Digital Amps - Whatcha Think?

[David Meek]

Another thread got me to pondering the emergence of digital (switching) amplifiers - Class D - into the upper end of the market. I didn't want to hi-jack that thread so I've started this one. Everyone pile on!

Here's a copy of my reply to a post in that earlier thread:

There are a lot of intriguiging possibilities with the digital amp technology, but there aren't that many - yet - that have been written up as being "high-end sound". The few I've come across are Tact Audio's 2150, Yamaha's MX-D1, Sharp's SM-SX100 and PS Audio's HCA-2. Actually the HCA-2 is a hybrid: class A input stage and class D output. And with that "high-end" tag, comes high end cost: the Tact and Yamaha are both $4,000-5,000, and the Sharp's MSRP is (are you sitting down?) $15,000. The HCA-2 is more reasonable at about $1,700 but that's still a nice chunk of discretionary capital.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not knocking digital amps. And I'm definitely not saying stay away from them! I really like the idea of a 1 or 2 rack-unit-high component that weighs 30 lbs, generates little or no heat and sounds as good as a Krell or Mark Levinson product (I'm not sure they do, yet). But I really hesitate to say they are everything to all speakers, at least right now.

[David Meek]

Would you go digital? Right now? Later? Why? Why not?

[Patt]

The idea of having something lighter weight with less heat is appealing and the electrical current draw is less which would be good for the light bill.

Some of the even more affordable ones are Red Dragon..EAR..H20..Flying Mole and I'm sure a few others.

I am willing to give them a try, interesting to say the least.....

[Danbry39]

I'd at least consider one in the future. Right now, the Panasonic receivers have been getting some rave reviews. Most definitely, though, I'd go to a place with a very liberal return policy so that I could return it if I wasn't satisfied. I have to admit I'm intrigued by how they might evolve.

As Patt said, their weight and size can be significantly reduced, as well as the fact that they run cool. Right now, I have to separate my amp from my rack in consideration of these factors. So, in the end, if something were able to offer the same performance while offering other advantages, why not at least consider it. It's the performance that remains a question to me as I've not read enough or auditioned any gear as of yet.

[Fishy]

When/if I upgrade my front PMC's from DB1's to TB2's or something bigger I was also thinking about upgrading to the Bryston Power Pacs at the same time. This is mainly due to the tie up between Bryston and PMC. But PMC have just released their new active speakers using the Flying Mole amps.

PMC are a well known brand used in many studios and broadcasting setups, along with some home theatre setups.

Why would such a company go with these amps if they cannot produce a quality of sound which would be worse than standard.

IMHO.

Fish

[Patt]

PMC & Flying Mole....

That tells me F.M. may be a great thing since they are being used by such an established speaker company.

[Brahma]

I keep hearing rumours that all the digital amps, even the expensive ones, sound harsh, but without testing one out myself I really don't know if it is true. It could just be that general prejudice thing most people do with all things new and innovative.... Also Hi-Fi enthusiasts don't like something that isn't heavy, that could be it too.

But I'm a realist who also wonders about all those funny people who think vinyls are the best Hi-Fi experience out there. Seriously, see it as art or nostalgia, but that's where it ends. IMHO

So from my reading of the technology behind class D amps, they should eventually out-strip their analogue counterparts in all areas of performance. Whether that technology is currently refined enough to justify owning one, I don't know that yet.

[StefanColson]

Like most new technologies, digital amps tend te be met with stupendously glowing praise, and also unbelievable hatred. I think that digital amps are definitely the way of the future, but the technology isn't yet mature. Once designers get a handle on the tech and start to learn how to best utilize it, we'll start to see staggering performance with greatly reduced cost, size, and heat output. As it is now we have a competitive product with a sizable price tag.

