Jaka Racman said:
So I hope by now that everyone is convinced that Class T is just another Class D 🙂 and that there is absolutely no need to invent Class S or whatever other class that would only lead to more confusion.
Cheers
Gertjan
Jaka Racman said:
Indeed I was! I know classes A, B & C, but didn't realise that "D" was simply choosen as the next letter. Sort of like hurricanes. It certainly leads to confusion, as witnessed in this thread and others.
We usually see PWM amps referered to as "Digital" and class D, so I am not the only one confused on this term. How unfortunate for this class to land on the letter D. 🙂
Oh well, it isn't the first time a techniclal term was misused or misunderstood.
We then understand "Class-D" to mean any switching amp, no matter how the switching is done?
The classification of amplifier operating mode explained above by jacka and phase is right, we can find it in any good electronics textbook, but i think that who speak of 'digital' amplifier is half right because in a class D amplifier we can bypass one conversion (from (Digital(PCM) -> Analog -> PWM) to (Digital(PCM) -> PWM)) and, before this last conversion, perform some kind of digital signal processing.
Regards
Andrea
Regards
Andrea
anbello said:
I don't think you can be half right though, even if you manage to bypass a conversion, you'd still be wise to view the output stage as an analog beast, in fact if you don't, you wont' stand sliver of a chance in hell of having it work and hold together. That actually goes beyond the output stage as well.
"True digital" is now a marketing scheme at best, it impresses the ignorant consumer, nothing more.
Topology classifications:
"amplifier An electronic device used to increase an electrical signal. The signal may be voltage, current or both (power). Preamplifier is the name applied to the first amplifier in the audio chain, accepting inputs from microphones, or other transducers, and low output sources (CD players, tape recorders, turntables, etc.). The preamplifier increases the input signals from mic-level, for instance, to line-level. Power amplifier is the name applied to the last amplifier in the audio chain, used to increase the line-level signals to whatever is necessary to drive the loudspeakers to the loudness required. See amplifier classes.
amplifier classes Audio power amplifiers were originally classified according to the relationship between the output voltage swing and the input voltage swing; thus it was primarily the design of the output stage that defined each class. Classification was based on the amount of time the output devices operate during one complete cycle of signal swing. Classes were also defined in terms of output bias current [the amount of current flowing in the output devices with no applied signal]. For discussion purposes (with the exception of class A), assume a simple output stage consisting of two complementary devices (one positive polarity and one negative polarity) using tubes (valves) or any type of transistor (bipolar, MOSFET, JFET, IGFET, IGBT, etc.).
[Historical Notes marked "GRS" provided by Gerald R. Stanley, Senior V.P. of Research, Crown International, Inc., designer of the famous Crown DC-300, inventor of the Crown K Series switchmode amplifier line and holder of 20 U.S. Patents, with three pending as of 2003.]
[GRS on amplifiers: "At first there were no amplifiers as the very thought of amplification had yet to enter the vocabulary of electronics (another word which had yet to be birthed!). The invention of a three-terminaled device (DeForest Audion U.S. patent 841,386 or later triode) was the invention in 1906 of a more sensitive radio detector and not an element for an amplifier.
By 1912 the triode had become both a vacuum tube and an amplifier (multiple names can be attached to this collective achievement). The oscillator also dates to 1912 giving proof to the saying "When you set out to make an amplifier you get an oscillator and when you attempt to make an oscillator you get an amplifier."]"
I can't resist saying, it seems the ultimate is to combine the two🙂 Welcome to self oscillating class D.
"[GRS on amplifier classes: "Originally it was adequate to distinguish amplifier classes only by the conduction angles of the control elements (tubes or valves). More recently it has been necessary to add distinctions that relate to topology, degrees of conduction and control methods to be able to determine class."]"
