T-amps such as SI Sure, Charlize etc... in context of "traditional" solid state?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
T-amps such as SI Sure, Charlize etc... in context of "traditional" solid state?

Hey, I'm quite new to the T-amp thing, late on the wagon I know, but I fear I am being converted. Just out of interest though.
If you were asked to compare on a price level what you would expect to spend on a solid state "conventional" amp such as those produced by NAD, Marantz, Cambridge audio etc, where would you say we sit?
I know this requires a lot of generalisation so please save yourself the bother of telling me that it's not as simple as making general equivalents due to the various factors. But say a complete newcomer to T-amps was to ask how much he'd have to spend to get comparable performance from an off the shelf model from the likes of the aforementioned to one of the above T-amps with a good PSU and the usual cap mods etc, what would you say? Obviously assuming he doesn't require a lot of power.
I'll start the betting at about £300 ($600) ;)
 
:rolleyes:
Hahaa... I knew all I'd end up with was that response... no offense intended of course, I am fully aware that one man's diamond is another's horsesh%t and I'm not trying to debate subjectivity based views on what is good versus the objective approach (I have my views on that one but this isn't the place to rake through all that crap as has been done over and over). That's not what I was asking for.
I don't seek a subjective opinion, more possibly a technical one. Surely it is fair to say that if we are looking at quality certain traits/capabilities, call them what you will, are generally more desirable and others less so. "Clarity", "Soundstage", "Detail", "Distortion" ad infinitum... the list could get long but you get my point. I'm not talking about subtle harmonic distortions and colourations, more the big issues.
So... to try again, say T-amps had never been introduced, maybe even exclude all chip amps from the equation. What would you have expected to pay for an amp that worked to such a standard as the better tripath designs had you had a listen and not been told the price?
If nothing else it gives you a chance to provide a financial opinion on T-amps and their worth :xeye:

Oh, by the way, this is not actually to convince me, I have a 1st Gen SI T-amp already and several other Tripath boards ordered from overseas. I'm quite willing to put money where my curiosity is. I was trying to make a value comparison for a friend considering the purchase of a premodified Tripath 2024 based amp versus the conventional ones. He's buying from ebay and doesn't have the opportunity to test.

Regards, Doug.
 
Nuuk said:
Assessing the quality of hi-fi according to what it costs is meaningless!


Forgot to say... I agree, more or less, but making a cost/value (as distinct from value for money) comparison is not, it is a fundamental part of the design and marketing stage of any product defining the end price and to a large degree whether it will be successful. I find the T-amp to be an interesting thing to look at as in conventional terms it seems to provide high functional value for very low cost. I am looking to estimate the magnitude by which it would be undercutting conventionally competitive products, at least functionally.
 
I would agree that the performance vs cost aspect of the postage stamp sized 2024 amps is very impressive. However it is impossible to draw any analogies to any amps other than those made with 2024 chips.

You might think it outperforms a Krell or other mega amp, if that is the case then you have save yourself a whole load of cash.
 
Puffin said:
However it is impossible to draw any analogies to any amps other than those made with 2024 chips.

I'm afraid I have to completely disagree, that's your opinion and I in no way seek to make you change i, but I could give you a dozen analogies in this situation, Take a ferrari 430 and a Nissan Skyline, the ferrari costs over three times as much but with the same driver and conditions will do exactly the same lap time round a track. One is 4 wheel drive, the other is rear, one has 2 seats the other 4, one is very light, the other pretty hefty, based around very different engines, one turbo, the other not, totally different style and probably drive very differently. However it is still entirely possible to make comparisons of functional capability given the huge differences between them - i.e. Braking distance 1/4 mile times, 0-60 times, turning circle, top speed, torque output.
Basically they perform very differently but it is still entirely possible to draw comparisons which relate to the cost/value balance.

If you don't agree that's absolutely fine, I'll just give you another tediously long and detailed anology
:smash: ;)
 
Not at all, I welcome any well put argument. From your post I think you are saying that you can't compare a supercar and a production sports car as they both go fast?

If this is what you are asking my response would be "in many ways" mainly and most relevantly by comparing their technically measurable specifications and performance and comparing to see how they differ and what effects this might have.
The only thing you can't do is say they are the same in any respect other than their capability to submit a similar laptime (analogous to the overall performance) while the nuances in handling and feel of either may be preferable based on a subjective view (analogous to the subtle differences between two good amplifiers).

However while there are these subtle differences may swing a buyer either way the net result of the actual measurable performance differences is essentially the same.

As a result the Skyline in comparison represents high value/low cost to the ferrari's high cost/high value. The question is now why would you pay the extra? If you gave someone looking for performance an opportunity to do a blind comparison between the two without any idea what either car was (though I accept this is impossible in the case of a car) then asked them to compare and estimate the cost of each I dare say the estimates would come out pretty similar. Hence cost is relevant and entirely comparable though it may not be what you expect.

