|
|
how good are class D amplifiers?
Hi guys,
Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. Regards Max. |
how good are class D amplifiers?
On 11 May 2007 13:07:52 -0700, max graff wrote:
I know that class A is the best in amplification How do you know that? :) |
how good are class D amplifiers?
On 11 May 2007 13:07:52 -0700, max graff wrote:
Hi guys, Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. No, class B is every bit as good as class A. In fact better from many points of view. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. What do you mean "supposed" class D? I have an "actual" class D amp in a subwoofer. It is very good. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
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? |
how good are class D amplifiers?
"max graff" wrote in message oups.com... Hi guys, ** Typical Google / Hotmail troll opening. Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. ** Idiot question. The questions should be: Q. How bad are the worst examples of class D ? A. Atrocious. Q. How good are the bests examples of class D A. Good as any hi-fi amp made. Q. What is the motive for makers to use class D ? A. Lower cost to make multi-channel amps. Q. How do marketing pukes regard class D ? A. A great new way to separate the terminally gullible from their money. ........ Phil |
how good are class D amplifiers?
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ... ** Typical Google / Hotmail troll opening. snipped garbage ....... Phil Typical Philthy Analson reply! Then to be followed up by more personal abuse and the *predictable* usual, vile insults. TT |
how good are class D amplifiers?
"max graff" wrote in message oups.com... Hi guys, Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. Regards Max. Both Bel Canto and Halcro use these PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) amps. Do some more research yourself and then go and have a listen and make up your own mind. Cheers TT |
how good are class D amplifiers?
"max graff" wrote in message
oups.com Hi guys, Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification Class AB done right is just as good, if not better. however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. Not to mention stupid. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. Current implementations seem to underperform its potential. The biggest problem with switchmode operation letely has been keeping the switching pulses out of the speakers. Running the switches faster is the obvious solution, as it is easier and more practical to build high powered filters, as the frequency being filtered out goes up. Right now a lot of class D amplifiers seem to suffer from excessively high output impedance near the top of the audio range. |
how good are class D amplifiers?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "max graff" wrote in message oups.com Hi guys, Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification Class AB done right is just as good, if not better. however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. Not to mention stupid. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. Current implementations seem to underperform its potential. The biggest problem with switchmode operation letely has been keeping the switching pulses out of the speakers. Running the switches faster is the obvious solution, as it is easier and more practical to build high powered filters, as the frequency being filtered out goes up. Right now a lot of class D amplifiers seem to suffer from excessively high output impedance near the top of the audio range. That's probably due to the aforesaid filter. Graham H |
how good are class D amplifiers?
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. 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. |
how good are class D amplifiers?
Graham Holloway schreef:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "max graff" wrote in message oups.com Hi guys, Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification Class AB done right is just as good, if not better. however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. Not to mention stupid. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. Current implementations seem to underperform its potential. The biggest problem with switchmode operation letely has been keeping the switching pulses out of the speakers. Running the switches faster is the obvious solution, as it is easier and more practical to build high powered filters, as the frequency being filtered out goes up. Right now a lot of class D amplifiers seem to suffer from excessively high output impedance near the top of the audio range. That's probably due to the aforesaid filter. Graham H Make that certainly. :) It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. |
how good are class D amplifiers?
On Sun, 13 May 2007 17:11:14 +0200, jaap wrote:
Graham Holloway schreef: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "max graff" wrote in message oups.com Hi guys, Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification Class AB done right is just as good, if not better. however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. Not to mention stupid. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. Current implementations seem to underperform its potential. The biggest problem with switchmode operation letely has been keeping the switching pulses out of the speakers. Running the switches faster is the obvious solution, as it is easier and more practical to build high powered filters, as the frequency being filtered out goes up. Right now a lot of class D amplifiers seem to suffer from excessively high output impedance near the top of the audio range. That's probably due to the aforesaid filter. Graham H Make that certainly. :) It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
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. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
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. 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 |
how good are class D amplifiers?
Don Pearce schreef:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 17:11:14 +0200, jaap wrote: Graham Holloway schreef: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "max graff" wrote in message oups.com Hi guys, Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification Class AB done right is just as good, if not better. however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. Not to mention stupid. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. Current implementations seem to underperform its potential. The biggest problem with switchmode operation letely has been keeping the switching pulses out of the speakers. Running the switches faster is the obvious solution, as it is easier and more practical to build high powered filters, as the frequency being filtered out goes up. Right now a lot of class D amplifiers seem to suffer from excessively high output impedance near the top of the audio range. That's probably due to the aforesaid filter. Graham H Make that certainly. :) It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. |
how good are class D amplifiers?
