Probably pretty crappy. My opinion is that the vinyl crowd are mostly two camps, those who listen to it because the particular music is only available there and those who have deluded themselves into believing the distortions in vinyl are an improvement over fidelity. Obviously some have one foot in each camp.

Self delusion is OK I guess - everyone does it to some extent. For audio I personally prefer a more rational approach.

The digital amps I've looked at all had measureable levels of distortion that are possibly audible, at least they are not orders of magnitude below the threshold of audibility. So yes, until the technology improves that worries me.

Thus my question - has the technology moved to the point where the amps measure well, or is it more 'listening test' results?

Charlie

No, maybe not, but did you listen to any of them?

I think that depends on what you mean with " well ". If one refer to standard specsheet measurements, as in broschures, on an 8 Ohm resistive load, they measure decent, though probably won´t show off, but in more relevant setups with loads simulating the complex load of a modern loudspeaker, as the mid - fi recievers start blowing their gaskets ( fuses ) and spinning their fans, they will shine with tornadoes of effortless, clean current and probably brighter than any Outlaw product ever has.

To me, it seems that they don´t measure " Krell/ML " yet, but, again to me, they measure better than they have to.

High end audio development today would be completely pointless without hardcore listeningtests over extended periods, as the days of textbook design only are long gone. In many cases, the time spent on developing/listening a product concept can be the difference between a high vs. low end product performance.
Reviews in the audio press are always based on listening tests. In the better magazines ( Stereophile ) there are some additional basic measurements and in others there are none. The tendency seems to be to seek similarities between the listening tests and the measurements, having them to confirm each other.
The reviews has a huge impact on the introduction of a component. Being read with interest by insane buffs ( me? ) and early adopters, the ( dis - )information they contain rains down on the regular Joe, who is then creating the volume in the products turnaround.

In the end, to me, audio equipment is there to ( re - )create a listening experience, to make music and film believable. Most people that I know agree. Do you?

With best regards

Anders




[This message has been edited by AndersP (edited August 08, 2002).]

To me individual parts have individual jobs. The goal of the _system_ from instrument to ear is to do as you say.

The job of the amp is NOT to recreate an experience, but merely to take a small signal and make it a bigger signal. To the extent it can do that with fidelity and adequate gain it is 'good' IMO.

As far as texbook design being obsolete, I have no idea what you're talking about, but no decent engineer will be giving up his test bench anytime soon. Test instruments can detect distortions and noise the human ear could NEVER hear.

OTOH listening tests are important and blind listening tests are widely used in the design of some of the very finest equipment available out there. But not sighted 'audiophile' style listening tests as those are of very little value in quantifying performance.

Most high end audio magazines are a waste of paper.


Charlie


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 08, 2002).]

Three questions, Charlie:
1. What do you use for signal source?
2. What are your specifications for a " good enough " measuring result?
3. Give me some examples of products that are up to your standards

Anders


[This message has been edited by AndersP (edited August 09, 2002).]

Just about any reasonable modern equipment is generally pretty good IMO. Obviously vinyl, cassette tape and so forth had serious audible (and measurable) issues, but most modern quality equipment with the notable exception of speakers sound pretty much the same, as long as the design team did good work.

Stuff I've enjoyed in the past - Hafler, B&K, Sony, Onkyo, Carver, Phase Linear, Pioneer, Outlaw (of course!), Akai, etc.

In the future I intend to try Anthem, Rotel, and a few more.

The amps you pointed to may also be fine, but the TriPath units (which I took time to dig into a bit) actually measure poorly, with levels of distortion and noise that are near the threshold of human audibility. As long as there are alternatives out there WITHOUT that level of defect I see no compelling reason to accept an inferior solution.

I LIKE the idea - that's why I looked into it. I think digital amps are the way of the future, I just question whether that future is here yet.

Charlie

1. DVD-A, CD.
2. Above
3. Rotel 1066, Outlaw.... many.

The Tripath amp specs @ 0.1% THD, not counting other noise and distortion. That is pretty poor by modern standards.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 09, 2002).]

IMO,I'd say, when it comes to amps, if it measures well, it most likely will sound well. You mentioned Stereophile magazine- I have not read it recently, but in the past, they themselves have pretty much said the same thing.

Well guys, guess I´m out of words.
Just to clarify; The " measure well " credit is then a clean cut referral to THD < 0.0X% @ a static resitive load or have I completely misunderstood this?

Scary thought that peaple can be so easily misled, what kind of a world do we live in when people start comparing Chip amps to solid state and tube stuff, I have been installing Gear for many years and those multi-room B&O systems were nothing but underpowered and can't drive any kind of a load peices of junk, present one of them with a 4Ohm load and see what happens. And I wouldn't give that much credit to those guy's that write the reviews, I have had experiences with those guy's too and well, they arn't all that. Let you ears do the decission making, High current and Low impedence is the way to go baby!!!

I think i've been misunderstood a bit. Or a strawman is lurking on the horizon.

First, while harmonic distortion driving a resistive load is not the sole criteria for amp 'goodness' I doubt driving a difficult load would improve things.

Second, while I _REALLY_ like the concept of digital amps and agree in theory that they can deliver lots of the good stuff (current, efficiency, low cost) I've not yet witnessed an example of theory becoming practice.

Third, regarding 'chip amps', again in theory, the number of transistors an engineer chooses to group on a semiconductor (1,2, lots) has little in and of itself to do with anything.

Charlie

PS - Look at the eAR specs. It's pretty clear the filtering inductor is not playing nice with the load - a resistor. A reactive load is likely not going to improve it, either.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 12, 2002).]

Charlie: I find it pointless to discuss this any further. You clearly have no idea of how to interpret measured data and what they mean. Especially what THD is and what it really sounds like.
The fact that you don´t know the first thing about audio technology and still dismiss these new products will only be your own loss. I´m sorry.

wbr
AndersP