Purifi vs. Pascal - What is going on?

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Huh, very interesting to hear! In fairness that is an entirely different Pascal amp, from a couple years earlier. But you're not the first end-user I've spoken to who have been under-whelmed by the purifi, which is interesting, given how much hype it has been garnering from 'reviewer' channels, amongst other. It might just be a matter of taste, hard to say...
At this point I'm probably going to go for the Pascal amp I was looking at, or possibly both... Or some other solution; not really sure anymore.

The literal only downside to the pascal to my ears was that clinical/cold tonal quality it had, aside from that it was miles ahead of pretty much anything else I've com across... But that being said that is also an important factor: it can be as audibly technically brilliant as it wants, if its not enjoyable to listen to then...
As Steve Guttenberg said, the best hifi system, is the one that makes you want to listen to more music. I'd caveat that with saying its the 'subjectively best', but I think thats a given. At the end of the day, I'm unsure if either of these amps fit that bill entirely; the Pascal might, if I can find a way to warm it up a bit.

The Purifi is brilliant on paper, and is load invariant, which is amazing, but at the end of the day its just mildly boring sounding in a way.

Tough choice.

And the end of the day just learn what do you like in the FR and do the EQ. Instead of search of nonsense things in amplifiers.

 

[Lord Victor]

And the end of the day just learn what do you like in the FR and do the EQ. Instead of search of nonsense things in amplifiers.

I’m here for science, not personal preference... hence why I came to Audio Science Review forums. If I was looking for advice on subjective taste/choice, I’d have gone elsewhere.
Hence why I said it was more of an academic exercise, and didn’t make judgements per se.
I’m more interested in why they sound different than which someone might prefer - that’s another question.

 

[Joaquinín]

I own lots of Class D amps, including the Dual Mono Pascal and Hypex Ncore + Purifi and other high ends TPA325X amps...
Without turning a blind eye, the Purifi is indeed a cut below all the others .... The Pascal is not bad but its price does not necessarily justify its purchase .... For an "average" budget I recommend the NC252MP who has the best of all these "worlds"

First picture = Pascal Dual Mono UPro (2x250W / 8 ohms)

I am not sure I am reading well you post. You mean the Purifi is markedly inferior ("a cut below"), soundwise, to the others?

 

[Lord Victor]

I am not sure I am reading well you post. You mean the Purifi is markedly inferior ("a cut below"), soundwise, to the others?

That’s how I understood it as well, and it seems to correspond with quite a few end users I’ve spoken to in PMs or other places - they’ve generally found it to sound sort of dull/boring compared to some other amps.
On the other hand reviewers seem quite excited about it, which I of course can’t entirely discredit either.
At the end of the day preference will come down to personal taste - but it seems pretty likely that there is some not insignificant difference in sonic presentation to cause these reports/disparities...

 

[SIY]

but it seems pretty likely that there is some not insignificant difference in sonic presentation to cause these reports/disparities...

Not really.

 

[daniboun]

Sorry, I meant the Purifi is better, my mistake ) poor English skills )

 

[BDWoody]

On the other hand reviewers seem quite excited about it, which I of course can’t entirely discredit either.

Did any do properly controlled blind tests? If not, you can pretty much discredit them. Controls matter.

 

[Lord Victor]

Did any do properly controlled blind tests? If not, you can pretty much discredit them. Controls matter.

Most of my Tests were done as AB, calibrated using a dB meter, in a purpose built, from the ground up, listening room, and with people who were unaware what they were listening to/for or what component/thing was being switched.
Playing one track from beginning to end, swapping amplifier, and playing the same track again.
Same method the company I borrowed the equipment from uses internally for evaluating all its components, from new drivers, crossovers, finished speakers etc.

I mean, if the only thing that counts is if it’s don’t in an anechoic chamber, using a dedicated ABX machine that costs a small fortune, and only using participants who are legally blind and have never heard of the invention of the loudspeaker... then no. Not really something most people (or even major corporations in this case) have access to - nor most published audio research papers to my knowledge, for that matter.

As a side note:
People I’ve spoken to will of course have done their listening in whichever ways they saw fit themselves; on that front, all I know is that reports have been more or less identical once you strip away subjective judgements of taste, and just look at their description of the sound.
This is of course not valid as “test” data, but provides a body of ethnographic research, which is valid in its own right: if you release a product, and people consistently think it sounds dull or warm, then like it or not, it’ll affect sales - and saying they’re all wrong is not likely to help
(In this case most people of course don’t bother with that level of critical listening, but those who do, have seemed to agree in my experience).

