[quote name='Sean Fairchild' timestamp='1439225034' post='2841022']
In regards to RMS and a "level playing field", well that's actually what that whole post I linked to was attempting to explain; that RMS doesn't, in and of itself, create a level playing field - it has just gotten to be a commonplace rating, albeit imperfect. However, being commonplace does not make a metric impervious to being manipulated or massaged. If you haven't checked out our CEO's thoughts on the matter in the post of his I linked to, I would encourage you to do so, to further understand the company's point of view on the matter of power ratings. I'm unable to give you an RMS rating, because my understanding is that we don't use that metric to measure output whatsoever, so that information just isn't available from our technical group for me to give to you.
[/quote]
You're conflating two things. RMS doesn't of itself imply a constant power output, it's the measurement of the integral of the voltage rather than the peak to peak value - so the peak-to-peak voltage of a sine wave is 1.414 times its RMS value, hence its peak-to-peak power is twice its RMS power, regardless of whether that's transient or constant. In fact, the test that Uli Behringer refers to in his article measures RMS voltage, so the power outputs referred to in the test are measured in RMS watts.
The trouble with the power rating given with no qualification whatsoever is that its then impossible to make any sort of comparison with other products, and there's no information from which a tester can validate the values claimed. If you were to give, say, ratings (in RMS power) of maximum constant 1kHz output (for 5 minutes), and a few burst modes at 1kHz (eg. 50mS bursts, 10% duty cycle, 500mS bursts at 50% duty cycle, 5S bursts at 50%), then the same at 50Hz and 5kHz, and give that as a table in the specs, you've established a metric and effectively challenged your competitors to be as transparent about their ratings.