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

[restorer-john]

No - I simply quote the figures given by a single brand about 2 of its products. Perhaps ask NAD if you really want the answer

dBW is a useless term in relation to power amplifiers. dB with reference to 1 watt. What does that tell you? Nothing useful and all the reviewers that tried it on 20 years ago have sensibly kicked it to the kerb.

200W is 23dBW
380W is 25.8dBW but that is at a 4R load. And you can bet your 4R loudspeakers, even if they are specified with an efficiency in dB/W, will not be referenced to 2.0V (which they should be) but 2.83V, which is, in reality, 1W at 8R, not the specified 4R. So, it's useless for determining anything like peak levels etc.

200W@8R means the amplifier can swing 40V RMS, 113V peak to peak over an 8R load and 380W@4R (39V RMS) corresponds to 110V peak to peak.

Watts are a unit of power/work which is what a 'power' amplifier is all about.

 

[jhaider]

No - I simply quote the figures given by a single brand about 2 of its products. Perhaps ask NAD if you really want the answer

I see you did not understand what I asked, or why I asked for those figures converted to dBW. Which is frankly what I expected given your overheated language.

Marketers prefer Watts to dBW because the numbers are bigger and grow faster. Isn't it more impressive sounding to jump from 100W to 200W than to go from 20dBW to 23 dbW?

You see, dBW is a measure of how much SPL gain one can expect from an amplifier driving a loudspeaker. It's a simplification (speakers are not resistors) but the general trends tend to hold unless the amp has a truly terrible power supply.

For example, if you have a 85dB/w/m 8
Ohm speaker with zero compression, and an amp capable of 100W (20dBW) output, you can expect a maximum of 105dB/1m output from that speaker.

I used this calculator because it was the first thing I saw in a search for "watts to dbw calculator":

Comparative 8 Ohm power ratings.
185W = 22.67dBW
200W = 23.01dBW
Delta = 0.34dBW

Comparative 4 Ohm power ratings:
340W = 25.31dBW
400W - 26.02dBW
Delta = 0.71dBW

IOW, a margin of error difference; the boxes may in fact test the same in real life but for marketing purposes they won't be rated the same given the cost delta.

Put another way, claiming "significantly greater output" for one over the other of these two amps is errant nonsense.

The bottom line is both these amps - and all of the ones discussed in this thread that I've seen - are fine. You won't hear any difference if you compare them using proper controls, but you may like one over the other for whatever non-sound related reason. And that's fine. Just don't be one of those dumbasses who pretend the actual driver of their preference is "sound quality" rather than some intangible that personally appeals for whatever perfectly valid reason.

 

[restorer-john]

Put another way, claiming "significantly greater output" for one over the other of these two amps is errant nonsense.

Did you see the measured outputs of the NAD M33 in Stereophile? Bear in mind the power supply is bespoke. It is significantly more powerful than the 'reference' design and shows in ultimate continuous power.

 

[Hear Here]

Marketers prefer Watts to dBW because the numbers are bigger and grow faster. Isn't it more impressive sounding to jump from 100W to 200W than to go from 20dBW to 23 dbW?

The suggestion of using an unconventional or unrecognised unit to measure an amp's output is surely doomed to failure. Unless everyone knows what the new unit is, it means nothing to anyone apart from a few nerdy insiders - no offence! Watts are so widely recognised and have been used for decades to provide an indication of output and everyone understands them. It's like suggesting that car engines should be re-specified by Kw instead of bhp - it just won't work, despite maybe being more logical.

Did you see the measured outputs of the NAD M33 in Stereophile? Bear in mind the power supply is bespoke. It is significantly more powerful than the 'reference' design and shows in ultimate continuous power.

My point exactly. If a single brand (NAD in this case) specifies different power outputs for 2 of its Purifi-based amps and test results verify this, there must be something that explains this extra power. It comes at an increased cost and an improved level of sound quality - exactly what NAD attempts to do with their Master Series.

