The "new" Class D vs A/B amps

[KL....]

If your ear can't hear a difference, it doesn't matter. Double-blind ABX listening tests can confirm if something is audible or not - and modern amps have reached that level quite a while ago.

It could be suggested that Double-blind ABX listening tests are flawed, why? because speakers, rooms, the number of people and their positioning in the room, and others aspects are flawed and create flaws in the displayed/presented music reproduction.... don't/aren't they? The best outcome could be defined as a synergy and the result of each Double-blind ABX listening via that synergy, at best, is the result of that synergy.... that is reasonable, isn't it? Note with connections, it takes time for metals to mate and for electrical signal to overcome (find the best way through) a newly formed/created connection boundary.... doesn't it?

And it all took place decades ago -B&O ICEpower (2000), Hypex UcD (2001), Yamaha MX-D1 (2004), etc.

Fortunately, there have been further (quite exciting) improvements.... haven't there, especially with the discussions/posts that the latest review threads are showing :=)

 

[Purité Audio]

It could be suggested that Double-blind ABX listening tests are flawed, why? because speakers, rooms, the number of people and their positioning in the room, and others aspects are flawed and create flaws in the displayed/presented music reproduction.... don't/aren't they? The best outcome could be defined as a synergy and the result of each Double-blind ABX listening via that synergy, at best, is the result of that synergy.... that is reasonable, isn't it? Note with connections, it takes time for metals to mate and for electrical signal to overcome (find the best way through) a newly formed/created connection boundary.... doesn't it?


Fortunately, there have been further (quite exciting) improvements.... haven't there, especially with the discussions/posts that the latest review threads are showing :=)

No
Keith

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

Even if you like "colour" and "character" - nothing wrong with that -

Yeah, totally agree. It's fine if you want to color (colour) the sound. I just found that this is a never ending chase because it always sounds good on some things and not others. But to each their own.

you're still better off starting with a neutral amplifier and do the sound adjustment to taste at source/preamp level. It's way more flexible than having a less accurate amplifier that may work to your liking with one pair of speakers, but not with another. It's also much cheaper to do than getting a new amp that "synergises" (gosh, can you tell how much I hate that term in this context) with your next speakers.

Ha! Yup.

Synergy, n.

The rare and happy accident of two deeply flawed audio components working together to one's liking

 

[Ropeburn]

It could be suggested that Double-blind ABX listening tests are flawed, why? because speakers, rooms, the number of people and their positioning in the room, and others aspects are flawed and create flaws in the displayed/presented music reproduction.... don't/aren't they? The best outcome could be defined as a synergy and the result of each Double-blind ABX listening via that synergy, at best, is the result of that synergy.... that is reasonable, isn't it? Note with connections, it takes time for metals to mate and for electrical signal to overcome (find the best way through) a newly formed/created connection boundary.... doesn't it?


Fortunately, there have been further (quite exciting) improvements.... haven't there, especially with the discussions/posts that the latest review threads are showing :=)

I choose to take this post personally because I literally just ranted about how much I hate the whole "synergy" notion in the context of audio, just a few posts above.

Jokes aside:

The textbook definition of synergy is pretty much "two or more components interacting to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of its parts".

And as such, it's utter nonsense in the audio world. Components do not need to be "synergistic"; all they need to do is their job, and do it well. If they do, then the whole system will work just nicely. There's even standards for ensuring that, for example output and input impedances of preamps and poweramps, to ensure any combination of devices works fine. In case of power amp - speaker interaction, with the most "wildcard" component being the speaker with its complex load, there has been a decades old trend to simply make the amp as stable and load independent as possible, to fix that problem. And it works. Both beefy AB and class D amps that simply do not care about the speakers' behaviour - within reason - have been available for a very long time, for affordable moneys.

"Synergy" frankly is a bullshit word and meaningless in this context, and I really wish people would stop using it. Talk about competent devices instead, that makes a lot more sense.

 

[KL....]

I choose to take this post personally because I literally just ranted about how much I hate the whole "synergy" notion in the context of audio, just a few posts above.