I think that one day digital amps will be to analog what solid state is to tubes (as far as amps are concerned anyway), but that day is far off. It's still too early for me to want to invest in digital amplifier technology, but I'm glad that some people are, or else the tech would never grow and improve. The main reason to wait is that in 5 years you'll be able to buy significantly better digital amps than are available today for a fraction of the cost. Digital technology isn't like analog technology in that quality components are extremely cost prohibitive. You couldn't build a Levinson amp for less than several thousand dollars, because it costs that much to buy the quality analog components. Once the digital tech matures costs will be driven downwards, and a whole new level of quality will be available at a price point that's unthinkable today. Think about what solid state amps offered over tubes (unless you're someone that's completely in love with the tube sound, which I am not), but you certainly wouldn't want to now own one of the first generation solid state amps built.

Bottom line: Digital = way of the future, but the technology is still in it's infancy. This is the beginning of the end for the dominance of analog audio amplifiers. They will never go away (look at tubes), but they won't have the majority of the market share for much longer (think early next decade). Solid state is still the way to go for audiophile performance, but keep your ears open in the coming years.

[Snap]

:agree: Yep he is right :agree:

Digital amps will some day take over. It is the way of things. But there is always going to be that small fact.......the is NO way that a digital amp can reproduce exactly like an analoge in all areas. Analog amps have thier own personality. It is like the simple fact that with all the high tech stuff we have for recording.....we STILL run mics through a tube amp to "warm" up the vocals before we send it into Pro Tools. It is like the "Best Digital Piano" money can buy.....still will NOT sound like a real piano.

But when it all comes down to it....it is going to be personal taste, and the ........bottom line $$$$$$$$$$

I will probably have a few in the next few years that is for sure! But that is my .o2 cents.

[David Meek]

But I'm a realist who also wonders about all those funny people who think vinyls are the best Hi-Fi experience out there. Seriously, see it as art or nostalgia, but that's where it ends.

Realist? Funny people? You should be a little more respectful in your posts, and you damn sure should be more knowledgable when stating your opinion. I don't know what your experience with vinyl is, but statements like that are made many times because the person making it made up their mind without listening to a good vinyl rig - they've listened to a $49 automatic TT pulled out from under a tarp in an attic, or they've never listened at all.

Vinyl can sound every bit as good as Redbook CD and vice versa. I'm not going say one definitively sounds better than the other, because the sound of each format is very dependent on the components, environment, pressing quality and care taken with the media. SACD can produce a somewhat better sound, but again if you are listening on low-end components, they may not have the level of articulation necessary to show just exactly what SACD can do. I'm not an "audiophile" but neither am I cursed with a tin ear. Comparative listening to similarly capable componentry will show the strengths and weaknesses of vinyl and CD both.

Vinyl is not art. It is not nostalgia. It is an older format that requires specific processes to be followed to produce the best sound - unlike CD where anyone can drop a disc in a tray.. If you aren't willing to do so fine. That's your choice.

[/rant off]

[Leef DaLucky]

I had a room mate 2 years ago who had the hugest vinyl collection i've seen in 20 years. Just when i thought digital was the way to go, he reminded me that there are always alternatives.

I jumped on the digital bandwagon myself with a Panasonic X50/Paradigm setup. Nice little unit. 9 lbs. No heat. Accuracy like you wouldn't believe.

As far as musicality goes, I wouldn't compare it to higher end analogue amps quite yet. I think my buddy's 370w Rotel and Studio 100's beat out my 82w and Studio 40's.
I WILL say that,for HT, melikes! It's quite astounding! It's the detailed accuracy, really. If this is any indication of how these are progressing, I'd agree and say that digital amps are definitely here to stay. For what it's worth. I did hear some harshness in the first 50 hours of owning my pannie that i either got use to, or the amp got burned in. No harshness anymore though. Came out beautiful sounding.

There will always be some nay-sayers. And these may even be from companies that have overlooked the importance of these amps, and failed to come up with a design of their own. I looked over that Bryston article last week and had to wonder if Bryston is in the process of designing any digitals. (i'll assume from the authors perspective and bryston's backing, that they haven't).

Now rotel has gone and put out 3 new digital amps:
7x100w
1x500w
and 2x500w

Frankly, these specific parameters don't really spark interest in me.
a) I'll probably never have 7 channels (wife would kill me)
b) 500w is just overkill for anything I'll ever own.

