WayneKerr
Well-known member
DSP in AV amps maybe, 2 channel not so common. I own a straight 2 channel amp and it sounds far from dull.
JDL
Well-known member
I'm lucky enough that when I listen to classical in the day, most of the time, I do listen carefully and attentively. In fact it's so fantastic, the talent and genius of the composers I listen to and the brilliance of the Orchestras and soloists that play it, I'm astonished every time.
I don't listen to much rock, what I do listen to also astonishes me. Again the level of skill, coherence and outright talent.
It's a real priveledge and a blessing being able to listen to good music on a good Hi-Fi.
tones
Active member
Not sure what a class D amplifier is, but I have both valve and transistor amps, and to me they sound the same. perhaps I'm simply a deaf old git,..,.
WayneKerr
Well-known member
Probably
Join the rest of us! I've got a class D and it definitely sounds different to the AB it replaced, not sure if this is down to the class or the extra grunt on tap though.
JDL
Well-known member
"Wayne" is your Marantz Ruby a class D?Probably
I thought it was AB. Have you replaced it? Surely not.
WayneKerr
Well-known member
podknocker
Well-known member
The valve and vinyl 'purists' still don't like class D, but it's the future in my opinion.
Small, light, powerful and efficient and I'm sure they will be more common than other types very soon.
This amp is a great example and gets a good review:
www.audiosciencereview.com
Small, light, powerful and efficient and I'm sure they will be more common than other types very soon.
This amp is a great example and gets a good review:
Audiophonics DA-S250NC DAC & Power Amp Review
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Audiophonics DA-S250NC class D amplifier (hypex NC252MP) and stereo DAC/Bluetooth. It was requested by a member and supplied by the company. It costs 582,50 € (tax excluded) (US$641). I really like the front panel display. It has large font and...
www.audiosciencereview.com
JDL
Well-known member
So the Ruby's Class D?Nope still got it and it's not going anywhere
WayneKerr
Well-known member
12th Monkey
Moderator
Best word for it. Kick drums stop and start with more precision. I could infer that your use of the word 'experienced' implies I might be imagining it, but I don't believe this to be the case.
JDL
Well-known member
Well well. I did'ne realise that all these Marantz amps employ class D technology in the power stage of the amp. I assume it is only used in the power stage on them, a la Model 30 with its modified twin Hypex units.
WayneKerr
Well-known member
JDL
Well-known member
The PM10 is very rare outside Japan I think. I was looking for them for sale, just for fun a while back. Whenever they do appear, they sell immediately and they're not cheap either.
I, like you am very impressed with the Marantz that I own. It's a great sounding amp and it always runs cool, even when I'm pushing it.
WayneKerr
Well-known member
Gray
Well-known member
Sorry but that is just a ridiculous statement.
Anybody will tell you that what you've said is patently untrue.
idc
Well-known member
It's an old article, but I never saw it at the time. I studied a lot of hifi claims, looking for actual evidence from testing to verify those claims and found very little. On the list two stand out as evidenced. Number 1, running in, has been measured, but only with speakers. Number 8, AV power ratings, but again, that is to do with speakers and volume, where a slight increase in volume sounds like an improvement in sound quality, as it often is, since there is a volume sweet spot, not too quiet, not too loud, just right.
Numbers 3 and 4, about being in the mood and right place for listening are not measurable, but make sense, especially for an audiophile listening session, which is all about the detail of the music and no distractions. That helps to explain why other "tricks" can work, because you have just spent money on cables, or turned off the display to make the music sound better, so you hope it will. You want results from your efforts. You are disappointed when there is nothing, but maybe you were just not in the right place or mood at that time.
Numbers 3 and 4, about being in the mood and right place for listening are not measurable, but make sense, especially for an audiophile listening session, which is all about the detail of the music and no distractions. That helps to explain why other "tricks" can work, because you have just spent money on cables, or turned off the display to make the music sound better, so you hope it will. You want results from your efforts. You are disappointed when there is nothing, but maybe you were just not in the right place or mood at that time.
