A cute little amp that’s topping in measurements

[arj]

The rest of the debate is highly subjective

Good sound is subjective ( bad sound may not be) , SOTA is subjective, "Overpriced" Is subjective, CLASS of amp is sujbective..... Objectivity of measurements is also subjective.
People have different ears and expectations from their music systems and matching that is all that matters...which is again subjective as is good wine

 

[keith_correa]

Good sound is subjective ( bad sound may not be) , SOTA is subjective, "Overpriced" Is subjective, CLASS of amp is sujbective..... Objectivity of measurements is also subjective.
People have different ears and expectations from their music systems and matching that is all that matters...which is again subjective as is good wine

Whatever one likes can be attributed to subjectivity. And the dislikes to objectivity!

 

[bloredude]

First up, I am not against or for any amplification class. If a new class of amplification is devised, manufactured, marketed, adopted, it is obvious that it has met certain goals and it has been deemed commercially viable. So, let's not make it "this class" vs "that class" debate. That would be a very dumb thing to do.

The debate or differences of opinion is always about the class of amps. There is nothing dumb about that. People who have been using class A believe nothing can come close to that. All I am saying is that, today, class D amps have come very close, and, in some cases, even surpassed class A amps in all aspects. Keep your mind open. Being an audiophile does not mean just class A.

"I have been using a Class D amp everyday" -- I'm sure you do. And I am sure you like it. Millions of people have for years enjoyed bluetooth, and millions of them (honestly) swear they can't hear a difference. Does that make bluetooth a tech comparable to other more sophisticated wireless data transfer protocol when it comes to reproducing music? I have to disagree with anyone who thinks that way.

Here is the crux of the matter. Let us take Bluetooth. The original BT was not meant for music. But as people started using it more and more, engineers have started working on it to improve its capabilities. AptX and LDAC have been proven through measurements to deliver CD quality music in terms of frequency coverage, speed and whatever aspect you deem fit. Remember, no technology (read 'data transfer protocol') can sit on the throne for too long. It will be dethroned however sophisticated it is. The demand and usage of BT is so high, engineers will equal or surpass any other sophisticated protocol. At the end of the day, it is about codecs. Better and more demanding codecs have been and will be written.

Measurements are one thing, understanding/translating measurements quite another. ASR has built a fan-following because a lot of people swear by measurements. Their fan-base is made of that crowd. A large percentage (if not majority) of that crowd are people who think better measuring = better sounding. I don't think that way, and have no reason to try and influence the thinking of those who do. I think they are alright if they think what they think.

Measurements do one thing - they remove the subjectivity of discussions. The completely meaningless 'I can hear it, can't you?' kind of arguments that are so prevalent in this line. As I have said many times before, some of the reviewers 'hear' things which even the poor original artists never dreamt of.

"Whether I listen to Western Classical, Hindustani, Carnatic or even film songs, it has never let me down." -- I used to think that way, too, decades ago when my primary equipment were one-box systems. But today I think as we evolve we begin to appreciate things that were missing (or not missing) in the past. I didn't feel let down back then, nor do I feel let down now.

What I meant was that the system works across all kinds of music.

"The sound is perfect, the sound stage is great, and it is able to push every nuance of the music into your face. What more do you want?" -- I am sure you love your system to pieces. It will be nice if you share about your system in details so that people can learn how to build a system that reproduces the "perfect sound". Though I would be very skeptical of any claim about "perfect sound". I have heard systems costing hundreds of thousands of US dollars and couldn't get a sense of perfect sound in any of them. So your description can be helpful to many people.

The details are there in my detailed review. Please read that.

"What more do you want?" -- All I want is an amp that plays well in my system and gets out of the way of music. Any amp of any class that can do that is welcome in my rig. Even if that happens to be an inexpensive class A.

See? Irrespective of what you say, your heart is still with class A.

All I am asking is this - do keep your mind and ears open for other forms of amplification. You will be surprised. The lowly $25 Pi has stunned the world with what it can do in processing, music, and video. If and when Windows is installable on the Pi, it can very well kill your Intel and AMD based systems. Fortunately or unfortunately, this will never happen.