I'd love to see a 5x200w digital from them, in the future but we'll see what happens.
Plus, i'm part of the crowd that likes the smaller, slim-line components. I'm just not into 12 inch tall/250 lb/oven roasting behemoths anymore and this is one of the pleasant biproducts of newer technology.

so hey, basically you've got a whole bunch of companies putting in large amounts of cash to get these amps designed, marketed and out the door. There has to be something to them, right?

Mikey

[JonMarsh]

Even though I'm known as something of a digital ding dong, and only have one turntable left, which I rarely use, I have to back up David on this one. The best digital source components under $5K each are just starting to approach the sound achievable by my Otari 10" 15 IPS reel-to-reel or my Rabco turntable with Denon DL103 cartridge or Dynavector cartridge. Vinyl is a lot of hassle, and has the obvious degradation and signal to noise issues, but the best imaging and sound staging I've ever had was with my old vinyl rig. The records I could buy in the 70's sounded MUCH better than the CD's I could buy in the 80s. CD's are quiet, plug and play, low maintenance, etc, but it's only since the late 90s that fairly consistent good quality commercial manufacturing processes have been implemented in something across the board. SACD and DVD-A have both given impetus to better mastering and manufacturing- but we aren't in the holy land yet.

~Jon

[ekkoville]

The records I could buy in the 70's sounded MUCH better than the CD's I could buy in the 80s.

How much of that was the music and artist's themselves? Some 80's music, which I grew up listening to and now here on XM channel 8 on occasion, is pitiful, IMO. Maybe Jon, it was junk in and junk out.

As for digital amps, when you are trying to retro-fit a house with wholehouse audio like myself and large amps are cumbersome or pricey, the digital amp offers a good alternative. I still haven't heard one, but am willing to give it a try in one form or another. If it makes life easier and sounds good, it is good value.

[Snap]

I no longer have a vinyl... but there are some good classics that just do not sound good with out that scratching of the needle on vinyl! There is some GOOOOOD Jazz That just rocks on vinyl!
:T

[Brahma]

Realist? Funny people? You should be a little more respectful in your posts, and you damn sure should be more knowledgable when stating your opinion. I don't know what your experience with vinyl is, but statements like that are made many times because the person making it made up their mind without listening to a good vinyl rig - they've listened to a $49 automatic TT pulled out from under a tarp in an attic, or they've never listened at all.

Vinyl can sound every bit as good as Redbook CD and vice versa. I'm not going say one definitively sounds better than the other, because the sound of each format is very dependent on the components, environment, pressing quality and care taken with the media. SACD can produce a somewhat better sound, but again if you are listening on low-end components, they may not have the level of articulation necessary to show just exactly what SACD can do. I'm not an "audiophile" but neither am I cursed with a tin ear. Comparative listening to similarly capable componentry will show the strengths and weaknesses of vinyl and CD both.

Vinyl is not art. It is not nostalgia. It is an older format that requires specific processes to be followed to produce the best sound - unlike CD where anyone can drop a disc in a tray.. If you aren't willing to do so fine. That's your choice.

[/rant off]

:W Since it seems you're not up with the term "realist" or what "respectful" truly is, I feel the need to elaborate.

So: "unlike CD where anyone can drop a disc in a tray". That truly is a funny statement. Are you also the type that thinks a car where you have to crank the engine over by hand instead of a key is a better thing?

Must be that art/nostalgia and funny people thing again.

Here's the elaboration:

Realists don't like replacing cartridges every 50 hours so sound quality doesn't degrade;

Realists don't like to keep their best music source material for only special occasions so that they don't wear out; and

Realists don't like to hear buzz and hum even on the most expensive Hi-fi equipment.

And Realist's know that the best sound out there in a recordable format is digital. It's not even debatable anymore.

But a realist also accepts we're all entitled to do what pleases us. And if listening to an inferior format and getting all warm and fuzzy about it turns you on, go for it.

And Respectful - means if you have a problem with someone elses opinion you should see that the problem lies with yourself. And it especially means you don't jump to any rash conclusion about what you think someone else has listened to and what they haven't listened to, with statements like .... and you damn sure should be more knowledgable when stating your opinion....

