• Welcome to ASR. 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!

Impressions: SMSL PA200 GAN FET Class-D Power Amp

Status
Not open for further replies.
May I put another of my preconceptions to the test?
again I am not an expert and not an engineer but after 30 years of listening I would like to find some technical insight here.

I never invested in expensive cables, (i just buy from a studio brand with the right 110 ohm or 75 ohms and most of the time I choose AES/EBU)
but with this I2s thing I really got lost on the way. It might be in a blind test my myths will break as well, but for some reason I keep hearing a difference. And i tried many hdmi cables all with quality. I always checked the I2s protocols on both sides would match.

so according to this table 'time domain smearing' is a deterministic phenomenon tied to the systematic characteristics whereas 'jitter' (deterministic or random) refers also to this random aspect.

so in my brain to keep some logic I made 2 hypothesis.

1. there's a difference in 'elektromagnatic' traveling around the silver vs copper
2. there's a better signalling of the clock's info through the I2s compared to hdmi, for whatever reason
3. the HDMI cable seller has a 90% profit margin and is actually of low quality material.
Thank you, you are correct, the following is from google.... No, jitter and time-domain smearing are not the same, although they can be related. Jitter describes the deviation of signal timing from its ideal position, while smearing refers to the blurring or broadening of a signal in time due to factors like slow circuit response or non-ideal interconnections. Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • Jitter: Jitter is a time-domain phenomenon that refers to the variation or deviation of the timing of a signal from its ideal position. It can be caused by various factors, including noise, variations in clock frequency, or non-ideal timing characteristics of the system. Different types of jitter include random jitter, cycle-to-cycle jitter, and data-dependent jitter.
  • Time-Domain Smearing: Smearing, in the context of time-domain analysis, refers to the broadening or blurring of a signal's edges or transitions due to factors like slow circuit response times or non-ideal interconnections. This can lead to a signal appearing less sharp or clear in the time domain.
  • Relationship: While jitter and smearing are distinct concepts, they can be related. Jitter can contribute to smearing, as the variations in timing caused by jitter can lead to a signal's edges appearing less sharp or clear. For example, if a signal has high jitter, the receiver might have difficulty accurately detecting the signal's edges, leading to smearing.
  • Examples:
    • Jitter: Imagine a clock signal that is supposed to be perfectly regular, but due to noise or other factors, the timing of its edges varies slightly. This variation in timing is jitter.
    • Smearing: Consider a pulse signal passing through a circuit with slow response times. The edges of the pulse might appear rounded or broadened due to the circuit's inability to switch quickly, causing smearing.
To ask, you mentioned I2S, would you consider SPDIF (1 stream) as good as I2S (4 streams), even though, for SPDIF, I2S is converted to SPDIF then back to I2S?
  • The I2S protocol sends pulse-code modulation (PCM) audio data from a controller to a target. It has at least three lines: the bit clock, the word select, and a data line. Word select is used to specify which of the stereo channel, left or right, the data should be sent to.
  • I2S is generally better than SPDIF for short-distance, high-speed data transmission within a device, while SPDIF is better for transmitting digital audio between devices over longer distances.
 
