You know, Brad, the audio business reminds me more and more of the art business. Nothing objective, all subjective.
That reminds me of a scandal in London in the ate 60ies or very early 70ies. A few journalists got a monkey to paint a painting or two. They then exhibited it in one of London's prime art galleries. And roared with laughter as they read the critic reviews - promising young artist, understand colours like no-one lese around, and so forth.
A few days later, they photographed the budding young artist and printed his portrait. A scandal exploded, and several resignations were called for, a few of which were elicited from very notable names of the art world of the day.
That reminds me of a scandal in London in the ate 60ies or very early 70ies. A few journalists got a monkey to paint a painting or two. They then exhibited it in one of London's prime art galleries. And roared with laughter as they read the critic reviews - promising young artist, understand colours like no-one lese around, and so forth.
A few days later, they photographed the budding young artist and printed his portrait. A scandal exploded, and several resignations were called for, a few of which were elicited from very notable names of the art world of the day.
There's probably a black market in them (simple plug-in transformers) in California
But they have taken them off of shelves at retailers I believe. I saw some transformers yesterday at Fry's, but they turned out to be ones with no cases, good old-fashioned ones. I didn't look inside the boxes to see if they were dual-bobbin or not.Perhaps you can still get them as replacement parts via mail order.
Now one could contrive to make a supply that achieved the low standby current required by the California Energy Commission that still had low mains-to-output capacitance. But it would be hard-pressed to meet the operating efficiency standards.
I believe, when you put your power supply together in your enclosure(s), and if it is a "hifi" product, you can request an exemption to the efficiency standards.
But this is all for your own good, don't you see? [sarcasm]
Enid May Lumley
Birth: Jan. 23, 1938
Ellsworth, Hancock County
Maine, USA
Death: Jul. 15, 2008
Yuma, Yuma County
Arizona, USA
Enid May Lumley (1938 - 2008) - Find A Grave Memorial
Enid used to write "Lumley's Corner" for The Absolute Sound" Magazine, and also wrote for the International Audio Review. (aka Auntie Enid Lumley)
**********
Yuma Regional Medical Center is where she discovered she had advanced lung cancer in March of 2008. Enid passed away at La Mesa Healthcare Center, Tuesday, July 15, 2008.
Birth: Jan. 23, 1938
Ellsworth, Hancock County
Maine, USA
Death: Jul. 15, 2008
Yuma, Yuma County
Arizona, USA
Enid May Lumley (1938 - 2008) - Find A Grave Memorial
Enid used to write "Lumley's Corner" for The Absolute Sound" Magazine, and also wrote for the International Audio Review. (aka Auntie Enid Lumley)
**********
Yuma Regional Medical Center is where she discovered she had advanced lung cancer in March of 2008. Enid passed away at La Mesa Healthcare Center, Tuesday, July 15, 2008.
how about a little change of direction since the thread is somewhat stalling?
have you heard about the Devialet D-Premiere?
well it's a class-D amp at first look but the makers insist it's "something different".
it's just been reviewed at Stereophile on 12/28/02: Devialet D-Premier D/A integrated amplifier | Stereophile.com
by Mr. Atkinson himself, who has nothing but praise for its sound. AND its measurements are exceptional: Devialet D-Premier D/A integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com
here's a more in-depth description (well, not exactly advanced EE, coming from 6moons, but anyhow): 6moons audio reviews: Devialet D-Premier
since maybe you're not exactly interested in all the literature that comes with any 6moons review, I'll help you skip to the interesting part:
Enter Pierre-Emmanuel and Mathias. They discovered a way to match both types of amplifiers by using not one class D amplifier for each class A channel but four. Each of these runs at a 90° phase difference to the next even though receiving the same input signal. With four phase-rotated co-amplifiers, the class A amp only sees 1/4th of the switching load. An additional advantage is the output resistance of the class D amps being reduced by 75%. Both sets of amplifiers connect in parallel to each channel’s speaker terminals.
so, we have a high-voltage, low current class-A amp that runs in parallel with 4 phase-shifted class-D amps. I'm trying to get my head around the concept and understand if this is more than marketing blurb. let's try and not jump to conclusions and just label it a nice, expensive box with a halo of clever marketing surrounding it.
what's certain is that the high-frequency carrier is completely absent in the Stereophile measurements which tells us something may actually be different to be worth some discussion.
what do you think?
have you heard about the Devialet D-Premiere?
well it's a class-D amp at first look but the makers insist it's "something different".
it's just been reviewed at Stereophile on 12/28/02: Devialet D-Premier D/A integrated amplifier | Stereophile.com
by Mr. Atkinson himself, who has nothing but praise for its sound. AND its measurements are exceptional: Devialet D-Premier D/A integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com
here's a more in-depth description (well, not exactly advanced EE, coming from 6moons, but anyhow): 6moons audio reviews: Devialet D-Premier
since maybe you're not exactly interested in all the literature that comes with any 6moons review, I'll help you skip to the interesting part:
Enter Pierre-Emmanuel and Mathias. They discovered a way to match both types of amplifiers by using not one class D amplifier for each class A channel but four. Each of these runs at a 90° phase difference to the next even though receiving the same input signal. With four phase-rotated co-amplifiers, the class A amp only sees 1/4th of the switching load. An additional advantage is the output resistance of the class D amps being reduced by 75%. Both sets of amplifiers connect in parallel to each channel’s speaker terminals.
so, we have a high-voltage, low current class-A amp that runs in parallel with 4 phase-shifted class-D amps. I'm trying to get my head around the concept and understand if this is more than marketing blurb. let's try and not jump to conclusions and just label it a nice, expensive box with a halo of clever marketing surrounding it.
what's certain is that the high-frequency carrier is completely absent in the Stereophile measurements which tells us something may actually be different to be worth some discussion.
what do you think?
I commented earlier somewhere in diyaudio that I was puzzled by the high noise, which dominates the HD measurements shown in JA's sidebar. And this is at the 0 dB gain setting iirc. When Atkinson turned the gain to maximum the noise was atrocious, but even he admits that this is an often-unrealistic condition.
I am looking forward to the followup in which the performance of the phono input will be discussed.
The concept of using class A amps "inside", or alongside, of class D is not new. There's prior art and I believe at least several patents. Perhaps the quadrature arrangement of the switchmode amps described is novel. But in that connection, be mindful of Gerald Stanley's patented interleaved approaches, which as directly-switchmode designs, increase the equivalent switching frequency while drastically reducing output ultrasonic noise.
I'm open-minded, but I can assure that, from personal experience and study, it is very difficult to do something truly new in switchmode and hybrid amps. It is a minefield of IP and patents.
I didn't mean it that way, I'm highly skeptical when "revolutionary" inventions are mentioned, especially in the context of audio. actually, the mere mention of the word "technology" (followed by an acronym) in a review makes me rise an eyebrow. I mean, damn it, this is what marketing guys in corporations do, they invent/change names hoping that everyone will buy into thinking there's really something going on there LOL
I'd be interested in learning more about this, I've searched for the mentioned patent, thanks.
(this still leaves the question: why is the HF noise of the "conventional" D-amps to be dreaded? I haven't found any credible explanation yet)
It's not necessarily to be dreaded. But the noise in the Devialet is high within the audio band.
This is a very slippery domain, Brad.
In analog technology, one is torn between two factors: lower input stage bias is good for the S/N ratio, but higher bias produces better slew rates.
So one has to juggle between these two much of the time.
Both can be done, but to be done right, they cost money to be made to work really well in both fields.
Optimal bias with bipolars appropriate to the impedances of source and feedback divider is a place to start (the ratio of e sub n to i sub n is ideally the same as the source resistance). But then (as amply discussed already and in other threads) the transconductance can be too high for easy compensation of the loop, so we degenerate with emitter resistors, and add noise thusly. We can have the best of both worlds with strategically placed inductors, to roll off the HF gain but allow low resistance at audio frequencies. See Jensen and his predecessors/successors.
JFETs are almost free from input current noise, for typical impedances, and their e sub n drops with the 1/4 power of drain current. So to a point more current is better, and the available current for slewing is higher. But the transconductances are typically lower than bipolar stages, and the loop is usually easier to compensate against oscillation.
If we look at the Devialet measurements, as opposed to their non-referenced claim of 130dB signal-to-noise, there is something wrong IMO. And it's not due to a lack of money
Brad, what I referred to was that damned, niggling little voice inside your head that says why settle for 40 V/uS, when you can do like 80 V/uS?
And you know you have to sacrifice something for doubling your slew rate, and still you can't say to yourself, oh heck, I don't NEED 80 V/uS ...
We're really much like gamblers, always trying to beat the odds.
And you know you have to sacrifice something for doubling your slew rate, and still you can't say to yourself, oh heck, I don't NEED 80 V/uS ...
We're really much like gamblers, always trying to beat the odds.
I wonder if class D had been invented in 1937 and class AB last week would we be be even more impressed by AB than I am ? Nearly the efficiency of class D with the purity of class A ? So simple to implemented that it can be attempted by music lovers rather than engineers ? I suspect class D could have been made workable in 1937 with beam tetrodes ( 807 especailly , TT21 was a post war version for transmitters based on KT88 ) ? Earth to Mr Wave where are you , what do you know ? The LS 50 ( Gu , FU 50 ) ?
I'm personally interested in class D as it has a lot of advantages. no, it's not the efficiency, f**k the planet. joking, but it has other "practical" advantages, like smaller size (and weight), smaller heatsinks (weight again), can accommodate a smaller enclosure (weight again), if used with SMPS weight and size can be reduced again. and if all that adds to a lower price (including lower P&P due to lower size and weight) and we find a way to make them really good, why not? things change, I think it's unhealthy to just say "this is how they made the good stuff back in the day, I'll stick to that". if I were to resort to the over abused car analogy, everyone kept building long throw engines for a long time in a false belief that they're superior torque-wise. no-one makes them anymore, they're a relic of the past. but go back in time 40 years and tell that to the people who made them.
what surprises me is that expensive (as in really expensive) implementations begin to emerge. the 40k Mark Levinson, the 20k TAD. they are huge, heavy and look more like class A behemoths. still, they keep getting not-so-enthusiastic reviews. my only interaction with class D is my current, UCD-based amp and a very short listen to a Jeff Rowland. if I were to comment on my amp's sound, I'd say it somehow correlates with what most reviews describe.
but why? what is inherently inferior with class D? what makes the Devialet better (if it really is better)?
what surprises me is that expensive (as in really expensive) implementations begin to emerge. the 40k Mark Levinson, the 20k TAD. they are huge, heavy and look more like class A behemoths. still, they keep getting not-so-enthusiastic reviews. my only interaction with class D is my current, UCD-based amp and a very short listen to a Jeff Rowland. if I were to comment on my amp's sound, I'd say it somehow correlates with what most reviews describe.
but why? what is inherently inferior with class D? what makes the Devialet better (if it really is better)?
Last edited:
Not sure about your car engine analogy? What is a "long throw" engine? One that has a stroke value bigger than its diameter value, as say 80x90 mm? That would be an undersquare engine, while a say FIAT 1.3 litre, 86x55.5 mm would be an oversquare engine, since its diameter is bigger than its stroke. If so, then you have it upside down, such oversqaure engines were all the rage 40 years ago, while today, most are even extremely oversquare, e.g. Honda's 2.4 litre engine has a bore of 88 mm and a stroke of 98 mm or some such.
I also wondered, so I talked to some friends active in the German auto industry (my old time friend works in Bosch, refining electronic fuel injection systema, for example) and was told that long stroke engines were easier to cool and to be made compliant with the Euro emission norms. With modern alloys, they can also be made to last very long, and with the introduction of compressors and turbo chargers to large series small and cheap cars, the issue of revs was off the table anyway. These days they get 100 bhp per litre specific power below the 5,000 rpm line, using turbos. By comparison, look at the just discontinued Renault Clio RS, it also had a 2 litre engine, it did produce 204 bhp (or 102 bhp per litre), but at 7,400 rpm, yet even so, its emission figures cannot compare with a standatd say VW 2 litre trubo blown engine, and its torque peaked at 201 Nm, whereas the VW engine has a torque of 350 Nm.
Last but not least, turbocharged low revving engines do much better using alternatve fuels, such as natural gas, alternative versions of diesel fuel, etc.
In short, the tables were turned by no whim of the manufacturers, but by ever more demanding emission and fuel efficiency regulation. An oversquare engie can also do it, but at a higher price point, so the industry simply took the easier way out, as it always will.
