Why Pay More For Purifi 9040 vs Hypex NCX2k?

[jmdesignz2]

Why Pay More For Purifi 9040 vs Hypex NC2k?

AFAIK the fidelity difference will be inaudible

But wouldn’t the hypex NC2k be way more dynamic and capable of higher spl before clipping distortion than the PURIFI 1ET9040BA Monoblock (2nd Gen EIGENTAKT)?

Buckeye Specs:

• 2000 watts @ 2 ohm
• 2500 watts @ 4 ohm
• 1600 watts @ 8 ohm
• (per channel, 1kHz, 1% THD)

Fidelity​

• S/N: 133dB
• FR: 0 - 50KHz
• THD: 0.002% (1250W, 4Ω, 20Hz-20kHz)

Versus

• 1400 watts @ 2 ohm
• 750 watts @ 4 ohm
• 375 watts @ 8 ohm
• (per channel, 1kHz, 0.1% THD)

Fidelity​

• S/N: 140dB
• FR: 0 - 80KHz
• THD: 0.0001% (400W, 4Ω, 20Hz-20kHz)

 

[GS430man]

Haven't seen 3rd party measurements on the NC2k, but it looks interesting.

Suggest you also evaluate power consumption in idle and standby.

 

[MGJ]

Here is a review of a NC2K amp:

NC2K, Apollon

 

[jmdesignz2]

Here is a review of a NC2K amp:

NC2K, Apollon

Thanks. That was 5 years ago and different output buffers? Buckeyes shows better specs

 

[Vincentponcet]

Which loudspeakers? Sensibility and max power handling ?

Try to calculate that peak that you are looking for

SPL Calculator

On the reasonable peak SPL to have in audio, I see conflicting values.

Some says, in home, you don't go beyond 80db spl continuously, add max 20db peak and you are at 100db peak spl. In THX home theater, standard listening is at 82 db SPL C and 105 dB SPL peak for the loudspeakers and 115db SPL peak for the LFE.
So I'm wondering if we need 1000W even at peak. And not a lot of loudspeakers support that anyway.
I'm even wondering if which case you need more than the purifi 1et6525sa or the hypex ncx500.

Why Pay More For Purifi 9040 vs Hypex NC2k?

AFAIK the fidelity difference will be inaudible

But wouldn’t the hypex NC2k be way more dynamic and capable of higher spl before clipping distortion than the PURIFI 1ET9040BA Monoblock (2nd Gen EIGENTAKT)?

Buckeye Specs:

• 2000 watts @ 2 ohm
• 2500 watts @ 4 ohm
• 1600 watts @ 8 ohm
• (per channel, 1kHz, 1% THD)

Fidelity​

• S/N: 133dB
• FR: 0 - 50KHz
• THD: 0.002% (1250W, 4Ω, 20Hz-20kHz)

Versus

• 1400 watts @ 2 ohm
• 750 watts @ 4 ohm
• 375 watts @ 8 ohm
• (per channel, 1kHz, 0.1% THD)

Fidelity​

• S/N: 140dB
• FR: 0 - 80KHz
• THD: 0.0001% (400W, 4Ω, 20Hz-20kHz)

 

[Mort]

Hypex is more SPL for the buck, yes.

There are differences aside from price. Tested, purifi is usually slightly higher sinad. It also handles low impedance amps better.

 

[Vincentponcet]

Hypex is more SPL for the buck, yes.

There are differences aside from price. Tested, purifi is usually slightly higher sinad. It also handles low impedance amps better.

At 5w it is slightly better, at 100-200W that's another league. Amir didn't tested the 9040 yet afaik, an ncx500 provides 20db better sinad at 200W than nc2k.
As the question was about peaks distortion, that could be considered.

 

[MGJ]

Why Pay More For Purifi 9040 vs Hypex NC2k?

AFAIK the fidelity difference will be inaudible

But wouldn’t the hypex NC2k be way more dynamic and capable of higher spl before clipping distortion than the PURIFI 1ET9040BA Monoblock (2nd Gen EIGENTAKT)?

Would the difference in distortion specs be audible? I don't know.

Using the published power specs the Hypex amp has 6.3dB more headroom at 8ohms and 5.2dB more headroom at 4ohms.

 

[Vincentponcet]

Would the difference in distortion specs be audible? I don't know.

Using the published power specs the Hypex amp has 6.3dB more headroom at 8ohms and 5.2dB more headroom at 4ohms.

Headroom against what. The question is not having more power but if the power under a threshold of distortion is sufficient to reach your expected peak SPL, and if your loudspeaker can handle 2000 watts, because if not, the amp distortion will be the least of your concerns.

 

[TurtlePaul]

AFAIK the fidelity difference will be inaudible

That is a quote you can ride all the way down to $200 amps from Fosi / 3e / Aiyima. Where you want to stop on that train is rather arbitrary and there are amps with a little more SNR, a little better distortion and a few dB more power all the way from <$100 to >$3,000.

 

[jmdesignz2]

That is a quote you can ride all the way down to $200 amps from Fosi / 3e / Aiyima. Where you want to stop on that train is rather arbitrary and there are amps with a little more SNR, a little better distortion and a few dB more power all the way from <$100 to >$3,000.

