Digital amps

I posted this way back in Jan. I think, but I'll do it again 'cuz it's been a while.

Digital amps from Bel Canto, PS Audio, Spectron, Tact, and AV Reality, and others are being called revolutionary in their incredible detail, linearity, and control compared to tube and solid state designs. ALL tube and s.s. designs!

The two 'ones to beat' as of now look to be the PS Audio's 'HCA-2', and AV Reality's 'eAR' line-up.

They should be even cheaper to make than even the very low prices that these companies are selling them for, and Outlaw could really shine with a 7 channel amp that's the same size as thier 950, but more powerful and higher quality sound yet close in price!!
And it wouldn't be a 90 pound space heater either!

AV Reality's the first to use B&O's patented 'ICEpower' chipset.
It looks like it's an incredible design that Outlaw could use themselves to be at the forefront of the coming digital amp revolution.

It's only a matter of a few years before the news is widespread that digital amps are able to be cheaper, far more efficient (~90% -smaller power supplies, cool running), and most importantly -of higher sound quality than even some of the best tube and s.s. amps out now.

It started in about '98 when Tact Audio came out with an audiophile digital amp to rave reviews called by many to be one of the very best amps in the world.

Now each new digital amp that comes out from various companies seems to be called better than all the previous ones.

And who thinks their digital chip technology is going to slow down any time soon?

Make the 755 and 770 your LAST analog amps guys!!

I agree, I quizzed about this when I first came into Outlaw, one of the first separates I ran into when I started looking around was the TACT amp.

I truly believe this is the next generation across the board amp technology, to the extent in the next x? yrs you will see it filter even into HTIB.

I know you guys that with the upgrade bug are always looking for a new WAF factor spin. It should help a lot, when your talking her into that latest purchase.
“Look honey - its Smaller”…….., (Don’t know if she’ll care as much about the lighter, cooler) …but I do!

I am soon to be an official Outlaw, and I hope they research this trend extensively. From what I read, maybe it’s the new engineering factor that’s keeping the prices up now, which hopefully will filter down quickly, because it appears they should be very cost efficient to manufacture.

I also would like to see the Outlaws work on a digital amp. From everything I have read it should be a big leap forward for amplifiers. After the 950 sounding so great I can think of about 1000 things I want the outlaws to make

I think we should all be using powered towers on all four corners with optical digital inputs and built-in digital amps. No DACs in your pre/pro (I guess it isn't really a preamp anymore, is it?) and a clean uncompressed signal going out to the speakers. Suddenly quality of speaker wire, interconnects, etc. doesn't matter anymore as you've finally reduced the analog stage to about 4" of cable between the amp and the cones.

edit: grammatical errors.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

[This message has been edited by Matthew Hill (edited May 09, 2002).]

Yeah Matthew,

That'd be part of the 'next wave' I think though. Meridian has self powered speakers already that use digital inputs, but they don't have digital amps. They could though if they wanted to.

With built in speaker amps you'll have the disadvantage of having to buy a speaker and amp at the same time, and also not being able hear diff. amps connected to the same speakers.

I think seperates will still be the way to go for a long. long time.

There's nothing wrong w/ analog connections. In the case of DD/DTS/DVD-A/SACD, it's just a lot messier, and more costly to run analog, and a more eff. process to plug all your signals into one unit w/ one cable, and do stuff like bass mang. there.

There's no real world loss w/ analog cables though. And if you debate there is, I'm sure it would make a thousand times bigger diff. what player vs. what processor output and decoded the digital and analog connections you were comparing.

Anyway, with built in digital amps (w/ digital input) you'd have to run costly digital cables all around your room, so you wouldn't get any less cable clutter by doing that.

With analog inputs, you could have monoblocks (digital or analog) by each speaker and costly low level analog cables connecting them all. You can do that now, but more people like it better having all the amps in one or a couple of boxes by their other equip. and sending power out on higher level speaker wire -which works great, and isn't problem IMO.

The thing about digital amps is that they still don't all sound the same (it's not just digital is digital) so they'll still be competing brands, and getting rid of all analog connections, while sounds better in theory, is probably not in itself any benefit to improved sound quality.

We'll see the benefit digital amps with them all being better sounding than most tube or solid state amps, and cheaper, smaller, cooler running, etc...

My digital Audiosource AMP 7 looks pretty messy inside and has a lot of un-needed anti-audiophile features (watt meters, auto on, dual gain knobs, a/b speaker inputs and switches), but uses the same Tripath amp chip technology as the $2,500 Bel Canto eVo which has gotten rave reviews.

The inside of that amp is almost 1/2 empty w/ the tightest, shortest, cleanest connections I've even seem in an amp! I have little doubt that my amp does NOT sound the same or as good.

My amp is cool running, small, and cheap though, and sounds at least 'pretty good'. World Class sound? No way.
Like CD's they can sound incredible when recorded well. Lots don't. The potential's there though.

The new PS Audio HCA-2 has been called by one of the PS A's beta reviewers who owns the Bel Canto eVo as being far, far better than it. And called pretty much 'world class sounding' by all the beta testers.
Both the Bel Canto and PS Audio are digital stereo amps of ~the same amount of power.

I hope Outlaw doesn't mind me mentioning other company's amps. I did tell them to look into digtial amps months ago -heh, and their 7 chan amp does cost less than either of these slightly lower powered stereo amps. But is anyone calling the Outlaw amps 'world class sound'?
No. Great sounding and great value, but not 'best of the best' by anyone.

Most digital amps out now (other than Tact) use an analog input. Most of these amps have been called better sounding than the pure digital Tact though. Just being 'digital' or 'digital only' isn't enough to create some kind of 'perfect sound', but it's the best direction to try to get there though.

A digital amp could eventually (and may already be able to) do what a $40K Mark Levinson amp can do, but an analog M-L amp can't ever do what a digital amp can.

I'd like to see Outlaw replace thier analog amps (when they feel the time is right) w/ digital multichannel models that have analog inputs and if possible a digital input probably through firewire (output from thier future pre/pro).

The main things I have against analog equipment is (a) cost and (b) convenience. Yes, you can make analog sound very, very good, but it's going to cost more. You can send 1s and 0s across cheap UTP cabling with NO loss in quality whatsoever... you can make unlimited recordings with no generational loss, etc. Also, if SACD and DVD/a would use digital interconnects, your pre/pro would be able to perform bass management, time alignment, equalization, etc. without expensive analog circuitry. Plus there'd be fewer wires.

I'm not anti-analog... but as someone said in one of the other fora, there's a reason analog engineers get paid more than digital engineers.

I think you're getting a little too far away from what I was saying. I'm talking about analog inputs vs. digital inputs on digital amps.

We both agree digital in would be preferable, but waiting on fully digital chain of ins/outs will be a long wait. Firewire's been around for years and could handle this chain, but it's just not being implemented... and firewire cables cost a lot of money IMO.
Digital inputs on a digital amp won't in itself mean better sound quality from the amp, and if fact the analog input section of these digital amps makes a huge effect on the sound quality (for the better) -much moreso than the clean, linear, efficient digital output section.

Check out PS Audio's info about their new digital amp the HCA-2, and the beta tester reviews. They describe how the analog input section is the 'sound quality' section of the amp.

Hate to mention it on Outlaw's forum, but when discussing one company's products, other products are gonna get mentioned now and then, and like I said, I'm suggesting Outlaw get into this coming amp revolution.

azryan -- I see no harm in mentioning other products here. The regulars around here have traditionally tried to be open about stuff like that. And I agree that the digital amps like the PSA HCA-2 sound very interesting. Keep the info coming...

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

www.audioasylum.com (PS Power Forum section) for the latest customer word.

I've been working on prodding new HCA-2 owners for reviews/impressions there. Just a few posted so far, and haven't had it very long. They says it gets better everyday as it burns in more and more.

Seems like they're backing up the beta tester's rave reviews though.

Hi.

Has the train left the station?

OK.
I think these guys manufacture OEM, or at least provide means to license production:

http://www.lcaudio.dk/com/index.html

Smart little Lena: Congrats with becoming an Outlaw!
Have seen your footsteps on several threads here and I really like your sense of humour.
Keep it up!

Best wishes.
\\Anders

Up
I still think this is a very attractive idea. Both with conventional and PWM powersupply.
If it is made a monobloc like fex the Linn 500, this thread can be merged with 2 ch amp ( that became a monobloc )

Anders, did not see your ‘Congrats” till today. Thanks very much, I love being an Outlaw. I’d be lying if I tried to say I’m not tickled that I skinned in just under the 950’s halted ship date. But I really do feel for those still waiting. Been there, done that, not enjoyable.

I could have, got this/got that many times over. Still very glad I ‘got’ the 950.

I hope that the reputed lower costs to the manufacture, of producing Digital amps, (If you don’t have to spend wads on research/development) will attract a Co. like Outlaw,..looks right up their alley since they can 'take' the lower CPU, and due to their positon of direct sales, not have to inflate the markup for a cutting edge piece once the general engineering principles are readily available in the industry.

You´re welcome Lena. You are a little slow, but I suppose it will have to do. Nice to have you up there with the big guys. To keep them straight.

Are there any concrete thinking lines on this digi - stuff yet or is it all on a " study - level " for now?

As far as Outlaw is concerned, I have no idea if they have any interest in going that way with their line someday or not. There are digital amps on the market today, but your talking high dollar stuff. When I first started looking into HT, I ran into Bel Canto, and TacT. My memory’s vague but I think TactT had a 10 thousand sticker, with a ‘baby brother’ coming out soon, which would be marketed for less. I almost went with the Bel Canto line (a little less pricey). But backed off because I was too ‘newbie’ to be mucking with those prices, in an area in which I had so little knowledge and grasp of the ‘big picture’. Plus I LIKE getting technology for the least money. That’s why I’m an Outlaw..more bang for the buck. My Sony was a splurge cause I love my husband and he loved IT. I was very strict with myself buying computer guts, 2nd, 3rd generation and gloating over my savings. I need to get myself in hand because right now sometimes I get impatient and just buy what I can get my hands on TODAY. (Not my usual Modus Operandi either, but I’m strapped for time and gone a little nuts on A/V).
Azryan just purchased an eARTwo I believe he researched past the point I dropped it, so I’m not familiar with his. I think he’s hoping (as I) that Outlaw gets into them. It’s really an old concept, or as you wish, was a concept before its time. I think in the UK someone built one in maybe the 50’s or 70’s? But while the specs looked great in theory, the sound was not. With this new resurgence of manufactures starting to build them, the sound has improved and should continue that route. I think many of the orginal problems are licked.
Put any of the names listed in Aryzan’s post in your search engine and you can see the current crop. Don’t faint at the prices!
PS: I also dropped shopping a digital amp for me, because I wanted a digital 7.1 (multi-channel) amp, but last I looked no one had done that yet.(HINT HINT to Outlaw) You mainly see monoblocks or 2 channels.

[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited August 01, 2002).]

I've had the eARTwo amp now for a while and it's just stellar! So liquid, smooth, dynamic, transparent, ect... it's amazing!

I really hope Outlaw makes a universal DVD player soon so I can play SACD and DVD-A through it!
My CD's sound great though. You can really tell the production value of every recording, but all my CD's sound far better than before -and no offence Outlaw, but the 950 isn't the world's best front end, so my CD's still have yet to be fully maxed out in my system.

It's certainly the digital amp to beat as it's been called far far better than the PS Audio HCA-2 by two diff. audiophile posters -which in it's own right has been k.o.ing the likes of Bel Canto's eVo, TacT, and holding it's own against some fairly high end stuff on it's own.

The eAR amps use the analog version of the ICEpower digital amp module (the only company to use this so far).
Designer Peter Thomsen could have used the digital input version (and easier in fact), but the specs of the raw ICEpower module aren't that stellar on their own (though better than all other raw digital amp modules) and his modification etc.. (whatever else is in the amp) changes the ICEpower output to almost zero distortion and zero noise throughout it's bandwidth.

I can place my ear to the metal grill covering my ribbon speakers and the noise is incredibly faint.
It's greatly improved the random 'HISS' problem of my 950 too. I may not bother to send the 950 in for a 'fix' when it becomes available.

Like all other digital amps it's faster and more dynamic (due to the speed) than any solid state or tube amp can ever be.
Linear from milliwatts to full power output (analog amps will change their sound).

Unlike all other digital amps it does not use PWM or damaging triangle waves in the signal.

I don't really get the technical paper (from the ICEpower web site) if you want to read more about it, but several audiophile/E.E.'s have said that this is the main thing holding back all other digital amps from being as smooth and natural (typically called 'musical') as the best of the best analog designs.

Among them Stan Warren -the former 'S' in PS Audio (who's Supermods business is probably the best deal/best kept secret in Hi-Fi along w/ Acoustic Reality's amps/speakers).

Check out the reviews on www.harmonicdiscord.com (under the gen. forum) for lots of owner's responses to the eAR amps -all of which basically summed up as -'best amp they've ever heard'.

Direct and very detailed comparisons to Theta, Krell, BAT, TacT, PS Audio, etc...on very high end gear.

Acoustic Reality just raised the price of the 300W x 2 (600W @ 4 ohms) eARTwo from $3,000 to $3,500. I tried to warn people this was gonna happen though. Sorry, but that's still very low seeing as it's killer everything in it goes up against IMO (not that I could afford one at that price).

They have a 110W x 2 (220 @ 4ohm) eAR250 for $2,000.

And in Sept.they're releasing a stainless steel tower version of these amps in 5, 6, or 7 chan.
$999 a channel. Yeah, not cheap compared to Outlaw's 7 Chan. monster, but you all know the prices of many very high end amps, and I suspect very close in price to PS Audio's up coming multi chan. digital amp.

Note -PS Audio's new Classic 250 (250W x 2) is $5,000 -much more than the eARTwo, and the Classic isn't even digital like their HCA-2.

Peter says that his lower powered eAR amps sound very close to the same sound of the 300W x 2 eARTwo.
I'd be inclined to fully believe this since they're basically the exact same design just using a lower powered ICEpower module and smaller power supply.

Lena, if you're waiting for a multi chan. digital amp w/ a digital input, I HIGHLY rec. you look into the eAR multi chan amps.

It's trounced the $10K TacT amp which DOES use a pure digital input. The TacT was reviewed by a Danish Hi-Fi mag who's ref. amps were the $30K (each) Mark Levinson no. 33's. It did not beat it.
Recently that mag's reviewer named the $3,500 eARTwo his new ref. amp.

'ehider' on HDforum has also listened to the TacT amp and said it's still processed sounding compared to his former reference custom made solid state amps (which he feels are better than Theta, Krell, etc...), but his new ref. amps are the eAROne monoblocks.

Since the eAR amp's modulation method is analog controlled (but still digital pulses to open on/off the output MOS FET transistors)it does not need or would not be improved by having a digital input.
The process was patented by B&O in '97, so NO OTHER digital amp method does anything like this.

I'm all for digital connections, but this amp's so revolutionary and incredible sounding, I have no problem having an analog input on it.

The best sounding pre amps are analog/passive anyway, so pure 100% digital doesn't always mean better.

The eAR amps have balanced inputs too, but I can only use RCA plugs because the 950 doesn't have balanced outs.

I'm hoping the new Outlaw pre/pro will come out w/ a universal player and have a firewire B connection between the two and balanced outs (along w/ Outlaw coming out w/ balanced cables of course).