podknocker
Well-known member
There are so many factors influencing sound quality and mood is one of them. Enjoying music is only possible if you want to hear the stuff in the first place and you have the correct ambience and conditions, otherwise it's just some noise in the background. This is my experience anyway. Having distractions from all the suburban noise, inside and outside, destroys the mood for listening. I've also found my speakers sound better now they've been used for 3 years. There is a running in period with speakers, due to the electrical and mechanical components needing a certain amount of use to 'settle in.' They sound better still when my living room is warmer, as they did recently with the heating on. Night time listening is better than day time for me and there are many reasons for this. Human hearing is more perceptive when there is less light and you rely on hearing to be aware of what's around you, including threats etc. The argument that the mains supply is cleaner makes no sense, as there are probably more people and devices using the mains later in the afternoon and during evening hours etc. If I'm tired and annoyed for any reason and I listen to music, it's never satisfying. If I'm relaxed and had a few drinks, then I'm more receptive to the tunes. There are different types of music for different occasions and many enjoy clubs and really loud music and there's been a few occasions where I've enjoyed loud music. Most of my listening now is chillout and downtempo stuff and I don't like it really loud. Speakers do sound better at higher volumes, up to a point, because human hearing struggles with very low and very high frequencies, at low levels. It's biology and hormones at the end of the day and each person's experience will be different. The pseudoscience behind fancy copper wires does bother me. Some say they can hear a difference, but science cannot determine how this could happen. I don't think it ever will. If you lived miles away from anyone and had a very clean mains supply and you were in a good mood, you'd probably love your music even more. The best tweaks for enjoying music are being relaxed/drunk and having no neighbours. I've been working on the last one for decades and it's really difficult finding a living space without distractions from others. I do envy people living in the middle of nowhere. They can play their tunes loud and don't have to suffer other people's noise.
tones
Active member
Probably
tones
Active member
Well, you might - or you might not. Either way, enjoy it, that's what it's all about, and simply ignore old scientific killjoys.
12th Monkey
Moderator
I have a resolutely scientific mindset - you seem to be basing everything on logic plus a fairly limited set of experiences. The reality is, I fear, rather more complex than the bare logical bones you lay out.
tones
Active member
Since I acquired my first hi-fi in 1972, I'm not sure that they're all that limited. Having said that, I am admittedly not a great box-swopper, but I have heard lots. And working in the field of human senses (in my case, taste and smell), I know how easily fooled these are. In short, I don't think that reality is more complex, merely people's interpretations of it. I return to Gordon Holt's famous Stereophile article on Peter belt's gadgets:
Despite heroic efforts to educate our population, the US (and, apparently, the UK) has been graduating scientific illiterates for more than 40 years. And where knowledge ends, superstition begins. Without any concepts of how scientific knowledge is gleaned from intuition, hypothesis, and meticulous investigation, or what it accepts today as truth, anything is possible. Without the anchor of science, we are free to drift from one idea to another, accepting or "keeping an open mind about" as many outrageous tenets as did the "superstitious natives" we used to scorn 50 years ago. (We still do, but it's unfashionable to admit it.) Many of our beliefs are based on nothing more than a very questionable personal conviction that, because something should be true, then it must be. (Traditional religion is the best example of this.) The notion that a belief should have at least some objective support is scorned as being "closed-minded," which has become a new epithet. In order to avoid that dread appellation, we are expected to pretend to be open to the possibility that today's flight of technofantasy may prove to be tomorrow's truth, no matter how unlikely. Well, I don't buy that.
I do not have a degree in physics, or EE, or even in metaphysics. But I will modestly assert that I have a conceptual grasp of the first two which exceeds that of many of the people who design the equipment we review in this magazine. It is this conceptual picture, more than anything else, which is defaced by Mr. Belt's views and the gadgets which they have spawned. In short, it is my firm belief that their beneficial effects, when such are observed, are not on the perceptual faculties of the listener, but on his suggestibility.
podknocker
Well-known member
I think you need a reasonable education and understanding of audio electronics and how they actually produce sounds, but you also need to have the perception to fully appreciate the sounds you hear.
Many people would call that being an audiophile snob, but I know many people who don't really care about music, which has been fundamental to our development as an intelligent species and they also cannot perceive differences in good and bad systems.
They can't appreciate 'quality' and they are unable to discern these differences, even when given a demo etc.
One of my friends really doesn't understand my interest in HIFI, but he's playing PC games in his late 40s!
It's horses for courses really.
Many people would call that being an audiophile snob, but I know many people who don't really care about music, which has been fundamental to our development as an intelligent species and they also cannot perceive differences in good and bad systems.
They can't appreciate 'quality' and they are unable to discern these differences, even when given a demo etc.
One of my friends really doesn't understand my interest in HIFI, but he's playing PC games in his late 40s!
It's horses for courses really.
Last edited:
tones
Active member
12th Monkey
Moderator
There's a world of difference between Peter Belt's woo-woo nonsense and how the different ways in which amplifiers are designed might affect their sound. An article on the former doesn't illuminate the latter.
(It's also worth stressing that I had no preconceptions about differences between how the Arcam and MF amps would sound, so there was no scope for 'hearing what I wanted/expected to hear.')
(It's also worth stressing that I had no preconceptions about differences between how the Arcam and MF amps would sound, so there was no scope for 'hearing what I wanted/expected to hear.')
podknocker
Well-known member
Exactly. Peter Belt's theories and products were strange, borderline witchcraft and I think he will be remembered for being the most idiosyncratic person in the HIFI community.
Similar threads
- Locked
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram