Guido, in your posts you have indicated the Merrill Veritas are among the Class D amplifiers you enjoyed listening to and that do not display, "any displeasing high frequency artifacts or limitations." I owned the Acoustic Imagery Atsahs, which should be a close sonic twin to the Veritas. Unfortunately, I cannot confirm the differences between the two since Merrill does not condone opening their amplifier casework and looking inside and I can find no posted pictures of the insides of a Veritas amplifier. Based on my review of online information, the differences between the Veritas and Atsah amplifiers include, hook-up wire and binding posts, individually milled spaces inside the Veritas chassis - although both use solid milled aluminum casework, soldered wire connections (Veritas), and the use of the Hypex input board (Atsah). I would not expect these differences to substantially, or possibly even noticeably, affect sonics as perhaps would items such as a linear power supply, input buffer or input transformers. One listener over at Whatsbestforum who tried both amps (and ended up buying Mola Molas) posted this; "They are sonic siblings. It would be silly to argue otherwise. The basic designs are the same. They both use the same unmodified NCORE SMPS and NCORE 1200 module from Hypex. Sonically, I would give the nod to the Veritas. They are a little more resolving, but not by much and I don't have them side-by-side. So, if an Atsah owner calls me out on this, I won't fight back." So, proceeding on the assumption that by owning the Atsahs for over a year, I have a mostly reliable understanding of how the
unmodified SMPS1200 and NC1200 modules sound, whether in the Veritas or Atsahs, then my question to you is, would you describe what you hear differently between the Veritas and the Rowland M925 amps that have earned the M925s a permanent place in your system? - Thanks |
(reduced price,electricity consumption,heat, size and weight) Take the "green" thing out of it has nothing to do with sound quality. Audiopiles have never been "green" let face it those that keep on about the "green thing" are a bit hypocritical. It's a wonder we aren't dead just listening to our "non green" audio. I bet the greenies that spruik the "class d green thing" ignore the rest of the toxic waste dump inside their other audio equipment. the energy tube and s/s use before vinyl it was bakalite then vinyl Boron cantilevers Nickle inside tubes Toxic fluid in capacitors Beryllium dome drivers CD's ect ect ect Cheers George |
Don’t listen to the negative propaganda especially from just one or two who repeat the same thing over and over. Just try them for yourselves if interested and see.
Myself, I’ve had way less trouble finding top notch sounding Class D amps than others.
Mapman, I'm glad that you enjoy your Ice Modules. The KEF LS50 was just released in an active version. The woofer is powered by Class D and the tweeter is powered by Class AB. Does this mean that there is a problem with Class D higher frequencies to some ears...or is it just an issue with procurement budget and not being able to purchase the better Class D modules? I don't have those answers but it is food for thought. |
Hi Mitch2, my PFO article on Veritas details all the technical information that I have gathered on Veritas, based on conversation with Merrill, and by reading the publicly available technical literature on the amp. See:
http://positive-feedback.com/Issue68/merrill_audio.htm
Unfortunately, I have not heard the ATSAH, so I really cannot comment on internal differences, nor sonic differences.
In itself, Merrill Veritas is exceptional value for its $12K list price. In a more traditional SS design, At the time of my review a couple years ago, I would have expected such sound to be more in the capabilities of an excellent amp in the lower $20K range.
Although there are obvious commonalities between the behavior of M925 and Veritas, there are quantitative and qualitative audible differences, which are however less than the price difference would suggest.... Famous laws of diminishing returns that audiophiles are acquiented to *grins!*
Thus, were I to ignore any budget considerations, my preference would comfortably go to M925 for the following parameters:
* Power reserve * authority. * Macro and micro dynamics. * Harmonic exposure. * Linearity. * Frequency extension. Transparency. * Sweetness and complexity of treble. * stage size and concreteness. * Imaging concreteness. * Aliveness of "black" background... Also called the sound of the silence between the notes... Or the reproduction of ultra-low level information. * Immunity to electronic background noise. * Immunity to intermodulation artifacts in the treble region.
Yet again.... let us Keep things into perspective.... the rowland M925 was engineered with a sophistication commensurate with its pricepoint just shy of $60K, several times the price of Veritas. Saluti, Guido
|
To me the fact that that a number of forums are now being devoted to class D amps indicates the importance and growth of this tech.
