I'm sure it has nothing to do with the assumption that the Benchmark is a "cheap amp".
Actually, one can measure the "goosebump factor" easily by electrophysiological methods. The issue is that goosebumps are physiological elements of an emotional response and, as such, have more to do with the individual subject than with anything that the subject perceives.I doubt there's a lab that can measure the "goosebump factor" but if there was, the Benchmark would come out badly, despite all its other good measurements.
The AHB2 with its moderate DF is not that close. However, this is also very dependent on the speakers used. The sound engineering in my post #73 has explained it well that the less controlled swing-out behavior is also a kind of distortion and there is a purifi clearly superior.AHB2 is as close to wire with gain, as it gets IMHO.
True, but I still say that if you can compare the amps in you system, you should avail yourself the opportunity. The Benchmark has basically transparent distortion specs, as do the Class D amps that are being considered. But some of the Class D amps have quite a bit more power. I think that can make a discernible difference depending on your speakers. In any case, when I went through this, I wound up keeping the Class D and sending back the Benchmark. It was a tough decision because the Benchmark is such an admirable piece of gear. At low to moderate volumes they sounded the same to me. But when I cranked it up with very dense, dynamic, orchestral music, the Hypex NC400 modules seemed more pleasant to listen to. YMMV of course. The only bias that I will readily admit to is that the Benchmark cost more than twice what the Class D amp cost. So that may be a factor.The sound of the Benchmark? I guess you don't like the sound of the source, cause that's what they are, a completely transparent amp.
If you didn't like them in comparison to the SET amps, that I understand. The vast majority of SET amps are highly colored devices designed to produce a particular sound based on the type of distortion they produce.
When well measuring modern SS amps are listened to under tightly bias controlled conditions they are shown to all sound the same.
It would be interesting to get 20 people in turn sitting at the ideal listening chair in front of goosebump-inducing speakers and playing each of them their favourite track using the Benchmark and another good amp that suits the speakers. Then an independent medical expert could probably measure their goosebumps, or at least the way their bodies and brains react to the 2 alternative renditions.Actually, one can measure the "goosebump factor" easily by electrophysiological methods. The issue is that goosebumps are physiological elements of an emotional response and, as such, have more to do with the individual subject than with anything that the subject perceives.
I recall people writing that DF was irrelevant regarding the Benchmark since, while it was not great, it was adequate. But it is certainly a huge spec difference between the Benchmark and the Purifi or Hypex modules. All I know is that after extensive listening I sent the Benchmark back. I don't know from a technical point of view why I failed to enjoy the Benchmark, but the two glaring differences were power and DF.The AHB2 with its moderate DF is not that close. However, this is also very dependent on the speakers used. The sound engineering in my post #73 has explained it well that the less controlled swing-out behavior is also a kind of distortion and there is a purifi clearly superior.
Not workable since there is no way to control for central processes, attention and neurochemistry.It would be interesting to get 20 people in turn sitting at the ideal listening chair in front of goosebump-inducing speakers and playing each of them their favourite track using the Benchmark and another good amp that suits the speakers. Then an independent medical expert could probably measure their goosebumps, or at least the way their bodies and brains react to the 2 alternative renditions.
Yes - we'll have to be content with counting our own goosebumps!Not workable since there is no way to control for central processes, attention and neurochemistry.
Sort of like omphaloskepsis.Yes - we'll have to be content with counting our own goosebumps!
Had to look that one up...Sort of like omphaloskepsis.
Hmm. Conjures up a vision of someone quite contorted.Had to look that one up...
That is sooo bad....Hmm. Conjures up a vision of someone quite contorted.
The future is now. I wish I had the following app when I was studying and playing jazz. I use it today occasionally for learning a solo and more often for slowing down Korean Buddhist chants so I can learn them properly. You can adjust pitch and tempo independently.I know you are being funny, but as a musician trying to transcribe jazz solos from some of the greats, I would love a DAC that could slow the music down without effecting pitch. It would require a bit of RAM and small CPU. I do it now with tape decks or computer software but a DAC that could do this internally would be wonderful.
I'm interested in using the ATI 54X as a 2 channel for magnepan 1.5s, but not certain what the impact of bridged differential would be. Would it truly be like 500W continuous, or would the "bridged" aspect have a negative impact?You can get an ATI class D nCore amp with 500 watts output as monoblocks or 2 to 4 channels.