Digital amps
tmartin2 -- Sat, 01/21/2006 - 16:21
I have heard some of the new Class D amps, like nuForce and Channel Island and ARC. I like what I hear. Are there other brands to consider? Has anyone heard the latest TACT amps ("Boz")?
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Here are a few more of the best Class D amps:
-The Kharma MP-150 mono amps (They sounded quite wonderful at the CES show)
-The PS Audio Control Amp (very transparent)
-The New Spectron Musician III amp
-The Rowland 100 watt stereo amp (Model 102)---uses ICEpower technology
-Halcro MC20 using Lyrus technology (used in their Home Theater series).
Along with the Halcro, there were other multichannel Class D amps at the CES.
To my ears, the NuForces were not at their best at the CES show (some upper midrange brightness). However, the Channel Island D200s sounded quite good.
Jim
To Jim's list I would also add models from Red Dragon Audio (the Leviathan Signature monoblocks), Cary Audio (the A 306), and from Rotel (the RB-1091 and RB-1092).
Reliable sources tell me there are also some intriguing new class D designs emerging from Europe; I hope to research them in more depth in the future.
Thus far, the core class D technologies I've encountered most often in high-end designs come from: Bang & Olufsen/ICEpower, NuForce (nPhysics), Philips/Hypex UcD, and Tripath.
Chris Martens
Audio Editor, The Perfect Vision
Senior Writer, The Absolute Sound
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
What technology are the Kharma amps based on?
To my ears, they are the best Class-D amps I've heard to date.
Bel Canto's new e.One series of amps are based on the ICEPower module...
(disclaimer: I am a Bel Canto dealer)
Sonic Spirits Inc.
http//www.sonicspirits.com
Yes, and ARC as well as Sonic Impact use Tripath modules. I think Rowland uses IcePower. Red Dragon uses Icepower.
But as far as I can tell, the module manufacturers have many modules, so simply knowing which module manufacturer is involved is like saying a car has a BMW engine -- well, is it a 1.6 liter four cylinder or a 5 liter V-10?
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
We are working on a major feature on Class-D amplifiers for publication in The Absolute Sound. The feature includes reviews of six models (with comments by additional reviewers), a technology-background article, and a Roundtable discussion among designers of linear and switching amplifiers.
Robert Harley
Editor-in-Chief
The Perfect Vision
The Absolute Sound
When do you think this issue will be out?
Our in-depth Class D feature is slated for Issue 166, which will mail in early October. It seems like a long way off, but given the comprehensive nature of the piece it should be well worth the wait. By the way, so far the Kharma 150s, which I've lived with for the past few months, are the best Class D amps that I've heard too.
I'm not 100% certain of this, but several (non-Kharma) sources have told me the Kharma amps are based on Philips/Hypex UcD modules.
Can any Kharma experts (or other class D mavens) confirm or deny?
Best,
Chris Martens
Audio Editor, The Perfect Vision
Senior Writer, The Absolute Sound
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
I'm terribly interested in the Rotels. Such wattage for the $ has made me consider an upgrade 4 sure.
Just researched the 150s. Holy cow, the Kharmas are $6k + per pair! I could buy a 5 channel Theta Dreadnaught for that price! Sorry Kharma and Rowland Research - Amps this small purchased with off the shelf technology should not be that expensive. I'm not a sucker!
According to Kharma’s importer, Bill Parish, the claim that the Kharma MP150 uses a Philips/Hypex UcD (Universal Class D) module is 100% incorrect. The construction of the printed circuit board was subcontracted out to Hypex (and the first runs had the “Hypex” logo on them), but while the board layouts look similar to the Philips/Hypex UcD, the parts are totally different, the power supplies are completely different, the bandwidth and distortion numbers are substantially different, and the sound is very different (a claim that I can attest to). Indeed, Bruno Putzeys—the patent-holder of the UcD technology and formerly the head engineer of the Philips Class D Division—designed the MP150 specifically for Kharma and is an employee of Kharma (as well as UcD). (See Putzeys’ AES Convention Paper 353—“All amplifiers are analogue, but some amplifiers are more analogue than others”—presented at the 120th AES Convention in Paris, France, May 20–23, 2006, for much greater detail on the subject of Class D amplification.)
Yes, the MP150s are pricey—they actually retail for $3400 apiece—but until you hear one and compare it, side by side, to a world-class amplifier, don't be so quick to dismiss it as a poor value simply because of its diminutive size. To be fair, I haven't heard it next to a Theta Dreadnaught, but I have heard it, at length, next to the $72k/pair MBL 9011, and though the MP150 was not as good as the 9011, it came a lot closer to the sound of this solid-state paragon of resolution, tone color, and dynamics than a good many other, much more expensive, conventional solid-state amps that I have also compared with the MBL.
Following up on my last post, here is an e-mail I received from Bruno Putzeys:
Out of the list [of Class D amps]...only the amplifier circuit used by Kharma actually does what an amplifier should do. The basic circuit, UcD, is something I designed while working for Philips. It's also used in Hypex subassemblies. However, there's been some confusion about the provenance of the Matrix circuit boards. They were designed specifically for Kharma and are not used by anyone else. They measure and sound quite a bit better than the standard Hypex modules (and they cost... uh quite a bit more). To make my life easy, however, I have the MP150 boards manufactured at Hypex so that's why they are visually similar.
From my brief listening of amps at CES, I would not have guessed the Kharmas were Class D amps. Yes, they have the transparency and bass performance that some of the other Class D amps are noted for, but they sounded far more "right" in the upper midrange and highs than their brethren.
I agree with Jonathan, that viewed in that context, they might be considered bargains. (I admit that they got me "dreaming" about how I might afford a pair, and I'm a tube guy!).
They must be doing something quite different (and quite right). I'm looking forward to the more formal and rigorous comparisons in the upcoming issue of TAS.
The coverage of Class-D amplifiers in Issue 166 of The Absolute Sound will include reviews of seven amplifiers, comments on each amplifier by another reviewer, a technology-background article, an overview of the most interesting Class-D amplifiers on the market, and a Roundtable discussion among designers.
Robert Harley
Editor-in-Chief
The Absolute Sound
The Perfect Vision
jvalin wrote:
Yes, the MP150s are pricey—they actually retail for $3400 apiece—but until you hear one and compare it, side by side, to a world-class amplifier, don't be so quick to dismiss it as a poor value simply because of its diminutive size. To be fair, I haven't heard it next to a Theta Dreadnaught, but I have heard it, at length, next to the $72k/pair MBL 9011, and though the MP150 was not as good as the 9011, it came a lot closer to the sound of this solid-state paragon of resolution, tone color, and dynamics than a good many other, much more expensive, conventional solid-state amps that I have also compared with the MBL.
