Benjamin Barnette - A Ruthless Aggressor

Why This Page Exists

Over multiple months, I shared test data for the Ruthless 10,000 amplifier, which is advertised as 10,000 W @ 14.4 V @ 1 Ω. The initial controversy surrounding this amplifier began when someone else conducted a swap test comparing the Ruthless platform to another amplifier setup. I was not involved in that testing. I reviewed the data and publicly stated that the results were valid. That is what triggered Bobby Gately’s accusations at the time. He later admitted, live on video, that his accusations were wrong, confirming that the test was legitimate. Later, when I conducted my own independent testing of a Ruthless 10,000, those results were shown repeatedly, including during a live stream where Ben was present and acknowledged that the testing was legitimate. These two situations are directly connected because in each case, independent data did not match the amplifier’s published performance ratings. Rather than counter-testing or explaining the discrepancy, promoters responded with personal attacks against anyone who agreed with the data.

More recently, I said that Ben had done “shady” things in the past. In reference to multiple events.

That single comment led to a series of public posts from Ben about me. After seeing those posts, I privately messaged him to apologize for using the word “shady” and made it clear I would not involve other people who had spoken to me privately. In response to that apology, he sent additional direct messages and made more public posts.

This page simply collects:

• My test position on the Ruthless 10,000
• The subsequent public posts and direct messages from Ben

My Test of the Ruthless 10,000

The core disagreement is about data. In my lab, using my standard procedures, the Ruthless 10,000 did not reach its published 10,000 W @ 14.4 V @ 1 Ω rating on a proper 10-second sweep. I even used a more forgiving distortion threshold of 2% instead of the typical 1%.

That conclusion is limited to the specific unit I tested, on my bench, under the documented conditions. It is not a claim about anyone’s character; it is a result from a specific, repeatable test sequence. Others are free to run their own testing and publish their numbers.

Test Methodology: Sweep Length and Power Claims

One of the main reasons my results differ from numbers promoted elsewhere is the length of the power sweep used during testing.

• My procedure uses a 10-second sweep, which is the standard full-length sweep for Amp Dyno style testing. This keeps the amplifier and power supply under sustained load long enough to expose the realistic continuous capability of the system.
• The competing numbers are taken using a 5-second sweep. Shortening the sweep reduces how long the internal capacitors and electrical system are stressed, which can artificially inflate the reported peak wattage compared to a full 10-second run.

The shorter the sweep, the easier it is for an amplifier to “punch” a big number before its internal reserves and the supporting electrical system settle. That does not make the 5-second method “illegal,” but it does mean those numbers are not directly comparable to full-length 10-second sweeps when you are evaluating continuous performance at a given voltage, impedance, and distortion threshold.

When someone quotes higher numbers from 5-second sweeps and treats them as equivalent to full 10-second results, they are not using the same standard. My position is simple: if an amplifier is advertised at a given continuous power rating, it should be able to demonstrate that rating on a proper, full-length sweep at the stated voltage, impedance, and distortion limit.

Why I Use 2% THD as the Stop Point

The industry standard for continuous amplifier power ratings is a 1% Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) threshold. That is generally considered the point where distortion first becomes meaningfully present in the reproduced audio signal.

I use a 2% THD stop point during testing. This is intentionally more generous than the standard because most real-world car audio systems are regularly played above 1% THD, especially during dynamic bass peaks.

Stopping a measurement at 2% THD does not mean:

• the amplifier stopped making power, or
• the test prevented a “bigger number” from happening

It means:

• 2% THD is the point where the amplifier has exceeded clean, controlled output
• Power can keep rising only by allowing distortion to rise with it
• Above 2%, the waveform is no longer a faithful reproduction of the audio signal

Publishing numbers well above 2% THD is reporting distortion power — not rating the amplifier’s true continuous audio performance. When a product’s marketing claims specify output at a certain voltage and impedance, that rating should be verifiable with:

• a full-length 10-second sweep
• at or below 2% THD (already more generous than the 1% standard)
• at the advertised voltage and resistive load

The number at the moment the waveform collapses is not the amplifier’s rating — it is simply the point where distortion begins replacing clean audio.

To be clear: If I continued the sweep beyond 2% THD, the wattage number would continue increasing. But that would be reporting distortion, not performance. My testing is designed to show what the amplifier can do cleanly — not what it can do while deforming the waveform.

After Ben began posting publicly about me in response to the recent comment, I initiated a private conversation to apologize for saying he had done “shady” things and to clarify that I would not expose anyone who had spoken to me privately because they were afraid of retaliation.

Private Messages: Apology and Responses

Public Posts About Me

Before and after the private apology shown above, Ben chose to publish a series of posts about me on social media. I have archived those posts here exactly as they appeared at the time of capture so people can see his wording first-hand.

This is where he starts making claims I am using a fake account named "Fred Fuller".