If you used 2 AHB2's in mono the dynamic aspect of the AHB2 would likely be closer to the ML. Your speakers seem perfectly suited for the AHB2 in mono.
Class D Purifi Eigentakt / Mark Levinson 333 / Benchmark AHB2 - Listening & Conclusion
Equipment setup:
CD/SACD player: Oppo BD105
Stereophile’s Test CD2 , Track 15 pink noise, , for level matching the three amplifiersVolume set 72dBC on track 15 before playing songs B - FVolume set to 82dBC on track 15 before playing songs G-HStandard Music :
- B - SACD Norah Jones, Come away with me
- C -SACD Andrea Bocelli, Melodramma
- D -SACD Dire Straits, Walk of Life
- E -SACD Pink Flyod, Time
- F -CD Ultimate Demonstration Disc: Chesky Records’ Guide to Critical Listening, Track 3 Spanish Harlem
- G - SACD Telarc Tchaikovsky 1812 overture, Track 7 Cossack Dance from Mazeppa
- H -SACD Telarc , Donald Runnicles , ORFF Carmina Burana , track 10 were diu werlt alle min
- I -John Williams Live in Vienna, Track 19 Imperial March , watching in 2ch mode
- J -Patriot, Uncompressed LPCM Audio track, Scene 6
- Streaming Apple music (various pop songs Taylor Swift, Marron 5, etc)
- YouTube podcast (for center channel compare)
- HBO Max Movies (for center channel compare)
Pre-Pro Anthem AVM50v, XLR audio input from oppo.
802D3 Speakers (Front) , HTM1D3 (Center) , old DM640i (Surround back)
Amplifiers under test:
- Mark Levinson No 333
- Benchmark AHB2
- VTV Purifi Eigentakt EVAL-1
Listening Impression (Stereo 2ch mode):
- For songs B-F , level match volume based on Track 15 pink noise (A1 above) , resulting in typical music volume swings around 80dB-86dB. They all sound good. The Benchmark and Levinson sounds very similar in tonal balance, my son (blind test) could not tell them apart. The Benchmark AHB2 sounds very clean on E) Time , the ring sounds the clearest. On v vocal on AHB2 sounds a little bit less weight (Andrea Bocelli voice sounds less vibrato) compare to others. Levinson sounds very similar to AHB2 but the vocal is is more full and the bass has more weight. The Class D Purifi Eigentakt tonal balance has stronger mid-bass/low midrange so the vocal sounds more forward and closer but the upper treble is rolled off. The sound of cymbals are not as clear and not as distinct compare to levinson 333 or benchmark. AHB2.
- For songs G-I, volume knob has to increase by 10dB (A2 above) to compensate for the recording sound level. The Class D Purifi Eigentakt sounds compressed (lack impact), at loud level, the sounds of each instruments are not as delineated, and the high frequency triangle and cymbals are not very clear in comparison to benchmark AHB2 or levinson 333. Both levinson 333 and benchmark AHB2 sounds very similar, but when the dynamic sound peak at 94dB, the 333 sounds more at ease and each individual instruments details are more distinct (more details of cello vibration and triangle resonance) than the AHB2.
- It is hard to tell apart AHB2 vs 333 but easy to identify the Class D Purifi once we have heard all three on the same or specific songs. The Class D Purifi has rolled off treble and forward midrange that is its strong signature (by comparison, it sounds neutral/normal on its own when there is nothing to compare). This roll off treble reminds me on my previous Krell KSA-200s sonic signature.
- The life recording song G-H has very wide dynamic (55dB – 94dB swing). Since my son played at the orchestra, I know what orchestra sounds like sitting in front rows. In my observation, to reproduce this life-like sounds of life orchestra is probably the most demanding for high resolution speakers and amplifiers. When playing loud level , songs G-I , the old Levinson still sounds the best.
- When playing loud dynamic music song G-I, we heard changes in Class D Purifi tonal balance, the peak sounds certain instruments are level off compare to AHB2 or 333. Could the Class D PWM sampling be manipulated so the peak musical waveform dynamic is lost to bias for more midrange clarity ? Or is there soft clip mode where certain peak music waveform is “clipped” so they sound “compressed” . I don’t know but what we heard is a more compressed dynamic relative to AHB2 or 333 on song G-I.
Listening impression (Movie, using it to drive center channel)
- Playing with K-M, AHB2 (mono bridge mode) and 333 sounds the same.
- Playing with K-M, even level matching with AVM50v built-in level calibration (per SPL meter), the dialogue still sounds louder with the Class D Purifi. It correlates with our stereo experience where purify midrange is more forward sounding but less treble.
- This Class D Purifi amp is good match for center channel or a PA system, it accentuates midrange voice (in comparison, sounds "neutral"/normal when listening to it without any comparison). So the dialog is more clear (e.g. comparison on streaming podcast from apple TV).
- Try watching the Blu-ray Patriot movie Scene 6; It has both uncompressed 5.1 PCM and standard Dolby Digital 5.1. The dialogue on Dolby Digital 5.1 is more clear due to compression (special effects, music, weapons sounds are compressed) . However, if one has dedicated room , speakers and amps, one would want to watch it in uncompressed PCM for more immersive and open sound.
