Re: how good are class D amplifiers?

In article <46477a04$0$12429$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jaap
<fake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Serge Auckland schreef:


Personally I never liked the 'digital' sound with its harsh highs and
unnatural dynamics. But OK, tastes differ (we say over here).



Digital has no "sound". CD is a transparent carrier, in that whatever
goes in comes out, to the limits of the 16 bit 44.1 system, which
comfortably exceeds the human ability to hear. You may not like what
is being done with CDs (I also hate today's Mastering, it's all bout
loudness, not quality) but that's nothing to do with the carrier,
which is transparent to well past the limits of human hearing.

Sorry, I do not agree with you. Sound is affected by everything it comes
in contact with. The surrounding, electronic parts, the hairs in your
ears, noise, air temperature and more. Talk with a musician and stop
believing technicians have a complete picture of nature.


Interesting to see that people still fall for the line of argument. :-)

I've lost count of how many times people have dragged out that argument as
if it supported the beliefs they have that amps/cables/caps/etc all sound
'different'.

Actually, you can also easily use the same argument that "everything has
an effect or makes some tiny difference" *against* your belief. :-)

The reality, though, seems to be that when people conduct appropriately run
listening comparisons, the claimed 'differences' fail to show up. The only
exceptions tend to be for reasons the people you patronise as 'technicians'
can generally explain and deal with.

If you know of some examples where such tests have given assessable evidence
for what you claim, please give a reference as I'd be interested.



Please do a simple test exchanging capacitors in the PS of your audio
equipment or in your speaker crossovers. It might or might not be
measurable but one can hear definitely the change of coloration. Unless
you don't listen to music of course :)

I have in the past repeatedly done what you suggest. The results where than
when I tried the results on people, no-one could tell the difference if
they'd not been told what I'd done. i.e. the sounds gave them no audible
signs.

One of the problems with Digital audio is that only part of the actual
information is recorded.

This is, of course, also true for 'analogue audio'. :-)

Again, in reality though, it will depend on what 'information' was
present in what was to be recorded, and what 'information' would
have have actually had a percievable affect. All real-world systems
have a finite ability to convey or respond to information.


Right now I am listening through a 1.5 watt amplifier giving me more
than enough decibells to feed the 4x6 meter room. Hardrock or orchestra,
no problem. The problem is with the loudspeakers, not having made
serious progress since 1960.

If you think speakers haven't made any progress since 1960 I'd suggest you
get out more. :-) Try, for example, listening to a pair of ESL63's. :-)

Or is your definition of 'progress' based on the unstated requirement that
the speaker has to have an efficiency of well over 100dB/W? ;->

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
.

Relevant Pages