Full digital-path ICEpower

foggy · « **on:** 17 Jun 2005, 05:42 am »

As far as I know, all of the ICEpower-based amplifiers currently available use an anolog input into the amplifier module(s). Has ICEpower produced any amp modules that utilize a digital input? My question stems from speculation on whether the upcoming Samsung AV-R3000 receiver will be full digital-path.

Red Dragon Audio · « **Reply #1 on:** 17 Jun 2005, 06:39 am »

All current ICEpower amps on the market use B&O's analog ICEpower modules. B&O has a "digital" version of ICEpower that will essentially convert PCM to PWM (these aren't out yet as far as I know).

foggy · « **Reply #2 on:** 17 Jun 2005, 07:12 am »

Thanks! If there is a platform appropriate for the launch of the full-digital ICEpower modules, the new Samsung receiver is it.

woodsyi · « **Reply #3 on:** 17 Jun 2005, 11:41 am »

I check Samsung site and it said that Samsung does not sell HT product in North America.

Perhaps that will change with this product -- I would think US has to be a major market for HT.

JoshK · « **Reply #4 on:** 17 Jun 2005, 02:11 pm »

It seems as though many audiophiles are obsessed with "pure digital" amps. I think many don't really understand that this might not make it better just because it can keep the path digital all the way to the output devices. I think it is quite obvious that there are many advantages AND disadvantages to this.

Just so you have something to chew on in re: to the disadvantages, take a look at how the amp's clock (going to have to have one) will play a role in the sound quality (jitter, PSU contamination, etc). Also, look up what kind of power supply rejection ratio (PSRR) digital amps have. Hint, it isn't good. Analog switching amps on the other hand can have quite a high PSRR.

Like with all things it is a matter of trade-offs and a pure digital path isn't going to lead to the holy grail anymore than anything else would. Its all in implementation, setup and tailoring the sound to your tastes.

foggy · « **Reply #5 on:** 17 Jun 2005, 05:57 pm »

Good points, Josh. I think that ultimately, pure-digital is where we're headed in the evolution (and improvement) of audio reproduction. Yes, there will be less than ideal implementations during what will probably be a transition period of many years.

regal · « **Reply #6 on:** 17 Jun 2005, 06:37 pm »

The only reason the panasonic all digital sounds good to people is because the analog stages of most low-mid players is poor.

CornellAlum · « **Reply #7 on:** 17 Jun 2005, 07:51 pm »

No offense, but that statement is the biggest load of garbage I have read in quite sometime. Have you even heard a panasonic or any of the other digital amps

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #8 on:** 18 Jun 2005, 07:38 am »

Tyson felt the modded Panny was extremely competitive with his AVA Transcendence tube hybrid preamp and '550 hybrid amp. That's a pretty steep rig.

CornellAlum · « **Reply #9 on:** 18 Jun 2005, 02:17 pm »

I'd put my modded panny up with just about anything I have heard. There's better, but you will certainly pay lots more.

CSMR · « **Reply #10 on:** 18 Jun 2005, 06:26 pm »

Quote from: foggy

Good points, Josh. I think that ultimately, pure-digital is where we're headed in the evolution (and improvement) of audio reproduction. Yes, there will be less than ideal implementations during what will probably be a transition period of many years.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/amplifiers/digital_classD_amplifiers.html
for a well-known conter-view

foggy · « **Reply #11 on:** 19 Jun 2005, 08:08 am »

Yep, I've seen that article. He says that full-digital amps are a "dead end street." Time will tell.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #12 on:** 19 Jun 2005, 02:25 pm »

Tubes were gonna be a dead end street, too. Hasn't worked out that way, though.

Dmason · « **Reply #13 on:** 19 Jun 2005, 04:39 pm »

Most people seem to "argue" the merits and points along the lines of an either/or.

I am stuck on "digital" amps for home audio, yet the 13 tubes required to run my vintage 1958 Hammond C-3 organ and Leslie speaker, I wouldn't change for all the tea in China. I like chocolate AND vanilla. Sometimes even in the same day. I like "digital" amps because they sound more like tube amps than they do SS amps, which usually, suck. "Digital" amps are capable of imparting musicality to a digitally based signal. Digital amp tech is just getting started; it is in its infancy.

I have over the last few years also noted people commenting negatively on "digital" amps when it turned out that they hadn't heard "digital" amps, yet they were critiquing them, yet hadn't heard them. Like shooting yourself in the foot and blaming the bullet.

Why not both? Digital amps and dead ends is exactly like those kooks 100 years ago who said "if man were meant to fly, he would have wings." They should leave science to the scientists.

warnerwh · « **Reply #14 on:** 20 Jun 2005, 02:46 am »

I've no doubt digital amps will become more and more common. They're cheaper to make and much more efficient. As far as sound goes I think the two I heard were both decent. There will no doubt be some evolutionary changes over the next few years but from what I heard they can be as good as a SS or tube amp depending on your priorities now. The high end will embrace the technology more as time goes on. The fact you can have more power inexpensively is a big plus imo. Most people don't realize how often small 100wpc amps clip if they turn up the music much at all and will surprise them if you show them how fast their 100 watts get eaten up.

CornellAlum · « **Reply #15 on:** 20 Jun 2005, 01:25 pm »

As for audioholics...they don't believe high end cables make a difference either...

I honestly believe very little that I have read on that site...do they have ears

_scotty_ · « **Reply #16 on:** 20 Jun 2005, 08:08 pm »

Before Bruno Putzeys is lumped in with the rest of the crowd at audioholics
it should be remembered that he has ears and uses them. He designed the Ucd amplifier which is currently very well regarded in the DIY community.
Here is a quote from one of his articles on cables.
Summary
To recap: to make cables disappear from the sonic equation, all that is needed is balanced transmission combined with sub-1ohm output impedance line drivers. I would like to propose this as a standard for audiophile equipment makers.

It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves. On the other hand, those that say that cables should not make a difference, are dead right.

Complete article is at this link http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Distortion.html
I think his comments are mostly on target in his discussion of class D
amplifiers that do not have feedback to reduce distortion. For highend applications a properly implimented feedback scheme is a necessity for
waveform accuracy to be maintained. However I don't think receivers like the
Panasonic XR series are suddenly going to disappear. Products using this approach are cheaper to produce than analogue types and consume less power. They also appear to have sonics which are acceptable to a wide range of users.
Scotty