My personal conclusion:
- Class D amplifiers have improved a lot of the years but Class D Amps are still no match to good design Class AB Amp.in term of sound quality and dynamic handling
- Benchmark AHB2 is more versatile (good for all music) and more dynamic than the Class D Purifi Eigentakt
- Class D Purifi Eigentakt is suitable for center channel, its slight compression and unnatural bias toward midrange makes dialogue more clear It is not an ideal amp for life classical music reproduction.
- Mark Levinson 333 is the best despite its old age. It is the most life-like, with more weight on vocal , and more at ease when playing life recording classical orchestra at higher volume level
- There needs to additional scientific measurements that can explain why the benchmark AHB2 sounds better than Purifi Eigentakt in my environment and why the Levinson sounds more dynamic and detailed on loud classical music. Traditional SINAD, THD , IMD measurement using sinewave do not have the musical waverform complexity and can not explain the contrast of what we heard among these amplifiers in our environment. What we heard can not be explained with just THD measurement as they all sound good (not distorted) but different. As below certain THD, the delta is not audible.
Great A/B/C subjective review of the three amps, would have I believe been my choice. 50-150hz that’s where the 802’s nasties lay, low EPDR, (low impedance with high negative phase angle), "should?" have suited the ML333 and ABH2 better as well. https://www.stereophile.com/images/616BW802fig1.jpg Not in the bass I believe, as the 802's EPDR impedance is too low for a bridged amp. Cheers George |
Not in the bass I believe, as the 802's EPDR impedance is too low for a bridged amp.You are correct if that graph indicates a lot of 2 Ohm action. Then the single AHB2 in stereo is better. I speak from experience with Thiel CS3.7 and AHB2's. Nevertheless the AHB2 is my favorite amp. Just love that clear smooth sound |
Post removed |
You seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions about the Purifi module from the absolute cheapest implementation. There are many Purifi implementations that have a much better power supply and much better input buffer that are admittedly more expensive, but then so are the amps you are comparing. I have been pretty impressed with the Purifi modules in my own DIY amp. It doesn't quite match my Pass XA60.8s but holds it's own very well with less expensive class A/B amps including the Parasound JC5 that I owned for a while. I haven't directly compared my Purifi amps to the other amps you have, but I used to own the ML 333 and I think a good Purifi implementation could easily give it a run for it's money, and would likely surpass it in many areas (IMHO). Of course, it all depends on system synergy. |
@georgehifi You clearly prefer vertical biamping AHB2 than bridging monos. My Soundlab Esl has only one pair of terminals. What do I do in this case? Also, someone told me that since these speakers can go down to 1-2 ohm at high frequency, AHB2 may not be able to handle it. What do you think? thanks, Jay |
@georgehifi Hi Jay sorry was away for a while when you PM’d Not just vertical bi-amping https://ibb.co/jfnTwTc if both amps are the same. But horizonal https://ibb.co/VMSks36 also if both amps are not the same. But you have a problem that can’t be fixed by either of these because they are full range with no xover to be able to be split for biamping. And as for bridging the AHB2’s into that kind of load 1-2ohm, that’s a no from me also. You only have one option really, that is to look at other amps for those magnificent beast of a speaker to drive them properly. I suggest to stay with linear solid state, and suggest looking for high current high Class-A bias linear Bi-Polar (BJT) output stage amps, such as Gryphon poweramp/s or a cheaper alternative Parasound JC1 Halo monoblocks, both which a have a high/low class-A bias switching, for seriouse listening (high bias) or for dinner/background/party time listening low Class-A bias listening. Others are Boulder, D'Agostino, etc etc Cheers George |
Class D amplifiers have improved a lot of the years but Class D Amps are still no match to good design Class AB Amp.in term of sound quality and dynamic handlingThis is not a conclusion you can draw due to the small sample size of 'one'. Its only a conclusion you can draw with the amps in your current setup. |
Also recently tried NAD and PS Audio Class D amp. They sound fine when they are not being compared to the Levinson. When playing high dynamic classical music or high quality master and SACD reproduction , these Class D amps do not compete well with high-end , good design Class AB amp. I was thinking I could go cheap (less than $10k) to get sonic improvement over my existing setup. I am now inclined to get the newer Mark Levinson No 536 or the big Pass Labs XA200 amplifier for appreciable sound quality improvement. |
I upgraded my 105 several years ago, replacing the IEC, 110/220 jumper and linear power supply terrific upgrades, all to improve my SACD playback. I use WireWorld series 8 XLRs into a Audio Alchemy DDP-1 + PS 5, a $800 power cord and Nob Sound springs. I also have the Stereophile, XLO, and Isotec burn in discs
My speakers are Emerald Physic 3.4s using Wire World jumpers and series 7 speaker cables a Core Power 1800 power conditioner
I tried Emerald Physics 100.2 SEs with upgraded fuses> PS Audio M700s, EVS 1200, each move was positive, but it wasn't until I got a LSA GaN 350 that my system started sounding believable. The biggest difference IMO is switching speed
hth |
Well those amps are driving complex loads if they are driving an actual speaker. One could capture what is being presented at the speaker in terms of voltage, and then overlaying the three plots in time domain or frequency domain. If they sound different, then they should be driving the speaker differently. How we know which one is “more right” than the others is another thing. lastly, with a different speaker, and a different complex load, does the choice of “which amp is better” then flip? |