They just can't say it, can they?

[George O.]

The big concept to remember with the advent of the chip amp is not so much that it's a novel amplifier technology, but that it relies more so on a very specific means of dealing with the source signal.

Have you ever taken a comprehensive look at what's upstream of those RCA inputs? Count all the gain stages. When an analog amp is bench tested, by any right, it's source is simply a lab-grade function generator....not our pre-amp and certainly not our source. That's a lot of parts that don't get factored into those measurements.

We might have a real kick-@ss amp that will pass a bench test with flying colors...posting gorgeous individual specs, but how does the source signal ,ahead of it, look in the real world? Is the output of the pre-amp a good facsimile of the source? Most importantly, what about the aggregate combination? With this method, ensuring global signal integrity starts to equal parts and money, fast.

When transporting in the analog domain, it's all about the pre-amp stages along the way, no matter what.

But a chip amp, accepting a digital signal, dispatches with all of that fan fare. It can eliminate an entire input / output stage and the gear associated with it.

This approach leaves the end user (me) with more resources to handle the other two devils of playback...the speakers and the room.

It's a wonder anyone's system sounds reasonably good, when you look at it like this.

There are two kinds of people. One kind is an equipment guy. The other kind is a music lover. Sometimes they overlap.

An equipment guy will audition selected cuts for you to get a wow response. For him the recording is the means to the end of displaying his stereo.

The music lover is like the honey badger:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e858312f83/the-crazy-nastyass-honey-badger

He really doesn't give a shirt what you play the recording through, as long as he can hear the notes.

[mike stehr]

Now why did you draw circles, checkmarks and sh*t all over the picture of my amplifier?

The big concept to remember with the advent of the chip amp is not so much that it's a novel amplifier technology, but that it relies more so on a very specific means of dealing with the source signal.

First of all you need to be more specific about the amplifier topology you are referring to. Nobody knows what a chip amp is...

Now what sort of means does that particular amplifier topology rely on specifically when dealing with the source signal? I'm rather confused.

Have you ever taken a comprehensive look at what's upstream of those RCA inputs? Count all the gain stages. When an analog amp is bench tested, by any right, it's source is simply a lab-grade function generator....not our pre-amp and certainly not our source. That's a lot of parts that don't get factored into those measurements.

Well I'm guessing you are replying to myself, since you posted the image of my amplifier within it. The only things in front of those RCA inputs, are two 50K Allen Bradley type J pots and a Rega Planet CDP in front of them.

CD player---volume pots for left and right---Amp---speakers.

We might have a real kick-@ss amp that will pass a bench test with flying colors...posting gorgeous individual specs, but how does the source signal ,ahead of it, look in the real world? Is the output of the pre-amp a good facsimile of the source? Most importantly, what about the aggregate combination? With this method, ensuring global signal integrity starts to equal parts and money, fast.

I don't use a pre-amp. I'm stuck with the limitations of the actual source, which seems fine to me. I've pondered music servers, but when one is poor and has a bunch of compact discs, it doesn't go much farther than pondering. And yes, the source is one of the most important factors.

When transporting in the analog domain, it's all about the pre-amp stages along the way, no matter what.

The less pre-amp stages the better.

But a chip amp, accepting a digital signal, dispatches with all of that fan fare. It can eliminate an entire input / output stage and the gear associated with it.

Ok, I'm guessing...but I think your Panasonic has a digital input/inputs. The unit has a internal digital to analog converter, which converts back to a analog signal into a class D switcher type topology. Or whatever type amplifier circuit the Panasonic is... It's still essentially a analog amp, with a internal DAC.

This approach leaves the end user (me) with more resources to handle the other two devils of playback...the speakers and the room.

Awesome.

I have no bias towards amplifier topologies. I'm always on the hunt for a good sounding solid state amp on the cheap, be it new or old. I have nothing against the Panasonic receivers either. They always have good remarks on the Klipsch forums with regard to Klipsch. Dave proudly stands by them, and you stand by them as well.

I know if I come across one for dirt cheap locally, I'll snag one. But it has to be dirt cheap. I've built and dabbled with DHT 45/2A3 amplifiers and single ended 6BQ5 amplifiers to become kinda spoiled (some may say flim flammed) on the sound.

It's like, yeah I'd like to try that Panasonic receiver, but would it sound as good as a DHT 2A3? It's all about preference.

I needed a solid state amp for summer months and full boogie levels, 45 and 2A3s don't do metal and thrash. I snagged one of these cheap. http://www.sonance.com/products/electronics/detail/234

I imagine it's just a plain ol' class AB SS amplifier. We'll see how it goes...

[Quiet_Hollow]

First of all you need to be more specific about the amplifier topology you are referring to. Nobody knows what a chip amp is...Now what sort of means does that particular amplifier topology rely on specifically when dealing with the source signal? I'm rather confused.

The types that emulate the Toccata Equibit arrangement where by the PCM input signal is translated directly into PWM, and the final output signal is reconstructed entirely on the speaker network. It relies exclusively on a PCM input signal.

The unit has a internal digital to analog converter, which converts back to a analog signal into a class D switcher type topology. Or whatever type amplifier circuit the Panasonic is... It's still essentially a analog amp, with a internal DAC.

This is where the method is different. There is no conversion to analog prior to, and inside the amplifier chips. There is no measurable sine wave going into and out of the gain stage....just a whole bunch of digital hash...like a modem.

I have no bias towards amplifier topologies.

..and I don't want to come across like I am either. I'm always game to listen, no matter what. It's just nice to generate some discussion about the topic.

It's a wonder anyone's system sounds reasonably good, when you look at it like this.

Yeah, kinda gloomy sounding...and of course that's simply not the case. I was just coming from the perspective that it's an improvement when using a digital signal, which is more often then not these days.

Sometimes they overlap.

..and that makes for a third type of person. The kind that likes to put other people into groups of two.

Now why did you draw circles, checkmarks and sh*t all over the picture of my amplifier?

My apologies Mike. Didn't mean for you to take offense to it. If it's any consolation, I've attached a photo of my amplifier with some scribble all over it too.

[Mallette]

But it has to be dirt

I have around 350.00 in all three of my Panys, two 25's and a 70. I remain blown away at what that small change bought. I also have a Kenwood of similar design that sounds identical, but soon after I got it the analog disappeared. No tuner or any analog signals pass at all, though the digital is fine.

Go figure. Given the esoteric nature of these things I wouldn't have a clue as to who to have look at it. Given that I paid 100 bucks or so for it certainly no point in throwing a pile of cash after it, but still bugs me. Of course, it works just fine hooked to a computer or other digital source so that is something.

Bottom line is this: Even for those who can't go so far as to use these as their main amp they are the obvious choice for secondary audiophile systems. Easy for the wife or SO, adequate power, and great sound.

Haven't checked lately since I have all I need, but the 25s ran 135.00 or so for a long time.

Dave

[Marvel]

Having spent my first 10 years in audio engineering, my opinion is the studio monitors are mid range heavy and accentuated. I found this true especially in the ubiquitous EV Sentry line and JBL.

You can tell me with a straight face that the original Heresy doesn't have an accentuated midrange? Or the original La Scalas?

You can easily adjust my JBL 4311s to be flat. Just because they used them that way in the studio doesn't mean everyone has them set the same way for playback in their home environment.

Bruce

[Mallette]

You can tell me with a straight face that the original Heresy doesn't have an accentuated midrange? Or the original La Scalas?

Fer cryin' out loud, Bruce, I am generalizing. And I am not a big fan of the original Heresy for that very reason. However, if you recall the launch ad for them "Heresy in the Church" I think PWK was aware of that as well. "Everyone thought the preacher was just speaking a little more loudly..."

In any event, I am not indicting any speakers here for being unfaithful, just stating some general experience.

