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

[Buckeye Amps]

Ahh, still on the "higher price must mean better performance" trope I see.

Love to see it.

 

[Cableguy]

Ahh, still on the "higher price must mean better performance" trope I see.

Love to see it.

I agree with that!

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.

To me the interesting part is comparing a less known and/or considerable cheaper brand or solution to the well known (more expensive) establishment and see(hear) the results. That's where potentially a front seat can be had for half the price.

I'm sceptical if there is any audio quality improvement to be expected going up from the C298 to the M23 or M33. I can imagine that, even if there is a small difference, they way people would experience that difference would at most translate into just a personal preference and not being a case of 'better' or 'worse' anymore.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

The curious thing will be that for how quick Hear Here loves to use subjective experience as proof that whatever NAD is doing/charging more for obviously leads to audible differences....how does he reconcile when customers who have existing NAD Purifi stereo amps pick up our Purifi offerings to expand their setups and find that there is no difference to be heard (some even move their NAD to surround duty and use our 3ch for the front stage).

Shocking, right?

 

[Cbdb2]

There will be a lot of talk (likely) when a "highly respected" review magazine publishes their review of our amp in which it was compared to an NAD and had no audible difference. Will be interesting what people say then.

Highly respected review magazine is an oxymoron. There all shills for the manufacturers. And theres always an audible difference to a reviewer, even if if they compared the same exact item, why else do cables make such a big audible difference to these liars. There job depends on hearing a difference so they just make one up, and the more expensive one sounds better.

 

[Cableguy]

The curious thing will be that for how quick Hear Here loves to use subjective experience as proof that whatever NAD is doing/charging more for obviously leads to audible differences....how does he reconcile when customers who have existing NAD Purifi stereo amps pick up our Purifi offerings to expand their setups and find that there is no difference to be heard (some even move their NAD to surround duty and use our 3ch for the front stage).

Shocking, right?

The thing that surprises me is the apparent need to immediately take a sarcastic stand and result to an ad hominem while simultaneously not considering that multiple people on a blind test consistently did hear a difference.

Additionally I'm not excluding the possibility I have a Monday morning dud with the Audiophonics. Perhaps that would be a more interesting question instead of immediately taking moral high ground

 

[Buckeye Amps]

The thing that surprises me is the apparent need to immediately take a sarcastic stand and result to an ad hominem while simultaneously not considering that multiple people on a blind test consistly did hear a difference.

Additionally I'm not excluding the possibility I have a Monday morning dud with the Audiophonics. Perhaps that would be a more interesting question instead of immediately taking moral high ground

Nah, I'm good, considering this isn't an Audiophonics thread. Thanks though!

 

[Cbdb2]

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.

The post he was reffering to: "It may intrigue you that the Purifi module built under license by NAD offers a significantly greater output than the EVAL board.
The M23 / M33 Master Series units use this module delivering 200 / 380 watts, whereas the C298 (also Purifi Eigentakt) delivers 185 / 340 watts."

The question was to highlight that the "significantly greater output" differences in power is less than 1db, almost inaudable.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

so they just make one up, and the more expensive one sounds better.

Yea, that's why I said it will be interesting because in this case the significantly less expensive one sounded just as good to them.

 

[Cbdb2]

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 -

His use of dbs was to show you the power differences you show, .3db, are inaudible and thus make zero difference. Im getting a real Dunning-Kruger vibe here, hear.

 

[Cbdb2]

In most things in life, you get what you pay for and (generally speaking) the more you pay, the better the product.

Not in HiFi. You think a $5000 power cord will improve your sound? The examples of expensive shite audio components is endless, the reason ASR is so popular.

 

[jhaider]

The first "advantage" of using dB's is that 99% of the population doesn't have clue as to what dB's mean.

Point? This forum isn’t “99% of the population.” It’s audio enthusiasts.

In another setting…,

That has nothing to do with human perception of relative SPL…not a relevant, good faith comparison.

 

[Cableguy]

Not in HiFi. You think a $5000 power cord will improve your sound? The examples of expensive shite audio components is endless, the reason ASR is so popular.

Haha, I had a conversation with a dude not long ago who bought a special "audio router" for multiple hundreds of dollars. He argued that his streamer would give better audio quality when connected to this special router instead of to his modem. He said his internet signal was being "rectified" by that special router and the "block wave" of the digital signal would not be skewed anymore, thus improving quality of the music.

I told him about error correction on the internet/lan and that the digital bits from the internet are not going realtime through his streamer into his speakers and that there is a buffer in his streamer that just collects zeros and ones and rebuilts the exact same data no matter how it connects to the internet.

 

[Hear Here]

Not in HiFi. You think a $5000 power cord will improve your sound?

Not me! I don't believe there is need for anything more costly than good quality cables used in pro audio - the likes of Canare, Belden, Mogami, etc.

Point? This forum isn’t “99% of the population.” It’s audio enthusiasts.

But isn't it more for measurement enthusiasts? Maybe audio enthusiasts, but unlikely music enthusiasts! I suggest that only because some here are never convinced by any suggestion regarding sound quality unless it is supported by measurement graphs and statistics. Why is listening excitement - what one hopes for at a live performance - poo-poo'd by some here? Fortunately there are also many genuine music enthusiasts here too with a more open mind and who trust their ears in preference to their computers and microphones.

 

[jhaider]

but unlikely music enthusiasts!

Please stop projecting.

 

[AdamG]

No me! I don't believe there is need for anything more costly than good quality cables used in pro audio - the likes of Canare, Belden, Mogami, etc.


But isn't it more for measurement enthusiasts? Maybe audio enthusiasts, but unlikely music enthusiasts! I suggest that only because some here are never convinced by any suggestion regarding sound quality unless it is supported by measurement graphs and statistics. Why is listening excitement - what one hopes for at a live performance - poo-poo'd by some here? Fortunately there are also many genuine music enthusiasts here too with a more open mind and who trust their ears in preference to their computers and microphones.

Tone this down. No need to make sweeping generalizations. Contrary to popular belief, we listen to music. We also know, from decades of Audio Science Data and research that measurements do tell us how something will perform and thus sound (not counting room interactions). Measurements help us narrow down the number of well engineered products. Remember, except for that live performance you mentioned. Every track that has been recorded was measured and recorded with the same technology used to measure performance of a speaker. The microphone can capture the magic of the original performance accurately and store and retrieve and reproduce that same recording. Certainly this is measurable Down to details beyond the perceptive ability of the human ear. Just because we rely on Audio data to help make our decisions. Certainly doesn’t mean we don’t listen as well.

 

[Cbdb2]

Not me! I don't believe there is need for anything more costly than good quality cables used in pro audio - the likes of Canare, Belden, Mogami, etc.

You missed the point. You said "you get what you pay for". The $5000 power cord proves you dont, so Im having trouble understanding your position.

 

[Cbdb2]

I suggest that only because some here are never convinced by any suggestion regarding sound quality unless it is supported by measurement graphs and statistics

When the suggestions counter scientific knowledge or common sense (which are rampant) than, yes, proof is necessary. Unless of course your an ignorant, gullible audiophile. And theres enough of those around to keep hundreds of snake oil merchants making money.

 

[kyuu]

But isn't it more for measurement enthusiasts? Maybe audio enthusiasts, but unlikely music enthusiasts!

No, it's exactly the opposite. Measurements allow us to know when equipment is audibly transparent, so we can stop being sold bullshit from subjective reviews that constantly proclaim the latest (usually highly expensive) gear lifts some veils or other nonsense. Subjectivists are more often the ones who are using music to listen to their gear, rather than using their gear to listen to music.

I suggest that only because some here are never convinced by any suggestion regarding sound quality unless it is supported by measurement graphs and statistics.

Yes, because supposed differences in sound between electronic equipment that measure audibly transparent has never survived testing with proper controls.

 

[Hear Here]

You missed the point. You said "you get what you pay for". The $5000 power cord proves you dont, so Im having trouble understanding your position.

You are mistaken - my most costly speaker cables were about £500 but the ones I use now (Duelund 12 gauge) were about £350 if I remember correctly. Where did you see anything about me having $5K cables? Thanks

 

[Cbdb2]

You are mistaken - my most costly speaker cables were about £500 but the ones I use now (Duelund 12 gauge) were about £350 if I remember correctly. Where did you see anything about me having $5K cables? Thank

I wasnt talking about you, reread my posts. Now Ill talk about you. Anybody who spends that much money on speaker cables has fallen for the snake oil. They will make zero difference. This tells me all I need to know about you and where your responses are coming from.