"[GRS Historical Note: "Class D is a subset of all possible switch-mode amplifier topologies that is typified by use of the half-bridge (totem-pole) output stage that has two interconnected switches operating in time alternation. The paradigm is that of Loy Barton's class B, but uses the statistics of conduction angle to produce amplification (PWM). There are many subclasses within class D that describe the origins of the modulation. Class D is at least as old as 1954 when Bright patented a solid-state full-bridge servo amplifier U.S. 2,821,639."]"
1954!!!!!!!! and they only got good .... yesterday 🙂 Isn't that fun?!?? Now you see why some still fear it, however I understand the very first cars were lucky if they could make it to the end of the street that they started on, yet I dont' see many horse and buggy/carriages around today other than for novelty, they're no longer practical. I find tubes to be a novelty as well, but it seems bad guitar players love them.
If you liked that, you'll love this.
There's already a Class S, or at least there was, just try and guess what it was?!
"Class S First invented in 1932, this technique is used for both amplification and amplitude modulation. Similar to Class D except the rectangular PWM voltage waveform is applied to a low-pass filter that allows only the slowly varying dc or average voltage component to appear across the load. Essentially this is what is termed "Class D" today. See References Krauss for details."
How they differed:
"[Historical note: the original use of the term "Class D" referred to switching amplifiers that employed a resonant circuit at the output to remove the harmonics of the switching frequency. Today's use is much closer to the original "Class S" designs.]"
All quotes came from here:
http://www.rane.com/par-a.html
I find www.rane.com an excellent info packed site, know it.
Regards,
Chris
I really wish Tripath and other companies would not invent their own amplifier classes, this has been so confusing for so many people including myself. In the end when you figure out the truth your respect for those companies goes way down, because you realise what they are doing is all about the money. Not that money is important, but the merit of their ingenuity should stand on its own and drawing attention to it is nothing more than bragging for the sake of misleading others into thinking your mysteriously better.
So either a company has a technology that significantly improves said technology or it doesn't. The proof will be in how it is accepted as such by the scientific community, and that will add credibility in a far more substancial way than attempts at decieving the ignorant or creating false amplifier classes.
Take Halcro for example, they added no new classification for their amplifiers, which on very short order were accepted as being ground breaking by the general electrical engineering community. So much so that they can fetch incredibly large prices for their products, and justifiably so. In time I hope that their technology will be more widely used at a significantly lower cost. They are already making a class D line for home theater applications.
Terry
So either a company has a technology that significantly improves said technology or it doesn't. The proof will be in how it is accepted as such by the scientific community, and that will add credibility in a far more substancial way than attempts at decieving the ignorant or creating false amplifier classes.
Take Halcro for example, they added no new classification for their amplifiers, which on very short order were accepted as being ground breaking by the general electrical engineering community. So much so that they can fetch incredibly large prices for their products, and justifiably so. In time I hope that their technology will be more widely used at a significantly lower cost. They are already making a class D line for home theater applications.
Terry
In a Ideal World you are right!
In This World there is a big divide between the Engineering Dept. and the Marketing Dept.
"The proof will be in how it is accepted as such by the scientific community, and that will add credibility in a far more substancial way"
on The subject of science / Scientist talk and nobody listens i.e. Global Warming.
Scientist have no credibility in The U.S. At least.
"than attempts at decieving the ignorant or creating false amplifier classes."
There is nothing false about it - Osterizer is now synonymous with Blender.
It is just a name. It is meant to stick in your mind so you won't forget "it".
Just Thinking outloud
Bachiano 😀
In This World there is a big divide between the Engineering Dept. and the Marketing Dept.
"The proof will be in how it is accepted as such by the scientific community, and that will add credibility in a far more substancial way"
on The subject of science / Scientist talk and nobody listens i.e. Global Warming.
Scientist have no credibility in The U.S. At least.
"than attempts at decieving the ignorant or creating false amplifier classes."
There is nothing false about it - Osterizer is now synonymous with Blender.
It is just a name. It is meant to stick in your mind so you won't forget "it".
Just Thinking outloud
Bachiano 😀
Re: In a Ideal World you are right!
It is just a name, but to try and pass it off as a unique class is misleading, proof of which is this thread you started. When this forum first came to be the title originally had "class T" in it, people didn't realize it was a marketing scheme/trademark. We asked that it be changed.
An amplifier topology is much more than a name. I feel that when marketing interferes with facts, it's a problem, which explains my commercial disgust.
bachiano said:
It is just a name, but to try and pass it off as a unique class is misleading, proof of which is this thread you started. When this forum first came to be the title originally had "class T" in it, people didn't realize it was a marketing scheme/trademark. We asked that it be changed.
An amplifier topology is much more than a name. I feel that when marketing interferes with facts, it's a problem, which explains my commercial disgust.
This is the problem, many times especially in audio, a manufacture tries to pass something off as better when in reality it is not. The problem comes in not defining how something is better in an absolute way that means something to everyone potentially using the product. In the world of computers, speed and storage capacity are the primary areas of concern, either something achieves one of those two areas or it doesn't. Even if they do, it can't be at the cost of losing things, memory loss or the like.
In audio, marketing not nearly on the level of the home computer market. There is so much snake oil in audio that when a company remotely resembles it is doing this, nothing can turn me off faster. The amplifier class distinctions were not developed by those making marketing strageties, but by scientists, so for those marketing to feel they have the right to issue new amplifier classes is overstepping their bounds. It clearly shows the level of integrity that they are at, and willing to go to for the their own sake. Likewise it shows that they feel their technology obviously needs more help than its own merits. The best advertisement is thrid party, or word of mouth as they say. If the scientific community decided that Tripaths technology was so unique that it deserved its own amplifier class, then that would be far more impressive, than a marketing sceem that looks like snake oil.
Besides all that I feel they do have some very good products, and they are doing a great service for the audio word. Just not in the most honest way.
Terry
In audio, marketing not nearly on the level of the home computer market. There is so much snake oil in audio that when a company remotely resembles it is doing this, nothing can turn me off faster. The amplifier class distinctions were not developed by those making marketing strageties, but by scientists, so for those marketing to feel they have the right to issue new amplifier classes is overstepping their bounds. It clearly shows the level of integrity that they are at, and willing to go to for the their own sake. Likewise it shows that they feel their technology obviously needs more help than its own merits. The best advertisement is thrid party, or word of mouth as they say. If the scientific community decided that Tripaths technology was so unique that it deserved its own amplifier class, then that would be far more impressive, than a marketing sceem that looks like snake oil.
Besides all that I feel they do have some very good products, and they are doing a great service for the audio word. Just not in the most honest way.
Terry
Besides all that I feel they do have some very good products, and they are doing a great service for the audio word. Just not in the most honest way.
Terry [/B][/QUOTE]
Hi I am one of the new converts to this hobby, a lot of the posts go way above my head but I enjoy reading them, and try to understand as much as possible. There must be hundreds like me on this website who's introduction to class D was the Sonic Impact T-Amp. Tripath of course don't deserve any special praise, but the T-Amp was the perfect package to demonstrate to the music lover how they have been ripped of by Hi-Fi manufacturers for years, with overpriced products. With very little skill the music lover can with an already assembled module autocostruire, Charlize , etc. construct an amplifier of very high performance for very little money.
regards
attilio
Terry [/B][/QUOTE]
Hi I am one of the new converts to this hobby, a lot of the posts go way above my head but I enjoy reading them, and try to understand as much as possible. There must be hundreds like me on this website who's introduction to class D was the Sonic Impact T-Amp. Tripath of course don't deserve any special praise, but the T-Amp was the perfect package to demonstrate to the music lover how they have been ripped of by Hi-Fi manufacturers for years, with overpriced products. With very little skill the music lover can with an already assembled module autocostruire, Charlize , etc. construct an amplifier of very high performance for very little money.
regards
attilio
Why is everyone so down on Tripath
"There must be hundreds like me on this website who's introduction to class D was the Sonic Impact T-Amp. Tripath of course don't deserve any special praise,"
Why is everyone so down on Tripath - As far as I know, the sonic t-amp is a Tripath -
So they must get most of the Credit.
"but the T-Amp was the perfect package to demonstrate to the music lover how they have been ripped of by Hi-Fi manufacturers for years, with overpriced products."
I'm not sure you are 100% right on this.
Maybe you are right when it comes to the consumer "hi fi" they sell in sound advice,
but not when it come to hi fidelity.
It is dificult and expensive to achieve real hi fidelity with technology that is
20% to 50% efficient, even if you DIY.
The reason this technology is so inexpensive is because of it's efficiency and low parts count.
"There must be hundreds like me on this website who's introduction to class D was the Sonic Impact T-Amp. Tripath of course don't deserve any special praise,"
Why is everyone so down on Tripath - As far as I know, the sonic t-amp is a Tripath -
So they must get most of the Credit.
"but the T-Amp was the perfect package to demonstrate to the music lover how they have been ripped of by Hi-Fi manufacturers for years, with overpriced products."
I'm not sure you are 100% right on this.
Maybe you are right when it comes to the consumer "hi fi" they sell in sound advice,
but not when it come to hi fidelity.
It is dificult and expensive to achieve real hi fidelity with technology that is
20% to 50% efficient, even if you DIY.
The reason this technology is so inexpensive is because of it's efficiency and low parts count.
I think you can comment on their marketing practices without relevance to their products.
I don't believe efficiency draws much of a parallel with high quality, look at class A. If you think it's difficult making a good class A, try it with a class D sometime, different ballgame.
I also have no idea where you get the idea it's so inexpensive? If you're talking about a sonic impact OK, but look at it. It's not a UCD or a ZAPpulse or Icepower, it's more of a gainclone.
If you want cheap and inexpensive, off the shelf is where you find it.
I don't believe efficiency draws much of a parallel with high quality, look at class A. If you think it's difficult making a good class A, try it with a class D sometime, different ballgame.
I also have no idea where you get the idea it's so inexpensive? If you're talking about a sonic impact OK, but look at it. It's not a UCD or a ZAPpulse or Icepower, it's more of a gainclone.
If you want cheap and inexpensive, off the shelf is where you find it.
I don't know, this is the most exciting thing about Class D, you don't need the huge expensive power supply, or the large heat dissipating heat sinks. These things lower cost, and you get the same if not better fidelity, than a class A amplifier. I have not heard the sound quality with class A as with class D. I have some class A amplifiers, even they can't match a really good class D. This is why I am pursuing class D amplfiers, likewise you don't need as much wattage as audio manufactures lead us all to believe at one time.
The facts of audio has changed because of the internet. Audio manufactures, can no longer mislead the consumer like they have for years to line their own pockets. I was told that the single most basic inprovement you can make to a system was a more powerful amplfier. I was also told that the more drivers you have in a speaker the better the sound quality. I was also told the you get what you pay for, more money means better sound. All of these things are just not true, they were misleading statements by salesmen, audio reviewers, their maganzines, and their advertisements.
Tripath and others are doing great things for the audio world, and it is just getting started. A sonic impact is just scratching the surface, there is so much more, and will be even more to come.
This doesn't make it right to market things in a misleading way, and Tripath has done this much with their class T campaign.
Terry 😎
The facts of audio has changed because of the internet. Audio manufactures, can no longer mislead the consumer like they have for years to line their own pockets. I was told that the single most basic inprovement you can make to a system was a more powerful amplfier. I was also told that the more drivers you have in a speaker the better the sound quality. I was also told the you get what you pay for, more money means better sound. All of these things are just not true, they were misleading statements by salesmen, audio reviewers, their maganzines, and their advertisements.
Tripath and others are doing great things for the audio world, and it is just getting started. A sonic impact is just scratching the surface, there is so much more, and will be even more to come.
This doesn't make it right to market things in a misleading way, and Tripath has done this much with their class T campaign.
Terry 😎
Efficiency VS. Cost
Hi Terry, you've hit it right on the nail.
And now my responce to classd4sure.
"I think you can comment on their marketing practices without relevance to their products."
Yes you can, but attilio7 did not make that distinction.
"I don't believe efficiency draws much of a parallel with high quality, look at class A."
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying above.
I did not use the word "Quality" anywhere in my last post.
all I said was that "It is difficult and expensive to achieve real hi fidelity with technology
that is 20% to 50% efficient, even if you DIY.
Anyway, What does Quality have to do with Class A???
"I also have no idea where you get the idea it's so inexpensive?"
Let's see - compare any class d module offered today i.e. UCD, ZAPpulse, Icepower etc.
to the example below.
A UX-245 will cost me $90 to $200. and I need two.
For a cheap OT with a lousy freq. response - $100.
and for a good one $500 to $1000. and I need two.
If you go with IT trannies $100 to $200 - with caps not too bad.
and then there is all the little bits that make the whole thing work.
AND I almost forgot the PS. You know How big the trannies are that step up to 350 volt -
not to mention the ones that have to power transmitter tubes ? Big is expensive.
"If you're talking about a sonic impact OK, but look at it. It's not a UCD or a ZAPpulse or Icepower, it's more of a gainclone."
I was thinking of old inefficient technology i.e. Tubes = an old fashion DIY pure class A
single ended amp that needs 350 Volt DC and puts out two watts
VS.. the efficiency of Class D = 12VDC in 10 watts out.
This is what I meant by Hi Fidelity , Low Efficiency and High price.
"If you want cheap and inexpensive, off the shelf is where you find it"
I did get all my part of the shelf.
"If you think it's difficult making a good class A, try it with a class D sometime, different ballgame."
I don't think I implied that difficulty was part of the formula?
Bachiano
Hi Terry, you've hit it right on the nail.
And now my responce to classd4sure.
"I think you can comment on their marketing practices without relevance to their products."
Yes you can, but attilio7 did not make that distinction.
"I don't believe efficiency draws much of a parallel with high quality, look at class A."
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying above.
I did not use the word "Quality" anywhere in my last post.
all I said was that "It is difficult and expensive to achieve real hi fidelity with technology
that is 20% to 50% efficient, even if you DIY.
Anyway, What does Quality have to do with Class A???
"I also have no idea where you get the idea it's so inexpensive?"
Let's see - compare any class d module offered today i.e. UCD, ZAPpulse, Icepower etc.
to the example below.
A UX-245 will cost me $90 to $200. and I need two.
For a cheap OT with a lousy freq. response - $100.
and for a good one $500 to $1000. and I need two.
If you go with IT trannies $100 to $200 - with caps not too bad.
and then there is all the little bits that make the whole thing work.
AND I almost forgot the PS. You know How big the trannies are that step up to 350 volt -
not to mention the ones that have to power transmitter tubes ? Big is expensive.
"If you're talking about a sonic impact OK, but look at it. It's not a UCD or a ZAPpulse or Icepower, it's more of a gainclone."
I was thinking of old inefficient technology i.e. Tubes = an old fashion DIY pure class A
single ended amp that needs 350 Volt DC and puts out two watts
VS.. the efficiency of Class D = 12VDC in 10 watts out.
This is what I meant by Hi Fidelity , Low Efficiency and High price.
"If you want cheap and inexpensive, off the shelf is where you find it"
I did get all my part of the shelf.
"If you think it's difficult making a good class A, try it with a class D sometime, different ballgame."
I don't think I implied that difficulty was part of the formula?
Bachiano
phase_accurate said:
phase_accurate said:
RIGHT!
In the beginning and in the end, everything is analog.
😎
Is Tripath misleading consumers?
"This doesn't make it right to market things in a misleading way, and Tripath has done this much with their class T campaign "
Could some of you post examples / links that demonstrates this misleading campaign.
I can't find any.
Thanks
I found this interesting link
But did not find anything misleading in it.
check out the "Master your A-B-Ds: A digital-amplifier glossary" near the bottom.
http://www.reed-electronics.com/commvergemag/article/CA82193?pubdate=5/1/2001
here's another with defenitions of Amplifier classes
http://ldsg.snippets.org/appdx-d.php3
"This doesn't make it right to market things in a misleading way, and Tripath has done this much with their class T campaign "
Could some of you post examples / links that demonstrates this misleading campaign.
I can't find any.
Thanks
I found this interesting link
But did not find anything misleading in it.
check out the "Master your A-B-Ds: A digital-amplifier glossary" near the bottom.
http://www.reed-electronics.com/commvergemag/article/CA82193?pubdate=5/1/2001
here's another with defenitions of Amplifier classes
http://ldsg.snippets.org/appdx-d.php3
How about the mere fact they call it "Class T" when there is no such class, I thought that was obvious, but.. it's hard to decipher the hype from the facts because there's so much hype and they push it so well.
From their own website, just a few of what I'm sure are many examples of the same:
"In the audio arena, DPP® has given rise to a new class of true digital audio amplifiers, known as Class-T®. Our technology provides a combination of fidelity, power efficiency and economy far superior to the Class-A, -AB and -D amplifiers prevalent in current- generation audio. Tripath provides audio amplifier solutions to manufacturers of professional, home, car and PC sound systems. "
Not only are they claiming it isn't class-d (it is) they're claiming it's true digital (far from it).
Yet on the same page below:
"Tripath markets audio amplifiers with DPP(R) under the brand name Class-T(R). " Key word being "brand name".
Contradicted themselves. So, is it a new class of amp, or a brand name? They're trying to tell you it's both.
So while there they admit it's a brand name/trademark, they keep saying it isn't class-d, leading you to believe it's a unique amplifier class, something other than the trademark which it is.
Read their whitepaper for many more examples:
http://www.tripath.com/downloads/an1.pdf
From your link, Class J is no better in this marketing scheme.
"Class Jam" From Jam Technologies
"Class Tripath", "True digital" From Tripath
"Class N" From N-Force
and I quote "Switching Digital Amplifiers (commonly known as Class-D) were introduced some years ago. Right from the start, Class-D had enormous potential but some significant shortcomings. For example, they have limited usable bandwidth, and they use a fixed sawtooth waveform to modulate an audio signal. This is a source of audio pollution, because the waveform causes inevitable jittering that can mask or corrupt low-level music signals.
Instead of a sawtooth digital signal, Nuforce has developed and patented a naturally occurring analog modulating signal that flows with the music and adds no noise or jitter into the system.
Rather than using imperfect off-the-shelf solutions, Nuforce has developed and patented a series of breakthrough advances that have unlocked the huge potential of switching amplifiers, without the problems that pure digital switching amplifiers have been unable to solve.
In other words, the best of both worlds"
First off, switching amps aren't "digital", "digital" does not mean "class d", they based their work off powrephysics, parent company, so not entirely revolutionary, neither is it new.
It's little wonder you're confused, with this level of BS out there. They're alllllllllll class D, non of them are digital..... etc.
From their own website, just a few of what I'm sure are many examples of the same:
"In the audio arena, DPP® has given rise to a new class of true digital audio amplifiers, known as Class-T®. Our technology provides a combination of fidelity, power efficiency and economy far superior to the Class-A, -AB and -D amplifiers prevalent in current- generation audio. Tripath provides audio amplifier solutions to manufacturers of professional, home, car and PC sound systems. "
Not only are they claiming it isn't class-d (it is) they're claiming it's true digital (far from it).
Yet on the same page below:
"Tripath markets audio amplifiers with DPP(R) under the brand name Class-T(R). " Key word being "brand name".
Contradicted themselves. So, is it a new class of amp, or a brand name? They're trying to tell you it's both.
So while there they admit it's a brand name/trademark, they keep saying it isn't class-d, leading you to believe it's a unique amplifier class, something other than the trademark which it is.
Read their whitepaper for many more examples:
http://www.tripath.com/downloads/an1.pdf
From your link, Class J is no better in this marketing scheme.
"Class Jam" From Jam Technologies
"Class Tripath", "True digital" From Tripath
"Class N" From N-Force
and I quote "Switching Digital Amplifiers (commonly known as Class-D) were introduced some years ago. Right from the start, Class-D had enormous potential but some significant shortcomings. For example, they have limited usable bandwidth, and they use a fixed sawtooth waveform to modulate an audio signal. This is a source of audio pollution, because the waveform causes inevitable jittering that can mask or corrupt low-level music signals.
Instead of a sawtooth digital signal, Nuforce has developed and patented a naturally occurring analog modulating signal that flows with the music and adds no noise or jitter into the system.
Rather than using imperfect off-the-shelf solutions, Nuforce has developed and patented a series of breakthrough advances that have unlocked the huge potential of switching amplifiers, without the problems that pure digital switching amplifiers have been unable to solve.
In other words, the best of both worlds"
First off, switching amps aren't "digital", "digital" does not mean "class d", they based their work off powrephysics, parent company, so not entirely revolutionary, neither is it new.
It's little wonder you're confused, with this level of BS out there. They're alllllllllll class D, non of them are digital..... etc.
classd4sure said:
I didn't know one could patent something that is naturally occuring, even less develop it. 😉
Is Tripath misleading consumers?
and another
http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-p49yl5D6TDT/reviews/20040720/tripath_interview.html?page=3
here Todd Cabell of Crutchfield Advisor is talking to Shawn Scarlett, Senior Product Marketing Manager at Tripath.
This is what Scarlett says about Tripath :
"Class-T® is the name for our proprietary architecture that improves on general switching amps. We use a combination of "predictive" and "adaptive" processing. On top of that, we use a very high switching frequency. The basic idea is that we look at the incoming signal to determine the best way to encode it, making sure to minimize interference or mistakes. We then use feedback, or "adaptive" processing to analyze the output and keep the system stable. The high switching frequency allows us to correct any issues quickly before they become audible. Because of the robustness of the system, we can maintain our fidelity even with mismatches in the output FETs [Field Effect Transistors], power supply "ripple", and other issues that normally require significant engineering time and manufacturing cost to prevent. The Class-T® technology allows us to reach very high fidelity levels and keep THD+N [Total Harmonic Distortion plus Noise] figures better than many A/B amplifiers, while still delivering the efficiency of a switching amplifier. "
He is saying that "Class-T®" is the NAME for their "proprietary architecture".
You can see the registered trademark ® at the end of Class-T.
And I think we all know what that little ® means, Right? - Brand Name.
I could not find any examples where anybody at Tripath is Saying that their amps are anything other than Class-D.
Quote ; "Class-T® is the name for our proprietary architecture that improves on general Switching Amps" i.e. Class-D
Nothing misleading here.
Bachiano
and another
http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-p49yl5D6TDT/reviews/20040720/tripath_interview.html?page=3
here Todd Cabell of Crutchfield Advisor is talking to Shawn Scarlett, Senior Product Marketing Manager at Tripath.
This is what Scarlett says about Tripath :
"Class-T® is the name for our proprietary architecture that improves on general switching amps. We use a combination of "predictive" and "adaptive" processing. On top of that, we use a very high switching frequency. The basic idea is that we look at the incoming signal to determine the best way to encode it, making sure to minimize interference or mistakes. We then use feedback, or "adaptive" processing to analyze the output and keep the system stable. The high switching frequency allows us to correct any issues quickly before they become audible. Because of the robustness of the system, we can maintain our fidelity even with mismatches in the output FETs [Field Effect Transistors], power supply "ripple", and other issues that normally require significant engineering time and manufacturing cost to prevent. The Class-T® technology allows us to reach very high fidelity levels and keep THD+N [Total Harmonic Distortion plus Noise] figures better than many A/B amplifiers, while still delivering the efficiency of a switching amplifier. "
He is saying that "Class-T®" is the NAME for their "proprietary architecture".
You can see the registered trademark ® at the end of Class-T.
And I think we all know what that little ® means, Right? - Brand Name.
I could not find any examples where anybody at Tripath is Saying that their amps are anything other than Class-D.
Quote ; "Class-T® is the name for our proprietary architecture that improves on general Switching Amps" i.e. Class-D
Nothing misleading here.
Bachiano
Re: Is Tripath misleading consumers?
This is near aggravating, you ask the question, then you disagree and tell me the answer. Are you sure you don't work for Tripath, maybe? Perhaps you're on the verge of releasing a class Bachiano amplifier? hmmmm?
From Tripath's FAQ available at http://www.tripath.com/faq_pr.htm:
Q: What does "Class-T" mean and how does it differ from Class-D Pulse Width Modulation?
A: Class-T represents a proprietary technology for how Tripath does amplification. We chose the Class-T designator to differentiate ourselves from Class-D technology because our technology does not use Pulse Width Modulation, which is synonymous with Class-D, and it is not a pure analog approach like Class-AB. Tripath uses an adaptive/predictive algorithm to drive output transistors that achieve the high fidelity of Class-AB amplifiers with the power efficiency of Class-D amplifiers. A more detailed discussion of this is available on our web page titled Class-T White Paper."
Do you see a trademark designation in that? I don't. Do you see them telling you it isn't class d? I do.
Further, look at the table they provide to the question:
"Q: How does the Tripath Class-T amplifier compare with Class-A, Class-AB and Class-D amplifiers? "
'nuff said there.
One last quote, this time from their whitepaper:
"Class-T provides power conversion efficiencies of 80 percent to more than 90
percent, which is equal to or better than Class-D amplifiers." ..... and yet, it IS a class D amplifier.
I don't care if they put a little "R" in the fineprint. It is misleading, and has obviously mislead you.
Now you can answer that however you like, the facts stand on their own, I will find a more productive thread to kill time in, all this stuff is reeaaaal old news.
bachiano said:
This is near aggravating, you ask the question, then you disagree and tell me the answer. Are you sure you don't work for Tripath, maybe? Perhaps you're on the verge of releasing a class Bachiano amplifier? hmmmm?From Tripath's FAQ available at http://www.tripath.com/faq_pr.htm:
Q: What does "Class-T" mean and how does it differ from Class-D Pulse Width Modulation?
A: Class-T represents a proprietary technology for how Tripath does amplification. We chose the Class-T designator to differentiate ourselves from Class-D technology because our technology does not use Pulse Width Modulation, which is synonymous with Class-D, and it is not a pure analog approach like Class-AB. Tripath uses an adaptive/predictive algorithm to drive output transistors that achieve the high fidelity of Class-AB amplifiers with the power efficiency of Class-D amplifiers. A more detailed discussion of this is available on our web page titled Class-T White Paper."
Do you see a trademark designation in that? I don't. Do you see them telling you it isn't class d? I do.
Further, look at the table they provide to the question:
"Q: How does the Tripath Class-T amplifier compare with Class-A, Class-AB and Class-D amplifiers? "
'nuff said there.
One last quote, this time from their whitepaper:
"Class-T provides power conversion efficiencies of 80 percent to more than 90
percent, which is equal to or better than Class-D amplifiers." ..... and yet, it IS a class D amplifier.
I don't care if they put a little "R" in the fineprint. It is misleading, and has obviously mislead you.
Now you can answer that however you like, the facts stand on their own, I will find a more productive thread to kill time in, all this stuff is reeaaaal old news.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.