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 |
how good are class D amplifiers?
On Sun, 13 May 2007 17:53:45 +0200, jaap wrote:
Don Pearce schreef: On Sun, 13 May 2007 17:11:14 +0200, jaap wrote: Graham Holloway schreef: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "max graff" wrote in message oups.com Hi guys, Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification Class AB done right is just as good, if not better. however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. Not to mention stupid. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. Current implementations seem to underperform its potential. The biggest problem with switchmode operation letely has been keeping the switching pulses out of the speakers. Running the switches faster is the obvious solution, as it is easier and more practical to build high powered filters, as the frequency being filtered out goes up. Right now a lot of class D amplifiers seem to suffer from excessively high output impedance near the top of the audio range. That's probably due to the aforesaid filter. Graham H Make that certainly. :) It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
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 |
how good are class D amplifiers?
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 17:53:45 +0200, jaap wrote: Don Pearce schreef: On Sun, 13 May 2007 17:11:14 +0200, jaap wrote: Graham Holloway schreef: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "max graff" wrote in message oups.com Hi guys, Pardon my lack of technical lingo but Rotel and a few other companies have been flaunting class D power amps. I know that class A is the best in amplification Class AB done right is just as good, if not better. however attaining that level at higher wattage is only hypothetical. Not to mention stupid. I want to know what and how good is the supposed class D amplification. Current implementations seem to underperform its potential. The biggest problem with switchmode operation letely has been keeping the switching pulses out of the speakers. Running the switches faster is the obvious solution, as it is easier and more practical to build high powered filters, as the frequency being filtered out goes up. Right now a lot of class D amplifiers seem to suffer from excessively high output impedance near the top of the audio range. That's probably due to the aforesaid filter. Graham H Make that certainly. :) It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled. d Look around you, probably within your family or among your friends. Most people won't be bothered by new disk standards, color of face plates, brand names, fourfold wiring with precious metals, quantity of loudspeakers etcetera. It's all about enjoying the music, not how it is reproduced. OK, there exist a group of people running to the shop every year for the last model but I don't think this is because they enjoy the music so much. See my point? Another example: TV sets. It's only for a couple of years manufacturers are paying attention to better sound reproduction. Many of us are having terrible reproduction quality and still enjoy the moving pictures. Manufacturers can produce better sets but what happens if customers don't want to spend more money on a TV or HiFi? Jaap |
how good are class D amplifiers?
On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:37:01 +0200, jaap wrote:
It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled. d Look around you, probably within your family or among your friends. Most people won't be bothered by new disk standards, color of face plates, brand names, fourfold wiring with precious metals, quantity of loudspeakers etcetera. It's all about enjoying the music, not how it is reproduced. OK, there exist a group of people running to the shop every year for the last model but I don't think this is because they enjoy the music so much. See my point? Yes, but what did you mean when you said that people want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality? Another example: TV sets. It's only for a couple of years manufacturers are paying attention to better sound reproduction. Many of us are having terrible reproduction quality and still enjoy the moving pictures. I shouldn't think many of us on this group use the sound system supplied with a TV. Manufacturers can produce better sets but what happens if customers don't want to spend more money on a TV or HiFi? Jaap Nobody has produced anything better for many years. Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had been understood and addressed. Hi Fi is now a lifestyle business, and quite unrelated to sound reproduction. But do remember the nature of the group you are addressing here. We are mostly not Hi Fi fashion victims, and many of us are well able to understand in great detail what the true situation is. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
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. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
Don Pearce schreef:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:37:01 +0200, jaap wrote: It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled. d Look around you, probably within your family or among your friends. Most people won't be bothered by new disk standards, color of face plates, brand names, fourfold wiring with precious metals, quantity of loudspeakers etcetera. It's all about enjoying the music, not how it is reproduced. OK, there exist a group of people running to the shop every year for the last model but I don't think this is because they enjoy the music so much. See my point? Yes, but what did you mean when you said that people want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality? I gave you two examples. It is about the music, not how many watts or how large the stack. Another example: TV sets. It's only for a couple of years manufacturers are paying attention to better sound reproduction. Many of us are having terrible reproduction quality and still enjoy the moving pictures. I shouldn't think many of us on this group use the sound system supplied with a TV. In my circle there's no one who has the tellie linked to his or her hifi. I did on some occasions watching war movies because of the impressive explosion sounds. Only got the pets and the wife upset :) Manufacturers can produce better sets but what happens if customers don't want to spend more money on a TV or HiFi? Jaap Nobody has produced anything better for many years. You're missing the point here. Manufacturers can upgrade -lets say- a midprized set by putting in more expensive capacitors. That set would sound better because there's less fuzz in the audio. On the other hand the higher expense has to be payed by the consumer and they don't. One explanation can be that consumers want better cyphers when they put down more money. My explanation is massconsumers don't think a small gain in quality is worth a large amount. Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had been understood and addressed. Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here). Hi Fi is now a lifestyle business, and quite unrelated to sound reproduction. But do remember the nature of the group you are addressing here. We are mostly not Hi Fi fashion victims, and many of us are well able to understand in great detail what the true situation is. d Hope not to be blunt, but do you mean this NG is more about lifestyle than audio? In that case the name should be changed... Jaap |
how good are class D amplifiers?
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 |
how good are class D amplifiers?
On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:36:02 +0200, jaap wrote:
Don Pearce schreef: On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:37:01 +0200, jaap wrote: It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled. d Look around you, probably within your family or among your friends. Most people won't be bothered by new disk standards, color of face plates, brand names, fourfold wiring with precious metals, quantity of loudspeakers etcetera. It's all about enjoying the music, not how it is reproduced. OK, there exist a group of people running to the shop every year for the last model but I don't think this is because they enjoy the music so much. See my point? Yes, but what did you mean when you said that people want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality? I gave you two examples. It is about the music, not how many watts or how large the stack. Well, watts do matter. If you want to hear a symphony orchestra at realistic level, they really matter. Unless you enjoy the sound of clipping, of course. That, I'm afraid is what the 5 watt valve amp people have to put up with. Another example: TV sets. It's only for a couple of years manufacturers are paying attention to better sound reproduction. Many of us are having terrible reproduction quality and still enjoy the moving pictures. I shouldn't think many of us on this group use the sound system supplied with a TV. In my circle there's no one who has the tellie linked to his or her hifi. I did on some occasions watching war movies because of the impressive explosion sounds. Only got the pets and the wife upset :) Manufacturers can produce better sets but what happens if customers don't want to spend more money on a TV or HiFi? Jaap Nobody has produced anything better for many years. You're missing the point here. Manufacturers can upgrade -lets say- a midprized set by putting in more expensive capacitors. That set would sound better because there's less fuzz in the audio. On the other hand the higher expense has to be payed by the consumer and they don't. One explanation can be that consumers want better cyphers when they put down more money. My explanation is massconsumers don't think a small gain in quality is worth a large amount. No, you have fallen foul of the "capacitor sound" myth here. There is no such thing. Mid-priced Hi Fi amplifiers right now are essentially faultless in their reproduction. You can't reduce fuzz by changing capacitors because there is no fuzz. Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had been understood and addressed. Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here). Digital doesn't have harsh highs - it has accurate highs. There are plenty of people around who compared the accurate highs on CDs with the muted highs from previous technologies and found the comparison unfavourable, of course. As for unnatural dynamics - they are nothing to do with CDs. You can't blame the medium for what producers do with it. And of course the CD is fully capable of vastly better dynamics than any previously available medium. Vinyl, of course, has always suffered reduced dynamics because it is mechanically severely limited. Hi Fi is now a lifestyle business, and quite unrelated to sound reproduction. But do remember the nature of the group you are addressing here. We are mostly not Hi Fi fashion victims, and many of us are well able to understand in great detail what the true situation is. d Hope not to be blunt, but do you mean this NG is more about lifestyle than audio? In that case the name should be changed... Why should I mean that? This newsgroup is uk.rec.audio. That means it concerns itself with the techniques and methods of sound reproduction. Whether that is high or low fidelity is up to the originator of each thread. In general of course, it won't concern itself with what colour the latest offering from Panasonic is. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
jaap wrote:
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 Fine, and I sincerely hope you and your system will be very happy together. Music is to be enjoyed, but equipment needs to be measured if it is to be understood. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
jaap wrote:
Don Pearce schreef: On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:37:01 +0200, jaap wrote: It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled. d Look around you, probably within your family or among your friends. Most people won't be bothered by new disk standards, color of face plates, brand names, fourfold wiring with precious metals, quantity of loudspeakers etcetera. It's all about enjoying the music, not how it is reproduced. OK, there exist a group of people running to the shop every year for the last model but I don't think this is because they enjoy the music so much. See my point? Yes, but what did you mean when you said that people want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality? I gave you two examples. It is about the music, not how many watts or how large the stack. Another example: TV sets. It's only for a couple of years manufacturers are paying attention to better sound reproduction. Many of us are having terrible reproduction quality and still enjoy the moving pictures. I shouldn't think many of us on this group use the sound system supplied with a TV. In my circle there's no one who has the tellie linked to his or her hifi. I did on some occasions watching war movies because of the impressive explosion