The amazing thing is that amps are just 'gain' to the preamp's line level (unless their very colored tube design greatly imparting their own sound).

The better the amp, the less damage it causes the signal whereas most people say "it's a better sounding amp" (as I often do).
So the amazing sound I'm hearing now is not the eARTwo, but the 950's signal just more undamaged than it's ever been amped before, and it's AWESOME.

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited August 02, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited August 27, 2002).]

Lena: It hurts me to hear that a tv set can compete with you at home. To me, you seem to be a wonderful person. Your husband should have his ass kicked!

I don´t really understand the hesitation of Outlaws and other firms. This technology is available now!

The power modules powering Azryans eARTwo are available here:

http://www.medicom.bang-olufsen.com/sw1029.asp

This is another module that has got great reviews in Scandinavia and is available for DIY:ers for $300 for a 2 ch kit. Tey are, to the best of my knowledge, available as OEM:

http://www.lcaudio.dk/com/index.html

This is yet another example:

http://www.tripath.com/0105_data.htm

If you really are an Outlaw you could at least point out these possibilities for the guys in charge and have them ordering some evaluation boards to play with. Do it today, while this is still new.

This is not the future. This stuff is on the market now!

With best regards
\\Anders



[This message has been edited by AndersP (edited August 05, 2002).]

Dear Anders, not to worry.
You see, I have perfected the execution of a movement, all the guys around here refer to as THE RING.
The current perpetrator gets my hand breezed across the top of his head, and I always manage to drop the finger with the largest ring on it. (Makes for great LFE ringing through a skull).
If I ever stepped in front of the TV, desiring his attention. he’d never dare try to ‘look round’.
Seriously I have to state I rate above the Sony, which I know is high complement from a male!

It´s not high complement Lena and you know it. Nevertheless, go easy with the RING.......OOUUUCH!!!!

I've been doing a bit more reading and it seems that the "we like tubes and we don't measure anything" crowd likes the digital amps but most of them don't really measure well at all in regards to noise and distortion.

Any truth to it?

Charlie

What are you talking about?

http://www.lcaudio.dk/zpwhitepaper.PDF

Seriously, ok, it is as you say, but as you know, in the last 20 years there has been this discussion about measurements vs. experienced sound quality. There are some distorsion that is audible, some that is not and yet some that sound good and so on.
Many audiofiles still play 12 inch vinyl disc on a platter driven by a motor via a rubber cord. The low level signal is then heavily equalised and amplified.
How do you think this measures?

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

Actually, the eAR has crappy frequency response, and if you look at the specs you'll see that. Let's try not to get personal, OK? Did you actually LOOK at the specs? Is frequency response also not important?

I realize harmonic distortion in small doses is even interpreted as sounding good by some wonks, but I'll take mine without, thanks. If I want some harmonic distortion then the amp is a stupid place to get it - I'll build/buy an adjustable source and put it inline. Maybe I can buy a high-end cable to do that for me.....

So we have a relativly expensive amp with frequency response that varies relatively wildly with load, and somehow this is cutting edge? And the compelling benefit is... ?

Sure, measurements aren't everything, but as a STARTING POINT an amp should measure well - blind listening should take it from there. Harmon International for one (Proceed, Mark Levenson, Lexicon, etc) uses blind listening tests, ABX specifically, but they also use test instruments.

As for dismissing these products out of hand, that is far from the truth. I'm impatiently awaiting the time when someone, somewhere delivers on the promise of the digital amp - high output, low heat, low cost, low distorion, etc. but no one seems to be there yet.

The eAR power module (your B&O link) looks well suited to a powered speaker, where the engineering team has control of the load, but it looks like the low pass filter is still causing some grief for the general case. Do you understand the issue? There's no shame in saying no.

Charlie


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 13, 2002).]

I´m not ashamed to admit that I probably don´t understand the issue.
Are you referring to this frequency response? http://www.medicom.bang-olufsen.com/sw1038.asp If not, feel free to point me in the right direction.
If you are, is the " crappyness " because of the fact that the response:
1. - is down 1 dB @ 20kHz or
2. - that it varies with load 0 to -3 dB @ 50kHz or
3. - that it´s down 10 dB @ 200kHz, or is it something else here that I´m missing?
If it happens to be 1., then I truly don´t understand the issue and only your dog could possibly have an opinion about the other two points.

Basicly, yes, while the response driving a resistor is good for a 15 year old CD player or outstanding for a loudspeaker, it's pretty poor compared to competitive products. The vast majority (me for sure) would never notice, and it would be tough (but probably possible) to detect the aberation in an ABX, but why should anyone accept this at all?

So the points are two:

(1) Driving a resistor is easy (as you pointed out) but this amp has problems with it. Will driving a reactive load improve things?

(2) Where is the compelling advantage that would make a person shell out $2000 for this amp?


Charlie

Part of my problem here is why anyone should be bothered with something they couldn´t hear in the first place. On the contrary, A/B class transistor power amps reach their " good measuring " ( low THD ) by being designed with big amounts of feedback, witch in turn create a " dull " sound becase of TIM distortion amongst other things. You could design around it, but to a much higher cost. That´s why a Krell is a Krell and Rotel is, in the end, just a mid - fi Rotel.

(1) This amp has no problems, what so ever, driving any load within it´s designlimits, resistive, capacitive or inductive. This is the point of the concept. If it doesn´t get the power it needs from your wall to do this, it will blow your house fuses in protest. The reason for the variations ( in the ultrasonics ) is the big inductor in the outputstage that protect fex tv sets from the strong ultrasonic noise that all digital amps generate, not the rest of the amp. The dip in the curve is the inductor ( coil ). Driving a complex load doesn´t make it better, but the difference in sound ( and measuring ) to fex a Rotel will be much more obvious with a loudspeakerlike load.

(2) The reason for Azrayan starting this thread was not to make everybody say halleluja for the eARTwo amp ( i hope ). It was for the Outlaws to get their eyes up for this technology. The eARTwo is a niche product for early adopters who want " the best ", but that will not last for long. This is a potential $200 - technology not 10X that. What do you think the eARTwo - guys pay for the modules? $100?...$50?
If interested, anyone can order a $300 ZAPpulse kit from DIY cable.com and get a 200-400-600 W @ 8-4-2 Ohm power amp just by adding ones own trafo, rectifier and caps.



[This message has been edited by AndersP (edited August 13, 2002).]

I pretty much agree with that, except:

(1) 10kHz is not ultrasonic.
(2) I've said all along, nothing is there YET. When this happens there may be a compelling reason to get a digital amp.

Charlie

Today it came to my attention, what is said to be common knowledge in the bizniz, that the ICEpower modules sell for $40......

Is that an evaluation price or a 1000 price? If eval I might try some in a powered speaker....

At that $$$, even with other parts and some markup a decent amp could be very attractive IF someone would sell for a reasonable price. Kinda like DLP - looks OK, a few issues, promise of great quality and low price, but early implementors are wringing the $$$ out of it while they can.

My take on this deal is really pretty simple - they don't out perform or at this time under cut existing technology, so I'm interested, but only casually. But that is, as you point out, tangental to the threads original topic.

Charlie

If someone (Outlaw would be fine) could build an amp based on this or similar technology that met these criteria:

Runs cool
200w x 2, 8 ohms
350w x 2, 4 ohms
500w x 2, 2 ohms

700w x 1, 8 ohms
1000w x 1, 4 ohms

Fits in a 1u chassis
Sells for < $400

I'd be interested, but until then they're outclassed by existing technology.

Charlie


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 14, 2002).]

Charlie,

As Anders points out the sound quality of say Krell vs. Rotel is a BIG diff. yet when they drive typical speakers @ typical volumes their distortion 'specs' would both appear to be basically flawless (as most solid state do).

You seem to like the idea of a digital amp due to it's eff., but I can tell you that by far the most important attribute of my eARTwo amp is that it's sound is drop dead stunning!
An issue you continue to doubt is 'here yet' and not just a 'dream of the future'.

The ICEpower module IS pretty cheap (as are basically all the digital amp modules on the market.

The eAR amps have taken Peter Thomson two years to refine and perfect to the point they're at today, and their specs are first rate and very diff. from the raw ICEpower module.
This is NOT a decent power supply slapped onto a cheap dig. amp chip and then overpriced.
Is it as cheap as it could be? No, but he (like all the high end companies) don't do high volume sales and must price higher to pay for the R&D and low volume production.

He's well known for only using the VERY best parts in the world. In his speakers he was the first to use Scan Speak's 6 1/2" Revelator woofer. Krell was the second -though their speakers are $10K and $20K. Krell uses costly curves aluminum cabinets, but NOT $10-20K costly!
Peter uses conventional MDF but in a braced asymetrical tetrahedron shape for no internal standing waves or vibration (unlike the Krell) and perfect phase allignment (unlike the Krell). Peter also uses and designs his own x-overs from the best of the best parts.

The analog modulated ICEpower module was hand picked by him as the only digital amp that could have the benefit of digital amp's speed and analog amp's benefit of liquidity and purity of signal.
It's unlike all other digital amp modules.

His amps are most certainly in the low end price range of super hi-fi and will compete with any other amp on the market. No solid state or tube amp and been called better by anyone -at least so far.

Dynamics like solid state just can not ever switch fast enough to do.
Liquidity and purity of signal that only the very best of solid state can come close to, but more typically found in tube amps -that have horrible freq. response and poor dynamics, yet some swear by them because of the liquidity of sound.

The eAR250 is 110W x 2 and ~$2,000, and has money back guar. (as do all his amps) so if you really must continue to discount this amp's sound quality based incorrectly on the raw ICEpower specs (which though not spectacular are still the best of all digital amp modules), you need to buy one and compare it to your amp whatever it may be.
From day one (no break in), you'll hear for yourself how it smokes your current amp.

If you love music, you'll thank me for bringing it to your attention. I know I thank those that pointed me to this new amp.

The 'bigger brother' of same design the eARTwo has been called the best amp they ever heard by everyone online who's bought one.
Many people by now, and directly compared to Krell, Levinson, Oddysey (sp?), Pass Labs, BAT, PS Audio, TacT, Bel Canto, Norh, etc...

I swear to you it's stunning the reality this amp breathes.

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm very skeptical of these sort of claims. To illustrate: I've walked into a friends house and thought "it sounds like XXXX has new speakers... Klipsch?' and been right, at least regarding new speakers and sometimes the brand if they are distinctive (like Klipsch).

I've never walked in and thought, "hmmmm, sounds like Tom has a new HK amp".

So I suspect that while they may very well sound different, the difference is (I suspect) subtle. There have been plenty of blind tests that indicated audible differences in amps, but I've never been just blown away by an amplifiers distinctive 'sound'.

The comment regarding amp speed makes no sense to me - either it can reproduce an 18kHz sine wave or not. Or is that not what you mean?

Charlie

Yes, I think we all know you're not only skeptical, but you flat out disbelieve amps make a important difference. And this is based only on spec sheets.

This is often the case when someone hasn't heard a high end amp switched into a system they know very well and heard the difference it can make.
They've just read "most amps sound the same".

If you can afford the eAR250, I highly rec. you hear the diff. for yourself. As I said, you will be stunned. It will have far greater control over your speakers making what comes out those same speakers (whatever you own) sound much more realistic than what you probably hear now.
What do you own now? Do you own the 950 pre/pro?

If Rotel, Outlaw etc...sounded pretty much the same as Krell, Theta, Ayre, Levinson, etc... these hi-end companies would be out of business. They're all making solid state amps with the cheaper brands having plently of power for almost anyone's needs.

If you think everyone who buys these hi-end brands is only getting a tiny, hard to hear improvement then you're just telling yourself a lie to make yourself feel better about not being able to afford one.

Yes Klipsh speakers have a distinctive sound. Their awful freq. response on the high end as the sound waves bounce around the plastic horn before they hit your ear with their high effi. harshness is pretty easy to spot compared to most speakers using metal or cloth domes.
They're the only major brand using horn loaded tweeters so if you know your friend isn't filthy rich it'd probably be an easy guess that the new bright/harsh sound you heard is from Klipsh.

Typically most good high end speakers (of which I would not add Klipsh to that list) are fairly flat freq. response and decent phase allignment, with some better than others (or course).
These differences are typically (on a spec sheet / test report) +/- ~2db.

This range is far greater than the distortion 'specs' of most solid state amps so most people say speakers are by far the most important element in the audio chain because of this.

The problem in that thinking is that the speaker's own 'distortion' is heard as a small tonal difference from speaker to speaker (still talking good high end speakers w/o massive response errors). Not a big deal.

But the distortion that comes from amps, DACs, preamps (not recorded on spec sheets) are what make or break the "life" of the music. That's where the realism is lost. That's what's Not measured on spec sheets.
It's so difficult to put into words, you mostly just need to hear the diff. between a really hi-fi component and a decent mid-fi model.

It's not their 'sound', it's the damage they do or don't do to the delicate signal.

And it makes a HUGE diff. compared to two diff. speakers that tonaly 'sound' a little diff., but are both capable of playing a super realistic output or a dull lifeless one, or a bright harsh one depending on the quality of signal they're sent.

I think you've yet to hear this effect. It's where good solid value/quality mid-fi turns into true hi-fi.

Hook up the Outlaw 1050 to a pair of $20K Revel Salons and the Salons will not sound incredible in any way. Why? The rec's specs have no gross distortion problems at all, and it should have plenty of power to play the Revels for a short time at the very least.

Hook up an Outlaw 950 and 770 amp and it will sound far far better. Odd things like bass you never heard before, details that you never heard before, far more realisim.

Hook up a very high end DAC, passive preamp, and the eARTwo amp and it will floor you with how realistic is sounds. Air, imaging, transients, detail, dynamics/bass 'slam', depth, width of soundstage, smoothness, etc...

Now reverse it... Hook up that very high end front end to a pair of very low priced speakers (like the Onix Rockets for examp.) and you'll STILL be floored by the realism. Probably calling it better than the $20K Revels hooked up to the 950/770.

The speed of an amp is evident in it's transients. I have had several amps in my system and they all spec as pretty much distortion free, yet sound Very different.

Play a track w/ a strong solid kick drum beat. It sounds progressively tighter, clearer, and more realistic on each better amp. They all pretty much played the correct freq. fundamental and harmonics but the worst amp sounds very dull and sluggish compared to the best amp (the eARTwo). Hard to notice the worst of the amps was 'wrong' until you hear the better and hear the obvious diff.

And no double blind A/B tests needed. If it's not blatantly obvious to you (or me) then IMO it doesn't much matter and isn't worth the extra money. A far more costly amp that sounds -"a tiny bit better maybe, but hard to say for sure if that's what I heard?" is totally not worth it at all IMO.

The diff. the eARTwo was NOT subtle. I would have sent it back if it was. I don't have $2.5K to throw away on a tiny improvement (at the time I bought it -it's now $3.5K and $4K on Sept. 1st). I thought the 950 might hold the eARTwo back from being much diff. from my previous amp, but it didn't. The eARTwo allowed the 950 to shine through showing just how much damage my previous amp was doing to the signal.