Thank you, you are correct, the following is from google.... No, jitter and time-domain smearing are not the same, although they can be related. Jitter describes the deviation of signal timing from its ideal position, while smearing refers to the blurring or broadening of a signal in time due to factors like slow circuit response or non-ideal interconnections. Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • Jitter: Jitter is a time-domain phenomenon that refers to the variation or deviation of the timing of a signal from its ideal position. It can be caused by various factors, including noise, variations in clock frequency, or non-ideal timing characteristics of the system. Different types of jitter include random jitter, cycle-to-cycle jitter, and data-dependent jitter.
  • Time-Domain Smearing: Smearing, in the context of time-domain analysis, refers to the broadening or blurring of a signal's edges or transitions due to factors like slow circuit response times or non-ideal interconnections. This can lead to a signal appearing less sharp or clear in the time domain.
  • Relationship: While jitter and smearing are distinct concepts, they can be related. Jitter can contribute to smearing, as the variations in timing caused by jitter can lead to a signal's edges appearing less sharp or clear. For example, if a signal has high jitter, the receiver might have difficulty accurately detecting the signal's edges, leading to smearing.
  • Examples:
    • Jitter: Imagine a clock signal that is supposed to be perfectly regular, but due to noise or other factors, the timing of its edges varies slightly. This variation in timing is jitter.
    • Smearing: Consider a pulse signal passing through a circuit with slow response times. The edges of the pulse might appear rounded or broadened due to the circuit's inability to switch quickly, causing smearing.
To ask, you mentioned I2S, would you consider SPDIF (1 stream) as good as I2S (4 streams), even though, for SPDIF, I2S is converted to SPDIF then back to I2S?
  • The I2S protocol sends pulse-code modulation (PCM) audio data from a controller to a target. It has at least three lines: the bit clock, the word select, and a data line. Word select is used to specify which of the stereo channel, left or right, the data should be sent to.
  • I2S is generally better than SPDIF for short-distance, high-speed data transmission within a device, while SPDIF is better for transmitting digital audio between devices over longer distances.
SPDIF is exactly the same data as I2S, only nested. This can be converted back and forth countless times without any changes, assuming well-functioning hardware. SPDIF is usually converted back to I2S in the DAC anyway.

External I2S is usually transmitted using the LVDS standard. LVDS is one of the most widely used industry standards and is specifically designed to transmit inter-IC connections externally over short cable runs. The disadvantage is the lack of a standard for corresponding connectors, pin assignments, and cables.

We see every day how well LVDS works in practice. If LVDS were to be eliminated from this world with the snap of a finger, there would be no internet, no notebooks/computers, monitors, televisions, telecommunications, no functioning production facilities, etc.
 
haha, that's sad. She will be mad if she sees the bill for Genelec?

oh R2R with tube is warmish. My wife also likes the 300Bs. Pleasant distortions, terrible measurements "performance" I'm sure. I personally prefer 300B tubes in the morning when the mind is more alert and Class D or A at night when the mind is more tired.

I certainly hope so PA200 cuts it
Just connected the Topping centaurus (665 euro incl tax with all the couponcodes) with a willsington b300 this morning running at 5volt now (instead 4volt) and tracks with 96khz over AES/EBU, and yes...

she likes it :)

it's all so subjective and my opinion would have no real value but If it helps I could connect the centaurus with the PA200 tomorrow.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4676.jpeg
    IMG_4676.jpeg
    417.6 KB · Views: 86
I am never happy with my system, it's either too hot (300B and fosi v3 monos!), or not warm enough in mid range (v3 monos), muddy bass (300Bs) and both sucks power.
Why not save all the stress and get a good transparent amp and add PEQ to dial it in just right.
 
My suggestion is to go for efficient class D amps and a good DSP unit so that you can dial in whatever "sound" you want.
Hahaha just replied the same thing before getting to your post
 
Just connected the Topping centaurus (665 euro incl tax with all the couponcodes) with a willsington b300 this morning running at 5volt now (instead 4volt) and tracks with 96khz over AES/EBU, and yes...

she likes it :)

it's all so subjective and my opinion would have no real value but If it helps I could connect the centaurus with the PA200 tomorrow.
"Fortunately, distortion levels are likely still well below audibility, sans the rolled off highs that may be audible to younger folks. "

I used to have a R2R headphone DAC/amp, cayin ru6 and I echo amirm remarks in his review for R2R , I felt that higher harmonics was missing in the classical music I was listening to. It could be both our wives are sensitive to higher frequencies hence enjoy the music when higher frequencies are rolled off.

unfortunately I am receiving 1 set PA200 early while the other set is delayed due to stock issue.
 
Why not save all the stress and get a good transparent amp and add PEQ to dial it in just right.
as much as I want to be like my father in law with his hardware DSP to tune as much frequency range as I want but :) with 2 young kids, no luxury of time to sit down in silence to tune the sound I want
 
as much as I want to be like my father in law with his hardware DSP to tune as much frequency range as I want but :) with 2 young kids, no luxury of time to sit down in silence to tune the sound I want
I as well have two young kids eating up a LOT of my time (7- and 5-year-old boys).

