A "Full Digital Amplifier" is called so because the signal path IS digital till the loudspeakers. I wouldn't know how to call them otherwise.
There are NO FULL DIGITAL AMPLIFIERs! A digital signal doesn't need amplification per definition and the PWM (or other modulation method) is still analog. Signal amplification after the PWM is needed, voltage and especally current and that's not digital either. So either there are the amplifiers in the speakers and then it is a PREamplifier or it isn't fully digital.
Anybody understands that the last stage is analog as loudspeakers are analog. Feel free to invent a better covering name. "Amplifier that has no analog inputs but only digital ones that are processed digitally till the last stage which is analog".
The market calls them FDA. I'll stick to FDA. It will be hard to name them different. There are way more things in life that have names that don't cover the item 100%.
The market calls them FDA. I'll stick to FDA. It will be hard to name them different. There are way more things in life that have names that don't cover the item 100%.
Last edited:
Well, trying to actually answer the original question 🙂
My vote, at least for the 'affordable' FDA class goes to the Alientek D8 in xmos version.
My vote, at least for the 'affordable' FDA class goes to the Alientek D8 in xmos version.
Why not telling the truth? How about 'fully digital input stage'? Or just 'digital preamp'? Correct in terms and short.
The market calls them FDA. I'll stick to FDA. It will be hard to name them different. There are way more things in life that have names that don't cover the item 100%.[/QUOTE]
That's marketing mumbo jumbo. I don't see why anyone who knows/understands that would want to repeat, much less even defend such nonsense.
Words are defined through their usage. They change their meaning over time. The word "digital" seems to expand in it's meaning on a daily basis, for example, what on Earth is "digital culture"????? 🙄🙂
Most ICs around are from the beginning or even before 2000. TI do some newer but doesn't seem to really have made a real effort. Frontmost is Steinway / Lyngdorf with proprietary solutions?
There is definitely room here for some progress with higher ambition...
//
There is definitely room here for some progress with higher ambition...
//
That one has my attention. Do you have one and how does it perform ?
http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/audio-ic/digital-I2S-input-class-d-product.page
TI makes quite a few. I meant ready built FDA as these are not so interesting to DIY.
Last edited:
Not so strange considering the price and complexity of designs. Modding can be done just as with the cheap TPA class D boards.
An FX Audio D802 can be bought for under 100 Euro. Try to DIY such a design (in a nice case + PSU) for a competitive price. Apparently there are more members thinking like this considering the amount of threads on ready built devices like FDA, Bluetooth modules and 5$ (!!!) TPA3118 boards.
An FX Audio D802 can be bought for under 100 Euro. Try to DIY such a design (in a nice case + PSU) for a competitive price. Apparently there are more members thinking like this considering the amount of threads on ready built devices like FDA, Bluetooth modules and 5$ (!!!) TPA3118 boards.
Last edited:
Uh oh. Some would call that nonsense. Even the hardheaded will experience this to be tomorrows technology.
Check for instance the following items the next couple of years:
- availability of TH discrete audio parts
- availability of large size electrolytic caps
- energy star requirements
Check for instance the following items the next couple of years:
- availability of TH discrete audio parts
- availability of large size electrolytic caps
- energy star requirements
Texas Instruments architecture, download their PDF and zoom into details where they still have DAC analog output and amplifier analog Input connected via pin and need a input cap , its essentially a DAC + Amp in one package to save cost.
ST STA series architecture, they do not require DAC analog output connected to the amplifier analog input eliminating input cap where quality will varies
Regardless , both amp are still analog PWM at the output stage where quality component should be use here
IMHO, anything go to analog domain, it will affected by interference/noise and the quality of capacitor, volume pot, cables and misc component varies
If keep signal in digital domain to keep cost low and is less affect by low quality component (hint, hint: aka China product).
I think its win-win where consumer have much better sounding amp at lower price
That's my 2 cent opinion
Yes, I bought one for comparison purposes. I've written some more detail on other threads here but in summary, on spdif input which is the strength of the D802, the D8 and D802 sound identical to me and if this is your source it isn't worth changing. However the xmos version of the D8 provides async USB input sounding better than the 802 on USB .
I'd even say that async USB input on the D8 is at least as good, possibly better, than spdif on either D802 or D8 . Not only that but to get the best on spdif input you need a good quality source, on the async USB input the source quality (USB interface quality that is not the recording 🙂 ) doesn't seem to matter much. I haven't tested the optical input on any of the amps as I don't have a good quality Toslink source.
The D8 is physically about 2/3 the size of D802/V200 and perhaps better constructed. The UI is different which you might prefer, or not.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.