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.




--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com