Class D: Better with Low Efficiency Speakers?

[svart-hvitt]

It's awful nice when you can affirm each others imaginations, create a new reality where just by drawing layman conclusions you will always be right or at least your thoughts will always be valid no matter what.

I'm starting to feel rather joyous just thinking about it, sure beats the real world where I can't work out how the toaster works and my wife treats me with A bucketful of contempt sprinkled with a loathing distain.

Wordsmithery aside: Who is right? The one who follows his own preferences or the one who follows the average of everyone else's preferences?

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Wordsmithery aside: Who is right? The one who follows his own preferences or the one who follows the average of everyone else's preferences?

Get Floyd Toole's latest book, newly released, Sound Reproduction -3rd Edition. In it in the first few chapters there is an excellent description of (1.) how easily changeable and non-repeatable are listener "preferences" in non-bias-controlled listening based on factors other than sonic performance, (2.) how to objectively measure preferences in a bias-controlled way, and (3.) how broadly consistent preferences are across many subgroups, with some exceptions.

It is fine to prefer what you like. Just be aware of the pitfalls and inaccuracies based on how listening comparisons are typically done by audiophiles.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Get Floyd Toole's latest book, newly released, Sound Reproduction -3rd Edition. In it in the first few chapters there is an excellent description of (1.) how easily changeable and non-repeatable are listener "preferences" in non-bias-controlled listening based on factors other than sonic performance, (2.) how to objectively measure preferences in a bias-controlled way, and (3.) how broadly consistent preferences are across many subgroups, with some exceptions.

It is fine to prefer what you like. Just be aware of the pitfalls and inaccuracies based on how listening comparisons are typically done by audiophiles.

It reminds me I need to contact Routledge. I prepaid the book months ago. Still haven't got it.

And yes, I am familiar with preferences, biases, rationality and choice theory. Which has been quite poor at elevating people's happiness, quality of life etc.

There's more to a good choice than meets the eye of the trained and therefore often incapacitated.

 

[watchnerd]

It's awful nice when you can affirm each others imaginations, create a new reality where just by drawing layman conclusions you will always be right or at least your thoughts will always be valid no matter what.

I'm starting to feel rather joyous just thinking about it, sure beats the real world where I can't work out how the toaster works and my wife treats me with A bucketful of contempt sprinkled with a loathing distain.

Here was a comment from a PartTime Audiophile review of the Devialet 400 where the reviewer more-or-less admits he prefers electronics with coloration:

"You might be different than me, maybe a new breed of audiophile who loves efficiency, modern aesthetics and all in one functionality. Maybe you enjoy the idea that your entire system is hanging on a wall and a pair of speakers is the only thing that calls you out as a music lover. One of the reasons why this product has such a following is that it clearly departs from everything else and in all possible ways. The form is slick, mirror polished and has no knobs. Typical high-end power cords will not even fit with the cable cover on because there is not enough space for the big IEC plugs that usually come with them. Speaker cables? I had the same problem with my Signal Projects spade terminations which won’t make it inside the binding posts. Does it matter? I think not.

All this is so “old school” audiophile. Actually, during my period with the Devialet, I came to think that those who choose such a revolutionary device care little about cables, external DACs and phono stages, and I would almost bet that aesthetics, all in one functionality, software controlled upgradability and compact design count a lot (or count a lot more) in their decision-making process. Sound is also important for those potential buyers, after all if they were not music lovers they would not spend the 7.000 euros for the 200, let alone the 12K for the 400.

Is sound the sole objective here? Definitely not. Devialet is different, revolutionary in what it does and controversial in what it does not. The class A part of it sounds good but what arrives at your speakers is a big chunk of the class D part running in parallel and the overall sensation is not typical in so called “high end” terms. No midrange magic, no codas in the piano strokes and no coloration added to the music. The ASR is what I would call “the warm side of neutral” with some 30Watts in class A and the rest in AB. Rich and detailed, closer to my preferences and probably those of many “old fashioned” audiophiles."

From: https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2015/11/21/review-devialet-expert-200-and-400/

Of course, money and Veblen Goods matter -- what I think will drive the schism deeper is the continued manufacture of products that are not only technically superior, but don't look like pro audio tools, and cater go a 'pride of ownership / work of art' buyer.

After all @Frank Dernie ponied up extra $ to get his Devialet in the right color.

It's easy to sniff and raise one's nose at something that measures good, but costs 1/10th and looks like leave-behind from a test-lab or a roadie's parts bin. But when the objectively better engineered solutions start matching the 'audio jewelry' needs of millenials, I expect the resale value of some old school kit to take a hit.

 

[watchnerd]

Here is an interesting comment from a review of the Devialet Expert series. It could be total BS (critiques welcome).

But it's on topic for this thread:

"Sidenote 2: High Efficiency speakers

Two of my friends have noted that the Devialet sounds less spectacular in their systems, and there turns out to be a common factor: their high efficiency speakers. One friend has high efficiency Lumen Whites and the other has very high efficiency Avant Garde horn speakers. In these situations normal listening level is at around -40dB, whereas for me, with either of my Apogees it is around -15dB. Biiiig difference! The Devialet’s volume control is in the digital domain, and this is perhaps the main reason why it sounds flatter and less lively at very low levels."

 

[Blumlein 88]

Here is an interesting comment from a review of the Devialet Expert series. It could be total BS (critiques welcome).

But it's on topic for this thread:

"Sidenote 2: High Efficiency speakers

Two of my friends have noted that the Devialet sounds less spectacular in their systems, and there turns out to be a common factor: their high efficiency speakers. One friend has high efficiency Lumen Whites and the other has very high efficiency Avant Garde horn speakers. In these situations normal listening level is at around -40dB, whereas for me, with either of my Apogees it is around -15dB. Biiiig difference! The Devialet’s volume control is in the digital domain, and this is perhaps the main reason why it sounds flatter and less lively at very low levels."

Assuming it has at least 32 bit digital volume control, it would still have around 152 db left at -40 db. Doesn't seem likely to be a problem. And that is if they are using fixed point rather than floating point volume calculations. As usual a few measurements of relative noise floors and such would go a long way to show if there is really a difference there or not.

 

[watchnerd]

Assuming it has at least 32 bit digital volume control, it would still have around 152 db left at -40 db. Doesn't seem likely to be a problem. And that is if they are using fixed point rather than floating point volume calculations. As usual a few measurements of relative noise floors and such would go a long way to show if there is really a difference there or not.

From https://devialetchat.com/showthread.php?tid=1177:

"they are using 40 bits floating points which is 32 bits of mantissa and 8 bits of exponent, meaning that they don't loose a single bit of precision on 24 bits whatever is the volume."

 

[Rodney Gold]

You can configure the devialets as to maximum power ..for a HE speaker you would limit it so your vol control is not -40

 

[Frank Dernie]

After all @Frank Dernie ponied up extra $ to get his Devialet in the right color.

It's easy to sniff and raise one's nose at something that measures good, but costs 1/10th and looks like leave-behind from a test-lab or a roadie's parts bin. But when the objectively better engineered solutions start matching the 'audio jewelry' needs of millenials, I expect the resale value of some old school kit to take a hit.

It wasn't the "right" colour, it was one I liked, I also thought the fact that it was a limited edition made it more likely to hold its value.
I am not a millenial either, at 67...

I am an engineer who admires clever efficiency, like the F1 cars I worked on for decades. The Devialet is the epitome of clever efficiency IMO.
I don't believe multiple boxes are necessary for good performance if the single box is well engineered.
I don't believe in magic cables, just fit for purpose ones with excellent connectors.
In any case, if cables are a limitation, not needing as many is another Devialet benefit.
Yes, they are quite expensive, but much less than the 20 year old Goldmund electronics they replaced.
The only thing which may get me to sell the Devialets was if I were to go active, and since I am pretty happy with the sound I get and the cost of changing is high I probably never will.

 

[Frank Dernie]

From https://devialetchat.com/showthread.php?tid=1177:

"they are using 40 bits floating points which is 32 bits of mantissa and 8 bits of exponent, meaning that they don't loose a single bit of precision on 24 bits whatever is the volume."

Yes, I have SD cards for my Epilogs set at 1000 wpc and for my Animas (109 dB/W) at 200 wpc, the least I can set iirc.
The level set is abround -30 to -15 on the Epilogs, depending on "loudnesswar crap" or full dynamic range classical (mainly older recordings)

 

[watchnerd]

It wasn't the "right" colour, it was one I liked, I also thought the fact that it was a limited edition made it more likely to hold its value.
I am not a millenial either, at 67...

Didn't mean to imply you were a millenial -- the points were separate.

But, nonetheless, your view that multi-boxes are not necessary for good sound, and disregard of cables, does mark you as having different preferences from an 'old school' audiophile.

 

[Rodney Gold]

It's actually very liberating to embrace "simplicity"..much less angst

 

[Frank Dernie]

Didn't mean to imply you were a millenial -- the points were separate.

But, nonetheless, your view that multi-boxes are not necessary for good sound, and disregard of cables, does mark you as having different preferences from an 'old school' audiophile.

At risk of seeming argumentative audiophiles as old as I didn't consider cables to have a sound, that is a relatively recent development from my perspective, as is a lot of the other fake "information" widely circulated since the web has been easily available to the non-technically minded.

 

[A.wayne]

At risk of seeming argumentative audiophiles as old as I didn't consider cables to have a sound, that is a relatively recent development from my perspective, as is a lot of the other fake "information" widely circulated since the web has been easily available to the non-technically minded.

Define relative development , cables became an "issue" for me in the late 70's and by the time i met David Salz of wire world fame in the early 80's i became sensitive to how cables can transform a system ..

Fortunately not the hype we see today ..


Regards

 

[March Audio]

Define relative development , cables became an "issue" for me in the late 70's and by the time i met David Salz of wire world fame in the early 80's i became sensitive to how cables can transform a system ..

Fortunately not the hype we see today ..


Regards

Just an observation here, as you mention the hype with cables today, but if a cable is "transforming" the sound of a system then something is fundamentally wrong. "Transforming" implies significant effect. If a components performance is significantly affected by the electrical characteristics of an interconnect cable then either the cable has wayward electrical characteristics or the component has poor performance. I have measured frequency response differences at the end of speaker cables, albeit very small, but still if you have low L,C,R then problem solved. Or better still amps next to speakers so they are so short any effect is totally insignificant.

I have some Wireworld USB and HDMI cables. They offer no benefit over the generic cables, but thats hardly surprising.

Thats all I will say on that one, we dont want another cable thread

 

[watchnerd]

At risk of seeming argumentative audiophiles as old as I didn't consider cables to have a sound, that is a relatively recent development from my perspective, as is a lot of the other fake "information" widely circulated since the web has been easily available to the non-technically minded.

I've never heard an audiophile who is able to logically explain why recording mostly professionals don't usually use exotic cables when making recordings -- yet when people try to produce said recordings at home, they should do so.

 

[watchnerd]

Just an observation here, as you mention the hype with cables today, but if a cable is "transforming" the sound of a system then something is fundamentally wrong. "Transforming" implies significant effect. If a components performance is significantly affected by the electrical characteristics of an interconnect cable then either the cable has wayward electrical characteristics or the component has poor performance. I have measured frequency response differences at the end of speaker cables, albeit very small, but still low L,C,R and problem solved. Or better still amps next to speakers so they are so short any effect is totally insignificant.

I have some Wireworld USB and HDMI cables. They offer no benefit over the generic cables, but thats hardly surprising.

Thats all I will say on that one, we dont want another cable thread

We really need to market a series of audiophile ethernet hubs and wifi hotspots.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've never heard an audiophile who is able to logically explain why recording mostly professionals don't usually use exotic cables when making recordings -- yet when people try to produce said recordings at home, they should do so.

Saw a video of Keith Johnson once extolling lots of BS issues with quality home hifi. Sub pico-second jitter and of course cables. In some photos during his presentation were some pictures of his recording setup. In one was his own microphone preamp and someone asked about his cables. I recognized the cables as some used in instrumentation feeds in my field of work. They were tough, flexible, well shielded and very low capacitance. So he describes them similarly, and says he is using 200 ft or more of it. Goes on to say it is nowhere near the quality of even very mid-level audiophile cable. Mentioned it twice. Someone asked how he made good recordings with it, and why didn't he use audiophile cable. He ignored why he didn't use audiophile cables, but said it was not an issue because he had adjustable impedance on his preamp which made cables a non-issue though they weren't really quality cables.

EXCUSE ME! So recording large orchestras in rented halls with big money involved and the signals carrying the very origin of the recording wasn't worth using truly high quality cables. At least not for 200 foot runs. But if you wanted to hear full quality at home of his recordings those outlandishly expensive one meter runs are absolutely vital. Oh, and I guess we couldn't adjust impedance for our one meter links at home. The old guy even managed to do this and proceed right along with a straight face telling that garbage.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Define relative development , cables became an "issue" for me in the late 70's and by the time i met David Salz of wire world fame in the early 80's i became sensitive to how cables can transform a system ..

Fortunately not the hype we see today ..


Regards

Excellent. How can they?

 

[Palladium]

Saw a video of Keith Johnson once extolling lots of BS issues with quality home hifi. Sub pico-second jitter and of course cables. In some photos during his presentation were some pictures of his recording setup. In one was his own microphone preamp and someone asked about his cables. I recognized the cables as some used in instrumentation feeds in my field of work. They were tough, flexible, well shielded and very low capacitance. So he describes them similarly, and says he is using 200 ft or more of it. Goes on to say it is nowhere near the quality of even very mid-level audiophile cable. Mentioned it twice. Someone asked how he made good recordings with it, and why didn't he use audiophile cable. He ignored why he didn't use audiophile cables, but said it was not an issue because he had adjustable impedance on his preamp which made cables a non-issue though they weren't really quality cables.

EXCUSE ME! So recording large orchestras in rented halls with big money involved and the signals carrying the very origin of the recording wasn't worth using truly high quality cables. At least not for 200 foot runs. But if you wanted to hear full quality at home of his recordings those outlandishly expensive one meter runs are absolutely vital. Oh, and I guess we couldn't adjust impedance for our one meter links at home. The old guy even managed to do this and proceed right along with a straight face telling that garbage.

We can make 2+ billion transistor chips @ 1Ghz for like $10 each, but a 1 meter length of cable carrying 20KHz is still a daunting task because reasons.