A Google search will produce much info. Basically, regular metallized film is a poly film with a layer of metallization bonded on one side. Double-metallized film has a layer of metallization bonded to both sides of the film. As they are intended primarily for switch-mode power supply application (which is what a class D amp is essentially) they are commonly available.
Yes, I do.
That's been my experience. At first, I was hesitant to mention to fellow audiophile's how good I felt the sonics were for concern of being ridiculed as having tin ears.
That's been my experience. At first, I was hesitant to mention to fellow audiophile's how good I felt the sonics were for concern of being ridiculed as having tin ears.
Over my years servicing a wide range of electronics, I've often discovered that when something better comes along it will be the elitists who squeal the loudest... they've just discovered their beloved gear is second rate.
I worked quite a bit with the Tripath chips, as Neil knows, even had my name on a few mildly successful amps. I liked them if well implemented, they always got compliments.
One day at RMAF I was walking down the hall and heard music coming out of a demo room which made me think "I know that sound, it's Tripath." Sure enough, it was Red Wine Audio and Vinnie Rossi. The Tripath certainly have a sound, a pleasant sound.
I do find Icepower more neutral and stronger in bass.
One day at RMAF I was walking down the hall and heard music coming out of a demo room which made me think "I know that sound, it's Tripath." Sure enough, it was Red Wine Audio and Vinnie Rossi. The Tripath certainly have a sound, a pleasant sound.
I do find Icepower more neutral and stronger in bass.
The TC2000/TC2001 modulator ICs are still used in a number of products combined with the STA508 or STA516 power bridges from ST. I have two using the less powerful STA508. They sound really fine. Sure uses the more powerful STA516, I believe.
Are you serious?
Having tried several amplifiers with the infamous "ICE" modules, I found all of them to sound sterile and lifeless and certainly no stronger in the bass than a $20USD TPA-series Class D offering from China.
Luckily, I had a 30 day return policy so they all went back including the supposedly new and improved PS Audio Sprout.
I'll take Hypex modules or many of the TPA-series offerings from T.I. any day of the week over the overrated and less expensive "ICE" modules, while passing altogether on the out-of-date Tripath offerings.
Happy New Year to you and to all the moderators of this wonderful site.
Ummm... you do realise the lower powered ICE modules are using TPA chips, right?
...while passing altogether on the out-of-date Tripath offerings.
Why exactly do you characterize the Tripath approach as "out of date?" My 1930's 2A3 triodes have a characteristic sound, but I never think of them in a chronological sense. They sound wonderful, despite their rather long tenure on the audio scene.
I'm curious what Tripath amplifiers you have owned, and what improved sonic characteristics the newer ICs have when compared to them?
Yes, quite. That's why I said it.
I found no lack of life, but I did find that the Icepower did not get in the way of the music or sound harsh or sour on the top end, as so many SS amps do. I'm not really sure what a "sterile" amp would sound like. I have heard some I felt had a lack of fine detail that robbed the recording of life, but I don't know if that's what you mean.
I was very impressed with the Icepower strength and cleanness of the bass on my Altec 416 woofers. Certainly a very good power supply behind a Tripath chip can have good bass, but IME not nearly as much as the Ice with PSU built in. I was quite surprised.
I remember Dr. Tripathi walking up to me and my boss at the ISSCC and asking ADI to buy out Tripath.
Good way to put it
. I made that test bed because I needed some concrete information on whether Tripath or Apogee or some other technology was the way forward for that same company. I needed to get past the THD or other "paper" comparisons by actual listening, and the test bed was a "fair" way to evaluate the chips. My preference was for the Apogee modulator because of better overall clarity, but my conclusion was that neither of these technologies were an adequate choice for future designs, as there were serious "issues" with both.