I have 3 different class D amps all at different levels of sound quality. with the new Bel-Canto Ref 600 mono's as the newest and most complete.
They really respond to tuning with power cords! They are green, run cool, but perhaps as important they are much easer to move around. Are they the last word in amps? not yet.. but getting much better day by day.
|
Mapman, I'm glad that you enjoy your Ice Modules. The KEF LS50 was just released in an active version. The woofer is powered by Class D and the tweeter is powered by Class AB. Does this mean that there is a problem with Class D higher frequencies to some ears...or is it just an issue with procurement budget and not being able to purchase the better Class D modules? I don't have those answers but it is food for thought. Kef know what's better for the upper range with using an A/B amp for it, otherwise they would have used another smaller Class-D for it as well, instead of just for the bass, and it would have cost less to manufacture, and been "greener", then they could have called it Kef LS50"G" active. Cheers George |
Bel-Canto Ref 600 mono’s as the newest and most complete.
They really respond to tuning with power cords! They are green, run cool, but perhaps as important they are much easer to move around. Are they the last word in amps? not yet.. but getting much better day by day. +1 They have sounded the best Class-D to me so far, but they have modded the filters of the newest Hypex modules to do it. As you said "are they the last word not yet", and I agree, as for me to have liked them, they had to be driving a very benign 6ohm load of a very expensive Raven Ribbon to get me to say this. Even then with long term listening they were still a bit too "cold/analytical" sounding in the upper range. Cheers George |
I do not have "ice modules" . i have stated repeatedly I have BelCanto Ref1000m amps. These use ice modules but also custom input and power circuitry and the price and sound reflects that accordingly.
Again generalizing and glazing over facts and details to help an argument helps nobody and is a disservice.
I would likely not have been satisfied using that older revision of vanilla Ice modules to drive my speakers which is why I opted for a better design. The original Bel Canto ref1000 was vanilla icepower (and much cheaper) and the differences between the two are well documented.
I don’t know what KEF uses or why. Its their choice so better to ask them. Probably just easier or cheaper or better for them to biamp in general which opens up options to use different amps for different purposes rather than try to get either one to do it all best at their price point. I’ve heard those those KEFs in my home and they are small power and current hungry speakers. I'd definitely use Class D for teh bass with them but if biamped then many decent options for the less demanding (power and current-wise) high end.
|
I am not sure where obsession with the switching frequency comes from. It is inaudible This statement needs clarification! It is very easy to demonstrate that switching frequency is audible. Once it gets above a certain minimum it becomes progressively harder however. |
Ok, let me clarify then: I cannot hear 500kHz, not only because of my hearing apparatus (at my age I have difficulty hearing 15kHz), but also because tweeter’s output drops like a rock with combined effect of membrane inertia and increasing tweeter’s impedance (easy enough to check tweeter’s frequency response chart). There might be intermodulation products, but only if tweeter’s membrane can move at 500kHz - no chance . In addition output filter, set to about 1/10 of the switching frequency, is at least two pole resulting in >40dB/decade suppression. 500kHz frequency that I cannot hear and tweeter cannot response to is already suppressed by >40dB from the peak loudness. I challenge anybody to detect, form the seating position, when my amplifier is on.
|
Can someone tell me what can be observed when measuring a class a/b amp that indicates its inferiority to pure class A?
I am off the opinion that Class A is the bomb when possible. However class A amps to power less efficient speakers are large heavy expensive and power hungry. So enter Class D as a practical option to inherently inferior (to class a amps) class ab amps.
|
Inferiority... well, I don’t believe this is true either... but! :)
In Class A the transistors (or tube) never switches "off". It’s at least minimally on through the entire voltage swing. This is what causes all the heat. At 0 output volts, the + and - transistors are maximally conducting!!
To swing in the positive direction the negative transistor has to start reducing current, and vice-versa.
The result of all this is that a class A biased device never has "notch" distortion. This is caused by the transistors shutting off during part of the swing. To turn them back on the voltage has to exceed the diode voltage, when it suddenly "snaps" on. It’s not perfectly linear from 0 to 1 volts After the transistor is conducting it gets linear quickly. Whether this is audible.... well, that’s a whole other discussion. :) There's also a lot of debate and misinformation about feedback. This notch distortion is measurable, but reducible by increasing feedback, to the point where the distortion figures can become incredibly tiny, regardless of bias type.
