Ultimate 1ET400A Purifi Amplifier sonic shootout - €820 to €8,344

[CDMC]

The only thing that is real is what you experience. Do you have any pure experience that amps that have .0001 percent distortion sound better than ones that have .001 percent. No, you do not. You have no proof that subjective listening is false.......and you have no proof that objective tests are true. You just have an opinion. You cannot really know anything about audio unless you listen. Since you do not do listening tests then you have no idea if what you say is true. The only people who know anything about how something sounds are those that actually use their ears........this is direct experience. The 85% who listen like their new fuses, power cords, footers, cables off the floor, crystals, directionality of wire, etc. etc......they listen so they have direct experience (or truth). You have numbers on a machine.......that are sometimes useful but really don't tell you much about the sound.

if you keep your head in the sand then all you will know is sand. You have no proof that the numbers game is valid and that the listening game is invalid.....none. You just have a belief that you defend by calling those that have the other opinion names and attacking them and saying they are lying and stealing money from people. How sad. This is not a happy point of view nor a happy way to respond. Fortunately, there is truth. And for those that keep an open mind and heart (and ears)....they will always find a way to the light.

Here is a true story. A friend invited 3 audiophile friends over for a listening session. One of the audiophiles believed that amplifiers sound different but was very adamant that wires all sound the same......he had just met someone new to the audio game and was trying to convince him of hisopinions. Those two and another came over to my friends house where he has a very revealing system including modified Soundlabs Electrostatic speakers. One of the guys wanted to A/B a wire he brought with another wire.......so immediately the non believer goes into the kitchen so he won't even be in the same room as the other 3 guys. All three agreed on the sonic differences between the two wires (including the newby). After the listening tests were done the non believer comes back in the room. They say nothing to him.......what is there to say? If he stays in the room and says he hears no difference then they would think he cannot hear......if he says he hears a difference then he would have been wrong for years......his ego would be shattered......we cannot have that now, can we? I bet to this day, he thinks that all cables sound the same. So, are you willing to come out of the kitchen? Raise you head out of the sand?.......and listen and learn......or are you going to take your opinion to your grave?.......you know, being dead right! None of this really matters in the big scheme of things. We are all bozos on the bus.......but we can learn and share and love and live.

I have nothing more to say about this.....all has been said. I wish you the best.......now back to normal programming.

The truth is that every time someone like your makes these claims and is subject to a blind test, they fail. If you are that confident that you can hear a difference in a double blind test, I will put up $500 if you are able to choose between two amps enough times to be statistically valid. The catch, if you can’t you pay me $500. Are you willing to put up $500 to me?

 

[nck045]

The only thing that is real is what you experience . . . The only people who know anything about how something sounds are those that actually use their ears . . . they listen so they have direct experience (or truth).

You must be more than naive to make this assumption. Are you sure that direct experience by our senses is always real and equates the truth?

Let's see some real world examples. Take a look at this simple image:

Based on your logic, subjectivists would say the squares are of different shade because this is "what they really see". But objectivists would argue differently because this is merely a sensory illusion. Simple use of a gradient background can easily trick our mind and eyes into seeing squares that vary in brightness, but in fact they are all the same. You can easily prove this by cropping out the gradient and see for yourself.

What we experience through our senses can certainly 'seem' real, but that does not mean it is the truth. Human senses have their limitations, and our cognitive biases can more than often trick us into seeing or believing in things that are far from the truth.

Hearing bias works similarly and we often fool ourselves thinking we have 'better ears' than the average population, ears that can detect the smallest differences such as in changing new cables, and that we're exempt from these biases.

Watch this short video that forever changed my perception on human senses and subjective bias:
Try this bizarre audio illusion! - BBC

if you keep your head in the sand then all you will know is sand.

Yes, my head used to be in the sand too. Trust me, I once belonged to the subjectivists school of thought, but now I know much better and no longer put 100% confidence in my senses or hearing ability.

 

[Lac013]

Science doesn't care about the lies men tell.

 

[CtheArgie]

Don't forget he also gives advice on health...

 

[TabCam]

You must be more than naive to make this assumption. Are you sure that direct experience by our senses is always real and equates the truth?

Let's see some real world examples. Take a look at this simple image:
View attachment 78373

Based on your logic, subjectivists would say the squares are of different shade because this is "what they really see". But objectivists would argue differently because this is merely a sensory illusion. Simple use of a gradient background can easily trick our mind and eyes into seeing squares that vary in brightness, but in fact they are all the same. You can easily prove this by cropping out the gradient and see for yourself.

