Good Class D amps ??

[fas42]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

Because the idle dissipation is the problem.  Take my former Pass Labs amplifier, it required at least an hour of warm up to reach thermal equilibrium and its best operating condition.  It seemed to sound even better though when left on overnight.  In any case, I could not predict with an hours advance notice when I was going to be listening, so if I wanted the amp to sound its best it had to be left on 24/7.  Although it was not a high power model, it still idled at ~250 watts.  So that is a significant energy waste.

With my class d amplifier, which actually sounds a bit better, I leave it on 24/7 and it idles at ~10 watts.  Big difference.

 

But, I chose the class d amp because it sounds better, and the energy savings is just a bonus.

 

The Perreaux I used years ago was a cooker - the huge heat sinks were not for show, they were almost at burning your fingers temperature, at idle. But I only got the best sound after many hours conditioning, so it was 24/7 ; when one is chasing for optimum, you make sacrifices ... .

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, mfsoa said:

A recent review:

http://www.jeremykipnis.com/MEGAschino_Review_-_03_18.html

 

 

What I like in this review is an excellent, alternative description of how the soundstaging and dynamics in complex mixes are presented, with competent playback - there are many Roads to Rome, just pick a suitable path ...

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, barrows said:

Nope, it is entirely true in my system.  It took a bit of work to get the amp right, but once it was I sold the Pass.  It was not a night and day difference, but ultimately the Ncore had a lower noise floor, better detail retrieval, bigger dynamic contrasts and a deeper soundstage.  At first the Pass had a bit of an edge in terms of body and timbre, but the changes I made to the Ncore's wiring pulled it even in that department..

 

A good result - a 'clue' as to how I go about things, , what I'm always looking for in the beginning is "better detail retrieval, bigger dynamic contrasts" - "body and timbre" can come later; something that has that, and not much else, is going to be much more work to sort - not really worth it, IMO. Plenty of driving guts in the sound is an excellent signpost - if it's "rough and ready" that's not so important; can be sorted, over time.

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

Though my speakers are far from what was listened with here.. This review matches my experience.

Amplifier Reviews, Analog Reviews NuPrime ST-10 power amp

 

From that review,

 

Quote

Rarely does an amp achieve an ideal balance of richly textured timbres and harmonics, bottom-end authority, startling dynamics, exquisite low-level detail, and a fully revealed, fully dimensional sound stage against a backdrop of mile-deep silence.”

 

This type of prose always makes me laugh ... as if the amp is doing this 'magic trick' all by itself, because it has some specialness inside it ...

 

Ummm, no. It's the recording, silly , that has these qualities - the "ideal balance" is, that it just gets out of the way, completely, from adultering what's been recorded - sorta what one is after, I reckon.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, GeneZ said:

There is 'bad' coloration. There is 'good.'  All audio systems color the sound. Every time I recorded my drums what I heard in play back was not what I heard while playing.   Everything gets colored in some way.

 

Now?   Where were we? ?

 

Technically, all systems colour the sound, but there is a plateau of performance where it no longer matters, because subjectively "all you hear is the music".

 

Transient impact is where the problems usually lie is it doesn't sound real - audiophile rigs are notoriously bad at this, because they are trying so hard not to ever sound unpleasant - and lose so much in the prcoess.

 

Drum kits are a good example of this. But it is certainly possible to get a setup to the point where a drummer listening to audio on the other side of a curtain could be fooled by the playback - the main issue would be that the sound had been recorded without significant compression of the stick impacts.

[fas42]

Yes, the simpler the speaker setup, the better - a good rule of thumb. Yes, Litz cable - interstrand interaction is reduced; I use tough as nails single core - zero flexibility, but such doesn't matter. Yes, AB often has problems because of the crossover nature of the output stage - so, class A, or good class D.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, GeneZ said:

So many variables involved.   Cables,  fuses,  IC's.. Speakers.  I believe that reviews often times are reporting about how a piece of equipment interacts in their own particular system.  A good review should require access to a healthy number of speakers and peripheral components.

 

 

A system is a system. An excellent rule of thumb is that the closer one is to the "ideal", the more the one outstanding weak link will stand out like the proverbial sore thumb, and haunt you until you get rid of it.

 

Will an "excellent" amplifier make your rig sound magical? ... ummm, will the best tyres you can buy turn your old bomb of a car into a magical driving experience ... ?

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, jmpsmash said:

 

that's a skewed analogy. it will be equivalent to saying we are driving $50 pair of computer 3" speaker with a $2000 amp. I am hoping most people have more balanced system than that.

 

 

 

That's not as silly as it may sound to many people - I've done the equivalent to that, and you can end up with a pretty impressive presentation. That is, the cheap speakers will unerringly show up weaknesses of the amplifier; but pricey speakers won't do anything to compensate for a poorly done amplification chain.

[fas42]

32 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

 

Any change I make in my present system quickly reveals what the difference is. 

 

It only took me 50 years, or so, to finally put together such a system. So,  its not as if I am some super audiophile who knew what he was doing from the start. Just lots of research and development (aka, mistakes) were made over the years. 

 

I have learned...   If I used certain interconnects?  Or certain speaker cables?  Or,  power cords?   Detecting such changes might make me think those who talk about fuses and power cords as impressionable jerks. Each piece of equipment is part of a team for transparency.  I am pretty sure there are speakers out there that would make such differences undetectable. Any weak link in the chain would be able to nullify the greatness of everything else in a system. We are involved with an art, not just science.

 

Indeed. No-one knows it all - and the closer one gets to optimum, the more there is to learn ... the good news is, that rigs have the potential to be staggeringly good, way superior to what most consider high end sound to be ... I have no trouble saying, there are no limits ...

[fas42]

I originally got a burst of what I call "competent sound" many decades ago with quite ordinary, relatively cheap bookshelf speakers. The CD player was top of the line; the amp was a highly regarded one of that era - as a result I never developed a "thing" about needing specialist speakers; and experience ever since has born that out.

 

Yes, both the amplfier, and speaker, will introduce some distortion into the situation. But what matters, subjectively, is the type of distortion - the nature of "what's wrong" is far more important than the usual numbers gathered, when measuring misbehaviour of this sort of gear. And it turns out that electronic imperfections are far more insidious, damaging to the perceived SQ than the wrongdoings of the speaker drivers. Unless the latter are grossly bad at what they do.

 

And this has guided me ever since. I make sure the mechanical side of the speaker assembly is reasonable, take special care that all the electrical areas, of the crossovers and cabling, have no obvious weaknesses - and leave it at that - for the speakers. The major efforts go towards ensuring the electronic chain prior to the speakers is as clean, as sorted, as is reasonable for the value of the components - because that is where the real gains occur.

 

Case in point is the current rig being tweaked. Electronics are decent, older NAD units; speakers are Sharp boombox items, from the classic 3 equal sized boxes that are available everywhere. So far, the NAD units are the biggest bottleneck, the speakers have barely started to breath in terms of what they're capable of ...

[fas42]

Perhaps you might like to start a separate thread on this? Strongly stabilising the speakers has always been an essential part of my 'method', and the better one does it, the better the end results.

[fas42]

Busy life stuff at moment - will kick it off in the headphones and speakers forum later today ...

[fas42]

3 hours ago, GeneZ said:

 

 

You are going to decide on measurements?  Who has bad measurements today?

 

It's like the public service - the most important thing is to Cover Your Arse. "I awarded the contract to the company that provided the most paperwork - that had the most impressively presented metrics, graphs all over the place ... the fact they were incompetent in getting the job done is quite irrelevant, really "

[fas42]

2 hours ago, GeneZ said:

 

All my efforts to improve the sound... which does happened in small increments at a time... As of late, it came as a surprise.  Just one power cord to my DAC transforms the entire system.  I can place the same PC on the NuPrime amp and that too will change the sound.  But, on the DAC?  That changes everything.  Its like upgrading my amp and preamp.

 

We are sometimes looking in the wong place...

 

Very few people appreciate the significance of what you're saying - it's a man's hobby; and the bling factor is very, very important to many - that "tiny things" are so critical does not compute; they don't want to know that fussing with boring, cheap stuff can be the vital link to best sound.

[fas42]

The circuit is already out there, if someone wants to build it ...http://www.data-odyssey.nl/Super_TIS.html

[fas42]

Rule of thumb: the more technically precise the chain is, the harder it will be to make it "sound good". Why? Because the 'precision' makes remaining anomalies stand out in sharp relief - you clean a surface, it looks fine; but you shine a strong, narrow beam light on it - it's still filthy! ... So, you're going to have to get a "better cleaning cloth" ...

 

Am I talking about the recordings? No, a big no!! The "better cleaning cloth" has to be applied to the playback chain - its sins are what are taking away the pleasure in the listening; reducing the intensity of the spotlight is not the answer - but every aspect of its behaviour must be impeccable, especially in the areas which are never measured.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, GeneZ said:

 

Has anyone in the past been enthralled with their audio system?   Or, are we seeking to be the first one?

 

This should be the goal .. because it's what's on the recordings that is enthralling; flaws in the rig are the key elements that are in the way of achieving this experience - so, you have to work on improving things, in ways that are not easily measurable ...

 

Those with an 'objectivist' bent are obsessed with the concept that conventional measurements are good enough to tell the whole story. Because, the Important People have said so ... meantime, in the real world, lots of people have found this is hokum, by using various approaches to push the SOTA. The objectivists jump up and down in rage, insisting that people are using distortion to sweeten the sound - ummm, red herring, anyone?

 

A big problem is inertia - the audio business has fallen into a major pothole in its thinking, and only some are trying to get out, let alone even realise that they're trapped in this attitude dead-end.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

There is a mystery at work when it comes to music enjoyment. Its got to do with how we feel inside to begin with.  The music only finds a welcoming opening to fill. If that opening is not there?  It can be a 100,000 system, and be "meh."

 

I don't think it's a mystery - I can be in a foul mood, for a reason unrelated to music and its playback; but if I hear live sounds at that time, or a competent presentation - it may not make me feel better, but i have no trouble still discerning that the desirable qualities are all there; it's just that I'm not in the right frame of mind to go off to la la land.

 

The irksome thing in what I do with audio is that it's not push button available - peak quality is only achieved after spending some time getting everything in the environment exactly right. The compromise that is adequate, is that decent quality is what comes out on first switch on - it does enough to give good enjoyment on most recordings ... that suffcies, at that moment.

[fas42]

20 hours ago, esldude said:

Amplifier measurements are valid to know which amplifier is of highest fidelity to the signal.  If you start talking preferences, then it is another thing altogether.  And you are displaying exactly and precisely the error in thinking I've mentioned earlier. The confusion this creates is a problem because you aren't thinking rationally about the difference in best sound as determined by individual preference and best fidelity to the signal.  Until you get your head around this concept you'll wander aimlessly in the wilderness longer than Moses was in the desert.  Trapped by your primacy of feelings for what should be design decisions. 

 

But the real world behaviour of amplifiers is never measured well enough - if the class D amplifier is injecting nasty current waveforms back into the mains, which is disturbing the behaviour of the other components in the system, then 'ideal' behaviour of the amp is all for nought. Just saying, "all well designed gear doesn't have issues" is not measuring for it.

[fas42]

What counts at these levels is not the measured spec's, but the robustness of the designs. That is, with any sort of electrical noise or poor behaviour in the vicinity, do they still perform at the same admirable levels? If they don't, they will be ultimately unsatisfying - every aspect of the enviroment will "change the sound"; and one is caught up in the same game, still ...