That's a fine position if you find nothing wrong with spending $72k for the MBLs. I don't, and I doubt that those people in the market for statement gear are going to buy Kharmas. These amplifiers are small, light and I'm guessing a lot easier than a heavier amplifier to manufacturer. I can't see why they aren't cheaper, especially when other class D manufacturers are "allegedly" achieving wonderful results for half the price. If I'm going to spend $3k per channel, I might as well get a BAT. That's right, we are talking $15k for a 5 channel Kharma system. $5k more than the BAT and wwice as much as a Dreadnaught. What do these amps do that other amps in this price range don't.
I'm really looking forward to this issue, but I hope that we don't miss out on a potential revolution in audiophile value.
If you want to believe, a priori, that the Kharma MP150 (or the MBL 9011 or the MAGICO Ultimate or Mini, for that matter) is an overpriced boondoggle and that you'll get better sound for less money from a five-channel BAT or Theta without having heard the Kharma amp, or compared it to state-of-the-art amplification (and I've compared it with Class A and Class AB amps from MBL, ARC, Pass Labs, Lamm Labs, Joule Electra, Parasound, and Krell, among others), or paid attention to the posts about how the Kharma amp differs from other Class D amps in design and parts cost and sound, then you may be an Audiophile Realist but you're not being an Audiophile Rationalist.
BTW, I'm not saying that the Kharma MP150 beat out every one of these other fine (and considerably more expensive) amps. It did not. Nor am I making any claims about its long-term commercial viability. Nor am I saying that you might not be better off with a BAT or a Theta. What I am saying is that, while you can certainly rule equipment out for you because it doesn’t fit your budget or sense of value-for-dollar, you can't pass judgment on its sonic quality until you've heard it.
I have heard it (so have Jim, Wayne, and Chris, I believe), and, IMO, its sound is more than good enough to justify its price--not just in comparison with other Class D amps but in comparison with the best the high end has to offer.
That said, nobody's going to start the Class D revolution without you (and others like you who are looking for great sound at a relatively sane price). Our Class D roundup will present many different (good-sounding) options at many price points.
I think you misunderstood my point of view. I'm not passing judgement on its sonic qualities as much as I am passing judgement on its relative economic value. I don't judge the price of this amp by its performance against a $70k amp. I judge it based on what lower cost products can accomplish. It's all about diminishing returns and emperor's new clothes. I think that in most cases $70k for an amp is primarily for those who are aspirational audiophiles who see high-fi as luxury items - that's not me. I judge the value of a product by the dollar paid for the cost to manufacture as per the resulting performance.
For me a rip-off is not defined purely by price, but by what I think I am getting for the dollar AND what I think the manufacturer put into it to justify the price being asked for. In the case of Class D amps, I instinctively believe that in terms of design and manufacture, Kharma is making a killer mark-up. At $15k for a 5 channel system, I just can't justify the price being charged. When I look at the BAT, a stellar 5 channel amp, I instinctively believe that the product cost that much because the manufacturer actually put that much more into delivering a quality product. In other words, even if the Kharma's were the best amps in the world, I'd feel like a sucker if I believed that the manufacturer was raping me on the mark-up.
PS: I'm a big fan of Wilson's advert on the business model they use. I am most interested in hearing the Sophia 2 after reading about their business philosophy.
I did misunderstand your point, although you're rather misunderstanding mine. For me, value isn't merely a matter of parts/manufacturing costs and pricing vis-à-vis other products of similar topology; it's a matter of what you get in the way of sound quality for your dollars, too. Whether you're looking from the top down or from the bottom up, the MP150s are worth what is being asked, IMO.
Also, in the case of the Kharmas or the MBL 9011s I think you need to keep certain economic realities in mind. To use the MP150s as an example, remember that the dollar is weak in Europe (the Kharma MP150s are made in the Netherlands), and the exchange rate is hurting a lot of companies over there that do business in the U.S. The MBL 9011s, for example, used to cost around $62k/pair; now they're $74k! (And still worth it, if you got it.) Some of the higher price of the Kharma MP150 compared with other Class D amps is simply the tax you're paying because of the weak dollar. (Though, from your point of view, this might be a reason to avoid foreign entanglements.)
At the same time, as I've pointed out, the Kharmas are nowhere near as cheap to make as other Class D amps. Ditto for the MAGICO Mini and MBL 9011.
Consider the MAGICO Mini, for a second. Alon Wolf simply doesn't cut corners on anything; nor as a small perfectionist manufacturer does he get any economy-of-scale breaks on parts or machining or raw materials. Look at his drivers to start with. The Revelator tweeters he uses cost $500 apiece as raw parts. The vapor-deposited Titanium mid/woof that he developed (and the part is unique and proprietary to MAGICO, so nothing about the driver was "off the shelf") cost him a fortune to manufacture. Now consider the stands and the driver plates. Aircraft-grade 6061T-6 aluminum costs $5 a pound and Wolf uses about 150 pounds of it per speaker/stand—and that does not take into consideration the tremendous cost of machining that aluminum. The crossover parts he uses are sourced from Raimund Mundorf in Cologne. Go online and see for yourself how much those gold/silver caps and inductors cost. Wolf’s enclosure, which is made for him in Europe, consists of 16 one-inch layers of 17-ply Baltic Birch that have to be laminated together and formed into a tear-drop shape and then massively reinforced with internal bracing. I know for a fact that the "reject-rate" on these unbelievable cabinets is extremely high—they are that hard to construct properly. When you add all this up, Wolf is not making much at all on his Minis, retail price notwithstanding. But a smaller profit is the price he was willing to pay to get his foot in the ultra-high-end door.
BTW, I am in no way trying to talk you out of purchasing the Wilson Sophia IIs, which Robert Harley (who recently heard them driven to a fare-thee-well by ARC tube gear at Overture) tells me are superb. All I am suggesting is that sound quality isn't always a zero-sum game, with parts/manufacturing costs on one side and consumer satisfaction on the other (although, in the case of the MAGICO Minis at least, it isalmost a zero-sum game because of their very high cost of manufacture and Wolf’s low margin of profit).
Funny thing is, your description of the Minis sounds more like jewelry or some other luxury item. Why would I spend $20k on a speaker that can't even go below 40Hz? And that's assuming that it meets its rated specs. As a lover of music, I cannot comprehend the support of a $20k speaker that can't go below 20hz. I don't care if it was machined from a solid block of gold, and had platinum trim - if it can't produce 20Hz than lower your price!
To me, being an audiophile has nothing to do with the aspirational or luxurious aspects of a product. Talk to me about how much sound I'm getting for my dollar, and tell me what this product does that the next doesn't. Otherwise it stays on the shelf. For $20k I'm close to a pair of Watt Puppies, well beyond 801Ds, ML Summits are less. I can buy the entire Genesis 6.1 system for the price of the Magico mini-monitors! A product like this can only exist because of the aspirational/luxury hype that does audiophiles a disservice. A product like the Magico deserves praise in the Robb Report, and not TAS.
