Purifi Class D

6 hours ago, barrows said:

 

My experience suggests that the better the power supply is, the less it may respond to upstream changes (power cables, power conditioners, fuses, etc).  But, all of these things still seem to matter some, it is just that with really really good power supply design they make less of a difference.  I find the same deltas in difference to apply to things like USB cables: they make less of a difference when the USB source and USB receiving designs are very, very good, but they still make some difference.

This is how the whole world of audio works ... ideally, each purchased component is so well engineered, implemented that its behaviour is impervious to the conditions around it. But, hey! We live in the real world, where bling is often a high priority 😁 - so, most gear is never as good as it could, should be; meaning after market gizmos can achieve a lot ...

Audio engineering has never been taken seriously enough, is my take on the situation - which is why rigs so often sound like crap ... keen enthusiasts can achieve a lot, by fixing the 'mistakes' that so many setups have 😉.

On 3/26/2021 at 10:20 AM, Rexp said:

A less than glowing review of the NAD implementation:

http://www.10audio.com/nad_c298.htm

 

"The bass is rich and full and powerful. The bass also presents a very dynamic picture of the performance, with good leading-edge definition. The bass character is more of the “rolling thunder” presentation rather than tight and "fast", often reducing the sense that individual bass strings are vibrating. The upper bass-lower midrange is excellent, gaining some definition and providing a solid foundation to midrange voices. The bass definition increases at higher power levels. On the Yello LP Stella, the bass on “Oh Yeah” is deep and powerful and quite impressive. Oh yeah!

The midrange offers very good clarity and understandable vocals. This could be the result of a slight dryness or leanness in the midrange. Just a little higher in frequency, the upper midrange-lower treble region is clear and open. Along with the upper bass, the upper midrange-lower treble are the strengths of the C298 amplifier."

All this was very good in the review. An amp of this price ($2,000) is not going to compete with amps that are double more more the price. How many amps at this price range have excellent low level detail. For the price its probably one of the best amps.

7 hours ago, Revelation said:

"The bass is rich and full and powerful. The bass also presents a very dynamic picture of the performance, with good leading-edge definition. The bass character is more of the “rolling thunder” presentation rather than tight and "fast", often reducing the sense that individual bass strings are vibrating. The upper bass-lower midrange is excellent, gaining some definition and providing a solid foundation to midrange voices. The bass definition increases at higher power levels. On the Yello LP Stella, the bass on “Oh Yeah” is deep and powerful and quite impressive. Oh yeah!

 

The midrange offers very good clarity and understandable vocals. This could be the result of a slight dryness or leanness in the midrange. Just a little higher in frequency, the upper midrange-lower treble region is clear and open. Along with the upper bass, the upper midrange-lower treble are the strengths of the C298 amplifier."

 

All this was very good in the review. An amp of this price ($2,000) is not going to compete with amps that are double more more the price. How many amps at this price range have excellent low level detail. For the price its probably one of the best amps.

If you haven't heard it you can't say its probably one of the best amps for the price. 

9 hours ago, Rexp said:

If you haven't heard it you can't say its probably one of the best amps for the price. 

Yup but those of us who have can say it. 🙂

I found it interesting that the reviewer gave a higher rating of the Adcom 555 SE over the NAD. I currently have the original 555 and love it. 

Another amp which appears to get high reviews is the Cary Audio SA 200. This seems to be a higher end amp at a price range under 5K to consider. 

9 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yup but those of us who have can say it. 🙂

Ya and even then I ignore anyone who hasn't got an analogue source. 

Yep, I think Kal may have heard a few analogue sources as well 🙂

Mark

5 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Well, I have some but I have not heard them in a long time.  No need.

More reason to ignore your opinion. 

3 minutes ago, Rexp said:

More reason to ignore your opinion. 

Well that's not a nice thing to say. 🤣

6 minutes ago, Revelation said:

Well that's not a nice thing to say. 🤣

Not nice, and also not based in reality either.

13 minutes ago, Revelation said:

Well that's not a nice thing to say. 🤣

I wish he was right and there was no need to use an analogue source but unfortunately there are thousands of recordings that sound dramatically better via an analogue source. 

"Sound dramatically better" is just another way of saying that distortion artifacts are far less obvious - but the D word, Distortion, is deeply frowned upon by audiophiles - after all, measurements have 'proven' for decades that digital playback is devoid of the deadly D, 🤣 🤩 🤣.

Anyway, back in reality 🙂, all rigs introduce plenty of audible D - and the digital variety can be particularly obnoxious ... the analogue source workaround is useful until one's digital chain is better sorted ... 😉.

35 minutes ago, Rexp said:

More reason to ignore your opinion. 

25 minutes ago, barrows said:

Not nice, and also not based in reality either.

