Digital amp beat them all? Audio Physic Strada .


The german magazine Stereoplay has(in its June issue) a review of the new Audio Physic Strada monoblocks.
Like most german audio magazines this has also a preferance for ranking products in a hierarcic manner.
Interestinly, the new monoblocks from Audio Physic gets
60 point (on a scale that end with 63 points), while the
mag´s former reference Krell FPB 650 M gets 59 p.
For your knowledge;Electrocompaniet Nemo gets 58 p, the same as Pass X-350.
Althought the fact that I am sceptical about ranking systems
in Audio,I find it remarkable that a digital amp allready
can compete with some of (what is regarded) as "top-flight"
amps!
The Strada monoblocks has a switched powersupply and some
innovative curcuitry,e.g. it seems to be handling signals
of low amplitude in analog way, and switches over to digital mode for higher amplitudes in some form of bridge
output section. Sorry, my understanding of technical german
isn´t splendid.
They deliver 255 W/each in 8 Ohms, and costs about 15000 Euro a pair.
What do you think? Are digital amps taking over the scene
in the years to come, or will there be a "resistance movement" corresponding to that of CD-anlog?
dinos

Showing 10 responses by marakanetz

...it's just there are more and more artificial imaging lovers(even more possibility to create!). In fact I do not accept TACT performance as a true reproduction of a recorded music.
If I would use it it might add on some digital collection in addition to my analogue. CDs sounded wonderful(even with correction bypas) since the DAC inside this unit can be used successfully with any transport. As far as I know about TACT it still uses analogue controlled output stage. What about an Audio Physic?
...after auditioning TACT RCS2 in my analogue setup I've said to myself addressing my dealer: How dare you to give me that artificial mega-buck crap???... and came back to my simple and passive preamp. Was this an attempt to "correct" or digitalize the turntable's ability to naturally image without any correction engine...???

Yes the signal is being sampled to be transfered to the digital domain and than amplified with room correction or other artificial imaging that can be set up through the appropriate software.
...first RIAA is needed for the records produced before 1954 i.e. before RIAA standard of mastering records. So RIAA equalisation makes nothing to the records produced after 1954(or maybe earlier).
Second somehow the placement of the musicians in the stage had been altered as to comparing to the no-preamp. Every instrument sounded brighter but at the same time clearer. The worst thing happend to the human voice that is being first echoed wherever you need it and wherever you don't and again changing(doesn't matter sometimes to worse sometimes to better) depending on the recording.
The thing is that my analogue rig is well established and reproduces darn good whatever had been placed on the record and in most of its cases do not need a correction or any artificial imaging. It has no floor or ceiling and images to the level of live performance exept huge symphony orchestras that need to be heard live only.
How can Tact reproduce 8Hz? To tell you simply it can't since digital freequencies are limited. With larger number of upsampling you may improve bass but the highs will cut off. So any digital device might be good for all audiable freequencies but in order to image it has to use a digital correction engine like in Tact.
Whatever there are pros or cons about digital amps/preamps, I'm damn sure that this new high-tech is now mega-overpriced and in most of the cases still "factors out" leaving one on the nominator and the classic analogue amps/preamps in denominator.
Do your algebra instead of reading or listening to the reviews and factor out extra zeros :)
...as long as 8Hz is on the groove it's being transfered there to the cartridge and it's being transfered further on to the amplification diveces. Certainly the amplification will not be on the same level as the audiable freequencies and there will be the output curve. Different cartridges can deliver the same 8Hz with the different amplitude depending on how accurate can cartridge read. My Lyra Helikon I believe does it on the respectful level.

On the digital level it's just being simply cut of and 8Hz is toooooo far away from the cutoff point.

The zeros are the values in this particular case that standing after the first digit. In Digital case there are more than you need so if you factor them out you will still end-up with analogue way as more valuable investment still.

Maybe it will be the other way arround later on who knows...?
...even if I use it for analogue i will not use a correction system. If I use it without correction the signal will not be converted to digital and will go straight to the analogue domain.
I'm not talking of 8Hz as the freequency reproduced on the same level as all 20Hz...20KHz audiable freequencies. I'm talking of 8Hz harmonical components of an audiable freequencies that can go upto 52KHz. They're signifying the tembre of a particular voice and instrument. Making the sound of tum or drum 3d and more real(for a small example). Analogue playback starts from mechanical transfer that has no limit to the freequencies whatsoever.
Whenever it's 8Hz or 32kHz it's all there in the stylus in the first place...
Shortly saying we've got two ways to create imaging: one way is to get as full range as possible capturing all the sub and over-harmonics or with current digital limitations we should create a digital immulator of 3D space by micro-phase shift(s) of a different channels according to the room dimensions or whatsoever(when you will get a chance to deal with TACT you'll know better).
The first analogue way creates a natural(or at least as closed to) and the other way creates pseudo-imaging.
I've clearly stated what I've heard from the same source with different setups before that the placement of instrument/musicians was different but although more clear in the sound stage. Thus from that I'm making my conclusion here. I've actually expected TACT to do some magic, but was dissapointed for the price you'll have to spend for that unit vs. more valuable analoge options.
Once again to say I've "factored" it out leaving 1 in numerator and analogue in denumerator.
...despite anything else, I would not refuse to win TACT RCS 2.2x and entered the lottery during the NYH exhibition yesterday.
Hmmm... What I believe is that what TACT unit accommodates in one box isn't necessary to the vast consumer and that makes this unit overpriced (please forgive me in re-directing this discussion). There are some consumers that don't want built-in DAC or correction. I admit that this unit accommodates the state of the art DAC that is able to bring regular red-book CD playback to the level that is very close to vinyl even with poor transport. In fact if this unit had an option to break up into different boxes it would be much more marketable. TACT RCS is relatively new thing in the audio market and somehow already there are used units with drop bellow the half of its price. I'll expect this unit to be cheaper but than again TACT will come up with something new and will descontinue the previous as all the manufacturers usually do. In my situation I would just only ask the manufacturer to brew for me a custom unloaded version without correction and even DAC leaving only digitally controlled analogue volume control and get their DSP later until my CD collection will be someway even close to half of my analogue. My CD collection stays for not long and serves for information purpouses only(meaning i sell them right after I've listened to them and buy different ones) so the demand on reproduction quality is quite low in comparison to analogue. And finally It is not even neccessary to have separate boxes It is good enough have a basic preamp box that can be upgradable by insearting cards just like you do it on your home PC: card for DAC, correction digital Xover, phono, ADC etc...