[Patt]

Chill out Brahma, he likes vinyl and you don't....sheesh

[Taito]

Woah, hold up there for one second Brahma! This is obviously a very touchy subject, but I have to say that I agree with David. Vinyl and CD each have their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Now, I grew up with CD and have only just started discovering vinyl, but I have to say that there are some recordings that I prefer on vinyl to CD. It should also be noted that this is a somewhat unfair comparison, as I bought a second hand cheap & nasty yamaha TT to experiment with vinyl ($29 - how could I lose?). Putting that up against my CD player (closer to $1000) does give CD a pretty strong advantage to begin with.

Yes, there is some surface noise on vinyl, but new & clean albums exhibit almost no snap, crackle and pop. The CD player (Rotel RCD-1072) blows away the yamaha TT in terms of detail and dynamic ability - and considering the price difference, I would have been severely disappointed if it didn't. BUT, that isn't to say that the dynamics and detail from this TT aren't very satifying - for the most part, they are.

Now, the point that I have been slowly getting to. Some albums/songs are just more put-a-stupid-grin-on-your-face-enjoyable on vinyl. In a direct comparison (song to song) between vinyl and CD, I tend to find (particulary at higher volume) that CD tends to have a slightly hard, glossy finish to the treble that isn't quite right.

Will I fork out for a good TT? I don't know yet, but before experimenting with vinyl, I wouldn't have believed that it could even challenge CD.

Also, from what I have read, stylus wear can become an issue after approximately 2000 hours of play (that's about three years of 2 hours a day play). My stereo is far from the most expensive, but I don't suffer from buzz or hum. I haven't noticed the few new albums that I bought wearing out. And I would say that digital having the best sound is very much open to debate.

Not only is vinyl not just quirky and nostalgic, but it IS a viable source that can yeild very satisfying listening sessions.

-Ben

[Brahma]

Woah, hold up there for one second Brahma! This is obviously a very touchy subject, but I have to say that I agree with David. Vinyl and CD each have their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Now, I grew up with CD and have only just started discovering vinyl, but I have to say that there are some recordings that I prefer on vinyl to CD. It should also be noted that this is a somewhat unfair comparison, as I bought a second hand cheap & nasty yamaha TT to experiment with vinyl ($29 - how could I lose?). Putting that up against my CD player (closer to $1000) does give CD a pretty strong advantage to begin with.

Yes, there is some surface noise on vinyl, but new & clean albums exhibit almost no snap, crackle and pop. The CD player (Rotel RCD-1072) blows away the yamaha TT in terms of detail and dynamic ability - and considering the price difference, I would have been severely disappointed if it didn't. BUT, that isn't to say that the dynamics and detail from this TT aren't very satifying - for the most part, they are.

Now, the point that I have been slowly getting to. Some albums/songs are just more put-a-stupid-grin-on-your-face-enjoyable on vinyl. In a direct comparison (song to song) between vinyl and CD, I tend to find (particulary at higher volume) that CD tends to have a slightly hard, glossy finish to the treble that isn't quite right.

Will I fork out for a good TT? I don't know yet, but before experimenting with vinyl, I wouldn't have believed that it could even challenge CD.

Also, from what I have read, stylus wear can become an issue after approximately 2000 hours of play (that's about three years of 2 hours a day play). My stereo is far from the most expensive, but I don't suffer from buzz or hum. I haven't noticed the few new albums that I bought wearing out. And I would say that digital having the best sound is very much open to debate.

Not only is vinyl not just quirky and nostalgic, but it IS a viable source that can yeild very satisfying listening sessions.

-Ben

Well Ben I'm not going to disagree with much of that, especially the bit that you elude to that it is all for fun. :T

My statements which sound harsh, because they are, are based on extreme's in both technologies and being realistic about what sound quality is, and what sound quality isn't, as it relates to recordings.

So I'm talking about comparing a $5k turntable with an $8k disc transport with the best amp and speakers money can buy. A mechanical needle exciting an electromagnetic or magnetic transponder moving in a crater made of plastic that wears out just doesn't compare well in all areas from longivity, economics to absolutes in sound quality.

An analogue sound, can, I agree sound very natural. So a great turntable with all the fruit is going to sound natural. But it will still have more noise floor than even a cheap CD player and it will still wear itself and it's media out.

The un-natural and sometimes over bright sound that digital media has been touted for, came from insufficient sampling rates with the early technology.

The human ear and brain is more sensitive than any mechanical device. If you get a smooth sine wave and chop it into sqaured mathematical segments (a very simple explanation of digital formatting) and play it back to the human ear, then it is possible to actually detect something missing in the sound. That's what was happening with the earlier digital techonolgy.

But with the sampling and over sampling rates now in the latest digital technology there is no way that the best digital media currently on the market could be beaten in terms of sound quality by the best vinyl gear on the market.

But hey I've had tears of joy running down my face listening to a favourite song on a $10 radio, so it can be about that too. :lol:

[Taito]

There's no way that I'll disagree with the technical specifications of digital systems being better than that of analogue playback. Similarly, transistor amplifiers generally measure at least an order of magnitude better than tube gear. However, that doesn't mean that the tube gear won't be more enjoyable to listen to (will vary person to person).

What do vinyl and tubes versus digital and transister have in common? (Typically) even-order harmonic distortion versus odd-order harmonic distortion. Even-order or euphonic distortion is reasonably pleasant to humans and is typically recognised as an added warmth, whereas odd-order harmonic distortion is typically recognised as a harshness or brittleness to the sound.

Now, ultra high-end digital and transistor gear will have increadibly low levels of distortion and so will not suffer noticably from the 'harsher' characteristics of lesser digital and transistor gear. While euphonic distortion is not stictly accurate, it can make the listening experience more enjoyable (I say can, as I am not willing to talk in absolutes on this subject).

At the end of the day, I think we listen to what we do to get the most enjoyment out of the time that we can set aside for it.

But with the sampling and over sampling rates now in the latest digital technology there is no way that the best digital media currently on the market could be beaten in terms of sound quality by the best vinyl gear on the market.

I wont argue with Nyquist (a smart guy, that one), and I believe that for the most part, digital offers us more. I think that what offended David (prefering vinyl) is that most if not all of us consider ourselves to be realists and not one of those funny people (whoever they are anyway). I guess the point is... to each his own. David prefer's vinyl from his (from memory) nottingham analog horizon and I respect that. You prefer digital. I can respect that. As for me, I'm somewhat in both camps. For each person, whatever gives them the most enjoyment is the best source.

-Ben

(not really sure where I was going with that one )

[Brahma]

There's no way that I'll disagree with the technical specifications of digital systems being better than that of analogue playback. Similarly, transistor amplifiers generally measure at least an order of magnitude better than tube gear. However, that doesn't mean that the tube gear won't be more enjoyable to listen to (will vary person to person).

What do vinyl and tubes versus digital and transister have in common? (Typically) even-order harmonic distortion versus odd-order harmonic distortion. Even-order or euphonic distortion is reasonably pleasant to humans and is typically recognised as an added warmth, whereas odd-order harmonic distortion is typically recognised as a harshness or brittleness to the sound.

Now, ultra high-end digital and transistor gear will have increadibly low levels of distortion and so will not suffer noticably from the 'harsher' characteristics of lesser digital and transistor gear. While euphonic distortion is not stictly accurate, it can make the listening experience more enjoyable (I say can, as I am not willing to talk in absolutes on this subject).

At the end of the day, I think we listen to what we do to get the most enjoyment out of the time that we can set aside for it.



I wont argue with Nyquist (a smart guy, that one), and I believe that for the most part, digital offers us more. I think that what offended David (prefering vinyl) is that most if not all of us consider ourselves to be realists and not one of those funny people (whoever they are anyway). I guess the point is... to each his own. David prefer's vinyl from his (from memory) nottingham analog horizon and I respect that. You prefer digital. I can respect that. As for me, I'm somewhat in both camps. For each person, whatever gives them the most enjoyment is the best source.

-Ben

(not really sure where I was going with that one )

Well said again Ben.

Just by way of further ellaboration the "funny people" thing is more my sardonic sense of humour, not so much a statement that I believe vinyl enthusiasts to be backward. I profess to having a penchant for moving forward with the pace of life and this I find easier if I maintain a healthy aversion to anything old.