People who say the 950's a little bright a little harsh and probably hearing their solid state amp adding these elements to the signal. The 950's not bright or harsh.
It's not the very best DAC/preamp there is, but it's Very Good connected to the eARTwo amp and my Newform Research speakers (-/+2db flat top to bottom -/+1db from 800Hz-14KHz and very good phase).

Dynamics are when between two amps one sounds more compressed volume-wise than the other. They're again both playing spec-wise almost distortion free, yet when a loud sound plays one amp sounds like it's not playing as dynamically. Like how the FM radio is dynamically compressed yet the whole signal is present. Play a CD of the same sound and the louds sound louder. Having nothing to do w/ CD sounding better than radio.

Try the eAR250 amp (~$1990) or the PS Audio HCA-2 (~$1690) if you want to hear what the best in digital amps can do. I'm still waiting to hear the HCA-2 in my own system, but since the eAR amp was called far better by two diff. guys in direct / detailed comp. I decided to go that route and have been floored by it.

I still want Outlaw to look into making digital amps, but none of these high end amps are just power supplies slapped onto a cheap amp chip. Not even close.
I do think Outlaw could hit a lower price point than these amps easy. I'm not sure they could make them sound as good?
There seems to be a very high learning curve even for engineers who design high end solid state or tube amps.

My Audiosource AMP7 uses the Tripath amp module and was a very cheap price. It's great in some ways, but poor in others.
I haven't heard the Bel Canto eVo in my system, but from the tons of reviews on it, it's a very high qualtiy amp (though beaten by both the PS Audio and Acoustic Reality digital amps).
The Bel Canto also uses the Tripath amp module, but in a totally custom, super clean board. The inside is almost totally empty -just small amp boeard and large power supply (unlike the messy guts of my AMP7).
I have little doubt that the two sound very different. A good example of how you can't just slap a digital amp together and get gold.

Well, I've had or listened to quite a few amps. That's one curious thing about high-end, no seven people seem to agree on what is and isn't.

I've personally owned stuff by the David Hafler Company (when they were around), Sony, Pioneer, Carver, Adcom, Outlaw, others and never heard any difference (except in output volume) between any of them. Based on that, either they all somehow managed to create the exact same 'mid-fi' sound through some massive amplifier conspiracy or amps pretty much take a little signal and make it bigger.

Controlling the driver is a reach. An amp applies voltage and supplies a current source. The internal resistance of that source is where the so called damping factor comes from, although most amp companies muff it when they list that 'spec'. Interestingly, a sound reinforcement company (QSC) is the only one I've noticed lately that actually remembers the part where they must specify the load for it to mean anything.

The Klipsch sound is partly from the horn, but the horn is an impedence matching device, not an echo chamber. I don't like them, either.

As for high end companies existence proving something, it does, but nothing one can hear. I like Mercedes Benz, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking it's better transportation than a Toyota. People (including me) spend tons of money on useless stuff because we want to. And I do appreciate the build quality and looks of expensive things, including the Mercedes and the Krell.

Now I admit, it's been a while since I went seriously listening to high end stuff, mostly because of my almost uniform disappointment in the past, so maybe I should venture out to see what massive improvements have been discovered in the last 15 years. Once our beta test is concluded and the pressure is relieved perhaps I'll do that.

Are you aware of any dealers in the Portland, Oregon area that you would consider high end dealers?

Charlie

I guess I'd also have to get you to define high end. There is a local ML, B&K, Anthem, DefTech etc. dealer - is that high end to you?


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 16, 2002).]

"Well, I've had or listened to quite a few amps. That's one curious thing about high-end, no seven people seem to agree on what is and isn't."

I understand your point, but you can see more than 7 people on HDforum who think the eARTwo is the best amp they've ever heard in their systems -for whatever that's worth to you. Apparently nothing, since you refuse to even consider the possibility that this amp's that good.

"I've personally owned stuff by the David Hafler Company (when they were around), Sony, Pioneer, Carver, Adcom, Outlaw, others and never heard any difference (except in output volume) between any of them. Based on that, either they all somehow managed to create the exact same 'mid-fi' sound through some massive amplifier conspiracy or amps pretty much take a little signal and make it bigger."

Or you don't realize that they're all of very similar solid state designs that will output similar very clean, yet fairly cold lifeless sound.
Or maybe you're deaf?

What processor and speakers do you use (to ask you again)?

Sony and Pioneer are certainly Not known for making hi-end amps. I don't think I've ever seen a Pioneer amp? The only Sony amp I recently saw was a picture of an ES model sold only in the Asian market. Their ES line is solid mid-fi (middle of the road), but not high end.

Hafler, Carver... it depends, but certainly not high end.
Hafler's known for big power amps for pro audio like live concerts. This isn't refined sound, it's just lots of power. My brother in law has a Hafler amp, and Hafler is based here in Az.

Bob Carver is a certainly creative, but his latest company Sunfire is where his most recent amp design are found. He developed a type of switching power supply so his amps have a ton of power, but run cool. They're conventional solid state otherwise, and I think they're colored in sound.

No exp. with his older amps under the Carver name, but I suspect they're not better just based on them being older designs from the same designer.

Adcom and Outlaw are very solid brands (as is Rotel), but nobody's calling their amps high end.
Not to insult Outlaw -the best value of the bunch.

Stan Warren I think is in Oregon. He's the former 'S' in PS Audio and his Supermods biz is one of the best deals in audio today.
I know he's modded Adcom amps in the past to great results in the words of the several owners. Look him up, and read about what he does to change a mid-fi amp into something much better.

I looking into seeing if he'll mod my 950's output, but I'm waiting till after the hiss fix to look into it.

I'd have to know what you're using for a processor/speakers to say more, but even without knowing that, you have yet to listen to hi-end amps (and probably processors, and probably speakers). You clearly haven't heard anything beyond mid-fi amps that do pretty much sound about the same. Though NOT exactly the same as you say.

"Controlling the driver is a reach."

Re-read my explanation of 'speed' of an amp and you'll see what I mean by a better amp controlling the drivers better than another. The amp IS controling the drivers.
How they do this and how they perfrom is a complicated matter of power supply, feedback (often slowing the amp down a great deal in mid-fi designs), etc...

You've clearly yet to hear this diff. in the gear you've heard so you probably just won't understand me until you do hear the diff. -if ever.

Listen to any tube amp to hear what a totally diff. type of design can do for your sound. I'm not a fan of tube amps, but if it's got a good solid few watts of power, then at moderate volumes and decent eff. speakers you'll hear pretty much distortion free sound from a tube amp and you'll hear how much clearer the sound is.

Tube amps typically have poor control of the bass low end when pushed too far (usually easy to do), and often rolled off highs, so I wouldn't rec. Outlaw make one or anyone buy one.

"The Klipsch sound is partly from the horn, but the horn is an impedence matching device, not an echo chamber. I don't like them, either."

Oh man. This is pointless. I'm trying to help you, but there seems to be no hope of that.

"As for high end companies existence proving something, it does, but nothing one can hear."

Charlie, the brands you've listed you've heard are all low end to decent solid mid-fi performance.

Don't say you hi end brands don't perform better when you've never heard them. And if you do hear them and still say this, then you're just deaf, and you'll gain no benefit from a higher end amp that would otherwise (had you not been deaf) taken you much much closer to reality.

"Now I admit, it's been a while since I went seriously listening to high end stuff, mostly because of my almost uniform disappointment in the past, so maybe I should venture out to see what massive improvements have been discovered in the last 15 years."

Yes! Things have changed in the past 15 years Charlie! Try something in your own home in your own system. Hearing a hi-fi shop system -diff. processor, diff speakers in a diff room that you own hooked up to a certain amp will NOT tell you how the amp itself effects the sound.

You need to try it in your own system where it's the only variable. The same goes for any other components you'd want to try.

I've heard a system of Revel Speakers hooked up to Mark Levinson electronics sound like total garbage. AND I've heard the exact same system sound like one of the best systems I've ever heard. The only diff. was the shop changed locations and the new room the system was in was horrible.
Had I not heard it sound incredible before, I may have gone away thinking Revel or Levinson (or both) were overprices and overated. Now I just think they're overpriced.

"Once our beta test is concluded and the pressure is relieved perhaps I'll do that."

What beta test?

"Are you aware of any dealers in the Portland, Oregon area that you would consider high end dealers?"

I'm in Az Charlie. You might've guess that from my handle? Look in the phone book for hi-fi shops and ask 'em what brands they carry.

"I guess I'd also have to get you to define high end. There is a local ML, B&K, Anthem, DefTech etc. dealer - is that high end to you?"

No, not really. Sort of a mid-fi to entry level hi-end at best. That sounds like an Ultimate Electronics or that type of store. A solid step up from B. Buy/ C. City, but not the best of the best gear.

I won't pretend like there's an exact defi. of what's low, mid, or hi end, but it comes down to the exact product in any case, and NOT price dependant, but that is often a good clue.

ML you say? Is that Mark Levinson or Martin Logan? I'll guess Martin Logan based on the other brands you listed (another good clue as to how high end a store in general is).

Levinson is very much high end, all their products.

Martin Logan is often called high end, but they really have very poor freq. response on the high end. There's more accurate speakers w/ the same speed and openess as Martin Logan, and for much cheaper. My Newform Research speakers for exam., and for the same price as the lowest end of Martin Logans they're faaaaar better.

B&K is a very solid brand. Not really high end, but very good overall. I'd call Outlaw the same yet far cheaper, so it gets my nod in that range.

At first I thought you wrote B&W. I see you didn't but they're a good example too.
Their best speakers are some of the best speakers in the world, but they make diff. lines of speakers w/ diff. cabinets, x-overs, drivers, etc...
Their bottom of their line is not even close to thier top. All their speakers are very good though (at worst), but in the lower end better deals can be had from brands like Axiom, Swans, Onix etc. online.

Anthem's along the lines of B&K, Outlaw, Rotel etc... some products better than others, not HUGE diff. in sound quality, and close-ish prices etc.. (with Outlaw being the best deal IMO).

Def. Tech's?
I hate Def. Techs. They're just lousy IMO.
Not as bad as what I'd call low-fi, but they're popular because of massive advertising, and support from mid fi mags like Sound & Vision. They're the mid-fi version of Bose (Bose owning the low-fi Best Buy electronic masses).

Bipole speakers are just a bad design IMO, and their sound is nothing special. The powered subs in the mains are pointless. Much better 'true sub' response from an actual subwoofer like SVS or Hsu. Mate that to a pair of bookshelf Def. Techs and you'll trounce their top o' the line for less money.
But for the price there's much better anyway, so I wouldn't even rec. Def. Tech's bookshelf models.

IMO, skip brick and motar stores/products in most cases. The best performance/prices are from online only outfits (like Outlaw) now-a-days (if you know where to look, but you should 'cuz there's tons of people like me online directing others to these better deals on better performing products -that's how you found out about Outlaw I'll bet).

Order the eAR250 and listen to it. If your processor and speakers don't suck (I don't know what you own), you'll hear a BIG diff. I can't say this anymore clearly.
And I say this knowing that you just told me you didn't hear ANY diff. in all the previous amps you've heard.

Try it for yourself if you really want to get into high end. Send it back if you can't hear any diff. This won't happen though, and you'll want to upgrade your other electronics, because the eAR250 will be the strongest link in your chain hands down.

If you don't hear a diff., stick with Outlaw electronics, the best performance for the price, and get the Onix Rocket speakers if you need new speakers.
This is certainly nothing but a great combo, but don't fool yourself that much better doesn't exist.

I call something high end if it's really elite in some way. Some type of engineering that's a step up from typical. This usually costs more but it IS actually better sounding.

Krell, Theta, Ayre, Pass Labs for solid state amps. Very careful use of feedback so the amp doesn't kill the life of the music. You've never heard an amp that doesn't I suspect -by your list of so-so amps you've heard.
Heavily biased into class A, no global feedback, balanced inputs. The 'hi-fi' details that the lower end doesn't often bother with.

I'd write forever if I addressed every single type of product (DAC's, transports, speakers, etc..), so I'll stick with amps since that's the point of the thread.

And I've already said more than once my feeling on the subject.

I'm not sure if Outlaw will ever look to really enter the high end, but I suspect they aren't looking to any time soon. Their high end pre/pro (same for a univ. disc player) will not come out for a long time because they're waiting on all the digital input mess and format wars to get worked out before they go forward. Makes sense.

And they don't seem interested at all in the high end digital amp 'wave of the future' (which started in ~1998) and is best probably exemplified by the eAR amps.

Um...

I do have a tube amp, and I don't like the way it sounds. Looks cool though. Didn't list it since I didn't like it. I don't hate it, but it's a lot of trouble for a nifty nightlight.

My old Hafler stuff wasn't sound reinforcement. I understood they closed their doors some time ago, so I suspect either they bailed from the hifi side or someone infused cash and brought them into the other sound reinforcement market.

I appreciate your sincerity.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 17, 2002).]

OK -

After careful consideration I'll accept the hypothesis that I've simply not tested a high-end enough amp to hear the distinctive and obvious difference in sound. So I guess, once some other things are done I should do that. Obviously I will need to wait until I can devote a couple days at least to be fair and thorough.

Also, I will need to know what amp I should test, although I assume the eAR has your nod

And I will need to know what sort of issues pop out of typical solid state amps that are solved by high-end designs. Touchy feely stuff like liquid sounds and punchy whatever won't work. In particular I will need to know exactly what sort of test signal(s) will produce the expected problems in my baseline amps and what I can expect to see in measured results - for example what sort of signal will result in which sort of distortion. Distortion IS what we're talking about, in the broad sense. Also what sort of test load should be used to observe these improvements. Any other apparatus notes will be appreciated.

Thanks!


Charlie (upgrading test bench as we speak!)

Here's the test to do...
(just as I wrote in my last post)

Order the eAR250 and listen to it. If your processor and speakers don't suck (I don't know what you own), you'll hear a BIG diff. I can't say this anymore clearly.

You're too hung up on specs and tests. The problem is that we just can't do all tests that relate to sound quality. The test don't exist.
And the specs you read are simple generalizations.

Like I said.. most low-ish end solid state amps test damn near perfect in typical use, yet they don't sound nearly as good as a great high end model.

The good news (if you'll actually listen to what I've been saying) is that the real TEST is HOW IT SOUNDS to your ears. There is no better test than that.

You have yet to say what equipt. you own though I've asked a few times, so maybe you have very low end stuff that will not send a very high quality amp a good enough signal to let that high end amp really shine like it could otherwise.

Let me remove a lot of variables so it's VERY EASY to understand...
If you have the Outlaw 950 prepro and decent speakers that measure fairly flat and you have either the eAR250 (my preference)or PS Audio HCA-2 (since the thread's about spotlighting what the best in modern digital amps can do)and compare them to a typical modestly priced solid state amp you should hear a BIG difference.
If you don't, then at least you'll know that you'll never have to care about hi end sound because you're in capable of hearing it.

I really doubt that's true though.

If you want to try high end solid state amps then you should try the brands that I already said more than once -Ayre, Theta, Krell, Pass Labs.

My point about the tube amps is that not all amps sound the same, and tubes vs. solid state even in general easily makes this point. You didn't say what tube amp you have, but sounds like you think it sounds bad. At least I know that you've heard an amp that sounds different to all the other amps you've heard.
There are certainly many great sounding tube models out there, though I'd never buy one for the typical negatives of tube designs.

What speakers and front end do you use now???(processor/preamp/dac/cd player/transport, amps).