No, it's not but it is a logical consequence of his opinions.  

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

"Sound dramatically better" is just another way of saying that distortion artifacts are far less obvious - but the D word, Distortion, is deeply frowned upon by audiophiles - after all, measurements have 'proven' for decades that digital playback is devoid of the deadly D, 🤣 🤩 🤣.

 

Anyway, back in reality 🙂, all rigs introduce plenty of audible D - and the digital variety can be particularly obnoxious ... the analogue source workaround is useful until one's digital chain is better sorted ... 😉.

At the recording stage many want the 2nd and third harmonic distortion that cam make music sound rounder and more pleasing to the ear. On some level, many want that in the audiophile gear as well. It comes down to personal preference. 

https://mixdownmag.com.au/features/rupert-neve-exploring-the-audio-architects-everlasting-legacy/

... not to mention 78s (https://recordcollectormag.com/articles/78) inc. Blues history some of which is known to be lost ...

... bootlegs ...

... Universal fire or other foreseeable perils to original recordings (such that any or any good digital masters can no longer be created) ...

... commercial forces affecting the future availability of acceptable material cf. MQA ...

Plus huge variability in quality of digital mastering for same source material e.g. Elvis stuff and a lot of obscure 50s Rockabilly. Some issues have mojo. Some are diabolical - usually an attempt to make something sound appealing to casual listeners cf. Loudness problem.

This apart from the argument that you can build a musically satisfying analogue playback system on a budget - whereas making digits musically inoffensive demands money, blood, sweat and tears.

10 hours ago, Iving said:

- whereas making digits musically inoffensive demands money, blood, sweat and tears.

Well, so far I have avoided bloodletting, but the rest applies.  I think your statement was true five years ago or so, but I disagree in the here and now.   Bruno is one of the designers who has changed the digital landscape and not just in amplifiers (his Tambaqui DAC is truly great).  The basic Purifi "engine" is extremely low noise/distortion at a great price.   I assume that the various Purifi iterations sound different because of different input sections used and one needs to find one that suites your setup and tastes.   

One well-respected reviewer mentioned that he listens to vinyl and digital for different experiences and that makes sense to me.  The "what's best" approach to audio is silly unless it is "what's best to my ears and mood."  

I was never a collector of fine vinyl, so there was no reason to keep my turntable after digital became the dominant recording medium.  But I can understand the equation is different for collectors, especially the folks who have long enjoyed their classical collection.  Or folks for whom digital, even what others think of as great digital, does not agree with their ears.  

3 hours ago, barrows said:

OK, I agree that if one listens to a significant amount of music which is not available in a decent digital version an analog rig is needed.  To be sure, I have a certain affection for vinyl discs, and have been buying them again (although I have currently have no analog 'table or phono stage, perhaps in retirement I will add such, otherwise the discs are collectables). But looking at it from the other side: there is much more music these days which is very good, and is often only available in digital versions, and often when vinyl is available the pressings are questionable.  Which means that if one loves music, one is going to need a well sorted out digital playback system, regardless of how much money, blood, sweat, and tears is involved.  Actually, a good digital set up is not too hard to achieve, or too expensive in audiophile terms (Holo Audio Spring as a start, oversampling via HQPlayer) these days.  Doing so does not require a dCS or MSB investment level.

But to suggest that one does not have an adequate reference to evaluate amplifiers unless they are spinning plastic discs is just in error.

7 minutes ago, barrows said:

I would propose, that most folks who prefer vinyl playback, tend to do so because of, rather than in spite of vinyl's rather significant shortcomings/artifacts.

 

one need not spend 5 figures for an excellent DAC).

All of the improvements I've achieved in my digital system have been about taming the banshee. Then adding body. But mainly taming the banshee. 

I don't think I'm chasing a vinyl phantom/template. I'm not into valves or anything like that.

The improvements I do make are satisfying of themselves. Which means that digits can beguile my ears.

I have a good DAC. I think the digits problem is mostly to do with electrical noise tbh. Jitter - that too I guess!

27 minutes ago, Iving said:

The convenience argument in favour of digits, notwithstanding, is massive. Not just sitting in chair with remote, but ease of discovery. And I don't (won't!) download or stream.

 

The way I read the thread earlier, Rexp was just having fun grinding his vinyl axe.

Streaming does require more work to get the best sound, but something like Qobuz via Roon is simply put (in my not so humble opinion) a music discovery machine.  And with the higher resolution formats now becoming abundant, great sound is more available more frequently.   Of course, it depends upon the music one loves to listen to and to discover.  

A vinyl axe doesn't rust.  I get that part.  But grinding it will just lead to dullness, definitely for the axe and perhaps for the grinder.   Just saying....and having a little fun.