Some people like that sound, others not so much. In some situations, as exemplifed by PWKs ad, it's a virtue. In others, it's a vice. Accuracy is in the ear of the beholder.

Dave

[Marvel]

Fer cryin' out loud, Bruce, I am generalizing.

Well, I realized that I've been picking on you the past few days. I apologize... [:$]

Bruce

[Mallette]

Well, I realized that I've been picking on you the past few days. I apologize...

Hey, jump on, everyone else has. too...[]

Just kidding. None of us got to our post counts by being overly sensitive.

Of all those who might "pick on" me, I am perfectly good with you, my friend!

Dave

[jacksonbart]

would this work on 3rd down with 4 yards or less to go against a blitz?

[oldtimer]

Only if the center checked in as an eligible receiver.

[jacksonbart]

Oh, I thought it was a hand off to the center

[DesmoDave]

Wadia is a bonafide triple A class audio company and the very fact they are cleary experimenting in this domain suggests Class D amplification is ready for serious audiohile consideration. I am interested in learning if anyone has some experience of their Class D amp/DAC

http://www.avguide.com/blog/first-listen-wadia-151-powerdac-mini

The Wadia 151PowerDAC effectively combines a D/A converter and a
pre/power amplifier in a single very small chassis (8” x 8” x 2”). That
language may be misleading though, since the Wadia 151PowerDAC doesn’t
work like traditional gear. In most audio equipment, the D/A conversion
is one circuit and the power amplification is another (analog) circuit.
In the Wadia PowerDAC, D/A conversion is, in effect, done by the power
amp. Signals are digital right up to the output stage (where they must
be analog so that speakers can use them).

[Quiet_Hollow]

Wadia is a bonafide triple A class audio company and the very fact they are cleary experimenting in this domain suggests Class D amplification is ready for serious audiohile consideration. I am interested in learning if anyone has some experience of their Class D amp/DAC

That particular product is certainly no reflection of the validity of the technology. Purchasing a $300 part for $700, or $6000 (like The NAD) eases the conscious perhaps. In fact, I'd be more inclined to seek out AVR's at this point because at least they'll throw in comprehensive DSP.

Here's a brief shake-down of chip amp potential as marketed by Texas Instruments seven years ago:

http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/sprb172/sprb172.pdf

[oldtimer]

Here's a brief description to clear up some terminology being bandied about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-D_amplifier

[mark1101]

It's probably a good thing that the quarterback is a man.

[DesmoDave]

I came across this article from 2004 (i.e. a very long time ago) and wondered if anyone could comment on or update the authors predictions about the future of Class D, specifcally the analgog controlled vs digitally controlled amps.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/amplifier-technology/the-truth-about-digital-class-d-amplifiers

I feel like a dog watching TV in this thread. I see things moving and hear the noises but don't always understand what is being said.

[artto]

So, who among us has a TacT 2150 or T2 available for a shootout at the arttok coral?

[li]

[Mallette]

So, who among us has a TacT 2150 or T2 available for a shootout at the arttok coral?

Oh God I'd love to be there! Your setup is one of the few that really makes me envious. [:@]

Dave

[Quiet_Hollow]

So, who among us has a TacT 2150 or T2 available for a shootout at the arttok coral?

No T2 here Art, but I've got that spare XR-57 in storage. It's the one I brought with me last we visited but didn't get the time to setup. You're welcome to give it go in your system for a couple weeks if you like. Just have to get it down there one of these days. Heck, I'd get a kick out of hearing it hitched up to the big K's too, of course I was bummed we didn't get a chance to fire up the tubes that day.

[djk]

"You can tell me with a straight face that the original Heresy doesn't
have an accentuated midrange?"

Measured on the floor, pushed up against the back wall (1Pi), with the mic off-axis about 30° and up 4' off the floor, ten foot back, the original Heresy measured dead flat with a swept sine-wave (gated for time off-set). This is about where your ears would be in a good sized room.