Any reason not to order the new Buckeye 2nd Gen Purifi EIGENTAKT 2-ch amplifier?

[Digital_Thor]

the sound?

I really tried, believe me I did. But most differences I found, was that bigger power amps with several hundreds of watts in 8 ohm and almost 1,5 or 2k watts in 2 ohm... Seems to control woofers and subwoofers better, especially in passive filtered speakers... Like... You can see the membrane of the woofer move more controlled and play louder before it bottoms out. So I just have huge ampliers , because watts are cheaper today.
In the upper frequencies, I mostly just heard distortion of different sorts, when using less well designed class D amps... Like a cheap Behringer for tweeters... You can sometimes hear that output LP filter is just not designed for critical hifi listening in a quiet room .. but more intended to blast some bullet tweeter at a night club.
But back to Eigetakt, hypex and so on. They are mostly much better than all the other faults you often gloss over, when evaluating a complete system, because the focus at this moment is so strongly pointed towards the amplifier - kinda forgetting that maybe we should zoom out a bit

 

[chatra3]

I was about to order the Marantz Model 10 Reference Integrated Amplifier after hearing a demonstration at my neighbor's house with his Polk R700 speakers. However, after reviewing all the information in this thread, I decided to purchase two Buckeye Purifi 1ET9040BA Monoblocks (2nd Gen) along with the upgraded SMPS1k-SN power supply and a NAD M66. I managed to buy the NAD M66 for $4,200 as it was a demo unit used for three months and is in mint condition.

My point is that the Marantz Model 10 Reference Integrated Amplifier costs $15,000. In contrast, my new setup with the NAD and Buckeyes is approximately $6,850. We'll see if the cost savings are worth it. I currently own the Marantz Cinema 30 and the Marantz PM Ki-Ruby. I'm curious to find out if there is a significant difference in the sound signature compared to the Marantz Model 10, which is $8,150 more expensive. I have a feeling I made the right decision. For now, I'm just waiting for my Buckeyes to arrive. No rush, Dylan.

​

 

[Julf]

I'm curious to find out if there is a significant difference in the sound signature compared to the Marantz Model 10, which is $8,150 more expensive.

The Purifi modules don't have a sound signature.

 

[chatra3]

The Purifi modules don't have a sound signature.

Even better. Going to be interesting to hear the difference between the two. I always read about the difference in sound signatures with different amps. It will be interesting to see the difference between the two—one with a sound signature and one without.

 

[Julf]

Even better. Going to be interesting to hear the difference between the two. I always read about the difference in sound signatures with different amps. It will be interesting to see the difference between the two—one with a sound signature and one without.

"Sound signature" is mostly audiophile "journalist" vocabulary. If a modern solid state amp has an audible signature, it is either intentional coloration or poor design.

 

[rsg]

I was about to order the Marantz Model 10 Reference Integrated Amplifier after hearing a demonstration at my neighbor's house with his Polk R700 speakers. However, after reviewing all the information in this thread, I decided to purchase two Buckeye Purifi 1ET9040BA Monoblocks (2nd Gen) along with the upgraded SMPS1k-SN power supply and a NAD M66. I managed to buy the NAD M66 for $4,200 as it was a demo unit used for three months and is in mint condition.

My point is that the Marantz Model 10 Reference Integrated Amplifier costs $15,000. In contrast, my new setup with the NAD and Buckeyes is approximately $6,850. We'll see if the cost savings are worth it. I currently own the Marantz Cinema 30 and the Marantz PM Ki-Ruby. I'm curious to find out if there is a significant difference in the sound signature compared to the Marantz Model 10, which is $8,150 more expensive. I have a feeling I made the right decision. For now, I'm just waiting for my Buckeyes to arrive. No rush, Dylan.

​

The Buckeye Purifi 1ET9040BA Monoblocks (2nd Gen) along with the upgraded SMPS1k-SN power supply is an excellent amp. The differences in sound signature won't come from the amplification, but from the pre-amplication differences between the NAD M66 and Marantz 10.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

The Buckeye Purifi 1ET9040BA Monoblocks (2nd Gen) along with the upgraded SMPS1k-SN power supply is an excellent amp. The differences in sound signature won't come from the amplification, but from the pre-amplication differences between the NAD M66 and Marantz 10.

I was thinking the same thing here. Unless you can actually compare the two in the same room, with the same speakers at the same volume then you won't really know the difference. You would have to be able to switch back and forth between the two very quickly. And I would wager that you would have a hard time telling the difference between the two amplifiers unless the Marantz adds some type of distortion or performs poorly.
You're much more likely to hear a difference from the pre-amplification, the D/A converter (if you're streaming) or the phono preamp if you're listening to vinyl.

 

[Julf]

You're much more likely to hear a difference from the pre-amplification, the D/A converter (if you're streaming) or the phono preamp if you're listening to vinyl.

Preamps are very easy to make audibly transparent, so are DACs these days, so I would say that you are unlikely to hear a difference from the pre-amplification or the DAC either, unless they are really badly designed or designed to have coloration on purpose.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

Preamps are very easy to make audibly transparent, so are DACs these days, so I would say that you are unlikely to hear a difference from the pre-amplification or the DAC either, unless they are really badly designed or designed to have coloration on purpose.

I agree that they're easy to make transparent, but they are often not.

 

[Julf]

I agree that they're easy to make transparent, but they are often not.

Indeed, as "our amp is just as audibly perfect as all the other ones (many of which are cheaper)" is a rather difficult marketing message...

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

Indeed, as "our amp is just as audibly perfect as all the other ones (many of which are cheaper)" is a rather difficult marketing message...

Ha! Yup. And that's the thing about this comparison. We really only have measurements for the Buckeye/Purifi amplifier and we are speculating about rest. I would say that buying the Buckeye is the smartest move because it's known to operate well. I would love to see Marantz send one of those units for measurements.

 

[rsg]

I was thinking the same thing here. Unless you can actually compare the two in the same room, with the same speakers at the same volume then you won't really know the difference. You would have to be able to switch back and forth between the two very quickly. And I would wager that you would have a hard time telling the difference between the two amplifiers unless the Marantz adds some type of distortion or performs poorly.
You're much more likely to hear a difference from the pre-amplification, the D/A converter (if you're streaming) or the phono preamp if you're listening to vinyl.

The Marantz 10 is dual channel amplifier and the OP is using the Purifi monoblocks. The monoblocks will of course prevent crosstalk and have excellent isolation. The only difference is that if there are grounding noise issues on the 120V circuit, it may pass through the microaudio power supply on the monoblocks. The Marantz 10 has a massive torridal power supply and heavy aluminum + copper shielding, which should reduce noise and EMI. To get the same effect with the OP could get dedicated 15-20A circuit breakers and/or use a hospital grade isolation transformer. This is what I'm doing now.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

The Marantz 10 is dual channel amplifier and the OP is using the Purifi monoblocks. The monoblocks will of course prevent crosstalk and have excellent isolation. The only difference is that if there are grounding noise issues on the 120V circuit, it may pass through the microaudio power supply on the monoblocks. The Marantz 10 has a massive torridal power supply and heavy aluminum + copper shielding, which should reduce noise and EMI. To get the same effect with the OP could get dedicated 15-20A circuit breakers and/or use a hospital grade isolation transformer. This is what I'm doing now.

Well, I certainly applaud your dedication to the power here. I do think two of those Buckeye mono blocks would be fine on one 15 amp circuit, but he didn't say which speakers he is using so we really don't know how much power he's planning on driving and I'm always in favor of finding the limit......

 

[rsg]

On a 15A circuit, the most power you could draw is 1800W. The Micro Audio PS is very good and itself is 90% efficient, so I think two of them on the same 15A circuit should be fine since most people are playing music and not test signals. In fact in my opinion it is a better power supply than comparable Hypex power supplies simply based on my observation that it runs cooler. However, if I could design an amp with Purifi or Hypex modules and had a larger budget, I would probably use a toroidal power supply. Before the Buckeye Hypex NCx500, I seriously considered the ATI 54XNC Series which also uses Hypex modules with toroidal transformers for their power supply. The price was about 3 times more.

 

[Julf]

On a 15A circuit, the most power you could draw is 1800W. The Micro Audio PS is very good and itself is 90% efficient, so I think two of them on the same 15A circuit should be fine since most people are playing music and not test signals. In fact in my opinion it is a better power supply than comparable Hypex power supplies simply based on my observation that it runs cooler. However, if I could design an amp with Purifi or Hypex modules and had a larger budget, I would probably use a toroidal power supply. Before the Buckeye Hypex NCx500, I seriously considered the ATI 54XNC Series which also uses Hypex modules with toroidal transformers for their power supply. The price was about 3 times more.

Toroidal transformers are not a magic solution, but are you in fact talking of a linear, unregulated power supply vs. a switching one? Switching power supplies are actually better at filtering out mains-borne EMI.

 

[rsg]

Yes, I'm referring to a linear power supply. SMPS implementation for industrial use relies on good (regulated) AC power sources. SMPS implementation for consumer audio are adequate, but I'm not sure if they can eliminate ground loop noise, or can handle when AC voltage varies as seen in many parts of the US that experience surges, sags & even phase variation due to extreme weather. This is where toroidal transformers have an advantage. I'm using both BoXem and Buckeye amps that I have connected to an isolation transformer. The cost of an 1800W hospital grade isolation transformer in the US is around $900 USD.

Isolator Medical-Grade Isolation Transformer, 6-Outlet, 1800W | Eaton

Isolator Series UL 60601-1 Listed Medical-Grade Isolation Transformers offer line isolation and continuous noise filtering.

tripplite.eaton.com

 

[Julf]

Yes, I'm referring to a linear power supply. SMPS implementation for industrial use relies on good (regulated) AC power sources. SMPS implementation for consumer audio are adequate, but I'm not sure if they can eliminate ground loop noise, or can handle when AC voltage varies as seen in many parts of the US that experience surges, sags & even phase variation due to extreme weather. This is where toroidal transformers have an advantage. I'm using both BoXem and Buckeye amps that I have connected to an isolation transformer. The cost of an 1800W hospital grade isolation transformer in the US is around $900 USD.

Isolator Medical-Grade Isolation Transformer, 6-Outlet, 1800W | Eaton

Isolator Series UL 60601-1 Listed Medical-Grade Isolation Transformers offer line isolation and continuous noise filtering.

tripplite.eaton.com

SMPSs handle varying AC much better than linear supplies, toroidal or not. Have you looked at the AC specs for even cheap wall-wart SMPSs? They take a very wide input voltage range. Phase variation is a non-issue with a SMPS. Do you have any sources showing the superiority of a toroidal transformer (or linear power supplies), as I would like to rely on science rather than audiophile folklore?

BTW, isolation transformers tend to limit peak current - not something I would recommend for power amplifiers.

 

[kyuu]

YSMPS implementation for consumer audio are adequate, but I'm not sure if they can eliminate ground loop noise, or can handle when AC voltage varies as seen in many parts of the US that experience surges, sags & even phase variation due to extreme weather. This is where toroidal transformers have an advantage.

I'm curious where you got this notion since, as Julf noted, this is quite wrong.

 

[Hal_01]

Agreed, no reason not to order from Buckeye Amps. I would also consider the $695 Buckeye Amps Hypex NC502MP amplifier with the older Hypex module.

That is the one I am focussed on at the moment.

 

[RickS]

Hi folks!

Thread is drifting off topic and will likely prune some of it. You can request to have them moved to a new thread if you like. Please let me know by Monday via direct message.