My own experience with digital amps is also very modest, 5 in all so far, none of them wildly expensive.
To dispense with the price issue - it varies from economy to economy, but locally, for the price of a digital amp, one can do an analog one for the same money or just a bit more, so their price starts to become interesting only after a certain power point, where they take the lead. That would be, off hand, say 150 WRMS or so. Not many people are into that kind of power, most find that say 50 WRMS is enough for them.
On the technical side, not one of the amps I did hear would truly satisfy even analog build criteria. Their power transformers were on the small side, as were their capacitors. I actually talked one of the owners into doubling his filter capacitor capabilities by simply adding two more of the same per channel (he had, as per the instruction manual, 2x10,000 uF per channel for a nominal 100 WRMS/8 Ohms output, so I made him add another pair of capacitors per channel, thus doubling his capacitance), and the result was audibly better. No revelation, but it did play better tunes.
My general feeling was that all of them were built by the book and measuring gear, not by audtioning.
And they were definitely all made to a price, the main sales pitch being "here's a lot of clean power for not a lot of money". The moment you started to add bits and pieces, such as reference voltages done as they should be, it suddenly stopped being cheap and started costing serious money. The price increased much faster than the audible benefits. They had great bass, solid midrange, but their treble always gave them away. You could never hear brass being struck by wood, it always came across as a sound you could not make out how it was made.
So, in my view, good, promising, but as yet, not convincing. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that no matter what the maths say, the output devices needed to be faster still, well into microsecond range, nanoseconds don't seem to cut it.
I also wondered, so I talked to some friends active in the German auto industry (my old time friend works in Bosch, refining electronic fuel injection systema, for example) and was told that long stroke engines were easier to cool and to be made compliant with the Euro emission norms. With modern alloys, they can also be made to last very long, and with the introduction of compressors and turbo chargers to large series small and cheap cars, the issue of revs was off the table anyway. These days they get 100 bhp per litre specific power below the 5,000 rpm line, using turbos. By comparison, look at the just discontinued Renault Clio RS, it also had a 2 litre engine, it did produce 204 bhp (or 102 bhp per litre), but at 7,400 rpm, yet even so, its emission figures cannot compare with a standatd say VW 2 litre trubo blown engine, and its torque peaked at 201 Nm, whereas the VW engine has a torque of 350 Nm.
Last but not least, turbocharged low revving engines do much better using alternatve fuels, such as natural gas, alternative versions of diesel fuel, etc.
In short, the tables were turned by no whim of the manufacturers, but by ever more demanding emission and fuel efficiency regulation. An oversquare engie can also do it, but at a higher price point, so the industry simply took the easier way out, as it always will.
My own experience with digital amps is also very modest, 5 in all so far, none of them wildly expensive.
To dispense with the price issue - it varies from economy to economy, but locally, for the price of a digital amp, one can do an analog one for the same money or just a bit more, so their price starts to become interesting only after a certain power point, where they take the lead. That would be, off hand, say 150 WRMS or so. Not many people are into that kind of power, most find that say 50 WRMS is enough for them.
On the technical side, not one of the amps I did hear would truly satisfy even analog build criteria. Their power transformers were on the small side, as were their capacitors. I actually talked one of the owners into doubling his filter capacitor capabilities by simply adding two more of the same per channel (he had, as per the instruction manual, 2x10,000 uF per channel for a nominal 100 WRMS/8 Ohms output, so I made him add another pair of capacitors per channel, thus doubling his capacitance), and the result was audibly better. No revelation, but it did play better tunes.
My general feeling was that all of them were built by the book and measuring gear, not by audtioning.
And they were definitely all made to a price, the main sales pitch being "here's a lot of clean power for not a lot of money". The moment you started to add bits and pieces, such as reference voltages done as they should be, it suddenly stopped being cheap and started costing serious money. The price increased much faster than the audible benefits. They had great bass, solid midrange, but their treble always gave them away. You could never hear brass being struck by wood, it always came across as a sound you could not make out how it was made.
So, in my view, good, promising, but as yet, not convincing. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that no matter what the maths say, the output devices needed to be faster still, well into microsecond range, nanoseconds don't seem to cut it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.