Fidelity’s difference within an amps limited range is one thing

Dynamic range and characteristic synergies with ones system and listening materials and sources is another

Currently I’ve calculated the cost benefit of going higher in amp wattage likely has hit diminishing returns for my particular situation

TLDR. NCX500 monoblocks are probably going to be good for my purposes at the moment

 

[1roger]

That is a quote you can ride all the way down to $200 amps from Fosi / 3e / Aiyima. Where you want to stop on that train is rather arbitrary and there are amps with a little more SNR, a little better distortion and a few dB more power all the way from <$100 to >$3,000.

don`t know why people say these things. power amps sound different from each other..its quite easy for people with good ears and an open mind to verify. even listening back on youtube tests its fairly obvious. purify vs nilai for example.

personally i don`t like the audiosciencereview cult attitude on these matters. for me it obvious amps consisting of very different components and topology also will sound different from each other

 

[Luvchampagne]

Mr golden ears

 

[mike70]

don`t know why people say these things. power amps sound different from each other..its quite easy for people with good ears and an open mind to verify. even listening back on youtube tests its fairly obvious. purify vs nilai for example.

personally i don`t like the audiosciencereview cult attitude on these matters. for me it obvious amps consisting of very different components and topology also will sound different from each other

I thought in the same way than you... until I used science (ab switcher / levellled gains).

Your listening experiences were with blind listening and with levellled gains?
If not, believe me I understand what you said, but ... your brain is cheating on you.

Try to do an objective comparative and then go back here to say what you finded. (or be happy with your beliefs, but they are certainly beliefs until you really try it objectively)

 

[Luvchampagne]

Good luck waiting. Most of the Audiogon folks are prime examples. It would kill them to admit what they "think" they hear is different than what they actually hear in a ABX.
It's no different in the wine business hence blind tasting is the only way taste objectively.
This is an absolute.
I pity the people who think otherwise.

 

[1roger]

I thought in the same way than you... until I used science (ab switcher / levellled gains).

Your listening experiences were with blind listening and with levellled gains?
If not, believe me I understand what you said, but ... your brain is cheating on you.

Try to do an objective comparative and then go back here to say what you finded. (or be happy with your beliefs, but they are certainly beliefs until you really try it objectively)

as I understood.. gains were levelled in the test yes

 

[1roger]

Mr golden ears

if you want, you can watch a nilai vs purifi vs ice - on youtube. its just three guys in a living room swapping amps and listening to the same songs. and tell me you can`t spot significant difference between them. im certainly fanboy of either of them. and not an owner

search live test- 3 times next gen class d - hypex - purify - icepower

 

[ahofer]

don`t know why people say these things. power amps sound different from each other..its quite easy for people with good ears and an open mind to verify. even listening back on youtube tests its fairly obvious. purify vs nilai for example.

personally i don`t like the audiosciencereview cult attitude on these matters. for me it obvious amps consisting of very different components and topology also will sound different from each other

LOL. Here we go again.

They say them because

1)there are no documented, blind, level-matched tests showing well-designed amps sound differently,
2) Because that conclusion is consistent with the measured performance of well-designed amplifiers, which reproduce signals within known audibility thresholds, even null-testing to silence in many cases.

i.e., there is no evidence that it is the actual signal that might make a difference to the listener. People with common sense and a scientific mindset draw a reasonable conclusion until proven otherwise. People who don’t want to believe it, or just have too much invested in hearing a difference, make sighted, non-matched comparisons and are very happy with their improbable views, until someone disagrees with them.

 

[1roger]

"there are no blind, level-matched tests showing well-designed amps sound differently"

well there is no evidence of the opposite either

"People with common sense and a scientific mindset draw a reasonable conclusion until proven otherwise"

a scientific mindset mean among other - your mind is open. yours apparently is not. if you think numbers trump real world audible results... well

you do know designers and makers of audio equipment fine tune their prototype products by ear?

 

[ahofer]

"there are no blind, level-matched tests showing well-designed amps sound differently"

well there is no evidence of the opposite either

"People with common sense and a scientific mindset draw a reasonable conclusion until proven otherwise"

a scientific mindset mean among other - your mind is open. yours apparently is not. if you think numbers trump real world audible results... well

you do know designers and makers of audio equipment fine tune their products by ear?

There is lots of evidence.

Catalogue of blind tests

I thought this thread on Head-Fi was a valiant effort to put together blind tests that have been performed over the years. Given that there have been many more (I'm thinking Archimago's tests, among others), it would be fun to open source a complete list...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Ever since the Stereo Review test in 1987, which was one of the first outside of audio engineering circles, and involved die-hard golden ears types struggling to hear differences between a Pioneer receiver and $10k boutique amps, people should have some suspicion about amplifier difference claims.

But such evidence isn’t necessary, because the burden of proof resides with those making the assertion against evidence (see “Russell’s Teapot”). Thinking there is a difference where measurements clearly indicate that signals are identical within the limits of human hearing is asserting the teapot in space.

And you just submitted a YouTube video as evidence.

I know that designers and makers of audio equipment say all sorts of things and do some of them. That isn’t evidence either.

The archetypal closed mind is one that refuses to acknowledge properly controlled experimental evidence and asserts facts from subjective, uncontrolled observation.