Jokes aside:

The textbook definition of synergy is pretty much "two or more components interacting to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of its parts".

And as such, it's utter nonsense in the audio world. Components do not need to be "synergistic"; all they need to do is their job, and do it well. If they do, then the whole system will work just nicely. There's even standards for ensuring that, for example output and input impedances of preamps and poweramps, to ensure any combination of devices works fine. In case of power amp - speaker interaction, with the most "wildcard" component being the speaker with its complex load, there has been a decades old trend to simply make the amp as stable and load independent as possible, to fix that problem. And it works. Both beefy AB and class D amps that simply do not care about the speakers' behaviour - within reason - have been available for a very long time, for affordable moneys.

"Synergy" frankly is a bullshit word and meaningless in this context, and I really wish people would stop using it. Talk about competent devices instead, that makes a lot more sense.

Yes, correct, synergy is not accurate/good (at least not for me, personally, but it can easyly occur) although if it provides the result that the listener requires then ok/all good, enjoy :=)

 

[Geert]

Note with connections, it takes time for metals to mate and for electrical signal to overcome (find the best way through) a newly formed/created connection boundary.... doesn't it?

Indeed. In the studio we always setup mic”s, instruments and outboard gear week in advance and then wait for the signals to find their way to the mixing desk before we start recording. In-between we spend our time drinking beer and everything always starts better when we get started.

 

[ahofer]

"Synergy" frankly is a bullshit word and meaningless in this context, and I really wish people would stop using it. Talk about competent devices instead, that makes a lot more sense.

agreed, as I say in this post.

Revel PerformaBe F226Be Floorstanding Speaker Review

When I purchase a piece of equipment, I bring it in to my room, using my equipment, my treatments, and then I make a decision on what’s sounds the best to me. How are measurements going to tell me how a piece of equipment works with my other gear? Say for example a tube preamp with a solid state...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[KL....]

Indeed. In the studio we always setup mic”s, instruments and outboard gear week in advance and then wait for the signals to find their way to the mixing desk before we start recording. In-between we spend our time drinking beer and everything always starts better when we get started.

Ah, a Dunkel beer (while waiting) sounds quite enjoyable, possiblely more enjoyable than the sound, but a Dunkel beer with enjoyable music sounds very enjoyable.... doesn't it :=)

 

[Ropeburn]

Yes, correct, synergy is not accurate/good (at least not for me, personally, but it can easyly occur) although if it provides the result that the listener requires then ok/all good, enjoy :=)

The point is that it isn't at all useful and helpful to achieve a certain sound goal. If anything, the whole concept is needlessly confusing and misleading for beginners, and hinders them to get the sound they want, and/or makes them spend precious money on electronics they had better invested in speakers instead, and maybe room treatment.

Gladly, most people here know what they're doing. But that can only be achieved by getting the right information and developing a sense of what really matters. "Synergy" is actually detrimental to that.

 

[KL....]

The point is that it isn't at all useful and helpful to achieve a certain sound goal. If anything, the whole concept is needlessly confusing and misleading for beginners, and hinders them to get the sound they want, and/or makes them spend precious money on electronics they had better invested in speakers instead, and maybe room treatment.

Gladly, most people here know what they're doing. But that can only be achieved by getting the right information and developing a sense of what really matters. "Synergy" is actually detrimental to that.

Thank you, yes, especially if you include setup of speakers for the room (if possible/allowed) and beneficial room treatment after (complete) setup.... that is reasonable, isn't it?

 

[Ropeburn]

Ah, a Dunkel beer (while waiting) sounds quite enjoyable, possiblely more enjoyable than the sound, but a Dunkel beer with enjoyable music sounds very enjoyable.... doesn't it :=)

One of the best class D (=Dunkel) beers in Germany, highly recommended:

 

[Julf]

It could be suggested that Double-blind ABX listening tests are flawed

It could, but it would be stupid.

