After 60 some odd years of disappointment, Class D has finally arrived. As per The Absolute Sound’s Jonathan Valin, the Borrenson-designed Aavik P-580 amp “is the first Class D amplifier I can recommend without the usual reservations. …the P-580 does not have the usual digital-like upper-mid/lower-treble glare or brick wall-like top-octave cut-off that Class D amps of the past have evinced.”
Past designers of Class D and audiophiles, rejoice; Michael Borrenson has finally realized the potential of Class D.
regarding reviews, and in particular, doing apt comparisons of competing gear in reviews, i am 100% with @soix
of course a review can be a piece with just well crafted prose about the subject piece, and on its own it is of some help, but to me, as a consumer of such reviews, it is NOWHERE as helpful as when a reviewer carefully states his/her perceived sonic differences, pros and cons, versus what most would consider to be head on competitors/alternatives to the review piece
comparative info, even if subjective, is VERY USEFUL to a reader gathering info, for a whole host of reasons (hardly worth enumerating, it is common sense) -- that said, for a publication that needs to please many, multiple stakeholders (i.e. advertisers, retailers, and so on), one can understand why sharp comparisons indicating ’a may be better than b’ is unwise and undersirable from the reviewer/publication perspective
still, it doesn’t change the fact that comparisons are useful, indeed very useful for the reader, as much as many commercial reviewers try to avoid them
The bashing of audio reviewers by audiophiles who are themselves wannabe reviewers; it’s been sport as long as there have been audiophiles. Out of control egos who are so convinced that it is in their opinions, and their opinions only, where truth can be found. These audiophiles always forget that there is, and always will be, no substitute for personal experience with a product. The usefulness of audio reviews is simply as guides to making a more informed buying decision; no more. This requires following a reviewer’s output in order to gain a good understanding of where the reviewer is coming from. One isolated review is of little value; context is key. For me, the ultimate value of reviews is determined not only by what the reviewer says (writes), but also by how he says it.
@frogmanBull in the china shop here. As a reviewer I think this is very, very well said. Learning to read between the lines of any review is key to getting the most out of it. Sorry for coming across maybe a bit too strong, but I, like many audiophiles, am passionate about this hobby and sometimes I’m not as “gracious” as maybe I should be and for that I do apologize and will try to do better on that score down the road. All that said I still strongly disagree with both you and Andy about the importance of comparisons as there can be significant unreliability of judging a piece of audio equipment without them. I’ve been proven at least partially wrong on my initial assessments almost every time once I compare a review product to something else, which is why I think comparisons are critical for not only getting it right but also for providing crucial context for both the reviewer and the reader thus making the review more accurate, informative, and useful in conveying how a component really sounds. Anyway…
The more things change, the more they stay the same. The bashing of audio reviewers by audiophiles who are themselves wannabe reviewers; it’s been sport as long as there have been audiophiles. Out of control egos who are so convinced that it is in their opinions, and their opinions only, where truth can be found. These audiophiles always forget that there is, and always will be, no substitute for personal experience with a product. The usefulness of audio reviews is simply as guides to making a more informed buying decision; no more. This requires following a reviewer’s output in order to gain a good understanding of where the reviewer is coming from. One isolated review is of little value; context is key. For me, the ultimate value of reviews is determined not only by what the reviewer says (writes), but also by how he says it. Attitude counts for a lot in my book. So, speaking of attitude:
In this thread we have the comments of two reviewers with distinctly different attitudes. One comes on like a bull in a china closet lambasting a publication that has been at the forefront of this hobby much longer than most and insults the integrity of a specific reviewer for that publication. The other reviewer, the subject of this attack, responds in a gracious manner, explains his position and demonstrates reasonableness all the way around. Hmmm…… which of these two reviewers will I be most inclined to go to for, if not “truth”, a guide to help me make a more informed buying decision? A no brainer in my book.
Re the bull’s main (I think) criticism of the mentioned publication: He forgets (or is simply unaware of the fact) that since it’s inception, one of this publication’s main stated tenets has been to never base a review on comparisons to other products; only to the sound of music itself instead. That is where having “a good understanding of where the reviewer is coming from” comes in. Imagine that…a comparison to the actual sound of music. What a quaint proposition!
Hey, the little unassuming 30€ Sure Wondom Tripath amp (TA2024) turned me into a believer. I plugged my very revealing OGY speakers into my amp and, yeah, it just sounds fine. To the point where I forget about the gear and just enjoy the music. My previous Yamaha RN402 amp (your typical entry-level Yamaha A/B amp) didn’t sound nearly as detailed in the midrange and treble (from memory). Look, this is not a comprehensive review. It’s just a positive experience. I wish that this 30€ amp had more than 10W of power. I would honestly pay 1000€ for a high end Tripath implementation (or equivalent) with 60W of power. But that does not exist because Tripath went bankrupt.
there is no top sparkle, midrange has never had lively crunch as A or AB no matter how many times you sell your selves they are so awesome, better than class A or AB, ................Nobody says it's better than A- A/B...It's a "new sound" for people that like to try new things.......Chevy isn't better than Ford....It's just different. If you want to hear the difference and you have a pre amp...get the Orchard Audio Starcrimson mono blocks for $1599 and rock out..TAS Budget product of the year. Just Enjoy the music.
My Peachtree Pre/ Dac and Gan 400 Amp has about 100 hrs. of use....For $ 3500 for the pair...I haven't heard a combo so Musical...so Real...so alive ...so good for under 10K....darn close to AGD sound which is the best I 've experienced . You're 95% there for a whole lot less $$.
JV is confusing Class D amps with poor digital playback (usual digital-like upper-mid/lower-treble glare). Overall, Class D amps don’t sound like that, to the contrary, they are flat and artificially smooth, and unresolving.
FWIW, I have heard both examples. The upper mid glare is usually on cheaper examples.
Just got my AGD Audions back after they were upgraded to the latest revision-MK III. The power supplies were greatly improved. Before the upgrade they were not very good at powering my difficult to drive Quad 57s.
Now, they pick up the Quads and dance them around the room. Wow, what a difference! I was considering other amps but no longer. Can't imagine anything better.
If you started driving in the early 1960's, you know what a crappy car is and you know the worst car you can buy today is leagues better. Our stereo equipment today has gotten so good for knowledgeable enthusiasts it's also hard to buy something poor like we listened to 60 years ago, relatively speaking to the state of the art that existed then and now. Unless we listen to every piece of equipment, for us average listeners reviews are mostly what we got. It would be nice if every review could give an absolute answer about relative value to competing equipment. Sometimes the reviewers compare, but more often they don't. I seem to think it happens more with lower priced audiophile speakers because like in cars, it's easier to design a $200k Ferrari in some ways than to bring a high percent of that performance in a $20k car. I think reviewing equipment is an art and what I've learned is that reviews are a good guide but reading the review is also an art where if you read enough of them you get more insights into what technology and equipment is really good and a good value, too.
Yes, it's all in the details, the implementation, the execution. Technics cringes when someone calls their GanFET integrated a Class D design as it's an all digital amp designed in house, built around their digital decoding tech.
The best part is, it sounds like nothing else I've heard and just gets better all the time.
Years ago at a show in NYC I heard Joseph Audio Pulsars driven by Bel Canto Ref 500M mono blocks and it sounded excellent — changed my perception of Class D on the spot and realized it’s really all about implementation. Definitely one of those “aha” audio moments.
class d is a class of technology, even within it, there are substantial technological variants, not to mention myriad of ways to implement
but folks keep at the old saw... class d is like this, class d is like that
it is all in the details folks! would we say, well moving coil cartridges have this sound? it's silly, in reality they run high and low, all over the spectra, it is a technological means to do something, how it is designed specifically, how it is implemented, drives the sonic result
Ralph, could this have been possible without the GAN ? If so, why wait so long ?
Yes. There's a lot of noise around the 'sound' of class D amps on the internet (IME class D amps can vary in sound quite dramatically, more so than the sound of various tube amps can vary). This is for various reasons- in ability to really implement the use of existing modules, poor power supply design, as well as modules that don't have good (meaning 'musical') distortion spectra; all these things made it hard to know how far class D as a technology had really come. I started to sort that out about 6 years ago and realized that we had better get going or be left behind.
@jjss49 Yes, I definitely intend to reach out to Alberto when I’m close to making a decision. The problem is that currently I have an integrated amp (Audio Hungary Qualiton a50i), so getting an AGD amp can only happen after I have also acquired a preamp. From what I understand, I cannot use my Qualiton purely as a preamp. If I’m mistaken, feel free to correct me. Also, if I do get a preamp most likely it will be tube-based. I don't want to be too adventurous :) Baby steps!
Second problem is that my current setup (Qualiton a50i + Joseph Audio Perspective2) is sounding so great that I don’t know if I want to change anything. I finally dialed in the subs perfectly, and to be honest, this is by far the best my system has performed. Not to say there is no further room for improvement. But I just don’t want to make a lateral move. But what I do know is that whenever the itch gets out of control, AGD will be top of the list. I really appreciate your input.
The reason why I think more manufacturers will be using their resources in developing Digital and even lower cost Class D amps is in part due to the energy efficiency.
The reason we did it is because the switching nature of the class allows the designer to be freed from a lot of the distortion sources that cause solid state (AB designs) to sound bright and harsh. In that regard, the same reason we've made tube amps for the last 49 years.
Michael Borresen is one sharp guy and it still amazes that he can design world-class speakers, and then go into amplifiers and other items as well. Prior Aavik pieces seem well-regarded (despite the prices of all Borresen designed items). And then there is the obscene pricing for sn... oil products...
I have DSP room correction and minor DSP equalization and my good old McCormack DNA-1 as musical as it is, cannot hold a candle to my Class D W4S STI-1000.
The W4S Class D integrated is silent at the speakers and runs 500w/1000w which is plenty for the old Raidho D2s. I get pure liquid detail and an iron grip on bass. I've never had a super expensive Cl A or AB to compare, but I am very happy now.
i've come to realize how much of my perceived need for tubes in the chain was palliative in nature, solving for digititis and/or solid state artifacts introduced in the source and amp stages... in this crazy, unpredictable journey i have been on, i would never, never have thought i would be here...
@jjss49I thought this was a very interesting point — as digital has gotten better with less edge, glare, etc. while simultaneously improving significantly in its ability to portray tone and microdynamics it’s at the point where it can now stand on its own without needing tubes to cover up former deficiencies. That Ralph, the quintessential OTL tube supporter, now manufactures a GaN amp I think jibes with your experience. Great time to be an audiophile.
Andrew and Tim, welcome to this thread, you have certainly injected new life into it. I applaud you both for engaging, names exposed, on a user's forum. Andrew, assuming you are still affiliated with TAS, I am very appreciative of your candor. This is exactly the attitude that is needed to elevate TAS back to respect-worthy status.
TAS Editor, are you listening? I forwarded this thread you several days ago, but you did not respond.
if you reach out to alberto i think you will find him responsive and very knowledgeable... obviously he will champion his (excellent) product and he will clearly explain how the audion monos differ from the one chassis stereo model in technical and practical terms
you are experienced at this hobby now, so i am sure that if/when you get an agd amp, you will listen to it on its own first, before coupling with tubed gear in the chain... you may well be surprised you may not want/need add’l ’tubey goodness’, (which certainly comes at a price monetarily, and usually, also sonically, to some degree, while bringing its gains)
i think i have mentioned this in an earlier post... i have been a hard-n-fast die-hard tube gear guy since the 90’s, i have much tube gear and boxes and boxes of so many tubes, but as my streaming journey has progressed since 2020, as the front end has gotten purer and purer, i now am ecstatic about the quality of sound i am getting without a single vacuum tube in the chain - i've come to realize how much of my perceived need for tubes in the chain was palliative in nature, solving for digititis and/or solid state artifacts introduced in the source and amp stages... in this crazy, unpredictable journey i have been on, i would never, never have thought i would be here...
@aquintThis scans well—every Soundstage! Review has "comparisons"—but I’m not so sure how helpful it actually is to a prospective purchaser, as there are likely a dozen candidates that he or she is considering, and Tim’s comparison product may not be among them. From my point of view, it’s more helpful to use the language of subjective audio reviewing and comparisons to live music to define the character of the gear being considered. We are just hoping to help a reader develop a short list of products to audition in the flesh, if that’s at all possible.
Yes Andy, on this point we will continue to disagree, but that’s ok. There’s always room for more than one opinion in the room, and if your method works for you and the readers still feel they get something out of it that’s really all that matters. As they say there’s always more than one way to skin a cat, different strokes for different folks, etc. I have to say it’s always nice to link up with a fellow reviewer because nobody knows what it’s really like to write product reviews except those who actually do it, and there are those on this site and elsewhere who completely dismiss what we do because we don’t trash products we review. I have my own thoughts on this, but I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
I did look over four or five of Tim’s reviews and can say this: He’s a good audio writer. If he’s not now working regularly for a publication, online or print, it’s too bad for all of us.
Though I’ve already acknowledged that a need for more comparisons in my own reviews is a valid criticism, my sense from reading Tim’s stuff is that the practice is overrated. In those reviews of Tim’s I read, he typically notes one other product, usually the one in the class he already owns or has recently reviewed. This scans well—every Soundstage! Review has "comparisons"—but I’m not so sure how helpful it actually is to a prospective purchaser, as there are likely a dozen candidates that he or she is considering, and Tim’s comparison product may not be among them. From my point of view, it’s more helpful to use the language of subjective audio reviewing and comparisons to live music to define the character of the gear being considered. We are just hoping to help a reader develop a short list of products to audition in the flesh, if that’s at all possible.
This is my opinion, and I’m not saying it’s my way or the highway. Now that we’re on a first-name basis, Tim, maybe we can agree to disagree without personal invective or the broad-brush dismissals of writers (like Jonathan) who have been at this a while, or publications that may just occasionally have something helpful to offer to audiophiles of all stripes.
I did make the comparison but couldn’t write about it for the review, because it would have been irresponsible to do so. This kind of thing happens all the time in the course of reviewing audio gear.
@aquintYou’re kidding with this, right? The dog ate your homework excuse? This is insulting to the intelligence of the people on this site. Don’t make me go back and copy the prior discourse — it will not go well for you. And no, this kind of thing absolutely does NOT happen all the time when reviewing audio gear. I reviewed equipment for 16 years and this never happened to me, not even once.
Hey Andy, my name is Tim Shea and you can look up my reviews on Soundstage. I’m not hiding from anything, and I stand by my reviews — ALL of which have comparison sections BTW — and I don’t have to twist myself in knots trying to defend my less-than-rigorous reviews. All that said, I’m glad you’ve finally seen the light and are open to doing comparisons in future reviews, and if you can manage to get the other TAS writers onboard you might even win back some of us here who gave up on your “reviews.”
<< The Borrenson may be a monster amp and you may well be right. But I’ve given up reading TAS reviews because they’re nothing but self-affirming grandstanding that provide absolutely no value to me whatsoever. I recently confronted another one of their writers on another post and he actually lied and said he made comparisons in his review. He flat out lied and other members called him out on it as well. He disappeared never to be heard from again. It was Andrew Quint by the way — might as well call a spade a spade. TAS is a sham of a review mag. My opinion as a professional reviewer myself is that they don’t do comparisons to avoid accountability and so they can crank out reviews at a higher rate to generate more ad revenues. It literally doubles the time to do a review when you do comparisons to other equipment. At Soundstage it was mandatory to do a comparison section, and if you didn’t have a piece of equipment comparable to a review unit you just didn’t get to do the review. Period. Hell, in many TAS reviews they don’t even bother to list the equipment in the reference system much less make comparisons. Complete lack of rigor and discipline, which is why their reviews are utterly useless except for generating ad revenue. Too bad, because they actually “review” a lot of equipment I’d like to get a feel for. Sorry, I’ll get off my soapbox now. Suffice it to say this is a huge pet peeve of mine and I find it to be absolutely unprofessional and inexcusable.>>
Wow. "Huge pet peeve"? Now that’s an understatement.
Writers are (and should be) part of the Audiogon community but it shouldn’t come as a surprise that most "lurk" and don’t participate in forums publicly. I like to, and more often than not, it doesn’t end well.
For the record, I acknowledged the point that many published reviews could be improved by more explicit comparisons of the review product to competing gear. I said that, personally, I’d try to do better and, in fact, just submitted a review of a processor with a DAC section retailing at $4K that I felt equaled my reference $47K component, and said so. But I have never "lied" about anything. I tried to explain how one effort to make such a comparison, in a review of the 342 EVO Aeon server, fell apart when the USB output on my reference Baetis server stopped working and I had to cut short the A/B comparisons before I could come to a confident conclusion. I did make the comparison but couldn’t write about it for the review, because it would have been irresponsible to do so. This kind of thing happens all the time in the course of reviewing audio gear.
Does anyone know who "soix" is? He says he’s a reviewer and mentions Soundstage but won’t use his name, which strikes me as both disingenuous and cowardly. I have ideas, as there are one or two other online audio writers who do this. They tend to be eventually outed and booted from reputable sites. Mostly, they are recognized as the bitter, envious, and mean-spirited people they’ve evidently become. I love this hobby and hope with all my heart I’m never afflicted in that fashion.
@jjss49 and @twoleftears : Thank you for sharing your impressions of AGD products. I'm very intrigued and will definitely reach out to AGD once I'm ready to make a move. I think the combination of a tube linestage and AGD Audion or Tempo is something that might fit the bill perfectly -- i.e. more power but without sacrificing the 'tubey goodness' (thanks jjss49) that I've come to appreciate so much.
One thing I don't understand is the difference between Audion and Tempo. It seems like Tempo is more powerful, yet Audion is a bit more expensive. What justifies the additional cost of Audion (besides the fact that it is a monoblock of course)? There is a price difference but it's not substantial. I will call AGD and get more info but please feel free to share further impressions.
Following on from @jjss49's post, I agree completely with what he says. For a good number of years I owned a Cary 300B-based SET amp, and no, no solid-state amp (be it A, A/B, D or whatever) can produce certain sonic attributes that it can. That being said, the AGD does things that a 11-watt SET amp cannot. The Tempo (slightly more powerful than the Audions) is hooked up to Harbeth 40.2's. The other night I put on a CD of Bax's Symphony no. 3. There are some thunderous bass passages, and this was the best I've heard from any system I've had in-house. I'm more than happy with some quality 12AU7's in the signal path, but you could go 6SN7 or there are even a few preamps that use 300Bs.
Look, you guys are spending a lot of time, effort, and money trying to find out which class D amp is worth listening to, and I appreciate that, but Jonathan Valin has already done all the important work for you. As he said in the most recent issue of TAS, the Aavik P-580 is the FIRST class D amp that, in his HUGE experience, is worth listening to! So rejoice, start saving, and then go out and get one!
If I’m forced to pick only one or two attributes of tube amplification that appeal to me the most, it has to be the holographic/3D soundstage and the lit-from-within qualities that good tube amplification does it better than SS (of course, in my opinion only). How do you think AGD compares in this aspect? Are there any shortcomings (vis-a-vis tubes) that you can think of?
not sure how to answer... i would say that most low powered sweetie-pie tube amps provide a level of 2nd order harmonics that give voices and instruments a certain glow and lusciousness... i do not feel that the agd’s really do that nearly as much, its midrange is more neutral (if well detailed, very dimensional and ’human’ to my ear) but i don’t think anyone would mistake the agd female vocal reproduction to sound like that of a 300b 10 watt single ended amp .... then again, the agd’s speed, control and its own sense of very high purity in driving a much much wider range of normal and even hard to drive speakers needs to be factored in
imaging wise, i think the agd’s are really excellent - and as @twoleftearssays one can always go tube linestage into agd power amp for an infusion of tubey goodness with very few of the downsides
relative to what may be your current, traditional tube amp, i really don’t think there are any downsides... or rather, maybe there are simply 7500 of them 🤣
I have not heard the Merril or Atma-Sphere GaN amps.
I can only speak directly about all the tube and solid state amp I have owned.
And to a lessor degree, amps that I have heard at shows and friend’s homes.
The review by @jjss49, I feel, gives an accurate breakdown of AGD’s performance.
IME, the AGD Audions produce SQ that is different and unique. Partially, AGD’s designer clearly has a great ear. And partly, he has created an amp that reproduces all the “broad strokes” and, especially, the subtitles that take SQ from great to “real”. One key of these is hearing the phrasing of musicians. Something that is both subtitle and profound. I have only heard this quality with AGD.
I mean sure, it is nice to pickup a 750W amp with one hand and all, but does anyone really CARE that their Class A or AB amp is using a bit more power than a Class D would?
No!
If you can afford $4000 to $40,000 for an amp, I don't think you are worrying about your power bill.
I agree!
My class A monoblock amps, have a power consumption of 65 watts. 😎
Oh, you mean a Crown XLi 2500 isn't "audiophile" grade then at $595. Guess not.
Seriously, over the years as far as this hobby is concerned, I've been perplexed by this "push" to Class D. What exactly does it offer at the end of the day that A or AB or H don't have?
I mean sure, it is nice to pickup a 750W amp with one hand and all, but does anyone really CARE that their Class A or AB amp is using a bit more power than a Class D would? If you can afford $4000 to $40,000 for an amp, I don't think you are worrying about your power bill.
I guess I'm asking, just because a technology is possible doesn't give enough reason as to why to pursue it, so what gives?
S&V: Generally speaking, what are the key benefits of Class D versus the traditional Class AB and Class A designs that have long been favored by audiophiles? BP: Efficiency and therefore the ability to construct amps that are powerful for their size. Only that. Modern Class D amps, in particular mine—ahem—sound good not because they’re Class D, but in spite of it. I can’t repeat that often enough. Left to its own devices, a switching power stage tries to do just about anything except amplify audio. You choose Class D to save energy but it’s all elbow grease after that. People don’t realize how much more challenging Class D is compared to Class AB. It’s truly an order of magnitude.
Did it mention which class D amps JV had in house for extended listening? I seriously doubt it
Several years ago I bought a EVS 1200 that Ric Schultz designed around the identical IcePower modules PS Audio uses in their 3xs as expensive M1200s, that Michael Fremer bought. About a year later, after numerous testing delays, LSA introduced the Voyager 350 GaN amp @ $3000 but routinely discounted to $2399.
Is the Audion, or Atmosphere 2+Xs better? I'm sure they are both excellent, BUT, I seriously doubt it
I was not a believer in Class D amps and decided to take a chance on PS Audio's Stellar M1200 monoblocks. They make my Magnepan 1.7i's SING!!! Amazing amps at a reasonble price. 1200 watts into 4 ohms....
I’ve got the AGD Audions and I would say they are as fun to listen to as my VAC Phi 200s. I am also awaiting delivery of a pair of Atmasphere GANFETs. Will report in a month or two.
Tubes are making a rebound as millenials and genzers flex their economic muscle in seeking retro tech like fine turntables and tube amps (I recently purchased a McIntosh MA252 hybrid and put in Golden Lion Russian tubes--sweet for a 2nd office system). Tubes are warm, but not as reliable as well-built solid state--technology moves forward regardless of nostalgia.
Sorry I disagree. To reduce the appeal of tube-based amplification to merely "millenial rebound and genzers flexing their muscles" is incredibly presumptuous and short-sighted. Many of us have started with SS, gone back and forth between tube and SS, and prefer tubes based on our listening preferences. It has nothing to do with making fashion statements or nostalgia.
Secondly, well-made tube amps from reputable companies are very reliable. If you choose wisely and buy from established tube vendors, most tubes are also very reliable. Of course, they have a shelf life but we all make that decision with this understanding.
And lastly, the segment for class A amps, compared to the overall audio market is minuscule and limited to a tiny subsection of enthusiasts. I seriously doubt that, given the small market share, it puts a dent in the environment. The analogy with motor vehicles is flawed and a bit exaggerated.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
