• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Purifi vs. Pascal - What is going on?

OP
Lord Victor

Lord Victor

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
140
Likes
99
The people will said a lot of different things in his subjetive perspective, that is the reason that i prefer see measurements rather than a opinion, you will found a nonsense relation in subjetive opinion, you will find a person said the purifi sound warm, another dull and another bright, but they dont realise that as the purifi is not load depend, you gonna hear your system for what it is, if you dont apply eq you might have a nice FR to your taste in your speaker that you really find "fun" and corrected room with acoustic treatment, because the acoustic gonna change that FR.
All ears are different, the amplifier just dont add nothing in the sound.
Would you please actually read the thread? It’s all in comparison to the Pascal. You can’t just evaluate something in isolation.
Again there are measurements. And they clearly show differences big enough to be audible, meaning the amplifiers DO in fact add/subtract something.
Not to mention I’d never assume any amp is perfect, considering it’s made from imperfect components - as the measurements show: that’s why we have a data sheet for the amp. It shows some of its strengths/weaknesses in measurements, so companies can evaluate them agains competitors and work around them.
 

Phorize

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
1,533
Likes
2,060
Location
U.K
It’s not easy pick out the exact protocol you are using from the posts-where you following a specific one in your test-sorry if I’ve missed that?

Once you have real assurance in the process of level matching etc and double blind conditions, the aim is to find a statistically significant outcome. The statistical element is as important as the basic test. The number of reruns of the test is quite large. You may find this helpful:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/statistics-of-abx-testing.170/

It may be you’ve uncovered the need for a ‘how to do an abx’ article on asr. Although I’m not assuming that because I haven’t seen one none exists.
You may be experiencing abit of shoulder shrugging from forum members because audibility thresholds positively rule out audible differences between these amplifiers. I can see though that you are asking about how to improve your test so qudos for being interested, but you may wish to reflect on whether your existing stance that it’s possible that these amps are different audibly is making you more receptive to declaring there to be a difference when you haven’t got data that supports that statistically. I’ll have a look for a protocol and suggest others chime in.
 

tw99

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
467
Likes
1,069
Location
West Berkshire, UK
Seems like there's two choices:

- Either your test protocol is flawed, in which case you can pick whichever amp you want, as the test results are irrelevant.

- Or the test is meaningful in your opinion, in which case you can pick the one that you "liked" the most.

I'd say it's unlikely that you'll convince the audience on here that the test is really meaningful, so you might as well just pick the one you like best and be done with it.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
And with sufficiently fast changeover, which precludes manual disconnection and connection.
That's not essential, but you will get a lot less "no difference found" results if it's done.
 

Phorize

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
1,533
Likes
2,060
Location
U.K
Just thinking, you could also do a null test if you have access to the right equipment. It would be easy to see if any signal differences were within an audible threshold. TBH the amp measurements already tell you this but this would confirm that it practice without a need for extended abx sessions.
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
There’s a LOT of ways to do a valid listening test. But all of them start the same way- define EXACTLY the question to be answered by an experiment. That will allow those of us experienced with sensory testing to help you design and implement a good test with relatively reliable results.

If it helps, read my article from Linear Audio, “Testing One... Two... Three.” It’s been reprinted in pdf form at their website.
 

darkless

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
13
Likes
6
Location
Denmark
Back in 2015 I purchased the NAD M22 (v1), but after a while I realised that I was spending less time listening to music. I simply felt less involved/engaged. In 2017 I decided to purchase a Benchmark AHB2 to see if it made any difference.

Using a pair of Tannoy Canterbury GR speakers I compared the NAD M22 with the Benchmark AHB2 as well as having the speakers driven directly from a Chord DAVE DAC, all volume matched with a UMIK-1. Aside from the clearly lower noise floor of the AHB2, the thing that I picked up on was that the M22 did in fact sound slightly uninvolving compared to the direct line-out of the Chord DAVE, whereas the AHB2 acted like the proverbial wire with gain. I double-checked the M22 frequency response measurements, but there was no obvious clues and I didn't have the equipment or know-how to investigate further. Long story short the AHB2 brought back my desire to listen to music, so I sold the M22.

Fast-forward to 2021. After having just moved to a fully active setup (see signature) I'm considering purchasing a NAD C298 to drive my eight 15" woofers and run the 1.4" compression horn drivers off my AHB2 instead of using the line-out of the Chord DAVE. However, based on the OP's initial post I'm concerned that the Purifi-based C298 might have inherited some of the less desirable sonic traits from the Hypex NC400-based M22.
 

Phorize

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
1,533
Likes
2,060
Location
U.K
Back in 2015 I purchased the NAD M22 (v1), but after a while I realised that I was spending less time listening to music. I simply felt less involved/engaged. In 2017 I decided to purchase a Benchmark AHB2 to see if it made any difference.