That's one of the things I love about the videophile market - The percentage of aspirational products is so small, and most products are sold at competitive prices sans the hyperbole that has infected hi-fidelity. Potential buyers are always asking what the "next great thing" has to reaslistically offer above and beyond what they have now. If the answer isn't obvious, then the product stays on the shelf.
Having heard the Mini, I would choose it over a huge number of other similarly priced loudspeakers that deliver far deeper bass extension. As my colleague Jonathan Valin says, it's a mistake to pass judgments a priori on products. Or as Linn founder Ivor Tiefenbrun famously stated "If you haven't heard it, you don't have an opinion." I'm not trying to be rude or confrontational by quoting Tiefenbrun in this context, but his fundamental thesis is correct; we cannot begin to understand an audio product without firsthand listening experience.
I hope you have a chance to hear the Mini; I think it will shatter your preconceptions.
Robert Harley
Editor-in-Chief
The Absolute Sound
The Perfect Vision
robert_harley6 wrote:Having heard the Mini, I would choose it over a huge number of other similarly priced loudspeakers that deliver far deeper bass extension. As my colleague Jonathan Valin says, it's a mistake to pass judgments a priori on products. Or as Linn founder Ivor Tiefenbrun famously stated "If you haven't heard it, you don't have an opinion." I'm not trying to be rude or confrontational by quoting Tiefenbrun in this context, but his fundamental thesis is correct; we cannot begin to understand an audio product without firsthand listening experience. I hope you have a chance to hear the Mini; I think it will shatter your preconceptions.
As a buyer of these products and magazines, I do have an opinion, even without having heard a particular product. Without me, these manufacturers and your magazine do not exist. I don't have to hear them to appreciate the simple fact that they won't play below 40Hz, and as an audiophile I find this totally unacceptable when there are other reference quality, full range speakers for less money. Pray tell, which $20k speakers would you say that the mini outperforms? I'm at a loss, because I cannot recall a single time when I've ever read an audiophile magazine say that a speaker in the $20k range is anything short of fantasic, if not reference quality. Yes, I understand that there are different strokes for different folks. But what I can't comprehend is the advocacy of a speaker that can't play one of the most wonderful ranges of the music spectrum.
Don't get me wrong, I think I do understand your point. But you are effectively saying that there are full range $20k speakers that are being outperformed by a 40hz rolled-off monitor. Exactly what conclusion is an audiophile to draw? That the mini is so good that you won't miss anything below 40Hz!?! $20k and you don't have anything below 40Hz??? Please, name a few of the full-range speakers you'd bypass in favour of the mini, because I can think of several that make the idea of buying a $20k monitor totally absurd. That is to say, how can you advocate buying the mini if there is a full-range speaker out there near that price that outperforms it? Are there any speakers below $20k that outperform the mini? If so, then shouldn't you be advising readers that their money is better spent elsewhere?
The Minis do not roll-off “anything below 40Hz.” They are down 8dB (referenced to 1kHz) at 35Hz and have useable response into the high 20s. That said, they cannot reproduce this range with lifelike power, and I can understand certain listeners craving deeper bass with some music. However, to assume that 20Hz extension is a prerequisite in a high-priced, high-fidelity speaker is to assume: a) that all speakers that claim to go down to 20Hz actually do go down to 20Hz; b) that those speakers that do reproduce 20-30Hz reproduce that region equally well; c) that very low bass reproduction is always accompanied by the great reproduction of voices and instruments that don’t play into the deep bass; d) that all listeners care equally about the reproduction of 20-30Hz, one of the "most wonderful ranges of the music spectrum" where, in fact, only electronic instruments and pipe organs play; and e) that everyone wants and/or has room for a loudspeaker that is physically large enough to reproduce 20-30Hz bass with lifelike power and authority.
People should shop for what provides the highest-fidelity reproduction of the music they listen to, at the price they can afford. Since the deepest bass appears to be the all-important criterion for the Audiophile Realist, naturally the Minis (without the addition of subwoofers) would be a poor choice for him. They would not, however, be a poor choice for me (or Robert), if we could afford them—not because they’re “vanity items” or they cost a lot but because, even in comparison to the best on the market, they are capable of exceptionally lifelike reproduction of most of the music we listen to.
We, at hawkaudio.nl, use Hypex modules for our products.
A difference with most other products is the way we design the power supply. And, of course, the cabinets are our own style (wether you like it or not).
Most of our products are available as a kit. Class-D designs are also delivered completed at a somewhat higher price.
Music is an emotional experience. Without it, living would be a dull habit...
Quote:People should shop for what provides the highest-fidelity reproduction of the music they listen to, at the price they can afford.
And my basic point is that based on the glowing reviews of reference speakers like the 801D, Sophia, Watt Puppy, Summit, Andra and several other speakers, one begs to question what on earth this small speaker with limited bass range and output could merit the $20k cost. If I am to believe that the above speakers are that good, then the compromises you mention regards the Mini are simply unacceptable, especially at $20kkkkk.
Which brings me back to the digital amp issue and increasing the following of this wonderful hobby. In order for it to grow and evolve, prospective purchasers need to see things that make sense. Only a fool would ignore the symbiotic relationship between mags/websites and manufacturers. Thus, you would only help your cause by providing convincing arguments on why we should take a look at product X. Likewise, I'd like to see you be critical of a product that is bettered by its peers for the dollar. When I read up about the Dreadnaught and the BAT, I can see why these 100lb behemoths coming from well-established companies are worth the dollar. When I look at the Mini and the Kharma, I think that someone, somewhere is building up a sweet retirement package at my expense. I keep naming Wilson Audio, because I think that their new ad campaign really hits the mark. Let's stop with the BS, and give me real reasons to plunk down $15k for a speaker. Don't try to rip me off, m'kaaay?
Ohhh... If you guys only understood why the IPOD and other MP3 devices are so successful, you'd be well on your way up instead of down. I've used my hi-fi more in the last six months than the last six years due to my MP3 player. ...The over-reliance on the luxury principle simply isn't going to cut it no matter how hard you try. These products are first and foremost about function, and in a world of improving technology (digital amps, HD TVs, etc), the hi-fi world is bucking the trend to its own demise. I want my music, and manufacturers are taking far too much credit for what gets played on their product (i.e. Why is it that I can enjoy Bitches Brew on a $300 device?).
One last comment - 2006 has been an awesome year for reading TAS! I picked up Stereophile today, flipped through it and left it on the shelf. While I may be very sceptical of some of the points you guys make, overall it is the absolute best hi-fi magazine out there. I find myself returing to a particular month over and over for more and more great content.
Dear Realist
You're so right about magazines and their connections with manufacturers. I've been reading TAS from 1982 and on with lots of pleasure.
Now I hope TAS will review one of our products. Mind you we offer kits at a "normal"price, calculated from the real costs of the components (and a bit for our research).
BTW our D-402 (a class-D integrated stereo amp) was reviewed recently in a Dutch magazine. They compared it with other class-D products and now call it: "A Wolf in Sheep's Cloths". Of course we were happy with that positive interview. Afterwards it became known that the head editor of that magazine used this amp for MP-3 playing!
Music is an emotional experience. Without it, living would be a dull habit...
Realist:
Boy, you are confusing us. You can see the value in 100lbs amplifier but not in a 450lbs pair of monitors that you have never seen, let alone HEARD?
You think that the Wilson ads just “hit the mark?” Is that before or after the price of the Watt 8, or is it 9 or 10, gone up to 28K (Sorry, I forgot, they improved the XO again but of course the $20 tweeter in it is good enough)?
What bass reproduction you are talking about? Do you really know how low any of the speakers you mention play down to? And at what relative output or distortion levels?
How exactly do you form your opinions? Based on your posts, you are obviously very poorly informed. So what is it? Is it size? Weight? Color? You keep talking about “limited bass range and output” when it is clear you understand nothing about these issues. Experienced listeners will agree that a 20Hz ported bass will not sound as good as a 30, or even 40Hz properly implemented sealed box; did you even consider these criteria when forming your opinion? What about crossover designs? Driver parameters? Enclosure construction? Do you even know what these mean? JV has tried to explain some of it to you but you are obviously not listening. But I guess that goes without saying...
Dan Haan wrote:Realist:
Boy, you are confusing us. You can see the value in 100lbs amplifier but not in a 450lbs pair of monitors that you have never seen, let alone HEARD?
The Magico Mini weighs 70lbs - not 450lbs (where did you get 450lbs?). Anyway, the point I was making was in regards to engineering. What do I need to hear when the specs quite clearly say that bass output on a $20k speaker is limited? Anyone who has ever owned a pair of monitors knows that you will be limited in output. I've heard 801s, Genesis 6.1s, the Andra, the Salon, the Studio, the Ultra, the Monolith and several other reference class speakers that cost much less than the Mini. So how can you justify the cost, especially knowing the limited range and output for more money? I know what I'm getting with these other speakers, and I know what I'm not getting with a speaker this size. So no, I cannot justify the price, unless it does something utterly out of this world (which doesn't appear to be the case).
Re the digital amps, there is no doubt in my mind that Audio Research, Theta and BAT has put a lot of effort into manufacturing their amps. The 5channel BAT is 180lbs! I do not perceive the same with the Kharma or the other amps using digital/switching technology. From what I understand, the things are much simpler to manufacturer, so they should cost less than their other bretheren.
Quote:You think that the Wilson ads just “hit the mark?” Is that before or after the price of the Watt 8, or is it 9 or 10, gone up to 28K (Sorry, I forgot, they improved the XO again but of course the $20 tweeter in it is good enough)?
Yes, I do. Read them for yourself, especially the advert on cost/value. We're talking about a company that according to the audio press has produced a reference class $10k speaker that in many ways is better than their last $20k speaker. I applaud any high end company that is first and foremost concerned with performance instead of luxury, and one that will do so at a price that is sensible. Explain how the full range Watt Puppy 7 was $22k and the limited range and output Magico Mini is only $20k? And most importantly, keep in mind that according to the audio press the Watt Puppy has very few peers.
Quote:What bass reproduction you are talking about? Do you really know how low any of the speakers you mention play down to? And at what relative output or distortion levels?
According to the esteemed reviewer, "The Minis do not roll-off “anything below 40Hz.” They are down 8dB (referenced to 1kHz) at 35Hz and have useable response into the high 20s. That said, they cannot reproduce this range with lifelike power, and I can understand certain listeners craving deeper bass with some music."
Need I say more? Like I said, I'd love to hear them actually name other $20k reference class speakers that they'd bypass for the mini. I've heard several for less and more money, and I can't see what is so special about this speaker other than its luxury item trappings (and thus price) plus the hyperbole that continues to poison this hobby.
I can see how someone would dismiss the MAGICO Mini purely on a theoretical basis. $22k for a mini-monitor is astounding. But this is a case where you must hear them to know what the fuss is about. I named the Mini the "best sound at CES" and I stand by that statement. I spent four days listing to different rooms and the Mini simply sounded the most like real music.
I hope you have a chance to audition them for yourself.
Robert Harley
Editor-in-Chief
The Perfect Vision
The Absolute Sound
The MINIS weigh over 220lbs per side, with the stands. Each pair requires more than 300lbs machined 6061 air craft aluminum parts. One of their unique woofers alone costs more then the entire driver compliment of a Watt/Puppy. I have just had the pleasure of hearing them in a store that carries Wilson as well. I can not imagine anyone that is willing to listen prefer the Watt or the Sophia over the MINI. Please look at the Watt 7 measurements that were published by Stereophile. ( http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/920/index6.html ).
If what JV saying is true, the Watt does not actually have more bass output than the MINI. Look at the Watt’s poor FR and impossibly difficult load. What about the fact that whatever bass the Watt actually have is so blotted and out of control that I would gladly do without it. Even Atkinson could not help but saying that “the WATT/Puppy 7 offers enigmatic measured performance” and when Atkinson finally gets the nerves to says that you know that something is terribly wrong. The MINI is the first loudspeaker I have heard in the past 15 years that offers something new and refreshing to the loudspeaker scene that is otherwise SO grime. Yes, they are expensive but for a change, once you see and hear them, you know where the money went. It is a shame that some people will not even bother to study or hear them before making an opinion.
Dan Haan wrote:The MINIS weigh over 220lbs per side, with the stands.
According to the Magico website, each speaker weighs 70lbs, and the stands weigh 110lbs. Those are mighty expensive stands, don't you think?
http://www.magico.net/mini_design.html
Quote:Each pair requires more than 300lbs machined 6061 air craft aluminum parts. One of their unique woofers alone costs more then the entire driver compliment of a Watt/Puppy.
Only the front and back panels of the speaker are made of alluminum. The rest is plywood. Even if the speaker was made entirely of aluminum (which it isn't), that would be 120lbs of wasted air craft grade material. I've never made a speaker, but something tells me that something is horribly wrong with this picture. The speaker and stands look luxurious, but my concern is with performance, not buying jewelry. And as for the cost of the Mini's woofer, sounds like major economies of scale issues to me.
Quote:I have just had the pleasure of hearing them in a store that carries Wilson as well. I can not imagine anyone that is willing to listen prefer the Watt or the Sophia over the MINI.
That sounds more like personal taste, which is the reason why I pointed out several other "reference class" speakers that cost far less. I provided plenty of range in terms of personal taste. But feel free to read TAS or Stereophile's recommended speaker lists, and check the prices.
