Generalizations
Join Our Community Subscribe to Paul's PostsWe make sense of a complicated world by neatly organizing products, ideas, and concepts into tidy little boxes. Unfortunately, there are consequences to generalizing because we ignore edge cases.
It is out in the fringes where the exceptional products and services live.
Take for example class D power amplifiers. Most of us have mentally cataloged them in the “powerful yet not quite up to the gold standard of Class AB amplifier” status. We believe them to be lacking in sweetness of top end and rarely do we ascribe openness and transparency to this class of amplifier. While this generalization might apply to many class D amplifiers it surely does an injustice to designs like our own M700 monoblocks, or some of Bruno Putzey’s latest work.
You can see the problem. There are hundreds of “better thought of” class AB and A amplifiers, and yet the majority pale when compared to exceptional designs from other disciplines. And let’s be honest. Within any category, there are only a few exceptions when it comes to performance. Hint: it’s why they’re called exceptions.
If you’re interested in exceptional performance you need to choose exceptional products. Our tendency to generalize pulls us away from the fringes and plops us smack dab in the middle where the dull live.
My advice is simple. Look to the people who design the products rather than where the common wisdom leads you.
I think it’s difficult for the consumer which manufacturer to trust with their same statement „our amp is the exception“.
In my perception a certain generalization is still justified alone by the fact that manufacturers who do both (like PSA) still make their better amps in Class AB or A. Or why isn’t the BHK amp Class D? Your post today would have more validity if you would have designed your top amps in Class D, not only the lower budget amps which need to combine power and SQ at a certain budget and compromise (I assume).
All that doesn’t mean that there can’t be certain Class D amps sounding better than certain Class AB amps….but maybe rather the exception you mentioned as the PSA D amp doesn’t sound better than the PSA AB amp I assume.
No one says a Class D amp can’t have those characteristics to a certain degree…the generalization people use is that these characteristics can usually be bettered by AB designs done with the same effort (but less power output). Seeing the PSA product design decisions within the different quality levels I assume this is done for good reason.
Quad class A/B hybrid amplifiers (not the same thing as AB amplifiers) were exceptional patented technology that have sold hundreds of thousands of units over some 40 years, because the sound is exceptional and they are relatively cheap. The current dual mono QSP 140w unit retails at about £1,200. Linn, the UK’s biggest brand, has only made Class D amplifiers for at least 10 years. My Devialet unit Class A/D hybrid, apparently much the same concept as the Quad A/B hybrid. It again is patented and is probably a bit more edgy as it is a bit more expensive.
So I think it is more to do with the fact that most manufacturers use generic technology. Those that have patented technology, like Linn, Quad, Devialet, Mola Mola (and other Putzeys brands) etc., are only considered mainstream or edgy depending on how many units they sell, which has a lot to do with price.
Of course, the first thing you have to do is invent something. That done, you have to decide whether to manufacture or license your invention. Putzeys does a bit of both and for 15 years has developed standalone Hypex Class D modules and power supplies. If it’s really good and you license, it may well become mainstream and become the rule rather than the exception. I expect that to be the case with Class D and Class D hybrids fairly soon.
There are of course mainstream Class A/B products that are exceptional for price/performance and I am currently looking to buy one (a Rega Elex-R). PS Audio uses off-the-shelf Class D units, as do many manufacturers. The reason why some Class D units are exceptional is because they are patented designs that are the product of years of R&D. Devialet would have great difficulty licensing because a lot is to do with the manufacturing process and few companies could afford the capital investment in equipment to manufacture the designs.
p.s. “My advice is simple. Look to the people who design the products rather than where the common wisdom leads you.”
Who designed my Huawei P20 mobile phone? Probably about 10,000 Chinese guys. My first consideration is normally how popular something is, because that normally reflects it being a good product. The second and third things are how many are on the used market and at what price. If there are few and at close to retail price, it’s a good sign that people keep them and they are snapped up used.
This from an industry that has manufactured and sold the same conceptual 2 channel stereo system in endless variants for over 60 years spending its life inside the can trying to perfect it in an era when the rest of the world’s technologies have advanced with a vast array of powerful new tools that would enable far superior concepts to be realized. Now that is truly exceptional. How do I know far better concepts are possible? I invented and built one myself.
Perhaps the reason why we mostly listen to sound being propagated by two transducers is because we have two ears to detect and process the signal. Sure, multi-channel exists, but most of us live in homes, not sound labs, and don’t want 7 speakers cluttering up the place. I would have multi-channel if I had a cinema room, which I don’t.
By your logic you’d listen to nothing larger than duets. One ear for one performer, the other ear for the other performer. But what if it’s a soloist. Do you put that musician on the left channel, right channel or both channels. How can two ears listen to one thing from two speakers at the same time and make any sense of it?
Hahahaha. You’re funny. 🙂 BTW, if you ever build a home theater system, you’d better grow three more ears. 🙂
Your thinking seems to be dominated by the concept that each point source of sound has to be replicated in the listening space with a matching point source, whereas for most of us two point sources do the job admirably, creating a virtual field of sound that is good enough to trick our ears in being able to think we can locate specific sounds at positions in front of us. Perhaps the best example of the left-right sweep is the opening of Autobahn. Shut your eyes and there is a VW Beetle driving across your living room.
Music is mostly sound emanating from in front of us, whereas cinema depends much more on surround effects. It’s much the same when comparing a normal film projection with a surround iMax.
I went to one of the first surround iMax shows at Vancouver Expo 1986 and it was truly mind-boggling. Unfortunately it is amazing technology that is simply not commercially viable. Spatial sound has been around for some time, the BBC and others are researching how to make it commercially viable.
Your first mistake was taking what I posted seriously. It was intended as some friendly ribbing since your posting to me was, well to put it politely not credible. The reason for quadraphonic sound and other such schemes was recognition that two channels just couldn’t cut it. Unfortunately neither could quad nor son of quad 5.1 or grandsons of quad 7.1, 9.1 etc. they just don’t work as advertised.
Your second mistake was by implication. You said that the sources of sound emmented at the audience is from the performers is in front of us which is correct. But the sound that reaches the ears of anyone in the audience is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. That sound is almost entirely reflected from other directions. In fact it is usually 90% or more of what the audience hears. This is not an opinion, this is a well tested and documented fact. The problem is that this sound cannot be duplicated by two speakers and two channels and not by four either. I posted this for the umpteen hundredth time yesterday. The quality of this part of sound is also entirely different from the first heard sound coming from the instruments through the shortest path.
Realizing this and that these x.y systems wouldn’t work caused me to shift my focus from the equipment including the electronics to studying this sound. Recreating this sound is critical if high fidelity is your goal. If not than anything else might please you. The term accuracy in the scientific sense is not applicable to this process outside of a laboratory where everything in every step of the recording and playback process is under tight control using either of two methods, one of which I invented. However, using the term convincability meaning what a performance might have sounded like live at an appropriate venue, I’ve engineered a way to adapt my concept to achieve this goal to my satisfaction from commercially made recordings. It’s not easy. The current prototype is what you’d probably call a 6.4 system with 18 speaker systems, two large main speakers and 16 small surround speakers. Given the way the system is designed it is a truly surround system in that sound comes from 360 degrees horizontally and 180 degrees vertically. The source of this sound field is undetectable unless you are within a foot to 18 inches of a speaker and the effect is inescapable in the room it’s installed in. It uses both digital and analog signal processing to a great degree reconstructing the sound field that is missing from the recording by processing what made it into the recording according to a mathematical algorithm based on my analysis of the physics of sound. I’ll stick with my original posting, the sound systems sold today at any price to audiophiles is conceptually identical to the two channel systems that were sold in 1958 when stereophonic records first appeared on the market. Only the details changed, not the concept.
I for one am not afraid of the class D M700’s. They replaced a couple 250W class A high current amps. (They are going on another set of low impedance speakers)
The 700’s are sweet, musical and didn’t change the presented sound of the big ones they replaced. Of course there are differences, but the differences are small.
I would highly recommend them to anyone looking to get into separates at a reasonable price who want a solid foundation to build upon and don’t need room heaters.
Or to put it another way save the pennies on the amps initially and invest in a really good preamp if you want these class D ‘beauties’ to shine.
Class-D.
Sure, in my ignorance I really thought it stood for “Digital”. My first interest was with Fleawatt, a fellow who was building Class-D audiophile amplifiers, but his creations cost $300 or more. So I got a Nobsound for $50 and was surprised how bright it sounded. My friends said they liked the sound, but it was really not a quality sound. My first generalization was that Class-D was a cheap substitute for good sound, which would be OK for the waterproof speakers by the pool, or your second system in the workshop.
Then PS Audio announced Sprout100.
I have to admit, I loved the sound, right out of the box, but I found the “Bass Boost” still to be a bit anemic in the Bass. Enter an Infinity Intermezzo subwoofer, and now the Sprout100 could power the treble and mid-range with a firm foundation of Bass.
Now I can go from Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic to deadmau5, from female vocalists to hard Rock, and everything sounds “right”.
My generalizations about “Class-D” were shattered. What I realized was that PS Audio had created a winner, at an Affordable Audiophile price point. I was not alone, as several mainstream audio writers buttressed my opinion. The features and format were perfect, and by having Chinese assemble this unit, it could come to market without competition from Domestic source in the entry-level.
I would not compare the Sprout100 to any other, in its class.
Every manufacturer claims his or her product to be great or best yet all of them are not so. So to go by the manufacturers claims would not be prudent. The only way to make the right choice is to listen to the product. This is difficult because audio stores are few and far in between. So in most case it ends being a game of chance for the demanding. For the big-box variety it does not matter. Now there are manufacturers who are credible but even here there is no guarantee that what the manufacturer considers great will be to the buyers liking. Internet too is of no help when it comes to getting something of one’s liking. Reviews can be very helpful but this requires the ability to tell the difference between an objective review and hype. Not a nice situation. Regards.
Echoing Jazznut’s original comment, but with a slightly different spin, I am impressed that PSA use Class D modules for the Sprout and Stellar ranges. It seems a bit like a seal of approval for Class D. I have a Sprout100 and am very happy with the sound I am getting. Is it better than the Arcam Class G on my main system? Possibly not quite as clean and clear, but with different speakers comparisons are not really possible. I also have an ’emergency’ Chinese chip amp based, like Cheapbob’s Nobsound, on the TPA3116 class D chip. Providing you use a substantial 19v power supply and listen, as I do, at moderate volumes then it gives very acceptable performance. I haven’t done any sustained listening using it. I only have it for the event that the Sprout or Arcam expire suddenly and horribly.
I suspect class D amps will just get better as time goes on.
“We make the best …..” (insert name of product).
“Trust me, I’m the manufacturer”.
“We sell only the best….” (insert name of product). “Trust me, I am the reseller”.
“We review only the best….” (insert name of product). “Trust me, I am the reviewer”.
I could go on.
Just because there’s a vested interest doesn’t negate the truth or change facts. Not everyone with a dog in the game is to be disqualified.
“Just because there’s a vested interest doesn’t negate the truth or change facts. Not everyone with a dog in the game is to be disqualified”.
I agree. But as a potential customer you only can find out through personal experience what manufacturer can be trusted and which one not.
And it is from personal experience (having bought 3 devices and 4 cables) that I learned and know PSA can be trusted and makes fine products.
But generally speaking it’s good to find out whether the beautiful words of a manufacturer is reflected by the quality of their gear before you buy.
If we only listen to what they say, then every manufacturer makes “the best”.
And thus it wouldn’t matter what you would buy. Not true of course.
In the meantime, keep up the good work; I’m curious about the upcoming server.
I agree, Paul. And I think there is a simple way to put this point: execution/implementation trumps theory.
The reason you can’t generalize is …. that the devil is in the details.
Look. I’ve lived with the m700’s for 5 months now with the SGCD. I like the fact they PS Audio didn’t just slap an amp in box, throw some connectors on it, and call it their own. Hell, I can do this at home with ICE Amps from Parts Express. What Darren, Paul, & their team at PS Audio did was look at how your are feeding those B & O modules put that Class A stuff in front where it counts.
What is an Audio Amplifier. Apply a small voltage and make it bigger…no ? Tubes are nice but never my Bag, man. I’m transistor loving Class A (never could afford though – until now… 🙂 and Class A/B Guy. But the Stellar’s make you forget about the Tech and focus on the music.
Maybe one day I’ll trade them in for BHK 250WPC Stereo amp or better yet, just save up for a DirectStream DAC.
The Journey Continues…