I think exactly the same way (just as I've posted and posted again all around many times), my sentence was meant to raise the conclusion that they will never be "perfect" (since everything that mankind does can progress).
Although the concept of perfection is not exactly subjective, in my opinion.
Perfection is a fixed or dynamic concept depending on what it is attributed to.
When it is attributed to a technology it pertains to the State of the Art (of that technology).
Even in craftsmanship the expression "fatto a regola d'arte" is used for the same reason.
Please note that Google did not translate the sentence in quotation marks for me.
From other translators I get: "done perfectly" or " done to perfection".
Literally translated it would be: "done according to the rules of art".
This way perfection ceases to be an abstract and unattainable concept.
Just like the so-called subjectivity.
I don't know the conditions surrounding that event, but I can say that in my experience Hypex amps need to be quite warm to give the best acoustic performance.
At least here, the more it plays, the better it sounds.
For those who might argue that it's me, my ears and my brain that get used to it, I reply that it's not like that because on more than one occasion I walk away from the "listening position" for long periods of time and when I come back to listen it's reasonably not the same as it sounds when it was just turned on.
Even if it's not certain, this could be a conditioning factor though.
Well, correct me if I’m wrong (and I often am!), but I believe you’re referring to Dylan from Buckeye. He’s mentioned multiple times that he cannot distinguish any differences in an A/B test between EIGENTAKT amplifiers. While I agree that, all else being equal, the differences might be minimal, in practice that’s rarely the case. The synergy between an amplifier and one’s speakers is paramount. That’s why Bruno is upgrading the first version to the second-generation topology, the 1ET6525SA.
There are others as well but he is certainly one of them...Please explain in more precise terms what you mean by "synergy with the speaker". With load independent amps such as the Hypex and Purifi, I fail to see how there can be any "synergy", no matter how you choose to define it.
By “load independent,” I think it’s more accurate to say “less load dependent.” In practice, no amplifier is entirely load independent. I suggest you try it for yourself, as I have noticed audible differences between the 1ET400A, 7040SA (both discontinued), and the 9040BA. Admittedly, the first-generation units used Hypex power supply units (PSUs), while my 9040BA features a Micro Audio PSU with capacitor block, which could contribute to the differences.
It’s not a night-and-day difference, but my electrostatic speakers are noticeably happier with the 9040BA in every aspect. The improvements aren’t as evident with my Audio Physic speakers, but they are still present. This suggests that even with amplifiers designed to be load independent, the synergy between the amp and the specific characteristics of the speakers can make a meaningful difference. Of course, your mileage may vary - I’m just sharing my experience.
It’s not a night-and-day difference, but my electrostatic speakers are noticeably happier with the 9040BA in every aspect. The improvements aren’t as evident with my Audio Physic speakers, but they are still present. This suggests that even with amplifiers designed to be load independent, the synergy between the amp and the specific characteristics of the speakers can make a meaningful difference. Of course, your mileage may vary - I’m just sharing my experience.
To be honest, it seems to me that you take what the manufacturers or whoever says a little too literally.
Such categorical statements, frankly too categorical, I don't think are realistic and they are not at all convincing for me.
But obviously believing in what you choose to believe is still part of your freedoms.
Imagine where Hypex or Purify amps development will be in 5 years.
What will be said in comparison with these current ones?
What will be said in comparison with these current ones?
I would add: if any; in the sense that it is not even certain that the desired synergy will be achieved.
Furthermore, while I'm at it, I'd also add that the desirable synergy should consider the trio of elements: power amps/cables/loudspeakers.
Cables certainly do their part, even from a sonic point of view.
For those who don't believe the latter, they certainly do it from an electrical point of view.
Small or big difference.
Again, define "synergy" and how you measure it. Look at the frequency response versus load measurements for the Purifi amps- there seems to be no variation large enough for any audible interactions. Just because you claim to "hear" differences does not mean they actually exist, right?
Gain settings simply match the system gain between preamp and amp to the sensitivity of the speaker. Being able to use the full output of the amp if necessary without leaving anything in the tank is of value to some, to others, they might prefer to use a lower gain setting to maximize the sinad, though with the Purifi amps there should be no audible difference between low and high gain settling. It can certainly be called synergy but not in the way others are using the term.
Gain settings simply match the system gain between preamp and amp to the sensitivity of the speaker. Being able to use the full output of the amp if necessary without leaving anything in the tank is of value to some, to others, they might prefer to use a lower gain setting to maximize the sinad, though with the Purifi amps there should be no audible difference between low and high gain settling. It can certainly be called synergy but not in the way others are using the term.
Without splitting hairs, I simply believe that @MtlJazz, when talking about synergy, as I did when I replied him, meant to talk about good interaction or cooperation (between power amp and loudspeakers; then I would add "cables" too: amps/cables/loudspeakers).
Just as the Cambridge Dictionary reports as synonyms for synergy.
Speaking of how to measure it, I think that's what your ears and your brain and your sense of Hearing are for, don't you?
Don't forget that we're on a forum called diyAUDIO.
Load independent not only with different test resistor but also on different reactive load.
Perfect enough for me.
Perfect enough for me.
You are talking about something that is purely subjective and thus strictly a matter of opinion, not fact. As such, it is meaningless to discuss or debate.
I don't think subjective impressions are meaningless to discuss. I take them with a grain of salt, but I still find them valuable. I value my own impressions very highly. In fact that's all that really matters to me at the end of the day, my musical enjoyment.
I traveled 5 hours this weekend to visit a friend that has a stereo Purifi amplifier.
It does some crazy interesting things. The separation between instruments is above anything I have heard. Everything sounded like it was being presented in 4k resolution. Music was presented almost as individual instruments making music, and not as a "whole".
This was really cool for details and resolution, but somehow this seemed not to flow.
Music didn't seem to have it's normal coherence and after a bit it became a bit old.
Purifi reminded me of certain products we described as analytical and slightly dry in the late 90s. It sounded a bit thin in the critical midrange. It is impressive in certain ways, but leaves me bored. I couldn't really get into the music itself.
Jeff agreed with my assessment, and had already planned to sell his Purifi amplifier. I can see where a lot of people would love the Purifi, coming from warm or thicker sounding SS gear. Coming from BEL amplifiers is a different story. I have similar black backgrounds, better dynamics, a fuller sound and the same neutrality. The BEL amplifiers are making music that takes you away, when I compare them with Purifi.
Next up is to get my hands on a Nilai amplifier to compare.
It does some crazy interesting things. The separation between instruments is above anything I have heard. Everything sounded like it was being presented in 4k resolution. Music was presented almost as individual instruments making music, and not as a "whole".
This was really cool for details and resolution, but somehow this seemed not to flow.
Music didn't seem to have it's normal coherence and after a bit it became a bit old.
Purifi reminded me of certain products we described as analytical and slightly dry in the late 90s. It sounded a bit thin in the critical midrange. It is impressive in certain ways, but leaves me bored. I couldn't really get into the music itself.
Jeff agreed with my assessment, and had already planned to sell his Purifi amplifier. I can see where a lot of people would love the Purifi, coming from warm or thicker sounding SS gear. Coming from BEL amplifiers is a different story. I have similar black backgrounds, better dynamics, a fuller sound and the same neutrality. The BEL amplifiers are making music that takes you away, when I compare them with Purifi.
Next up is to get my hands on a Nilai amplifier to compare.