 

[SIY]

Most of my Tests were done as AB, calibrated using a dB meter, in a purpose built, from the ground up, listening room, and with people who were unaware what they were listening to/for or what component/thing was being switched.
Playing one track from beginning to end, swapping amplifier, and playing the same track again.
Same method the company I borrowed the equipment from uses internally for evaluating all its components, from new drivers, crossovers, finished speakers etc.

I mean, if the only thing that counts is if it’s don’t in an anechoic chamber, using a dedicated ABX machine that costs a small fortune, and only using participants who are legally blind and have never heard of the invention of the loudspeaker... then no. Not really something most people (or even major corporations in this case) have access to - nor most published audio research papers to my knowledge, for that matter.

As a side note:
People I’ve spoken to will of course have done their listening in whichever ways they saw fit themselves; on that front, all I know is that reports have been more or less identical once you strip away subjective judgements of taste, and just look at their description of the sound.
This is of course not valid as “test” data, but provides a body of ethnographic research, which is valid in its own right: if you release a product, and people consistently think it sounds dull or warm, then like it or not, it’ll affect sales - and saying they’re all wrong is not likely to help
(In this case most people of course don’t bother with that level of critical listening, but those who do, have seemed to agree in my experience).

Enough straw men there for a fire hazard.

 

[Lord Victor]

Enough straw men there for a fire hazard.

Not really, just one pretty mildly exaggerated description of what I’ve heard people consider the only valid form of listening test - since no explicit description was given.
The snark mostly brought out by too much past experience with ad hominem comments like the one you made which doesn’t really add anything to the actual conversation - simply seeks to invalidate it without actually addressing the topic.
Questioning the test method is valid of course - but it’s been done already.
I can’t say I really understand the why some spend their time reading/responding to threads if they literally don’t consider the premise valid, and just intend to be abrasive...

Excuse me if that is not the intent of you or others where it might appear - I might, again, just have seen so many others do the same thing prior, and be jumping at shadows at this point.

I’m simply trying to have an actual useful conversation about amplifier design here.
As someone showed earlier there is a measurable difference, big enough to theoretically be audible, just based on that one parameter (output impedance) - so you wouldn’t even have to believe peoples ears if you’re not into that, even if it happened to correspond.

 

[Lord Victor]

I’ll keep thing brief and limit any “snark” from here on - I’m just baffled by some approaches in this hobby/community and my irritation got the better of me. I don’t doubt the feeling is mutual.

If anyone else has thoughts/theories, on significant differences between these amps, I’d love to hear. I can’t personally do more tests currently - so if you don’t consider the tests valid feel free to just move along.

 

[SIY]

Not really, just one pretty mildly exaggerated description of what I’ve heard people consider the only valid form of listening test - since no explicit description was given.
The snark mostly brought out by too much past experience with ad hominem comments like the one you made which doesn’t really add anything to the actual conversation - simply seeks to invalidate it without actually addressing the topic.
Questioning the test method is valid of course - but it’s been done already.
I can’t say I really understand the why some spend their time reading/responding to threads if they literally don’t consider the premise valid, and just intend to be abrasive...

Excuse me if that is not the intent of you or others where it might appear - I might, again, just have seen so many others do the same thing prior, and be jumping at shadows at this point.

I’m simply trying to have an actual useful conversation about amplifier design here.
As someone showed earlier there is a measurable difference, big enough to theoretically be audible, just based on that one parameter (output impedance) - so you wouldn’t even have to believe peoples ears if you’re not into that, even if it happened to correspond.

If you refuse to implement basic controls, your observations are less than worthless. I’m sorry, there’s no nice way to say that.

 

[Lord Victor]

If you refuse to implement basic controls, your observations are less than worthless. I’m sorry, there’s no nice way to say that.

And if your refuse to actually say what “basic controls” are, or actually contribute anything other than empty statements that are essentially just insults, then your evaluation is similarly worthless.

I don’t know what it is with some people seemingly getting more out of trying tell others they are wrong, than actually contributing or teaching them anything - this entire thread is literally an open question: I’m here looking for information/to learn.

This is supposed to be a science forum? If you don’t like what I’m doing or asking, give me something to work with! If you tell someone they’re wrong, you’d better have an actual implementable reason, no? Discouraging the search for knowledge on a science forum just seems intellectually insulting to me, which I guess gets me riled up.

 

[Lord Victor]

Sorry, I meant the Purifi is better, my mistake ) poor English skills )

What about it did you find better or different, out of curiosity?

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

And if your refuse to actually say what “basic controls” are, or actually contribute anything other than empty statements that are essentially just insults, then your evaluation is similarly worthless.

I don’t know what it is with some people seemingly getting more out of trying tell others they are wrong, than actually contributing or teaching them anything - this entire thread is literally an open question: I’m here looking for information/to learn.

This is supposed to be a science forum? If you don’t like what I’m doing or asking, give me something to work with! If you tell someone they’re wrong, you’d better have an actual implementable reason, no? Discouraging the search for knowledge on a science forum just seems intellectually insulting to me, which I guess gets me riled up.

The same apply with you.
You said the purifi sound dull/boring, where is your measurements that show that? Everyone saw the purifi is such a masterpiece amplifier.

 

[SIY]

And if your refuse to actually say what “basic controls” are, or actually contribute anything other than empty statements that are essentially just insults, then your evaluation is similarly worthless.

I don’t know what it is with some people seemingly getting more out of trying tell others they are wrong, than actually contributing or teaching them anything - this entire thread is literally an open question: I’m here looking for information/to learn.

This is supposed to be a science forum? If you don’t like what I’m doing or asking, give me something to work with! If you tell someone they’re wrong, you’d better have an actual implementable reason, no? Discouraging the search for knowledge on a science forum just seems intellectually insulting to me, which I guess gets me riled up.

Double blind, properly level matched. It’s not that difficult, and you’ll get plenty of help here if you make an effort to do it right.

 

[Lord Victor]

The same apply with you.
You said the purifi sound dull/boring, where is your measurements that show that? Everyone saw the purifi is such a masterpiece amplifier.

Not quite the same. As already stated multiple times, that’s the subjective evaluation, of the comparative perceived difference relative to the Pascal amplifier. Those specifically were the words of someone who didn’t like it, someone who did called it less strident/warmer; it’s essentially all words for the same thing, loaded differently based on preference. The point is simply that there is apparently an audible difference, and as also stated multiple times, the measurements that show it are linked - not to mention someone earlier literally posted specific measurements along with an explanation for some theoretically audible differences.
Again, I’m not the one speaking in ultimatums here, calling someone wrong, I’m asking a question, calling for open debate - my mistake I guess. And if I do call someone ‘wrong’ I’d at least have the courtesy to explain myself so we can have a conversation - in case I’m the one who’s wrong.

 

[somebodyelse]

Double blind, properly level matched. It’s not that difficult, and you’ll get plenty of help here if you make an effort to do it right.

And with sufficiently fast changeover, which precludes manual disconnection and connection.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Not quite the same. As already stated multiple times, that’s the subjective evaluation, of the comparative perceived difference relative to the Pascal amplifier. Those specifically were the words of someone who didn’t like it, someone who did called it less strident/warmer; it’s essentially all words for the same thing, loaded differently based on preference. The point is simply that there is apparently an audible difference, and as also stated multiple times, the measurements that show it are linked - not to mention someone earlier literally posted specific measurements along with an explanation for some theoretically audible differences.
Again, I’m not the one speaking in ultimatums here, calling someone wrong, I’m asking a question, calling for open debate - my mistake I guess. And if I do call someone ‘wrong’ I’d at least have the courtesy to explain myself so we can have a conversation - in case I’m the one who’s wrong.

The people will said a lot of different things in his subjetive perspective, that is the reason that i prefer see measurements rather than a opinion, you will found a nonsense relation in subjetive opinion, you will find a person said the purifi sound warm, another dull and another bright, but they dont realise that as the purifi is not load depend, you gonna hear your system for what it is, if you dont apply eq you might have a nice FR to your taste in your speaker that you really find "fun" and corrected room with acoustic treatment, because the acoustic gonna change that FR.
All ears are different, the amplifier just dont add nothing in the sound.

 

[Lord Victor]

Double blind, properly level matched. It’s not that difficult, and you’ll get plenty of help here if you make an effort to do it right.

How am I supposed to know what is the “acceptable approach” or “effort” if no one tells me, and just comes along saying the thread is full of nonsense and that I’m wrong - with zero deliberation or usefully commentary beyond basically insults?!
What I described for some of the listeners, was literally double blind and level matched! Someone who knew nothing about audio equipment or what they were listening to, who just listened to the same track repeating on two different amplifiers switched by someone not involved in the whole thing.