For purposes of evaluation I would be using a CompuScope and an arbitrary waveform generator, along with whatever test load was deemed most likely to introduce the mid-fi artifacts that high end designs correct.

I'm expecting that whatever long hard hours of R&D the high end guys put into their designs were not done without specific goals, and thus what I need to know is how to recreate the defects they have labored to correct.

I don't expect them to show up in a conventional THD or frequency response test as mid-fi designs also do well there, but rather on more difficult to reproduce tests, such as for example bursts or complex waveforms. Whatever the case, I've been looking for an excuse to upgrade my test bench and this could be it! I'm pumped!

So I just need to know specifically what to send in and what to expect out, defect and improvement wise. Even if it requires a music signal, a wave gen can certainly do that, although I really would then need a good explaination of how the amp knows it's 'doing music'.

You got me ready to go the extra mile - don't peter out now!

Charlie

My old 'music' system had a DH-110 preamp and over the years a series of different amps and other associated bits and parts. The amps included an Old Colony (or one of the companies that run ads there - it's been too long) mod'ed Dynaco ST70, a DH120, the Carver m1.5t and a few more.

That is all still in storage (except the Carver) as my new house has a 6.1 system in it. I was hoping to get a 950, but with the issues and delays that are popping up I may go with a Motorola based system like the Sunfire or Ref30.

At this moment I'm using a 1050 until I make a choice. I'll also be auditioning an Anthem AVM20 soon, but the Cirrus stuff just seems to have a lot of issues.

The speakers are a DIY set using primarily Audax parts, including their aerogel midrange drivers.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 19, 2002).]

Charlie,
I believe your goal is pointless.

Do all the testing you like. It's a total waste of time. You act like you want to get very technical about finding out exactly what the output differences are in high end digital amps compared to middle of the road solid state.

1) Clearly the tests that would need to be done to determine exactly how and in what way a higher end amp sounds better than a lower quality amp don't exist.

2) Despite your seemingly technichal leanings, you miss the most obvious point.... The point I've stated over and over again in one way or another...

You don't listen to bench tests.

You listen to specific cd players preamps, dacs, etc... and the only real POINT of a high end piece of electronics is to sound better to your ears.

The test is -Step One... GET one of these digital amps. You'll need to do this to do any of your silly ancillary bench tests anyway.
You've yet to do step one, so don't tell anyone 'not to peter out on you'. That's just goofy.

Step Two - Replace your 1050 with a preamp. You mentioned a few you have. I'm not familar with their model numbers to make any comment on their transparency, but it should be better than using the rec. as a preamp/dac.

Then get a good CD player or DAC/transport combo, and since you didn't really describe what your DIY speakers are, I don't know if you'll need a sub or not.

You didn't say if you speakers are a 3-way w/ a dedicated bass woofer or if they're a 2-way design or what?
Just taking a guess that they're an M-T-M design w/ dual 6 1/2" aerogel woofers? If so you'd need a sub for true flat 20-20kHz output.

BTW -have you ever used one of your solid state amps w/ the pre/outs in the 1050?
You should probably get at least some improvement in you main speaker's sound quality by doing just that.
If you can't hear any diff. I think you might have a problem with your ears.

Enough is enough now Charlie. Any more talk here is pointless!

Go get an amp if your want to hear the diff. -or don't if you don't want to.
But you'll get no more 'handholding' from me trying to explain to you the most basic elements of an audio system or the POINT of listening to more realistic music for music's sake.

Perhaps you just should go listen to a lovely sine wave at your bench system, pretend you can't get better sound reproduction than that, and grin your life away.

Well, there's no need to be mean about it.

I'm sincerely interested in this, but I've already proven to myself how unreliable my ears can be. Without going into the painful details I accidentally performed a blind(ish) test on myself and pretty much impressed the power of expectation upon myself. So to be sure I need proof. I know I can't trust my ears in sighted listening and I can't run a good DBT (time, patience, etc) so what I need are measurements.

Any audible improvement is measurable. The trick is knowing what to measure. I want to know what I should measure, what the high end guys have fixed.

I'm interested enough to spend considerable $$$ on test equipment ($1000-$6000) but I'm not going in without specific goals. Without goals nothing gets done.

If no one knows what's been fixed I'll really get suspicious, as I know how engineering works and there are always measureable goals. If not, it's not engineering.

The only options at that point will be to give up until I am able to do a proper DBT or someone else does the same. The problem with any listening test, even a DTB or ABX is that they don't generally show much except presence or absence of difference or preference. Then we have to sort out why.

Does that make sense to you?

PS -

My DIY are MTTM with 5.25 aerogels and a subwoofer dedicated to each channel.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 20, 2002).]

"Well, there's no need to be mean about it."

Ok. Sorry. I don't mean to be flat out rude to you, but I am ticked off that you continue to not catch my points though I repeat them over and over again.

"I'm sincerely interested in this, but I've already proven to myself how unreliable my ears can be.-"

Forget about hi-end audio if your ears don't work right. I'm betting you just haven't heard the right equip. though, but maybe you do have bad ears. I don't know.
No point in wasting money on audio then. Find a new hobby, or concentrate on the video end of your HT.

"-Without going into the painful details I accidentally performed a blind(ish) test on myself and pretty much impressed the power of expectation upon myself.-"

Lemme guess.. you thought you hooked up something new, but the old thing was still hooked up and you 'thought' you heard a diff.?

"-So to be sure I need proof. I know I can't trust my ears in sighted listening and I can't run a good DBT (time, patience, etc) so what I need are measurements."

NO, you DON'T need measurments. You need to HEAR an amp make an improvement or not make one -and NOT in a blind test, and if you don't hear a diff. then you don't hear it end of story.
What you hear is the ONLY goal.

I can't believe you just can't grasp this simple point!? And I'm sorry that I sound so rude again, but damn... it's just so simple, and you just don't get it.

If you tricked yourself into hearing a diff. when nothing in your system changed, I'm sure the diff. you thought you heard was subtle at best. I'm guessing after this 'event' you don't trust you ears anymore. This is not the right attitude unless you have actual hearing damage.

"Get back on the horse" so to speak.

As I said, this eAR amp in NOT a subtle diff. And for it's price it shouldn't be. If it's not 'slap you in the face' obviously better than your previous amp then I'd say it's not worth it's high price compared to so-so sounding, value priced solid state amps.

Say two amps sound the same to you, yet one measures WAAAAY better. SO WHAT!?? Why would you even care???? You'd be a fool to spend far more money on the better measuring high end amp if it didn't sound any diff. to you.

"Any audible improvement is measurable. The trick is knowing what to measure."

Yes... in theory. As I and others have said already the limited 'spec sheets' don't tell all.
Remember my point (I've already made here) stating that there's probably some elements of the audio that just aren't measurable by any lab equip. yet clearly exist when you hear them.

This is all irrelevant though for the above stated reason.

You can't test/measure every element of the human brain as a processor, memory storage system, etc..., but we know that it has incredible performance 'specs' none-the-less, and I'd rather be wired to the one in my noggin over any motherboard/hard-drive on the market.

I can explain why in general terms, but I can't give you the exact 'specs' why though.

"I want to know what I should measure, what the high end guys have fixed."

Pointless.

Such testing is of no use to you in 'listening to music or your home theater'. It's helpful if you're actually designing an amp, but you aren't.

"I'm interested enough to spend considerable $$$ on test equipment ($1000-$6000) but I'm not going in without specific goals. Without goals nothing gets done."

Yes. And you have no goals, and that's why you're doing nothing. You're in this goofy 'Catch 22' with yourself that will prevent you from doing anything. It's very very sad.

You'll spend lots of money on lab equpitment to do tests that don't exist, once someone tells you what they are.

Amazing logic.

Yet you won't spend this money on the amp I've mentioned that's far better than the solid state amps you've heard. It's returnable if you don't find it to sound better.
The risk is almost nothing -esp. compared to buying lab equip. that will do nothing audio-wise other than drain your future audio budget.

I REALLY find it hard to believe that you're all fired up to spend thousands on lab equip. (once someone tells you what to measure), but you're totally unwilling to spend the same amount on the refundable amp that the lab equip. would be meant to test!

Speaking of measurements, azryan, what's the spec's look like on your eAR amp?

Azryan (and others) might find this link interesting: charlie's speakers (including his in-wall subs).

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

DROOL!!!!
Nice work Charlie, looks great!

Holy cow!!

Very slick looking that's for sure, but those speakers (esp. the mains) are Tremendously far apart. What is that like 20' apart by the looks of it??

That center speaker is the misused 'gap filler' I spoke about near the end of the 'infamous' SPL meter thread when Matthew asked me about my 'phantom center'.

In-wall speakers regardless of distance have thier own inherent flaws being coupled to the walls and having massive baffle problems, and or course no chance to reposition them for anywhere near optimal use (which they ain't at now).

I wouldn't worry about a digital amp Charlie, and I understand now why most amps sound the same to you.
If you're so interested in (hung up on IMO) measurements, you might wanna measure the freq. response of those speakers for a eye-opener.
Soundstage depth, imaging, solid surroundfield. None of which are possible here.

Crap, I hate to sound so rude again, but wow, for someone talking hi-fi amps and thousands of $$$'s in measurement equip. to not know this stuff is pretty wild.

The room does look very very nice though Charlie. And you certainly don't have any speakers in anybody's way. I guess that could be a plus?

I ment the 'peter out' comment as a joke, but I'd just used a and didn't want to come off as a grinning idiot. A straight faced idiot, OK, fine

There are obvious early reflection and diffraction issues I need to deal with ASAP, but I really intended this to be more of a HT than a music system. I also had to work within tight space and WAF constraints. For HT it works pretty well. Preliminary measurements indicate pretty good response - I'm waiting on delivery of better test equipment to get better measurements, but remember - I can tune the crossover to fix quite a lot as this is totally custom work.

I want to build a set of Dynaudio (got the parts) speakers for music and locate that system elsewhere. After that I'm thinking about a pair of Bohlender Graebner based monopole ribbons.

Or, if things continue I may be relocated and get to do Charlie's HT v2.0....

No x-over adjustments will fix the drastically too far apart distance of your mains. For future ref. in a v2.0 HT design I'd work on altering that.

You said the freq. response is pretty good? Is this from 1 meter maybe? I'm betting 'yes'.
You should measure at where you sit to get the real response you're hearing. No way the left and right mains are the same much less either being flat.

That left speakers esp. being right exactly in the very corner of the room is a pretty big flaw -even more so with the right speaker being far from a side wall. Both aiming directly forward.

If you could place some filler in those built in wall shelf sections where you elec. and RP are that should help too since there's probably a lot of sound bouncing around in there. I've heard the effect of those 'nooks' in several rooms -always messy.

I hope when you work with the Dynaudio drivers (very good drivers BTW) you build cabinets that can be placed far from the walls. In-walls aren't high end.
It's hard enough to distance the room effects from speakers, but impossible when you actually couple the speakers to the walls themselves.

The B-G ribbons have a poor high end, but otherwise very highly regarded.
In themselves they're dipoles not monopoles though.

Some companies that use them in cabinets making them monopoles and also add small spiral ribbon tweeters to the take over the very high range. Genesis is one I think. Most use them in their open dipole state.

I have Newfrom Research and thier 45" ribbon (actually three 15" ribbons in one solid heavy steel case) is actually a monopole design (a 'must' IMO), flat +/-1db from it's 1000Hz x-over to ~16,000Hz, and only down another 1db at ~20Khz (slow smooth roll off beyond that).

To have near perfect response in this ribbon, they can't play as low as the B-G's, but they're mated to dual Scan Speak 8545's carbonfiber/pulp cones. These are one of the best drivers in the world, and blend seamlessly (once broken in) to the ribbons.
See their use in the $10K range Wilson WATT, ProAc, Nova, Vienna Acoustics, etc...
Flat down to ~30Hz (due to one of the lowest res. freq. of any 6 1/2" driver).
Only a ~30 degree phase shift through the x-over too.

You can buy the ribbons alone from Newform and the drivers from Parts Express, but the Newform 'kits' are about the same price and you'll get everything at once.
There's better x-over designs than Newform uses though available online (Yahoo forum).

If you still wanted in-walls you could mount the ribbons to the edge of the TV notch corners, and mount the woofers in the wall area next to them. That would be a much better distance (~6-8' tops for the best imaging in pretty much all speakers), but I highly rec. you use an actual in room design and put up some wall treatments.

In that white room you could have some long white heavy curtians with a layer of very light translucent cloth (very pretty for high SAP factor -heh) at the first reflections points which would work great to dampen echoes and not look like a geeky 'audio tweak'.

Throw a blanket over your RP when you listen to music too. Big help in getting rid of that big plastic audio reflector that an RP screen is.

I have a nice looking one that's set w/ weights on top of my RP so I can just flip in up or down whenever I need to.

Good luck

My understanding of the high frequency rolloff on the BGs was that it was due to the line source being mic'd at such a close distance - that frequency response farther away (depending on the length of the ribbon) would exhibit better response. Is this a flawed understanding?

They make a driver (D22??) with a 1" dome tweeter that has no minimum listening distance.

Apparently Charlie is an engineer, and from my experience engineers are a little different from the rest of us (no offense, Charlie). They literally want to measure everything and leave out anything that is not measurable. That is just the way they are, and the way they have been trained.

That has its advantages, of course, and without engineers we would have no audio toys to play with, except maybe a toy drum! But engineers characteristically have problems seeing shades of gray, or making subjective judgements - because they can't measure it, I guess.

I personally prefer to be rational as much as possible, and I consider myself an objectivist in the audio arena. But, and here it comes, I definitely hear audible differences between amplifiers. My speakers are unusually accurate (Digital Phase) and as a result I may hear subleties missed by some, and my hearing checked out as "good for a man your age" a couple years ago (I am 57).

Anyway, here are some of the amps I have auditioned in my system (preamp is the Citation 7.0):

H/K PA5800 (still using in a backup capacity)

Carver 705X (dull sounding)

Citation 7.1 (hurt my ears so bad I had to go to an audio specialist - I'm not kidding, that is when I was tested).

H/K Signature 2.1/1.5 (these sound the same - nice for their price but lacking enough that I did not want to keep)

Bryston 4BST (so well considered by all I had to try it and it sounds very neutral and detailed, but had a bit of an edge and lacked something musical. After about 15 minutes I didn't want to listen anymore)

Chiro C-500 (when Kinergetics went under I got this new and cheap and for several months it was in my system and sounded great. Very smooth, with good detail and plenty of dynamics. Makes everything sound god, but prone to a little hum and I have traded it)

Marsh A200S (wanted to try this after reading such good reviews, and it does sound good - very detailed, almost bright but not quite, a little lacking in the bass. I would have kept it except for the next amp)

Innersound ESL (this is the one that I love; the best I have heard to date. It is neutral as the Bryston and almost as detailed but with none of the edginess - just smooth and extremely dynamic. Puts out 300w/8ohms, 600w/4 ohms and 1200w/2 ohms. Also very very quiet, and designed to power electrostatic speakers (ESL makes those also). Now here is the kicker - it idles at 3 (yes three) watts! It runs very very cool and I leave it on all the time - there is no switch on the front. It is not digital, and even though I read their white paper I still don't quite understand how they get this much clean power out of a 42 lb amp. It is also beautiful to boot. Regular price is $3,000 but I was lucky to get a return unit (guy wanted the older model with a switch in front) for much less with full warranty. The amp is sourced by Coda Technologies, one of the top audio manufacturers and build quality is high end all the way. Anyone interested can go to innersound.net for the info. They also make a multichannel model with slightly lower power ratings. Oh, yes, they also make 1,000 watt (@ 8 ohms) monoblocks if you need that much power.

dsmith901



[This message has been edited by dsmith901 (edited September 19, 2002).]