Using a pair of Tannoy Canterbury GR speakers I compared the NAD M22 with the Benchmark AHB2 as well as having the speakers driven directly from a Chord DAVE DAC, all volume matched with a UMIK-1. Aside from the clearly lower noise floor of the AHB2, the thing that I picked up on was that the M22 did in fact sound slightly uninvolving compared to the direct line-out of the Chord DAVE, whereas the AHB2 acted like the proverbial wire with gain. I double-checked the M22 frequency response measurements, but there was no obvious clues and I didn't have the equipment or know-how to investigate further. Long story short the AHB2 brought back my desire to listen to music, so I sold the M22.

Fast-forward to 2021. After having just moved to a fully active setup (see signature) I'm considering purchasing a NAD C298 to drive my eight 15" woofers and run the 1.4" compression horn drivers off my AHB2 instead of using the line-out of the Chord DAVE. However, based on the OP's initial post I'm concerned that the Purifi-based C298 might have inherited some of the less desirable sonic traits from the Hypex NC400-based M22.
But why focus on the amplifier when it is well understood that there are a near infinite number of factors in your own mind and in your environment that could cause this feeling?
 

darkless

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
13
Likes
6
Location
Denmark
Because the environment was unchanged and the amp was the only physical variable I had previously changed. When you don't have someone else to help, blind ABX testing isn't possible, so this was the best I could do, and I was still able to reach a conclusion that ultimately improved my setup. I won't debate possible bias as that is off topic.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
This is of course not valid as “test” data, but provides a body of ethnographic research, which is valid in its own right: if you release a product, and people consistently think it sounds dull or warm, then like it or not, it’ll affect sales -

It isn't valid to those who know what they are looking at. It isn't valid here. You continue to make a properly done test sound like it is beyond the scope of the average person, and it isn't.

You didn't do a valid test. Why not go through the effort? It was mentioned early on that it wasn't double blind, and your level matching likely was off.

Controls matter.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
27
Likes
6
And there you hit the nail on the head for me in terms of the purchasing decision for - Realistically I'll probably have to end up getting both, sooner or later, if nothing changes :p

That being said, as I noted later, this isn't just about purchasing one - I might not even be able to get the pascal since its not sold to private individuals sadly. More so an academic curiosity, if you will!
Hi, Which vendors are using the Pascal L-PRO2S In their amps? Is was only able to find the Gato DPA-4004. Thanks in advance.
 
OP
Lord Victor

Lord Victor

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
140
Likes
99
It isn't valid to those who know what they are looking at. It isn't valid here. You continue to make a properly done test sound like it is beyond the scope of the average person, and it isn't.

You didn't do a valid test. Why not go thorough the effort? It was mentioned early on that it wasn't double blind, and your level matching likely was off.

Controls matter.
I'd generally given up on this thread, for reasons hopefully obvious. But for the sake of avoiding repeating this, would you be so kind as to describe how this test could have been done in such a way that it would be valid - without requiring prohibitively expensive equipment?
I unfortunately likely won't have the chance in this specific case, but if I were to conduct this experiment again, or fx. compare the audibility of two dacs or cables etc. (humor me), then how would I have to set it up/conduct it?

I'll probably never be able to avoid the issues of either a) disagreeing on the type of tests considered 'valid' (I think AB can be perfectly valid as some differences may be too small for ABX, which makes them no less real, just means they're that much smaller), or b) responses that are basically thinly veiled ad-hominem: I.e. just being indirectly called incompetent/a liar (which I frankly find surprising and sad to see on here, but that's another topic). But it would be nice to figure out how to ask a question in here and get useful responses/mostly avoid poorly veiled flat out insults/trolling.

Cheers

Edit: I'm seeing some people were kind enough to actually respond with material on how to do certain types of tests, so simply confirming any of these would be fine as well.
 
OP
Lord Victor

Lord Victor

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
140
Likes
99
It’s not easy pick out the exact protocol you are using from the posts-where you following a specific one in your test-sorry if I’ve missed that?

Once you have real assurance in the process of level matching etc and double blind conditions, the aim is to find a statistically significant outcome. The statistical element is as important as the basic test. The number of reruns of the test is quite large. You may find this helpful:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/statistics-of-abx-testing.170/

It may be you’ve uncovered the need for a ‘how to do an abx’ article on asr. Although I’m not assuming that because I haven’t seen one none exists.
You may be experiencing abit of shoulder shrugging from forum members because audibility thresholds positively rule out audible differences between these amplifiers. I can see though that you are asking about how to improve your test so qudos for being interested, but you may wish to reflect on whether your existing stance that it’s possible that these amps are different audibly is making you more receptive to declaring there to be a difference when you haven’t got data that supports that statistically. I’ll have a look for a protocol and suggest others chime in.

First of all, thank you for an actual useful and not directly insulting response; I've more or less abandoned this. I think the 'process' was first of all, not the most stringent because of the circumstances - was never intended as a 'scientific' test as such, more so just a somewhat strictly regulated listening test. So a blind AB test basically, or double blind AB in the cases where I wasn't doing the switching for the listeners, but someone else was, I guess.
But it all probably went south once I lost my patience with what I regarded as essentially simple trolling/mockery - but that's an aside.
The main reason I'm as adamant as I am that the amps are audibly different is that they've consistently appeared as such, no matter the conditions, even when very clearly stacked in ones favour (i.e. one being louder than the other and vice versa etc.), and to multiple people - I'm aware it is again not a particularly strictly scientific way of doing things, but hence why was also mainly looking for a more general conversation on the topic than necessarily using this test as "proof" of anything, rather just pointing at what many have before, and exploring possible explanations.

Anyway, I'd love to do a proper ABX or AB test, perfectly matched and with relay switching etc, - I quite simply just don't have the option nor the equipment for it. But I'll look into what you linked in any case - thank you!
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
OP
Lord Victor

Lord Victor

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
140
Likes
99
Seems like there's two choices:

- Either your test protocol is flawed, in which case you can pick whichever amp you want, as the test results are irrelevant.

- Or the test is meaningful in your opinion, in which case you can pick the one that you "liked" the most.

I'd say it's unlikely that you'll convince the audience on here that the test is really meaningful, so you might as well just pick the one you like best and be done with it.
You're right in that I won't convince anyone here of anything - which was also never really my intent. There also seems to be a surprising lack of understanding the notion of an 'academic question' here (this is not targeted at you at all by the way, as your response i perfectly reasonable given the situation); i.e. not explicitly asking a question for the sake of finding which is better, but rather why one might be different. To me this was about understanding what notable differences there are between these amp designs, not so much about me wanting to buy either or both... It was about knowledge/learning, not about saying one is better - even if such could be an outcome... But yea, I'm more or less just abandoning this venture.
 
OP
Lord Victor

Lord Victor

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
140
Likes
99
Hi, Which vendors are using the Pascal L-PRO2S In their amps? Is was only able to find the Gato DPA-4004. Thanks in advance.
I don't know of anyone using them in stand alone amps, only as 'plate amps' in big active studio monitors etc.
 
OP
Lord Victor

Lord Victor

Active Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
140
Likes
99
Back in 2015 I purchased the NAD M22 (v1), but after a while I realised that I was spending less time listening to music. I simply felt less involved/engaged. In 2017 I decided to purchase a Benchmark AHB2 to see if it made any difference.

Using a pair of Tannoy Canterbury GR speakers I compared the NAD M22 with the Benchmark AHB2 as well as having the speakers driven directly from a Chord DAVE DAC, all volume matched with a UMIK-1. Aside from the clearly lower noise floor of the AHB2, the thing that I picked up on was that the M22 did in fact sound slightly uninvolving compared to the direct line-out of the Chord DAVE, whereas the AHB2 acted like the proverbial wire with gain. I double-checked the M22 frequency response measurements, but there was no obvious clues and I didn't have the equipment or know-how to investigate further. Long story short the AHB2 brought back my desire to listen to music, so I sold the M22.

Fast-forward to 2021. After having just moved to a fully active setup (see signature) I'm considering purchasing a NAD C298 to drive my eight 15" woofers and run the 1.4" compression horn drivers off my AHB2 instead of using the line-out of the Chord DAVE. However, based on the OP's initial post I'm concerned that the Purifi-based C298 might have inherited some of the less desirable sonic traits from the Hypex NC400-based M22.
Ignoring all else going on in this thread, if I were to simply advice you based on my listening experience, I'd say the Purifi is very similar to the nCore. At this point its been quite a while since I did the listening tests. so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd say the Purifi might be marginally smoother/warmer... Compared to a NAD M10 it sounded like the same overall sound presentation, but just with the characteristics amplified a tiny bit. So if you didn't like the M22, I doubt you'd like the purify based amp either - but impossible to say for sure of course, without trying...

I'd love to try a Benchmark AHB2 at some point, but its rather pricey and not that powerful, so I haven't really felt I could justify it.
 

tuneup

New Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
1
Likes
2
The Pascal amps are used in at least one residential speaker: the Dutch & Dutch 8c, which is the residential version of the “8c studio.”

I own a pair and based on their sound , I agree with the description of the highs in the Pascal amps not being sweet or “wet”, to use a studio term. One reviewer (I can’t remember who it was, as there have been so many reviews of the 8c.) said he found the highs somewhat dry. Kalman Rubinson in his Stereophile review said he thought the highs had less “air” and “space” than the Kii Audio Three, which use Hypex modules (not sure of they are Purifi at this point). My solution was to change from my solid state Bel Canto DAC/pre (DAC3.5VB MKII) to an Ayon tube DAC/pre (Stealth XS). Adding a bit of tube warmth and liquidity to the drier, more analytical sound of the 8c gave me exactly what I wanted, the best of both worlds. Yes this is totally subjective, but I am reporting it to confirm what Lord Victor and his listening panel heard.
 
Top Bottom