Today companies such as TI, Infineon, Analog, ST and others are spending billion of dollars in improving both digital to analog conversion as well as amplification. No one is spending money on improving the technology in other classes of amplification. When you have the time, please read about the Merus technology from Infineon.

Enjoy the music.

Cheers

"The debate or differences of opinion is always about the class of amps." -- Not for me. It's incorrect for you to assume so and base your arguments on that.

"There is nothing dumb about that." -- For me it is. I feel blanket statements about classes, topologies, brands, camps are useless arguments. I feel a debate can be had on an amp A vs another amp B, product A vs product B. Audio equipment, in my opinion, are hugely implementation specific; classes-topologies etc are just a base point.

"People who have been using class A believe nothing can come close to that." -- Quite possible! What's wrong in believing that? If someone has been through a few amps, and likes the ones that worked best for him, and the common theme was they were all class A, he has every reason to believe so. Why should others have a problem with it?

"All I am saying is that, today, class D amps have come very close, and, in some cases, even surpassed class A amps in all aspects." -- Big statement. But there is no need for me to be upset about it.

"Keep your mind open." -- Do you think my my mind is not open? Nothing in my original post -- "The graph is for "SINAD at 5 Watt/4Ohm Load". The performance may vary with increased power demand. Not a very practical real world scenario for an everyday audiophile. But for some applications it will come handy for sure!" -- is close minded, unless you read it that way.

"Being an audiophile does not mean just class A." -- True. But you are trying to imagine something I never said and replying to that.

 

[arj]

For me it is. I feel blanket statements about classes, topologies, brands, camps are useless arguments. I feel a debate can be had on an amp A vs another amp B, product A vs product B. Audio equipment, in my opinion, are hugely implementation specific; classes-topologies etc are just a base point.

Spot on..in the end it is about how it is implemented. too many generalisations in hobby around amp topology, Tube vs SS, Idler vs belt vs direct, floorstanders vs bookshelves, Sub vs full range etc etc.

For everyone of the above it cuts both ways and there are good and bad examples of each and its the execution which counts

But I guess the moot point is that Class D has very often been generalised as not good enough and thats what is changing and the examples above might just mean that it is playing in the big audiophile quality league as well

Personally have been Biased ( class A type !) against class D but maybe there is hope in the future

 

[bloredude]

Class D has very often been generalised as not good enough and thats what is changing and the examples above might just mean that it is playing in the big audiophile quality league as well

I agree, class D is improving.

We are living in the IOT agre. There is a HUGE demand of embedded, low-powered, sound-reproduction systems. Amplifiers based of Class D/T have become mainstream in those applications.

Class D in top audiophile systems - yes there are a few examples of that. If top-tier class D sounds as good as any other, as a environmentalist, I will be happy to adopt.

 

[Enkay78]

Spot on..in the end it is about how it is implemented. too many generalisations in hobby around amp topology, Tube vs SS, Idler vs belt vs direct, floorstanders vs bookshelves, Sub vs full range etc etc.

For everyone of the above it cuts both ways and there are good and bad examples of each and its the execution which counts

But I guess the moot point is that Class D has very often been generalised as not good enough and thats what is changing and the examples above might just mean that it is playing in the big audiophile quality league as well

Personally have been Biased ( class A type !) against class D but maybe there is hope in the future

Having agreed to the gist, I feel this is the issue : Isn’t that where the debate is about - implementation?

How do one knows about the implementation? Subjective impressions by golden ears? Objective measurements?

 

[square_wave]

I guess the big question is whether amps that measure exceedingly well will consistently evoke long term musical satisfaction in an audio setup as compared to amp designs that does not overly concern themselves with measurements. Do such amps score consistently well in a typical home demo listening test for someone who is exceedingly picky about the amp's contribution to the overall sound in their setup? I have personally found that Class A or SET amps sound way better in my setup. More satisfying consistently. In another setup with different speakers and rooms, some other amp design might work better. Audio magic is all about synergy. That is the game. Otherwise you are not playing the game

End of the day, I measure my system's performance by its capability to draw myself to it to turn it on and listen to music. Everything else is academic.

 

[arj]

Having agreed to the gist, I feel this is the issue : Isn’t that where the debate is about - implementation?

How do one knows about the implementation? Subjective impressions by golden ears? Objective measurements?

Ideally all 3 !

Maybe we dont all need to agree to one answer , while our intentions on the end sate may be the same our actual destinations ( budget/size/sound) are all different and so are our paths not to mention the time we want to take as well .

Today within this group itself we take decisions on permutations and combinations of these 3 and many have reached end state/almost end state, some are just beginning and many of us are in between and all in different ways.

Personally I do not know enough to understand audio measurements and their correlation to the sound quality and how it sounds but i do know a good sound reproduction when I hear it so prefer relying on the latter either personally or people whom i could rely on and would not buy anything other wise.

 

[Enkay78]

I guess the big question is whether amps that measure exceedingly well will consistently evoke long term musical satisfaction in an audio setup as compared to amp designs that does not overly concern themselves with measurements. Do such amps score consistently well in a typical home demo listening test for someone who is exceedingly picky about the amp's contribution to the overall sound in their setup? I have personally found that Class A or SET amps sound way better in my setup. More satisfying consistently. In another setup with different speakers and rooms, some other amp design might work better. Audio magic is all about synergy. That is the game. Otherwise you are not playing the game

End of the day, I measure my system's performance by its capability to draw myself to it to turn it on and listen to music. Everything else is academic.

Hmmm....that's is very true at personal level.
That is ONE SELF is the final for deciding.


However the conundrum then remains - how will it sound for OTHERS?

Leaving aside psychoacoustics, and the aesthetic impact factor, how can comparisons be brought about? San the power of persuasion and the 'herd' or 'peer' factor?


(Hahaha this is sounding much with as like religiosity

 

[arj]

(Hahaha this is sounding much with as like religiosity

The output of an amp = Objective, can be measured eg Photograph or scan
The music produced = Subjective and cannot be placed within the confines of the measurement we know or can take eg Painting

Experience from music like the experience from a painting or taste of coffee/wine/Creme Brûlée etc are not easy to measure at least till we figure out what to measure and with what !

But if you enjoy going thru measurements and give you the enjoyment and pleasure from the hobby then thats the path for you ! everybody's ears are not equally golden..actually most of us start with ears of tin painted with brass but still use that as the benchmark..and learn along the way.

 

[square_wave]

However the conundrum then remains - how will it sound for OTHERS?

Who cares ? Satisfying others with your audio system is important only at a certain phase of your audio journey. Beyond that point, it has no meaning at all. Most mature people in the game understand this well and leave people to their game with respect.

Btw, if you believe that you can satisfy everyone ( the " OTHERS " in your sentence ) with an amp that measures well, brace yourself for some surprises.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

End of the day, I measure my system's performance by its capability to draw myself to it to turn it on and listen to music. Everything else is academic.

This is the only thing in the thread with value.

 

[Enkay78]

Who cares ? Satisfying others with your audio system is important only at a certain phase of your audio journey. Beyond that point, it has no meaning at all. Most mature people in the game understand this well and leave people to their game with respect.

Btw, if you believe that you can satisfy everyone ( the " OTHERS " in your sentence ) with an amp that measures well, brace yourself for some surprises.

Haahhahahha......I just realised what you did here - you declared this forum, and all other forum meaningless

 

[keith_correa]

Satisfying others with your audio system is important only at a certain phase of your audio journey.

What phase is that? I seem to have skipped it.

 

[Enkay78]

But if you enjoy going thru measurements and give you the enjoyment and pleasure from the hobby then thats the path for you ! everybody's ears are not equally golden..actually most of us start with ears of tin painted with brass but still use that as the benchmark..and learn along the way.

It fails logic how much way one communicates, there remains a , as GnR song says , "communication breakdown"


Maybe it's a failure on my part to do so.

The point is :

I enjoy music....through songs and artists I like. This is my primary enjoyment.

I don't try to listen to device - in fact I enjoy my music as much from my bluetooth speakers, smartphone , ipad etc etc.

However I do like the "fidelity" of a dedicated system.....which is transparent. And obviously measurements do become important in knowing the transparency of the system (be it amps, dacs, speakers).

I ultimately rely mostly on my mood for my enjoyment. Like I have stayed awake whole night listening to youtube music for the nostalgia. I fiddle for all kinds of FLAC, wav , dsd for some collections of mine. And off mood days, even my 196khz flacs sound dull and boring.



Anyway nice engagement from all.

 

[square_wave]

What phase is that? I seem to have skipped it.

That phase where you seek acknowledgement from all sort of audiophile peers. As you grow older that group becomes very small and you grow wiser.

 

[venkatcr]

The output of an amp = Objective, can be measured eg Photograph or scan

This is oversimplification.

Fortunately, sound recording, reproduction and, presentation all have precise scientific values that can all be accurately measured by instruments that are designed to do just that. Every aspect of the sound can be defined scientifically and measured. So when a sound moves from point A to point B, it can be measured at both ends. The measurements are compared to understand how well the transport medium is working. This is what people like Amir of ASR and countless others do. You can remeasure the values to see if your measurement matches. But to argue that someone's measurements are wrong without evidence is incorrect and childish. Till this point, the whole process is objective.

Once the sound reaches the speakers and is played to you, it then moves into the grey area of subjectivity. Here, even though we are both listening to the same sound, we both perceive it differently. And, this is where the endless arguments start and never end.

Measurements are done using sounds that the human ears can never hear. A lot of focus is give to the 20-20,000 hertz range as those are the lower and upper limits of the human ear. At the same time, measurements go far beyond those frequencies to test the system.

The advantage of ICs is that once a design is complete and measured to achieve certain defined values, those measurements can be reproduced millions of times without any variation.

Those who argue that measurements are wrong or don't show the actual values - well what can I say? 'Being unscientific' is the best definition.

Cheers.

 

[square_wave]

Those who argue that measurements are wrong or don't show the actual values - well what can I say? 'Being unscientific' is the best definition.

Cheers.

To me, this is a gross misrepresentation of subjectivists in audio. Most subjectivists believe measurements are the bedrock upon which you build on. It is not the end. That is the beginning of the design journey. I belong to that camp.

It is very easy to choose a television or another video device purely based on specifications and measurements. You will never see people argue about this on a high end video forum.

If you try to do the above approach in audio, there is a big chance you will not like what you hear. Or you may go to a friend's home and realize how much better that system sounds although it is not "ASR approved ".

So, where do you go from here ? One option is to assemble a ASR approved music system and believe it is the holy grail although it does not satisfy you. I am definitely not going down that path

 

[keith_correa]

That phase where you seek acknowledgement from all sort of audiophile peers. As you grow older that group becomes very small and you grow wiser.

Ah! Then I'm glad I skipped that juvenile phase.

Those who argue that measurements are wrong or don't show the actual values - well what can I say? 'Being unscientific' is the best definition.

I don't think that is what is being said. I THINK that what is being said is that good/bad measurements don't necessarily translate into good/bad sonics. As an example: some distortion can make sound euphonic and some ears like it. To each their own!

 

[superczar]

To me, this is a gross misrepresentation of subjectivists in audio. Most subjectivists believe measurements are the bedrock upon you build upon. It is not the end. That is the beginning of the design journey. I belong to that camp.

It is very easy to choose a television or another video device purely based on specifications and measurements. You will never see people argue about this on a high end video forum.

If you try to do the above approach in audio, there is a big chance you will not like what you hear. Or you may go to a friend's home and realize how much better that system sounds although it is not "ASR approved ".

So, where do you go from here ? One option is to assemble a ASR approved music system and believe it is the holy grail although it does not satisfy you. I am definitely not going down that path

This is probably swinging to another extreme.
AT least to me , the amplification aspect (i.e. boost a 1V rms signal by a factor of 10X) should be purely objective.

OTOH The same may not be true for speakers
A flat/ Harman adhering speaker (and measuring well at ASR) may not appeal to your sensibilities - and that makes complete sense.

But as with any scientific experiment, some of the variables have to be baselined before you tweak the others - and amplification should by all logical sense be one of the non mutable variables.

PS: Taking it to a completely ridiculous extreme, let's say I am someone who likes distorted low end - And I figure out that I can achieve that by undervolting my uber powerful traditional amp - so instead of feeding 220V to the primary, I feed it 180V instead - and the low end distortion that it results in is something that appeals to my subjective assessment.

and so now, can I start talking about how good the synergy between my Amp, speakers and step down voltage transformer is?