There are also a number of interesting single-ended Class A designs of very low power, which use a single device. Look up some of the Pass Labs First Watt designs for lots of info on this.
Best,
Erik
|
Erik it seems reasonable to me to say Class A/B is technically inherently inferior to Class A for the reasons you cited. IS not good Class A always preferred over Class A/B for sound for the technical reasons you cited? Class A/B is used to keep cost power demands and size and weight down for the masses mainly (sound familiar?), not for better sound or performance. Whereas Class D is totally different and can actually challenge Class A especially as the technology continues to improve even further. Of course I prefer my Class D amps over any Class A/B amp I’ve tried already and even a lesser Class A I once owned.
The most unique value of Class D is when much power and current is needed (mainly for bass) as in case of many smaller more extended less efficient speakers that many prefer. As speakers get bigger, loads easier, and efficiency higher, then most any good quality amp can perform well without being too large, heavy and expensive for most, although each will still probably sound different and individual considerations including personal preferences come into play.
So practically, it really pays to decide what one wants or needs the physical profile of their gear to be to meet their needs then choose speakers and amps together accordingly to meet those needs. This practically is the most important thing to consider together I would say way more than any particular technical achiilles heel of any specific amp technology one might obsess on.
No amp including most Class A amps I would say are perfect so choose your poison.
In general., I find Class D amps are the best of all at taking total complete control of speaker which I find tends to yield the best results possible. The result is greater articulation and detail in the bass and a cleaner more dimensional sound overall. Cleaning up/controlling teh bass prevents masking detail at higher frequencies often buried by poor quality or muddy bass when amp is not up to the task of totally controlling the speakers, especially at the low end which is the most demanding and requires an amp to work hardest. Class D amps are MOST efficient and that helps enable achieve this more often than not compared to the competition I would say.
Bass reproduction requires the most work by far and is the biggest challenge for most amps. Class D does this best. For higher frequencies, other amps perform well as do the better Class D amps around these days so not as much to differentiate the technology there although skeptics will attack class D high end as its relative weakness which is a fair statement at least historically. But that "weakness" is one that seems to not matter at all practically as best I can tell these days. Even my modest newer BelCanto C5i integrated that I picked up for a mere $1000 used seems to have gotten everything just about as right as possible and that is a complete integrated amp with phono and DAC 60 watt amp and headphone amp. Its easily as good sounding as anything I have heard within its modest 60w/ch power limitation which will come into play in some cases. OF course no single sound will appease everyone so YM will always vary. |
@mapman
I will not agree to any such prejudices. While I can say that class A lacks notch distortion, it is by no means the only type of distortion or non-linearity!
We can't on the one hand talk tech. theory on a subject like notch
distortion while rejecting THD figures, which is (oddly) what a lot of
audiophiles like to do.
The distortion and noise measurements between high end class A, A/B and D heavily overlap.
I'm also not sure that what audiophiles like to hear is always "better" if "better" = "more accurate."
I think audiophiles like sweetening (which is fine!) in which case trying to match an argument with notch distortion and sound quality blows up. The "sound quality" isn't found in the technology per se. If I had all the time, money and space in the world I would not mind having a pair of Conrad Johnson Premier 8 for instance, knowing full well they lie lie lie. :)
Best,
Erik
|
Erik I’m just trying to frame up the comparison between the various amp technologies in purely technical terms as an extension of georgelofis argument against Class D based purely on switching frequency.
I am of the mindset that understanding the technology helps to make decisions where needed but alone does not dictate what sounds best in the end. Technology alone cannot predict what sounds best in specific cases. A system together makes the sound not just one component. Its a team sport as they say. Plus individual preferences vary for many reasons though some technical people have a greater tendency to associate these with specific aspects of technology that matter to them whereas others (I’d like to think myself included) are not so fast to jump to conclusions.
So I think we are on the same page in practice.
