Indeed, it is complicated, but not hopeless.I just found my old article and with that i'm going to stop my interference with this topic as it indeed doesn't really add to the topic itself :https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/just-some-other-unspoken-truth-high-end-audio-corneliu-neculea/
Well, the question of comparing two DAC modules IS this topic as how our brain perceives the signature of either is most relevant. Hence the differences in implementations of the same module by different companies or in this case, what a fellow DIYer would like to tackle.
To be honest the purifi modules are horrendously overpriced Vs the actual cost to build them. Obviously they think people will pay for the R&D. Lots will and lots won't.
You don't even have the topic correct here: the op asked about two different class d amp modules. Nothing to do with DACs.
Is this a novel concept? The whole marketplace operates thusly. Are people really that naive? Running any business has overhead which must be paid for by, can you believe it?- sales revenue!
Purifi is the current state of the art in class d. It's a very well engineered, well designed, well performing product. The market usually allows a premium for premium products, which by any measure, the Purifi amps qualify. People who want state of the art, can afford it, and can appreciate it, are the market. By all signs, this is a large enough market to support Purifi's efforts as they seem to be thriving.
Yes, in fact most Class-D amplifiers are almost all the same, except for a few small differences.
These differences can be very important, but they don't make an amplifier 4-5 times more expensive.
Seen the experience and history of some of the guys from Purifi, I don't see why R&D would be even an argument.
That would be a simple task for them at this point.
Depends on the rest of your system and how resolving it is. Purifi is an ultra low distortion amp. If you have a tubes, vinyl, etc., it's probably not going to be appreciated.
No it's not current state of art.
All brands already mentioned, and far beyond are from the same well engineered state of art.
They just have different priorities.
Overhead is also not an excuse.
In even decent quantities a decent Class-D amplifier can be made for $15-50 raw BOM cost.
That's full production, incl assembly and everything else.
In higher quantities, those numbers drop down rapidly.
It's a waste of time to debate pricing based on costs of manufacturing in a market where prices are determined by what the market will bear.
NOT TO BE A JERK HERE (AND I KNOW I'M PARTIALLY TO BLAME FOR "POKING THE BEAR" A BIT WITH REFUTING RESPONSES TO THIS PERSON'S PONTIFICATIONS), BUT CAN WE GET BACK ONTO MY ORIGINAL TOPIC?
In that case, yes there are people that pay thousands of dollars for a grain of dirt.
There is nothing to be discussed than anyway? Topic can be closed?
I personally don't think it's a waste of all.
I think it's extremely valuable to let people know and understand the real value of things.
Yes, I agree, that's why I asked;
"Compared on what level?
There is a lot more than just pure plain and raw performance."
It would seem you are quite uneducated when it comes to how markets work. The real value of things? You mean your conception of value. The real value is the price the market will bear.
The topic is purifi vs pascal. You ought to focus on that. If you want to complain about the disparity between market prices and costs of production, start your own thread.
You claim purifi is not state of the art class d. What is the basis of that claim? Surely anyone who has done a bit of research into modern class d amp design will be overwhelmed by the references to purifi as "state of the art class d". Anyone who has read their patents and white papers will understand why.
I never claimed that at all?
I only claim that there a plenty of other companies out that that deliver extremely well engineered amplifiers as well.
If you consider that as state of the art or not, is totally depending on context and often completely subjective.
Everyone who ever designed Class-D amplifiers themselves (which I have quite a few), will also agree that the basics of all those amplifiers are the same, except for some small practical changes.