Why do some people think that the cheapest way to get a particular result is the best and those paying more are wasting their money or are being taken for a ride? Perhaps they think that a Skoda is as good as a Bentley because its measured performance matches the costly alternative! With cars and audio, build quality, longevity, comfort, features, luxury, pride of ownership all tend to make costlier items a preferred choice, albeit at a higher price.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

and an improved level of sound quality

Like I said, I can guarantee in a proper blind AB test, there would be no audible difference/sound quality "improvement".

 

[NTK]

Same amplifier module, same power supply. Can't be too different. Top M33, bottom C 298.

 

[Hear Here]

I have comparable photos of the M23 and C298 (both NAD power amps using Eigentakt technology) and it's obvious there's a lot more to the M23 - the right-hand image

 

[Purité Audio]

Same amplifier module, same power supply. Can't be too different. Top M33, bottom C 298.

But more components means betterer everyone knows that.
Next you will be saying that a light amplifier is as good as a heavy one.
Keith

 

[jhaider]

The suggestion of using an unconventional or unrecognised unit…

Um, do you read Stereophile? True, JA uses it incorrectly, but dBW is referenced in every single goddamn Stereophile amp review with a meaningful (i.e. test bench) section.

Regardless, the whole point of units of measure is to allow comparative perspective. Watts are misleading because big differences in numbers have very small real world effect. That's also why marketers love the measure. dBW is helpful in that regard. I guess one can lead horse to water, but if one then tries to force it to drink...the only thing that does is risk drowning the poor animal.

If a single brand (NAD in this case) specifies different power outputs for 2 of its Purifi-based amps and test results verify this, there must be something that explains this extra power.

Why?

It comes at an increased cost and an improved level of sound quality

You have no rational basis for any assertions related to "sound quality" here. If I'm wrong, please publish your controlled listening protocol and test results, or others that you are personally aware of.

Why do some people think that the cheapest way to get a particular result is the best and those paying more are wasting their money

Please read better. I hate repeating myself, but maybe some emphasis will make the point stick...
"you may like one over the other for whatever non-sound related reason. And that's fine. Just don't be one of those dumbasses who pretend the actual driver of their preference is "sound quality" rather than some intangible that personally appeals for whatever perfectly valid reason."

 

[bigguyca]

I see you did not understand what I asked, or why I asked for those figures converted to dBW. Which is frankly what I expected given your overheated language.

Marketers prefer Watts to dBW because the numbers are bigger and grow faster. Isn't it more impressive sounding to jump from 100W to 200W than to go from 20dBW to 23 dbW?

You see, dBW is a measure of how much SPL gain one can expect from an amplifier driving a loudspeaker. It's a simplification (speakers are not resistors) but the general trends tend to hold unless the amp has a truly terrible power supply.

For example, if you have a 85dB/w/m 8
Ohm speaker with zero compression, and an amp capable of 100W (20dBW) output, you can expect a maximum of 105dB/1m output from that speaker.

I used this calculator because it was the first thing I saw in a search for "watts to dbw calculator":

Comparative 8 Ohm power ratings.
185W = 22.67dBW
200W = 23.01dBW
Delta = 0.34dBW

Comparative 4 Ohm power ratings:
340W = 25.31dBW
400W - 26.02dBW
Delta = 0.71dBW

IOW, a margin of error difference; the boxes may in fact test the same in real life but for marketing purposes they won't be rated the same given the cost delta.

Put another way, claiming "significantly greater output" for one over the other of these two amps is errant nonsense.

The bottom line is both these amps - and all of the ones discussed in this thread that I've seen - are fine. You won't hear any difference if you compare them using proper controls, but you may like one over the other for whatever non-sound related reason. And that's fine. Just don't be one of those dumbasses who pretend the actual driver of their preference is "sound quality" rather than some intangible that personally appeals for whatever perfectly valid reason.

The first "advantage" of using dB's is that 99% of the population doesn't have clue as to what dB's mean. This puts the user of dB's, which is many of us on this site, in a position where we seem smarter than most, at least to ourselves. dBW reduces further the percent of people who understand what is being discussed. Among those who do understand dBW are folks like me who consider dBW to be rather useless since so few people use it. Tell people that one W is one joule per second, and you've lost even more people, especially in the U.S.

dB's are really useful in dealing with values that vary by orders of magnitude without having to deal with very large and small numbers and for use in selected, quick calculations. Frankly I find dB's to be extremely useful and I use them all the time, but that's in work I do or with others who understand them. People in the general population have no reason to understand dB's. Might a well talk about holes and transistors.