I use the tone controls on my DSPeaker Anti-Mode X2D unit. It’s very easy to adjust and the sound is immensely natural (the range for the tone adjustments are adjustable for each band, not just level). Most importantly of all, this thing does absolutely everything in its power to avoid distortion. Notably the maximum volume setting (it has preamp/volume control) takes more and more of a dive as more and more bass is applied (I use it to simulate a Harman curve, my personal preferred tonality).

Plus its room correction results are significantly better than anything I’ve so far managed to get with the WiiM’s room correction, despite using a UMIK-1 with the WiiM.

-Ed
 
I as well have two young kids eating up a LOT of my time (7- and 5-year-old boys).

I use the tone controls on my DSPeaker Anti-Mode X2D unit. It’s very easy to adjust and the sound is immensely natural (the range for the tone adjustments are adjustable for each band, not just level). Most importantly of all, this thing does absolutely everything in its power to avoid distortion. Notably the maximum volume setting (it has preamp/volume control) takes more and more of a dive as more and more bass is applied (I use it to simulate a Harman curve, my personal preferred tonality).

Plus its room correction results are significantly better than anything I’ve so far managed to get with the WiiM’s room correction, despite using a UMIK-1 with the WiiM.

-Ed
Mine are 2 yr old boy coming to 3 and 6 yr old daughter. I have no time in the day except naptime to which I will then game.

The last time did my audio overhaul, I did in the middle of the night, changing out gear and replugging everything then testing them the next morning lol. I shorted 1 of my 300B amps even because I plugged the tube in the wrong way, had to get it fixed :facepalm:
 
While waiting for the PA200 to be measured by @amirm, lets theorise (for fun and to enjoy, @EddNog @Theboar @Loba )....

For Consideration: Aspects of GaN to Consider and Suggest…. GaN FETs (Gallium Nitride Field-Effect Transistors) offer advantages over traditional silicon MOSFETs, including faster switching speeds, lower on-resistance, and smaller size, making them suitable for applications requiring high power density and efficiency. Here's a more detailed comparison….
TI - Nomenclature, Types, and Structure of GaN Transistors
edaboard - GaN FET

GaN FET Advantages:
  • Faster Switching Speeds: GaN FETs exhibit significantly faster switching speeds compared to silicon MOSFETs, enabling higher frequency operation and reduced switching losses.
  • Lower On-Resistance: GaN FETs have a lower on-resistance, leading to reduced conduction losses and improved efficiency.
    • Yes, GaNFETs lower on-resistance, along with their faster switching speeds and lower parasitic capacitance, generally leads to lower distortion and noise in applications like ClassD audio amplifiers.
    • Lower On-Resistance: GaN FETs have a significantly lower on-resistance compared to traditional silicon MOSFETs, meaning they conduct electricity with less resistance. This translates to lower power dissipation and higher efficiency.
    • Faster Switching Speeds: GaN FETs switch much faster than silicon MOSFETs, allowing for higher switching frequencies. This precise control over the output waveform results in lower distortion and improved fidelity.
    • Lower Parasitic Capacitance: GaN FETs have lower parasitic capacitance and inductance, which reduces distortion and improves overall fidelity.
    • Reduced Distortion: The combination of lower on-resistance, faster switching, and lower parasitic capacitance leads to reduced distortion, including transient intermodulation distortion (T-IMD) and total harmonic distortion (THD).
    • Applications: These benefits make GaN FETs particularly well-suited for applications like Class D audio amplifiers, where high efficiency, low distortion, and high power density are crucial.
  • Smaller Size: GaN FETs can achieve the same performance as silicon MOSFETs in a smaller footprint, allowing for higher power density in systems.
  • No Body Diode: GaN FETs lack a body diode, simplifying circuit design and reducing reverse recovery losses.
  • Better Thermal Performance: GaN FETs exhibit better thermal performance due to their smaller size and lower thermal resistance.
  • Higher Power Density: GaN FETs enable designs with higher power density, allowing more power to be packed into smaller spaces.
  • Radiation Hardness: GaN FETs are more radiation-hard than silicon MOSFETs, making them suitable for applications in harsh environments, such as satellite applications.
GaN FET Disadvantages:
  • Higher Cost: GaN FETs are currently more expensive than silicon MOSFETs, but the cost is expected to decrease as production scales up.
  • Driving Complexity: GaN FETs require specialized gate drivers to ensure proper operation and protection.
  • Limited Availability: While GaN FETs are becoming more readily available, they are not as widely available as silicon MOSFETs.
Key Differences in Performance:
Feature GaN FET Silicon
MOSFET
Switching SpeedFasterSlower
On-ResistanceLowerHigher
SizeSmallerLarger
Body DiodeNoneYes
Thermal PerformanceBetterLower
Power DensityHigherLower
CostHigherLower

Topping B100/classB & B200/classAB…. let’s firstly discuss the B100/B200, re are they using GaNFET tech?
  • The B100 (objective) measurements are exceptional, Topping B100 Amplifier Review. ClassB has significant crossover N/D when using MOSFETs but in this case, are they using GaNFETs. If yes, then it could be suggested that GaNFET, when correctly/well implemented (in classB), has very/very very low crossover N/D, at least for the B100 70-100watt/8R topology/implementation, couldn’t we? If yes, we could call this a classBG tech, couldn’t we? Where GaN (when correctly/well implemented and voltage & Current is applied) exhibits a type of LFB (a material tech feature that is better than Type1/2 EF tech, because it occurs at the junction, doesn’t it?, which is dramatically faster/more effective, isn’t it?
  • The B200 (objective) measurements are exceptional and even better than the B100, Topping B200 Amplifier Review, Topping B200 internal photos show unmarked FET? maybe?. ClassAB has dramatically less crossover N/D, than classB, when using MOSFETs but in this case, are they using GaNFETs. If yes, then it could be suggested that GaNFET, when correctly/well implemented (in classAB), has very/very very/very very very low crossover N/D, at least for the B200 150-170watt/8R topology/implementation, couldn’t we? but we do not know the classA offset bias, do we? If yes, we could call this a classABG tech, couldn’t we?
1743183444386.png
1743183456360.png
1743183471282.png


GaN ClassD with PFFB…. Class D Amplifiers: Fundamentals of Operation and Recent Developments
  • Let’s assume the Topping B100/classB is using GaNFETs (and the possible very/very very low crossover N/D), and theorise from that Focus (Desire/Intent), to simplify the ‘What could be Analogy’…. that is reasonable, isn’t it?
  • Ah, can a GaN ClassD with PFFB now be designed closer to a classB/AB amplifyer with PFFB but be >95% efficient and even sound better? Let’s look at the PFFB, which is analogue, isn’t it? This can be returned, like GFB, to the input stage, prior to PWM overlay, and applyed as NFB, nearly free/free of crossover N/D, can’t it? Yes, stability issues need to be considered but this is a simpler analogy and presented with that focus (desire/intent) in mind. To continue, the Signal, after the NFB has been applyed, can then be passed on to the next process which is the PWM overlay process then amplifyed looking just like a classB amp, wouldn’t it. The Topology/Implementation would not be as simple as this Analogy but theoretically, this Analogy is decribeing a ClassB amplifyer, isn’t it? Now, if the Topping B200/classAB, as described above is using GaNFETs, then some classA type of assistance for higher Wattage would appear to be required, wouldn’t it. Nonetheless, if this is possible and applyable then a GaNFET classD amplifyer would look like an Analogue amplifyer but with classD amplifycation stage/s, wouldn’t it? Yes, assumptions have been assumed here (for simplicity) and are relevant to the B100/B200 application (and assumptions) and their stunning (objective) N/D measurements but we don’t know their Application/Implementation, do we? only their stunning (objective) N/D measurements?
  • As Hypex/Purifi have been mentioned, let’s theorise what the effect could be using GaNFETs (and the very/very very low crossover N/D is correct), instead of MosFETs? If the utilised/specialised circuits depend on the Crossover N/D to be returned/feedback (Post Filter/Pre Filter) and the GaNFETs are not generating sufficient Crossover N/D for these specialised circuits to adequately work, not work at all, or simply add their own N/D to the input Signal or PWM Overlay or both then we could expect the resulting (objective) N/D measurements to be worse/much worse than they currently are…. this is reasonable, isn’t it? If yes and in this case, they would not be PlugNplay, would they? and if no then they could possibly be PlugNplay (and all should be even better), couldn’t they? edit: of course, they will not be PlugNplay, will they? but it was fun to use the word (theorise) :=)
 
Last edited:
While waiting for the PA200 to be measured by @amirm, lets theorise (for fun and to enjoy)....

