hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Mar 9, 2017 21:53:20 GMT -5
I like digital amps. The Onkyo TX-LR552 that is in my profile sig is no longer in service but served me for 12 years. It was a very good Digital amp that sounded great. I am using a Sony 1070 A/B amplifier of the same power rating and not feeling it like I did with that old digital amp. I think I am going to get an RMC-1 with a Mercedes Benz knob !  Emersa is old news. Mercedes is old news. Word on the street Huggy Bear, is Maybach.  |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Mar 9, 2017 22:24:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the input Lonnie . So has anyone at Emotiva had a chance to compare some of the Class D Amplifier designs like the Bang and Olufsen ICEpower, the Hypex Ncore, this new "Pascal" design from D-Sonic, etc.? For instance, I've seen articles written by Bruno Putzeys of Hypex/Ncore fame where he extols the virtues of Negative Feedback in Amplifier Design[1,2]. Is this part of the Feedback which you talk about? And how does all of this compare with the design of the current XPA Gen3 amplifiers? As I understand it they're Class A/B being fed by a Switch-Mode Power Supply? So they're "linear" in the blades I think, but still require a Low-Pass Filter to remove high-frequency Power Supply noise (though I think the Class A/B design of the blades may do that naturally). Casey [1] Negative feedback in audio amplifiers: Why there is no such thing as too much[2] Negative feedback in audio amplifiers: Why there is no such thing as too much (Part 2)Oh, we have compared them all and each has its own merits and short comings in our opinion. I won't go into what those are because everyone and every situation is different. So telling you what I think could be very different from what you find yourself. But I will say that in order to get that "Emotiva" sound, we designed our own. Lonnie |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Mar 9, 2017 22:28:34 GMT -5
-------- recombinant filter ------------- Lonnie Nice one Lonnie, increasing ones vocabulary, I've not seen "recombinant" used in relation to electronics, is that alternate terminology for an L-C low-pass filter? Cheers Gary Yes a recombinant filter is made up of a L-C low pass but the reason its not called that is because of what it does. What would you call it? Lonnie |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Mar 9, 2017 23:27:52 GMT -5
Nice one Lonnie, increasing ones vocabulary, I've not seen "recombinant" used in relation to electronics, is that alternate terminology for an L-C low-pass filter? Yes a recombinant filter is made up of a L-C low pass but the reason its not called that is because of what it does. What would you call it? Lonnie Hi Lonnie, I'm far from an expert but I do recall a year or so back that Ti released a product report that they called "Class-D LC Filter Design" which I found interesting. www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa119b/sloa119b.pdfCheers Gary |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Mar 10, 2017 0:29:02 GMT -5
Yes a recombinant filter is made up of a L-C low pass but the reason its not called that is because of what it does. What would you call it? Lonnie Hi Lonnie, I'm far from an expert but I do recall a year or so back that Ti released a product report that they called "Class-D LC Filter Design" which I found interesting. www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa119b/sloa119b.pdfCheers Gary How about calling it a recombine harvester? A recombinator - to recycle some feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Mar 10, 2017 0:59:31 GMT -5
... Oh, we have compared them all and each has its own merits and short comings in our opinion. I won't go into what those are because everyone and every situation is different. So telling you what I think could be very different from what you find yourself. But I will say that in order to get that "Emotiva" sound, we designed our own. ... And I understand the desire to focus on what you're building and not get into a distracting argument of "who's is better". So I'm just looking forward to the new products coming out.  Thanks for all your hard work! Casey |
|
Lonnie
Emo Staff
admin
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Posts: 6,999
|
Post by Lonnie on Mar 10, 2017 9:44:29 GMT -5
Yes a recombinant filter is made up of a L-C low pass but the reason its not called that is because of what it does. What would you call it? Lonnie Hi Lonnie, I'm far from an expert but I do recall a year or so back that Ti released a product report that they called "Class-D LC Filter Design" which I found interesting. www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa119b/sloa119b.pdfCheers Gary I haven't read that yet, will delve into it this weekend. Thanks, Lonnie |
|
nrde
Minor Hero
Posts: 62 
|
Post by nrde on Mar 11, 2017 18:39:40 GMT -5
Seem to work well in studio monitors though. I guess that's O.K. if you want to monitor a studio! Well you... sounded like you didn't think class D could output accurate sound or it needs to be overly complicated to do that. Studio monitors sound usually as accurate as possible, you don't have to be in a studio to hear that. It's not the 90's anymore. Even with class D. Maybe I misred your message and missed your point. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Mar 11, 2017 21:32:39 GMT -5
Sentence 1 is exactly what I think about Class D. Sentence 2 is a misunderstanding of what a studio monitor really is. A studio monitor is what sound technicians listen to to monitor what they are doing. It could be any speaker good or bad. They are creating sounds and have little interest in accurate reproduction of sound. Class D amps are small vs their power, ideal for imbedding in speakers, but that does not mean they are the most accurate type.
|
|
nrde
Minor Hero
Posts: 62
|
Post by nrde on Mar 12, 2017 11:46:55 GMT -5
Sentence 1 is exactly what I think about Class D. Sentence 2 is a misunderstanding of what a studio monitor really is. A studio monitor is what sound technicians listen to to monitor what they are doing. It could be any speaker good or bad. They are creating sounds and have little interest in accurate reproduction of sound. Class D amps are small vs their power, ideal for imbedding in speakers, but that does not mean they are the most accurate type. I'm not sure if studio technicians should be offended when told they are not interested in accurate sound production. If I was I would be. Also I think you probably have wrong impression of what a studio technician is actually doing, because I thought it's the people playing the instruments who are creating the sounds not the person who is trying to capture the sound as accurately as possible. They might verify the recording sounds good also on a low quality speaker, but they surely don't use those to mix it. Note I haven't create the wikipedia article (emphasis mine): Anyway there are many studio monitors that work very well even in a normal room environment, have class D amps in them and reproduce sounds very accurately. Genelec and Yamaha being the best examples. As I said, this is not he 90's anymore. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Mar 12, 2017 13:14:10 GMT -5
I guess that's O.K. if you want to monitor a studio! Well you... sounded like you didn't think class D could output accurate sound or it needs to be overly complicated to do that. Studio monitors sound usually as accurate as possible, you don't have to be in a studio to hear that. It's not the 90's anymore. Even with class D. Maybe I misred your message and missed your point. Class D can put out accurate sound and loads of power. Period. Don't let others tell you it cannot. Experience a great one and judge for yourself. As for whether it needs to be "overly" complicated to do so...I personally don't care as I don't have to design the circuit...I just plug mine in and connect them and they sound great. Nothing complicated there! Mark |
|
nrde
Minor Hero
Posts: 62
|
Post by nrde on Mar 12, 2017 15:24:28 GMT -5
Nothing complicated there! Exactly, no power amps, no speaker cables, no speaker cable risers to choose. Normal XLR cable or even good quality RCA and you are good to go. But of course it would be the same even if they had A, B, A/B or whatever amp inside, maybe a bit bigger housing... |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Mar 13, 2017 6:03:25 GMT -5
Nothing complicated there! Exactly, no power amps, no speaker cables, no speaker cable risers to choose. Normal XLR cable or even good quality RCA and you are good to go. But of course it would be the same even if they had A, B, A/B or whatever amp inside, maybe a bit bigger housing... No power amps. Really, then why do they call them 'powered' speakers. No speaker cable risers - what the hell are those? Only XLR or RCA signal cables - what about power (and to every speaker). I must admit that, if you are going to have Class D amplification, then in the speaker designed for a given and unchanging transducer is the best application for Class D given its peculiarity of varying success with divergent speakers. But Class D is complicated, so much so that most components use canned designs and because of that they lose some control over their product. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Mar 13, 2017 8:33:34 GMT -5
A studio monitor is what sound technicians listen to to monitor what they are doing. It could be any speaker good or bad. They are creating sounds and have little interest in accurate reproduction of sound. ... and corvette's are built for sunday-strolling ...  The whole point of studio monitors is accurate sound reproduction. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 13, 2017 8:59:34 GMT -5
A studio monitor is what sound technicians listen to to monitor what they are doing. It could be any speaker good or bad. They are creating sounds and have little interest in accurate reproduction of sound. ... and corvette's are built for sunday-strolling ... The whole point of studio monitors is accurate sound reproduction. While it may be true that the goal of studio monitors is accurate sound reproduction, that doesn't necessarily mean they achieve their goals any better than do "regular" speakers. They also don't sound uniform in audio character which means the manufacturers either have different ideas of what is accurate or else they aren't achieving their goal that well. Even so, while "audiophiles" are always talking about achieving accurate, straight wire with gain sound, often when presented with something like that, they don't care for it. You have all sorts of preferences among people, for example, those who like exaggerated bass. I would hope those who make non-studio monitor speakers would also have the goal of accurate sound but who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Mar 13, 2017 9:41:50 GMT -5
... and corvette's are built for sunday-strolling ... The whole point of studio monitors is accurate sound reproduction. While it may be true that the goal of studio monitors is accurate sound reproduction, that doesn't necessarily mean they achieve their goals any better than do "regular" speakers. They also don't sound uniform in audio character which means the manufacturers either have different ideas of what is accurate or else they aren't achieving their goal that well. Even so, while "audiophiles" are always talking about achieving accurate, straight wire with gain sound, often when presented with something like that, they don't care for it. You have all sorts of preferences among people, for example, those who like exaggerated bass. I would hope those who make non-studio monitor speakers would also have the goal of accurate sound but who knows. Agree, they don't sound uniform, but that's due to compromises, like budget etc. High end studio monitors from Adam or Genelec definitely have that flat/accurate sound to them. But yes, they will still have a slightly different sound, even in the same model lineup. Physics I guess. But this is all in the context of a "class D" thread: if Genelec (whose goal is accuracy in studio monitors) uses class D amps, then it sort of logically follows that they feel that their class D is accurate enough to be used in their speakers. |
|
nrde
Minor Hero
Posts: 62
|
Post by nrde on Mar 13, 2017 10:41:32 GMT -5
Exactly, no power amps, no speaker cables, no speaker cable risers to choose. Normal XLR cable or even good quality RCA and you are good to go. But of course it would be the same even if they had A, B, A/B or whatever amp inside, maybe a bit bigger housing... No power amps. Really, then why do they call them 'powered' speakers. No speaker cable risers - what the hell are those? Only XLR or RCA signal cables - what about power (and to every speaker). I must admit that, if you are going to have Class D amplification, then in the speaker designed for a given and unchanging transducer is the best application for Class D given its peculiarity of varying success with divergent speakers. But Class D is complicated, so much so that most components use canned designs and because of that they lose some control over their product. I meant no external amp boxes to buy. Cable risers are things people put under their speaker cables to make their speakers sound better (although most people don't believe it has any measurable difference, I tried to lighten my message a little...). Naturally you need power cable to the speaker, I only mentioned cables people tend to think affects sound quality. I agree generic class D amp is probably not worth to be used with every speaker out there. But I think it has its uses in cases where other components are known as you mention, like in monitors and subs. A bad speaker is a bad speaker has it a "bad" class D or bad A/B or whatever amp in it. I have no idea how difficult it is to make D-class work well, maybe it is. I think the idea of powered studio monitors is the speaker housing, elements and amp(s) can be tuned to work well together (it's possible when using other than class D too). For example most? Genelecs are bi-amped (or tri amped) in relative small housings but still output 100+db with good quality one reason being they make good use of the components. |
|
|
|
Post by alucard on Mar 15, 2017 10:04:15 GMT -5
I thought all of D-Sonic's current offerings us Pascal? If it's only their highest power model and the others use B&O Ice then I'd rather get Wyred MMC that comes in a much smaller case.
Also, Wyred's MMCs are out of stock and there is a note they are working on a new version. I wonder what modules this will use.
I current use A/B and they sound great. I do like the idea of smaller footprint, lighter weight, and less heat. One of these days I will try class D.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Mar 21, 2017 18:55:16 GMT -5
And here we have yet another implementation of Bruno's Ncore technology in ATI's new amplifiers as covered in a mostly glowing review in Sound and Vision. At least ATI isn't charging a huge price premium for packaging up the NC400 amplifiers. Their stereo AT522NC amplifier is $1,895 as compared with the ~$1,400 of two of the NC400 monoblock kits from Hypex. And that ~$500 gets you 12V triggers, RCA inputs, assembly & tested, etc. But I'm still tempted to just buy a couple of the Hypex NC400 kits for fun ... Casey |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Mar 21, 2017 19:54:50 GMT -5
Build them...have fun!
Mark
|
|
Emersa is old news.
The whole point of studio monitors is accurate sound reproduction. 
