"My advice to you is to start listening to your ears, accept the fact you can't afford the most expensive gear, and quite accepting reviews as gospel. In the long run, you will have a better sounding stereo and more money in your pocket."
Tell the truth Spatialking, I was tempted to forge similar language for your own benefit. . . but then, naaah. . . I would not do that, would I. On the other hand, you seem fixated on the issues you verified on a Marantz amp, and you are performing a somewhat bold yet unorthodox induction step, which is leading to potential fallacy. Remember the old bad syllogism:
Socrates is a man.
Socrates has bad breath
All men have bad breath.
Well. . . 'tis probably almost true, but.. . you know what I mean (grins!). Thus, instead of expending furter energy in the futile attempt of associating the scurge of audio halitosis to all class D amps, why not take a moderate pinch of your own free advice. . . get out of the house, and listen to some true high end switching amps. . . with and without switching power supplies. Chances are, you may find some pearls. G.
PS. The only part I am not sure of. . . is the one about the very un-audiophile solace of finding more money in your pocket. |
Spatialking - what quantization error you talking about? Quantization happens only in sampled system - this is purely analog. Imagine perfectly linear ramp generator that converts voltage to duty cycle and filter that converts it to average value. That way you can get absolutely any value - therefore unlimited resolution. Oh yes - it is also very linear. Nonlinearities come from errors in switching times and feedback corrects it. Other classes of amps also use feedback to correct nonlinearities - even in class A. Icepower of course is more complicated than that. Modulator uses sine wave and not the ramp etc. but principle is the same.
When I mentioned -140 dB idle noise shown on FFT it is the noise of amplifier in 20Hz-20kHz bandwidth and not the wider bandwidth noise. My point was that if other audio gear is affected by switching noise (since you stated that it must be audible)in audible band then why Icepower doesn't affect itself? Maybe simply because carrier is way outside of the audible band.
Please read carefully what I wrote. I didn't say that digital implementation of 16 bit and 20kHz is not possible. I said that digital class D is not possible with 20kHz and 16bit. Each period of 20khz would have to have 65536 individual codes - so the width of the smallest pulse in PWM would correspond to 20kHz*65536.
Same about careful reading applies to even harmonics. I did't say that Icepower plays only even harmonics - I said exactly "Harmonics produced by class D are mostly even" - completely different thing. Produced simply means that amplifier exaggerates mostly even (like tube amp) and not odd harmonics. Class AB amp tends to exaggerate odd harmonics because of TIM (overshoots pulses).
As for the radio - I did exactly what you asked. I set portable AM radio less than a foot from the amp and set to different frequencies where there is no station. Then I plugged and unplugged my amp - no difference in noise. I even tried lowest frequency 540kHz assuming that it will be closest to the carrier - still no difference. As I mentioned before my TV that is foot above and has antenna cable running next to power cables shows no difference on any of the analog channels - even very weak ones. I just cannot detect if my amp is ON.
I'm very happy that you agreed that class D is analog because I was about to say that if everything that switches is digital then FM radio is digital radio. Perhaps in future I will be lucky to convince you that it is as linear as class A and doesn't suffer from TIM. Just perhaps. |
Guido - I like your Socratese example of bad logic. Let me offer you one from "Alice in Wonderland"
"I see what I eat" is not the same as "I eat what I see"
I'd like to keep open mind about audio since I've learned that not everything can be explained by specifications and electrical engineering (and that's the beauty of it).
Person with negative attitude toward particular construction of an amp has no chance to fully appreciate it because of it (placebo effect). Trying to convince, as I found, makes it worse since it creates avalanche of counterarguments and fortifies hate toward the subject.
I have never said that class D is perfect - no class is but just in my humble opinion it is pretty good (and good for the money). I like neutral and open sound but I also really enjoy sound of good tube gear and cannot understand why people have to be so polarized about it. Our discussion here took turn toward technical side and I think I should perhaps sign off this thread.
Cheers,
|
Bingo Kijanki, I have heard marvellous amplifiers of every class under the Sun. . . and a few more not so marvellous ones as well. I do so adore the open, linear, and harmonically textured sound of my system for the long run, but readily admit that I have been occasionally enraptured listening to sound that is radically different from my more typical target. The task of audio engineers is a daunting one: they are dealing with the complexities of electronic engineering, the vagueries of psycho-acoustics, and the imponderables of human emotions. . . my hat's off to all of them for managing to come up occasionally with something that even vaguely resembles music. Guido |
I have H2O monos. I have had them for 7 years. First I had them upgraded to Signature level. The second upgrade came from the ICE people themselves when they improved their ICE 500 A module. The third upgrade, and the most significant, was the add on of Sonicap Platinum bypass caps. Now, these amps are ready for anything.
During those 7 years, I had what some may call a foolhardy belief I could get close to perfection with these amps. No preamp was a decent match. H2O solved that problem by creating the Fire preamp, a perfect match to the H2O, and a big bonus to any amp.
Through trial and error, I learned the amps need fully shielded power cords, and naked speaker cables. Spelz cables proved to be wonderful for these amps. I did a lot better, though, when I replaced them with very thin copper ribbons.
I also learned only non oversampling DACs are appropriate to the class D on the whole, but especially for the H2O. My amp builder took AN DACs and created a full spectrum DAC. The depth is phenomenal. Macro dynamics are tremendous, while micro dynamics add life to players and singers. Bass is fully controlled, but that is a well known attribute. Mids are life-like, highs are fully spread out evenly over the spectrum. This gives a marvelous naturalness to the music. There are no hot spots. No frequency is spotlighted. Every musical instrument is tone correct and I mean all.
Finally, the speaker is of importance. If you have a hot speaker, this system will show your ears no mercy. That is what happened when I had one of my two pairs of Apogee Scintillas fixed with import ribbons of a different design. The sound was unacceptable. The frequency curve reached all over the place. The highs were piercing. Luckily I still had my stock Scintillas.
My point of all this is to let class D owners not to give up trying to better their sound. Persevering paid huge dividends to my amp's over all sound. |
Kijanki, I sure don't know where you get your ideas on distortion but Class D amplifiers are not immune to any of the distortions that also affect Class AB or Class A. Unfortunately, using a Class D approach does not design any of them out. Shortchange a little output current during a dynamic burst of music and you will hear a lot of TIM, Class D or not.
Your analysis of 20 KHz, 16 bit resolution, and Class D is wrong. You are confused between the number of bits and the sampling frequency. The number of bits, which is exactly the same thing as the number of possible codes, dictates the maximum dynamic range available in the system while the sampling frequency dictates the maximum bandwidth. The analog equivalents of this is amplifier bandwidth equates to sampling frequency and the maximum voltage out equates to the number of bits in a system. How large in voltage each of those bits represent is dictated by the magnitude of the LSB. The entire reason for using a high frequency clock in the PWM is to include all the bandwidth of audio and reduce the quantization error.
Class D amplifiers can achieve the equivalent of 16 bit resolution if you can reduce the noise level to below 98 dBv on the output within the entire bandwidth of the amplifier. I sure don't see any reason why any well designed Class D amplifier can't do this. That of course doesn't mean they all do it but it certainly is very realistic and possible. This signal to noise ratio means it is measured on the output without the benefit of any external measurement filters. Unfortunately, most of the time Class D amplifiers are not measured in this manner so only the deign engineer knows what it is really capable of producing..
Here is another way to look at it: The human ear has the equivalent dynamic range of around 21 to 22 bits. Within that dynamic range, it can slide a window of 60 dB or approximately 8 to 10 bits or resolution. If a Class D amplifier was incapable of producing the equivalent of 16 bit performance then it is incapable of EVER achieving what the ear can hear. This is simply untrue.
That is a pretty amazing result regarding your little am radio. How close did you have it? Are we talking less than an inch or several feet? Did you try moving it in all three dimensions? Did you have the amplifier playing loud music at the time? Did you try setting the radio next to the speaker cables? If you did all this and you didnt hear a peep on the radio then I would sure love to see that!
Measuring the signal to noise ratio, or SNR, within a bandpass of 20 Hz to 20 KHz means the signal to noise figure is realistic to what noise you can hear; it is not realistic to what damage the noise can do to the music. Measuring SNR wideband can indicate how much noise intermodulation distortion an amplifier can have and you will hear the effects of that even though the SNR within the audio bandwidth is very good. I guarantee that the 140 db SNR you quoted above was measured with a measurement filter in front of the analyzer. Where did you see this spec? Is it published somewhere? I like to see under what conditions they measured it. I suspect it is measured with an aggressive filter and is probably relative to something other than 1 V out.
Just out of curiosity, what model Class D amplifiers to you have? And what did they cost?
Guidocorona: Your Socrates logic is missing a few logic equations. You can say that and you can say you used logic to achieve it but you would be wrong.
I never said Class D couldnt sound good or even sound great. All I have been trying to do is explain to some folks why Class D amplifiers have a steeper curve to achieve good sound than Class AB or Class A. But it seems that anyone who owns a Class D amplifier is oblivious to the concept that their amplifier can produce, heaven forbid, unmusical distortions or any distortions that Class AB amplifiers also produce. Furthermore, it seems on this board that anyone who speaks in the least unfavorable manner of Class D is automatically considered hysterical. I have to wonder if these folks are in emotional denial or something.
Short of winning the lottery, I have no real interest in purchasing another amplifier. For now and for the next few years, this Class D amplifier I have will have to suit the purpose of providing power for the subwoofers. When it comes time to upgrade it, I will try a few amplifiers but in my system, not listening to it in some unknown stereo I have never heard before.
I would try a few more audio stores but how can one audition a given amplifier when the entire system is new to my ears? Is what I hear the amplifier or something else? Is the system masking some of the distortion mechanisms in the amplifier so it sounds great? This is why when I walk into an audio store, it is more to discuss what is new in the audio world, see what the store has available, and perhaps gather a few opinions on what I should audition. If the music is playing and it sounds great then I get a bonus, too. Unfortunately, about half the time the sound is worse than I have at home and that can be pretty depressing given I am in the market to upgrade.
Remember, I am a design engineer, so I look at things differently than most audiophiles. I am far more interested in who the designer is, what his/her opinion is on how to achieve good sound, what they did to get there, and how they got there. I try to find out where they put their design emphasis. When I meet someone who is blowing smoke in my face from an out of control ego and trying to sell me something which is obviously a lie, I know none of his/her products are worthy of my listening time. Frankly, I rarely let them know I have a degree in engineering much less that I actually design audio gear. I can learn so much more just playing dumb and letting them talk. There are a lot of honest design engineers out there, please dont get me wrong. Actually, I believe the proper term is most; they are quite honest and deliver what they believe to be an honest product. But there are a few whoppers out there, that is for sure.
Also, to say there is no single test that describes the sound of an amplifier is correct. But it is incorrect to say there are no tests that tell you anything about the sound of an amplifier is completely wrong. It seems that there is a belief that measurements do not tell you how an amplifier can sound but that is not entirely true. One can learn a lot about how an amplifier will sound before you even hook up speakers with nothing more than a good audio analyzer. It is only a matter of knowing where to look, what to test, and how to test it.
Muralman1: I am intrigued by your comments. When you say you non oversampling DACs are only appropriate do you mean that oversampling DACs actually make the sound worse? That is, you have an oversampling DAC in front of the Class D power amplifier and the sound is worse than if you used a DAC which did not oversample? If so, I find that very interesting. Also, what do you mean by a full spectrum DAC? Spectrum usually implies bandwidth related characteristic -was the bandwidth changed in someway? |
As far as I know class D ice power modual was developed by B&O for subwoofer use. I use ice power in a few bass systems where it works great. I have not enjoyed class D running full frequincy but YMMV. Since most all class D use B&O modual which wasent even designed for full range use. They do have problems higher up in frequincy but all amps have some - aspect and if this isnt a problem for owners then its not a problem;) |
Thank you Spatialking for agreeing that my quasi classic example of an Aristotelian syllogism contained an intended flaw. In more modern terms, it illustrates a common problem in inductive reasoning.
As for class D 'hysteria', the term being normally associated with excessive and unnatural fears, I have definitely observed such hysteria in these pages. Yet, I suspect you really meant class D zelotry, which instead I still have to notice. having attended this particular audiophilic watering hold for the past 4 or 5 years, I am rather noticing an abating of the aforementioned anti class D hysteria, while the likes of Kijanki, Muralman, and a growing number of others seem to be suggesting that class D amplifiers need be treated individually, like devices of any other class, which inevitably is made of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The only difference is perhaps that while other types of devices have reached a state of maturity a while ago, and designs seem to be now evolving at a stately rate, some class D designers seem to be on a steep learning curve and are making rapid strides. Case in point is the Bel canto Ref 1000 Mk.2 which I have just reviewed for Positive Feedback. For one thing, it definitely does not yield a stilted bass. See:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/bel_canto_ref1000.htm
In case you were asking, no I do not use instruments to perform my admittedly subjective evaluations. . . my ears serve me relatively well and mostly do suffice. G. |
Spatialking, Thank you for taking my class D audio journey seriously. My
vocabulary reflects my art training. By using, "Spectrum," I was
likening the highs I am hearing to the color light spectrum derived from
white light run through a prism.
My first modified (by my amp builder, Henry Ho) AN One.1 DAC was a simple
affair. It just wasn't capable of producing a flat frequency measure, and fired
the highs in a bundle, so to speak. I don't mean to say it was terrible
sounding. On the contrary, the little AN trounced a Sony 999 Modright player
so badly, the owner of the Sony bought himself an AMR CD - 77. His system
also includes the H2O amp, this time powering Gallo speakers. I visited the
fellow after his NOS player purchase, and found his speakers sounded
marvelous.
My present DAC is the AN 2.1 DAC, again modified by Henry Ho. Stock AN
DACs tend to be overly pleasant. The diode type used by them is the reason.
Changing them out for some great Shottky diodes opens up the gates for all
frequencies in full strength.
Instead of saving for an even better AN DAC, I am going to wait for Henry to
make his own. Given his track record developing terrific class A amps, and
preamps, not to mention his H2O amps, I can't wait for his DAC.
All of the oversampling players inserted into my system invariably caused the
owners embarrassment. Oversampling players always sound
contrived. The stage flattens, mids are grainy, and the highs are bright.
That's not all! I also found the cable industry is a house of cards. The most
expensive are usually the worst. All hose type cables impart an audible haze
to the music.
The H2O loudly proclaims any defect of any attending component. Why is
this? Class AB and A amps cannot discern the same defects. I know this from
experience with some of the best conventional amps.
I believe it is because the combination of the ultra fast ICE module plus the
ribbon speaker can articulate microscopic detail. This includes any
extraneous radiation bled into the signal anywhere in the chain of
components.
My mantra is, it isn't the better class D amps that are deficient, it is our
understanding of class D that is actually deficient. |
Muralman1: An interesting mantra that you have. Consider this along that line of thought: "If our understanding of Class D is deficient, which is in deed a valid argument, then also too are the designers whose understanding is also deficient, which would then yield a deficient amplifier." So, it works both ways.
There is no question in my mind that Class D will get better with time. Better devices and better deign techniques. However, if the bulk of Class D end up in low to mid fi battery operated speakers, then it will be a very long learning curve indeed. As one Class D IC designer told me a while back, efficiency is the sole purpose for Class D's existence, otherwise there is no point. I don't totally agree with that statement, as it is clear that Class D allows for great bang for the buck in higher power amplifiers. I am sure my Marantz amplifier would have cost at least 5x more for the same given output power and the same given number of channels.
I agree entirely that the cable industry is a house of cards. Although I can see the reason for the expense in a number of expensive cables, I do have to question the reasons for the existence of some of the expensive cables indeed. Granted test data does not tell all, but the lack of any test data of any kind is especially suspect to me in the more expensive cables. This is especially true given the great cable test equipment we have today.
Guidocorona: I will check out the review and look for an amplifier here locally. I am curious indeed. I think I might have to pack a small AM radio, too. |
|
Spatialking, The folks at ICE will agree with your summation, in that they will
understandably aim for the market with the most buyers. That is why the
invention of the tiny ASP power supply was such a victory in making the ICE
amps so small. To fit into boom boxes and autos, the amp should be very
small. The problem is, lots of amp manufacturers took this little amp and
stuck it into a pretty box, as you point out.
So then, why did the ICE people even bother making the 500 A module which
requires an add on power supply? The sales for this module must be
miniscule, relegated to only a handful of confident amp builders. Not only did
they go against their mass market appeal strategy, the ICE engineers spent
lots of man hours (expensive) perfecting the 500 A on a second go around.
Was that madness?
I think ICE folks have a sense of pride, and giving great designers like
Rowland and Henry Ho the chance to make great amps out of the 500 A
works to elevate ICE's standing in hi audio.
Henry Ho has succeeded way beyond anyone's dreams in making an amplifier
that is the closest builder have come to create a straight wire with gain. His
amps have no character signature. My super Audio Note DAC, a tubed, non-
oversampling DAC, full access to complete expression through my Apogee
Scintillas.
Of course, as I pointed out above, superior sound is dependent on the rest of
the components in line as well. My experimentation with system components
brought about success upon success.
I can show anyone, on my system, how upsetting just one system link will
devastate the sound. It's a hoot to hook up $10k cables, 20k preamps, or
even $30k CD player. The gorgeous sound will collapse every time.
|
