Differences in sound: DAC vs. DAC + Pre-amplifier

[barrows]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

You could have simply agreed to disagree as I suggested , but possibly due to commercial High End product affiliations ,  you chose not to.

I have no "affiliations" that would give me any advantage if people choose to use. or not, a preamp???

Why the need to suggest that I have some kind of ulterior motive?  I express the results of my experience and the actual facts here, for the benefit of members looking for the best possible playback fidelity and nothing more. 

[barrows]

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

To save money on a $50,000 all up system I put together for a wealthy non audiophile friend I excluded a pre-amp. When I added in my pre-amp he wanted one too. Expectation bias? Maybe. However, he did not want to exceed his budget but did so.Without any coaching or prior discussion of expectation, he volunteered "the sound has more body". This accords with many similar descriptions like "fuller, richer, more body, more life like, less sterile".

 

I have no desire to suggest that your are not hearing what you claim, indeed I entirely believe that your are hearing what you claim.  

While I have not heard the M1 here in my system, I have heard its successor the M21, and both these DACs appear to have nearly, if not entirely, identical output stages.  The output stage of the M21 and M1 are quite potent, and easily meet the needs of driving any ordinary amplifier directly.  So  I would suggest to you that you consider the following possibility:

 

The addition of a preamp is adding new distortion harmonics to your playback which are the cause of the additional "body" which you perceive.  So, the preamp is adding a coloration which is not part of the source recording.  There is nothing "wrong" with this of course.  If you prefer this sound in your system, then get on with listening and be happy with it.  I would only ask that you be aware that what you are preferring is the addition of distortion products which are not part of the actual source recording, and that your system is less accurate (less transparent to the source) than it would be without the preamp in place.

 

I (personally) would not be "happy" with the above approach myself, but that is me.  If I had the same experience as you, that is if I perceived a lack of "body" in my system going amp direct, my solution would not be to add additional distortion harmonics to achieve the body I was looking for.  Instead, I would acknowledge that the system has a problem which needs addressing: "thin" sounding components somewhere in the chain, or bad synergy, etc.

 

I remember years ago several companies sold "tube buffers", which were unity gain buffers, designed to be added to a system, in the line level signal path somewhere, such as between a preamp and an amplifier.  Of course all these things did was add the distortion profile of tubes to the mix, reducing resolution and transparency, but often increasing "body".  To me, this is a "band aid" approach of system building, and not one I would recommend if one is looking for a transparent and revealing system; but again, there is nothing wrong with that as long as one understands they are giving up some transparency for a colored sound.

 

I would suggest that by the same logic of this approach, if one wants to add even more "body", one could put several preamps in series between the source and amplifier.

 

BTW, @Audiophile Neuroscience, have you seen this:

 

Given you forum name I thought you might be interested if you have not watched it.

[barrows]

32 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

For your theory that my pre-amp is coloring the sound with distortion and that alone explains my preference one would need to firstly demonstrate the distortion levels of the Gryphon Pandora. One would also need then to correlate and concord this with the perception.

I do not think so.  We can use the process of elimination here.  The truth is that there is no actual technical problem with how the Bricasti DAC drives the input stage of the amplifier, that is a fact which is not challengeable.  Then, given that fact, what are the possibilities for how the "additional body" is produced by the addition of a preamp?  Can anyone reading this suggest a means by which the addition of the preamp, in this example, produces produces "additional body" other than by adding something of its own to the playback?  If the preamp is adding something, that addition can only be a coloration, as what other possible option is there?  A preamp cannot magically know how a recording is supposed to sound, and then add in the needed additional aspects, all it can do is add in a color of its own through its imperfections. 

 

Audio playback systems are not magical devices operating by properties which we do not understand, anyone who takes a position suggesting that they are might re-consider that position.

 

As to sound differences, I have described my own experience in specific sound differences in a previous post in this thread where I discussed my process moving from using a preamp in my system, to eliminating it.

[barrows]

27 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Now, we agree that you are guided by your listening experience which is fine. You listened, unlike others heard no difference, moved on.

That is not what happened at all.  Please go back in the thread and actually read what my process was before making assumptions.

 

28 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

As for the rest, it is theory

No, it is not.  It is technical fact that the Bricasti M1 can drive most amplifiers input stage without any problems.  There may be an exceptional case with a really weird amplifier or something, but otherwise this is a fact, not a theory.  I have seen the specifications of the DAC.

 

One other thing I would stress here.  Were your listening comparisons level matched to within 0.5 dB?  If not, they are invalid.  The only way to be sure a listening test is valid is with very close level matching.  Some would say the test needs to be blind, but I am not a believer in blind testing myself.  But level matching, via measuring the voltage the amplifier is getting, is absolutely necessary for a test like this.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

So tell me what the level of distortion is for the Pandora DAC

I am sorry, but I am lost here, what is the "Pandora DAC" and what is the "alleged audible phenomenon"?

 

I am additionally confused as to how one cannot understand what I am saying here?   This seems so simple to me, but apparently either myself, or you, or both of us are experiencing some cognitive dissonance here?

 

I would ask, by what mechanism do you propose that a preamp can "enhance the sonics" which would not qualify as an additive process (which would be by definition a coloration)?  The question assumes a desire to have an accurate and revealing system which is as transparent to the source (recording) as possible.  As I have mentioned previously, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who prefers the sound of their system with a preamp in place, as long aa they understand that this preference is one which comes with the understanding that by adding the preamp, one is adding a coloration not present in the recording, and there is nothing wrong with this either.  Just as some prefer a SET amplifier, which colors the sound in a sometimes pleasant way.

 

Additionally my other question still stands unanswered: were your listening tests done with rigorous level matching?  If not, i would suggest you repeat them to be sure of your findings with rigorous level matching.

[barrows]

@Audiophile Neuroscience, I am not understanding why you seem to have a problem following my logic, I will try again:

 

There are a couple of feasible theories which have been floated about which could explain how the addition of a preamp might actually improve the performance of a system:

 

1.  A DAC may not have a stout enough output stage to adequately drive the input stage of an amplifier.  This theory can be true, in some very unusual cases, where the output stage of the DAC might be unusual, relatively high impedance (well over 400 ohms output impedance), and/or where the output stage has very low current capability.  But this is not true for most DACs these days, and it is certainly not true for the Bricasti M1, where the output stage has plenty of current capability and is relatively low in impedance.  The fact here, is that the output stage of most DACs is the exact same design as that of most preamps, as this stage is a line driver designed to drive an interconnect at line level to another component.  The design requirements for a DAC output stage and a preamp output stage are the same, and it is not difficult to design a competent output stage.

 

2.  The other possibility I have heard some suggest, but this has never been demonstrated through any specifications or measurements, but it is still a possibility, so I will list it here.  This is that the preamp is acting as an additional filter to RF content on the DACs output.  While this is certainly possible, for it to actually happen would be a rare circumstance indeed.  First, it would require a very poorly designed DAC, where its own output filter was entirely inadequate, in addition to a very poorly designed amplifier, which has an input stage which is way too sensitive to RF getting into its input.  Amplifier input stages typically have a filter for RF energy at their inputs.  But, it is possible that a combination of a really poorly designed DAC and amplifier could suffer from this problem.  But we are talking about extreme outliers here, really badly designed components.  Again, this would not apply to the Bricasti M1, and given he quality of your preamp, I doubt you have chosen a really poorly designed amplifier for your system.  In the case of balanced connections this would not be a possibility at all as any RF energy woudl be common mode, and cancelled in the amplifiers input stage.

 

Now, logically, if neither 1 or 2 above is present, I would submit that there is no mechanism by which the addition  of a preamp and another interconnect cable can improve the technical performance (resolution) of a system.  It is just not possible, as these components are lossy in nature.  The one other exception would be if the preamp was adding a DSP stage, doing room correction or something like that, but I do not think that is what we are talking about here.  Additional components are lossy: an additional interconnect cable, plus its two additional connections are lossy, every circuit inside the preamp is lossy.  The addition of a preamp can, of course, add a coloration which some might prefer, but it cannot increase resolution.  

 

It is impossible for the addition of a preamp to add in details which are not present in the DAC's output, period.   This is not a theory, and any idea contrary to this would be akin to suggesting one has a "magical" preamp, which somehow "knows" details on the recording which were not revealed by the DAC, and is adding this details back in.

 

This is not difficult to understand conceptually/logically so I will leave it here for people to ponder.  If one still insists that adding a preamp is increasing actual resolution, I am interested in hearing even the most esoteric of theories how that might be possible.

 

I have nothing against the Gryphon Pandora preamp, indeed I have always liked the sound and design of Gryphon components anytime I have encountered them.  But its measurements/specifications have nothing to do with this.  It has a distortion level and noise profile which is added to the system when it is inserted into the system.  

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Kimo said:

So, the only preamps that aren't screwing up the signal are thin sounding ones?

 

Ummm!  I do not know what to do with this, either you are joking, you did not actually read my posts, or your reading comprehension is compromised.  I hope it is the first option!

 

But, to ease your mind and clarify on your post:

 

If one is looking for a system which is transparent to the source recording, the system should not editorialize on the recording.  The system needs to be transparent to the recording.  The goal of any preamp for a transparent system should be the proverbial straight wire with gain (and source switching, and volume control).  It should neither be "thin" sounding nor be "rich" sounding, it should add no sound of its own whatsoever.  In practice, this is never the case, but that should be the goal (from a technical standpoint, in some systems, there are likely preamps which in practice add no audible sound of their own).  If a preamp ADDS a sound of its own, that is by definition a coloration, as the preamp has no "knowledge" of what the recording should sound like, and therefore cannot "improve" it.

 

And again: if one prefers the sound of their system with a colored preamp in the system, I am fine with that, as long as one accepts that it is a coloration, and not revealing of the actual recording.  

[barrows]

4 minutes ago, Summit said:

Barrows, I wished that high fidelity was as simple, predictable and “logical” as you believe it to be.

In terms of this discussion, it actually is simple.  There is not any mystery here, these things are well understood.

 

Now, if one would like to talk about loudspeaker design, and room interactions, i would agree with you.  I am no newbie here, as a "practicing" audiophile since about 1974, with an audiophile Uncle (now deceased) and Father, and having worked in the high end industry for the last 20 years, I do have some level of experience with systems and components.

[barrows]

4 minutes ago, matthias said:

Hi Guys,

 

reading this thread I got the impression that some seem to misunderstand the role of the preamp.

 

I came across a very good thread on another forum which sheds some light on the role of the preamp.

 

It is not too long, six pages only and I would like to recommend reading at least page one:

 

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/totaldac-d1-driver-the-pre-amplifier-driver.29500/

 

Matt

I did not expect this from you as one who owns a Makua preamp/DAC, which features the exact same output stage topology as  the Tambaqui DAC, and hence has equal ability to drive an amplifier correctly.  And suggesting that the folks that make the TotalDAC are a good source of reliable information is suspect in my book as well.  The TotalDAC is the definition of a colored component which is clear form its measurements (many audible artifacts in its output). 

[barrows]

16 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

Theory is made to be well understood. Reality (read: perception), however, especially in audio, often is at odds with theory. Which for some is disturbing, for others (me included) a relief. Ratio is overrated.

 

You are making a common mistake here, that many audiophiles seem to be subject to.  Just because we may not understand everything which influences sound quality of an audio system, does not mean that we do not fully understand some things.  This is a very important distinction because without this distinction there is no valid path forward in the path to better (more transparent) audio playback quality.

[barrows]

19 minutes ago, Kimo said:

Well, if this is the goal, shouldn't you start with a truly neutral speaker?  

If you have not read my previous posts, I have made the distinction of my preference for a system which is hi fidelity, which means transparent to the recording.  All of my other thoughts here are referenced ty that point of view.  Additionally, I have made no judgements about those who might have different preferences.  If you like SET amps, that is fine with me, if you like adding a preamp, that is also fine with me, your audio system is for your enjoyment (and hopefully that of your friends and family).  If one prefers a colored sound, rather than an accurate one, that is fine with me.   

[barrows]

23 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

This linked thread was not started by TotalDAC but by Emile from Taiko Audio.

I is not about to praise a product from TotalDAC but it shows nicely that the role of the preamp is to drive the power amp properly.

BTW, I do not own a product from Mola-Mola.

OOPs!  My bad on Mola Mola.  My reference to TotalDAC was because the entire beginning of that thread is quoting from the TotalDAC folks on why one would want to add their buffer to their DAC.  There was so much mis-information in the first couple of posts I could not bare to read any further.

 

Indeed, though.  The goal of any output stage (line driver) is to drive both the cable (and this can be a significant load with some poorly designed audiophile interconnects with high C) and the input stage of the amplifier correctly.  This is true of both preamps, and DACs (when they include volume controls).  My point in this thread is to illuminate that in the case of most DACs (and yes, there are a few exceptions) they can adequately drive the input stage of most amplifiers in exactly the same way as a preamp.  Preamps have no "magical" quality which makes them "better" at driving amplifier input stages than DACs.  In fact, the output stages of most DACs and preamps are the same circuit.  To clarify, I will provide an example of a DAC, which in my experience, does not drive amplifiers adequately:  The PS Audio DS DAC has at its output a transformer, without an active line driver stage-IME this DAC suffers driving amplifiers directly, and does  a lot better with a really good preamp. 

[barrows]

3 hours ago, DuckToller said:

From the outsides it looks like two schools of thoughts have found a place to battle it out, while, on reflection, both may have it merits, depending on your own personal preference.

 

Indeed, I referenced many of my posts here saying I have no problem with those who prefer the sound of their system with a preamp in place, as long as those persons recognize that the sound which they are preferring is a result of the color added by their preamp.  And then I stated that my preference is to have a system which attempts to be as transparent to the source recording as possible.  As there are many people reading here who do not post, I think it is important to put out rational, factual, straightforward information on forums, as not to lead astray readers who may not feel they want to participate to get a deeper understanding.

I have no problem with those who prefer a colored system, or a "nice" sounding system, which might be editorializing on the recording a bit, to suit the preference of the owner.  Everyone gets to choose the system of their preference, and that sounds the way they want it to.  I am not a zealot, who chooses to impose my view on what a system "should" sound like to others: my preference is to try and approach accuracy, but I do not think that should be anyone else's goal just because it is mine.

This is similar to my view on vinyl playback, it has been demonstrated to me that for the most part, folks who like the sound of vinyl playback like it for its inaccuracies/colorations, and not because it is more accurate than digital (it is not, and that is a technical fact which cannot be disputed with any verity).  That does not mean I would discourage anyone from enjoying vinyl playback, but if someone claims that vinyl playback is more accurate, or more transparent to the source recording, than digital, then there would be a dis-agreement.

 

3 hours ago, DuckToller said:

In real life, the price of a 21k Bricasti DAC - for example - would cover for the vast majority of the forum members all of their expenses for their audio system

 

I doubt that this is the case.  Even my somewhat moderate system would  eclipse this number at retail (if my loudspeakers were available today, they would retail for over $10K).  I would also suggest, that for anyone on a budget, eschewing a preamp, and very carefully selecting a DAC/Amp combo which sounds great together without a preamp, and spending the money saved on better loudspeakers, would result in a much more satisfying system than would result by having a preamp in the chain, and purchasing lesser loudspeakers.  

Now for those like @Audiophile Neuroscience, who do not appear to have much in terms of limitations when it comes to how much they are willing to spend on audio gear, the additional expense of a really good pre amp (I believe his preamp retails for around $39K USD) is not a concern, and he already has loudspeakers which I consider among the very best in the world, is not a concern.  But for audiophiles with any kind of budget, the increase in system performance to be achieved by spending a few thousand  dollars more on loudspeakers can be very, very significant, considering that good preamps are rather expensive.

[barrows]

2 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

Is it unthinkable that some coloration can correct these flaws

 

I would suggest that anyone believing the above take some time to think deeply about it.

 

I do not accept the premise that digital audio recording and playback is inherently flawed in some way at the current state of the art (although I do accept that there are plenty of digital recording and playback methods and components which are flawed, and do produced flawed results).

 

I would ponder in this direction:  Consider a digital playback system which actually does produce some artifacts which are annoying to listen to (I do believe this exists in some digital recording/playback situations, but not all).  If one has this in their system, then I could see how one might choose to add a coloration in an attempt to reduce the impact of these flaws.  This approach has been used in some components, by methods such as adding a tube output stage to a DAC with high levels of low order distortion, in order to "smooth over" some perhaps annoying digital artifacts.  In this process though, a loss of transparency is a side effect which is not beneficial.  Again, this is something I have no problem with, as long as one accepts that they are choosing to accept a playback system which is trading off some transparency/accuracy, for a smoother sound in playback, in other words, a compromise.

 

Personally, when/if I perceive a problem caused by a digital component (an actual artifact which is not part of the source recording), my approach is not to make a compromise, but to seek out the cause of that artifact and eliminate it.  This approach may be a more difficult to achieve in practice, but ultimately it is also more rewarding in terms of accuracy in playback.

 

In answer to the quoted question, yes, it is unthinkable, because adding a coloration cannot "correct" anything, because the component adds the same coloration to every recording.  The component cannot "know" what the recording is supposed to sound like , and then make an appropriate "correction".  Additionally, every time a coloration is added in a playback chain, some accuracy is lost.

 

My approach would be to correct the actual problem, rather than adding some color which serves to obscure the problem.  

[barrows]

As to the Bob Katz approach:  We are living in a time where current technology allows us to have no audible distortion in playback electronics at all.  While the approach of accepting some low level distortion in electronic design was once the best compromise we could make, now we can have none, which is even better technically (leaving loudspeakers out of the discussion).

 

As an example of what I ma talking about, I would encourage anyone to listen to a Mola Mola DAC and Kaluga amps driving some really really good loudspeakers, such as Vivd Audio.  When I heard this combination (I think about 4 years ago) it was a landmark experience for me because the level of detail was very fine indeed, as was the realistic portrayal of dynamics, and timbre.  But what was really astonishing was that all of these sonic qualities were achieved along with a sense of naturalness, organic sound, and ease which did not sound like an electronic representation of music at all, but just like music itself.

[barrows]

48 minutes ago, Blake said:

2. I think that generalized statements about tubes simply adding distortion/warmth, while always detracting from transparency is also misguided.  In well implemented circumstances, the tubes can make the music subjectively much more like real musicians in your room- it can sound much more like real music, with very little or even no perceived loss in detail/transparency.  I won't call out any specific component examples as I don't want to offend, but we have all heard systems/components that while seemingly transparent and detailed, sound sterile, flat and un-inspiring.  Not like the real thing.  The word "transparent" can be misleading and incomplete in this context.  We want music that sounds "real".  If the tubes don't result in any perceived loss in detail, while also adding to the body and sound stage, then how are tubes detracting from audiophile goals of being true to the source material?

I agree, to a point.  Certainly all generalized statements are done so for the purpose of communication, and are never going to be 100% accurate for every possible situation.  when I, or anyone, generalizes, I accept that there may be a very small percentage of exceptions to that generalization, and I expect that a reader would just assume this, as without the ability to generalize it is virtually impossible to have a discussion at all (in fact without the ability to generalize we would be forever pointing out the caveats and never actually getting anywhere).  So if my statements have seemed to absolute for some, I apologize for that.

 

As for tubes, only in the last few years have I come to the perspective that tubes are now completely obsolete in the quest for the absolute best possible playback systems.  While I agree in many cases that tubes can improve a system in some instances, in some ways, the recent advances in the best SS circuits have eliminated all advantages tubes may have had int he past.  These advances are only heard in some components though, and it may be that many have not heard the best possible solid state systems.

 

As for objective/subjective discussions, i am not a believer in "camps" or dichotomies when it comes to audio playback systems.  And I think that the current fashion of placing audiophiles/music lovers into "camps" like this is destructive, silly, and infantile.  Surely listening to music is a subjective experience, so subjective impressions matter.  Similarly, decent audio components cannot be adequately designed without engineering/maths and making many measurements.  Separating these things out, and defining people as one or the other is absurd to me.

[barrows]

Additional note on the Bob Katz article:

 

His theory is that the improvement in subjective sonics is the result of masking: that the additional H2 distortion is masking more objectionable distortion products from other components.  This is an interesting topic which I would love to learn more about, perhaps in another thread, and may be what @CG was referring to earlier in this thread which he referred to as distortion cancelling.

But I would suggest that we now can have electronics which have no audible distortion at all, so there is no distortion which needs to be masked anymore.  

[barrows]

Thanks for the kind words @Blake.  I hope that others here would be reasonable and dismiss the idea of creating division between audiophiles/music lovers by dividing them into camps, were are in this together for the love of music and hi fidelity music playback in the home.

[barrows]

4 hours ago, motberg said:

What do you guys think about adding sub-woofers in a DAC direct to amp system?

Is it OK to split a 2V RCA output and run a set of cables 1 meter to the amp, and another set to the subs maybe 4 meters each?

 

I get the feeling that most DAC makers generally are expecting the user to use a single set of outputs to a single receiving device.

 

I run a sub, but I always prefer to connect sub(s) to the amplifier output via a high level input rather than other connection schemes.