For Consideration: Aspects of GaN to Consider and Suggest…. GaN FETs (Gallium Nitride Field-Effect Transistors) offer advantages over traditional silicon MOSFETs, including faster switching speeds, lower on-resistance, and smaller size, making them suitable for applications requiring high power density and efficiency. Here's a more detailed comparison….
TI - Nomenclature, Types, and Structure of GaN Transistors
edaboard - GaN FET

GaN FET Advantages:
  • Faster Switching Speeds: GaN FETs exhibit significantly faster switching speeds compared to silicon MOSFETs, enabling higher frequency operation and reduced switching losses.
  • Lower On-Resistance: GaN FETs have a lower on-resistance, leading to reduced conduction losses and improved efficiency.
    • Yes, GaNFETs lower on-resistance, along with their faster switching speeds and lower parasitic capacitance, generally leads to lower distortion and noise in applications like ClassD audio amplifiers.
    • Lower On-Resistance: GaN FETs have a significantly lower on-resistance compared to traditional silicon MOSFETs, meaning they conduct electricity with less resistance. This translates to lower power dissipation and higher efficiency.
    • Faster Switching Speeds: GaN FETs switch much faster than silicon MOSFETs, allowing for higher switching frequencies. This precise control over the output waveform results in lower distortion and improved fidelity.
    • Lower Parasitic Capacitance: GaN FETs have lower parasitic capacitance and inductance, which reduces distortion and improves overall fidelity.
    • Reduced Distortion: The combination of lower on-resistance, faster switching, and lower parasitic capacitance leads to reduced distortion, including transient intermodulation distortion (T-IMD) and total harmonic distortion (THD).
    • Applications: These benefits make GaN FETs particularly well-suited for applications like Class D audio amplifiers, where high efficiency, low distortion, and high power density are crucial.
  • Smaller Size: GaN FETs can achieve the same performance as silicon MOSFETs in a smaller footprint, allowing for higher power density in systems.
  • No Body Diode: GaN FETs lack a body diode, simplifying circuit design and reducing reverse recovery losses.
  • Better Thermal Performance: GaN FETs exhibit better thermal performance due to their smaller size and lower thermal resistance.
  • Higher Power Density: GaN FETs enable designs with higher power density, allowing more power to be packed into smaller spaces.
  • Radiation Hardness: GaN FETs are more radiation-hard than silicon MOSFETs, making them suitable for applications in harsh environments, such as satellite applications.
GaN FET Disadvantages:
  • Higher Cost: GaN FETs are currently more expensive than silicon MOSFETs, but the cost is expected to decrease as production scales up.
  • Driving Complexity: GaN FETs require specialized gate drivers to ensure proper operation and protection.
  • Limited Availability: While GaN FETs are becoming more readily available, they are not as widely available as silicon MOSFETs.
Key Differences in Performance:
Feature GaN FET Silicon
MOSFET
Switching SpeedFasterSlower
On-ResistanceLowerHigher
SizeSmallerLarger
Body DiodeNoneYes
Thermal PerformanceBetterLower
Power DensityHigherLower
CostHigherLower

Topping B100/classB & B200/classAB…. let’s firstly discuss the B100/B200, re are they using GaNFET tech?
  • The B100 (objective) measurements are exceptional, Topping B100 Amplifier Review. ClassB has significant crossover N/D when using MOSFETs but in this case, are they using GaNFETs. If yes, then it could be suggested that GaNFET, when correctly/well implemented (in classB), has very/very very low crossover N/D, at least for the B100 70-100watt/8R topology/implementation, couldn’t we? If yes, we could call this a classBG tech, couldn’t we? Where GaN (when correctly/well implemented and voltage & Current is applied) exhibits a type of LFB (a material tech feature that is better than Type1/2 EF tech, because it occurs at the junction, doesn’t it?, which is dramatically faster/more effective, isn’t it?
  • The B200 (objective) measurements are exceptional and even better than the B100, Topping B200 Amplifier Review, Topping B200 internal photos show unmarked FET? maybe?. ClassAB has dramatically less crossover N/D, than classB, when using MOSFETs but in this case, are they using GaNFETs. If yes, then it could be suggested that GaNFET, when correctly/well implemented (in classAB), has very/very very/very very very low crossover N/D, at least for the B200 150-170watt/8R topology/implementation, couldn’t we? but we do not know the classA offset bias, do we? If yes, we could call this a classABG tech, couldn’t we?
View attachment 439884 View attachment 439885 View attachment 439886