, why? because speakers, rooms, the number of people and their positioning in the room, and others aspects are flawed and create flaws in the displayed/presented music reproduction.... don't/aren't they? The best outcome could be defined as a synergy and the result of each Double-blind ABX listening via that synergy, at best, is the result of that synergy.... that is reasonable, isn't it? Note with connections, it takes time for metals to mate and for electrical signal to overcome (find the best way through) a newly formed/created connection boundary.... doesn't it?

No. Are you serious or just extracting the urine?

Fortunately, there have been further (quite exciting) improvements.... haven't there, especially with the discussions/posts that the latest review threads are showing :=)

Sure, if better measurements excite you.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

It could be suggested that Double-blind ABX listening tests are flawed, why? because speakers, rooms, the number of people and their positioning in the room, and others aspects are flawed and create flaws in the displayed/presented music reproduction.... don't/aren't they? The best outcome could be defined as a synergy and the result of each Double-blind ABX listening via that synergy, at best, is the result of that synergy.... that is reasonable, isn't it? Note with connections, it takes time for metals to mate and for electrical signal to overcome (find the best way through) a newly formed/created connection boundary.... doesn't it?


Fortunately, there have been further (quite exciting) improvements.... haven't there, especially with the discussions/posts that the latest review threads are showing :=)

Do you have any actual data to support your claims? Please list them as follows:

• Double-blind tests are flawed.
• There is synergy in electronics.
• Something I don’t understand -metals are promiscuous but lazy..?

Please avoid a wall of text. Thanks.

As for improvements in Class D, I see them as mainly arithmetic and measurable -non-audible evolutions, as far as I’m concerned.
I'm not looking at chip amplification in this context.

 

[BeeKay]

To think you can hear things that no one else can is borderline mental illness.

Like it!

And what about someone who sells overpriced gadgets to those affected and fuels their perception? Perhaps the current terms are still a little too friendly?

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Like it!

And what about someone who sells overpriced gadgets to those affected and fuels their perception? Perhaps the current terms are still a little too friendly?

Spoiler: The first thing that came to mind.

 

[jhaider]

And it all took place decades ago -B&O ICEpower (2000), Hypex UcD (2001), Yamaha MX-D1 (2004), etc.

I don’t think the original ICEpower amps were load invariant. See, e.g. https://www.stereophile.com/content/bel-canto-ref1000m-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements

Not familiar with the Yamaha.

UcD was basically flawless though from an audibility standpoint. nCore and Purifi are higher power generally and may be improved in other ways that matter, such as lower idle power consumption.

 

[Vacceo]

Do you have any actual data to support your claims? Please list them as follows:

• Double-blind tests are flawed.
• There is synergy in electronics.
• Something I don’t understand -metals are promiscuous but lazy..?

Please avoid a wall of text. Thanks.

As for improvements in Class D, I see them as mainly arithmetic and measurable -non-audible evolutions, as far as I’m concerned.
I'm not looking at chip amplification in this context.

Beyond audio, smaller sizes and better efficiency are very nice improvements. Not that there is a lot to do on that department, but increments are nice to see.

 

[ahofer]

There is synergy in electronics.

There’s a motte-and-bailey argument dealers use here about impedance matching (whereas I would argue high output impedance is simply a design flaw). And then I’ve heard dealers say “those speakers are warm and musical so you should use an amp and cables that are more revealing and analytical”.

If you sold the stuff, wouldn’t you want customers to attempt EQ in the most indirect and costly way possible?

 

[Old_School_Brad]

There’s a motte-and-bailey argument dealers use here about impedance matching (whereas I would argue high output impedance is simply a design flaw). And then I’ve heard dealers say “those speakers are warm and musical so you should use an amp and cables that are more revealing and analytical”.

If you sold the stuff, wouldn’t you want customers to attempt EQ in the most indirect and costly way possible?

Yes, high output impedance is a flaw.

The prerequisite for selling this stuff would require a mindset quite different from mine. But, channeling my inner Dr. Evil, I can imagine myself trying to achieve that..

 

[Buckeye Amps]

If you sold the stuff, wouldn’t you want customers to attempt EQ in the most indirect and costly way possible?

No