Within the above blurb there are lots of comparisons which can be made..... The point was that ACTUAL performance can be compared as it is an objective area where good and bad are defined, subtle differences can't because they are in a subjective area where each person has their own preference.

Anyway.. this all seems a little irrelevant now, I'm only hoping to make you understand where I'm coming from.

I'll leave it at that.
Good night and thanks for the discourse.;)
 
doogyscoot said:
Hey, I'm quite new to the T-amp thing, late on the wagon I know, but I fear I am being converted. ................

I have been converted. I was building - listening to tube amps for years, heard some hype about the Sonic Impact amps from tube people and ordered one out of curiousity (cheap). I had horns and SE at the time. After fixing their bass roll-off I was hooked. I then ordered some UCD 180 AD s. Initially less exciting in the treble but more correct I think.
The reason they sound better than tubes IMHO is their "load invariant" behaviour, they are neutral into any speaker. Some would say their lack of bloom is sterile sounding.
They sound better than bi-polar SS as the sound of the output devices is gone (slight grain ) you are probably just listening to the sound of a small inductor and cap. Mosfets do grain free treble well like tubes but seem to me to lack guts in the midrange this could be as the bass seems soft and overblown compared to bi-polar amps which do bass really well. No offence to other amp owners as this is just my own opinion. If they can get the distortion down further they may sound better but it may just be guilding the lily.

So my opinion is excellent value for money.
 
Thanks Fred, that's a nice bit off input.
You wouldn't care to expand on what you think chip amps could be sold for if we didn't know they were chip amps would you :D

I may just get an answer one day ;)

Very OT Fred, but how are the kids behaved in NZ? I hear they are looking for teachers and I graduate as a tech teacher in 1 year... The kids in Glasgow seem too preoccupied with stabbing each other and listening to happy hardcore to do much learning :(
After a short shore leave climbing Mt Cook in NZ my dad said he seriously considered not going back to his ship when he was an Electrical engineer in the Navy many moons back. Guess it's just as well he did... for me at least.
 
doogyscoot
I also tried chip amps LM3886 and they are good, so good I don't have any inclination to build discreet as I doubt they would be any better in a significant way. To my ears they still have a slight grain or "texture" to them in common with discreet SS amps. I use a chip amp daily.
Jeff Roland sells amps based on the LM3886 beautifully made. I can understand your comment about hiding the fact they use chips, HiFi has always had a flavour of the month. Class D is here to stay though, it is good technology, and so are chip amps.

Kids here are probably no different. Gangs drugs etc, we are just seeing the first meth amphetamine babies entering the system and it is not good. NZ is not like the UK 30yrs ago with a tropical climate sad to say.
 
Re: T-amps such as SI Sure, Charlize etc... in context of "traditional" solid state?

doogyscoot said:
Hey, I'm quite new to the T-amp thing, late on the wagon I know, but I fear I am being converted. Just out of interest though.
If you were asked to compare on a price level what you would expect to spend on a solid state "conventional" amp such as those produced by NAD, Marantz, Cambridge audio etc, where would you say we sit?
I know this requires a lot of generalisation so please save yourself the bother of telling me that it's not as simple as making general equivalents due to the various factors. But say a complete newcomer to T-amps was to ask how much he'd have to spend to get comparable performance from an off the shelf model from the likes of the aforementioned to one of the above T-amps with a good PSU and the usual cap mods etc, what would you say? Obviously assuming he doesn't require a lot of power.
I'll start the betting at about £300 ($600) ;)

This is all "highly" reliant on the quality of the speakers and "somewhat" reliant on the quality of the source as well. Information needed in order to answer the question, is missing, as is the answer. ;)

As for speakers related to amplifiers: Do the speakers perform much better OR only slightly better if given firm motor control? Most sealed box speakers would be more reliant. A generally boomy ported speaker is reliant; however, a "generally" non-boomy ported speaker won't reveal as much difference between different models of amplifiers. A speaker that lacks for appropriate drive may exhibit "jukebox bass" booms that indicate the lack of motor control (electronic dampening), and amplifiers do vary on this.

You're quoting the T-amp, which is a BTL amplifier, and BTL/bridged do have a bit stronger motor control--not really inherent, but because bridged amplifiers compensate better to subtract the effects of power supply design goofs. Power supply directly relates to motor control / electronic dampening and in retail models its "likely" to get something long on appearance, but lacking on function.
Hey, I'm trying to say, either compare it to another bridged amp or compare it to a regular amp that has a really fine power supply (whether its pretty or not).

As far as source related to amplifiers: Does the amplifier or source have an inbuilt preamplifier, and do they match reasonably or differ wildly? Preamplifiers can make up this difference, but they also come in just as much variety. The issue needs addressed because it occurs before the amplifier, thus any error is "amplified" by any amplifier. So do check out the source equipment to see how much amplifier and speaker quality is actually useful for a given source.