 

Alternatives: this will depend on DAC output stage design, but some DACs have separate output drivers for the balanced and single ended outputs, so, for example, one could run the balanced outputs to the amplifier, and the single ended output to the subwoofer-but one would be advised to check and make sure the single ended outputs and balanced outputs are separately driven.  I do not really recommend using any splitters, although it can work, I view this approach as a compromise.  Even the little $700.00 Topping D-90 DAC I am playing around with now has separate output drivers for the balanced and single ended outputs.

[barrows]

@PeterG,  By no means am I suggesting that one needs to spend 5 figures (or higher) to get excellent sound from a solid state amplifier.  In fact, with the current advent of class D amplifiers which outperform almost anything else available, one can spend a few thousand dollars and get amplification with absolutely fantastic sound quality.  I really do not know how you came to the conclusion that I was advocating for $50-$100 K mono blocks?  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, when it comes to tube amplifiers, i would suggest the cost is very high for any decent sounding tube amps with enough power to drive real world, average sensitivity loudspeakers (ARC reference series, or VTL).

[barrows]

30 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I did that for a while and it sounded decent, but not great. I am now running my subs through a miniDSP 2x4, which allows me to implement a more versatile crossover and DSP with auto filters via REW.

 

DSP filters and corrections brought the sound to a level not achievable with a traditional subwoofer crossover and amp. I am not aware of any way to implement DSP using high level sub inputs.

Sure, if one wants to use separate DSP then one is going to need a more complex system to incorporate that.  But this approach is an exception to the norm.  By no means am I saying that using DSP is not an advantage n some situations (and especially, rooms), but it is often not necessary, and overly complex.

I have integrated sub(s) into quite a few systems, in quite a few different rooms, without any need for additional DSP versus what is available in the subs themselves, but I accept that in some situations (rooms) this may not be possible.

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, PeterG said:

Your use of the phrase "absolute best" is what suggested monoblocks.  I agree that cost is high for tubes and low for Class D, but you kind of get what you pay for.

No one needs to spend 5 figures on amplifiers to get absolute best sound quality.  Now loudspeakers, that is a different story!

[barrows]

@Audiophile Neuroscience, I am not a "believer" in amplifiers being "better" just because they cost more.  I have heard all the usual suspects at shows, Soulution, Audionet, Vitus Audio, etc, etc,  All of those amps sound good, but I hear nothing in their performance which is not offered (or even bettered by, in some cases) a pair fo Mola Mola Kalugas.  A few of the mega expensive amps have been heard on the same speakers as the Mola Mola as well (Alexia 2 or Giya 2/3).  I hear (sometimes) slight difference with all of these amps, but none of those differences amount to anything which I would term "better".

 

IME, these days, there is no benefit anymore for the best class A amps vs. the best class A/B amps, as the crossover distortion problems have been solved by good engineering.  Given the insane waste of energy of class A, I consider them bad engineering at this point, as they offer no benefit anymore, at least not that I can hear. 

 

And then there are the obviously colored amps at mega prices, such as DartZeel, where the measurements show distortion products at what are clearly audible levels.  There are those who prefer such amps, which is fine with me, but one is gong to have problems if suggesting they are accurate.

 

Of course superb sounding amps can built DIY, and at a fraction of the cost of the usual mega expensive amps.  Something like DartZeel for example, has already been cloned by DIYers: of course they will not usually have the mega expensive chassis work!  I do not have a problem with the existence of high 5 and 6 figure amplifiers, as long as the buyers understand that they are paying for exclusivity, and very expensive custom case work, and not better sonics: transistors, resistors, capacitors, transformers, and some wire and PC boards only cost so much!  This is similar to very expensive watches, they do not tell the time any more accurately than something one can buy for $15.

 

As for class D, I view it the same way as all other classes of amps: there are a few good class D amps, and there are many bad ones.  Bruno Putzeys Ncore designs are the "best", at least until his new Purifi amps become more available.  As Mr. Putzeys has mentioned many times, his designs are not good because they are class D, they are good inspite of being class D.  He acknowledges that it is very difficult to engineer good sounding class D amps.  I never considered class D in the top tier of amplifiers until the Ncore designs were released, and Mr. Putzeys has now improved on Ncore with his Purifi design work (I am currently building up a Purifi based amp).  The Mola Mola is a tweaked Ncore design, and I suspect well implemented Purifi based designs to be better (at least measure better, whether the difference will be audible is remains to be seen).

 

When I said "absolute best", I believe I was referring to tube vs solid state there.  Of course there is no "absolute best" as how a given amplifier interacts with a loudspeaker differs, especially with some esoteric designs which may not be compatible with all speakers.  

 

My conclusion on amps, given what I have heard, is that one never needs anything more expensive than Mola Mola (OK, 5 figures there, although there are alternatives which should sound as good for $3K, i just have not heard them, same modules, and similar implementation).  Sure, one can spend much, much more, and get an amp which might sound slightly "different", but not actually better.  I feel we are at a point with electronic development where things are getting very close to "perfection" in terms of transparency and any differences which are actually audible are mostly down to slight colorations, rather than more or less transparency to the source.  My advice to people building systems these days is to spend the big money on loudspeakers, as the big differences in performance are there, and shop carefully for electronics, do not believe the hype, and do a lot of listening.  Class D amps save money because they do not require large enclosures, large transformers, or large heatsinks, this is smart engineering.   As for loudspeakers, well, they are expensive because really good enclosures are necessary for the best sound quality, and largish speakers are necessary if one has a decent sized room, so one cannot get around the fact that really good speakers are going to cost some cash-as mentioned previously, I think Vivid Audio has a leg up here, as they have applied molded composites in their cabinet construction which allows them to produce very good cabinets at fraction the cost of some of their competition (Magico, etc).  The expense of loudspeakers is going to stay the same, at least until there is some kind of major breakthrough in the science (pulsating spherical plasma drivers or???) which would eliminate the need for large, non-resonant, boxes.   

[barrows]

6 minutes ago, Foggie said:

So the reverse to this statement or preference could be, if ones prefers a sterile, fatiguing, and hi-fi sound which equals "accurate", go with Class D and no tubes, no pre amp, no class A etc... 

Totally disagree.  It appears that you believe the function of an audio playback system is to imprint its own sound on the recording, editorializing on what the musicians and engineers intended.  I have no problem with that, as long as you accept it as well.

That is not what I am after, I prefer a playback system which is faithful to the sound of the recording, and does not add a "sound of its own".

 

BTW, I do not find an accurate playback system to sound "sterile, fatiguing" in any way (unless of course the recording is, and bad recordings do exist).  I would suggest that you are confusing an accurate sound with one that is colored.  I doubt it is the intent of musicians and recording engineers to produce recordings which are sterile and/or fatiguing sounding, and neither do i find that truly accurate playback systems sound as such (with good recordings).

 

Simple put, accurate does not equal sterile and fatiguing, accurate means warm sounding recordings will sound warm, a fatiguing sounding recording will sound fatiguing.  It means the playback system gets out of the way of the music.  Perhaps you have never heard such a system?  As an example of such, i would suggest you have a listen to the following:

 

Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC (or Makua preamp with DAC), Mola Mola Kaluga mono blocks, into some Vivid Audio Giya G-1, 2, or 3 loudspeakers, or Wilson Alexia 2s.  i have heard this set up, and/or similar ones a few times.  It is very detailed, even extremely detailed, but I find it totally natural sounding as well, with no fatigue.  In the past, especially with digital playback, there have been some annoying artifacts in playback, and systems which add some color of their own were often preferred for their ability to reduce the impact of the artifacts by obscuring them-the problem being that this color also obscured valuable musical details.  With the best electronics available now (especially DACs), we have entered a new realm of playback, where it is no longer necessary to obscure artifacts to reach acceptable playback sonics, as the annoying artifacts themselves have been eliminated.

[barrows]

17 minutes ago, Foggie said:

I stated "preference could be" in a sort of hypothetical. 

 

Unless one was in the control room or live room when it was recorded, no one knows what a "specific" album sounded like and everyone tunes their rig based on their liking, preferences, experiences.  My reference is my background in playing instruments

 

I'll respectfully disagree.  Good luck. 👍

Right, we disagree!  BTW, i do not need an accurate reference to know what "sterile fatiguing" sound is.  

As far as references go, I totally agree, and even started a thread at these forums about references:

 

 

BTW, my GF is a professional performing and recording musician.  And I have been present on occasion to her laying down tracks in the studio, hearing the monitor feed, and the subsequent recordings, both as rough mixes, and finished versions.  I also hear her in rehearsal and practice, playing and singing un-ampliifed, as well as performing amplified, etc.  These are pretty good references, especially for female voice.  I try and play a little myself, but I basically suck at music, she is quite talented though, with a lovely voice.

Anyway, I am not at a loss as for an idea of what some music should sound like.