GaN ClassD with PFFB…. Class D Amplifiers: Fundamentals of Operation and Recent Developments
  • Let’s assume the Topping B100/classB is using GaNFETs (and the possible very/very very low crossover N/D), and theorise from that Focus (Desire/Intent), to simplify the ‘What could be Analogy’…. that is reasonable, isn’t it?
  • Ah, can a GaN ClassD with PFFB now be designed closer to a classB/AB amplifyer with PFFB but be >95% efficient and even sound better? Let’s look at the PFFB, which is analogue, isn’t it? This can be returned, like GFB, to the input stage, prior to PWM overlay, and applyed as NFB, nearly free/free of crossover N/D, can’t it? Yes, stability issues need to be considered but this is a simpler analogy and presented with that focus (desire/intent) in mind. To continue, the Signal, after the NFB has been applyed, can then be passed on to the next process which is the PWM overlay process then amplifyed looking just like a classB amp, wouldn’t it. The Topology/Implementation would not be as simple as this Analogy but theoretically, this Analogy is decribeing a ClassB amplifyer, isn’t it? Now, if the Topping B200/classAB, as described above is using GaNFETs, then some classA type of assistance for higher Wattage would appear to be required, wouldn’t it. Nonetheless, if this is possible and applyable then a GaNFET classD amplifyer would look like an Analogue amplifyer but with classD amplifycation stage/s, wouldn’t it? Yes, assumptions have been assumed here (for simplicity) and are relevant to the B100/B200 application (and assumptions) and their stunning (objective) N/D measurements but we don’t know their Application/Implementation, do we? only their stunning (objective) N/D measurements?
  • As Hypex/Purifi have been mentioned, let’s theorise what the effect could be using GaNFETs (and the very/very very low crossover N/D is correct), instead of MosFETs? If the utilised/specialised circuits depend on the Crossover N/D to be returned/feedback (Post Filter/Pre Filter) and the GaNFETs are not generating sufficient Crossover N/D for these specialised circuits to adequately work, not work at all, or simply add their own N/D to the input Signal or PWM Overlay or both then we could expect the resulting (objective) N/D measurements to be worse/much worse than they currently are…. this is reasonable, isn’t it? If yes and in this case, they would not be PlugNplay, would they? and if no then they could possibly be PlugNplay (and all should be even better), couldn’t they?
Perhaps it would be wise to invest a little more time in fundamentals rather than theory.

Do you know what distinguishes Class D amplifiers from Class A, AB, and B?
That's exactly why Topping's B100/B200 amplifiers don't (or can't) use PFFBs or GaN FETs.
These are transistor amplifiers in which the transistors are driven by the analog audio signal. The switching frequency is far from what would be useful for GaN FETs.

PFFB is a feedback technology from TI for the TI TPA32xx Class D series. This is an additional (optional) secondary feedback, in addition to the first internally hardwired feedback of the TPA32xx series. This PFFB uses the already filtered signal from Class D amplifiers (switching mode).

Class D with GaN FETs and (secondary) PFFBs are actually not a problem, provided there is a control system that can handle it.
But that's precisely the crux of the matter. As long as there is no IC or discrete control for Class D with the appropriate switching speed for GaN FETs that can handle and process a (secondary) PFFB, dreams are just empty. That's the real crux of the matter.
 
The technical term for "time domain smearing" is jitter. Measuring jitter is something many of us are very familiar with, but the big debate is what amount of jitter is audible.
I thought jitter, whilst it is a due to clock errors, resulted in amplitude errors, not time domain smearing?

Talk of time domain smearing makes me think of MQA and their claims of filter ringing, visible on an impulse response measurement, being audible. Particularly that pre-ringing is audible even at low levels and causes our hearing/brain to be made aware of an impending impulse before it actually occurs.
 
There is always more to look into, and so much to learn. For those of us who aren't engineers, one of the more accessible aspects of this hobby is the area of psychoacoustics, which is almost completely ignored by the industry propaganda machine.
Even if we would 'blind test' we would have to acknowledge that our midbrains process the auditory information different over our neurons. (see the picture) And some will have more neurons on the lateral side of the midbrain than others and vice versa.. So you are right, the field of psychology acoustics or neuroacoustics might get some more attention, although it isn't very accessible for scientific answers. And if you look at the 'nostalgia' inducing studies with music and dementia the brain variations even get reslly tuff to scientifically validate).

In the middle ages some woman might have been burnt because they claimed to see aura's around other's people. And none of the men could ever measure anything in blind testing. Nowadays we now colorblindness has it's X gene's linking and a small population of woman (<5%) indeed do have extra eye containing 'AD converters' which pick up some infrared info.

ASR is at least doing a step into this more 'scientific' approach and i personally hope it helps people stop spending money on false commercial marketing claims.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4679.jpeg
    IMG_4679.jpeg
    261.3 KB · Views: 32
I thought jitter, whilst it is a due to clock errors, resulted in amplitude errors, not time domain smearing?
The effect of jitter is pretty much intermodulation distortion.
Talk of time domain smearing makes me think of MQA and their claims of filter ringing, visible on an impulse response measurement, being audible. Particularly that pre-ringing is audible even at low levels and causes our hearing/brain to be made aware of an impending impulse before it actually occurs.
Yes, I tend to find "time domain smearing" is mostly associated with all sorts of voodoo and pseudoscience.
 
Even if we would 'blind test' we would have to acknowledge that our midbrains process the auditory information different over our neurons. (see the picture) And some will have more neurons on the lateral side of the midbrain than others and vice versa.. So you are right, the field of psychology acoustics or neuroacoustics might get some more attention, although it isn't very accessible for scientific answers. And if you look at the 'nostalgia' inducing studies with music and dementia the brain variations even get really tuff to scientifically validate).

In the middle ages some woman might have been burnt because they claimed to see aura's around other's people. And none of the men could ever measure anything in blind testing. Nowadays we now colorblindness has it's X gene's linking and a small population of woman (<5%) indeed do have extra eye containing 'AD converters' which pick up some infrared info.

ASR is at least doing a step into this more 'scientific' approach and i personally hope it helps people stop spending money on false commercial marketing claims.
Thank you, yes, as you have mentioned, it could be suggested that 'blind/double blind/etc test' is flawed but if these scientific aspects/character/characteristics are recognised/acknowledged then it can be suggested as being reasonable and a guide but not definite, can't it? Even so and however, if the impression/s (hopefully objective) provide repeatable Conclusion/s then it is reasonable to suggest that they require (scientific, both Theoretical/Applyed) investigation/analysis/inquiry, don't they? Note that because Test Measurements are interpretive/interpretation (can also be called an Impression, can't it? but hopefully objective) the same (scientific, both Theoretical/Applyed) Princple/Approach applys, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
Thank you, yes, as you have mentioned, it could be suggested that 'blind/double blind/etc test' is flawed.
It could, and it has, rather often, mostly by subjective audiophiles who hate blind tests because they contradict their beliefs. Of course they never offer any evidence or suggestions for alternatives that would eliminate expectation/confirmation bias.

Double blind tests remain the gold standard - for a reason.
 
there is something that this amp gives me that no other does—I’m done looking at amps now that I have these.

Your love affair with the SMSL PA 200 has lasted less than a month.
Now it's the WiiM Vibelink.
Why?

1743370631245.jpeg
 
Your love affair with the SMSL PA 200 has lasted less than a month.
Now it's the WiiM Vibelink.
Why?

View attachment 440506
In this case it’s just a matter of money. I net gain $1,000 by returning the SMSL gear and replacing them with this. It sounds, “good enough.”

Times are tight. Lots of external factors affecting my life and the money is badly needed. So it is what it is.

-Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom