• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

High end Vintage SS amp vs the best Class D amps

OP
G

Goodman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
210
Likes
81
If you choose opamps based on ignorance, you can indeed change the sound- oscillation can destroy a lot of downstream components. If you really know what you're doing, you can change them and not make things worse. But if you really know what you're doing, you'd laugh at the idea.

REALLY NOW:: Are you saying I am ignorent? Have a look at the Asus xonar essence, they actually encourage you to roll opamps, and on their sight they even recommend which opamps will deliver what sound. I think Asus knows a bit more about digital conversion and implementation than any audiophile start up tinkerer. In addition companies like Burston Audio and other Japonese chip makers and circuit designers recommend certain opamps for several different dacs.. https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16800998157
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,226
Likes
17,805
Location
Netherlands
REALLY NOW:: Are you saying I am ignorent? Have a look at the Asus xonar essence, they actually encourage you to roll opamps, and on their sight they even recommend which opamps will deliver what sound. I think Asus knows a bit more about digital conversion and implementation than any audiophile start up tinkerer. In addition companies like Burston Audio and other Japonese chip makers and circuit designers recommend certain opamps for several different dacs.. https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16800998157

I think Asus knows a lot about marketing..
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,856
Of course everyone's taste, systems, and rooms are different, and I don't want to alter the artistic content, but if I follow your logic to the letter, it means that I should listen with the same little crappy speakers or similar that the content was mastered on, and who's goal is to saturate radio stations with a continuous compressed blast with no dynamic contrast. A lot of Classic recordings are now being remastered for this reason. Steven Wilson an artist, musician and recording engineer is highly solicited for this task. The same content remastered is now enjoyable on a large audiophile system.
No. Firstly, the makers of these music-enhancing products deny that they are anything but transparent. In fact, they usually claim that only they are truly transparent, and that they solve problems others leave unsolved.

Secondly, it does not mean you have to listen on the same crappy speakers that the producer allegedly used. (I suspect that most of them listen to stuff on truly crappy speakers just to validate that the music will be acceptable on the sorts of systems most people use--after they have mixed it on what they think are they think are truly transparent monitors.) It does mean that you might wish to season to taste during playback. But you don't automatically add the same seasoning to every single dish. So, devices that color the output (in spite of the claims of their makers in nearly every case) only work on the music that needs that particular seasoning to fit your taste. But this is all balderdash--most who spend money on stuff that is "musical" and not "accurate" probably couldn't tell the difference in a blind test, and even if they could, don't have any basis for preferring one over the other beyond their past coloration conditioning, however they received it.

In photography, we apply corrections and then we target the color to a particular display technology. In between, we manipulate the photo to achieve our artistic goals. The corrections repair the distortions of the sensor and camera technology, and the targeting mitigates the distortions of the display technology. Neither of those is the art and both are technical attempts to ensure that the art is not subverted by the technology. Photographers who attempt two or three of those corrections simultaneously end up chasing their tails a lot. What that means in audio: A good engineer will make the song sound as good as possible, and then make as few adjustments as possible to make it play well on a range of playback devices. It is true that many engineers do not use monitor speakers with calibrated sound the way photographers use monitor displays with calibrated color, and that is a problem. But it's a different problem for every recording.

So, if you want a different coloration in the output of a particular recording, that's what the tone controls are for.

But, again, the claim isn't that a device provides a universally effective favoring coloration. The claim is that this magic box is the one, above all others, that truly provides transparent amplification beyond the ability to measure it (a necessary qualification) so that it can be musical. That's where one must throw the BS flag.

Rick "whose Adcom preamp has wonderfully subtle tone controls" Denney
 
Last edited:

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
REALLY NOW:: Are you saying I am ignorent? Have a look at the Asus xonar essence, they actually encourage you to roll opamps, and on their sight they even recommend which opamps will deliver what sound. I think Asus knows a bit more about digital conversion and implementation than any audiophile start up tinkerer. In addition companies like Burston Audio and other Japonese chip makers and circuit designers recommend certain opamps for several different dacs.. https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16800998157