Guess what? My Class D amps were preceded by two different Class A amps that were fine on their own terms but far from perfect in my application. The Class A amps were preceeded by many a Class A/B amp and even a 70’s vintage Class G that was nice overall in its day especially if space is limited but sound quality could not hold a bone compared to any good quality newer amp I compared it to.
I heard the Benchmark amp at Capital Audiofest last summer (along with every other kind of amp imaginable) and thought it to be a top performer easily in the same league with the best I heard there. I would own it in a heartbeat. I am strongly considering giving Benchmark preamp/DAC units I heard there a try which if if successful (as I expect it would be) would finally happily eliminate the last tubed gear in my house. I'm all about the sound. The technology used is just a means to the end.
|
Here is another argument for Class D. It can be argued that once you get the bass right the rest is not so hard to sort out. I have found a lot of truth to that in recent years. Efficient Class D amps are both on paper and in practice hands down best at handling bass. That seems to be common knowledge based on application and sure enough I have found it to be true in practice. In a nutshell that’s mainly because of Class D high efficiency and the fact that doing extended bass well is exponentially more work for an amp than doing higher frequencies and efficient amps do it best. Just like efficient speakers make it easier for an amp to do bass well. The end result when done right (ie sufficient efficiency or efficiencies in play to facilitate doing the needed work) tends to sound similarly good in the end I find. |
Guido, Thank you for the detailed answer to my question yesterday. One attribute you stated, Aliveness of "black" background... Also called the sound of the silence between the notes... Or the reproduction of ultra-low level information. ...reminds me a bit of what I found missing from the NC1200 Atsahs, at least compared to my other amps. I am curious about what JRDG has done to bring out the best of the Ncore amplifier module but there are so many features incorporated in those amplifiers, over and beyond the stock Ncore modules, it would be impossible to isolate the specific contribution/benefit resulting from any one of the features. I hope to hear a pair some day. |
Can someone tell me what can be observed when measuring a class a/b amp that indicates its inferiority to pure class A? In a class A amp as mentioned the output devices never turn off. Unless its a single-ended amp that makes little power, one advantage is that even ordered harmonics are canceled in the speaker load due to the opposing operation of the output devices. In a class A amp this happens at all power levels but not so with class AB. Execution is a major portion of the differences between various amplifiers. For this reason it is possible to find inferior and superior amps in nearly all categories. I personally think D is going to win out over AB and A simply because of the cost. If done right, the output section is pretty benign and most of the sonic artifact seems to come from the input section and the converters. Now this has nothing to do with tubes and both traditional solid state and class D still have inroads to make there. I think part of the advantage of D is that its likely that due to its simplicity and the input section being the lion's share of the artifact, that it will be able to eventually challenge tubes in a way that traditional solid state has failed to do (for those that doubt this last statement, if traditional solid state had really been able to challenge tubes, tubes would be a thing of the past. Gone. Nada. They aren't and that's really all anyone needs to know, and there are good sound technical reasons why this is so). Because there is less to color a D amplifier, it should be easier to create the neutrality and smoothness that tubes have had all along. Not seen it yet, but they get closer every year. |
Fact is the times have changed in audio. Digital is blossoming with tech that combines dac, amp, preamp, room correction etc.. all into one or two boxes keeping the signal all digital up until the point the signal is sent to the speaker.
Read all the recent reviews of my Lyngdorf 2170 or the Exogal Comet and Ion amp. The future is here right now. This gear is better than all those Class A /AB amps and separate boxes of tube preamp, dac with extra ICs and power cords. We are really experiencing a very exciting time in audio history. It is happening right now as we type these posts.
I sold my cutting edge and arduously fine tuned tube and SS gear nicely packaged in numerous separates and assorted hook-up wire for today’s exciting digital tech. The sound is better. I would have never believed it, but I experienced it and love the fact that is comes in one cooling running 15 pound package.