My specific point concerning Wilson was in regards to their stated business philosophy regarding value, and their much heralded status in audiophile circles. The angle they appear to be taking is performance, not BS. I admire this, and I think that such an approach is the one thing that will actually lead to a greater following in this hobby. I never wrote that I prefer any Wilson speaker; nevertheless, let's stick with it for a second because it demonstrates the problem with the Mini's price so well. Perhaps a lot has happened since 2003, but according to TAS's Robert Harley:
Quote:I can, however, say without reservation that the WP7 produced
the best overall sound I’ve experienced in my home (particularly
when driven by the VTL TL7.5 preamplifier and 450 amplifiers with Transparent cabling). Some of this performance may be due to the ARS room treatment, an advantage not enjoyed by previously reviewed loudspeakers. Nonetheless, the WP7 is a stunning achievement not just for its outstanding musicality, but because it reproduces music
with the size, scale, sheer volume, bass extension, and dynamic
impact of systems three times its size. I need to clarify that last
statement; no other loudspeaker I’ve heard in my home has
approached the WP7 in transient fidelity or dynamic accuracy—
regardless of size or price.
According to Stereophile's Michael Fremer:
Quote:The Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy 7 is a speaker you can both respect and love with ease. It goes low, plays loud, responds quickly, and sounds delicate, detailed, and vivid. It is rhythmically lithe and dynamically expressive, and it projects an impressively large, dramatic, room-filling picture. After the $41,500/pair Rockport Antares, the $22,400/pair WATT/Puppy 7 is the most open, least congested speaker I've heard.
Now contrast the above two comments to Jonathan Valin:
Quote:The Minis do not roll-off “anything below 40Hz.” They are down 8dB (referenced to 1kHz) at 35Hz and have useable response into the high 20s. That said, they cannot reproduce this range with lifelike power, and I can understand certain listeners craving deeper bass with some music."
Which brings me to your comment:
Quote:If what JV saying is true, the Watt does not actually have more bass output than the MINI. Look at the Watt’s poor FR and impossibly difficult load. What about the fact that whatever bass the Watt actually have is so blotted and out of control that I would gladly do without it.
Note how your comments don't quite gel with the above? Additionally, from what I can tell, the Watt is down 8db at about 25hz. Am I reading the frequency response chart incorrectly? According to Valin, you are looking at 35hz at 8db, with limited output. So in conclusion, you are asking me to believe that a 70lb, 2way monitor surpasses the 170lb Watt (all speaker, no stands, btw), and justifies the $20k price. Maybe if I used them in a 9' x 6' listening room they would be the better choice? I suppose if I really wanted to lay the smack down on Wilson and all the other reference class wannabes, I could always buy the 800lb Magico Ultima at $250k. Now that's the kind of performance and value that will bring people into this hobby, right? [/url]
Oy.
You simply do not know what you are talking about, Mr. Realist, and I am tired of trying to show you the manifold errors of your way. Anyone who judges amps primarily on the basis of their weight and speakers on the basis of tonnage and manufacturer-specified frequency response (particularly bass frequency response), and who also listens to MP3s all day and somehow thinks that makes him a high-fidelity guru is hopeless.
The MAGICO Minis are high among the most realistic speakers any amount of money can buy. They measure flatter in frequency response and lower in distortion than any speaker I've had in my home. And they sound the way they measure.
No, they won't do 20Hz bass; they roll off at a gentle 6dB/octave below 40Hz, with useable response into the 30s. If you are into very large-scale symphonic music, pipe organ, electronica, metallica, drum-and-bass, or rap, they probably aren't the speakers for you (without the addition of subwoofers). If you're into classical, jazz, folk, acoustic rock (or acoustic music of any kind), you would be hard put to find a more lifelike loudspeaker for less dough, especially if size (room and speaker) is a consideration.
BTW, just to set the record straight: The Minis with stands do weigh well over 200 lbs. per side, regardless of what you read on MAGICO's Web site. And they cost $16,500 w/o stands and $22,000 with MAGICO's dedicated stands. If you can afford them, I would recommend purchasing the Minis with the stands.
Comment: While I'm thorougly enjoying the back-and-forth discussion of the Magico Mini, I wonder if it might be better to move the conversation over to the "Speakers" section of the forum.
To return to the class D amplifier topic for a moment, I wanted to point out that many high-end class D amplifier manufacturers modify standard amplifier modules to achieve higher performance. Modifications can include parts substitutions, changes to circuit topologies, addition of high-quality power supplies, applications of noise suppression technologies, and more.
Both Kharma and NuForce appear to have developed class D circuit topologies of their own, while many other manufacturers use core technologies developed by Bang & Olufsen (ICEpower), Phillips/Hypex (UcD), Tripath, and others. But regardless of where core technologies are developed, and setting aside questions of real or imagined high-end "pedigrees," the final proof of any amplifier must always be in the listening.
About value: Let me reintroduce a product evaluation scheme I discussed some time ago in AVguide Monthly (a digital magazine that has since merged with The Perfect Vision). The scheme is the brainchild of my friend Sydney Schips, and it is known as the "show me better for less" test.
It goes like this: As you evaluate any component, ask yourself if you know of competing products that offer equivalent or better performance at lower prices. If you can cite competitors that do as much or more for less, then the product does not offer good value. But if you can't find better performance for less, the product in question has--in a pragmatic sense--justified its price (whether it cost a lot to build or not).
Using the "show me better for less" test as your guide, you may discover the Kharma monoblocks can stand their ground versus like-priced or even more costly amplifiers. I certainly think they can and do.
Two other competing class D amps that also offer terrific sound, and at lower price points than the Kharmas, are the Audio Research D300.2 and the recently-released NuForce Reference 9 Special Edition monoblocks (an improved version of the award-winning Reference 9 reviewed in TAS 158--review available for free download from this site).
Big Picture: What encourages me about class D technology is that it holds the potential to take listeners farther up the performance ladder for less money than ever before. As I see it, that's a trend that benefits us all.
Best,
Chris Martens
Audio Editor, The Perfect Vision
Senior Writer, The Absolute Sound
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
Well put, Chris.
This actualy did start off as a discussion of the Kharma MP-150 but somehow mutated into a MAGICO Mini thing because like, the Kharma amp, the Mini didn't strike the Irrealist as weighing enough to be worth the dough. I suppose that if Kharma made its chassis out of lead and MAGICO claimed in its spec sheet that the Mini had "true 20Hz extension" (which it does, actually, though it's down 20dB at 20Hz referenced to 1kHz), this whole thing could've been settled to Irreality's satsifaction.
jvalin wrote:Oy.
You simply do not know what you are talking about, Mr. Realist, and I am tired of trying to show you the manifold errors of your way. Anyone who judges amps primarily on the basis of their weight and speakers on the basis of tonnage and manufacturer-specified frequency response (particularly bass frequency response), and who also listens to MP3s all day and somehow thinks that makes him a high-fidelity guru is hopeless.
But I haven't used weight as the sole criteria for the quality of the output. I'm merely pointing out that cost should be directly related to manufacturing costs, and that weight is a fairly good indicator of the level of engineering that went into a product (unless this spec is deliberately being abused). That is precisely why I used quotes from the Watt 7 reviews. I can point to other reviews if you like. While there have been surprises in various speakers I have auditioned, I have yet to see a 2 way 70lb monitor produce the kind of sound described in the Watt reviews. Some might argue that it is scientifically impossible, due to the limitations of cabinet size and drivers involved.
Here is the key point, which you are so clearly missing or avoiding. When I read reviews from your magazines about the Watt 7 and other large, reference quality systems, I have no option but to ask what exactly am I getting from the tiny Magico Mini, especially when we have already been told by TAS that they have limited output? Or put another way, what is it that Magico knows that all of these other reference quality manufacturers building huge speakers don't? If TAS is so certain that the mini so astoundingly outperforms these $10k-$20k reference quality speakers, then just come out and name them. Why let your readers think they will do better with the larger, but less expensive, allegedly reference quality Watt, Salon, Studio, 801D, Summit, etc. when the obvious choice is the Magico Mini? I am simply asking what am I getting for my money given the choices? How much am I paying for performance vs hype and luxury? Am I being overcharged for this performance? This question is asked because your reviews of the other reference quality speakers tell me that there is little left to be desired, especially from a smaller speaker. The same applies with your reviews of the Dreatnaught, BAT, etc. What does the Kharma bring to the table, and am I being overcharged for it?
As for your snide comment about listening to MP3s all day (assumption)and thinking I'm an audio guru (assumption), let me reiterate that since using a MP3 player, I have used my hi-fi more than ever. What you fail to acknowledge is that listeners recognised the genius of Beethoven, Miles Davis, Mozart and Charlie Parker long before there ever was a hi-fi industry. Listeners who had never attended a live concert recognised talent without the aid of $5,000 power cords. And if you were to force everyone to listen to this music via a $30 mono radio, the genius of these artists would still be recognised.
If the hi-fi industry stopped taking so much credit for the music played on their systems, and thus lowered the amount of BS in this industry (Ayre Myrtle Blocks, anyone?), focused on delivering real quality, function and value... then you'd be looking at an expanding market instead of shrinking one. Let's not forget this point. For all of this industry's arrogance and pontification on what makes good sound, for all of the proselytizing, talk about luxury items, snobbery towards the ipod, etc., where exactly has it gotten you? Did it ever cross your mind that the increase in cynicism is maybe because consumers have wised up? I have, and since paying greater attention to the music I've never been more content with my $40k audio system.
Quote:But I haven't used weight as the sole criteria for the quality of the output. I'm merely pointing out that cost should be directly related to manufacturing costs, and that weight is a fairly good indicator of the level of engineering that went into a product (unless this spec is deliberately being abused). That is precisely why I used quotes from the Watt 7 reviews. I can point to other reviews if you like. While there have been surprises in various speakers I have auditioned, I have yet to see a 2 way 70lb monitor produce the kind of sound described in the Watt reviews. Some might argue that it is scientifically impossible, due to the limitations of cabinet size and drivers involved.
How in the world is weight an “indicator of the level of engineering that went into a product”? Is a two-ton Ford pickup better engineered than a 1000-pound Lotus sports car? Is a 250-pound rearscreen Zenith RPTV with 800x600 resolution better engineered than a 90 lb. Sony SXRD panel with a 1920x1080 pixel count?
Weight simply isn’t a “fairly good indicator of the level of engineering” in any product—nor is it always an indicator of manufacturing costs. As Dan pointed out, Wilson uses a $20 tweeter in the WATT; MAGICO uses a tweeter that costs over $500 as a raw part; yet the WATT costs $11,000 more than the Mini. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the $500 tweeter will outperform the $20 one; getting the most out of what you’ve chosen to use is a matter of engineering.
As for not “seeing a 2 way 70lb monitor [80lbs, actually] produce the kind of sound described in the WATT review,” I don’t know where to begin deciphering this mishmash of mixed metaphors and telltale revelations. Your trouble, AR, is precisely that you are “seeing” speakers—reading about them and basing your opinions on verbal descriptions. Once more, and for the very last time, how will you ever know whether the Mini compares favorably to a larger, heavier speaker like the WATT until you hie yourself off to a dealer or an audio show and listen to both of 'em (with music of your own choosing, of course)? You dismiss Dan's opinion as mere opinion. But what, pray tell, is what you're spouting? At least Dan's opinion is informed by experience with the Minis and the WATTs. Your opinion isn’t even your own—it’s culled from reading other people, and as much respect as I have for my friend Robert’s opinions, I can assure (and he himself would assure you) that no one should ever buy a speaker solely on the basis of a review.
The limitations imposed by the Mini's size and drivers are real. You can't get flat-to-20Hz bass out of a 7" mid/bass driver in a relatively small sealed enclosure. Conceded. But to say that because of this, the Mini cannot compete with speaker like the WATT (or anything else) is to assume that the ONLY thing that matters sonically is the 20-40Hz range. Don’t you ever listen to vocalists, for crying out loud, or violins or guitars or cellos or saxophones or trumpets or clarinets or oboes or drums or pianos or cymbals or xylophones or French horns or flutes or violas or doublebasses or cornets or bassoons? None of them, save for the piano (and then in its bottommost octave) and a bass drum, plays much below 40Hz.
That said, there is the question of bass power—and here a fuller-range, fuller-voiced loudspeaker will certainly have an edge. But the Mini is, after all, a mini. It is a little speaker that plays with greater accuracy than and most of the dynamic authority of a superlative big speaker. For folks with smaller rooms or with significant others who just don’t want a huge loudspeaker junking up the décor, they are tailor-made. And for folks, like me, who love acoustic music and want the highest fidelity to the source—who want to hear what’s on a record reproduced with some of the lowest levels of coloration I’ve ever come across—they are nearly ideal. Yeah, I wish they could do the deepest bass, but that's what the bigger MAGICOs, the king-size Rockports and Wilsons, and ommi MBLs are for.
End of discussion.
jvalin wrote:
How in the world is weight an “indicator of the level of engineering that went into a product”? Is a two-ton Ford pickup better engineered than a 1000-pound Lotus sports car? Is a 250-pound rearscreen Zenith RPTV with 800x600 resolution better engineered than a 90 lb. Sony SXRD panel with a 1920x1080 pixel count? Weight simply isn’t a “fairly good indicator of the level of engineering” in any product—nor is it always an indicator of manufacturing costs. As Dan pointed out, Wilson uses a $20 tweeter in the WATT; MAGICO uses a tweeter that costs over $500 as a raw part; yet the WATT costs $11,000 more than the Mini. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the $500 tweeter will outperform the $20 one; getting the most out of what you’ve chosen to use is a matter of engineering.[/
Again, you are claiming that my argument is that weight is the sole determinant of engineering quality, and you know much better. Two speakers with the exact same cabinet size will tend to weigh dramatically different when one has internal bracing and chooses quality wood construction. You can look at several other products in this hobby and see a clear correlation between the weight of the product and the level of engineering that has gone into it. More to the point, and thus my issue with the Kharma's price, is the amount of cost that is due to the luxury aspects of the hobby. When I look at the Kharma and the Magico Mini, especially with $5,500 speaker stands, I am without doubt led to question what exactly am I paying for.
Quote:As for not “seeing a 2 way 70lb monitor [80lbs, actually] produce the kind of sound described in the WATT review,” I don’t know where to begin deciphering this mishmash of mixed metaphors and telltale revelations. Your trouble, AR, is precisely that you are “seeing” speakers—reading about them and basing your opinions on verbal descriptions. Once more, and for the very last time, how will you ever know whether the Mini compares favorably to a larger, heavier speaker like the WATT until you hie yourself off to a dealer or an audio show and listen to both of 'em (with music of your own choosing, of course)?
As I wrote previously, I have heard several of these less expensive, larger, full range reference class speakers. I have a strong indication of what is possible from a large speaker and what is not possible from a small speaker. But putting my opinion aside and focusing purely on the reviews, the problem is that what is claimed that one gets from the speakers I have listed undermines the argument to buy the mini. What else, pray tell, could a listener want after reading the review of the Watt 7 and several other speakers that cost much less?[b] The nirvana that is claimed doesn't match up at all.
Quote:[b]That said, there is the question of bass power—and here a fuller-range, fuller-voiced loudspeaker will certainly have an edge. But the Mini is, after all, a mini. It is a little speaker that plays with greater accuracy than and most of the dynamic authority of a superlative big speaker. For folks with smaller rooms or with significant others who just don’t want a huge loudspeaker junking up the décor, they are tailor-made. And for folks, like me, who love acoustic music and want the highest fidelity to the source—who want to hear what’s on a record reproduced with some of the lowest levels of coloration I’ve ever come across—they are nearly ideal. Yeah, I wish they could do the deepest bass, but that's what the bigger MAGICOs, the king-size Rockports and Wilsons, and ommi MBLs are for.
End of discussion.
Which basically demonstrates my point. The compromises and conditions you speak of when compared to larger reference speakers points to an overpriced $22k speaker, that is, if the reviews of those speakers are to be believed. Claiming that this is the best speaker, but under less demanding circumstances, and when desired for room decor is what sends potential customers packing. Yes it's Nirvana, but a lower kind of nirvana.
Dear Gentlemen,
Could you return from discussing about Magico Mini back to the original topic "Digital Amp"?
This thread has been digressed too long for us to get back to the original issue.
I, as a professinal in the industry, have many things to share with and would like to take part in discussion on digital amp, more precisely "class D technology"
star
Indeed, we will return to the subject of Class D amplification. No more fruitless debate about the MAGICOs--at least from me.
I hope when TAS runs its digital amp survey that the issue of RFI is addressed. I recently got a pair of Nuforce 9's for in-home evaluation, but returned them when I discovered that I couldn't have them on and get clear FM reception (from an antenna in the same room as the amps). I realize not everybody cares about that issue, but it should be pretty easy to check.
I saw the comment about reviews being available in October. I would like to know if there are any comparison reviews available right now? I am very intrigued by the rotels. They've gotten some nice reviews but not much of a comparison type review.
Thanks
Re: The NuForce Reference 9s and FM interference.
I did not have a traditional high performance FM tuner in my system during the time I did my listening tests for the TAS review of the Reference 9. However, I used two small portable FM radios plus other noise-susceptible devices (such as high-gain MC phono preamplifiers) within very close proximity to the amplifiers, and observed no interference problems at all.
I also tried the FM tuner in an AVR located in a room directly below my audio listening room (approximately 12 feet away, but with a floor in between), and observed no interference.
Finally, I loaned the Reference 9s to a colleague who uses a traditional FM tuner, and he went so far as to place his tuner directly on top of the Reference 9s with the antenna alongside. His finding: No discernible interference.
I just wanted to assure forum participants that TAS takes noise problems seriously. We can't, however, report on problems that aren't in evidence.
Nevertheless, I have heard a small handful of reports on FM interference with the Reference 9s (some of which, to be fair, originated from manufacturers/distributors of competing Class D amps).
Perhaps a NuForce representative could comment on the matter?
Best,
Chris Martens
Audio Editor, The Perfect Vision
Seniro Writer, The Absolute Sound
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
Hi
Nuforce amplifiers are switching amplifiers switching at close to 500Khz, one of the highest switching frequency in the industry. The energy level of RFI emitted from Nuforce is not any higher than, say an SACD player we have in house. On the other hand, of most of the other Class-D amplifiers have most of the switching modulating energy is between 100-250Khz - which we feel compromises music reproduction.
Audio Precision specifically markets a $900 brick-wall filter AUS0025 for measuring Class-D amplifier by filtering out the ultra-sound noise (under the AES-70 measurement spec), while Nuforce amplifiers could be evaluated and measured with any conventional audio meter WITHOUT any brickwall filter.
If the audio system is properly setup, noise should be grounded to signal earth. In equipment/systems with poor grounding, the noise could circulate in the system and thereby re-transmitted and could cause problems to FM. A poorly grounded system could have 10-20dB more RFI emission than a properly grounded system.
Like everything in life, we presented the product in which we believe it's the best compromise between performance, design features, and value, and with a sane and sustabinable pricing model to music lovers.
Further more, Nuforce provides 30-day money-back guarantee, for whatever reasons, customers could return the Nuforce amps to their dealers.
Casey Ng
VP Product Development
Nuforce
support [at] nuforce [dot] com
Chris, I'm pleased to hear that you were so scrupulous in checking this issue out. I'm only surprised in that your results were so different from mine -- heavy static, with a small Radio Shack indoor antenna and Parasound Reference tuner. As it happens, I got my NuForces via Galen Carol Audio, who had heard about some people having RFI problems before I tried the amps out, and who (doubtless thanks to NuForce's returns policy) let me send the amps back to NuForce without any penalty or fuss.
So, no ad hominem complaints here -- I guess the moral of the tale is just the usual Your Mileage May Vary thing.
I can't comment on the NuForce's susceptibility to RFI/EMI, but I can say that two other Class D amps—the Kharma MP 150 and ARC 300.2—are no more susceptible than any conventional power amp, tube or transistor. Since I live in RFI Valley (my house is surrounded by broadcast towers), I know whereof I speak when it comes to RF. I also know that a properly grounded dedicated power line, certain power conditioners, and some interconnects/cables can work relative wonders when it comes to RFI suppression, although even these aren't 100% cure-alls if the grounding scheme of the amplifier isn't thoughtfully executed.
I've said this in print, but it is worth repeating: Too many manufacturers of amps and preamps seem to work in the suburbs, well away from broadcast towers, where RFI isn't a serious problem. As a consequence, too many products aren't adequately vetted for RFI susceptibility. In my experience, products that are manufactured in larger cities—like, for instance, those from Lamm Industries or Conrad-Johnson—where RFI is a problem generally seem to be more immune to same because their designers are forced to deal with RF as an everyday occurrence.
All the class D amplifier has RFI-EMI problem. And it is not related to susceptibility to RFI of class D amplifier. But class D amp radiates a good amount of RF-EM. So the noise problem comes from the susceptibility of your other electronics and even speakers.
Even if the amplifier were shielded very well, such EM-RF field can easily be coming from the speaker terminals or speaker cables connected to the class D amplifier. The amount of noise exactly depends on the power rate of a given class D amplifier, not mention on the topology and electronic parts used in it.
Our electronics engineers of my company have been designing for other OEM company using our own class D chips. During the design, most difficult part is how to make the amp section not to interfere with the tuner inside. The test of it is very tough. They swap all the radio frequency during they turn on the max volume. They check AM as well as FM. For our case, switching frequecy is 450kHz. So the amp radiates harmonics of 450kHz.
Anyway, I do not think that class D amplifier makers in Hi-End business does not excute such a test before they ship their products so this problem has not been issued in specialty audio. But I am pretty sure you can test how your tuner can re-act to class D amplifier.
By the way, I do not mean the performance of class D amplifiers is bad. As a matter of fact, some class D amplifiers sounds better than other class AB amplifiers, at least even to my ears.
I do believe the future of audio is class-D amplification. They will be making better FETs with faster switching speed, lower RDS-On and etc. They will make better topology and circuitry. Better material will be made for filters. All such things contribute to open new era of amplification.
Seungmok
Casey_Nuforce wrote:Hi
Nuforce amplifiers are switching amplifiers switching at close to 500Khz, one of the highest switching frequency in the industry. The energy level of RFI emitted from Nuforce is not any higher than, say an SACD player we have in house. On the other hand, of most of the other Class-D amplifiers have most of the switching modulating energy is between 100-250Khz - which we feel compromises music reproduction.
As far as I know, most other class D amplifiers of full-range is switching between 350--500kHz which is not as you told. Most 100-250kHz swiching amplifiers are for subwoofers. Some class D amplifiers using bang-bang control technology is switchig even up to mega Hertz. Most PCM-PWM amplifiers switching at 384kHz.
And the amount of RFI-EMI from class D doe "NOT" depend on switching frequency.
seungmok
You're not, by any chance a bass player are you?
Seriously, I agree with you that $20K is some serious green for a stand-mount, two-way monitor but I can also understand audiophiles with limited space and rooms (or condos) that don't support deep bass gravitating to the Mini's unique charms. Clearly it's not a product for every envrionment but I think you have to grant that there is a market for a seriously intentioned, small profile speaker. Not everyone wants to drop $20K on an imposing speaker system that will physically dominate (and ruin the lines of) an otherwise attractive room.
Neil Gader
TAS
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
neil.gader wrote:You're not, by any chance a bass player are you?
Seriously, I agree with you that $20K is some serious green for a stand-mount, two-way monitor but I can also understand audiophiles with limited space and rooms (or condos) that don't support deep bass gravitating to the Mini's unique charms. Clearly it's not a product for every envrionment but I think you have to grant that there is a market for a seriously intentioned, small profile speaker. Not everyone wants to drop $20K on an imposing speaker system that will physically dominate (and ruin the lines of) an otherwise attractive room.
Neil Gader
TAS
My comments are about:
1. Comparative performance per dollar (hence why mentioned in the digital amps thread).
2. Whether the price being asked is due to performance or luxury.
3. The utter disappointment I've consistently felt when listening to the next "it" product raved in the hi-fi media.
Let me state my displeasure as simple as this. According to the hi-fi press, there are no overpriced products. In this thread we are told that the Kharmas are performing in the same class as the $74k MBL. But don't hold your breath waiting for someone to say that you can get 99% of the MBLs performance and save yourself $68k by choosing the Kharmas. Be honest - to compare the value of audiophile products would be bad for business. Selling it on performance alone cannot sustain it, because if there ever was a satisfied audiophile you couldn't sell magazines, and most of the voodoo doctors would go out of business. And trying to sell hifi based on luxury isn't going to work either, because it is seen and used privately - thus it will hardly ever become a publicly recognised status symbol. Nevermind the fact that anyone who obsesses over sound quality as audiophiles do is, quite frankly, a nerd by popular culture's standards.
An audiophile drives to a bar in his ferrari, strutts in his Armani and flashes his Rolex to a babe, then strikes up a conversation about... how much more musical Mozart sounds on a $70k Rockport turntable using a properly calibrated $5,000 phono cartridge. Keep dreaming, fellas. The industry has no chance of growing unless you get real, and point out overpriced products. Let those who are really doing consumers a service come to the fore, and let those selling Pi ratioed wooden blocks go the way of the dinosaur. Put another way, fooled me once - now I'm not buying it, nor am I referring people to it.
I started this thread, which I now see has taken on a different character than originally intended, but a seemingly interesting one, given how often it is viewed.
Personally, I wouldn't want Audiophile Realist's views on audio magazines to be implemented too literally. What I want, first and foremost, in my hi-fi magazine is for the writers to be truthful to how the equipment sounds in the context of its intended purpose. I can judge perfectly well whether that constitutes good value for me. If the Kharma's are 99% as good as the MBLs for $68k less, I can figure out if that is good value for me. That last 1% may mean a lot to me or it may not, but what the hell does Jonathan Valin or Robert Harley know about my financial situation or how important that 1% is to me? The answer is: nothing. So, I don't want Valin or Harley wasting my time with their opinion of whether the MBLs or the Kharmas are overpriced.
Since technology marches on, I would like my hi-fi magazine to be open-minded about lower-priced equipment being really good. If reviewers are truthful to how the equipment sounds, this will happen naturally, but the magazine's editors must search out this sort of equipment. If the editors just assume that more expensive stuff is better, they'll miss the lower priced gems (there are many) and that is unfortunate for me, those of limited means, those new to the hobby and the industry.
I suspect Audiophile Realist comes closer to the point when he/she mentions his/her disappointment in trying the next "it" product. I recall Robert Greene in TAS trying to get at this same point, I think, when he said that it would be nice to distinguish between subtle (though possibly very important) differences and obvious (though not necessarily important or uncompromised) changes one can make to a system. Anyway, this is a problem that may be hard to solve, but I would like the hi-fi magazines to try.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC