If you read it, it MUST be true.
Class D Amplification Announcement
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.
172 responses Add your response
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.
|
@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. |
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. |
i agree very much with ralph/@atmasphere 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 |
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. All the best, |
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. |
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. |
FWIW, I have heard both examples. The upper mid glare is usually on cheaper examples. |
| Post removed |
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. |
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. |
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!
|
@frogman Bull 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… |
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 |
@lloydc Have you heard any of the newer GaN- or Purify-based amps? They’re not your father’s Class D anymore. |
Really? We've been making class A amplifiers for 49 years. While I am certainly not talking about all class D amplifiers, we feel that our class D amps sound better than our class A amps in that they are just as smooth in the mids and highs but exhibit greater detail in the rear of the soundstage (owing to lower distortion). FWIW our class A amps (which are triode OTLs) have been getting nice reviews and awards in the high end press for decades now. |
If you have not heard Purifi super tweaked, GaN super tweaked, etc.....you have not heard what class D can do. Have you heard AGD? Have you heard the new Merrill MX amp just shown at a show? Have you heard the Atmasphere monos? Have you heard VTV with latest Purifi and discrete buffer on input? Have you heard the Ultra stereo from Orchard? Or the now gone big Cherrys?....or the Apollon amps? Have you? What is possible RIGHT NOW is not what was a few years ago. It would be good to mention what class D you heard and when you heard it for reference. Class D is changing all the time and getting better and better. We shall see if Mytek can finally bring out their GaN based amps soon.....they said recently the mono blocks would start shipping in sept......of course, they were suppose to ship last summer. Their modded Pascal based amps are pretty darn good so these new much more expensive GaN based amps have to be much better......or they won't sell. I wish you a happy class d day. |
soix, thank you for the evenhanded response. The problem with comparisons to other gear as the basis for a review is twofold. First, to take that approach assumes that everyone, or even most, interested in the piece of gear being reviewed has heard all the other competing gear which are “what most would consider to be head on competitors/alternatives”. Big assumption; and as we all know the “opinions” of many are often based on reviews and word of mouth, not actual first hand experience. Not to mention, the sonic effects of the necessarily different rooms, cables, ancillary gear, setup. Moreover, consider how much disagreement there already exists among audiophiles about the pros and cons of a lot of even top gear. Secondly, most audiophiles have heard (hopefully often) the sound of music in a live setting. A review that relates what the reviewer hears to the sound of live music, subjectivity and all, seems to me will be much more effective in conveying a sense of what the reviewer hears. Some might consider this approach invalid because of issues around subjectivity, but ask why this same concern should not apply to our perception of the “sound” of gear.
|
@frogman The purpose of doing comparisons is really twofold — it provides the reviewer a check on what he/she thinks they are hearing, and it gives the readers a relative comparison for context. Humans are notoriously bad at absolutes and very good at judging relative differences, and it really matters not if the reader has heard the comparison product as the relative comparison in and of itself provides very useful information. Example — Review speaker X sound brighter and more detailed than speaker Y. While a reader may not have heard speaker Y they may know the house sound of the brand or other speakers that sound similar to speaker Y, which makes this comparison extremely useful. Also, if the reader knows they like more a laid back/warm speaker presentation it gives them an area to key in on if/when they look into speaker X further. As to your second point, the live music thing alway struck me as kinda silly. What if a recording was made in the studio and made to sound like it was made in the studio (i.e. Donald Fagan’s solo work)? Are we to use live music as a benchmark for whether a system is performing well with those recordings? I think not. To me, a good system strives to reproduce what the artist/recording engineer intended and if it does it well it almost always sounds good unless the recording is crap. To judge everything through the lens of live music when a lot of music is not recorded live seems misplaced to me. All that said, I don’t want anyone to mistake the passion for my opinions for me thinking I’m right because that’s not the case at all. I make my points and other people make theirs and that’s what keeps things interesting and also how we learn from others’ points of view. To me there’s always room for more than one opinion because people see/hear things differently so there can’t be one right answer — it’s impossible with the myriad of variables present. Anyway, that’s my take on it. Peace. |
Understood and I appreciate your attitude in the face of disagreement. **** the live music thing alway struck me as kinda silly. **** I could not disagree more. To use your example and turn it around, are we to use studio recordings as a benchmark for whether a system is performing well with recordings of acoustic music performed in a hall? **** a good system strives to reproduce what the artist/recording engineer intended**** How do we know what they intended? We don’t. Re gear comparisons: **** Example — Review speaker X sound brighter and more detailed than speaker Y. While a reader may not have heard speaker Y they may know the house sound of the brand or other speakers that sound similar to speaker Y, **** How does a listener know what speakers sound similar to speaker Y if they have never heard speaker Y? This tells the listener nothing useful, imo. Contrary to popular belief, there are enough “constants” in the various aspects of the sound of live music which allow a listener who is very familiar with the sound of live music to better judge how faithfully a piece of gear reproduces that sound. Of course, for this approach to be useful there has to be an interest in attending live performances in order to form a useful reference point. **** To me there’s always room for more than one opinion because people see/hear things differently so there can’t be one right answer **** I agree that there is always room for more than one opinion. As to the second part of your comment: Yes, we all hear things differently. However, whatever physiological differences may exist among listeners which then cause us to hear differently will exist whether we are listening to a live performance, or to an electronically reproduced one. For instance, if my hearing apparatus hears with a dip at, say, 2K that dip will be there when I attend a concert as well as when I sit in front of my stereo at home. That is why comparison to live is useful and, imo, the most informative. Of course, there are many more aspects of sound than frequency balance to consider when judging gear.
|
My 2 cents on live performances: - Most rock performances sound like garbage. The drums and electric guitars are often too loud. The bass guitar and vocals are often too quiet. The sound is way too loud and confused near the stage. The sound improves significantly when standing far away (but then the band looks like ants on a stage and you're wondering why you bothered to go to a live performance). - Electronic music is similar to rock in terms of volume. You have to stand really far from the stage to get a good sound. - Acoustic folk/Jazz music in a small venue is bliss. But you realize that instrument separation and stereo effect only happen with Hi-Fi equipment. In the real world everything kinda blends together. The band is performing on a small stage after all. - Orchestral music. Wow! You get a wall of sound effect where you can feel the air moving and the walls vibrating. Again, stereo effect, soundstage and instrument separation lose all meaning in the real world. You get a wall of sound. You feel the music in your bones. My 3 cents: I believe that audiophiles are chasing a sharper definition than the real world. In the real world everything just blends together into a wall of sound and through the reverberations of the room. There's no stereo effect and crystal clear "instrument separation". In the real world most live performances are way too loud and confused. Soft jazz, acoustic music and orchestral music avoid that problem. At what point do you guys say that your gear is "close enough" and start listening to music intentionally?
|
@kokakolia +1! Shadows on a cave wall! Listening to music at home is far removed from real life experience! |
@kokakolia I agree. I think the recording engineers enhance the 3D imaging/soundstage to compensate for us not being able to see where the musicians are placed in the performance. I confess that while it might not be true to how a lot of live music actually sounds, I like it and it enhances my listening experience. One good example is “Like JT” from Patricia Barber’s Companion CD where it’s clear the engineers worked to add a sense of depth, but damn it sounds so good I could care less. |
A little over a week ago I took delivery of the Atma-sphere class D monos and they were great out of the box but after 3 days they really opened up and are the best amps I've ever heard or owned and wonderful with my Tannoys. I'm hearing more detail from top to bottom, very smooth, natural and open sounding. Vocals and instruments sound more real. Looks like my tube amp is going to market. Kudos to Ralph and company! |
Harry Pearson used to claim that The Absolute Sound (title) refers to the sound of live music. The sound of a high rez two channel system sounds nothing like live music, in the same way that a high rez home theatre doesn't sound or look like real life. What we are looking for at home is a 'hyper-real' (as in unreal) experience. Its a high tech trick that we have learned to enjoy. |
That is some recommendation now - replacing tube amp with the Class D amp. Good to know that Ralph's Class D amps sound amazing. I trust as genuine - because this comes from a member who has been on this site long enough and posts regularly unlike "fake" reviews, when a user registers and immediately posts a positive review and then 10 more users do the same. So for me, it looks like Ralph's amps along with the AGD amps are the top ones to consider if and when I decide to change my amps. |
Well for GaN specifically orchid audio, Peachtree (what’s with all the fruit references ?) and Class D Audio come to mind. But the topic was Class D in general. GaN may be a useful new technology but many modern modest cost Class D amp designs do things exceptionally well and are competitive. I believe personal preferences will be the main deciding factor, as is commonly the case when talking about high quality products these days. |
**** The sound of a high rez two channel system sounds nothing like live music**** Three possibilities: - The “high rez”’system is not assembled well; is not well balanced. - Recordings being played are not very good. - The listener is not familiar with the sound of live music. A great recording played back on a well balanced (!) high resolution system can sound, while never exactly like, fairly close to the sound of live. No offense intended, but speak for yourself. That is not what many of us are looking for. I suppose it’s a sign of the times. Hyper real flavors in food (way too salty). Hyper loud movies and concerts. Hyper fast, hyper personalized experiences. Hyper connectivity, and more. I’m old school, I prefer my music to sound as natural as possible; as close as possible to the real thing. Others may want a different experience. As far as I’m concerned Harry Pearson had it right. However, to each his own. Enjoy your music!
|
@mapman , Got it. I have certainly read user reviews on Orchard, but not as many for Peachtree. Don’t know why; but I am more gravitating towards GaN over other Class D tech. Will try to audition different types when I am ready for a change. |
@frogman Album tracks have autotune, drumbeat correction, volume compression etc... to enhance the clarity. I mean just compare demo tapes to finished albums and you’ll hear why enhancements are highly desirable. This implies that the album doesn’t sound like the live performance, even in a recording studio. I’m assuming that you only listen to live recordings of acoustic performances. Softer acoustic performances in well-treated rooms sound inherently crystal clear, so enhancements aren’t necessary. So you’re limiting your musical library immensely. And to be frank, the importance of a balanced hi-res system is overstated (IMHO). Budget gear is getting better by the year, especially dirt cheap class D amps. AND for people like me LIVE music is way more affordable and accessible than high-end Hi-Fi. That's the perk of living in a metropolis I suppose. |
I guess you've never listened through TacT or Lyngdorf Millenium II or IV amplifiers! There are alternatives in digital amps. All this focus on "Class D" is stupid. TacT goes back to about 2000 with their Millenium II which was a 24/96 and 2003 or 2005 with their Mk III. Lyngdorf then created the 4 after Peter Lyngdorf and Boz parted ways. Class D is like Bluetooth or USB--a licensed technology that must adhere to certain standards and chipsets. And to the doinks who prefer to look at an ugly, made for a rack, in their living room or whatever room in your home, well, have at it. There is benefit to cabinet construction, including the solidity to the fascia as well. About.2% of people want to or have the skills to DIY. What's a joke is the dismissals based on no experience and the experiences of reviewers. |
at the low cost end of the spectrum there is the excellent little mini gan5 - $700 it doesn’t have the uber silky refinement and tonal density of the agd’s but for the money it is very very nice amp, small in form factor only slightly leaner midbass, slightly drier bass, very refined treble, very few classic solid state nasties, and does not have the bleached out lifeless sound of typical ice or purifi module based units |
My experience has been is that there is rarely a "one size fits all" when it comes to audio gear. It takes some mixing and matching to get the sound that you prefer...and it is quite likely that others might think it could be improved to make it to their liking. Benchmark gets a lot of love...but some think its too lean. Pass gets a lot of love, but many don't want the heat. I have a buddy with a Magnepan 3.7i set up. I've heard it recently with three different amps...they all sound a little different, but they all sound really good in his room....Halo A21, Sanders Magtech and Lyngdorf 2170. The Lyngdorf is probably the surprise of this group??? It is even better with room perfect engaged...and when used as a preamp for the other amps and when room perfect is on, it seems to improve them as well.
|
This statement is 100% wrong and apparently poorly informed. Class D is nothing like Bluetooth or USB other than in someone’s mind apparently. Class D is a design approach. Anyone can try and build one anyway they choose It does often but not always involve popular modular designs or a board/component that can be used to build a complete amp product. The reason certain modules are popular are because they are the product of a lot of modern technical innovations done well ( as a result of years of R&D) and therefore THEY ARE VERY GOOD ie they do the job very well and often for more modest cost. Not to say everyone will choose them. That is never the case. Personal preferences always rule in the end. Some simply may not believe that technology always moves forward but in fact as a whole it always does. Glad we cleared that one up. 😉
|
@pehare What tube amp were you comparing the Atmaspheres to? |
I have recordings I recorded and mastered. I was there at the musical event. I use these recordings for reference, since I was there. I recommend anyone who really wants to compare against the live performance to get a set of good mics and a decent recorder, then get out there and make recordings- very helpful for knowing what is right and what isn’t. Once you get that part right then you can listen to other recordings on the same system to see how they are rendered. That is really the only way I’ve found to get at ’the absolute sound’. |
Never any love for LKV on Audiogon. https://lkvresearch.com/lkv-pwr-3-amplifier.html For the voltage-gain circuitry, the PWR-3 uses a Class A, zero-feedback circuit designed by LKV’s Chief Designer Bill Hutchins. This circuit delivers life-like sound due to careful design and component matching, including 40 hand-matched, discrete jfets. For the high current output stage, Bill selected the Purifi 1et400A module, which implements Putzey’s breakthrough. |
