You are on page 1of 5

These days, in the era of multi-channel home theater receivers, the both channels driven simultaneously requirement has

been mostly disregarded. Some of the better brands will rate their 5- or 7-channel receiver in 2-channel mode per the 1974 spe cs, but then they give a vague optimistic rating for multi-channel operation. Wo rse yet, the FTC has abandoned any effort to bring specificity and accountabilit y to power ratings, so the consumer is really on their own when trying to compar e the output specs from different brands. Example: ReceThese days, in the era of multi-channel home theater receivers, th e both channels driven simultaneously requirement has been mostly disregarded. Som e of the better brands will rate their 5- or 7-channel receiver in 2-channel mode r the 1974 specs, but then they give a vague optimistic rating for multi-channel operation. Worse yet, the FTC has abandoned any effort to bring specificity and accountability to power ratings, so the consumer is really on their own when tr ying to compare the output specs from different brands.

pe

Example: Receiver A may state 120 watts x 7 @ 1kHz .5% THD, 8 ohms, but then in rea lly small print say, 65 watts continuous x 2, 20-20kHz, .1% THD 8 or 4 ohms. Receiver B may state, 90 watts x 7 @ 1 kHz, .3% THD, 6 ohms, , but not give a 2-chann el 20-20k rating at all. Good luck comparing those. Actually, it s quite plausible, given the way the power is spec d here, that these two units have absolutely identical output capabilitie s! You can read more onHow to Prepare:--First of all you are required to select the proper optional subjects based on your knowledge and interests. --The preparation should be started with the General studies paper(Main) and syl labus of CSAT. --Once you are done with a good quantity of the above, then you should start pre paring for optional subjects and then the remaining papers of Main exam. --It is quite difficult to do the preparation without proper guidance. --UPSC exam is not very easy to pass. But with a systematic and focused effort f rom the candidate s part it will be quite easy to get qualified in each stages of the UPSC exam. --Make a methodical plan which is realistically and achievable and fit your dail y schedule. As to make the plan practical, students must study for the exam at t heir own pace. --Only purchase standardized reference books for preparing for the exam. --Time allocation for each if the syllabus must be sensible. Divide each of the sections in to different sittings. By dividing each of the sections candidates w ill be able to lay down clear goals. Study materials:History- NCERT books of class XI and XII, Freedom Struggle (published by Nationa l Book Trust) Geography- Class XII books of Geography (NCERT), a good atlas. Indian Polity- Introduction to the Indian Constitution. Indian Economy- NCERT and other books on Evolution of the Indian Economy.

General Science- NCERT books on science, a science magazine or newspaper supplem ents on science. Current Events- A national newspaper, The Competition Master, newsmagazines. General Mental Ability- Do the Quantitative Aptitude published in The Competitio n Master, past test papers Mental Ability - R.S.Agarwal. Current Affairs - one has to be thorough with newspaper readings of atleast one year back from the date of exam. General Knowledge - India year book + Manorama year book or Chronicle year book. this topic with our article Product Managing Receiver Platforms . These days, in the era of multi-channel home theater receivers, the both channels driven simultaneously requirement has been mostly disregarded. Some of the better brands will rate their 5- or 7-channel receiver in 2-channel mode per the 1974 spe cs, but then they give a vague optimistic rating for multi-channel operation. Wo rse yet, the FTC has abandoned any effort to bring specificity and accountabilit y to power ratings, so the consumer is really on their own when trying to compar e the output specs from different brands. Example: Receiver A may state 120 watts x 7 @ 1kHz .5% THD, 8 ohms, but then in rea lly small print say, 65 watts continuous x 2, 20-20kHz, .1% THD 8 or 4 ohms. Receiver B may state, 90 watts x 7 @ 1 kHz, .3% THD, 6 ohms, , but not give a 2-chann el 20-20k rating at all. Good luck comparing those. Actually, it s quite plausible, given the way the power is spec d here, that these two units have absolutely identical output capabilitie s! You can read more on this topic with our article Product Managing Receiver Platf orms . Nonetheless, all else being equal (say, an incremental jump in a specific manufa cturers lineup), aside from 100 watts having a nice ring to it, the extra 20 watts of power represents a rather insignificant 1dB step. What about a 200 watt amplifier versus a 400 watt amplifier? In an ideal world, and again all else being equal, you'd be looking at another 3dB gain. There are some obstacles about going to 400 watts, however, as most speakers can t handle th at kind of power. Nonetheless, all else being equal (say, an incremental jump in a specific manufa cturers lineup), aside from 100 watts having a nice ring to it, the extra 20 watts of power represents a rather insignificant 1dB step. These days, in the era of multi-channel home theater receivers, the both channels driven simultaneously requirement has been mostly disregarded. Some of the better brands will rate their 5- or 7-channel receiver in 2-channel mode per the 1974 spe cs, but then they give a vague optimistic rating for multi-channel operation. Wo rse yet, the FTC has abandoned any effort to bring specificity and accountabilit y to power ratings, so the consumer is really on their own when trying to compar e the output specs from different brands. Example: Receiver A may state 120 watts x 7 @ 1kHz .5% THD, 8 ohms, but then in rea lly small print say, 65 watts continuous x 2, 20-20kHz, .1% THD 8 or 4 ohms. These days, in the era of multi-channel home theater receivers, the both channels driven simultaneously requirement has been mostly disregarded. Some of the better brands will rate their 5- or 7-channel receiver in 2-channel mode per the 1974 spe cs, but then they give a vague optimistic rating for multi-channel operation. Wo rse yet, the FTC has abandoned any effort to bring specificity and accountabilit y to power ratings, so the consumer is really on their own when trying to compar e the output specs from different brands.

Example: Receiver A may state 120 watts x 7 @ 1kHz .5% THD, 8 ohms, but then in rea lly small print say, 65 watts continuous x 2, 20-20kHz, .1% THD 8 or 4 ohms. Receiver B may state, 90 watts x 7 @ 1 kHz, .3% THD, 6 ohms, , but not give a 2-chann el 20-20k rating at all. Good luck comparing those. Actually, it s quite plausible, given the way the power is spec d here, that these two units have absolutely identical output capabilitie s! You can read more on this topic with our article Product Managing Receiver Platf orms . Nonetheless, all else being equal (say, an incremental jump in a specific manufa cturers lineup), aside from 100 watts having a nice ring to it, the extra 20 watts of power represents a rather insignificant 1dB step. What about a 200 watt amplifier versus a 400 watt amplifier? In an ideal world, and again all else being equal, you'd be looking at another 3dB gain. There are some obstacles about going to 400 watts, however, as most speakers can t handle th at kind of power. Receiver B may state, 90 watts x 7 @ 1 kHz, .3% THD, 6 ohms, , but not give a 2-chann el 20-20k rating at all. Good luck comparing those. Actually, it s quite plausible, given the way the power is spec d here, that these two units have absolutely identical output capabilitie s! You can read more on this topic with our article Product Managing Receiver Platf orms . Nonetheless, all else being equal (say, an incremental jump in a specific manufa cturers lineup), aside from 100 watts having a nice ring to it, the extra 20 watts of power represents a rather insignificant 1dB step. What about a 200 watt amplifier versus a 400 watt amplifier? In an ideal world, and again all else being equal, you'd be looking at another 3dB gain. There are some obstacles about going to 400 watts, however, as most speakers can t handle th at kind of power. What about a 200 watt amplifier versus a 400 watt amplifier? In an ideal world, and again all else being equal, you'd be looking at another 3dB gain. There are some obstacles about going to 400 watts, however, as most speakers can t handle th at kind of power.These days, in the era of multi-channel home theater receivers, the both channels driven simultaneously requirement has been mostly disregarded. Some of the better brands will rate their 5- or 7-channel receiver in 2-channel mod e per the 1974 specs, but then they give a vague optimistic rating for multi-chan nel operation. Worse yet, the FTC has abandoned any effort to bring specificity and accountability to power ratings, so the consumer is really on their own when trying to compare the output specs from different brands. These days, in the era of multi-channel home theater receivers, the both channels driven simultaneously requirement has been mostly disregarded. Some of the better brands will rate their 5- or 7-channel receiver in 2-channel mode per the 1974 spe cs, but then they give a vague optimistic rating for multi-channel operation. Wo rse yet, the FTC has abandoned any effort to bring specificity and accountabilit y to power ratings, so the consumer is really on their own when trying to compar e the output specs from different brands. Example: Receiver A may state 120 watts x 7 @ 1kHz .5% THD, 8 ohms, but then in rea lly small print say, 65 watts continuous x 2, 20-20kHz, .1% THD 8 or 4 ohms.

Receiver B may state, 90 watts x 7 @ 1 kHz, .3% THD, 6 ohms, , but not give a 2-chann el 20-20k rating at all. Good luck comparing those. Actually, it s quite plausible, given the way the power is spec d here, that these two units have absolutely identical output capabilitie s! You can read more on this topic with our article Product Managing Receiver Platf orms . Nonetheless, all else being equal (say, an incremental jump in a specific manufa cturers lineup), aside from 100 watts having a nice ring to it, the extra 20 watts of power represents a rather insignificant 1dB step. What about a 200 watt amplifier versus a 400 watt amplifier? In an ideal world, and again all else being equal, you'd be looking at another 3dB gain. There are some obstacles about going to 400 watts, however, as most speakers can t handle th at kind of power.These days, in the era of multi-channel home theater receivers, the both channels driven simultaneously requirement has been mostly disregarded. Some of the better brands will rate their 5- or 7-channel receiver in 2-channel mod e per the 1974 specs, but then they give a vague optimistic rating for multi-chan nel operation. Worse yet, the FTC has abandoned any effort to bring specificity and accountability to power ratings, so the consumer is really on their own when trying to compare the output specs from different brands. Example: Receiver A may state 120 watts x 7 @ 1kHz .5% THD, 8 ohms, but then in rea lly small print say, 65 watts continuous x 2, 20-20kHz, .1% THD 8 or 4 ohms. Receiver B may state, 90 watts x 7 @ 1 kHz, .3% THD, 6 ohms, , but not give a 2-chann el 20-20k rating at all. Good luck comparing those. Actually, it s quite plausible, given the way the power is spec d here, that these two units have absolutely identical output capabilitie s! You can read more on this topic with our article Product Managing Receiver Platf orms . Nonetheless, all else being equal (say, an incremental jump in a specific manufa cturers lineup), aside from 100 watts having a nice ring to it, the extra 20 watts of power represents a rather insignificant 1dB step. What about a 200 watt amplifier versus a 400 watt amplifier? In an ideal world, and again all else being equal, you'd be looking at another 3dB gain. There are some obstacles about going to 400 watts, however, as most speakers can t handle th at kind of power. Example: Receiver A may state 120 watts x 7 @ 1kHz .5% THD, 8 ohms, but then in rea lly small print say, 65 watts continuous x 2, 20-20kHz, .1% THD 8 or 4 ohms. Receiver B may state, 90 watts x 7 @ 1 kHz, .3% THD, 6 ohms, , but not give a 2-chann el 20-20k rating at all. Good luck comparing those. Actually, it s quite plausible, given the way the power is spec d here, that these two units have absolutely identical output capabilitie s! You can read more on this topic with our article Product Managing Receiver Platf orms . Nonetheless, all else being equal (say, an incremental jump in a specific manufa

cturers lineup), aside from 100 watts having a nice ring to it, the of power represents a rather insignificant 1dB step.

extra 20 watts

What about a 200 watt amplifier versus a 400 watt amplifier? In an ideal world, and again all else being equal, you'd be looking at another 3dB gain. There are some obstacles about going to 400 watts, however, as most speakers can t handle th at kind of power.iver A may state 120 watts x 7 @ 1kHz .5% THD, 8 ohms, but then in really small print say, 65 watts continuous x 2, 20-20kHz, .1% THD 8 or 4 ohms. Receiver B may state, 90 watts x 7 @ 1 kHz, .3% THD, 6 ohms, , but not give a 2-chann el 20-20k rating at all. Good luck comparing those. Actually, it s quite plausible, given the way the power is spec d here, that these two units have absolutely identical output capabilitie s! You can read more on this topic with our article Product Managing Receiver Platf orms . Nonetheless, all else being equal (say, an incremental jump in a specific manufa cturers lineup), aside from 100 watts having a nice ring to it, the extra 20 watts of power represents a rather insignificant 1dB step. What about a 200 watt amplifier versus a 400 watt amplifier? In an ideal world, and again all else being equal, you'd be looking at another 3dB gain. There are some obstacles about going to 400 watts, however, as most speakers can t handle th at kind of power.