Some very special and unrivaled sounding digital gear is currently being introduced and it is nothing short of a sonic revolution. It will sweep our landscape and render our old sonic technology as mere collectors items of days gone by. This is not some sort of small evolutionary change from classic tube gear to modern day tube gear. Rather, this is disruptive change and innovation that will forever change our hobby. This is not somewhere off in the future folks, it is here right now. What a wonderful time to be an audiophile! Especially and essentially if you are an open minded Aphile not blindly holding onto past paradigms and experiences. The cheese has indeed moved. It may take longer for some to fully accept it😊
I still like soldering and building/modding point to point wired tube gear and enjoy the way they sound. However, I know my Lyngdorf is better in every way. While it is fun for me to drop in my latest tube amp project I fully realize it is a hobby and not SOTA. |
Fact is the times have changed in audio. Digital is blossoming with tech that combines dac, amp, preamp, room correction etc.. all into one or two boxes keeping the signal all digital up until the point the signal is sent to the speaker.
Read all the recent reviews of my Lyngdorf 2170 or the Exogal Comet and Ion amp. The future is here right now.
Grannyring - there really hasn't been much discussion on this thread about digital Class D...mostly analog Class D using modules from Hypex and Ice...a few from Pascal & Abletec. Your Lyngdorf appears to use the TI Equibit technology, which combines amp & DSP. Very interesting stuff. http://www.futurlec.com/News/TI/AudioSolution.shtml |
I am referring to all of it as you pointed out including amplification. The Lyngdorf is completely digital dismissing the need for conventional analog preamp and dac. It is a Class D amp in the digital domain.
|
I think Grannyring is right. Even the fairly modest Bel Canto c5i digital integrated amp is evidence of the excellence that can be achieved with newer digital technologies integrated and done well and that it need not cost a fortune. It is a true revelation of the magnitude say of HDTV compared to what was prior. Totally disruptive of what came before and not just another minor tweak or minor improvement on older technologies.
|
|
George - it appears that TI bought this tech.
Quote Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I thought Tact Licensed that technology and the actual company that designed Equibit was Toccata.
My sense is that it is a different design. But to be sure, I have email into Harman people and will report back what I hear.
The Equibit design was developed by Tocatta, originally implemented by Tact T. But TI purchased Tocatta and the Equibit design. Not many companies are using the technology that I know of. Lyngdorf (formerly Tact T) still does, and I know Panasonic built some AV receivers using the Equibit amps; I own one of those.
Tim
Todd_Packer said:
07-16-2012 02:18 PM
Quote Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I thought Tact Licensed that technology and the actual company that designed Equibit was Toccata.
The Harman Drive Core amplifier chip is a completely in-house design done through Crown engineering. The only thing we used TI for was their expertise in IC Chip manufacturing. There are several patents on the chip design, although the basic topology is a Class D output stage. The Drive Core technology is used in several places, including the Lexicon DD-8, and several Crown amplifiers. There are 2 chips, one is a complete amp on a chip that includes an output stage that is capable of delivering 75 - 150 watts into 8ohms (depending on power supply and application requirements) and is table to 2 ohms, and the only thing that is really needed is a power supply and an input stage. The first use of the technology was in the Lexus LFA supercar. The requirements were high output, small size, high efficiency (greater then 90%), and great sound. Moving the input and output stages onto a single IC allowed much tiger tolerances of the clock and triangle wave form generator that is the heart of all digital amp designs, and often the cause of the "Class D" sound some people don't like. There is also a version that is everything without the high output stage (the input, waveform generator, feedback circuit, etc...) that can me used to drive higher output stages either Class D or our patented Class I, where more then 150 watts is needed.
thanks for the interest,
Todd Packer
Harman Luxury Audio Group
Field Application Engineer
|
From what I understand the Lyngdorf utilizes many new technologies and Equibit is just a small portion of it. Regardless, this one box solution is amazing in its totality. |
Agree with Kijanki, I have a class D amplifier that retired my favorite class A/B amplifier of over 20 years (recently modified about 2 years ago). I find my class D amplifier to be superior in terms of detail, spatial placement, sound stage and especially dynamics. Clearly from my listening position I could always hear my class A/B when music was not playing...doesn't happen with my class D.
|
|
Very elegant Ice Amp with a class A input stage. |
Looks similar to NuPrime stuff. |
I'm not sure what this "class A input stage" is. Input stages are almost always class A (would be stupid not to), but class D amp is pretty much one stage - a modulator + output transistors. Any additional input stage is not advantageous to class D amps. What they call "Analog Cell" is just class A Mosfet input stage very common in many class A or AB amps. It sounds like a lot of hot air (for class D). |
I'm not sure what this "class A input stage" is. Input stages are almost always class A (would be stupid not to), but class D amp is pretty much one stage - a modulator + output transistors.
I thought the Class A input stage is what voices the amplifier and keeps it from being a clone amp in a pretty box. |
Perhaps in traditional multistage amps. I'm not also sure what the "voicing" means. Would this imply that two different amps with the same Mosfet input stage are voiced exactly the same? As I said - a lot of hot air. Manufacturers of expensive gear have to come up with some exotic names, like "Analog Cell", in order to differentiate them from competition and justify high price. Icepower is self contained amp. It doesn't need additional input stage unless it serves a purpose (Common mode noise rejection, input impedance increase etc), or "voicing" is just a fancy name for added "coloring" of the sound (at the expense of transparency). |
I'm not sure what this "class A input stage" is. Input stages are almost always class A (would be stupid not to) +1 I've never seen anything but Class-A input stages, it BS advertising to con the gulible. Cheers George |
Kijanki - Yes I meant voicing as a coloration to differentiate a boutique amp from a stock Ice Module. Some feel that adding a custom input stage and not using the stock power supply creates a superior sound to their ears...which I can't argue with.
mapman14,180 posts01-03-2017 2:58pmI do not have "ice modules" . i have stated repeatedly I have BelCanto Ref1000m amps. These use ice modules but also custom input and power circuitry and the price and sound reflects that accordingly.
Again generalizing and glazing over facts and details to help an argument helps nobody and is a disservice.
I would likely not have been satisfied using that older revision of vanilla Ice modules to drive my speakers which is why I opted for a better design. The original Bel Canto ref1000 was vanilla icepower (and much cheaper) and the differences between the two are well documented.
|
Yes, sometimes there is additional circuitry to Icepower modules. For instance my small Rowland has additional instrumentation amp (THAT1200), that improves common mode noise rejection as well as increases standard 10k input impedance to 40k. Box is pretty indeed, but since it is solid billet aluminum chassis - board inside is acoustic resonance free. There is a purpose to that - but when manufacturer puts Mosfet stage in a plastic blue box, calls it fancy name "Analog Cell", describes it as class A with no feedback and inserts picture of the board with this blue module in their literature - then it makes me very suspicious. Not only that using "class A" is to pray on non-technical people, but also second statement is not true. There is practically no stage without feedback. Even resistor in the emitter (or source) of transistor is a form of the negative feedback. First stage might be outside of the global negative feedback, but calling it "no feedback" is again praying on the common believe that "no feedback" is a good thing. Because of all that I'm very suspicious about additional Mosfet stage used for the "voicing". We also have to assume, that B&O engineers, that are fanatic about sound, and Jeff Rowland neglected to properly "voice" it. Would people buy this amp, after finding in the sales literature, that the company just packaged inside standard inexpensive Icepower modules? Most likely not and that's whole reason for the "puffing". http://www.psaudio.com/stellar-m700-mono-amplifier/ |
The useful purpose of a custom input stage on most Icepower amps is to raise the input impedance (10K to start with on older versions at least) to enable good performance with higher output impedance tube pre-amplifiers. Its a performance/integration enhancement not just there for "coloration". If pre-amp is lower output impedance SS there is no benefit at least on paper.
Benefits of improved power supply in any amplifier should be obvious.
|
The PS Audio amps are being built as a lower cost alternative to their higher priced fare.
|
i Wonder which class D power module PS is using in the Stellar monos? I would think they'd be sharp enough to audition the newer Abletec and Pascal modules and compare them to the Ice and Hypex to use the best performer. Anyone know? Guido?
Thanks,
Tim
|
Their literature says Class D ICE output stage and MOSFET input stage |
What they call "Analog Cell" is just class A Mosfet input stage very
common in many class A or AB amps. It sounds like a lot of hot air (for
class D). Some sort of input buffer is almost always required to eliminate input offsets in the comparator and that sort of thing (which is also where most of the class D artifact actually arises). But this does sound like marketing. |
So the ICEPower and Hypex modules have a built-in buffer, but the configuration is such that manufacturers can bypass it and implement their own if they want to. Without the buffer the input impedance is very low for line level.
This allows manufacturers to add their own sweetener/secret sauce to the amps. Anything from a transformer input, to MOSFETS, op amp, whatever you want. The modules like ICEPower also conveniently provide a 12V source.
Other differentiation can be done in using the ICEPower modules without power supplies built in. This, again, let's manufacturers make their own linear supplies, or whatnot and claim further product differentiation.
Best,
E
|
i Wonder which class D power module PS is using in the Stellar monos? I wouldthink they'd be sharp enough to audition the newer Abletec and Pascal modules andcompare them to the Ice and Hypex to use the best performer. Anyone know? Guido?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, though it is not not very clear as to which exact module is being used, but I venture to speculate PS Audio is using the ASC700 Ice Module. I think the amp nomenclature M700 sort gives a hint. If you look up the specs as far as power, it is rated at 700watts into 4 ohms. I might be wrong however. |
h2oaudio/Henry,
Makes sense that PS is using the B&O ASC700 Ice module when comparing specs. I think you're right since I found this quote from Ps Audio owner, Paul McGowan, in one of his newsletters:
"
The Stellar mate to the Gain Cell DAC, the Stellar S300 and Stellar M700 amplifiers have B and O modules in them for their power amplifier outputs, and what we call an Analog Cell for their inputs. I’ll explain what that is in future posts. It really makes them quite magical sounding."
Thanks,
Tim
|
Nice to see you here Henry.
Dave |
Thanks Dave, Now back to the original questions.
So I get the obvious strengths of Class D. Efficiency, power output & running cool which allows for small form factors. I also understand the weaknesses somewhat. 1. Non-linear & lots of distortion that needs to be cleaned up with an output filter.
So my question is, if it weren't for efficiency & power, would there be any reason to own a Class D amp? Do they beat Class A in any other categories that count for soundquality?
Seanheis1, I typically avoid forum discussion such as this as I feel anything I say can be interpreted as being BIAS, but I feel compel to write a few words regard the discussion at hands. Actually, Class D in general, and particularly Icepower and Hypex have very low distortion figures. Class D output filter is not there to clean up distortion but rather to recover (demodulate) the original audio signal from the modulated signal (carrier signal or switching signal plus the audio signal). Please check out Hypex's specs for their Ncore modules which has impressive distortion figures, and that is an understatement. Having said just that...Does that mean that Hypex Ncore is the holy grail of audio amplification? That depends on in what system and more importantly to whose ears, and that is the question. BTW, I finally decided and have just ordered 2 NCore400 modules to test drive and see/hear what is the rave is all about. I will definitely be comparing the Ncore to the Icepower. It will be interesting to say the least. Henry |
Check this out: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0216/D_Sonic_M3_3000S_Dual_Mono_Amplifier_Review.htmThem’s a lot of notes in the sound ratings at the bottom of the article! Why would anyone with a need for monster power to drive their speakers best not consider something like this? The potential upside is huge for many. Disclaimer: I am not that familiar with Dsonic, just citing this article as reference. Do not know return policy, customer service quality, etc., all things that matter. |
Thanks for the link Mapman. You make a very good point and the days of 60-150 pound amps is really behind us. I would love to hear this amp on my 90db efficient speakers so hear how effortless it must sound. I may:) |
Hifi sound is best when low distortion, effortless and dynamic. I experienced this as hoped in my larger room with larger speakers in particular when moved to 500w/ch Class D amps, but power and current hungry smaller monitors (more limited output in comparison) benefited similarly as well.
When I sold hifi back in 1978 (Tech Hifi), we had amps from 15 to 120w/ch available for comparison from many of the top lines of the day in a decent sized showroom.
Guess what? With any kind of decent speaker, the 120 w/ch model in a line always sounded best. Assuming realistic levels and dynamics matter. If not, or room is small, then not such a big deal. |
|
Given the power rating, the module of the D-Sonic 3/3000 is probably the Pascal X-pro2. There is also a mono version of this amp, called 3/1500M, probably based on Pascal X-Pro1. See:
http://www.d-sonic.net/products/mono/
Cost of D-Sonic 3/1500M is $1300 per chassis.... And $2600 for a pair of 1500W Pascal amps is a pretty good deal.
Per my old notes, Dennis at D-Soic can be reached by phone at:
800-862-7998 Guido
e |
