Serge Auckland schreef:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
jaap wrote:
honestguvnor schreef:
On May 11, 10:07 pm, max graff wrote:
I know that class A is the best in amplification however attaining
that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical.

This is not a wise statement. I am sure you will find quite a few
readers prepared to bet you cannot hear the difference between a
reasonable class A amplifier and a reasonable class AB driving a
reasonable loudspeaker.

I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D
amplification.

This is a good question (assuming "digital" amplifier of whatever
class and audibly neutral under normal conditions) . I do not
know the
answer and given the absence of any reliable consumer audio
publications and the absence of reasonable specifications from the
manufacturers it is not obvious to me where to look for an answer.

Obviously one could perform experiments oneself but that would
imply a
pretty awesome loss of basic technical knowledge about the
performance
of consumer audio in these broadband www days.

Anyone?


Just an opinion: history shows that despite 'progress'
amplification quality diminishes every decade. Don't believe you
can't do without this new class. A good system dating from 1960 or
1970 or 1980 will beat any plastic rubbish -whatever class- dating
from 2007.

Interesting opinion, but what is it based on? Modern systems are
louder, distort less, have wider bandwidth and less noise than
1960s or 1970s systems, but haven't improved to any great extent
since the '80s. However, they certainly haven't diminished.



The other day I demonstrated a nice turntable setup to someone who
had listened solely to digital audio. She was surprised by the
reality coming from old gear, despite S/N THD and whatever cyphers
modern stuff tries to sell to the public.

Of course old gear is capable of sounding good, but so is modern
gear, and for relatively much less money, size, power consumption
and improved reliability.

S.

Hi Serge,

My opinion is based on human hearing and not on the momentary
technological approach from a-musical tecchies. I got to this
opinion speaking with fellow musiclovers, who share a passion for
the best obtainable. Most got tube amps under 5W per channel, some
built their own, often accomplished by single driver speakers.

So they're not into high fidelity ;-)


Modern equipment is expensive compared to good used quality parts.
The latter will probably outlast the former by decades because of
the poor quality parts used these days.
Agreed, ancient low budget equipment belongs on the scrapyard.

Jaap

New equipment can cost more than used, although some of the prices
being paid for old technologies like SETs and paper-coned full-range
drivers are a lot higher than you can buy perfectly decent modern
stuff for. However, if you compare what an amplifier costs now and
what a similar spec cost in 1960 or 1970, it's an awful lot cheaper now.

Many of us, me included, like vintage gear, in the same way I like
vintage cars, fountain pens and mechanical watches, but I don't
expect (or get) the same standard of performance as I do from my
modern stuff.

S.


I might be wrong but is 'HiFi' not invented as a marketing trick? I
recall a hip 1958 ad from Philips for that years new models table
radios

What's your standard of performance? Reading a 100Mhz scope?
My standard is about music with as little as possible interference,
whatever technology, cosmetics, cyphers, brand or anything.

Jaap

Hi-Fi may be a marketing phrase, but the concept behind it is that of
High Fidelity, that is, to quote that well known phrase, "the closest
approach to the original sound". That is what the pursuit of Hi-Fi has
been since music could be reproduced.

However, as even the very best Hi-Fi cannot recreate the full sound
field of a live performance (although some come close), I do use the
'scope and the THD meter and the FFT etc. to make objective measurements
that can be recorded and reproduced. Ears are just not accurate enough,
nor is audio memory sufficiently stable to be a valid evaluation tool.

Since the mid '80s, equipment performance has been of such a high order
that it is already well beyond our ability to appreciate it. Once you
get to below 0.1% distortion at all levels and frequencies, +-1dB
20-20kHz, 80dB S/N ratio, etc.etc. any further improvements in
performance will not result in better perceived audio quality. That is
why all modern amplifiers sound the same, all competently designed CD
players sound the same etc. In fact, I am of the opinion that the reason
for the popularity of SET amplifiers, horn loudspeakers and a return to
vinyl is in an attempt to get a sound that's different from the norm.
Different is not better, and in any objective measure, SETs/horn/vinyl
systems are worse, very much worse. That some people prefer them is
their business, but High Fidelity it isn't.

If you truly want music with as little added or taken away, then the
best of modern CDs with modern SS electronics and modern multiway or
Electrostatic loudspeakers will give you exactly that. You may not like
it, but that *is* High Fidelity to the limits of what can be achieved
with stereo

S.



Well, amice, did you ever come across someone who told you otherwise?
What you are stating here is bogus.

Music exists to be enjoyed, not to be measured with primitive devices
like scopes and FFTs if you don't have a clue what to look for. It's all
about the hearing, the most advanced apparatus humans posses.

You are stranded in 'HiFi' which has nothing to do with music. Hifi is
good enough for television sets, portable radios and cars.


Jaap