They just can't say it, can they?

[erik2A3]

That's fine, they used to use MQ exclusively and were also a distributor for them. The main point of my comment had to do with the strength of their designs, and that they are easily as 'out there' as either Welborne Labs and/or Moth Audio. Remember LeoK? He also had Moondogs, and completely changed the output configuration to parafeed. My version of the Horus 2A3 parallel feed monoblocks, now (boy do I miss those sometimes) in the hands of another forum member were, to my ears, a bit better than the Moodogs in a number of important ways, but each to his or her own. Moondogs are still fine SET amps, though as of about 30 minutes ago, are now dedicated 300B monoblocks via necessary power supply modifications, separate 5V filament transformers, etc. Quite satisfactory sounding, I might add. Have fun, erik

[neo33]

Erik, it's nice to still see you around here. I am in need of another pair of 2A3 SET amps (something close to the sounding of the Moondogs). Lets me know if you or somebody have a pair for sale. Thanks.

[erik2A3]

Hi, Neo: the Moondog isn't a rare design by any means in terms of the actual circuit. I'd never even consider selling mine, particulalrly with this latest 300B modification, but there are some similar designs around. 5687 input/driver tube with any of the big triodes is a really, really good sounding combination. Have fun and good luck!

[erik2A3]

BTW: a .1uf coupling capacitor vs the stock .22uf, for me, speeds things up a bit in the Moondog, making IMO a faster sounding amp. I suspect ypu already know that the factory Moondog circuit only needs a single 6SN7. It has two but only uses half of each one.

[Don Richard]

It appears you are right, QH, some people just can't say it...

[erik2A3]

And many have said it. Edit: Honk

[artto]

It appears you are right, QH, some people just can't say it...

I think a lot of people are missing (or possibly not understanding?) the point.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (which is definitely a possibility, as this whole concept is still relatively new to me. QH brought this to my attention when he was over for a visit). It's not just about class D amplification, ie: an amplifier where all its power devices are operated as binary switches generating square waves of which the low frequency portion of the frequency spectrum is the wanted output signal.

As I understand this, its about the source, being DIGITAL, and, continuing with that DIGITAL information, completely in the digital domain, through the amplification process with no analog conversion or intervention until the very end of the signal chain where it is (at the current state of affairs) required to be converted to analog to drive a conventional analog loudspeaker. This is not the same thing as a "digital" amplifier as we typically see marketed, class D or otherwise with analog inputs and analog tone controls or analog anything in the signal path.

I think "class D" is often misunderstood as meaning "digital".

While class D amplifiers may or may not be controlled by digital circuits, the power output stage still deals with voltage and current as a function of time. In a truely digital circuit errors only lead to incorrect results when the errors become so large that the signal representing the "digit" is no longer recognizable. Up to that point it doesn't matter, the "non-idealities" (as opposed to non-linearities in analog), have no impact on the signal being transmitted (or amplified).

Therefore, if we can start with a digital signal source, and continue with that digital signal all the way through the amplification process (and any other processing, ie: tone, time delay, etc.) without any analog intervention and it's unavoidable non-linearities, we have something new ~ essentially the proverbial "wire with gain".

From what I can tell this is a whole new ball game.

[Mallette]

Good to see you around, Erik. Not sure I've ever disagreed with a post you wrote and won't start now. The extremes of audiophilia are, well, extreme and filled with passion. We gentle music lovers simply try to stay clear of the carnage and listen to the words of those few steady, calm, well qualified engineers who dispassionately judge things and fully recognize their own bias.

You, sir, are one such person and I thoroughly have enjoyed your contributions over the years.

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

About 2 months ago, I put my Cornwalls in the back of my Yukon to hook up with a guy who was going to refinish them. I like to play drums to them (my stereo). I had trouble finding a convenient time when the guy and I would meet, and so I bought a $1.00 pair of earbuds for my Windows phone (see below).

Honestly, I have to laugh at all this debate about SET, AB, D, etc. I bet I get more out of $1.00 earbuds than the disatisfaction some must have after pumping $thousands into equipment. I like good sound, too, but seriously, how carried away does a person need to get? The Cornwalls are still MIA. (I need to get them finished up; they make like nice furniture).

[Rivernuggets]

how carried away does a person need to get?

As carried away as that person wants. [] The search is different for everyone.

I agree that there is a place for portable music, where critically listening doesn't happen. But an MP3 at 192 kbps wouldn't cut it as a source for what is being compared in this thread. Never heard a SET amp, push pull or Moondogs, but I'm still stickin' to my story.

Hope you get your 'new' Cornwalls up and running soon before withdrawal sets in!

[DesmoDave]

quote user="Jeff Matthews"

Honestly, I have to laugh at all this debate about SET, AB, D, etc. I bet I get more out of $1.00 earbuds than the disatisfaction some must have after pumping $thousands into equipment. I like good sound, too, but seriously, how carried away does a person need to get?

I take it that the 'how carried away does a person need to get?" is purely rhetorical but I will respond anyway. The answer is 'as much as they want to'. The mere fact that people like to come to this site to learn stuff about audio would strike most of the population as a waste of time (at best) and possibly bizarre. The fact people are passionate about audio reproduction and willing to spend a large chunk of their disposable income in pursuit of better sound it is probably incomprehensible to even more people.

Personally, I am thrilled that plenty of very smart people are unsatisfied with what they have today and strive to apply new designs, new technologies and countless hours of thankless toil to squeezing out the exact sound they seek for that kick drum/violin/singer. Mad but marvellous.

I think you misinterpret this relentless pursuit of better sound reproduction as a pointless and frustrating (and probably self defeating) exercise, with the hapless audiophile living in a constant state of buyers remorse. In my experience the audiophile community is made up of people that first and foremost love music and have typically had a lifelong intoxicating and passionate love affair with music their entire lives. These are people that will tear up when listening to certain songs and regale you for hours if you ask them to name some of their favourite music.These are people that find endless beauty in the most elusive and ephemeral of all the arts. They see poetry all around them and like nothing better than to share their love of music.

I therefore think that to claim you get more out of your $1 earbuds than these poor saps is foolish and missing the point. Neither your $1 buds or someone elses $20,000 system are the point. They are not the end. It is the music emanating from these things and the emotions they stir in us that is the point.

You comments are also incredibly patronising because they suggest that you 'get it' that the point is the music and no one else does. We get it OK.

[Mallette]

You comments are also incredibly patronising because they suggest that you 'get it' that the point is the music and no one else does. We get it OK

Desmo, you are a victim of friendly fire.

There are two kinds of audiophiles: the equipment head, and the music head. Both love music, but the music head's interest in equipment is only that it not get in the way of the music. I am one such. I'd enjoyed my system for a long time a few years ago when I had a group over that included Gil McDermott. After a while, I saw him pacing from one speaker to the other. Finally, he said "You've an issue in your right channel." I'd never noticed it, but once pointed out it was all I heard until I fixed it.

Nobody would have noticed but an audiophile equipment head with highly trained ears that seize on issues similar to a creaky chair or paper rustling at a concert that most simply ignore or don't notice at all due to their focus on the music.

As mentioned, the equipment head loves music too, but also loves the look, feel, science, sex, whatever, about each and every item in his playback chain. I've little doubt some are so highly tuned they can tell if someone has moved a power cable during a cleaning or whatever. They draw enormous pleasure...and pain...from the experience. Perhaps like Everest climbers...[]

Exchanges such as yours with Jeff happen when the two come together and don't recognize each other. Recognition password: "Klipsch." []

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

These are people that will tear up when listening to certain songs...

The same people who will claim to hear the difference in cables.

Just kidding. It's okay to cry. Once, I cried. .

[Chris A]

I feel it's much too easy to digress into an amp topology discussion when, what I think, the real issue at hand is a big shift in how the source is dealt with...Chris, I do agree with you. It is arguably beyond the scope of the Klipsch Forum. We're simply on the "front line" of change, in a sense, with these speakers that are so revealing of everything.

Nonsense...Illegitimi non carborundum.

This is a good topic - and I believe it hasn't been reasonably exhausted for the casual observers here (...vice commenters...). I suppose there might be those (already here) that are offended by these dialogues, but I figure that they can find other threads if this one upsets their sensibilities, or even challenges their understanding of the physical effects that are taking place making one amplifier sound "good" and the other "not so good". These are subjects that come up a lot from new members wishing information and understanding of how their speakers might sound better based on general principles or attributes/architectures of design. Some of these fundamental ideas are both measurable and transferable (generalizable) between differently engineered amplifier designs.

I believe this subject naturally splits into at least three subsections:

1) The effects of less expensive but more effective design amplifier techniques on those that don't want to admit it publicly [which you have mentioned in the beginning of this thread as the OP]

2) Why certain amplifier classes might "sound better" [on which I've stated some thoughts], and

3) The effects of staying in the digital domain until the output amplifier stage is reached [a subject that both you and I have broached, but haven't discussed in depth]

Chris

[Chris A]

There are two kinds of audiophiles: the equipment head, and the music head.

However,

"There Are Two Kinds of People Audiophiles In The World: Those Who Think There Are Two Kinds of People Audiophiles In The World and Those Who Don’t"

Rather randomly, I'll admit, this reminds me of a situation in "Two Weeks Notice":

"Lucy: I think you are the most selfish person on the planet.
George: Well that's just silly. Have you met everyone on the planet?"

Chris []

[artto]

quote user="Jeff Matthews"

I like good sound, too, but seriously, how carried away does a person need to get?

I take it that the 'how carried away does a person need to get?" is purely rhetorical but I will respond anyway. The answer is 'as much as they want to'. The mere fact that people like to come to this site to learn stuff about audio would strike most of the population as a waste of time (at best) and possibly bizarre. The fact people are passionate about audio reproduction and willing to spend a large chunk of their disposable income in pursuit of better sound it is probably incomprehensible to even more people.

Yes, like these pictures show..........

[artto]

And this......

[artto]

and this.....................(note the angled speakers on several balconies)

[artto]

And then of course we can all sit in-line, in a row like ducks to get the best sound.

I for one, have to ask myself "At this point, what's the point?" Why not just buy a condo close to your favorite concert hall, buy season tickets for your favorite seat(s), air fare, and limo included ~ I'd be willing to bet it comes out cheaper, and you get the real thing and a chance to "get away from it all" or just hire your favorite(s) to come perform at your place.

Now, if all this could cost, say, a few thousand bucks, maybe they're on to something. But if you notice, these people are "in the business" and they also have the business objective of selling us something ~ at a substantial profit ~ most likely to subsidize what I just described above. [Y]

[DrWho]

It appears you are right, QH, some people just can't say it...

I think a lot of people are missing (or possibly not understanding?) the point.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (which is definitely a possibility, as this whole concept is still relatively new to me. QH brought this to my attention when he was over for a visit). It's not just about class D amplification, ie: an amplifier where all its power devices are operated as binary switches generating square waves of which the low frequency portion of the frequency spectrum is the wanted output signal.

As I understand this, its about the source, being DIGITAL, and, continuing with that DIGITAL information, completely in the digital domain, through the amplification process with no analog conversion or intervention until the very end of the signal chain where it is (at the current state of affairs) required to be converted to analog to drive a conventional analog loudspeaker. This is not the same thing as a "digital" amplifier as we typically see marketed, class D or otherwise with analog inputs and analog tone controls or analog anything in the signal path.

Is it easier to design a high quality DAC that drives a 10kohm load with <5V, or one that drives a 2 ohm load with >20V?

The highest end converters are operating with noise floors that are limited by quantized energy states of the switches in the converter (24-Bits from 5V is really that crazy). Over-sampling also has a huge list of benefits, and that requires the physical switches to be small (lower capacitance). Adding a requirement of sourcing a lot of power requires the physical parts to be bigger, and therefore your over-sampling rate needs to be reduced. Increasing the rail voltage also requires the parts to get better and that just further complicates the output lattice and ultimately increases the noise; which nets reduced resolution and less over-sampling.

Also, the Digital to Analog conversion process is limited by how clean the power supply is - and unfortunately, this isn't something that can just be iron-fisted to be better. I tried to hint at it earlier, but the lack of power supply rejection on these digital chip amps is a very complicated limitation.

I agree that the "digital" wire with gain is asbolutely impressive from a high-level perspective, but it simply isn't any more realizable than a perfect point source speaker. It is quite easy to design an equivalent output stage that you can switch between digitally controlled and analog controlled, and the analog controlled stage will always be better in every way (both audible and measured). Then consider that the analog controlled is a way simpler design that behaves more predictably and is cheaper, and it's really a no-brainer. To get the digital chip amps at the same level, you basically end up with an analog compensation for the digital limitations - which is what Bruno Putzeys was driving at in his article.

Now that's not to say that the digital chip amps sound bad - in fact they're quite impressive actually, but are we talking the utmost in fidelity or good enough?

On a side note - if you really want the true holy grail, then the amplifiers should be strapped to the drivers inside the speaker and use the voice coil as the output inductor (the only reason they don't do it in standard amplifiers is because of the radiated emissions requirements).