digital sound vs. class a sound

vpolineni · « **on:** 28 Jan 2004, 01:58 am »

I know that we have discussed the panny to other digital amps.. and some people like tyson think that digital will eventually replace ss but not tubes... but I'm wondering how digital amp like the panny or the new rowland amps would compare to a pure class a amp like the clayton audio m-100. I'm curious if anyone has extensively heard these two different type of amplifiers and what their thoughts are. thanks.

JoshK · « **Reply #1 on:** 28 Jan 2004, 02:37 am »

never heard the clayton, but the class A amps I have heard weren't as effortless and lacked in bottom end definition. Neither of which digital amps lack. The midrange of Class A is what most like about it. Digital amps have purity in the midrange that is very appealing but depending on the amp isn't as 'round' as class a amp *that I have heard*.

Eric · « **Reply #2 on:** 28 Jan 2004, 02:18 pm »

I also wonder how this will impact the vinyl vs digital debate.?

spectralman · « **Reply #3 on:** 28 Jan 2004, 06:12 pm »

First, let me state that I have yet to listen to any digital amplification. That will soon change when I receive my Panny.

Second, I have listened to only one full class A solid state amp, my old Spectral DMA 200. I have to disagree with Josh WRT low frequency definition. The Spectral was extremely fast, almost too fast at times, in the bass region. By "almost too fast" I mean there was sometimes not enough fullness (ie, roundness or bloating) for rock music. Its speed was most definitely an asset in jazz and classical music where it did sound correct. The mids and highs were extremely fast and clear. In fact, I have never heard better midrange from any other amplification system than through the DMA 200 with associated Spectral preamp, MIT cables. While I don't know if all class A SS amps are this way, my one complaint was that it was just slightly dry throughout the frequency range.

HTH

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #4 on:** 28 Jan 2004, 06:46 pm »

I've heard only a few Class A and Digital amps, but my listening has tended towards what JoshK has heard. I found the bottom end on the Class A's to be 'fleshy', almost tube like with beter extension on lowest registers.

I've found the few digitals heard to be very fast...don't know how to term it yet. Seems to me like the right-er direction fo hte future of hi-end, but just not fully realized yet. Think of it, now 20 years after the advent of the CD, we are getting substantially excellent (read:analog-like) digital sound from our CD playback systems. It takes awhile to get it right on...I think digital will be what most of us will using for amps in a few years.

Nonetheless, now, there still seems to be choices in Class A, AB and tube amplification that are better in several regards for similar costing. That situation seems to be changing monthly, tho.

DVV · « **Reply #5 on:** 29 Jan 2004, 08:24 am »

Quote from: vpolineni

I know that we have discussed the panny to other digital amps.. and some people like tyson think that digital will eventually replace ss but not tubes... but I'm wondering how digital amp like the panny or the new rowland amps would compare to a pure class a amp like the clayton audio m-100. I'm curious if anyone has extensively heard these two different type of amplifiers and what their thoughts are. thanks.

Good question, but a little too general.

It is somehow always assumed that pure class A solid state (SS) amplification is by default better than class AB, and that it tends to approach the sound of tube audio. Both are dangerous assumptions.

ALL amplification, analog and digital, class AB and class A, SS or tube, can sound anything from poor to incredible. In the end, it all comes down to a specific design.

For many years, I have been advocating high bias class AB amplification as the best overall compromise; in effect, this is less bias than pure class A, but more bias than typical class AB. The idea is to provide pure class A in the range where say 95+% of music will be delivered, with only occasional strong peaks crossing over to class "B". I have designed quite a few myself, and some were really good, while some were bad beyond redemption.

Not to go into the fine details, in general I must say that typical pure class A SS audio tends to sound warm and a little rounded-off, but very smooth overall, with great to out of this world coherence top to bottom. That's "tends to", and I have to say I have heard some commercial efforts which I found to be lacking even in overall sound quality.

Digital, what I have heard of it (TaCT Millenium, Sharp), has impressed me with its bass, has shown very good midrange, but has also shown treble I would not be happy with for longer time periods. Too dry for my taste.

As for the future, we must all bear in mind that the majority of the industry will go for whatever allows them to pack greater punch for less money - and there, digital is even now unbeatable. Much less heat sinking, hence smaller (and cheaper) cases, less power devices (due to outstanding efficiency second to none), etc. There is no doubt in my mind that at least 95% of the industry will eventually go that way - they will be forced to do so by the competition. Say 5% will go the traditional tube and SS way.

Cheers,
DVV

JLM · « **Reply #6 on:** 29 Jan 2004, 11:41 am »

IMO the near future will fall roughly into two camps:

Vintage/analog/vinyl/probably tubes - you know the routine

Digital - digital amps fed digital signals from an audio PC (that plays back from it's hard drive for much improved quality and incredible programming flexibility, see square circle forum). This set-up may already exist. Audio PCs are dedicated to the task, quiet (or totally lack a fan based on new chips), and include PDA/etc. for display/input capabilities. Check out the Nortech Panda on the Norh site for such a PC. VRS offers a ready to go audio PC for $4,000. So now you can spend $5,000 for an audio PC and a Boulder modded Panny 45 for state of the art sound that a year ago would have been bigger, have far fewer features, and cost $15,000 (all that's lacking is elimination of the D/A/D conversion that's required in that setup). The real gearheads have assembled working audio PC's for $1,000. And no reason why we won't see in the not too distant future an "all-in-one" audio PC/receiver like the Sony DVD/receivers.

CD/SACD/DVDa sources will probably be replaced with subscription downloads using optional lossless software (that already exists).

Psychicanimal · « **Reply #7 on:** 31 Jan 2004, 10:41 pm »

Quote from: DVV

I have designed quite a few myself...some were bad beyond redemption.

You must have been drunk!

*************

Again, why do people insist in talking in absolute terms? The only Absolute I know of is a vodka!

I have two class A power amps: a Forté 4 (50W) and a pair of Marantz Ma-5 Esotec monoblocks (30W). They are both smooth and open, but the monoblocks have very deep, solid bass and uncanny musicality, with a midrange to die for. Thirty watts is plenty for my 85 dB efficient mini monitors, especially with the help of two 10" passive subs...

DVV · « **Reply #8 on:** 1 Feb 2004, 08:20 am »

Quote from: Psychicanimal

Quote from: DVV
I have designed quite a few myself...some were bad beyond redemption.

You must have been drunk!

No, I just had a few great ideas, which usually had only one fault, which was to defy the laws of physics. Other than that minor point, really cool ideas.

Quote

Again, why do people insist in talking in absolute terms? The only Absolute I know of is a vodka!

I have two class A power amps: a Forté 4 (50W) and a pair of Marantz Ma-5 Esotec monoblocks (30W). They are both smooth and open, but the monoblocks have very deep, solid bass and uncanny musicality, with a midrange to die for. Thirty watts is plenty for my 85 dB efficient mini monitors, especially with the help of two 10" passive subs...

Precisely my point. Simply using pure class A guarantees nothing except that you are free of crossover distortion.

However, the very term "class A" must be elaborated. In real life, there very few true pure class A amps, and you'll have no trouble recognizing them for their size, weight, heat produced and price. The majority of amps sold under that banner are in fact using one or another form of sliding bias, which theoretically keeps them in class A by tracking the input signal and sliding the bias so that your signall is passed on in true class A, but the level of bias is reduced when the full monty is not required by the incoming signal.

In theory, this is pure class A so far as the signal goes, but it assumes you have everything working in perfect order, no surprises. While I have heard a few such schemes work really well, this is not the traditional, pure, true class A, since it will still suffer from thermal tracking errors to some extent (while true pure class A has no such problems, it cooks and that's it).

Cheers,
DVV

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #9 on:** 1 Feb 2004, 09:59 am »

Hello Dejan, I've owned a Krell KSA-100 mkII (class A ) amp for over 15 years. I've been very happy with it power and performance in my system. I'm wondering if you have heard or are familiar with this amp and any comments you may have about it. Thanks !

..... (These digital amps seem very intriguing !)

Psychicanimal · « **Reply #10 on:** 1 Feb 2004, 02:08 pm »

I don't know if my monoblocks are sliding bias--they don't run as hot as the Forté--but I *do* know that it will be years before a digital amp can beat them babies! I am in the market for a sub amp and if a digital amp does the trick I will buy one...