Gee, you mean people who sell bullshit claim it's real? Heavens, what next?
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
IMHO - Accurate is hearing what the artist and his recording engineer wanted you to hear. If you like added distortion(s), that is fine. Just that most of us want to hear what was intended, not some smoothed over, homogenized or modified music. Accurate is what most of us are after.
And even if not, the idea that there's a universal distortion overlay suitable for all recordings and that can't be turned off is... nuts.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,490
Of course everyone's taste, systems, and rooms are different, and I don't want to alter the artistic content, but if I follow your logic to the letter, it means that I should listen with the same little crappy speakers or similar that the content was mastered on, and who's goal is to saturate radio stations with a continuous compressed blast with no dynamic contrast. A lot of Classic recordings are now being remastered for this reason. Steven Wilson an artist, musician and recording engineer is highly solicited for this task. The same content remastered is now enjoyable on a large audiophile system.

You don't follow my logic. (And you're ignoring some rather obvious and central parts of my prior comment.)

The point is not to listen on the same system the music was mastered on, but rather to listen on equipment that most accurately reproduces whatever ended up on the source (tape, digital file, whatever). Listening on the same equipment the music might have been mastered on is an absurd proposition, precisely because different albums are mastered with different equipment - which was precisely my point.

In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of popular music is not mastered on a particular set of equipment. It's mastered on multiple pieces of equipment, usually including quite revealing (aka high fidelity) equipment, and also "crappy speakers," car stereos, headphones, and so on. And yes indeed, compromises are often made to ensure the result sounds basically balanced and in the ballpark of the artist's intent when played on a wide variety of systems and in a wide variety of situations.

To be clear, I do understand your point: if an album was mastered on equipment that is not itself accurate, then what the mastering engineer heard is not the same as what actually ended up on the tape/source file. And if an album was mastered, in part, using earbuds, car stereos and other non-hi-fi equipment in order to sound "punchy" and "radio-ready," then even if the mastering engineer's main system was accurate, the resulting final mastering is still going to be sonically compromised for audiophile listening.

My point is not that you are wrong about how some music mastered. My point is that you are wrong if you claim that you can "voice" your hi-fi system to magically compensate for all those compromised masterings.

You can't do that because bad masterings are bad in different ways; because masterings we might consider not quite as hi-fi as they could be all have different kinds and degrees of deficiencies; and because even if a system could magically compensate for mastering problems, it would negatively impact the sound of really good masterings that are already highly accurate and properly done.

As for modern remasters, some of them indeed are better than the originals, because they're made on modern equipment and targeted for an older, more audiophile audience than when they were originally released. And conversely, some modern remasters are more compressed than the originals, because today's technology unfortunately enables more compression than the analogue equipment of the past.

But putting that aside, if you're going to buy modern remasters like Steven Wilson's - though it should be noted his stuff sounds so clean and dynamic because he remixes from the multitracks, not because he remasters - then why on earth wouldn't you want to play those great, clean, well-balanced, dynamic remasters back on a home stereo system that has the highest fidelity as possible? Why play those great audiophile remasters back on a system that colors and distorts the sound to make certain older masterings sound more "musical"?

If you want to compensate for problems with mastering, that's what tone controls, equalizers, DSP, and other sound processing tools are for - tools that you can switch in or out of the circuit as needed. Turning your entire system into a giant tone control by chasing some kind of universal "musicality" that is supposedly different than and superior to accuracy, is a losing proposition and makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
OP
G

Goodman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
210
Likes
81
You don't follow my logic. (And you're ignoring some rather obvious and central parts of my prior comment.)

The point is not to listen on the same system the music was mastered on, but rather to listen on equipment that most accurately reproduces whatever ended up on the source (tape, digital file, whatever). Listening on the same equipment the music might have been mastered on is an absurd proposition, precisely because different albums are mastered with different equipment - which was precisely my point.

In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of popular music is not mastered on a particular set of equipment. It's mastered on multiple pieces of equipment, usually including quite revealing (aka high fidelity) equipment, and also "crappy speakers," car stereos, headphones, and so on. And yes indeed, compromises are often made to ensure the result sounds basically balanced and in the ballpark of the artist's intent when played on a wide variety of systems and in a wide variety of situations.

To be clear, I do understand your point: if an album was mastered on equipment that is not itself accurate, then what the mastering engineer heard is not the same as what actually ended up on the tape/source file. And if an album was mastered, in part, using earbuds, car stereos and other non-hi-fi equipment in order to sound "punchy" and "radio-ready," then even if the mastering engineer's main system was accurate, the resulting final mastering is still going to be sonically compromised for audiophile listening.

My point is not that you are wrong about how some music mastered. My point is that you are wrong if you claim that you can "voice" your hi-fi system to magically compensate for all those compromised masterings.

You can't do that because bad masterings are bad in different ways; because masterings we might consider not quite as hi-fi as they could be all have different kinds and degrees of deficiencies; and because even if a system could magically compensate for mastering problems, it would negatively impact the sound of really good masterings that are already highly accurate and properly done.

As for modern remasters, some of them indeed are better than the originals, because they're made on modern equipment and targeted for an older, more audiophile audience than when they were originally released. And conversely, some modern remasters are more compressed than the originals, because today's technology unfortunately enables more compression than the analogue equipment of the past.

But putting that aside, if you're going to buy modern remasters like Steven Wilson's - though it should be noted his stuff sounds so clean and dynamic because he remixes from the multitracks, not because he remasters - then why on earth wouldn't you want to play those great, clean, well-balanced, dynamic remasters back on a home stereo system that has the highest fidelity as possible? Why play those great audiophile remasters back on a system that colors and distorts the sound to make certain older masterings sound more "musical"?

If you want to compensate for problems with mastering, that's what tone controls, equalizers, DSP, and other sound processing tools are for - tools that you can switch in or out of the circuit as needed. Turning your entire system into a giant tone control by chasing some kind of universal "musicality" that is supposedly different than and superior to accuracy, is a losing proposition and makes no sense.

Glad we agree on Steven Wilson's quality remasters, clean and dynamic are the key words.
Unlike many audiophiles I don't look for well recorded stuff to complement my system. Equalizing or using différent tone control for each album is a pain
 

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
4,751
Likes
4,633
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
Questions from someone, me, who has returned to Hifi after many years. Class D, what is the distortion in the higher audible frequency regions? If it is possible to say something generally regarding class D regarding that?Was it not (is?) class D Achilles heel?

Of course, the development of class D amplifiers may have progressed. As long as the measurements on class D amplifiers are carried out with reported power and measured with bandwidth up to around 80 Khz, so okay then it can be interesting.:D
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,314
Likes
4,427
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
Is there any actual ears-only no-peeking evidence?


Sadly no sir! Only 'hundreds' of dems and comparisons in many different systems...
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,314
Likes
4,427
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
Good description of the BBC curve. BBC engineers only cared about accurate voice timber, thus ignoring all other aspects. They did that with heavy plastic cone drivers (Kef, Rogers, Splendor and now Harbeth which are a nice polite old school speaker, outrageous ly over- priced.

Until the 80's, BBC speakers were pretty flat as I recall. Spendor BC1's were chosen as generalpurpose noise boxes and weren't monitors. I gatherThe 5/8 and 5/9 were re-balanced to suit themselves and their sound balance engineers the LS5/5 was the last 'flat' monitor they made. My own 5/9's were NOT natural in timbre but in the right room and free-standing, they did throw a marvellous soundfield, albeit a false one ;) Rogers own speakers weren't ever used by the BBC, although of course they made a few BBC types under licence. By the way, the LS3/5A were never designed as grade 1 monitors, but instead, they were made to reproduce distortion and hiss in the programme in OB vans... They do that really well I feel :D
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,314
Likes
4,427
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
OK, so no actual evidence. I wouldn't take those claims seriously.
Ancient history, but for me it was repeatable. I remember being told the old Bitsream chips were very low voltage originally for battery powered portables.
 

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
4,751
Likes
4,633
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
Aha ,interesting. This summer I played with a couple of Kef Cadenza. The same tweeter in them as in LS3, ie t27. Plus woofer B200. I enclose a picture of a pair of Kef Cadenza (not mine) and some general info. DSJR, you seem to know this with Kef. No wonder, you write here and are an Englishman who likes music, hifi so. :) My info is more aimed at others who are a little curious.

Fun speakers, Kef Cadenza. :D I think they need a pretty big room to sound good / decent. Did not really fit in my little listening room.

Edit: I think Kef Cadenza needs to have some decent distance to listeners. If you sit too close to them and listen you do not get quite right sound image due to how the drivers are placed on the baffle. A guess on my part.
 

Attachments

  • shot_2021-09-17_23-23-26.png
    shot_2021-09-17_23-23-26.png
    707.6 KB · Views: 68
  • http___assets.catawiki.nl_assets_2019_7_19_6_1_4_614cb1d2-278e-46aa-abdd-fd5aeac5cf08 (1).jpg
    http___assets.catawiki.nl_assets_2019_7_19_6_1_4_614cb1d2-278e-46aa-abdd-fd5aeac5cf08 (1).jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 71
Last edited:

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,490
Glad we agree on Steven Wilson's quality remasters, clean and dynamic are the key words.
Unlike many audiophiles I don't look for well recorded stuff to complement my system. Equalizing or using différent tone control for each album is a pain

Oh yes, I love Wilson's work - although again the main thing he does is remix from the multitracks. So a typical Wilson-produced reissue will have newly mixed versions that are different than the original mix of the album. And the package will often also include the original mix too, often as a flat transfer - which is technically not a remaster either. But yes, the material on Wilson-produced reissues from artists like Yes, Tears for Fears, XTC and others is great. A lot of people don't like his stuff because it is remixed and therefore not identical to the originals. But I am with you - I really enjoy them and for some material the Wilson remix has become my go-to.

I also agree with you 100% that the music has to drive the bus: there's a whole genre of "audiophile music" and I have no time for it. It's about the music first, which means that a lot of favorite albums are not going to be recorded or mastered perfectly.

And I also agree with you that EQing and using tone controls for each album is a huge pain. But IMHO using a permanently colored/nonlinear system is even worse, because it limits the fidelity of all my music.

I have found that as I have pursued fidelity in my system - lower noise, lower distortion, more linear frequency response, better soundstage imaging - everything has sounded better. Yes, the lesser-sounding recordings still don't sound as good as the exceptional ones. But everything sounds better than it did, and I would not want to make what for me would be a backwards move by making my system "warmer" or "tube-like" or more rolled-off or less resolving in the treble. We can't improve bad recordings - we can only partially mask their badness, and if we bake that masking into our system, then everything is reduced in fidelity.
 

MakeMineVinyl

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
3,558
Likes
5,871
Location
Santa Fe, NM
And I also agree with you that EQing and using tone controls for each album is a huge pain. But IMHO using a permanently colored/nonlinear system is even worse, because it limits the fidelity of all my music.
In my system, I have a single knob which adjusts a filter for the HF (above 500Hz) which at either extreme of its rotation is the bounds of what I may "like" for any particular recording, or my mood at the time. Its a rather complex filter which compensates to one degree or another for multiple aspects of the intrinsic response of the HF horn/driver. Most of the time its somewhere in the middle of its limits, but it does get adjusted frequently since its easy to do.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
Absolute SOTA in amplification is say, a Halcro Eclipse. As far as I am aware, nothing comes close in all the parameters that actually define a high fidelity amplifier. But a pair costs US$70k... (AU $120k in Aus). Ouch. They are my lottery winnings amps. :)
The Halcro Eclipse specs are nuts! I have never seen power amplifiers specs like those.
 

BillH

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 10, 2018
Messages
129
Likes
260
Location
Bedford, MA
Noise?
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK

amadeuswus

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
277
Likes
265
Location
Massachusetts
Absolute SOTA in amplification is say, a Halcro Eclipse. As far as I am aware, nothing comes close in all the parameters that actually define a high fidelity amplifier. But a pair costs US$70k... (AU $120k in Aus). Ouch. They are my lottery winnings amps. :)
The Halcro Eclipse Stereo was recently tested by hi-finews:


(Amazing results so far as I can tell, but just don't drive it into clipping!)
 

Keauval

New Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2024
Messages
2
Likes
5
Hi !
Sorry for this old topic..
I just compared my old totl, Sansui AU 9500 (recapped) with the Topping PA5 ii.. both 2x85W..
I have to say that class D killed my loved Sansui.. better in mid/high and 0 noise.
Voila
 
Top Bottom