What we experience through our senses can certainly 'seem' real, but that does not mean it is the truth. Human senses have their limitations, and our cognitive biases can more than often trick us into seeing or believing in things that are far from the truth.

Hearing bias works similarly and we often fool ourselves thinking we have 'better ears' than the average population, ears that can detect the smallest differences such as in changing new cables, and that we're exempt from these biases.

Watch this short video that forever changed my perception on human senses and subjective bias:
Try this bizarre audio illusion! - BBC



Yes, my head used to be in the sand too. Trust me, I once belonged to the subjectivists school of thought, but now I know much better and no longer put 100% confidence in my senses or hearing ability.

You give exactly the example why there is a subjectivist school based on a objective quantifiable phenomenon. Does that mean the phenomenon is not real? I cannot unsee the different gradient boxes. Even if I know it is a sensory illusion, I cannot 'unsee' it. So my brain tricks me but it is as "real" as real differently varied greyed boxes. You need to remove the outer gradient box to "see" the truth. So while it is in place, is it not "there"?

Isn't that the same with audio? The whole "hearing" the recording venue is a trick of our brain, but that is a "trick" we want. I also think that the "trick" is far more believable if it holds up in ABX-testing. The problem is that every ear is different so we all hear a (little) differently and rooms and setups are vastly different.

Although we have learned a lot how we can accommodate better sound perception with dampening rooms and controlled directivity, it is based on listener preference in unfamiliar rooms. In my own room it is far easier to differentiate between (different measuring) amplifiers, I have far more difficulty to do the same in other people's rooms. Does that mean the research is wrong, of course not. But it means I am still open minded and curious about thinking of experiments to prove other things and research about tricks of our brain as there seems to be a lot more to discover.

 

[stren]

Here's the thing - I love that that this snake oil salesman is putting in "work" into a product that was designed around engineering, science and most importantly measurements. The purifi amp is good because of the focus on those. Then he thinks he can improve it through magic that can't be measured but heard. Why didn't he start with his own amplifier design if he's so good at this? If he was any good at the things he claims and if he truly didn't believe in measurements he would not have started with the purifi. The truth is, he can't design an amplifier, but yet he thinks he understands enough to improve one of the best out there.

As a side note - I'd say this is bad for VTV's business. I for one will now not touch them or recommend them for even entertaining this kind of shenanigan. I'd rather pay more and support someone who believes in measurements and sends their builds in for review like March.

 

[Vincentponcet]

Nad M28 is listed on NAD website
https://nadelectronics.com/fr/product/m28-seven-channel-power-amplifier/
It is a 7 channels purifi amp.
MSRP expected at 4,250GBP/4,999$/4,999EUR dixit https://www.on-mag.fr/index.php/vid...-amplificateur-8-canaux-dans-la-serie-masters
So same price as the NAD M27 which is using hypex ncore nc400 and had very good measurements https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...iew-and-measurements-of-nad-m27-pwr-amp.9036/

NAD M28 available in France 4,940 euros https://www.vhsparis.com/nad/12239-nad-m28-amplificateur-de-puissance-8-canaux.html

 

[eduardw]

Any thoughts what kind of buffer the NAD M28 uses, and how it would be different to the the nord or audiophonic purifi amps.

 

[CDMC]

Any thoughts what kind of buffer the NAD M28 uses, and how it would be different to the the nord or audiophonic purifi amps.

NAD uses their own buffer design which has measured cleanly in reviews. Likewise, Audiophonics appears to use a buffer designed for low distortion and has adjustable gain which is nice as many amps would benefit from lower gain when using balanced connections:

“Both modules are driven in opposite phase, to cancel out the «Power-Supply Pumping» effect. This allows greater stability in the power supply by alternately distributing current draws on each rail, thus increasing its overall capacities.

We opted for a two stage voltage regulation in order to optimize the power supply to the OPAs and the auxiliary voltage supplied to the modules.

