it just means everyone has to buy a more economical fridge while it actually has knock-on effects such as those Peter has mentioned above. Very similar to the Digital Britain act passed a couple of years ago (the one where barely any MPs actually turned out to vote and even fewer actually understood what it was about).

This may be good news for you guys at PKN (and other amplifier manufacturers using cutting edge technology) but not all of us can afford to be spending £2k+ per amplifier...

Time to start stock-piling Prolines 

I recall in the United States they were trying to make the home consumer move to fluorescent light bulbs in order to eliminate traditional light bulbs. I believe that was 20 years ago. Traditional light bulbs are still offered in the United States today.

I would imagine if such a ban takes place in Europe, there would still be many using old traditional amplifiers. A lot of proposals are usually aimed for the home consumer not, the commercial user.

Elliot Thompson wrote: I recall in the United States they were trying to make the home consumer move to fluorescent light bulbs in order to eliminate traditional light bulbs. I believe that was 20 years ago. Traditional light bulbs are still offered in the United States today.

The difference being that incandescent light bulbs actually are prohibited from being sold, produced in or imported into the EU already. Shops are only allowed to sell what they had in stock before the ban which was September 1st 2011, btw, so stock have probably run out most places now.

Elliot Thompson wrote: Saturnus wrote: Elliot Thompson wrote: I recall in the United States they were trying to make the home consumer move to fluorescent light bulbs in order to eliminate traditional light bulbs. I believe that was 20 years ago. Traditional light bulbs are still offered in the United States today.  The difference being that incandescent light bulbs actually are prohibited from being sold, produced in or imported into the EU already. Shops are only allowed to sell what they had in stock before the ban. Providing the European people allow such a ban to take place.  Best Regards,

It's already in effect.

The final stage was implemented September 1st 2011 where 40W light bulbs as the last was banned. Prior to that, September 1st 2010 100W light bulbs was banned and March 1st  2011 60W light bulbs was banned.

Note that it wasn't something that happened over night though. The original law was passed and ratified in 2000. Originally intended to be fully implemented in 2006 but was extended to 2011 due to alternative lighting technologies being developed slower than anticipated. 

Radeon wrote: someone will obviously benefit from this , and it wont be us .......

I'm one of those that truly believe class D amps are superior to all other classes of amps, save class A, which is on par. Class D amps are vastly cheaper though in price/performance, both in purchasing cost and especially long term in energy cost.

GAZ. wrote: This is a ban on selling/making new torroidal amps, not banning the use of existing ones though isnt it?

That would be impossible to implement, so probably not.

GAZ. wrote: When this all came about here, a guy I know hated CFL's so much that he went and bulk bought a lifetimes supply of several hundred conventional lightbulbs in every type he used in his home so he would never run out!

For that money he could just have bought high quality LEDs that perform equal to ILBs and saved a fortune on electricity. I have LEDs everywhere at home. The only downside is that they cost a pretty penny to purchase for the high quality ones. But they use a fraction of the electricity, typically half that of CFLs, and most manufacturers guarantee 20 to 30 years lifetime. Electricity costs about £0.25/KWh in Denmark so it's something to think about.

csg wrote: any way you look it though, its yet another layer of unwanted and unneeded bureaucracy that my hard earnt is going to have to pay for...

I agree. Either ban, or don't ban. Don't make exceptions for special uses or cases that necessitates bureaucracy. 

There are huge differences in consumed energy between a modern and conventional amps. 

I would note that not the Class-D is the most efficient, there are other more advanced switching topologies with better characteristics and lower heat production.

For example amp "A" has conventional Class-AB structure with 65% average conversion efficiency and Power factor of 0.5.

Another "B" amp has modern switching circuitry with 90% efficiency and good power supply with nearly 1 power factor.

If you see the input power requirements for same 1000W average output power you will see that amp "A" needs  ~3070W apparent power

while the modern "B" amp needs only ~1100W for the same average output.

It is not a small difference.

Probably this is one of the reasons why newer (larger) installations have solid requirements related power factor and heat dissipation. It really matters there is a need another extra air conditioner in the equipment room or not :-)

This sort of crap was mooted about for ROHS (anti-lead in electronics, also Hexa-Valient Chromium and others), many years back.

Our then owner, along with Tony Andrews of all people, went and badgered their MPs to get exceptions, Mr Andrews for lead in Speaker manufacturer (he had concerns that high temp and vibrations wouldn't work with the then replacement solder, which work hardened very quickly and was brittle), and Cliff for low volume manufacturer of PCDB boards generally.

They got it. Along with the entire computer industry for 5 years (can't have PCs fail!!!), and of course, the MOD.

Don't get me started on CFLs. If you measure whole life energy consumption, i.e. to include manufacture and disposal energy requirements, CFLs loose to filament. Then consider the mercury vapour, and its extraction and manufacture, and they loose out environmentally. However, filaments have been "banned" as all that manufacture costs of CFL (energy and mercury costs) are outside the EU (i.e. China) so the EU can claim an improvement, on its measures.

This is another EU attempt, at improving its Greenness, by simply moving the problems to another countries "balance sheet of emissions". SKCOLLOB more like.

_djk_ wrote: The most efficient direct radiator I know of is the JBL 2220/E130 at 8.7%, or 101.5dB/W/1M. And of course it has no bass.

The (unfortunately discontinued) Beyma 102NdN beats it by a hair at 8.8% efficinency. It's naturally also only useful for midrange as it's a 10" driver.

http://profesional.beyma.com/ingles/pdf/102NdN.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://profesional.beyma.com/ingles/pdf/102NdN.pdf

lickweed wrote:   Electrovoice nd12a-11,9%!!!! Thats one efficient driver

Measured the same way as the JBL and Beyma is "only" 7.2% though. EV measures peak efficiency at any frequency whereas JBL and Beyma measures average efficiency over the stated usage range.  

_djk_ wrote: "The (unfortunately discontinued) Beyma 102NdN beats it by a hair at 8.8% efficinency. It's naturally also only useful for midrange as it's a 10" driver." Voice coil length 12 mm. Air gap height 11 mm Not moving too much air there, are we? The JBL is the same type of thing, but it's a 15. The Beyma looks good for horn loading in a mid, highest mass corner I have seen on a 10.

I think that's what's it is intended for. Note Xlim is 16mm even though Xmax is 1mm. So it can withstand a beating if needed.

_djk_ wrote: "Note Xlim is 16mm even though Xmax is 1mm"   8mm one-way.

Xlim is usually (if not always) given as a peak to peak value.

kedwardsleisure wrote: we make our own laws in the UK as part of a democratic process. An english lady called Mrs Thatcher gave us the power to opt out of silly laws emenating from Brussels, as and when we feel the need.

A quaint theory that has no hold in reality.

if there is some kind of new directive there should be a stupidly long publication about it somewhere. im not so convinced , it would kill of pretty much every hi fi amp ?

Hi-End and top HiFI stuff, valve amps are just like the number of Bugatti and Ferrari on the roads.

Not really significant.

Peter Papp [PKN wrote: ] Hi-End and top HiFI stuff, valve amps are just like the number of Bugatti and Ferrari on the roads. Not really significant.

Maybe - but all the Illuminati use them, so not likely to be banned... 

darkmatter wrote:   I think you've only thought of one side of it - by increasing taxes on inefficient energy production, you'd:   - Increase tax revenue, allowing cuts elsewhere or investment in key services - Encourage suppliers to invest in greener power (save the trees maaaan) - Encourage consumers to be aware of efficiency issues - without dictating where they should make their cuts - Encourage manufacturers to design and advertise for efficiency - without dictating how they should do this   And you'd also avoid the costly, unfair and often ineffective bureaucratic bullshit that inevitably comes from politicians legislating on issues they can't fully understand.   The idea is that the net effect on the average person would be slightly lower taxes overall, and that the 0.01% of people who use loads of power would cough up. The assumption being those few people own a disproportionate amount of the wealth already, so can afford it.   Not very speaker related

I quite like it when threads go off topic (sometimes) ... but I’m not so sure about the above.

 - Increase tax revenue, allowing cuts elsewhere or investment in key services

--at the minute id say any increase in government revenue would go straight to deficit reduction (back to the banks or abroad/ to wealthy people who can afford to buy lots of government debt)with little benefit to the public. It may be able to slightly offset the severity of cuts elsewhere but would be passed on through a higher energy bill to customers.

- Encourage suppliers to invest in greener power (save the trees maaaan)

--perhaps so but they would pass on the cost rather than absorbing any cost. I think the cost to consumers passed on from higher a loss in profit by higher taxes would be greater than the benefit of increased tax revenue for the public , energy bills are a necessity for people to pay, warmth is one of the needs for human survival. The wealthier you are as an individual it is reasonable to presume you would spend a lesser proportion of your income in heating / energy costs, so energy cost increases effect the majority more than the minority, so a small increase in bills would be like taxing the poor.. . Pluss big mulit nationals only pay tax if they feel like it . look at google starbucks ect, they all have very low tax rates well below 5%, not the 27%? That corporation tax should be .  

- Encourage consumers to be aware of efficiency issues - without dictating where they should make their cuts.

- Encourage manufacturers to design and advertise for efficiency - without dictating how they should do this

And you'd also avoid the costly, unfair and often ineffective bureaucratic bullshit that inevitably comes from politicians legislating on issues they can't fully understand.

.. i do however think that we should invest more in greener energy , and inevitably there will be some cost to us, wherever the money comes from it will be from our taxes or our energy bills in some form or another, even if the government “magic” some fiat currency for investment ;)  .. im no expert in the area im looking at things from a fairly general point of view.