But that was looking at amplifiers from the perspective of an engineer having to make a technology decision for future designs. I can understand why someone would be satisfied with either of these amps, and for many applications those Tripath amps are still acceptable choices. But what I don't get is the passion and drama about amp choices and why various technologies are revered rather than critically evaluated. I certainly understand the nostalgia part, but technology marches on coldly and mercilessly, and at some point the old technology simply becomes obsolete and we need to "let go".
Good way to put it
technology marches on coldly and mercilessly, and at some point the old technology simply becomes obsolete and we need to "let go".
I am not an engineer and not very good at objective comparison, especially not of amplifiers. I do like to change things up and usually do so on the basis of unconscious "criteria" Some components stay longer and some return to my setup for some reason or another. One very constant component is my old Cyrus One amplifier, I just can't get rid of it but recently it has made room for and old TA2022 amp with a tube pre. I had this one lying around for years and never used it but now I am really enjoying it, It sounds great, similar to the Cyrus but not totally. It is not going to replace it but I am going to keep it! Unlike the Icepowers, the UCD's, the TPA3255's and such...
So I wonder about the onwards march of technology and the planned obsolescence in this culture.
IMO, the 3116/3118 chips (properly implemented) are very natural sounding, and I say this as a fan of tube amplification. I also use a Tripath 2020 (on a secondary system) and I agree with another member that the overall sound is very similar to the 3116/3118 chips. If any of these were "cold", "clinical", "sterile" they would be in my junk box.
Note: I tried a cheap Chinese implementation of the 3116 and hated it. Then I tried a locally designed 3118 board (The Wiener, by member GMarsh et. al.) and it blew me away. It is now my main amp for use when the weather is simply too hot for tubes - and truth be told I could easily live with it year round.
Last edited:
As an engineer myself I understand obsolescence...but ONLY when there is clearly demonstrable benefit to my ears.
Countless audiophiles have 1930s technology vacuum tube amps in service, myself included. They might disagree with the premise of “letting go” based on age! Perhaps with Class D technology the more recent approaches might claim a quantum leap forward in sonic performance, but judging by the comments overall in this thread, the Tripath technology appears to still be holding its own to those whom have directly compared it to newer technologies.
Net result...I’m going to continue construction of the remaining Tripath boards I have, rather than get rid of them. Worst case, I’ll give the amps to a student short on cash, but lusting for a glimpse of quality sound reproduction.
Just for grins, I would like to audition a few quick n’ dirty, prebuilt boards using some alternate, “modern” chips. You know, just add an external DC supply and listen. Anybody have a favorite chipset and board brand they can recommend?
Hi Diogenio,
tried this one. the chips are from STElectronic, based on the Tripath controller. Quite warm sound.
Sure Electronics AA-AB32313 2x400W Class D Audio Amplifier Board Compact - T-Amp
for better sound and extension, the ideal is to bypass the signal input capacitors. It's quite simple because there are pins to add an electronic volume (OP) sold separately, instead of the volume we add the bypass capacitors.
tried this one. the chips are from STElectronic, based on the Tripath controller. Quite warm sound.
Sure Electronics AA-AB32313 2x400W Class D Audio Amplifier Board Compact - T-Amp
for better sound and extension, the ideal is to bypass the signal input capacitors. It's quite simple because there are pins to add an electronic volume (OP) sold separately, instead of the volume we add the bypass capacitors.
Last edited:
But what I don't get is the passion and drama about amp choices and why various technologies are revered rather than critically evaluated. I certainly understand the nostalgia part, but technology marches on coldly and mercilessly, and at some point the old technology simply becomes obsolete and we need to "let go".
Audiophile sound is largely aesthetics and when aesthetics are involved, critical evaluation and obsoleteness become futile concepts.
From a commercial point of view, I have no doubt that you know best. From an audiophile point of view, I am certain you have far more experience than I. But, should we tell all our tube-enthusiasts that they have just not progressed much for half a century? That they invest their time on a looser? That class AB serves no point anymore and that Neurocrome will have to stop its activities soon?
My experience is that the more people are attracted by logically seen irrational technologies, the more enthusiastic they become. Why do intelligent people still drive around in old east-German "Trabi's"? If we "let go" of irrational preferences, how many would loose their job?
I live in an area where the engagement is in a product that is substantially fermented grape-juice. The people here are very good at it, they earn a living and their traditions go back much before Tripath and even the JLH amplifier. Should I tell them to "let go" and accept that fruit-smoothies and Red Bull is the future?
When it comes to aesthetics, the more variety the better as long as no-one gets hurt.
Your view is rationally correct and what any technical management advisor should make management aware of.
Why is Tripath so hyped among some nostalgic audiophiles? Because Tripath earned an exceptional reputation when achieving exceptional technical results around the change of millennium. Like with the Jauguar E-type and certain Ferrari models that cannot follow a Subaru Impreza today. That they also did less intelligent things we more easily forgive. In the future, the elements that caused such success will be analyzed and admired again and again.
Audiophile sound is largely aesthetics and when aesthetics are involved, critical evaluation and obsoleteness become futile concepts.
From a commercial point of view, I have no doubt that you know best. From an audiophile point of view, I am certain you have far more experience than I. But, should we tell all our tube-enthusiasts that they have just not progressed much for half a century? That they invest their time on a looser? That class AB serves no point anymore and that Neurocrome will have to stop its activities soon?
My experience is that the more people are attracted by logically seen irrational technologies, the more enthusiastic they become. Why do intelligent people still drive around in old east-German "Trabi's"? If we "let go" of irrational preferences, how many would loose their job?
I live in an area where the engagement is in a product that is substantially fermented grape-juice. The people here are very good at it, they earn a living and their traditions go back much before Tripath and even the JLH amplifier. Should I tell them to "let go" and accept that fruit-smoothies and Red Bull is the future?
When it comes to aesthetics, the more variety the better as long as no-one gets hurt.
Your view is rationally correct and what any technical management advisor should make management aware of.
Why is Tripath so hyped among some nostalgic audiophiles? Because Tripath earned an exceptional reputation when achieving exceptional technical results around the change of millennium. Like with the Jauguar E-type and certain Ferrari models that cannot follow a Subaru Impreza today. That they also did less intelligent things we more easily forgive. In the future, the elements that caused such success will be analyzed and admired again and again.
Last edited:
French, I agree with the majority of your post, but is the admiration for Tripath really hype or primarily based on nostalgia? The comparison to old automotive technology is invalid for one simple reason: the majority of people responding here whom have compared Tripath to more "modern" approaches - do not think the sound of Tripath is inferior to the later chips. Quite a few actually prefer the Tripath sound to later circuitry! Are their own impressions tainted by nostalgia - when they own other, more modern IC amplifiers that could be substituted for the Tripath?
If psychology and human nature are at play here in the Class D forums, I believe it is confirmation bias that "the latest and greatest MUST be better." I like 1930s triodes, bear in mind!
I originally asked a very simple question: "Is the Tripath technology...and sound..."outdated" compared to more modern chipsets?" In response, I've yet to have a single person claim that the latest technology XYZ sounds so much better for XYZ reasons.
I'm not ready to throw away my single ended triodes quite yet!
Regards,
In many cases it's the Familiar reaction. People get used to certain sound qualities --like the higher harmonics from tubes-- and when they hear something that is technically better, to them it legitimately sounds worse because it's simply not what they are used to hearing.
I can plead guilty to that one, myself. I've learned over experience servicing stuff that I am often able to hear differences but I am seldom able to judge if what I'm hearing is better or worse. For that I need test equipment.
We all tend to pull to the familiar... that's where we're most comfortable.
Last edited:
Yes, and that's where things begin to get really interesting. Chances are, those units in which you heard differences each feature measured performance beyond the accepted limits of human hearing acuity. And yet, they indeed sounded different from each other.