A Texas Instrument LM4562 OPA per channel is used, these are very low distortion AOPs offering the greatest transparency with a very low THD. They are mounted on socket allowing their replacement if necessary

To suit all uses we opted for 3 gain settings, adjustable by jumper on the interface card:

• Gain of + 7.2dB, for a total of 20dB (default) - Maximum power reached with a signal of ~ 4.2V RMS
• Gain of + 12.5dB, for a total of 25.3dB - Maximum power reached with a signal of ~ 2.2V RMS
• Bypass: in this case the signal passes directly from the inputs to the modules, allowing the lowest possible gain of 12.8dB. This mode can be interesting when using a powerful preamplifier, capable of driving a load of 2 to 4kOhm and reaching a voltage of ~ 10V RMS”
  

Nord uses 1612 op amp buffers with the option to upgrade (downgrade) to higher distortion buffers:

“Our base Purifi Amplifier with single SMPS1200A400 PSU and using cut down Nord Rev C buffers with OPA1612 Op Amps (no discrete regulators). Includes pre drilled base and mains wiring for second PSU to enable easy upgrade to full dual mono amplifier at later date. Upgradable buffers.”

 

[boXem]

Any thoughts what kind of buffer the NAD M28 uses, and how it would be different to the the nord or audiophonic purifi amps.

If they follow the trend from the M22, their buffer is a lot more complex than small OEMs ones, with additional functions like a DC servo, active common mode removal or soft clipping.

 

[eduardw]

CDMC thanks for the extensive and informative reply.
With 7 channels for 5k (715 per channel). I would love to see some mono purifi solution from NAD for under 950 euro especially if they use a more complex but good measuring buffers.

 

[bobopich]

I will be selling my NAD M27 and purchasing M28 in the coming months but unfortunately I am living in Europe so impossible to send to Amirm for measurements. NADs have input sensitivity of 1.3V which is perfect for Denon AVRs pre-outs.

 

[CDMC]

CDMC thanks for the extensive and informative reply.
With 7 channels for 5k (715 per channel). I would love to see some mono purifi solution from NAD for under 950 euro especially if they use a more complex but good measuring buffers.

I think that will not happen. If you look at the internals of the NAD Class D amps, their boards are sized for a full width and approximately 2u chassis. To build a mono amp would require new boards or leaving one channel out of the stereo amp, perhaps a cost of saving of $300 for NAD, so $800-1000 retail (leaving a $2,000+ mono amp).

The good news is products like you want already exist:

https://www.marchaudio.net.au/product-page/p451-mono-block-power-amplifier

https://www.nordacoustics.co.uk/product-page/nord-three-1et400a-stereo-amplifier

https://internetofmusic.nl/shop/ (Not on their website, but I believe they are offering them)

 

[CDMC]

I will be selling my NAD M27 and purchasing M28 in the coming months but unfortunately I am living in Europe so impossible to send to Amirm for measurements. NADs have input sensitivity of 1.3V which is perfect for Denon AVRs pre-outs.

Not to worry, it was already tested:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...iew-and-measurements-of-nad-m27-pwr-amp.9036/

 

[boXem]

The good news is products like you want already exist:

https://www.marchaudio.net.au/product-page/p451-mono-block-power-amplifier

https://www.nordacoustics.co.uk/product-page/nord-three-1et400a-stereo-amplifier

https://internetofmusic.nl/shop/ (Not on their website, but I believe they are offering them)

None of these offerings is as polished as what NAD has to offer. It's like proposing a Topping E30 to someone who dreams of a cheaper RME ADI-2: both share the same chip and excellent measurements, but the comparison stops there.

 

[bobopich]

Not to worry, it was already tested:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...iew-and-measurements-of-nad-m27-pwr-amp.9036/

I mean the M28 to be measured

 

[stren]

I imagine once NAD are done with the M28 that they might update the M22 and do a stereo purifi. However given the price of the M22 it may not be as competitive on price as the M28.

 

[CDMC]

I imagine once NAD are done with the M28 that they might update the M22 and do a stereo purifi. However given the price of the M22 it may not be as competitive on price as the M28.

My guess is they may wait for the higher power purifi modules to replace the M22.

 

[CDMC]

None of these offerings is as polished as what NAD has to offer. It's like proposing a Topping E30 to someone who dreams of a cheaper RME ADI-2: both share the same chip and excellent measurements, but the comparison stops there.

In terms of feature no. In terms of performance, they are likely the same. It is always going to be hard, if not impossible for small manufacturers to compete on features while being price competitive, the economies of scale make it prohibitive. I would expect a product like you envision to come from a company like Emotiva that has larger volumes, but also the pricing advantage of a direct seller.

 

[Koeitje]

Why are we arguing with @Ric Schultz? He can just send his modded amplifier to Amir and we will see what's up.