That sounds...
Like the experience of someone who dropped a (very possibly better) amplifier into a system which was tuned for "pleasing" sound from a (very likely worse) amplifier.
Many, many audiophiles make this mistake with many component evaluations, forgetting that the "system" context is everything. One tunes a "system" to sound pleasing on the music one plays, then drops in a different component and expects everything to sound the same (or better), without tuning the system again to suit the new component. Now, if all audio components were actually "neutral" in tonal balance, and completely free of distortions, then this approach would be fine, but as we know, most audio components are far from "perfection", so the system gets "tuned" to suit the components which are there. Tuning can consist of speaker placement, vibration control add ons, cable choices, rack choices, choices of phono cartridge and turntable, and on, and on... Every one of these choices affects the balance and sonic presentation of the system. If one then just drops in a different component, and then does not re-visit the tuning process, one is at a total loss for making a reasonable evaluation.
I have no problem with subjective evaluation, as this is how most of enjoy our systems, by listening to music! But the failure to recognize that we tune our systems to suit the components at hand is a major fail.
I do not need to hear about others' experience with Ncore amplifiers as I already have my own. My N-core amp beat out a very good Pass Labs X.5 series amp, flat out. It also even more easily out performed a PS Audio BHK amp. This was vs. a NC-400 DIY amp, which took me awhile to get it just right sounding in my system (choice of input wiring, choice of fuses in the SMPS 600, choice of footers, etc, all made large differences in presentation).
My point of view is not necessarily that the Ncore is the best ever amplifier, but that it is the best reasonably priced amplifier which I am willing to afford. I did recently hear a Bricasti M-25 (an $18K amplifier) in my system, which I did prefer to my NC-400, but the level of preference was nowhere near worth $16K dollars to me.
Like the experience of someone who dropped a (very possibly better) amplifier into a system which was tuned for "pleasing" sound from a (very likely worse) amplifier.
Many, many audiophiles make this mistake with many component evaluations, forgetting that the "system" context is everything. One tunes a "system" to sound pleasing on the music one plays, then drops in a different component and expects everything to sound the same (or better), without tuning the system again to suit the new component. Now, if all audio components were actually "neutral" in tonal balance, and completely free of distortions, then this approach would be fine, but as we know, most audio components are far from "perfection", so the system gets "tuned" to suit the components which are there. Tuning can consist of speaker placement, vibration control add ons, cable choices, rack choices, choices of phono cartridge and turntable, and on, and on... Every one of these choices affects the balance and sonic presentation of the system. If one then just drops in a different component, and then does not re-visit the tuning process, one is at a total loss for making a reasonable evaluation.
I have no problem with subjective evaluation, as this is how most of enjoy our systems, by listening to music! But the failure to recognize that we tune our systems to suit the components at hand is a major fail.
I do not need to hear about others' experience with Ncore amplifiers as I already have my own. My N-core amp beat out a very good Pass Labs X.5 series amp, flat out. It also even more easily out performed a PS Audio BHK amp. This was vs. a NC-400 DIY amp, which took me awhile to get it just right sounding in my system (choice of input wiring, choice of fuses in the SMPS 600, choice of footers, etc, all made large differences in presentation).
My point of view is not necessarily that the Ncore is the best ever amplifier, but that it is the best reasonably priced amplifier which I am willing to afford. I did recently hear a Bricasti M-25 (an $18K amplifier) in my system, which I did prefer to my NC-400, but the level of preference was nowhere near worth $16K dollars to me.
@barrows, my second system has a second-hand AVR Marantz SR4500, with the speaker terminals already changed. € 117 at home 
. After my modds it sounds much better!
Just now: Jimmy Cobb Quartet - Cobb's Corner (2007), SACD, Chesky Records, US
With only DR17
. After my modds it sounds much better!Just now: Jimmy Cobb Quartet - Cobb's Corner (2007), SACD, Chesky Records, US
With only DR17
@barrows, my second system has a second-hand AVR Marantz SR4500, with the speaker terminals already changed. € 117 at home
Just now: Jimmy Cobb Quartet - Cobb's Corner (2007), SACD, Chesky Records, US
With only DR17
Interesting but irrelevant to the topic of the thread.
It was to make a more extreme example of an improvement that may not really be such.
"Sporadic" is the key word here. I definitely do not hear this in my set up, and its type is arguably one of the most revealing that one can buy for mids and treble: A compression driver (in my case the coaxial B&C DX50) into a horn (in my case a Le Cleach profile Azurahorn with a 600mm mouth). I also have a Visaton TL16H as a supertweeter (yes, it is not a Fostex T500AMKII, I know).
Since amplifier and speakers make one circuit, at the end, this is likely also tied to the type of load. In my case there is no granularity. But I am happy to hear that they (may) have solved some problems in some corner cases (as a scientist myself I know that corner cases are often important to identify intervention areas which lead to vast general improvements).
No, holistic means considering all sides of the problem at the same time. So they also build components that are meant to play will together. This includes handling the various types of hysteresis (induced) distortion.
I would not describe this in this way. I am sure there was at least feedback from one project back to another, ane knowing Bruno Putzey's MO, of course there is a LOT of feedback! (Now I can hide under the desk.)
You really suggest that Purifi amps and loudspeakers, by "playing well together", have some form of interrelationship to fight hysteresis distortion?
Well I heard a lot of audiophilia nonsense this year, but when this is what your suggest, it just in time makes the top of that list
Last edited:
You really suggest that Purifi amps and loudspeakers, by "playing well together", have some form of interrelationship to fight hysteresis distortion?
Well I heard a lot of audiophilia nonsense this year, but when this is what your suggest, it just in time makes the top of that list
No, each component makes its part. However, the fact that these amps have an *input* for feedback FROM the speakers definitely opens up interesting possibilities. But I did not imply that we are there. Read the sentence after what you quoted.
This said, please be more respectful. You do not know me, just as I do not know you.
Can I ask where this feedback exist ?
----
On another general input. There seem to be no way for a simple guy - aka not an engineer - to find agreements to go by. Most people agree that NC400 and 1ET400A are excellent class D amps, so far there is no clear competitor.
Second, you all argue in such a way that on the surface one might think there are a handful of engineers present on DIYA who know more and can design a more elegant circuit than what Bruno has offered for almost a decade, yet no such product has been offered. Why is that ?
If the answer is "because it is difficult" then perhaps some of you should eat some humble pie and be glad that Bruno has created among the best class D there is.
I'm not saying there are class A/AB which outperform class D, it all depend on your preference, listening habit, music style etc etc. The point is, as with everything els, just because a certain class does not suit you don't give that person the right to slam the tech or does who do enjoy it.
It would be similar as to saying a dedicated track car with room for 2 is stupid because you can't fit your family of 5 in it.
So, take a deep breath and remember what Nelson said: Its entertainment not dialysis.
I firmly believe that once one has a NC400/NC500/1ET400A based amp, one could consider it as a near-definitive choice and be happy, and work on the other components / unless one wants to do multi-amping, or play a bit (it is fun!) or has idiosyncratic components (like 81Db woofers in a very large room, or tweeters that with a NC400/500 give “granular” treble). But this is my opinion and YMMV.
It is easy: look for Dunning-Krueger symptoms. If you spot them, avoid the recommendations. Such as trying to teach Bruno Putzeys how to improve CMRR on his modules or how putting Teflon tubing in an amp improved the sound, or the hordes of those that claim that Class D and tweeters are not compatible. Or failures in the application of the scientific method (add phase delays to a signal to a digital signal - perceive in a non blind way that the sound becomes devoid of “life”) and then claim that amps with less phase rotation are better.
We do not have the tools to recognise this though. And I understand that for laymans it can be next to impossible. Some of the above can even unjustly damage the reputation of excellent components and this is unacceptable.
THIS! Proper Class D design is not simple. It requires engineering and mathematics at a very high level and it cannot be compared to building a triode amp. Not even at the assembly phase. I would not dare do this.
One example: I get the impression that a lot of people think that “600khz switching frequency” means that there is a 600khz clock that triggers a comparator. In the past, yes, but more modern designs compare at a much higher frequency and only ALLOW switching after a certain time has intervened, so that it cannot happen more than 600.000 times a second. Some architectures, like the most recent ICEedge, allow up to 40M comparisons per second (no idea how many are actually performed), but only up to 700K switches per second. This if done properly has a immense impact on SQ and measurement.
But ppl drool over more recent GaN designs which, because of their simplicity, dimensions, and lack of designer background, most likely only compare-and-switch. These products claim better THD, IMD, SN and when you look at the actual data they are worse than NCore and Purifi.
QED
I'm not saying there are class A/AB which outperform class D, it all depend on your preference, listening habit, music style etc etc. The point is, as with everything els, just because a certain class does not suit you don't give that person the right to slam the tech or does who do enjoy it.
It would be similar as to saying a dedicated track car with room for 2 is stupid because you can't fit your family of 5 in it.
So, take a deep breath and remember what Nelson said: Its entertainment not dialysis.
KUDOS
As the text explains, "this is done to eliminate the contact resistance of J3 from the output impedance", so it has nothing to do with the speaker as such.
I think “ FBH and FBC must be connected to OUTH and OUTC not more than a few cm away from the amplifier. This is done to eliminate the contact resistance of
J3 from the output impedance.” refers to the fact that the connections most be close. But you may be right.
Haha....how many AES papers by audio engineers do you want based on their subjective opinions?
Maybe they are not directly based on subjective opinions, but there are papers claiming that DSD is suitable for high quality reproduction of music signals AND papers claiming that it is unsuitable. Both with measurements. Unless one is an expert it is often difficult to understand what these papers actually mean (hint: they usually contain useful information).
Thanks for your inputs. I did look into eGaN-Fet and it has potential, but for now, I think Ncore, Purifi and ICE is a safer bet.
EXACTLY! We should all stand up and give a standing ovation to this post. And even though I believe that many add ons give only a minor improvement, if at all, often the synergy of the whole chain, including cables and of course power conditioning, is well tuned by years of tweaks – and in these years one gets "attached" to the resulting sound (it is not only an emotional thing, BTW). So a measurably better amplifier may sound worse for both objective and subjective reasons in the same chain. OTOH, if one hears an improvement, it is quite unlikely that this comes from a worse amplifier, if nothing for "intuitive probability theory", a "common sense" argument.
Again, I agree 100% here. It is a concept that I have tried to convey to some folks I met on this and other forums, but I never found words clearer that these.
Smoked by my Apollon NC500 Monos on ALL parameters: The well reputed Spectral DMA-50 final amplifier, an Abrahamsen V4.0UP power amp (essentially an Electrocompaniet rebuilt by Electrocompaniet's founded in his new company). Also a NAP 250 DR brought by an acquaintance.
I agree with you. I also think that it is at such a level that in order to get tangible improvements one should rather invest in other components, such as preamp (if you need one), source(s), and speakers, room correction. Investment in all these should be of an order of magnitude lower than any investment to upgrade the amplification in order to get similar improvements.
It has enormous potential. I have a few GaN based power supplies for my mobile devices - 45W and 63W in less than half of the size of the previous power bricks. This tells me that moving at least the power supply to GaN would further reduce the size of an amplifier.
I see the most promising improvements to power amps in energy consumption and size - being "greener" is one of the two reasons I accepted the job I have at ARM (the other one is the chance to give a contribution in security to the architecture that is well poised to soon dominate most areas of computation, and since I trust no one, including myself, to do a perfect job in this area, at least i will know whom to blame).
So, I will upgrade my amps in the future only if I can get the stuff smaller, greener, and better sounding (or at least similar sounding but better measuring, for bragging). The only stuff that is not shrinking are the speakers, which sort have to be big if the route is high efficiency (large horns, light an big cone woofers...).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.