But snap, crackle and pop I guess David took exception to that.

But it's all good and each to his own.

[David Meek]

Just so there is no guessing going on, what I took exception to is the denigrating of anyone who had a differing opinion for anything other than what he stated. Read what I posted. I did not say anything about either format being superior to the other. In fact I said they can sound as good as each other. Yes, I enjoy vinyl. Yes, I enjoy CDs. I do not enjoy posts with the tone he (Brahma) used.

Brahma, let me be clear here. Your absolutist opinion combined with negative comments about people that feel differently will not be tolerated in this forum. Audio Hideout is a place for friendly, pleasant discussion where differing opinions are not only tolerated but welcome. If you wish to pursue this with me further we'll take it offline. Enough said.

C'mon, let's get back to the music. :yesnod:

[David Meek]

Well, We Wandered Off The Path....

Okay, back OT. :??

What really intrigues me about the digital amp technology is the potential to get similar sonic performance to something like - for instance - a Pass Labs X-250 out of a unit no larger than my DAC, and without the heat generated by a Class A amp. No, we're not there yet but in a year or two, can we be? (grammar police be gentle).

[Brahma]

Brahma, let me be clear here. Your absolutist opinion combined with negative comments about people that feel differently will not be tolerated in this forum. Audio Hideout is a place for friendly, pleasant discussion where differing opinions are not only tolerated but welcome. If you wish to pursue this with me further we'll take it offline. Enough said.

C'mon, let's get back to the music. :yesnod:

You're reading far more into it than was there David.

[IntegrateMe]

Has anyone actually heard the Yamaha 2-Ch digital amp?

I remember my Yamaha rep had it sitting on a table as part of their new line show about 18 months ago, but I've literally never heard him mention it again. It certainly piqued my interest back then, but since I would never sell it in a million years (my Yamaha interest is firmly routed in 55" Plasmas and DLP projectors) I was hoping to be able to audition it for my own personal usage.

Anyone heard it or know of published reviews?

Thanks!

[David Meek]

Here's Michael Fremer's review of the MX-D1 in Stereophile.

[Brahma]

Here's Michael Fremer's review of the MX-D1 in Stereophile.

Good find thanks.

As an owner of the Yamaha MX-1 (the class A predecessor of the MX-D1) I can vouch for this amp as one of the lesser known gems out there. Click here Running some older Jamo 707's gives me a stunning sound. In fact if I could pick up another MX-1 I would, just for keepsake. Anyone want to sell theirs? :W

I see that the reviewer didn't give the MX-D1 a great rap, but what I expected nonetheless from an early breed digital amp.

My next acquisition will definately be 'old school' technology - Classe CA-M400's - with my new home theater I'm building.

[Bob]

I find easier if I maintain a healthy aversion to anything old

It's the 60's all over again, also sometimes called the ignorance of youth.

[jrd]

Another Opinion

Thought I'd throw this link in for those who might not have seen it. Don't know much about Mr. Dan Agnanos other than his introduction here, but he seems to make some valid points. I would agree that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

http://www.bryston.ca/newsletters/91_files/vol9_iss1.pdf

[David Meek]

As an owner of the Yamaha MX-1 (the class A predecessor of the MX-D1) I can vouch for this amp as one of the lesser known gems out there.

Over the last year or so, I've bumped into several posts on various forums about the fine sonic qualities of the MX-1. I'd like to hear one myself. Anyone in south-central Texas have one? :huh:

[AndrewM]

Would you go digital? Right now? Later? Why? Why not?

Sure I would. The "when" part will be when the price/performance of such an amp exceeds "normal" amps we have today.

I'm more concerned with the final result and less so with the path to get there. I want to hear good music (and see/hear good A/V), if that comes from an LP, CD, SACD, DVD-A, class A, class A/B, class D, etc I don't really care. Don't get me wrong, I love new hardware and "new" technology, but I try not to let that cloud my "final results" judgement too often.