sounds. Only got the pets and the wife upset :) Manufacturers can produce better sets but what happens if customers don't want to spend more money on a TV or HiFi? Jaap Nobody has produced anything better for many years. You're missing the point here. Manufacturers can upgrade -lets say- a midprized set by putting in more expensive capacitors. That set would sound better because there's less fuzz in the audio. On the other hand the higher expense has to be payed by the consumer and they don't. One explanation can be that consumers want better cyphers when they put down more money. My explanation is massconsumers don't think a small gain in quality is worth a large amount. Absolutely *NOT*. Changing capacitors won't make one jot of difference. Just measure it and you'll see. IF you would rather believe your ears than objective measurements, then I have a Bridge I can sell you. Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had been understood and addressed. Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here). Digital has no "sound". CD is a transparent carrier, in that whatever goes in comes out, to the limits of the 16 bit 44.1 system, which comfortably exceeds the human ability to hear. You may not like what is being done with CDs (I also hate today's Mastering, it's all bout loudness, not quality) but that's nothing to do with the carrier, which is transparent to well past the limits of human hearing. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
Serge Auckland schreef:
jaap wrote: Don Pearce schreef: On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:37:01 +0200, jaap wrote: It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled. d Look around you, probably within your family or among your friends. Most people won't be bothered by new disk standards, color of face plates, brand names, fourfold wiring with precious metals, quantity of loudspeakers etcetera. It's all about enjoying the music, not how it is reproduced. OK, there exist a group of people running to the shop every year for the last model but I don't think this is because they enjoy the music so much. See my point? Yes, but what did you mean when you said that people want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality? I gave you two examples. It is about the music, not how many watts or how large the stack. Another example: TV sets. It's only for a couple of years manufacturers are paying attention to better sound reproduction. Many of us are having terrible reproduction quality and still enjoy the moving pictures. I shouldn't think many of us on this group use the sound system supplied with a TV. In my circle there's no one who has the tellie linked to his or her hifi. I did on some occasions watching war movies because of the impressive explosion sounds. Only got the pets and the wife upset :) Manufacturers can produce better sets but what happens if customers don't want to spend more money on a TV or HiFi? Jaap Nobody has produced anything better for many years. You're missing the point here. Manufacturers can upgrade -lets say- a midprized set by putting in more expensive capacitors. That set would sound better because there's less fuzz in the audio. On the other hand the higher expense has to be payed by the consumer and they don't. One explanation can be that consumers want better cyphers when they put down more money. My explanation is massconsumers don't think a small gain in quality is worth a large amount. Absolutely *NOT*. Changing capacitors won't make one jot of difference. Just measure it and you'll see. IF you would rather believe your ears than objective measurements, then I have a Bridge I can sell you. Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had been understood and addressed. Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here). Digital has no "sound". CD is a transparent carrier, in that whatever goes in comes out, to the limits of the 16 bit 44.1 system, which comfortably exceeds the human ability to hear. You may not like what is being done with CDs (I also hate today's Mastering, it's all bout loudness, not quality) but that's nothing to do with the carrier, which is transparent to well past the limits of human hearing. S. Sorry, I do not agree with you. Sound is affected by everything it comes in contact with. The surrounding, electronic parts, the hairs in your ears, noise, air temperature and more. Talk with a musician and stop believing technicians have a complete picture of nature. I agree measurements are necessary, but please come down from your high horse telling science knows everything. Was it you who said all (good) amplifiers and players sound the same? Not true. Please do a simple test exchanging capacitors in the PS of your audio equipment or in your speaker crossovers. It might or might not be measurable but one can hear definitely the change of coloration. Unless you don't listen to music of course :) One of the problems with Digital audio is that only part of the actual information is recorded. For most people this 'sound' is good enough (as most consumers don't want to pay for higher quality). Have you ever compared a recording on a Telefunken M10 to your favorite CD or DVD? As for the orchestra which is in need of 10 or more watts to be reproduced correctly, this is again a (1970) sales story. Right now I am listening through a 1.5 watt amplifier giving me more than enough decibells to feed the 4x6 meter room. Hardrock or orchestra, no problem. The problem is with the loudspeakers, not having made serious progress since 1960. Jaap |
how good are class D amplifiers?
Don Pearce schreef:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 20:36:02 +0200, jaap wrote: Don Pearce schreef: On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:37:01 +0200, jaap wrote: It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled. d Look around you, probably within your family or among your friends. Most people won't be bothered by new disk standards, color of face plates, brand names, fourfold wiring with precious metals, quantity of loudspeakers etcetera. It's all about enjoying the music, not how it is reproduced. OK, there exist a group of people running to the shop every year for the last model but I don't think this is because they enjoy the music so much. See my point? Yes, but what did you mean when you said that people want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality? I gave you two examples. It is about the music, not how many watts or how large the stack. Well, watts do matter. If you want to hear a symphony orchestra at realistic level, they really matter. Unless you enjoy the sound of clipping, of course. That, I'm afraid is what the 5 watt valve amp people have to put up with. Another example: TV sets. It's only for a couple of years manufacturers are paying attention to better sound reproduction. Many of us are having terrible reproduction quality and still enjoy the moving pictures. I shouldn't think many of us on this group use the sound system supplied with a TV. In my circle there's no one who has the tellie linked to his or her hifi. I did on some occasions watching war movies because of the impressive explosion sounds. Only got the pets and the wife upset :) Manufacturers can produce better sets but what happens if customers don't want to spend more money on a TV or HiFi? Jaap Nobody has produced anything better for many years. You're missing the point here. Manufacturers can upgrade -lets say- a midprized set by putting in more expensive capacitors. That set would sound better because there's less fuzz in the audio. On the other hand the higher expense has to be payed by the consumer and they don't. One explanation can be that consumers want better cyphers when they put down more money. My explanation is massconsumers don't think a small gain in quality is worth a large amount. No, you have fallen foul of the "capacitor sound" myth here. There is no such thing. Mid-priced Hi Fi amplifiers right now are essentially faultless in their reproduction. You can't reduce fuzz by changing capacitors because there is no fuzz. Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had been understood and addressed. Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here). Digital doesn't have harsh highs - it has accurate highs. There are plenty of people around who compared the accurate highs on CDs with the muted highs from previous technologies and found the comparison unfavourable, of course. As for unnatural dynamics - they are nothing to do with CDs. You can't blame the medium for what producers do with it. And of course the CD is fully capable of vastly better dynamics than any previously available medium. Vinyl, of course, has always suffered reduced dynamics because it is mechanically severely limited. Hi Fi is now a lifestyle business, and quite unrelated to sound reproduction. But do remember the nature of the group you are addressing here. We are mostly not Hi Fi fashion victims, and many of us are well able to understand in great detail what the true situation is. d Hope not to be blunt, but do you mean this NG is more about lifestyle than audio? In that case the name should be changed... Why should I mean that? This newsgroup is uk.rec.audio. That means it concerns itself with the techniques and methods of sound reproduction. Whether that is high or low fidelity is up to the originator of each thread. In general of course, it won't concern itself with what colour the latest offering from Panasonic is. d Don, I agree on most points but one (besides from reproduction levels, which are measured in Bells and not Watts): your inability to distinguish audible capacitor coloration. You hide behind your test equipment, not knowing exactly what to look for. Is it the ESR, the inductance, dielectric absorption? Do the test with open mind, you may find yourself puzzled. |
how good are class D amplifiers?
"jaap" wrote that's OK, I'll snip all the **** off.... As for the orchestra which is in need of 10 or more watts to be reproduced correctly, this is again a (1970) sales story. Right now I am listening through a 1.5 watt amplifier giving me more than enough decibells to feed the 4x6 meter room. Hardrock or orchestra, no problem. The problem is with the loudspeakers, not having made serious progress since 1960. I run two parallel systems: 100 SS Watts into 82 (84?) dB speakers and 8 or 9 valve Watts into high 90s speaker - the valve setup blows the other one away on the *loudness* front!! As was stated elsewhere, speakers have fallen victim to 'lifestyle' (WAF?) restrictions of late and almost all 'consumer speakers' need a sub to be any good, but I suspect sensitive speakers are back on the up again...?? Gemme Vivace anyone? Zu Druids? |
how good are class D amplifiers?
Serge Auckland schreef:
jaap wrote: 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 Fine, and I sincerely hope you and your system will be very happy together. Music is to be enjoyed, but equipment needs to be measured if it is to be understood. S. I fully agree equipment needs to be measured. Foolish thing is, we (scientifically) have an incomplete picture of audio. It seems there's no need for so we settle for 'as good as it gets' with digital junk. Differences that can't be measured do not exist because they can't be measured. That's why so many 'voodoo' accessories are for sale. |
how good are class D amplifiers?
On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:04:17 +0200, jaap wrote:
Don, I agree on most points but one (besides from reproduction levels, which are measured in Bells and not Watts): your inability to distinguish audible capacitor coloration. You hide behind your test equipment, not knowing exactly what to look for. Is it the ESR, the inductance, dielectric absorption? Do the test with open mind, you may find yourself puzzled. Who cares what you use to measure audio reproduction levels? You need Watts to produce them. As for capacitor colouration, *nobody* has to my knowledge ever demonstrated an ability to hear it. Many have made the claim, and a few of them have allowed themselves to be subject to a test - all have failed. I suspect you could easily add yourself to this number. I don't hide behind equipment. This is a claim you are making to Serge too, and I have to say it is rather rude. I use equipment, I have designed equipment and I have measured the characteristics of many, many capacitors. I have also worked in recording studios (where I was taught vinyl cutting by an expert). My mind is open - if I ever hear what I consider to be an unexplained difference I will immediately challenge myself to identify it beyond doubt. I have never done so yet. It is your mind that appears to be the closed one in this debate and this leads you make assertions that fly in the face of reason. So you need to be self-critical. If you find yourself believing something that doesn't follow logic, don't just assume that you are right and logic is wrong. Assume that you have got it wrong until such a point that you can demonstrate beyond doubt that you have it right. One thing, of course. You must make the test blind. Your brain plays the cruelest tricks on you when you are aware of what you are listening to. You do know that James Randi has a million dollars awaiting anybody who can repeatably hear the difference between cables? Go for it - you can buy us all a drink with your winnings. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
Keith G schreef:
"jaap" wrote that's OK, I'll snip all the **** off.... As for the orchestra which is in need of 10 or more watts to be reproduced correctly, this is again a (1970) sales story. Right now I am listening through a 1.5 watt amplifier giving me more than enough decibells to feed the 4x6 meter room. Hardrock or orchestra, no problem. The problem is with the loudspeakers, not having made serious progress since 1960. I run two parallel systems: 100 SS Watts into 82 (84?) dB speakers and 8 or 9 valve Watts into high 90s speaker - the valve setup blows the other one away on the *loudness* front!! As was stated elsewhere, speakers have fallen victim to 'lifestyle' (WAF?) restrictions of late and almost all 'consumer speakers' need a sub to be any good, but I suspect sensitive speakers are back on the up again...?? Gemme Vivace anyone? Zu Druids? Finally, we're talking AUDIO here. Away with prejustice and flattened paths the masses march across. Listen and compare, trust your ears as you won't receive better test equipment in your life. |
how good are class D amplifiers?
On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:22:57 +0200, jaap wrote:
Finally, we're talking AUDIO here. Away with prejustice and flattened paths the masses march across. Listen and compare, trust your ears as you won't receive better test equipment in your life. Jaap, you are starting to sound a little silly - certainly very ignorant of the state of audio test equipment. It isn't as if it is even a close call. Audio measurements are many thousands of times more sensitive and discriminating than the ear's ability to hear. I urge you to do a little more research and reading before you post anything further on this subject. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
Don Pearce schreef:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:04:17 +0200, jaap wrote: Don, I agree on most points but one (besides from reproduction levels, which are measured in Bells and not Watts): your inability to distinguish audible capacitor coloration. You hide behind your test equipment, not knowing exactly what to look for. Is it the ESR, the inductance, dielectric absorption? Do the test with open mind, you may find yourself puzzled. Who cares what you use to measure audio reproduction levels? You need Watts to produce them. As for capacitor colouration, *nobody* has to my knowledge ever demonstrated an ability to hear it. Many have made the claim, and a few of them have allowed themselves to be subject to a test - all have failed. I suspect you could easily add yourself to this number. I don't hide behind equipment. This is a claim you are making to Serge too, and I have to say it is rather rude. I use equipment, I have designed equipment and I have measured the characteristics of many, many capacitors. I have also worked in recording studios (where I was taught vinyl cutting by an expert). My mind is open - if I ever hear what I consider to be an unexplained difference I will immediately challenge myself to identify it beyond doubt. I have never done so yet. It is your mind that appears to be the closed one in this debate and this leads you make assertions that fly in the face of reason. So you need to be self-critical. If you find yourself believing something that doesn't follow logic, don't just assume that you are right and logic is wrong. Assume that you have got it wrong until such a point that you can demonstrate beyond doubt that you have it right. One thing, of course. You must make the test blind. Your brain plays the cruelest tricks on you when you are aware of what you are listening to. You do know that James Randi has a million dollars awaiting anybody who can repeatably hear the difference between cables? Go for it - you can buy us all a drink with your winnings. d Don don't be offended, I won't either. The logic behind colorations associated with cables and capacitors are explicable by electrical properties. I can hear the difference between five or six cables, even more capacitors (I have hundreds to play with and I do!) and so can you (I presume). Never heard from James Randi but when we meet I'll buy you a drink, as many as you need to forget your equipment and hard obtained knowledge. Then we have a (blind) test listening to beautiful music. Best regards from the home of the worlds largest audio equipment producing company ever. |
how good are class D amplifiers?
"jaap" wrote in message ll.nl... 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. **What a load of bull****. Find yourself a system costing $X.00 in 1970. Find yourself a similarly rated system, costing $X.00 in 1=2007 (allowing for inflation) and listen. You will likely be surprised at the improvements. 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. **So? All I see is that modern equipment is much cheaper than in the old days. Here's my example: I own a Marantz Model 18 Receiver, dating from 1968. It originally cost US$1,200.00 and was the most power receiver on the planet, back then. For it's time, it was quite a sophisticated product, employing full complementary silicon outputs, relay protection system and other nifty stuff. It was critically appraised by reviewers at the time and when I purchased mine (ca: 1977) I was stunned at how much better it sounded than many contemporary amplifiers of similar (60 Watts) or even more power. Just for yuks, I recently compared it to a more modern Marantz amplifier (cost around AUS$1,000.00). No comparison. The modern amp was somewhat better sounding. And, allowing for inflation, the modern amp was MUCH less expensive. Don't even get me started on loudspeakers. The technology for designing speakers has improved in leaps and bounds over the last 40 years. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
jaap wrote:
Serge Auckland schreef: jaap wrote: Don Pearce schreef: On Sun, 13 May 2007 19:37:01 +0200, jaap wrote: It's a public secret there's only a small market for better sounding equipment. Most people don't bother because they want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality, especially when expensive. There lays the problem manufacturers are facing. I think that lost something in the translation from Dutch. Could you elaborate? d Alright. Being a public secret is a saying (over here) and means as much as being common knowledge to most people. No, I got that bit - it was all the rest that had me puzzled. d Look around you, probably within your family or among your friends. Most people won't be bothered by new disk standards, color of face plates, brand names, fourfold wiring with precious metals, quantity of loudspeakers etcetera. It's all about enjoying the music, not how it is reproduced. OK, there exist a group of people running to the shop every year for the last model but I don't think this is because they enjoy the music so much. See my point? Yes, but what did you mean when you said that people want to hear amplified sound and do not enjoy the quality? I gave you two examples. It is about the music, not how many watts or how large the stack. Another example: TV sets. It's only for a couple of years manufacturers are paying attention to better sound reproduction. Many of us are having terrible reproduction quality and still enjoy the moving pictures. I shouldn't think many of us on this group use the sound system supplied with a TV. In my circle there's no one who has the tellie linked to his or her hifi. I did on some occasions watching war movies because of the impressive explosion sounds. Only got the pets and the wife upset :) Manufacturers can produce better sets but what happens if customers don't want to spend more money on a TV or HiFi? Jaap Nobody has produced anything better for many years. You're missing the point here. Manufacturers can upgrade -lets say- a midprized set by putting in more expensive capacitors. That set would sound better because there's less fuzz in the audio. On the other hand the higher expense has to be payed by the consumer and they don't. One explanation can be that consumers want better cyphers when they put down more money. My explanation is massconsumers don't think a small gain in quality is worth a large amount. Absolutely *NOT*. Changing capacitors won't make one jot of difference. Just measure it and you'll see. IF you would rather believe your ears than objective measurements, then I have a Bridge I can sell you. Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had been understood and addressed. Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here). Digital has no "sound". CD is a transparent carrier, in that whatever goes in comes out, to the limits of the 16 bit 44.1 system, which comfortably exceeds the human ability to hear. You may not like what is being done with CDs (I also hate today's Mastering, it's all bout loudness, not quality) but that's nothing to do with the carrier, which is transparent to well past the limits of human hearing. S. Sorry, I do not agree with you. Sound is affected by everything it comes in contact with. The surrounding, electronic parts, the hairs in your ears, noise, air temperature and more. Talk with a musician and stop believing technicians have a complete picture of nature. I agree measurements are necessary, but please come down from your high horse telling science knows everything. Was it you who said all (good) amplifiers and players sound the same? Not true. Jaap, this is where we have to disagree. All good amplifiers *will* sound the same into sensible loads. I accept that 1ohm Scintillas will cause some amplifiers to sound different, but sensible loads on modern sensible amplifiers will sound the same. They can't not sound the same when their specifications are both comfortably below hearing thresholds. Please do a simple test exchanging capacitors in the PS of your audio equipment or in your speaker crossovers. It might or might not be measurable but one can hear definitely the change of coloration. Unless you don't listen to music of course :) Again, if the measurements don't show any change in performance, there can't be any change in the sound. Sound doesn't change for "magic", if there is a change in sound, then there is a measurable change in audio parameters. One of the problems with Digital audio is that only part of the actual information is recorded. For most people this 'sound' is good enough (as most consumers don't want to pay for higher quality). Have you ever compared a recording on a Telefunken M10 to your favorite CD or DVD? It is not a "problem" with digital audio as *all* the information is recorded to the limits of 16 or 24 bit resolution, and to a little less than half the sample rate frequency. Even with 16/44.1 systems, the accuracy is so very much better than any analogue machine could manage, that the suggestion that an M10 is better than a CD is just plain foolish. You may prefer the sound of the M10, but every objective test would show the CD to be better. *Much* more information is recorded on CD than on an analogue machine which is limited at best to a S/N ratio of some 60dB if distortion is to be kept low. Bass woodles on analogue tape prevents the bass end from recording flat, and speed variations (W&F) are many orders of magnitude worse than CD, although still below audibility. I think you should consider carefully your position. It is perfectly OK for you to claim that you prefer the sound of your system to a modern digital one, but to claim that it is better, is just foolish when all the measurements are against you. S. Jaap -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
how good are class D amplifiers?
