Purifi Class D

[fas42]

6 hours ago, barrows said:

 

My experience suggests that the better the power supply is, the less it may respond to upstream changes (power cables, power conditioners, fuses, etc).  But, all of these things still seem to matter some, it is just that with really really good power supply design they make less of a difference.  I find the same deltas in difference to apply to things like USB cables: they make less of a difference when the USB source and USB receiving designs are very, very good, but they still make some difference.

 

This is how the whole world of audio works ... ideally, each purchased component is so well engineered, implemented that its behaviour is impervious to the conditions around it. But, hey! We live in the real world, where bling is often a high priority 😁 - so, most gear is never as good as it could, should be; meaning after market gizmos can achieve a lot ...

 

Audio engineering has never been taken seriously enough, is my take on the situation - which is why rigs so often sound like crap ... keen enthusiasts can achieve a lot, by fixing the 'mistakes' that so many setups have 😉.

[Revelation]

On 3/26/2021 at 10:20 AM, Rexp said:

A less than glowing review of the NAD implementation:

http://www.10audio.com/nad_c298.htm

 

"The bass is rich and full and powerful. The bass also presents a very dynamic picture of the performance, with good leading-edge definition. The bass character is more of the “rolling thunder” presentation rather than tight and "fast", often reducing the sense that individual bass strings are vibrating. The upper bass-lower midrange is excellent, gaining some definition and providing a solid foundation to midrange voices. The bass definition increases at higher power levels. On the Yello LP Stella, the bass on “Oh Yeah” is deep and powerful and quite impressive. Oh yeah!

 

The midrange offers very good clarity and understandable vocals. This could be the result of a slight dryness or leanness in the midrange. Just a little higher in frequency, the upper midrange-lower treble region is clear and open. Along with the upper bass, the upper midrange-lower treble are the strengths of the C298 amplifier."

 

All this was very good in the review. An amp of this price ($2,000) is not going to compete with amps that are double more more the price. How many amps at this price range have excellent low level detail. For the price its probably one of the best amps.

[Rexp]

7 hours ago, Revelation said:

"The bass is rich and full and powerful. The bass also presents a very dynamic picture of the performance, with good leading-edge definition. The bass character is more of the “rolling thunder” presentation rather than tight and "fast", often reducing the sense that individual bass strings are vibrating. The upper bass-lower midrange is excellent, gaining some definition and providing a solid foundation to midrange voices. The bass definition increases at higher power levels. On the Yello LP Stella, the bass on “Oh Yeah” is deep and powerful and quite impressive. Oh yeah!

 

The midrange offers very good clarity and understandable vocals. This could be the result of a slight dryness or leanness in the midrange. Just a little higher in frequency, the upper midrange-lower treble region is clear and open. Along with the upper bass, the upper midrange-lower treble are the strengths of the C298 amplifier."

 

All this was very good in the review. An amp of this price ($2,000) is not going to compete with amps that are double more more the price. How many amps at this price range have excellent low level detail. For the price its probably one of the best amps.

If you haven't heard it you can't say its probably one of the best amps for the price. 

[Kal Rubinson]

9 hours ago, Rexp said:

If you haven't heard it you can't say its probably one of the best amps for the price. 

Yup but those of us who have can say it. 🙂

[Revelation]

I found it interesting that the reviewer gave a higher rating of the Adcom 555 SE over the NAD. I currently have the original 555 and love it. 

 

Another amp which appears to get high reviews is the Cary Audio SA 200. This seems to be a higher end amp at a price range under 5K to consider. 

[Rexp]

9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yup but those of us who have can say it. 🙂

Ya and even then I ignore anyone who hasn't got an analogue source. 

[twist222]

Yep, I think Kal may have heard a few analogue sources as well 🙂

 

Mark

[Kal Rubinson]

5 hours ago, twist222 said:

Yep, I think Kal may have heard a few analogue sources as well 🙂

 

Mark

Well, I have some but I have not heard them in a long time.  No need.

[Rexp]

5 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Well, I have some but I have not heard them in a long time.  No need.

More reason to ignore your opinion. 

[Revelation]

3 minutes ago, Rexp said:

More reason to ignore your opinion. 

Well that's not a nice thing to say. 🤣

[barrows]

6 minutes ago, Revelation said:

Well that's not a nice thing to say. 🤣

Not nice, and also not based in reality either.

[Rexp]

13 minutes ago, Revelation said:

Well that's not a nice thing to say. 🤣

I wish he was right and there was no need to use an analogue source but unfortunately there are thousands of recordings that sound dramatically better via an analogue source. 

[fas42]

"Sound dramatically better" is just another way of saying that distortion artifacts are far less obvious - but the D word, Distortion, is deeply frowned upon by audiophiles - after all, measurements have 'proven' for decades that digital playback is devoid of the deadly D, 🤣 🤩 🤣.

 

Anyway, back in reality 🙂, all rigs introduce plenty of audible D - and the digital variety can be particularly obnoxious ... the analogue source workaround is useful until one's digital chain is better sorted ... 😉.

[Kal Rubinson]

35 minutes ago, Rexp said:

More reason to ignore your opinion. 

 

25 minutes ago, barrows said:

Not nice, and also not based in reality either.

No, it's not but it is a logical consequence of his opinions.  

[Revelation]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

"Sound dramatically better" is just another way of saying that distortion artifacts are far less obvious - but the D word, Distortion, is deeply frowned upon by audiophiles - after all, measurements have 'proven' for decades that digital playback is devoid of the deadly D, 🤣 🤩 🤣.

 

Anyway, back in reality 🙂, all rigs introduce plenty of audible D - and the digital variety can be particularly obnoxious ... the analogue source workaround is useful until one's digital chain is better sorted ... 😉.

At the recording stage many want the 2nd and third harmonic distortion that cam make music sound rounder and more pleasing to the ear. On some level, many want that in the audiophile gear as well. It comes down to personal preference. 

 

https://mixdownmag.com.au/features/rupert-neve-exploring-the-audio-architects-everlasting-legacy/

[mocenigo]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

"Sound dramatically better" is just another way of saying that distortion artifacts are far less obvious - but the D word, Distortion, is deeply frowned upon by audiophiles - after all, measurements have 'proven' for decades that digital playback is devoid of the deadly D, 🤣 🤩 🤣.

No. Some recordings have never been transferred properly to digital. They sound great on the old LPs printed from the analog masters, but the transfers are crap. There are, sadly, a few. It may be because the remastering technician could only work on copies of copies of the original master, or because the master tape deteriorated, who knows. But there are specific recordings where the vinyl discs are superior to all digital copies made so far, and when the last vinyl disc will have deteriorated as well, good sounding copies of that particular recording will exist no more.

 

Solti’s ring almost met that fate.

 

Harry Belafonte’s Carnegie Hall concert apparently met it (I trust here a friend that could compare several transfers, Corona restrictions prevented me from being there.)

[Iving]

... not to mention 78s (https://recordcollectormag.com/articles/78) inc. Blues history some of which is known to be lost ...

 

... bootlegs ...

 

... Universal fire or other foreseeable perils to original recordings (such that any or any good digital masters can no longer be created) ...

 

... commercial forces affecting the future availability of acceptable material cf. MQA ...

 

Plus huge variability in quality of digital mastering for same source material e.g. Elvis stuff and a lot of obscure 50s Rockabilly. Some issues have mojo. Some are diabolical - usually an attempt to make something sound appealing to casual listeners cf. Loudness problem.

 

This apart from the argument that you can build a musically satisfying analogue playback system on a budget - whereas making digits musically inoffensive demands money, blood, sweat and tears.

[barrows]

6 hours ago, Iving said:

This apart from the argument that you can build a musically satisfying analogue playback system on a budget - whereas making digits musically inoffensive demands money, blood, sweat and tears.

OK, I agree that if one listens to a significant amount of music which is not available in a decent digital version an analog rig is needed.  To be sure, I have a certain affection for vinyl discs, and have been buying them again (although I have currently have no analog 'table or phono stage, perhaps in retirement I will add such, otherwise the discs are collectables). But looking at it from the other side: there is much more music these days which is very good, and is often only available in digital versions, and often when vinyl is available the pressings are questionable.  Which means that if one loves music, one is going to need a well sorted out digital playback system, regardless of how much money, blood, sweat, and tears is involved.  Actually, a good digital set up is not too hard to achieve, or too expensive in audiophile terms (Holo Audio Spring as a start, oversampling via HQPlayer) these days.  Doing so does not require a dCS or MSB investment level.

But to suggest that one does not have an adequate reference to evaluate amplifiers unless they are spinning plastic discs is just in error.

[mocenigo]

9 hours ago, Iving said:

This apart from the argument that you can build a musically satisfying analogue playback system on a budget - whereas making digits musically inoffensive demands money, blood, sweat and tears.

 

Oh please no. It is not difficult to make "digits" sound not just inoffensive, but spectacular.

[PYP]

10 hours ago, Iving said:

- whereas making digits musically inoffensive demands money, blood, sweat and tears.

Well, so far I have avoided bloodletting, but the rest applies.  I think your statement was true five years ago or so, but I disagree in the here and now.   Bruno is one of the designers who has changed the digital landscape and not just in amplifiers (his Tambaqui DAC is truly great).  The basic Purifi "engine" is extremely low noise/distortion at a great price.   I assume that the various Purifi iterations sound different because of different input sections used and one needs to find one that suites your setup and tastes.   

 

One well-respected reviewer mentioned that he listens to vinyl and digital for different experiences and that makes sense to me.  The "what's best" approach to audio is silly unless it is "what's best to my ears and mood."  

 

I was never a collector of fine vinyl, so there was no reason to keep my turntable after digital became the dominant recording medium.  But I can understand the equation is different for collectors, especially the folks who have long enjoyed their classical collection.  Or folks for whom digital, even what others think of as great digital, does not agree with their ears.  

[Iving]

3 hours ago, barrows said:

OK, I agree that if one listens to a significant amount of music which is not available in a decent digital version an analog rig is needed.  To be sure, I have a certain affection for vinyl discs, and have been buying them again (although I have currently have no analog 'table or phono stage, perhaps in retirement I will add such, otherwise the discs are collectables). But looking at it from the other side: there is much more music these days which is very good, and is often only available in digital versions, and often when vinyl is available the pressings are questionable.  Which means that if one loves music, one is going to need a well sorted out digital playback system, regardless of how much money, blood, sweat, and tears is involved.  Actually, a good digital set up is not too hard to achieve, or too expensive in audiophile terms (Holo Audio Spring as a start, oversampling via HQPlayer) these days.  Doing so does not require a dCS or MSB investment level.

But to suggest that one does not have an adequate reference to evaluate amplifiers unless they are spinning plastic discs is just in error.

 

Well I admit I keep forgetting that, for the most part, my music taste coincides with the vinyl era (say '54 to '84) ...

 

... so much so I wouldn't remark publicly regards optimal systems for playing back contemporary digital recordings.

 

The convenience argument in favour of digits, notwithstanding, is massive. Not just sitting in chair with remote, but ease of discovery. And I don't (won't!) download or stream.

 

I could never afford to discover and enjoy my favourite music via original format/vinyl - and I am on online trader with a lot of records - and fortunately CDs - passing through my hands.

 

I'm proud of my digital system, even though building it to a level where it doesn't shriek at me has been far, far more costly and painful than I imagined.

 

If I started digital again - on a budget - I still wouldn't stream or download. I wouldn't oversample as a strategy (I do upsample x 4 in fb2k/Sox but more as an optimising tweak). I would start with far more co-operative speakers than I have - and set my sights and expectations much lower.

 

The way I read the thread earlier, Rexp was just having fun grinding his vinyl axe. It's difficult not to join in.

 

I will (hopefully) be in the market for better power amps before long. I'm almost certain I want to vertically bi-amp with Linnn Klimax Twins. I confess I'm following a mindset (as well as the advice of the manufacturer of my Snell Type A III). I don't mind. Music is personal. To compound my metaphors, you gotta float your boat and there are many ways to skin the cat.

 

Do all roads lead to Rome nevertheless? Is there some system (live music aside) that might render all of us agog? I think probably not.

[barrows]

I would propose, that most folks who prefer vinyl playback, tend to do so because of, rather than in spite of vinyl's rather significant shortcomings/artifacts.  Whereas digital artifacts, even at magnitudes of lower levels, are often quite objectionable.  I have a witnessed a couple of times, dedicated vinyl listeners, unable to distinguish between the digital playback of a needle drop (using a moderately priced ADC, like an Apogee element) and the vinyl record playing on the same system.

And, these days, we have affordable digital systems which are entirely listenable, true to timbre, highly detailed, and without objectionable artifacts (I am not suggesting that all current digital systems are this way though, just that one need not spend 5 figures for an excellent DAC).

 

 

[Iving]

7 minutes ago, barrows said:

I would propose, that most folks who prefer vinyl playback, tend to do so because of, rather than in spite of vinyl's rather significant shortcomings/artifacts.

 

one need not spend 5 figures for an excellent DAC).

 

All of the improvements I've achieved in my digital system have been about taming the banshee. Then adding body. But mainly taming the banshee. 

 

I don't think I'm chasing a vinyl phantom/template. I'm not into valves or anything like that.

 

The improvements I do make are satisfying of themselves. Which means that digits can beguile my ears.

 

I have a good DAC. I think the digits problem is mostly to do with electrical noise tbh. Jitter - that too I guess!

[PYP]

27 minutes ago, Iving said:

The convenience argument in favour of digits, notwithstanding, is massive. Not just sitting in chair with remote, but ease of discovery. And I don't (won't!) download or stream.

 

The way I read the thread earlier, Rexp was just having fun grinding his vinyl axe.

Streaming does require more work to get the best sound, but something like Qobuz via Roon is simply put (in my not so humble opinion) a music discovery machine.  And with the higher resolution formats now becoming abundant, great sound is more available more frequently.   Of course, it depends upon the music one loves to listen to and to discover.  

 

A vinyl axe doesn't rust.  I get that part.  But grinding it will just lead to dullness, definitely for the axe and perhaps for the grinder.   Just saying....and having a little fun.  

[Jud]

21 minutes ago, barrows said:

I would propose, that most folks who prefer vinyl playback, tend to do so because of, rather than in spite of vinyl's rather significant shortcomings/artifacts.

 

Need to be careful about generalizing, though.  I prefer vinyl playback *for specific recordings*.  I've never yet heard a digital mastering that quite captures all the magic of Pinball Wizard from my 50+ year old LP of The Who's Tommy.  Same with a couple of tracks from the LP of Steely Dan's Gaucho.  (The latter case in particular seems strange to me - I may just not have run across the right digital mastering yet.)  And there are many of my old LPs that aren't carried on the streaming service I favor, and that I'm not going to go to the trouble and expense of obtaining new digital versions for even if they exist.  So there's plenty of use for my turntable yet.

 

However, for most recordings I'll take digital.