I accidentally quoted azryan and could not delete the post. Please forgive me Azryan

Hey pal, back off on the engineer thing, I'm one too! I want to measure as much as I can becasue I want things to be right. Like Charlie, I don't completely trust my ears to get right. My tastes change from day to day too. There's just something about having a number to verify everything that alleviates this feeling though.

I looked at the pictures gonk provided and nice setup Charlie! I don't see myself doing something quite like that, but it sure is cool to see. I don't see a hometheater system of mine getting that powerful or blended in so much, but I do see it with my car. Drop a couple 12 or 15" subs into a well made vented box with 1000+ Watts and there you go.

I am an electronics engneer and an audiophile.

I want equipment that sounds good AND measures good. There is enough excellent equipment out there so I usually can have both. The sound requirement is paramount. The only engineers that expect measurements (of a piece of equipment) to COMPLETELY characterize a piece of equipment are those who do not understand the nature of music reproduction and the limitations of measurements.

Paul

I agree with you Paul. I chose my speakers because they sound very good. I want the measurements to help them sound the best they can, and how they are supposed to.

Well as others have pointed out it's not without issues, but within the constraints I have it works pretty well. I'm working to fix some of the more obvious and easily compensatable issues as soon as I can spend the time and $$$. I'll try to keep the link up to date as long as Gonk will put up with me. I expect to get good improvements with some aggressive acoustic treatments and crossover tweaks.

Thanks for the kind words!

Charlie

I agree wholeheartedly. The obvious extension of that logic is that I won't tolerate moving to a measurably worse piece of equipment just because someone says it sounds 'better'. If it measures roughly as well then I'll give it a look, listen and think about it.

Digital amps in their current state [AFIAK] still have some serious issues with difficult loads, as well as other less important issues. Once that gets sorted out the concept has obvious benefits that can be realized.

There's always going to be someone blazing the trail, and often they end up face down with a back full of arrows. I prefer to follow at a safe distance....

I'm in the process of verifing the measurement results on my HT as well, so once that is done I'll post results/link.

Acoustic Reality has a PDF file up now of a hi-fi mag review of their amp.

There are even performance data charts shown for those who think charts matter more than what it sounds like. Not that these people will probably ever actually TRY one of these amps to hear for themselves, yet they like to keep posting about the subject??

Anyway.. the -this is best amp ever made- review speaks for itself.

Again... sorry Outlaw to mention another company's amp, but the amp does costs WAY more than Outlaw's amps so it's no direct comp. IMO, and I originally posted about it here to prod Outlaw into looking into using these dig. amp chips themselves.
Hopefully it's at least on a short list of things they're looking into.

The ICEpower's exclusive modulation method (used in my eARTwo amp) seems to be the best chip to work from.

Jeff Rowland amps are actually going to be using this chip now soon (a major mainstream hi-end company).
Of course they are going to be even more costly than the eAR amps and doubtful they'll be any better as the eAR amps already use the best of the best parts, but it does help show there's certainly something to this chip as Rowland has been making world class amps for a long time.

Outlaw... please look into replacing your solid state amps for ICEpower based models in the future.

Smaller, cool running, much smaller/cheaper power supply watt for watt, and far cleaner more accurate output signal. Probably the closest thing to the purest amplifier goal - "Signal gain plus wire".

AzRyan:

Maybe it's a breakthrough, but I notice the graph that's most common and would be most telling is omitted. Putting it simply, the output filter that all class D audio amps must have will typically cause them to have frequency response problems on difficult loads. This could be overcome if the load is known or complementary EQ is applied, but ironically the customers of so called hi-end products would likely be the most opposed to the concept of equalization.

It could also be avoided if the carrier frequency is much higher than the signal. Industrial drives use this to practical advantage in using a (typically) 5 or 10 KHz carrier with a 10-100 Hz signal while driving an inductive load.

The published graphs for frequency response on the ICE modules clearly show that this has not changed. Acoustic Reality asserts they've got it licked, but I don't see anywhere a response graph for 8/4/2 and maybe 1 ohm loads. I wonder why that is?

Now a ribbon setup like yours might be an ideal situation for a amp like this, but I find it humorous that, after pointing out for years how badly 'cheap' amps perform on difficult loads the new hi-end darling apparently exhibits the same Achilles heel.

Also an amp like this will put out about the same amount of musical power as a good 125 watt linear amp. This is because, by design, a class D amp has basically zero dynamic headroom. In theory it's no matter, since a class D amp can be so efficient and small, but the eAR is not really a super powered amp, particularly when the lack of headroom is factored in. It's not unusual for a 100-125 watt linear amp to have a dynamic output somewhere near 175 watts.

With the Newform R645s the eAR should clip somewhere around 113 db instantaneous peaks at 1 meter, or plenty loud but not outstanding. The R630s would be inducing clipping about 3 db lower.

This is OK if the room is pretty small, one listens at below reference or you can tolerate short periods of clipping, but I'd rather not. This is, for me, a very narrow margin.

I want to be very clear here - I want to like this technology. I think it has legs. I also understand electricity and I can extrapolate from that knowledge that there are potential problems. The switching module used in the eAR exhibits those problems. Acoustic Reality says it's fixed in their implementation, but have not released any engineering or test documents to prove it. This makes me suspicious.

Have a good one.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited December 13, 2002).]

Man, I would love to be a fly on the wall with you two in the same room!

Charlie, I usually agree with your technical approach as I tend to think that way myself.

However, to play Devil's Advocate, I also agree that sometimes simply hearing (or seeing )seeing something perform you can sometimes find something unexpected. A perfect example of this is the good old Outlaw 1050. Its performance is routinely observed as outdoing its specs on paper. Whether it's truly outperfoming its stated parameters is not really relevant. What is important is that its perceived performance is (typically) grander than what one is led to believe simply by reading the numbers.

Anyway, as always, I enjoy reading your guys' posts. Since you both seem to come at things from different perspectives, a pretty balanced discussion (including both technical and practical) usually ensues and a lot of good information is disclosed. It gives others of us something to ponder and investigate further on our own, if we're so inclined.

Keep it up, guys!

Yeah, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye....

I hope neither one of you are getting the
Red Ryder BB Gun for Christmas.

You mean the one with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time?

Owls:

Always fun to play devils advocate. Let's take the 1050 for example. In independent tests it has been shown to outperform its specs, plus the method used to generate the specs is much more conservative than some of the competition. Result? Better than expected performance. I agree that 'just listening' can sometimes help us to find unexpected things. Where I and AzRyan seem to part company is that I'm not satisifed to stay there - I what to know what I heard that was different. Only then can it be quantified, and only then can it be determined if it is a difference in improved fidelity or yet another form of 'euphonic distortion' as some call it.

You know the one!. The "you'll shoot your eye out kid" special anniversary edition.


anniversary edition…that reminds me. Gonk, don’t you have your First Aniv. This month? I seem to remember seeing your wedding announcement in Dec of last year (because everyone wanted to know why you had to disappear for a honeymoon and grudgingly admitted that could be worthwhile cause ) I was too shy/new to ‘congratulate’ you then. If it is …my best to you and Mrs Gonk!

Owl's you said -"Charlie, I usually agree with your technical approach as I tend to think that way myself."

He doesn't have any 'technical approach'. It only looks that way. Not only will he not 'listen' to this or any digital amp, but the 'facts' he just spouted out are just twisted and wrong.

Owl's you added -"However, to play Devil's Advocate, I also agree that sometimes simply hearing (or seeing) something perform you can sometimes find something unexpected."

I certainly don't believe in 'audio magic' where all these amazing things are happening but no one can logically explain why.
Why this amp is stunning it perfectly logical and backed up by real performance 'data' and it's use of patanted state of the art audio processing.

My point for mentioning the magazine review was to show that this amp not only sounds incredible, but it 'measured' stunningly also! I thought this would be what charlie was looking for in his sad little world of 'data'. Instead he responded with the biggest pile of lies I've ever seen in a single post.

He said -
"Maybe it's a breakthrough, but I notice the graph that's most common and would be most telling is omitted."

You are so blind. Did you even read the pro review I pointed out? It had several performance graphs! You must not have even seen it!

Bascically every single thing in your last post is so tremendously screwed up and totally wrong I can't even imagine where you dreamed it all up!?!? You know nothing about this amp.

"Putting it simply, the output filter that all class D audio amps must have will typically cause them to have frequency response problems on difficult loads."

Putting it simply... you're just flat out wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.

This amp is exactly the opposite of what you describe. In addition to you having no idea about what class D amps can and can't do, the ICEpower module works in a totally diff. way than all other class D amps, and the module itself does NOT equal the output result of the amp, and can not be used to 'guess' the actual amp's performance.
The test results of the actual amp in the review I mentioned CAN.

Read the review or shut up, because you are just a flat out lying Troll now.

The amp can play 230/380/550W (8/4/2 Ohms) w/ less than .1% THD+N. Dead flat freq. response well beyond an audible range. .009% THD+N @ 100W.

You're high if you act like this is anything but stellar performance, or anything like the typical '100-125W linear amp' you equated this amp to!

The reviewers even hit it w/ a .6 Ohm load!
Only a moron or Troll could say this amp can't play difficult loads. You can use it w/ ANY speaker on the market.

"Now a ribbon setup like yours might be an ideal situation for a amp like this, but I find it humorous that, after pointing out for years how badly 'cheap' amps perform on difficult loads the new hi-end darling apparently exhibits the same Achilles heel."

Totally moronic. It does no such thing! My speakers dips down to ~3.5 ohms. This Amp never has any problems at all. You're just an idiot.

Here's another very nice clip of total stupidity from you-

"Also an amp like this will put out about the same amount of musical power as a good 125 watt linear amp. This is because, by design, a class D amp has basically zero dynamic headroom. In theory it's no matter, since a class D amp can be so efficient and small, but the eAR is not really a super powered amp, particularly when the lack of headroom is factored in. It's not unusual for a 100-125 watt linear amp to have a dynamic output somewhere near 175 watts."

The eARTwo is 250W x 2 @ 8 Ohms... ~380W x 2 @ 4 Ohms moron! And can do this 'constantly' (as in NOT peak) and generating next to no heat. - in addition to it being faster and more accurate than any solid state or tube design.
Peak output current -~82Amps! 68V=5,500 Watt impulse!

"With the Newform R645s the eAR should clip somewhere around 113 db instantaneous peaks at 1 meter, or plenty loud but not outstanding."

The eARTwo would blow up my Newforms before it ever clipped. Your math is a joke. I'm sure you don't have any idea about my speakers either. And this from a fool w/ main speaker ~16 feet apart plus they're in-walls!? Get outta dodge.
You amaze me at how much you like to talk crap about things that you know nothing about. You've become a Troll, and I'm really sick of you.

Here's some comments from the article. I figured people could just go read it themselves, but some people here seem to have not read it and might believe charlie's lies...

"-the amplifier has superior treble which is both extremely easy flowing and yet super dynamic at the same time. With the eARTwo, the distortion is so low that we can only warn you: Watch your ears, because with this amplifier you might easily play loud -too loud!"
This is explained in more detail in the review.

Also-

"We have tested the amplifier with a number of loudspeakers, and the amplifier is not particulalrly influenced by the loudspeaker it is connected to. This is rather diff. from other switch mode class D amplifiers where the amplifiers have always played differently with a number of diff. loudspeakers. The eARTwo seems to be quite consistent in it's way of playing."

Anyone who reads this independant pro review will understand just how utterly wrong charlie really is. Too bad charlie didn't bother to read it.
The reviewers call it the best amp they've ever heard. They replaced $30K Mark Levinson monoblocks for this amp.

Um......that was a little strong Azryan. I tend to read these threads that you post and don't reply because I don't feel capable to respond. But this time I feel you went over the edge in what should be a "Friendly" exchange of ideas or even an argument. Right or wrong the last post was to far!

------------------
m-mmeyer
GO TWINS
My DVD's

I agree with m-mmeyer, az-- you're way over the top on with this reply. I think you've made some legit points, but you didn't really need to add the flames. I have never seen charlie respond in a like manner, and doubt he would, even if attacked (like here). I don't always agree with what charlie posts either. When that happens I just choose to ignore what he said by not responding and looking at it for what it is-- his opinion--- or reply in a civil manner with---my opinions---. Facts and real statistics are optional . And that's what this forum is all about right? I think you are better than this, so suck it up,azryan, and do the right thing. I think charlie occasionally may have been pulling your chain a little bit, but he certainly isn't a troll and does not deserve to be attacked. I believe your post would probably get you dismissed from most boards, so you might want to edit it for content. I'm often at odds with what you say az, but I do enjoy reading your posts. I would hate to see you have to move on. Best wishes...

m-mmyer and steves,

It seems like you both are saying to read these posts of mine. I assume to find out interesting or helpful info that I might mention. That's why I write them.

The info I post I feel is being distorted and ruined by charlie's misguided 'facts' moronic asumptions and outright lies.

It's certainly true in that what I said/say is strong. I stand behind it though, and back up everything I've ever said with detailed facts to counter him. I've just had enough. I'm sick of him. I think he's become a Troll, and this thread proves it. Ask him what he's had to do w/ digital amps besides post in this thread? Nothing at all.

I'd like Outlaw to build a digital amp based on the ICEpower module. Charlie's lies about the ICEpower based amp I own I believe are doing nothing but confusing other Outlaw fans who would otherwise love for Outlaw to build an amp that performs like my eARTwo amp.

That's a forum Troll, and I'm not afraid to call it like I see it. No doubt Charlie will post again and twist my comments, and no doubt people will feel I've gone too far.

I can't control that, and I accept whatever happens.

If Outlaw doesn't want me here because of my comments... I guess we'll see. I would never have saifd what I did if Outlaw would have stopped charlie from lying, but Outlaw's certainly too busy to do that.

I think it would be to the loss of you guys like steves and m-mmyer who want to learn new things to have me booted off yet allow someone like charlie to keep posting his outright wrong 'facts'.
Remember I'm not talking about his opinions, only the things he states as facts.

Charlie's been posting since last August in this thread as still has NO idea what he's talking about in relation to this amp, or the module it uses, or digital amps in general.

His last post (as I already said) was almost one complete pack of lies, which is the only reason I quit being civil and got angry at a flat out liar.

I'm sick of it. I think others should be too, but feel free to think whatever you want.

Maybe you don't understand that he is lying and you feel it's more of a 'my opinion/his opinion' type thing therefor I've gone too far?

This is not the case and I've clearly stated why in previous posts.

Search this and other threads. Several others have also corrected charlies outright mistruths. They eventually give up trying to get through to him and leave.
Too bad this forums lost those people. Maybe I'm next. Not my choice though.

I like Outlaw as a company and I think there's people here who a decent and would like to hear some of the info I post about advanced audio and video topics.

I think you shouldn't care how nice and civil Charlie acts when he posts lies.

Did anyone who thinks I'm too strong in my statements actually look into the false information he spouts? Or do you not care when someone lies here as long as they smile when they do it?

No matter who is right and who is wrong, who is telling the truth and who is lying there needs to be a certain level of decorum here and if that level drops down too low then the "discussion" should end there and either start anew or decline to get into such discussions. For if it is allowed once then it may be allowed to run rampant, to all of our detriment.



------------------
m-mmeyer
GO TWINS
My DVD's

I have read this thread extensively, and I dont think its too late for everyone to makeup. I moderate at other forums and would have either asked you 2 to watch further replies, or closed it all together. Which is ashame, because I feel theres a lot to be learned.

I clicked on it not because I have one,or claim to know anything about digital amps, but because any newer technology excites me.

Too bad it got out of hand but thats what happens when 2 or more people dont see eye to eye. I won't comment on who I think is right or wrong in this situation, it is not my place to do so. But I will say this...

I have a digital amp..the one found in my DefTech SuperCube 1..it's a 1500 watt,Digitally-Coupled Class D Amplifier...does that count?!?! LOL



------------------
Play it LoUd!!

If Charlie is a troll, then he's VERY good at it, because he certainly managed to provoke you without coming off like a troll himself. Re-reading his posts, I don't see anything in there that seems troll-like. As to the truth of what he says? Well, I'm not in the know about these things so I can't judge that. But in my mind, you've allowed him to push you across that imaginary line of civility, and in doing so, you've handed the argument to him.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Matthew,

"Re-reading his posts, I don't see anything in there that seems troll-like. As to the truth of what he says? Well, I'm not in the know about these things so I can't judge that."

Exactly my point. You don't understand he's flat out lying therefore you don't see a troll in action.

Re-read my last post. I addressed exactly this type of comment (before you made it -rightly assuming someone like you would make it) as being just the reason I've gotten so angry.

BTW, I've been the one posting this technology info and having the information twisted by him.
No one's been damaging the things you've been trying to tell people here, because you haven't been saying anything. Easy to sit back and judge from the sidelines and not care about the details (which you admit you don't know) before you decided who 'looks' right.

But hey if people are happier to be lied to as long as everyone plays nice then I'm the bad guy.

"But in my mind, you've allowed him to push you across that imaginary line of civility, and in doing so, you've handed the argument to him."

It's that kind of backwards logic that's gotten this country into a lot of trouble.

A liar wins an agrument because you don't understand that he's a lying to you.
See most of our nations leaders (from both parties) who are in the hands of big business for a good example of this mentality in action.

The guy who's been telling you about this cool technology loses in your mind because while correcting (repeatedly over many many months here!) also told the liar off for lying in the first place.

Sorry, but you guys lose. And I really mean that. I'm very sorry.
I already know about the cool stuff I try to post info about here.

I have no need to post here when I know I'll just have to do never ending battle with someone who'll twist everything I say or misrepresent any bad data he reads somewhere.

AZ

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

I am about to slit yours. And since actions begun in anger often end in shame. I will probably end by making as big an ass of myself as you are delighted to display yourself being on your every 10th post. Outlaw may ban me (and I acknowledge their every right and sovereign authority to do so) as I am about to unwisely choose to make a public announcement of my solely personal opinions regarding your very public behavior.

An educated mind can entertain thoughts and exchange ideas calmly and rationally without ever once surrendering a firm position that stands on the opposite side of the argument.

I suspect everyone who indulges in force intimidation degradation humiliation and vexing boorish tiresome behavior when attempting to make a point. Therefore any knowledge, expertise, tips, informative advice, opinion upon any topic on which I might desire enlightenment will never appear as a reliable or trustworthy regardless of the validity of the core information when it comes cloaked in these terms. . As your methodology of relaying that information makes you appear crude, violent, incoherent, absurd, and vulgar if Outlaw is pleased in their wisdom to let this little vendetta play out upon its own hot air, I shall be pleased to skip all posts with your tag, until I have forgiven you.
.
I have lost patience with attempting to read I between the lines of your posts which far too often currently and at repeated moments in the past have displayed a lack of self-control on your part when you include personal attacks on personal possession’s of fellow forum members and descriptive terminology including (but not limited to) phrases such as: twisted, Blind, Flat out wrong, lying, troll, screwed up, shut up, your high, moron, fool, you talk crap, you know nothing, sick of you, moronic, idiot, stupidity from you, utterly wrong………….I stop and take a breath.

AZ if I am not plain enough what I am trying to relay to you is the fact that if you had the wisdom of the ages wrapped up in your typing finger, I can no longer see any but the actions of a fool who halos whatever knowledge he might be in possession of in impenetrable dirt.

Charlie you have my personal high regard for your long-suffering and seemingly unending control of your emotions in the face of repeated personal attacks. I do not tolerate injustice when I perceive something to be so which has currently caused a loss of the control of my own behavior for this moment. I apologize to the forum as a whole.

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas.
Perhaps we could rename this thread to "Venting Christmas Stress"...

We all need to sit down together and drink som egg nog and throw digital amps at eachother till someone gets their head knocked around. Then it wont matter about specs As long as its heavy, everything is fine!

------------------
Play it LoUd!!

Maybe if we all have enough "virtual margaritas", this whole debate will disappear - then again with enough margaritas, _everything_ disappears

It's NO excuse. But I'll say it anyway and espcialy to Azryan. As I tiptoe back into the forum this morning thinking, "did I say that?". I was back in the courts from 9 to 3 pm the day before that post for the second time in 7 days. Having to be sworn in and testifing again about 'men behaving badly' in the neverending divorce.

I plain 'went off'.
Venting Christmas Stress indeed, and a most inapproiate time of year to pick.

I feel a little guilty also, for I did start the "calling to task" of Azryan. But at the time I felt strong enough about it to spaek out, not sorry about that. Just because I like HTF doesn't mean I want this forum to emulate it!


------------------
m-mmeyer
GO TWINS
My DVD's

Lena,

I have nothing against you and I can handle what you said to me. I have no desire to, nor do I think it right to insult you in any way.
I hope you know I don't just jump on people left and right here or anywhere.

I've never been booted off of any forum (though that may change now -I can't say).
And even when my big mouth goes too far or gets things messy I stick around and try to work it out or at least explain what I meant -like I hope I did with Soundhound.

I'm glad you had the guts to speak up. As I'm glad others have too. Even though it's against me. The guts to speak your mind is far more important to this country's attitude than my own feelings which are meaningless.

Knowing what you're talking about is also important too though, and in this case most don't seem to understand the lies that got me so angry. They only understand 'moron' is a bad word to call someone.

I know full well I took the low road against charlie, but as I said... I just plain 'gave up' trying to smile and correct him over and over, and his last post which was total lies was the 'low road' first IMO.

Some may say the words I said are never justified (and I understood that before I posted them), but I did back up every insult with facts. They're all there. Out in the open. No editing.

I notice not one person seems to care if I'm right or wrong as if that's too difficult to think about and name calling in it's childish simplisity is easy enough to understand and call 'bad'.

Someone trying to damage every post I write -going so far as to flat out lie it seems is fine.
Me getting mad at that person is not?

All the 'bad' things you quoted me as saying Lena were from 'one' post and they were said within detailed remarks backing up the anger. It was he who made the post just before that was made up of total lies.

Some (maybe most?) think we should just smile at a liar knowing we're not lying ourselves -so we're ok.
But those people let the lies continue when they could do something.

This is not just the meaningless issue here over a digital amp Outlaw will probably never build, but about how we all think in general in our daily lives.

Some think the liar needs to be put in their place and are willing to take the risk to do so knowing full well the 'boat rocker' is almost always considered at fault -even when the boat rocker turns out to be right.

Some consider war and the bombing of innocent civilians to weed out terorists wrong.
Some say 'We did what we had to do, and we're really sorry if we killed any body that we didn't mean to kill'.

It's all in how you look at it.

The worst thing though is to NOT look. To not think. To ignore the details. Or to judge without knowing the details.

People judge things all the time with so little information. How many people have made personal judgements on court cases that they've heard about on the news?

Guilty or not guilty while not actually having seen ANY of the actual court case, just the snippets we're told on TV. Happens all the time.

Above all do not stop 'thinking' and questioning the things that happen around you. We're too often sheep being led by whoever lies the nicest. From this forum (apparently) to our nations leaders (assuming most here are from the U.S.)

Feel free to question why I said what I said though I answered these questions myself because I felt it was only fair that I back up what I say.
How many judge me as wrong in my insults yet don't have any idea if I'm right about the lies I exposed?

azryan:

I can see where you are coming from, and when considered on a global context, you are absolutely right. The human race is not exactly "ready for prime time" when it comes to getting beyond biases, and stating things as they really are. Those kinds of bias-influenced statements are lies, pure and simple.

Then there are opinions. Again you are right that far too many opinions are based on incomplete understanding of the underlying issues involved. Then, there are some opinions that are based on solid knowledge of the issues. Those are valid, "agree to disagree" types of disagreements.

For instance, I have very little knowledge beyond what I've read on the issue of class "D" amps. I followed the Tact amplifier story which I first saw when I was in Europe several years ago. The idea seems intriguing, especially if the signal chain is kept all-digital up to and including the power amp. Personally, I am not ready to chuck linear amp technology, and especially tube amp technology (given my horn speakers, because I need "rich" class "A" and "A/B" output stages) as long as we are producing sound by attaching coils of wire to paper (or whatever material) cones and wiggling them in a magnetic field in order to produce sound. I think we are in need of a new, basic process to reproduce sound that does not involve wiggling something (electrostatic speaker, ribbon speaker, dynamic speaker, planar speaker, etc) in the air to produce sound waves. That is just Sooo 1922 There are technologies out there that produce sound by means of plasma that have been around for decades, but they are not practical at the moment. I wish I could invent a new way to produce sound - I could be rich If ever there is such a sound reproducer developed, power amplifiers as such will become a moot point, decending into the tar pit of dead technologies.

My pet peeve is the snake-oil-clap-trap that is dispensed by the marketing departments of some audio and video equipment manufacturers regarding their 'technologies". Some of this is clearly bull****, and I've said so more times than I care to think of. It serves nothing more than to mislead consumers, many of whom believe this stuff. Then there are some magazines that suck this mis-information up, and judge such things as audio performance as if they were discerning the difference between exotic and rare wines. Forgive my rant.

In my opinion, and with the caviat that I do not personally know Charlie, I find it hard to believe that he would waste your's and everybody's time by intentionally lying about amplifiers, or anything for that matter. There are obviously reasons for his stance on the issues in this thread, but I doubt that intentionally lying is one of them.

Anyway, you obviously have a great amp that works very well in your system, and I'm certain that that is no lie. I'm keeping my eye on all the various technologies that develop, and adopting the ones that look like they can enhance my enjoyment of music and movies.

Have a Merry Christmas!

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited December 20, 2002).]

Azryan –
Your posts are patronizing and it offends me that you have the gall to make some weak analogy justifying your rudeness with the bombing of innocent civilians. There are serious tragedies in this world that shatter the lives of the victims and their loved ones and how dare you diminish their pain and suffering by including that in your arguments. Please don’t try and pretend to be nobly concerned about ‘protecting us from lies’, carry on (or don’t carry on) an argument if you wish but don’t worry about us lurkers. We have never asked you to speak for us or protect us. Speaking for myself, I enjoy most discussions here, for I am always learning. There are some great audio minds that post on this forum, but it’s the internet and shame on me if I believe everything someone else types.

That said, and although it seems like a waste of time to point things out to you I will relay a portion of my take on this current argument:

Charlie: "Putting it simply, the output filter that all class D audio amps must have will typically cause them to have frequency response problems on difficult loads."

Azryan: “Putting it simply... you're just flat out wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.
This amp is exactly the opposite of what you describe. In addition to you having no idea about what class D amps can and can't do, the ICEpower module works in a totally diff. way than all other class D amps, and the module itself does NOT equal the output result of the amp, and can not be used to 'guess' the actual amp's performance.
The test results of the actual amp in the review I mentioned CAN.
Read the review or shut up, because you are just a flat out lying Troll now.”

High Fidelity Review: "We have tested the amplifier with a number of loudspeakers, and the amplifier is not particularly influenced by the loudspeaker it is connected to. This is rather diff. from other switch mode class D amplifiers where the amplifiers have always played differently with a number of diff. loudspeakers. The eARTwo seems to be quite consistent in its way of playing."

Now I’m just an audio novice but it seems to me the magazine supports Charlie’s point about Class D amplifiers, but determines that the eARTwo is an exception to the rule. It hardly makes him a flat out lying Troll, just not a know everything Wizard or eternal Elf. Perhaps it makes him an ordinary human, subject to having opinions based on facts and experience but being able to modify his opinions when new facts and experiences arise. We all know you paid a lot of money for your amplifier and want everyone to acknowledge your fine choice – perhaps if you want Charlie to change his opinion on Class D amplifiers that badly you could send him yours for a few days so he could hear (or measure) this Class D amps performance, applaud your choice and put an end to this thread.

"Wrong," said Renner.
"The tactful way," Rod said quietly, "the polite way to disagree with
the Senator would be to say, `That turns out not to be the case.'"



------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Wow. I go away for a few days and lookit what happens.

Digital amplifiers operate by definition by switching fully on or off quickly enough that the average output over some time constant is roughly equal to the desired output.

The switching 'on duration' and/or frequency can be modulated to accomplish this. The practical effect is a variable duty cycle.

An unavoidable side effect of this switching is switching noise. This will be manifested as a tone or range of tones above the signal frequency. If the load is known and/or guaranteed to be inductive the amplifier can be configured to safely drive the load directly, but if the load has or may have significant resistive or capacitive components, especially near the range of 'carrier' frequency(s) an inductor must be placed in series with the load to filter the switching current.

If the carrier frequency(s) is sufficiently higher than the signal frequency(s) the filter may be designed such that it is well out of the way of the signal, but if they are anywhere near each other this may not be possible. In this case the filter must be carefully matched to the load such that it is effective without distorting the signal. If this is still not possible it may be possible to alter the input prior to amplification in a manner complementary to the filter effect.

If this carefully matched system is exposed to unexpected loads the upper frequency response will tend to droop as load decreases. This effect can be observed in this ICEpower document:

http://www.icepower.bang-olufsen.com/sw1166.asp

The frequency resonse is down 1-2 db for 2.7 ohms. Some loudspeakers have made it to market that dip lower than 1 ohm.

Now it is true that this would be exceptional frequency response performance for a loudspeaker or maybe a few other classes of components, and the linear distortion is minimal when taken in a holistic 'impact on system' view, but as consumers we are accustomed to better from our amps.

Of course the amplifier may drive such a load without obvious distress from a power distribution sort of view, but this isn't power distribution.

The folks at Acoustic Reality and the reviewers at High Fidelity both assert the eAR has this fixed, but haven't backed it up with any published tests or IP that are germane to the issue. The base ICEpower module is better than most, but still exhibits the issue. So maybe it's fixed, but I'm a 'show me' kinda guy.


SLL:



Not needed. You are also entitled to free expression. Nice of you to say though.

I suspect AzRyan is probably a very nice and personable fellow in real life. Real life interpersonal skills are often not easily mapped to a forum like this and it should be expected. Let it roll off your back, and try to concentrate on any content that may exist. I've learned a few things from him and I'm thankful for it. I'd be thankful for more relaxed presentation, but I'll take what I can get. If we were all the same the world would be a boring place.

EDIT:

The massive improvements in this area as represented by the ICEpower module and others make me think the future is bright for class 'D' audio, but for me it's got to get a bit more mature before I'd jump, that's all.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited December 21, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited December 21, 2002).]

Real life interpersonal skills are often not easily mapped to a forum like this and it should be expected. Let it roll off your back, and try to concentrate on any content that may exist. I've learned a few things from him and I'm thankful for it. I'd be thankful for more relaxed presentation, but I'll take what I can get. If we were all the same the world would be a boring place.

Graciously stated, (and you remind me, -I do not LIKE to be bored ) you are man of great restraint I commend your 'style' Charlie Thank you.

Turner -"Your posts are patronizing and it offends me that you have the gall to make some weak analogy justifying your rudeness with the bombing of innocent civilians."

The only problem here is that I DIDN'T do that. You just put those two points together yourself.

I was talking about an issue greater than this fairly pointless thread (of which I think the lives we've taken overseas certainly is), and the way people in general often poorly judge things and perceive right and wrong. Meaning whether a pointless issue like this thread or a very serious issue like bombing innocent people.

I hope that clears it up for you.

If you don't like my comments and really wanted to twist what I meant... you could've claimed I meant that my rudeness is as bad as bombing innocent people. Then you would've really made me look horribly evil.

Pay closer attention to charlie. He's very good at twisting things like this. It may help you in damning me in the future (if you choose to), but I think you've got me wrong.

You also mentioned that charlie said "-the output filter that all class D audio amps must have will typically cause them to have frequency response problems on difficult loads."

He doesn't know what the actual output is of any digital amp. He likes interpret data he reads (read: "guess") about the digital amp modules themselves.
This is far from what the end result can and typically is from actual digital amps on the market (of which he's heard and tested ZERO), but I've been talking about only ONE here anyway..., and most importantly it doesn't work like other class D chips.

The review said "-We have tested the amplifier with a number of loudspeakers, and the amplifier is not particularly influenced by the loudspeaker it is connected to. This is rather diff. from other switch mode class D amplifiers where the amplifiers have always played differently with a number of diff. loudspeakers."

You put those two together Turner, but the review comment is NOT the same as charlie's faulty 'guess' on freq. response problems.

Did you see the term 'freq. response' anywhere in the reviewer's comment? Did you see the freq. response graphs in the review? They're flat.
The reviewers called it the most accurate amp they've ever used. How could they say that about an amp that had poor freq. response??

But you think charlie made his point about class D (-at least somewhat because you understood that he was flat out wrong about the eARTwo amp), but you've been tricked.

So I get mad that he tricked you... and for that you get mad at me. Bad logic IMO, but certainly very common in our country.
He's the guy knocking this amp. I'm the one who told you about it.

And since this is specifically about the eARTwo amp (not any other class D amp). All the more reason to get mad that charlie ignores the review's info since it states that this amp isn't influenced by various loudspeakers.
It doesn't work like any class D amp though it is digital. Charlie says they all work the same.

Charlie talks about speakers that dip down below ONE ohm. That's so overboard it's not even funny!
He's just grasping for ANYTHING to call wrong with this amp, and even when he goes to this crazy extreme (though with a smile -so everyone thinks it's fine) he's still wrong!...

1) no one here (including charlie) has speakers that dip that nearly that low so the need doesn't exist for 99.999% of us for any amp to handle that load.
2) It's a rare solid state that can handle that imp either.
3) the eARTWo can handle it anyway.

Email the amp's designer and ask if the amp can handle your speakers. It'll be 'no problem' every time.

And it has NOTHING to do w/ the money I paid for the amp either Turner. I'm sure you'd like to think I'm here bragging about 'this cool amp I've got', but you're wrong.

I've been trying to explain this technology to Outlaw fans like you and to the Outlaws themselves in hopes they'll attemt an amp like this. I've said this exact remark MANY times in this thread!
My amp probably shouldn't be as costly as it was, but you have to pay for R&D not just the parts w/ small high end companies making state of the art products.

Soundhound -there are speakers that have plasma tweeters. They produce a lot of ozone, but they exist and you can buy them. Probably the best tweeters in the world, but the ozone problem isn't very cool.

You said "-I find it hard to believe that he would waste your's and everybody's time by intentionally lying about amplifiers, or anything for that matter."

So do I, yet I keep showing how he's actually do just that.

Think about his motives... he has NO interest in trying any actual digital amp of any kind in his own system so why does he even care???

You can get this amp w/ a full refund return policy. If he wanted to test it and return it he'd be out a small amount for shipping. He'll NEVER do it. And no one who heard it would want to send it back as it would be audibly better than their previous amp -as long as their speakers and other electronics were of good quality.

I have probably one of the worst systems of any eAR amp owner. Most owners have massivly high end gear from speakers to wall outlets and everything in between.

There are other digital amps like the PS Audio HCA-2 w/ the same refund trial deals.

I have a PS Audio dealer here in town. It's a Stereophile Class A by the way (as is the digital Bel Canto eVo).
The eARTwo has been called better than both of them by several people in not having any trace of digital dryness, and it's tight bass, most realistic high end they've ever heard, etc...
I find the eARTwo worlds better than the digital Tripath based amp I also own.

You added -"There are obviously reasons for his stance on the issues in this thread, but I doubt that intentionally lying is one of them."

There are obviously reasons..., but the reasons aren't obvious.
What do you think they are? Honestly. I'm not being a smart ass here.

Why do you think he tries soooo hard to say that this amp is no good?
He's never even heard it! He doesn't know what's inside it. He doesn't know certain measurments that he acts so deperate to know (or guesses that they're poor) yet all the measurments posted are exceptional.

I think it's just to 'look right' at ANY cost since I keep showing how he's totally wrong.
He never gives up, and in America not giving up can make you look right to those who don't really know even when you're not right at all.
(as evidenced by our president's high approval rating).

He judges this amp as not being good enough though he has never heard it, and twists the facts since this amp's output is NOT the same as the raw ICEpower module who's data sheets he foolishly continues to make remarks on.
How many times do I have to correct the same points before I get to get mad? Maybe Lena might say 'never'? I don't.

He ignores the professional review's data and comments (and every audiophile who owns the amp) -calling it the best amp they've ever used.

Charlie's bad data tells us it's not more powerful than a 100-125W solid state amp and it has poor freq. response.
Outright lies. You think he doesn't mean to lie, but what do you think he means to do???

He says -"The frequency response is down 1-2 db for 2.7 ohms."
He refers to the ICEpower module which is NOT the same output as the actual eARTwo amp. I've said that over and over yet he keeps twisting this point.

The designer spent over 2 years working on this amp, he didn't just slap a power supply to it and mark up the part costs.

Even the designer says the raw module doesn't sound very good in raw form. There's more to the amp than that.

He managed to make the eAR amps sound incredible though in the opinion of everyone who's bought this amp and posted a review online (and there are quite few). They measure great too. There's no downside to them. It's world class accuracy.

Jeff Rowland is coming out w/ ICEpower based amps too soon. I guess Charlie should explain to this very famous world class amp designer that he's wrong about using this module too.
It'd be funny if I weren't so sick of this damn game.

He says
"The base ICEpower module is better than most, but still exhibits the issue. So maybe it's fixed, but I'm a 'show me' kinda guy."

He contradicts himself here.

He says it still has the 'issue' but then admits that 'maybe it's fixed'!?!?

The professional reviewers who used the actual amp, and tested it with several loudspeakers certainly think there's NO problem, but what do they know right?
They only call it their new reference amp, but charlie knows better. Hard to guess who's right hey?

Or charlie's comment on class D amps -"An unavoidable side effect of this switching is switching noise."

The ICEpower module doesn't use pulse width modulation unlike all other class D designs. This is the main benefit of this module. I've said this already too.

The eARamp itself has a super low noise floor, and the most accurate signal these professional reviewers have ever heard.
I have to place my ear to my Newform ribbon to hear even the faintest trace of noise from this amp (this changes when I turn the 950 on as it has far more noise).

I told him to buy one and test it if he wants to talk about it's performance.
But he won't EVER do that. Guessing and twisted conjecture is good enough for him.

He doesn't want this amp and doesn't care if it's as great as the numerous claims say it is. He said himself he doesn't trust his ears so he doesn't even care if this amp sounds good to him or not!
And for all his comments on poor design he doesn't even have a speaker set up that could let this amp's attributes show through.

In wall speakers (sound bounces off the huge wall baffle and the drywall vibrates)
They're ~16' apart. (much too far apart to have any kind of imaging or soundstage quality in any way. Not even if they were angled in which you can't do 'cuz they're in-walls!)
One right next to a wall. One by an open area (making freq. response diff. between the two as one gets wall echo and the other doesn't).
Dual tweeters (as they play the same high freq. sounds that are smaller wavelenths than the tweeters distance apart the two outputs comb).

An audio tester/reviewer couldn't hardly set speakers up much worse if they tried, and this is his design.
Yet he judges this amp he's never heard nor tested contradicting pretty much every finding of these professional reviewers??

If he doesn't mean to be a troll I have NO idea what he thinks he's trying to do here!

If he wants to wrongly talk details about what this amp can and can't do he's gotta look at his own set up first and it's poor design.

He sums up with-
"The massive improvements in this area as represented by the ICEpower module and others make me think the future is bright for class 'D' audio, but for me it's got to get a bit more mature before I'd jump, that's all."

That's a VERY well written line.
It makes him sound like he actually understands what he's talking about. Sadly (and now angrily)... he doesn't.

ICEpower's modulation is unlike all other digital amp chips.
The eAR amps are totally unlike the raw output of the ICEpower modules.
Professional reviewers are calling it the best amp ever made.

Even if it's not the best (which could be forever debatable), the technology of this amp is so far from 'it needs to mature' it's insane for someone to say such a thing, and I feel it must be for no reason other that to damage my posts or to make himself 'look right' truth be damned.

The 'bit more mature' part is NOT this technology. It's in him understanding these critical points I've just made and him stopping with the twisted bits of info and wild imagination that just don't add up to the actual real world findings.


Oh and Lena you said
"-It's NO excuse. But I'll say it anyway and espcialy to Azryan. As I tiptoe back into the forum this morning thinking, "did I say that?". I was back in the courts from 9 to 3 pm the day before that post for the second time in 7 days. Having to be sworn in and testifing again about 'men behaving badly' in the neverending divorce."

'The neverending divorce'? Uh..... I have NO idea what you're talking about??
If it helps you I get along great with my wife if maybe that's what you were getting at?? She was floored by this amp on the first day we got it also.

azryan:

Quote: You added -"There are obviously reasons for his stance on the issues in this thread, but I doubt that intentionally lying is one of them."

There are obviously reasons..., but the reasons aren't obvious.
What do you think they are? Honestly. I'm not being a smart ass here.


I meant that I get the sense that he isn't intentionally lying, beyond that, I don't know what he is or isn't thinking.

I wasn't aware that someone was actually manufacturing ionic tweeters. That's wild! I know that one of the main dis-incentives to owning them was the ozone, and the high voltage power supply involved.

Do you have web links to any 'white papers" about your amp? I'd be curious to read about the technology involved.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited December 21, 2002).]

If it helps you I get along great with my wife if maybe that's what you were getting at??

BIG APOLOGY, NO...I hope everyone here gets along with his wife. I was goofy in a past post on this forum and was referring back to that (without detail). I have been in court 3 times in the last 1 ½ wks. Its 2 + years and still not settled and with children involved heavy on my mind. I'm the only personal (non-professional) witness, called, as I was both parties friend since onset of the marriage and am fairly well known around here for being equitable. I have to testify to some terrible choices the husband made throughout the years. It’s been stressful and very surreal most times (it really is like Hollywood) with 'his' lawyer yelling at both him (her own client) and me on the stand last trial date. After we both declared we do consider ourselves to be friends.

My running around here with my hair on fire, was a grief/rage reaction to having to spend too much time contemplating recently the unanswerable issue of why people treat each other so badly even people they love, often ending by destroying themselves utterly in the process.

Back to the lighter topic of perfect amps. AZ, I’m fascinated with D class, (why I always try to skim these threads) if you followed some of my earliest posts I came into Outlaw early on asking about opinions here and fully intending to buy a Bel Canto. I reigned myself in at the time, and decided to watch the technology gain a little more leg first. Your model looks like one I'd like to personaly demo and I've seen some great reviews. (I really intend to wait till this trickles into multi-chanel versions) But when you become so passionate about the specs and bench tests, it has the opposite effect (on me at the moment) of what you desire. You battle to convince us that that the technology has crossed the hump and (even hit) the summit. I can’t ‘hear’ you for the other stuff flying around. Try just remembering that when you’re speaking about the big reviewers who start calling a piece ‘reference’ that there's always another professional who prefers another choice/technology. Charlie has every right and is no different than a professional reviewer in having his own opinion including the right to base his thoughts on the technology (as he sees it on paper} till he hears one.

I seem to remember your standing on the opposite side of a ‘have not tried it yourself’ argument in this forum when many were resistant to your hard stance taken against others opinions of the benefits of an SPL meter. Yet you earnestly desired to have your own opinion on that topic, per theory and paper and were not very pleased to be told you should ‘try it yourself’. Perhaps Charlie has those rights also?

I sincerely hope your VERY happy with your wife, and if not (please don’t tell me right now anyway)


[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited December 21, 2002).]

Like I said:



There is no other way to do a digital amp. This is practically the definition of a digital amp. And PWM has had company for years - PFM. Now we can create a variety of hybreds, but the essence of the thing remains unchanged.

Creating waveforms with switching devices has been around longer than almost anyone here I'd bet.

Soundhound (or anyone else who cares) -here's a speaker w/ a plasma tweeter-

http://www.acapella.de/english/violon.htm

The only white papers to read are on the ICEpower module in the amp. The eARTwo uses the analog modulated version.
http://www.medicom.bang-olufsen.com/sw1273.asp

The rest of the details of the amp are Peter's (the designer's) secret. The 'rest of the details' make the output of this amp very diff. from the raw module.

The most information from him is on the Harmonic Discord forum. Peter's spoken probably all the details he's ever going to on that forum. He posted some graphs there too.
He said he's spent something like over a hundred grand and two years developing the amp so I think it's understandable he doesn't want anyone to exactly understand how he got it to do what it does so they can just copy the design.

I think I probably won't post here much (or any) more. Doesn't seem worth it to try to tell people here things, esp. w/ charlie here. I'm sick of him so I guess he wins.

I think that means the people here who would like to hear about more cool stuff from me lose, but oh well.
I've yet to see Outlaw actually make anything anyone's asked for anyway so I get nothing out of trying so hard here.

Off into the sunset...

Actually this turns out to be not so.

I've been measuring this with a variety of signals and instruments (for verification) and in fact the response of all the speakers from anywhere on the sofa is identical within +1 -2 db. They are also flat to less than +-3 db with the exception of a minor peak around 6Khz that I'll be tweaking with a filter. This result is actually a lot better than I expected although it's of course far from perfect.

They of course have some early reflection issues on the wall I'm going to try to tame w/ foam but there's no way to really get it all. A few other things will never be right too, but overall it's going to be fine for HT and it was all I could do within the constraints I had. I have to live in here too.

As for 'toe in', any speaker with a wide enough directivity pattern won't really need it. It mostly provides visual improvement, although directing the radiation from a near wall can't hurt either. I'd think the Newforms would have a uniform enough radiation pattern to negate the 'toe in' requirement, but I'm not sure of course. As long as polar response is uniform you're golden.

Wht secret? There are two possiblities likely here. Either something is original and therefore potentially IP (typically can be protected by a patent) or a 'trade secret' which can be kept for competitive advantage but is not patented for whatever reason.

I doubt you signed a contract with a reverse engineering clause when you got your eAR, so any trade secrets are there for the plucking and not terribly secret.

So why not gain competitive advantage by being public and specific with this 'new' invention? Why not create IP for the company and inventors by protecting the 'invention'?

If it smells like marketing and looks like marketing it might be marketing.

Yeah, no kidding. Reminds me of a sort of famous story told in the software engineering business. A fellow spent years reverse engineering, refining and improving buggy whips until he finally was able to enter the market with what can only be described as the ultimate buggy whip. About a month before he was able to enter the market folks began buying cars.

I can't help but apply this to many things in HT, including the current level of refinement in CRT technology and 'wiggling things to make sound'.

Someone somewhere will figure out a better way to get traction on air and that will be the end of this buggy whip.

Short of wiggling electrons connected to a neural implant, you have to at least wiggle the air and this, short of an ion driver, requires wiggling something else.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

It always seems like the ways to do a thing are the only ways, until someone dreams up a new one. You might be right, but historically speaking there seems to always be something someone overlooked. Maybe not in this case, but maybe so.

Look at the research on marine propulsion systems that have no moving parts - who would have thought it? Not that this idea maps directly to air, or Audio, but there may be things overlooked. I'm not holding my breath though.

I'll just continue to enjoy the music, however it is (re)produced.

Even when I was a kid, every time I played a vinyl record, my patented Wank-O-Meter™ went wild. They seemed _soooo_ primitive. I couldn't have envisoned digital audio - I thought that magnetic tape was the ultimate and only way to reproduce sound. I too am not holding my breath for something new to replace speakers in my lifetime, but knowing my luck, they'll come up with something just about the time my hearing starts to fail from old age

The "Next" speaker which uses random 'wiggles' across a flat surface kind of seems like a diversionary wank to me.

Like they say "If we _used to_ be able to send men to the moon......"

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited December 28, 2002).]

Fast forward seven years...

I really would have thought that Class D amplification would be commonplace by now. No such luck. Costs have still not come down to reasonable levels for good performing digital amplifiers, and they are actually more difficult to find and buy today than they were a couple of years ago.

I'm still waiting for a COOL RUNNING, high performace seven channel BALANCED OUTPUT amplifier that can output at least 125 watts per channel into 8 ohm loads, weigh less than 40 pounds, and cost less than $2000.

Dave K.

Yep, it still tends to be expensive relative to traditional solid state amps. Receivers' needs for cooling and power supply efficiency would seem to create an incentive to make advancements in this regard, and certainly some receivers are using this sort of technology, but it's still something of a niche technology.

In theory, it shouldn't be THAT hard to roll together a 5-channel balanced class D amp using something like the Hypex UcD180 modules for $1000-1500. You basically just need:

an enclosure
odds and ends of connectors (power/neutrik balanced inputs, binding posts, etc)
Switching power supply
Transformer
5 hypex modules

Every time I think about sitting down and building a prototype, Mrs. Ritz comes up with another entry in her honey-do list. Sigh...

There are a few DIY kits out there, though. The attraction of having an amp that can put out gobs of power without the hernia-inducing weight or the wasted heat thrown into the room seems compelling. However, it doesn't appear to be that compelling to manufacturers who typically specialise in high quality on a low budget. The company that's able to produce an audiophile quality multichannel class D amp at an affordable price for the enthusiast market will probably do well.

Yeah, but if you roll it together out of parts and build a DIY kit for $1200, what you've built is comparable to a retail (even internet-direct) $2500 or $3000 amp. Sort of like this thing .

The day will come, I still think it's inevitable. I just have no idea how soon it will come...

A company like Outlaw (or pick a company) that made enough units would certainly be able to enjoy substantially better pricing on the innards and could theoretically pass along some of that savings. I suspect Axiom's cost for that unit is not north of $1200. Would be a nice cottage industry for someone with the time/energy to set up shop.

Best,

I agree. It'll be even more interesting when the parts cost works its way down to around $500 or $750 for the parts...

Yep. The licensing on the silicon must be pretty expensive. That's the only reason I can see the cost being so high given the parts. Technology marches on...

Meanwhile, the closest I can find to my ideal Class-D 7-channel amp is the Rotel RMB-1077. It's price has reportedly just dropped to under $2000.

At 100 watts per channel, it runs extremely cool, and only weighs 17 pounds. But it only offers analog, unbalanced inputs.

Wouldn't it be great to have an amplifier like this that had a HDMI for its audio input?

Dave K.

Probably not, for a couple of reasons.

Connectivity: What are you going to connect it's HDMI input to? I don't want to integrate a full surround processor into my amp, so I'd need my processor to have a dedicated HDMI audio output that provides conveniently decoded, processed, EQ'd, and level-balanced multichannel PCM separate from the HDMI video output that goes to my display. There isn't such an animal available now.

DAC's are also an issue. The method by which they amplify an analog signal is conveniently called "digital," but these "digital" amps are still acting on an analog signal. If you input a digital signal, you need to add a multichannel DAC into the amplifier. That DAC would convert the multichannel PCM into analog. But since your pre-amp/processor will still need DAC's and analog outputs for use with the subwoofer and with other amplifiers, that means you just bought two multichannel DAC's.

Yes Gonk, you are correct. I'm hoping that Outlaw's 997 will have at least two HDMI outputs.

The goal ought to be having NO analog connections between digital components- including Class-D amplifiers (if they ever become widely available).

Class D amps are not digital components - they are still analog, and you still need analog connections to them.

Not sure where you're getting your info, Gonk, but Class-D amplifiers are switching mode amplifiers that operate on a PWM signal. A digital input (like SPDIF or HDMI audio) can be directly converted to PWM in a DSP chip without ever going into the analog domain. In fact, HDMI supports sending multi-channel PWM (a la DSD, as is used with SACDs) directly.

A pre-pro internal digital signal that is converted to an analog output and fed to an analog input on a Class D amplifier must still be converted to PWM inside the amp. This adds an unnecessary D/A conversion at the output of the preamp/processor, and also requires the signal to travel in the analog domain through conventional analog cables between the two boxes- things that could be avoided if the signal was left in the digital domain all the way to the DSP in the amp.

It has been a while since I read up on class D, so I had to go back and do some digging. I have read in several places that the common term "digital amps" is a misnomer, with the "D" simply being the next letter in line at the time that the technology first appeared. (See this Wikipedia entry, which mentions both the class D identifier and touches on PWM as pertains to analog signals.) Another article that touches on digital vs. analog input to class D amps is this Audioholics article. It does point out that it is technically possible to build a class D amp that accepts a digital signal (which I had either not heard before or had forgotten), but it goes on to suggest that this approach may actually be inferior to a design that operates with an analog signal.

Glad to see we're on the same page again, gonk.

I am familiar with that Audioholics article and other writings by Bruno Putzeys. When he wrote that in 2004, he was indeed describing what was the current state of the art of analog vs. DSP at that time. But DSP chips have gotten a LOT faster and more powerful since then- which has closed the performance gap considerably- perhaps to the point of inaudability.

In any case, I shall continue to lust over the possibility of someday eliminating the giant wad of cables connecting all of my components together without [audible] sacrifices in sound quality.

If the technology can be made to work, the idea of a digital output to the amps is definitely intriguing, but even if we see those amps enter production I worry about trying to do it with today's HDMI. We start with the nightmare that is splitting HDMI - most processors with two HDMI outputs don't have both active at the same time because of the HDCP problems that it generates. They we get to the issue of controlling the audio output via HDMI: is it PWM or PCM? While the HDMI spec may theoretically work with PWM, has anybody actually done it? And when will processors incorporate the software to provide that signal? Then we have the issue of what you do if you don't have all of your amp channels in a single amp chassis. We have theaters with five channels, seven channels, and now (with the arrival of PLIIz) possibly even nine channels. How do we handle that if not by creating a single audio connection for each speaker? That connection gets messy in a hurry unless you require people to buy an amp with all of the channels in a single chassis.

I suspect the realities of electrical engineering plus economies of scale are conspiring. It's cheap to build really good amps using proven techniques, and so we keep doing it.

Digital amps, despite what some more vehement supporters asserted almost a decade ago, are hard to make right for an arbitrary load. *I* had hoped we'd see more self powered speakers and within those, class D amps that were precisely matched to the driver they powered. No dice though.

I do find the self powered Martin Logans intriguing though.

Um....you mean like almost every powered subwoofer sold today (including those from Outlaw) going back a decade or so?

It's all about economies of scale. Once folks clue in to the fact that they can get "audiophile" quality amplification from a device that weighs 10% as much as a typical class AB amp and wastes substantially less power producing wasted heat, the numbers will quickly start to tilt in favor of digital amps.

I LOVE my Outlaw 755 boat anchor. It sounds great. BUT it generates a LOT of heat, uses quite a bit of electricity, and is very heavy. There are 5 channel digital amps out there today that produce similar power output (or more), require much less energy to operate, and throw off a LOT less heat for not much more than I paid for my Outlaw amp 5 years ago.

Best,

No love for whats proven and time tested? I mean yes new technology is cool and very much the future, but lets not crap on out former loves. The grass aint always greener.

Ill still stand behind my "boat anchor" amp. Ill live with the heat (although mine doesnt get hot at all?)and added electricity in order to have that class A/B lush mid range and aggressive imaging that it delivers. Until I hear a digital amp that really delivers Ill stay the course too, sound quality is worth the extra $5 a month in electric...and if it did get I would use that heat on the winter?

A couple of decades ago, there was a similar argument as folks wistfully described their devotion to their fire bottle amps. Time marches on. I suspect Outlaw's fortunes would be a bit better if they ride the front of the wave rather than trying to cling to the past. There's still folks that make a living by putting together fancy class A triode amps with lots of brushed aluminum and other shiny bits, but that number is dwindling and the price of their products are escalating towards the stratosphere while the cost of quality digital amps are steadily falling.

Call me crazy, but I think a fella stands to make more profit selling 100,000 Hondas than 500 Lambos.

At least one company was going to introduce such a "all digital" amplifier, but the technology apparently didn't mature and work well enough so that company went away. If an HDMI connector would be used, that would make the internals more complicated, almost duplicating the features inside a processor.

oh yes, your most likely right. I am a dieing breed. Another factor for my choices are use. Im only referring to a 2 channel application.

And I did get to hear a ICE amp a few months back and was impressed with overall SQ.

Well it will be a pretty boring system if it's composed of 8 self powered subs. What I'd like to see is more on the lines of the Martin Logan self powered speakers; I'd like to see self powered FULL RANGE speakers with optimally matched amps integrated, ready to be driven via a simple and cheap TOSLink optical interface, or via standard analog line inputs.

That would be ideal for me.

Meridian has had something like this for ages. Be prepared to take out a mortgage though.

For the rest of us, I'd be tickled to simply replace my amp with a more efficient digital design. They're out there and the prices are dropping.

Best,

Wouldn't it be cool to have the speakers self powered and wireless. It would gain a lot of WAF.

Ooooooooh.

Heck with WAF, *I* want that. There's no reason I can think of we couldn't do that with something like Bluetooth.

Somebody has to be doing it already. Even if someone bluetoothed a remote preamp with some powered speakers so the wires wouldn't have to cross the room.

Check out this link. Aperion has a way to do it for powered subs. Any good powered speakers out there? This could work and it is pretty cheap.

http://www.aperionaudio.com/catalog/Wireless-Audio-Solutions,84.aspx

It appears that this Aperion Audio wireless device uses a USB cable for input into the transmitter--which to my layman perspective means it is digital and primarily designed for computer hookups and not pre/pro hookups whether digital or analog. Is this correct or is there a way to incorporate this into an Outlaw 990? Ideally, I would like to use it (or something else) to pipe zone 2 (which I know is analog) to additional locations wirelessly. Right now I have my zone 2 split and feeding (i) 4 downstairs stereo zones with an impedence matching speaker selector, and (ii) an outdoor stereo plus subwoofer system via a distribution amplifier and an Outlaw ICBM (which outdoor system, after a few hiccups, I have gotten to work nicely--and loudly!). I would also like to split my zone 2 for my upstairs, a large play room, and my garage, but I don't want to run more wires, don't want to add separate systems, and certainly don't want to have to run my main system for these ancillary purposes. Assuming the Aperion Audio wireless device (or something else) could be made to work for an Outlaw 990 zone 2, it would be a great solution for me.

It also has a stereo analog input which would allow the output of an AVP or AVR to transmit a signal to a powered speaker.

As for self powered speakers, M&K professional line had self powered speaker. Nearly any studio speaker you buy today is self powered. My audioengine 5's on my desktop are self powered and quite nice. It's nothing new, but hasn't really caught on in the home market except for a few select brands. I do think it's nice because that means the speakers have been sonically matched by the engineer who built the speakers. On the other hand people are very particular about the "sound" of their amps.

Powered speakers can be a very nice approach, and they are probably more common today than they have been in the past. One challenge with powered speakers in home theater is the wiring, though. Fronts and center are relatively straightforward, but surrounds are downright tricky. You need 120V power nearby, and most folks would prefer it to be very close at hand to avoid running an exposed power cord all over the place. That probably means hiring an electrician to come install some extra outlets specifically for each speaker. You also need to have different wiring to the speaker, since speaker cable can't really be re-tasked as a pre-amp cable. Combine those two limitations with the fact that many home theaters are using receivers that lack pre-amp outputs, and you can see why the traditional approach of passive speakers and centralized amplification has remained so dominant.

Off-topic: Those audioengine's are really something, aren't they? Last fall I convinced a dancer friend who DIY edits her own videos and stuff to splash on the audioengine 2s for desktop application. She was suspicious of the expense, but now continually thanks me for pressing her to bump up to decent sound.

They're quite nice. I tried a plethora of computer speaker systems and ended up returning all of them. I have the audioengine 5's matched with a 10" Outlaw Sub. Makes for a nice computer sound system. I have some KRK's for studio stuff as well.

Continuing the off-topi, I too have a set of the A5s paired with the Final S110 for Computer audio. They are great fed by a higher-end ASUS sound card and I even splurged on a silver input cable and made my own single speaker cable

My computer system is listed below. I did however make a set of low inductance 10 gauge speaker wires out of cat5 and really like them...

Technology marches on. Has everyone heard about the "Class D3" amplifiers that are built into the 2011 Pioneer SC-55 and SC-57 receivers? These units are getting high praise in the audio press for sound quality.

I continue to look forward to when a relatively small company like Outlaw can offer a powerful and great sounding product that doesn't heat up your room or crush your shelves.

Now here is the product that I wish had come from the Outlaws (albeit preferrably in a 7 channel version):

http://www.nuforce.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=306:dda-100&Itemid=370