3e audio A7/A7 Mono Amplifier Review

[3eaudio]

Did I ever say they were changed? That is not what we are talking about here.

In the picture you posted you can clearly see that the caps near the op amps are ELNA.

you did, it is better you prove/test it than just put the assumption

 

[antcollinet]

Regardless of the changes - I very much doubt that there will be an audible difference.

Would be nice to get a production model tested though.

 

[3eaudio]

Regardless of the changes - I very much doubt that there will be an audible difference.

Would be nice to get a production model tested though.

probably you will see new model test soon.

 

[ziggurcat]

Would be nice to get a production model tested though.

Absolutely 100%

 

[Guddu]

We've all known the differences between the pre-production, and production models for a very long time.

@Guddu has a pre-production model, so perhaps they can shed some light on what the actual significance not using a pCB riser for the binding posts has on the performance of the amp (my guess: absolutely none at all).

I also have a newer unit as well (current version, Amazon bought) and I can only say there isn’t any detectable difference for me.
The newer unit has ELNA except those 4 caps - 2 on the side of each opamp that you see in the middle from the opamp access cutoff.
Speaker terminal riser should not make any difference as well, this is how it’s done in almost every amplifier.
The newer one is as good as the old one, I don’t want to say this but these 3e A7’s have made me believe there isn’t another amp needed for me until these ran out of juice. It’s like amplifier is done deal for me now.

I can’t tell the reason why changes were made but @3eaudio did change those 4 caps while rest of ELNA’s are still there as it was in previous one. However I believe @3eaudio must have done it after due consideration only.

Rather than using words like illegal, dishonest etc., one could have simply asked them to update the information and that should be all.
@3eaudio Please do consider updating the information and diagrams, it would be quicker than responding on several such posts.
It’s up to you as well to explain the changes once and for all if it isn’t too much trouble.

Regardless, it is a fantastic flawless amplifier.

 

[john61ct]

new model test

Please link to a standard stocking sales source, suitable for USA purchasers for the current A7 Mono model.

 

[john61ct]

This request is for everyone here I guess, when I can afford them I will route through Amir if he's willing to test again

also the Qs here are relevant, not yet answered

3e audio A7/A7 Mono Amplifier Review

If the above are true we're talking about a different amp. There were perfectly ok amps in the past who got ridiculed by the material of the binding posts alone. We've all known the differences between the pre-production, and production models for a very long time. @Guddu has a...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Sokel]

I don't think I was around the forums here for that (if you happen to know the link or can point me in the direction to search myself, I'd love to see).

I forgot to post the link about it:

Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi Amplifier Review (2nd)

This is a second review of the Buckeye 3-Channel Purifi based balanced class D amplifier. First sample had an issue with its binding posts increasing distortion. It costs US US $1,595. Typical of Buckeye amplifiers, focus on what is inside rather the case which is utilitarian. An indicator...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It was in fact a Purifi not a Hypex as I was badly remembering.

 

[Good Vibes]

The unit tested for this review was a pre-production unit, and has been known to be a pre-production unit for a very long time. IMO, none of it is a secret, and none of it should be a surprise. I sincerely doubt that removing the 12v trigger input (which I assume is the referenced 10A relay), and the PCB riser for the binding posts had any impact on the amp's performance. As far as the daughterboard is concerned, it just looks to me like they removed that part, and moved the components to the main board

I was aware that the 12v trigger was swapped out for an auto sensing feature (which I prefer) but had not been aware of any other changes. I am not wanting to shoot down 3E Audio unfairly but based on comments made by others, the changes that have been made are significant enough to change the test results.

The A5/A7 are regularly touted on this forum as being one of the best in class and worthy of competing with other best in class amplifiers. If the changes to the unit are significant enough to reduce performance, it is only fair that this review is updated.

I am willing 3E Audio to do the right thing, I hope that they can continue to grow the company and produce great products but their integrity is rightly to be questioned.

Imagine if other big name brands were found to have done the same…

 

[john61ct]

I am not wanting to shoot down 3E Audio unfairly

Absolutely not, I myself am willing to assume carelessness and/or naïveté rather than intent to deceive.

> the changes that have been made are significant enough to change the test results.

Even if not, they must learn how important trust and transparency are to be successful in business when operating globally.

> If the changes to the unit are significant enough to reduce performance, it is only fair that this review is updated.

Testing a current production unit is what is required to find out whether that is the case or not.

 

[antcollinet]

probably you will see new model test soon.

If it is a new model, please ensure it is a production standard unit that is tested.

 

[Good Vibes]

At the very earliest, it will probably take Amir months to test another unit. Are there any other capable individuals out there who would be willing to don the cape for interests sake?

 

[john61ct]

If it is a new model, please ensure it is a production standard unit that is tested.

Testing of a new model should be a completely separate issue from what is being discussed here.

And for now, all tests being done completely independently of 3e, with their having no way to influence which production units are being tested.

 

[ziggurcat]

I was aware that the 12v trigger was swapped out for an auto sensing feature (which I prefer) but had not been aware of any other changes. I am not wanting to shoot down 3E Audio unfairly but based on comments made by others, the changes that have been made are significant enough to change the test results.

The A5/A7 are regularly touted on this forum as being one of the best in class and worthy of competing with other best in class amplifiers. If the changes to the unit are significant enough to reduce performance, it is only fair that this review is updated.

I am willing 3E Audio to do the right thing, I hope that they can continue to grow the company and produce great products but their integrity is rightly to be questioned.

Imagine if other big name brands were found to have done the same…

I'm 100% on board with an updated review with a current production model, so you'll get no argument from me on that However, I'm not convinced that any of those changes have any impact on the performance (they all look like things were just re-allocated to me), but we obviously won't know for sure until it's been tested.

I can give you an example of a big name brand making an unannounced change: Wharfedale -- specifically their EVO 4.2 speakers (possibly the whole 4.x series). The change: the phase plug on the woofer was replaced with a fixed, silver bullet-shaped dust cap. I had looked at a bunch of reviews for that speaker when I was shopping around for a pair of 3-ways I was planning on using for a dedicated 2ch system, and one in particular (Tharbamar was the channel) demonstrated on camera that the speaker, in fact, had a phase plug.

When I received my pair of 4.2s, I was surprised to see that it was not the case, that the phase plug shown in the review was now a dust cap (note: the phase plug was not the reason for the purchase of the speaker). Wharfedale quietly made the change, and I don't believe they ever made a public announcement. When they were called out on it, Wharfedale said the change was made in order to resolve an issue with the woofer in the low end (iirc, it was something along the lines of chuffing). So even big brands aren't necessarily exempt from making those kinds of changes.

 

[somebodyelse]

Imagine if other big name brands were found to have done the same…

They have, just not with components they explicitly point out in their product description. It's not unusual for manufacturers to have multiple revisions of internals while keeping the same model number. For example MOTU have changed ADC and DAC manufacturer without changing model number (8A iirc, possibly others too). One of the AVRs tested during covid supply chain problems had a cap change that caused it to miss spec when tested here. Behringer changed the codec in the UCA202 from the original TI part to a pin-compatible replacement with significantly worse performance, leading to worse measurements here than an older one tested by nwavguy (UCA 202 and 222 are the same hardware with a different paint colour and different Windows driver).
Edit: Then we have changes to DSP crossover config in speakers without a user-facing way to find out which you have, unless you have a measurement mic to check the response. This seems to have happened with the Edifier MR4 although I don't think Edifier ever confirmed it.

 

[Sokel]

Advertising aside, if the circuit in there asks for low ESR I wouldn't mind some Rubycon ZLH series.
At all.

If that is what is used and they are real ones I consider them better that the ELNAs.

 

[antcollinet]

Imagine if other big name brands were found to have done the same…

All manufactures change the design - all the time. It's called coninuous improvement. (the improvement might be for the customer - but more often is for internal reasons - cost savings, or process improvements, efficiency, component obsolescenece etc.). There is nothing wrong with any of this. Many or most have a "we reserve the right to make changes" type of statement in the documentation.

 

[SMen]

I also have a newer unit as well (current version, Amazon bought) and I can only say there isn’t any detectable difference for me.
The newer unit has ELNA except those 4 caps - 2 on the side of each opamp that you see in the middle from the opamp access cutoff.
Speaker terminal riser should not make any difference as well, this is how it’s done in almost every amplifier.
The newer one is as good as the old one, I don’t want to say this but these 3e A7’s have made me believe there isn’t another amp needed for me until these ran out of juice. It’s like amplifier is done deal for me now.

I can’t tell the reason why changes were made but @3eaudio did change those 4 caps while rest of ELNA’s are still there as it was in previous one. However I believe @3eaudio must have done it after due consideration only.

Rather than using words like illegal, dishonest etc., one could have simply asked them to update the information and that should be all.
@3eaudio Please do consider updating the information and diagrams, it would be quicker than responding on several such posts.
It’s up to you as well to explain the changes once and for all if it isn’t too much trouble.

Regardless, it is a fantastic flawless amplifier.

A like is not enough - totally agree on every point. I have 1st generation A5 and the 1st revision A7 - both came with the OPA1656. Perhaps it is the additional power but the A7 has something that also makes it a keeper for me. I can't see any amplifier or type to tempt me - hypex or other. Priorities are now elsewhere. Totally agree also with your references to language used regarding this issue.

All manufactures change the design - all the time. It's called coninuous improvement. (the improvement might be for the customer - but more often is for internal reasons - cost savings, or process improvements, efficiency, component obsolescenece etc.). There is nothing wrong with any of this. Many or most have a "we reserve the right to make changes" type of statement in the documentation.

@3eaudio I think this is the solution ... a statement of constant improvement and a few updates to the website.

 

[ziggurcat]

I forgot to post the link about it:

Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi Amplifier Review (2nd)

This is a second review of the Buckeye 3-Channel Purifi based balanced class D amplifier. First sample had an issue with its binding posts increasing distortion. It costs US US $1,595. Typical of Buckeye amplifiers, focus on what is inside rather the case which is utilitarian. An indicator...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It was in fact a Purifi not a Hypex as I was badly remembering.

Thank you for that -- I did find the OG review as well to compare. Strange that the binding posts would have had that much of an impact, considering that just about everything (speakers, amps, avrs, etc...) uses similar parts. The silver lining with the A7 is if those posts happen to wreck the performance, it's simply a matter of undoing a few nuts, pulling away the tabs, removing the posts, and replacing them with better ones (the user-serviceability is why -- IMO -- it's "better" than being soldered to a PCB riser).

 

[Raiju]

Thank you for that -- I did find the OG review as well to compare. Strange that the binding posts would have had that much of an impact, considering that just about everything (speakers, amps, avrs, etc...) uses similar parts. The silver lining with the A7 is if those posts happen to wreck the performance, it's simply a matter of undoing a few nuts, pulling away the tabs, removing the posts, and replacing them with better ones (the user-serviceability is why -- IMO -- it's "better" than being soldered to a PCB riser).

The posts are fine, it is the termination that matters. Look at the cheap Douk a5, wires are soldered directly to posts. With the a7 the signal goes first into a steel tab, then it goes to a steel ring, then to a steel nut and then to the post. Is it audible? I can't say, is it measurable? Yes