EDIT: Is that general enough? ;)
 
Give me an answer that starts with $ and relates to the question and I'll die a happy man ;)

No but seriously, That was a very informative post, thanks. I am fairly aware of the shortcomings of chipamps and their dependence on a good clean power supply, as well as the the importance of matching to the "right" set of speakers, though its nice to have a more technical summary to tie up what I have gleaned from reading through some of the threads on here. If noone is willing to put a figure up for whatever reason fair enough. It was just a bit of idle curiosity that is clearly not going to get an answer.

Regards, Doug.
 
$2000.

How's that? It's a number I think I've seen quoted in a review or two about Sonic Impact, Trends, etc.

You are asking an impossible question, you know. There seems to be a wide range of quality at any given pricepoint, and that seems to be more true as you move up the food chain, Get to the $10K range and a good deal of your money is going to metal fabrication.

Used or new? Homebuilt? Chinese kits on eBay? Niceties like soft start, switchable speakers, sub outputs, tone controls, etc? So what does a $ really mean?

Seriously I feel that the quality of sound from one of these little Tripaths (I like the Amp 6 especially) kicks the *** of most any mass-market piece of gear going up to several hundreds of dollars, easily a bargain in that realm. Get to the thousands, well, the advantage is not at all clear. Most people around the forums feel a good class A will easly beat the best class-D, but obviously those have their drawbacks, and I don't want to speak for everybody.

Oh, and when in doubt, listen. This is the DIY forum after all.

--Buckapound
 
Buckapound said:
$2000.

How's that? It's a number I think I've seen quoted in a review or two about Sonic Impact, Trends, etc.

You are asking an impossible question, you know. There seems to be a wide range of quality at any given pricepoint, and that seems to be more true as you move up the food chain, Get to the $10K range and a good deal of your money is going to metal fabrication.

Used or new? Homebuilt? Chinese kits on eBay? Niceties like soft start, switchable speakers, sub outputs, tone controls, etc? So what does a $ really mean?

Seriously I feel that the quality of sound from one of these little Tripaths (I like the Amp 6 especially) kicks the *** of most any mass-market piece of gear going up to several hundreds of dollars, "easily a bargain in that realm. Get to the thousands, well, the advantage is not at all clear. Most people around the forums feel a good class A will easly beat the best class-D, but obviously those have their drawbacks, and I don't want to speak for everybody.

Oh, and when in doubt, listen. This is the DIY forum after all.

--Buckapound

Thanks, but really there's no reason for all the well moderated hostility, if people don't like a question they are perfectly entitled to not answer. I don't think it's an impossible question give =n that I was quite clear about the fact I was only after general ideas/opinions without hard data backing them up.

"I feel that the quality of sound from one of these little Tripaths (I like the Amp 6 especially) kicks the *** of most any mass-market piece of gear going up to several hundreds of dollars"

This is exactly what I was after as far as responses go.

As for listening, I try my best, I have a T-amp with a good SMPS but will reserve full judgement until I have put in a few mods. I agree that it is very good but I know I am not getting the best from it due to the speakers and source I am using. With more time and opportunity to listen (my daughter is in bed by 8PM and the rest of my spare time is spent entertaining her) I'm sure I will have a better impression.
 
doogyscoot said:


Thanks, but really there's no reason for all the well moderated hostility, if people don't like a question they are perfectly entitled to not answer. I don't think it's an impossible question give =n that I was quite clear about the fact I was only after general ideas/opinions without hard data backing them up.

"I feel that the quality of sound from one of these little Tripaths (I like the Amp 6 especially) kicks the *** of most any mass-market piece of gear going up to several hundreds of dollars"

This is exactly what I was after as far as responses go.

As for listening, I try my best, I have a T-amp with a good SMPS but will reserve full judgement until I have put in a few mods. I agree that it is very good but I know I am not getting the best from it due to the speakers and source I am using. With more time and opportunity to listen (my daughter is in bed by 8PM and the rest of my spare time is spent entertaining her) I'm sure I will have a better impression.

Simply put, you'd either have to do it yourself or else the price tag will exceed the mass market class. That $2000 is no joke.

Caveat: The Tripath BTL amplifier's performance can be experienced at its potential with very high efficiency 4 ohm speakers and approximately 12vdc operation. Using higher voltage (14vdc) for 8 ohm and/or less efficient speakers does reduce fidelity to some extent. Use with inefficient speakers may reduce fidelity (during actual use) to below that of Radio Shack's $100 Sherwood (and similar mass market products).

I have experienced this caveat with my Tripath BTL (T-amp and others).
Four of these http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-852 to make 4 ohm, 94db MTM (in-box is even more efficient), was a nice answer to that caveat. There are many other options, but none quite so "goof proof," in my opinion.
They (both channels) plus the Tripath BTL can reach theater volume level. Doing it on solar power is priceless. ;)

This was last used about a year ago. Personally, I think its easy to get a generally good sound from a Tripath BTL, like the T-amp--but the chipamp can give me exactly the sound that I prefer and at a lower price.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.