???
Based on extensive auditioning of the Virtue amps, plus doing mods on the cheapo Sure Electronics, Arjen Helders and Meanwell boards, when you keep any of these Tripath based boards within their linear power range, you can get some VERY good sound from this type of class D configuration.
Note, I love really good tube gear, like Atma-Sphere, VTL, some of the ARC stuff, CJ and so on, including a super-custom Cary amp. To me these amps all sound better and FEEL more emotionally connected than any of their SS competition except maybe Nelson Pass' finest which are close...
And IMO these cheap-o Tripath TK2050 type amps, with just a few good quality caps like Mundorf Zn can really run with the aforementioned amps. And I'm disregarding price, just comparing for the best overall sonics.
Also, please note these results ran counter to my expectation bias.... I had always believed the good tube gear would smoke the Virtues...
And yet, after comparing to the above 5 top quality amps, I simply had to admit the Virtues were better in some areas, close in others, and overall equal or better than all except the Atma-Sphere and the super customized Cary SET with the 14" tall tubes... and even then it was hard to pick a favorite.
So, I'm really surprised about your comments. Have you had a chance to hear any of the Tripath 2050 type amps?
Again, I should emphasize that these Tripath based amps REALLY sound better when running on good high-current batteries. They just aren't the same when powered with smps or even with some excellent high current linear supplies. If you haven't heard them on batteries, you haven't really heard them at their best.
Could you clarify? Are you saying it's impossible or improbable to design a good sounding class D amp? Or that when driven to clipping they don't sound good? Or that the speaker impedance needs to be very uniform and non-reactive?
Based on extensive auditioning of the Virtue amps, plus doing mods on the cheapo Sure Electronics, Arjen Helders and Meanwell boards, when you keep any of these Tripath based boards within their linear power range, you can get some VERY good sound from this type of class D configuration.
Note, I love really good tube gear, like Atma-Sphere, VTL, some of the ARC stuff, CJ and so on, including a super-custom Cary amp. To me these amps all sound better and FEEL more emotionally connected than any of their SS competition except maybe Nelson Pass' finest which are close...
And IMO these cheap-o Tripath TK2050 type amps, with just a few good quality caps like Mundorf Zn can really run with the aforementioned amps. And I'm disregarding price, just comparing for the best overall sonics.
Also, please note these results ran counter to my expectation bias.... I had always believed the good tube gear would smoke the Virtues...
And yet, after comparing to the above 5 top quality amps, I simply had to admit the Virtues were better in some areas, close in others, and overall equal or better than all except the Atma-Sphere and the super customized Cary SET with the 14" tall tubes... and even then it was hard to pick a favorite.
So, I'm really surprised about your comments. Have you had a chance to hear any of the Tripath 2050 type amps?
Again, I should emphasize that these Tripath based amps REALLY sound better when running on good high-current batteries. They just aren't the same when powered with smps or even with some excellent high current linear supplies. If you haven't heard them on batteries, you haven't really heard them at their best.
Last edited:
Hi,
This indeed would be closer to any digital revolution, I don't mention it because it's an old hat. I have been using a PC as my main media source (not just audio, video too) since around 2005... Physical media is SO last millenium.
The ones you mention are analogue volume controls and ones that have quite poor subjective performance compared to some alternative options (mainly the ones that do not integrate crappy Cmos Op-Amp's).
Ciao T
This indeed would be closer to any digital revolution, I don't mention it because it's an old hat. I have been using a PC as my main media source (not just audio, video too) since around 2005... Physical media is SO last millenium.
The ones you mention are analogue volume controls and ones that have quite poor subjective performance compared to some alternative options (mainly the ones that do not integrate crappy Cmos Op-Amp's).
Ciao T
AVE...
In practice this doesn't matter. We don't want transparent systems. We want systems that change the sound. That's why tube amps are in demand...
My statement is based on the definition of High Fidelity system, that can be found online. Please, tell me, where I wrote that this is dogmatic and can't be changed or upgraded with newest research results...
This doesn't mean that we can ignore those results. On the same basis we could ignore the research you listed, but this wouldn't be scientific...
Measurements can be redesigned to include newest data on audibility and criteria can be widen. It's simple: Hi-Fi audio system is the system that doesn't change the signal, and doesn't add any audible distortions. What is audible is defined by research. And this include any kind of distortion, also phase distortions...
If you can distinguish two audio system by listening to them, then at least one of them is not a Hi-Fi system just because it modifies the sound...
In practice this doesn't matter. We don't want transparent systems. We want systems that change the sound. That's why tube amps are in demand...
The reason is simple - digital form of sound is not changed by devices that store and distribute it. Yet still some audiophiles believe that USB, network and S/PDIF cables must cost at least 100USD per meter...
Last edited:
The comment was merely adressing the thread starter's lines.
Likely, those audio consumers who turned horny from 'digital receivers' side-stepped to music servers, TV/FM tuner cards, etc.
As Mr Loesch handsomely added, around 2005, the year the Japanese manufacturers turned off the 'digital' integrateds.
(i recall fooling with early Peavey D-amps and pwm supplies +20 years ago, somewhat amusing that to this very day folks think of Class D as 'digital' )
Likely, those audio consumers who turned horny from 'digital receivers' side-stepped to music servers, TV/FM tuner cards, etc.
As Mr Loesch handsomely added, around 2005, the year the Japanese manufacturers turned off the 'digital' integrateds.
(i recall fooling with early Peavey D-amps and pwm supplies +20 years ago, somewhat amusing that to this very day folks think of Class D as 'digital' )
Hi,
And that makes it true?
So you assume a Wikipedia Definition is actually a scientific accurate statement?
If those results derive from faulty methodology, poor statistical analysis etc. and are shown by people with a proven agenda that has little regard for the truth, at the very least we need to take these results with a gain of salt, about the size of everest, I personally simply reject then, as most scientist would.
As you are not familiar with this research you may be unaware of the context, methodology etc., which are in both cases fully double blind AND beyond reproach. You should make sure you at least know research you are willing to disregard as flawed.
I know the research by the ABX Mafia very well and I am very familiar with the flaws, flaws that I may add have been pointed out repeatedly, in public, to these researchers without being taken on board by them and being addressed.
Ignoring the garbage produced by the ABX Mafia because of the severe flaws in the methodology IS scientific, ignoring research one does not even know is not.
Again, yes they CAN, but no-one seems to be doing it on a systematic, large scale level, with the possible exception of Stereophile and former HiFi News Editor Martin Colloms and possibly Paul Miller.
There will always something that research has not yet defined. Thirty years many issues nowadays agreed to have at least potential audible impact where not known/considered relevant (it is from those days that the 20-20K, low distortion concept comes from).
More to the point, a system that, on a system level (and I exclude the recording side here, which is another can of wriggly slimy worms I can assure you) does not introduce audible deviations from "neutrality" simply does not exist, regardless of price.
Simply listen to real music and then to "HiFi" System.
Actually, this is so patently untrue, it should not be in need of reply.
As there is at this stage no such thing as a system that does not modify the sound we may safely conclude that High Fidelity as you define it does not exist.
Now BE CAREFUL HERE.
You are suggesting that Tube Amplifiers are in demand because they change the sound in a way this is audible, yes?
And in what particular parameters, in your view, do tube amplifiers introduce AUDIBLE changes?
Frequency response?
Harmonic Distortion?
Intermodulation Distortion?
You are not making any sense. I have no ideas where you get your delusions from.
Ciao T
And that makes it true?
So you assume a Wikipedia Definition is actually a scientific accurate statement?
If those results derive from faulty methodology, poor statistical analysis etc. and are shown by people with a proven agenda that has little regard for the truth, at the very least we need to take these results with a gain of salt, about the size of everest, I personally simply reject then, as most scientist would.
As you are not familiar with this research you may be unaware of the context, methodology etc., which are in both cases fully double blind AND beyond reproach. You should make sure you at least know research you are willing to disregard as flawed.
I know the research by the ABX Mafia very well and I am very familiar with the flaws, flaws that I may add have been pointed out repeatedly, in public, to these researchers without being taken on board by them and being addressed.
Ignoring the garbage produced by the ABX Mafia because of the severe flaws in the methodology IS scientific, ignoring research one does not even know is not.
Again, yes they CAN, but no-one seems to be doing it on a systematic, large scale level, with the possible exception of Stereophile and former HiFi News Editor Martin Colloms and possibly Paul Miller.
There will always something that research has not yet defined. Thirty years many issues nowadays agreed to have at least potential audible impact where not known/considered relevant (it is from those days that the 20-20K, low distortion concept comes from).
More to the point, a system that, on a system level (and I exclude the recording side here, which is another can of wriggly slimy worms I can assure you) does not introduce audible deviations from "neutrality" simply does not exist, regardless of price.
Simply listen to real music and then to "HiFi" System.
Actually, this is so patently untrue, it should not be in need of reply.
As there is at this stage no such thing as a system that does not modify the sound we may safely conclude that High Fidelity as you define it does not exist.
Now BE CAREFUL HERE.
You are suggesting that Tube Amplifiers are in demand because they change the sound in a way this is audible, yes?
And in what particular parameters, in your view, do tube amplifiers introduce AUDIBLE changes?
Frequency response?
Harmonic Distortion?
Intermodulation Distortion?
You are not making any sense. I have no ideas where you get your delusions from.
Ciao T
Thorsten,
I think he has at least one point. If you define 'HiFi' as not modifying the sound from input to output (except level), which he does if I read correctly, and he can audibly distinguish between two systems in a reliable controlled test, then by definition at least one of those two is not 'HiFi'.
jan
I think he has at least one point. If you define 'HiFi' as not modifying the sound from input to output (except level), which he does if I read correctly, and he can audibly distinguish between two systems in a reliable controlled test, then by definition at least one of those two is not 'HiFi'.
jan
Since this is a thread about amplification, substitute the word "amplifier" for "system." Thorsten is correct- there are no hifi systems by this definition. Plenty of hifi amplifiers, though.
Not in the context of amplifiers, no, I have to disagree. It's the minimization of the difference between output and input that defines high fidelity for an amplifier.
Now, that should NOT be conflated with the idea (mistaken) that high fidelity in an amplifier is always an engineering goal in an overall system context. One excellent example would be the Carver subwoofer- in order that the system achieve its targeted performance, an amplifier was used that had an output that in no way resembled the input. The overall system was high fidelity, but the amplifier could in no way be called a high fidelity amplifier. Its highly nonlinear performance was part of an overall successful system design (a damn clever one, IMO).
High Fidelity can be defined as "Signal In = Signal Out" or as "Sounds like the real thing."
It depends on what you want to be fidel (faithful) to. I believe there is a large overlap between the two.
It depends on what you want to be fidel (faithful) to. I believe there is a large overlap between the two.
But this is the context of amplifiers. They have no sound (other than humming if the laminations are loose). To get sound, you need stuff hooked up to the input and to the output.
That may seem overly picky, but I think the distinction is important. "Sound" is a system attribute, not an amplifier attribute.
That may seem overly picky, but I think the distinction is important. "Sound" is a system attribute, not an amplifier attribute.
No, no, no and no !!!!!
If it is an amp it doesn't output any sound ...........
Regards
Charles
If it is an amp it doesn't output any sound ...........
Regards
Charles
Yes, Charles, it would be nice to be able to wire the amplifier output directly into our neurophysiology but unfortunately we can't AFAIK unless you have some revelations to announce?
@Pano, that's what you're here for, entertainment, no?
@Pano, that's what you're here for, entertainment, no?
Actually when John Lennon saw his first direct box used in a recording studio (Abbey Road) he asked why he couldn't be hooked up that way and avoid a microphone!
Every so often someone does a demo where they have a live musical performance stop and a recording take over. If the room acoustics are proper no one notices. Does that meet the definition of high fidelity?
We all know Lennon was a walrus so it probably could have been done 🙂 coo-coo-cachoo
I'd imagine doing this with enough rigour for scientific muster might be difficult - doubt it would pass the the DBT criteria but interesting nonetheless?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.