Andrew

[Bob]

I have the feeling from the comments here about digital amps v.s. analogue v.s. solid state v.s. tubes that, other than David Meeks nobody that made a comment in this thread has a clue as to what a digital amp is. I hate to blow everybody's bubble but digital amps are still analogue just the same as solid state and tube amps. The digital part is only in the circuits of the power supply, which is a big savings in heat, weight and expense. It is perfectly feasible for a digital amp to be either solid state or tubes. Just doesn't make sense, at least at this time for them to be tubes, because that just adds the heat and expense right back into the formula.

[ToddAnisman]

:And Realist's know that the best sound out there in a recordable format is digital. It's not even debatable anymore.

Absolutely untrue. And this is coming from a person who uses Mixes audio everyday, with a 100% digital system.

You've obviously never heard a 1/2" 2 track master.

do you really think that the over-compressed audio that we all hear in Pop/rock sound better? since when is louder better? It isn't!!!! Digital has brought about the era of deaf engineers and even more deaf people (not that you are deaf, but an observation on my part, not aimed at you..)
Analog audio sounded much better when it was recorded on 2" 16 or 24 track tape,, and mastered to that 1/2" 2 track. The specs on that are better than CD!!!! there's more headroom, a 102 S/N ratio w/ Dolby SR encoding, and it has punch and power you wouln't believe. Low end that kicks you in your chest.
Now, I will grant that much of this quality difference also has to do with the fact that Audio Engineers were far more skilled 30 years ago than they are today. However, don't knock the ability of analog to be awesome. Digital is great, convenient, sounds great, and does the job, but to say it's the "best sound out there"? nope.


-Todd A.

[ToddAnisman]

I have the feeling from the comments here about digital amps v.s. analogue v.s. solid state v.s. tubes that, other than David Meeks nobody that made a comment in this thread has a clue as to what a digital amp is. I hate to blow everybody's bubble but digital amps are still analogue just the same as solid state and tube amps. The digital part is only in the circuits of the power supply, which is a big savings in heat, weight and expense. It is perfectly feasible for a digital amp to be either solid state or tubes. Just doesn't make sense, at least at this time for them to be tubes, because that just adds the heat and expense right back into the formula.

Well said Bob, I was about to comment on this... I had a Digital power amp as far back as 1992, and I thought they were the future then.

here's what I will say about these guys-

the reason they sound harsh is that they expose transient responses that most analog equipment cannot pickup. The harshest of those exist in the 2.3-4.5k region, thus the amps may have a harsh sound...The switching nature of the power supply creates a slew rate that recovers super fast, thus creating these transients. Give it time, and those problems will be worked out. Where these excel right now is in LFE amplification. They can recover and put out bottom with little peer.

-Todd A.

[greggz]

Can it be long before digital amps come with plugins or skins that allow you to tune them to your liking

[Bob]

Can it be long before digital amps come with plugins or skins that allow you to tune them to your liking

I like it but, how would it work? What aspect of it would be digital, other than the computer that would give the amp the message? What part of the amp would this control that would change the sound? Why would it make a difference if it was a class D amp or a SS amp or a Tube amp?

[greggz]

Beats me. It was really intended as tongue in cheek post.

Just because you can make a MIDI piano sound like a trumpet, doesn't make it a trumpet. Just because you can digitally insert Forest Gump into old footage of Kennedy and Nixon doesn't really mean he was there.

Anytime something becomes digitial it can then be altered to change perception. But perception is not always reality.

[Bob]

I was hoping this was actually something in the works. Even though I can't imagine what part of an amp circuitry could be changed or manipulated this way, the idea of haveing a amp that you could somewhat tune is a fun thought. I guess you could say that tube amps have this ability in a limited way through bias adjustment.
Right now I have three amps that I use. Most of the time I use my ARC tube amps and they sit somewhat behind the speakers. But, if the only thing I plan on listening is rock and roll, then I sometimes switch to my Theta Dreadnaught. The original Dreadnaught is a great two channel amp, the Dreadnaught II is o'k. I get just a little bit more bass control with the Dreadnaught than I do with the ARC. This is because I keep the tubes at their lowest bias settings to enhance their life.
In Greggz's dream amp we could have both. That would be cool.

[greggz]

There is such a thing as a tube amp simulator, its just done with a computer. Thats where I got the picture from.

http://www.diamondcut.com/Catalog/vva.htm

[chrispy35]

I have the feeling from the comments here about digital amps v.s. analogue v.s. solid state v.s. tubes that, other than David Meeks nobody that made a comment in this thread has a clue as to what a digital amp is. I hate to blow everybody's bubble but digital amps are still analogue just the same as solid state and tube amps. The digital part is only in the circuits of the power supply, which is a big savings in heat, weight and expense. It is perfectly feasible for a digital amp to be either solid state or tubes. Just doesn't make sense, at least at this time for them to be tubes, because that just adds the heat and expense right back into the formula.

That's quite a statement. It seems that the people at B&O (Rotel), Yamaha and I'm sure other companies would disagree. Or at least the people who draw their block diagrams of their digital amp topologies would disagree. Maybe they're out of touch with the designers?

Power supply heat is not that big of a problem, otherwise power amps would have heatsinks on power supply components and not just output devices. The efficiency advantage of a digital amp comes from the output devices not operating in their linear region (generating lots of heat). Output devices are either fully on or fully off, therefore generating very little heat since either voltage across the device is close to 0 (fully on) or current through the device is close to 0 (fully off). P=VI. If V or I is close to 0 then P is close to 0 too.

I say the power supply topology is irrelevant to an amp being a digital amp.

[TimRawson]

Whenever I see the insides of a dig amp, I feel like I'm going to get jipped.

However, toyed with a Sonic impact (picked up a microcenter for 25 bucks) and was testing some 8" subs and it drove a JL Audio off of batteries! Quite strongly....

I've long wanted to try a bel canto in home. Also numerous other diy like projects or botique like red wine I'd love try. Just need some big manufacturer to do an audiophile like unit "accidentally" to drive down prices. Seems like the savings economically haven't trickled down yet. A lot simpler build, crank em out. i'm always skeptical when a one of a kind builder charges 2K. Yes time is money, but I don't want to pay for lack of larger scale economic principles.

[Bob]

Crispy,
Your right. This thread made me take a peek at what is happening in todays world of Class D amps. I see I am way behind in what is being tried.
You are wrong about your last statement though. A switching power supply is where the first Class D amps put their effort.

[StefanColson]

Hey Todd,

2" tape does NOT have better specs than digital. Digital has better S/N and more headroom if you keep your levels conservative. With good engineering (and intelligent use of compression) digital has the same punch as analog. Also, it seems that you are insinuating that recording to digital means that you have to limit the hell out of your track. Doesn't that have more to do with modern recording techniques than the format?

[David Meek]

(and intelligent use of compression)

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[StefanColson]

Not an oxymoron at all. Compression has three uses as far as I'm concerned: Taming peaks and evening out overall levels, adding punch, and altering the attack and decay of a sound. Compression can also be used to achieve some wicked distortion effects. Misuse of compression robs a recording of dynamics, realism, and taste.

[ToddAnisman]

Hey Todd,

2" tape does NOT have better specs than digital. Digital has better S/N and more headroom if you keep your levels conservative. With good engineering (and intelligent use of compression) digital has the same punch as analog. Also, it seems that you are insinuating that recording to digital means that you have to limit the hell out of your track. Doesn't that have more to do with modern recording techniques than the format?

Stefan-

A) I said 1/2" 2 track w/ Dolby SR has better specs than CD, and it does. That's a published fact... check out http://www.dolby.com/professional/pr...reduction.html for a more detailed explanation.

B) There is no compressor that emulates the compression/saturation of Analog/Analog tape in the digital world. There just isn't. That's why so many guys still use analog Dialog chains... a gimmick compressor just isn't the same, and if your compressor is a Neve, SSL, Summit, or UREI, then it's analog, not digital. It's also why so many people record drum tracks and gutar track to analog tape before loading them into Protools or Nuendo etc etc for editing.

C) as for limiting the tracks.... My point with this is to contrast the recording engineers of the past that had to work in a very limited sound field, vs the younger generation which is used to the ease and convenience of Digital. Haven't you noiticed that your CD's are all superloud? Ever put one into a VU meter?

-Todd A.