An all-too-common use of power dB's in forums like this is by those who are clever enough to understand that a doubling of power is "only" 3 dB's. We all know that 3 is a small number!

In another setting, let's say that a 1,000-megawatt nuclear electric power plant costs $10 billion to build. Purchasing a second 1,000-megawatt plant as part of an order only adds 3 dB to the total power capacity purchased but costs another $10 billion. Suddenly +3 dB of power increase is a major increase, and yet it's only +3 dB.

 

[snapsc]

My take away is that the new Buckeye amp, the new Topping B200 and the Benchmark AHB2 have such low distortion that they should all sound the same...which is to say, no sound signature.

Two concerns that may or may not be important to some...do any of the competitive super low distortion amps of this genre exhibit the ever so annoying turn on/off pops/thumps and how important is a front power on, power off button to those who have their gear in a cabinet?

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

I own 3 different Buckeye amplifiers (1 Purifi 1st generation, 1 NC502 and 1 NC252). None of them pop on startup or turn off. They are all absolutely spectacular. I use them all of the time and they have been flawless. Dylan is super easy to do business with. Don't waste your money elsewhere.

 

[Spkrdctr]

It seems there are a lot of people around here who need to buy some Buckeye amps. You all need to get your orders in right away! The nice thing is you never, ever have to apologize for having a Buckeye amp. Top level, well built and well supported stuff. What more is there to say?

 

[Koeitje]

Did you see the measured outputs of the NAD M33 in Stereophile? Bear in mind the power supply is bespoke. It is significantly more powerful than the 'reference' design and shows in ultimate continuous power.

Isn't continuous power is more relient on sufficient cooling for these modules? I can understand peak power differences due to a better power supply. But for continuous output the modules are therminally limited.

 

[pogo]

According datasheet:
Performance depends on physical implementation and system-level circuitry/configuration.
Continuous output power depends on properties of the thermal system.
Data provided is based on module operating in free air.

 

[JoePaisley]

There's a lot of references to design and build quality of NAD products. I've repaired a few NAD amps, including M3s and M23s, and I won't touch another one. Overly complex designs with mediocre components. The construction is very good and nice looking to the casual observer but they are the polar opposite of a Pass Labs, in terms of design and components. Just my opinion.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

There's a lot of references to design and build quality of NAD products. I've repaired a few NAD amps, including M3s and M23s, and I won't touch another one. Overly complex designs with mediocre components. The construction is very good and nice looking to the casual observer but they are the polar opposite of a Pass Labs, in terms of design and components. Just my opinion.

I agree. However, those two examples are really the outliers, highlighting some of the worst designs in their lineup. In my opinion, most of their other models are actually quite well-designed.

 

[livinon2wheels]

Isn't continuous power is more relient on sufficient cooling for these modules? I can understand peak power differences due to a better power supply. But for continuous output the modules are therminally limited.

I'm guessing therminally is a combination of terminally and thermally, which would be about right in the land of solid state devices...exceed that thermal limit and you have just made toast out of your electronic device. well said couldna said it better myself.

 

[Cableguy]

Establish whether they've used a basic Eval(uation) board from Purifi, or if they've developed a Purifi-based board in conjunction with Purifi and built with higher spec parts. Lots of direct or Ebay offerings of "Purifi" amps have this basic board that's designed for evaluation purposes, though many find their way into DIY or "garage-built" amps. I am more than happy with my NAD M33 Purifi-based all-in-one and I understand their M23 amp uses the same built-under-license Purifi technology. T+A do the same and is highly regarded, though I've not heard it myself. Not all Purifi amps will sound the same, so I'd suggest you ask questions, then try a number of contenders before you buy

I wanna chime in on this specific subject. As a DIY guy I'm not afraid to try unconventional and off the regular path solutions if it gives me the same performance. That's why I recently acquired an Audiophonics ET400 Purifi based stereo amp.

Compared to a low tier Marantz A/B amp PM6007 it was immediately noticeable the sound was more clear/clean and the stereo effect/sound stage was a bit larger. The Marantz amp sounded a bit more warm/laid back or however you want to call it. As if mids were a little bit subdued. Details aside there was a clear difference.

That being said I'm curious and I ended up also getting a NAD C298 with the same purifi tech to compare to the Audiophonics to confirm it would give the same result. Because who wouldn't want the same quality for half the price right? The base, mids and highs etc were similar. None of them were (audible) more or less present. So far so good. However, against what I expected, I did notice there was a difference in stereo presence were the C298 did create a wider sound stage. It really wasn't hard to notice.

To be sure I invited a few people the last few days to blindly test if they could also hear a difference. They could not see both amps and I unplugged the speaker cables anyways no matter if I put them into the same amp again or not. Volume was carefully matched. The result was everyone could correctly identify wether I actually changed the amp or when it was plugged in the same one.

Wether the Audiophonics or the C298 is actually more neutral I don't know. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the Audiophonics amp either. It's dead silent with no hums or noise and it sounds wonderful on its own. Bypassing the input buffer (by setting jumpers) didn't make a difference either. And the amp wasn't connected out of phase for one of the speaker either.

Has anyone else done a direct comparison between a NAD implementation of the purifi tech like the C298 and the Audiophonics/Buckeye amps based with the eval board? It doesn't seem likely to me, but perhaps the one I have is a dud.

 

[Hear Here]

I wanna chime in on this specific subject. As a DIY guy I'm not afraid to try unconventional and off the regular path solutions if it gives me the same performance. That's why I recently acquired an Audiophonics ET400 Purifi based stereo amp.

Compared to a low tier Marantz A/B amp PM6007 it was immediately noticeable the sound was more clear/clean and the stereo effect/sound stage was a bit larger. The Marantz amp sounded a bit more warm/laid back or however you want to call it. As if mids were a little bit subdued. Details aside there was a clear difference.

That being said I'm curious and I ended up also getting a NAD C298 with the same purifi tech to compare to the Audiophonics to confirm it would give the same result. Because who wouldn't want the same quality for half the price right? The base, mids and highs etc were similar. None of them were (audible) more or less present. So far so good. However, against what I expected, I did notice there was a difference in stereo presence were the C298 did create a wider sound stage. It really wasn't hard to notice.

To be sure I invited a few people the last few days to blindly test if they could also hear a difference. They could not see both amps and I unplugged the speaker cables anyways no matter if I put them into the same amp again or not. Volume was carefully matched. The result was everyone could correctly identify wether I actually changed the amp or when it was plugged in the same one.

Wether the Audiophonics or the C298 is actually more neutral I don't know. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the Audiophonics amp either. It's dead silent with no hums or noise and it sounds wonderful on its own. Bypassing the input buffer (by setting jumpers) didn't make a difference either. And the amp wasn't connected out of phase for one of the speaker either.

Has anyone else done a direct comparison between a NAD implementation of the purifi tech like the C298 and the Audiophonics/Buckeye amps based with the eval board? It doesn't seem likely to me, but perhaps the one I have is a dud.

Good to hear from someone who has actually gone to the trouble of comparing a branded amp that uses Purifi with one of the (let's be polite) less well-known brands. If you look inside these amps I'm sure you'll find big differences in the implementation and ancillary kit such as power supply, rfi protection measures, sockets, wiring, etc. Then perhaps you should look at the next comparison up the Purifi ladder - C298 with M23. Both the same brand and similar "on paper" spec, but a big increase in quality - and price of course. See my photos in Post #51 in his thread.

In most things in life, you get what you pay for and (generally speaking) the more you pay, the better the product. However it's great that Purifi make available their Eval board for the DIY builders. Many years ago I bought a Tripath board for a DIY project and later a Red Wine Signature 30 amp that also used Tripath. Again a big difference in sound quality, despite both based on Tripath technology. In fact I never liked the Red Wine with my speakers so moved on to SET amps. I'm now back with the vastly improved Class D from Purifi and I doubt I'll ever go back to A or AB, or tube amps as Class D has reached the point of development that you can find one that will match or better any other type - at a better price too.