"Trevor Wilson" wrote I own a Marantz Model 18 Receiver, dating from 1968. It originally cost US$1,200.00 and was the most power receiver on the planet, back then. For it's time, it was quite a sophisticated product, employing full complementary silicon outputs, relay protection system and other nifty stuff. It was critically appraised by reviewers at the time and when I purchased mine (ca: 1977) I was stunned at how much better it sounded than many contemporary amplifiers of similar (60 Watts) or even more power. Just for yuks, I recently compared it to a more modern Marantz amplifier (cost around AUS$1,000.00). No comparison. The modern amp was somewhat better sounding. And, allowing for inflation, the modern amp was MUCH less expensive. Don't even get me started on loudspeakers. The technology for designing speakers has improved in leaps and bounds over the last 40 years. S'funny, we keep getting told how 'good amps' don't have a sound....??? Speaker improvements? Try getting hold of a pair of cheap, 30 year old Tannoys/Rogers/Quads/KEFs, just for starters.... |
how good are class D amplifiers?
In article l, jaap
wrote: Serge Auckland wrote: jaap wrote: 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. Well, I'd be happy to believe that amplifiers have 'deminished' over the decades. I am still enjoying using the amps I designs 20+ years ago. So it would be smug to assume that newer ones were all poorer. However I suspect the 'opinion' remains an 'opinion' for the simple reason that it isn't a 'fact'. ;- Hi Serge, My opinion is based on human hearing and not on the momentary technological approach from a-musical tecchies. Strangely, I also based my opinions on this on 'human hearing'. Just that my experiences clearly differ from yours, I suppose. :-) 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. Ah, so 'the best' means soft clipping to alter the sounds in ways you prefer. I see. Do you also regard high output impedance as useful to alter the frequency response in ways you like? :-) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
how good are class D amplifiers?
In article l, jaap
wrote: I might be wrong but is 'HiFi' not invented as a marketing trick? Was it? Can you give the evidence you have for that? I have assumed that - in English - it meant 'High Fidelity'. With an amplifier this means that for audio signals the output is an accurately scaled version of the input. Hence the term 'amplifier'. :-) I recall a hip 1958 ad from Philips for that years new models table radios :) Your evidence that Philips invented the term for this ad is?... 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. Mine also. Hence the above definitions of 'High Fidelity' and 'amplifier'. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
how good are class D amplifiers?
In article l, jaap
wrote: Don Pearce schreef: Nobody has produced anything better for many years. You're missing the point here. Manufacturers can upgrade -lets say- a midprized set by putting in more expensive capacitors. That set would sound better because there's less fuzz in the audio. Would it? When in the past I tried changing types of caps, no-one I tried the results on could tell any difference - if they had no idea I'd change the caps. :-) Nor have I seen any well conducted listening tests showing any such audible differences. Many assertions and claims of belief, but no reliable evidence anyone else could assess. Quality plateaued once the initial reproduction problems with CD had been understood and addressed. Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here). I wouldn't have liked that either. Forrtunately it doesn't seem to arise simply as a result of a system being 'digital'. Although there are bad examples of everything. Hi Fi is now a lifestyle business, and quite unrelated to sound reproduction. Not in my house. :-) But do remember the nature of the group you are addressing here. We are mostly not Hi Fi fashion victims, and many of us are well able to understand in great detail what the true situation is. d Hope not to be blunt, but do you mean this NG is more about lifestyle than audio? In that case the name should be changed... You seem to be having Dutch-English translation problems if you think that is what he wrote. :-) Slainte, Jim Jaap -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk