[mcgsxr]

I have noticed some chat about this topic, in the enormous JVC thread, and would like to break this out, into a thread, as I think it warrants discussion, and might grab a few extra readers, on its' own.

I know that many people are excited about these digital amps (in various forms - Panny, JVC, Kenwood, Teac, Carver, and high end ones too), and some have purchased them.  Some wax eloquent about their performance, others are sceptical about the posts, others remain lurking...

Sounds like any normal product right?

I know that there have been threads on "good for the money" and don't wish to resurrect that chestnut, but it does certainly seem appropriate to discuss the level of performance, available for a given price point, and how digital amplification plays.

There have been excellent points raised (in the aforementioned JVC thread) by Carlman (who has exceptional taste in speakers <fellow lover of Usher here>), Dmason, AphileEarlyAdopter, TheChairGuy, A6M-ZERO, geofstro and richard.

Some have sold more expensive gear after purchasing some form of digital amp, others have been less impressed.

I guess, for me, it comes down to what has been delivered, for the $$ invested - basic ROI I suppose.

Let's use the Teac amp that I have 2 of.  (Darn thing doesn't get enough press thanks to you JVC addicts! )  They originally listed for somewhere around US$350 or so, and are STILL sold in Canada for CAN$479 by one retailer... but the prices have fallen, to the point that they are considered a US$99 amp, since J&R Music sells them for that, there.  I did pay that for each of mine.  I also bought a couple of used preamps to play around with, in the hunt for increased musical satisfaction.  I have a passive PS Audio piece, and an older analog B&K pre/pro that I prefer (I have become an even lazier wanker, with the addition of remote control... ).

I have since begun to offer my previous amp, the Sugden integrated that I used for 10 years, for sale.  That amp ran about US$1200 in the day, and was absolutely the best I had heard (again, for the $$ I had to invest at the time) when I bought it.

I have written about the differences in sound, with the Tripath amps, versus the Sugden, and will not repeat that here.  What I will point out, is that I think, in my system, it sounds better.  That is the stock Teac.  Wayne is likely to deliver my modded Teac in the coming weeks, and that should prove interesting.  The mods include (and Wayne can correct me if I botch a layperson's summary) PS improvements, circuit path simplification, upgrades to RCA and binding posts, and coupling cap upgrades.  These are basically in line with what many agree is needed to improve the abilities of a product built to a price point, around a fantastic chip.

So, all that preamble aside, what is the digital amplification value proposition?  Do you think that these digital babies punch above their weight?  Are they worth the money?  Do they deliver, for you, better sound, for less $$?

Does that matter to you?  For some, the collecting of high end gear is part of the appeal of this game, impressing your buddies with expensive toys etc.  

I think that Carlman has made an excellent point about his experience with a stock XR25/45 when he suggests that they are competitive with $500 receivers, but not beyond, in his experience.  Carlman, please correct me, if my paraphrasing is off, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.

I think that AphileEarlyAdopter REALLY nails it, when he points out that what digital amps deliver for him (and I am totally in agreement here) is transparency, detail and dynamics.  For me, that is a HUGE point in home audio.  For others, it may be different.

I know that Zane9 is interested in opinions about digital amplification, he will be at my place to listen to the Teacs when my Bolder unit comes home, and I am confident that there are others, who are interested in hearing more about this.

So, please chime in with your experiences, and it doesn't have to be brand specific.  I guess I would like people to share (or argue...) their experiences with shifting to digital amplification - positive, or negative, so that we can collectively get some idea about the pros and cons of this technology (perhaps even outside the context of "for the money".

So, let's have at it!

Mark in Canada

[JoshK]

Great post!  My experience with my Panny XR10 is that, in its stock form, redefines what can be done in audio for under a grand in terms of precision, sharp imaging, pace, low distortion and dynamics.  What it seems to miss out on is any real connection to the performance.  Its clinical (although I don't always find that bad) in its presentation and a bit too 2 dimensional.  It still sounds like equipment instead of music, but makes no egrigous errors in presentation.

[zane9]

Mark, what a great topic! The value proposition is a slippery one. A quick anecdote: I dropped into an established b&m store in Toronto yesterday in hopes of auditioning a digital amp. The senior sales guy told me that I was the only person who had asked about these products in months. He took me to his computer and showed me the actual sales volume of the product (the Panny XR-25, IIRC). It was clear that they took a beating just to move any of them out the door. Pretty much zero interest from buyers.

So from their perspective, the value proposition is a losing one: why take up the shelf space with product that is not selling? So even with amps built to a price point at which  one would have expected to see product fly off the shelf...it wan't happening. They sell plenty of A/V receivers (Sony, Denon, Tamaha, Onkyo).

I know the above doesn't specifically address your question, but where the buyers meet the sellers, the jury may still be out on the value prop.

Z.

[zane9]

Value Proposition PT. II

JVC Canada informed me this morning that their digital amp is not sold at ANY stores in Toronto and is only available by special order through a retailer (!).

Z.

[Dmason]

Zane's point is well taken; if you look at who is building the lower cost digital Wonder amps, it is the very people who's meat-and-potatoes in this market segment are the big n' black AV receivers, which have been de rigeur for almost twenty years. In the case of the Japanese companies, the digital units seem almost an afterthought. Take the curious JVC case as an example, -at best the digital amps are positioned at the bottom of the AV totem pole, and at worst, are not represented much at all in their corporate web presence, or bundled in a HTB product, clearly designed for the consumer who has no interest in sound quality. This leads me to believe that the fact they sound good is likely only a byproduct, a happy accident, resulting from the use of a technology which allows them to deliver a product at a (lower) price point. With the JVC, I am not so sure. It sounds soooo good, that what crosses my mind is the possibility of designers, "somewhere in the caves of corporate Japan," might have tuned the thing to sound abit like the tube amps that prevail the audiophile market there, -almost to a rule, but then again, that may be a naieve and romantic notion, due to all the other big business factors which likely greatly overshadow any aesthetic considerations, especially when I opened it up only to be reminded that this product's main consideration MUST be engineering to a prescribed price point. In effect, an amp designed by accountants, which happens to sound good.

 It may also be that they are testing the waters of the future, chumming those waters abit with a different kind of bait, fully aware that it will be hard to change people's buying habits and perceptions of what is good, what "good" looks like, -going against the grain of a long held more which they themselves created, in the North American market, where generally people think: bigga is mo betta.

[ooheadsoo]

Not being black and conventional looking is SURELY holding them back.  I'm not sure what they're thinking making these units ... look the way they do.  The looks are definitely not a point of sale for most people.  Looks are at least somewhat important to 99% of the people, whether we admit it or not.  Not even considering WAF.

[sharper]

Mark,
        You're right; there's a huge ROI with these digital receivers. For very little money they offer superior soundstaging, detail and tone/timbre to many higher priced components. Not only are they well worth the money, they make you seriously question the ridiculous trend over the last many years in high end audio towards stratospherically priced gear and overly complex systems. I find it much more enjoyable to have a simple system with just a receiver than to have a box for this, a box for that, etc.

Scott

[AphileEarlyAdopter]

The major value propositions in my opinion are  -
1) No intermediate conversion to analog when handling digital sources.
(how many people have analog sources anymore ? Not many, even though I have a MMF5 w/Monolithic Sound Phono Pre)
2) The next is price.

BTW, Mark, I have read quite a few of the reviewers say that dynamics is what epitomises LIVE music. And I want to recreate that feeling in my living room. So any component with dynamics gets my vote.

It might feel that the Panasonics have less soundstage, but I dont think they lack it. In multi-track recordings, I can separate out the various instruments based on the 'reverb' effects added to them before being mixed together. For eg, the close miked drums contrast with the 'hall' reverb added vocals in Jazz recordings. As audiophiles, we are used to sitting in the sweet spot. With the Panasonic, in that case, you will hear the 'mix' as the recording engineer intended not the 'music'.  'Sweet spot' listening is not a must anymore. Even if I am in the adjoining kitchen fixing dinner, I am now able to enjoy the music. It sounds so live and realistic.

'Big black receivers' have become the SUVs of consumer/HT audio.  Probably it is for this reason that Sony still puts their digital amplifier receivers in big chasis.

[TheChairGuy]

They are cheap relative to all audio high brow competition and cheap relative to most electronic doo-dads one buys in life.  And yet, they re-create a musical event that is as good as anything that has graced my rack.

No, probably not the best.....but who is the arbitor of that? I think massive value is an easier standard to establish than top-of-the-line musical excellence.  I simply do not care if a Halcro amp is better...I will never want to, nor seek to, own one.

Truly, they are an example of making better, and cheaper, thru technology and economies of scale.

Dig that darn remote, too  

[Bwanagreg]

I think the value proposition for me is

1. They deliver sound that previously I though was obtainable only with a tube amp in terms of warmth and just plain listenability, and they exceed moderately priced tubes in terms of clarity, detail and dynamics;

2. They have none of the cost, maintenance, reliability, or high voltage/heat risks (e.g. fire) associated with tubes.  

I'll always have an emotional bias towards tubes, but the experience of being happy listening to a $100 Powerwave for several months has swung my rational side so hard to the digital end of the argument that I doubt I'll ever buy another tube amp.  Tube preamps may be a different story.

I just got my Wayne-modded Tripath eval board with battery power supply, Black Gates and Bybees up and running this week. I want to reserve comments until I've had more quality time with the amp, but I'm VERY happy with what I'm hearing so far.

[Russtafarian]

I'm really struggling with this digital vs tube debate.  

Last spring I launched into an ambitious project ot build up a six channel amp from a tripath eval board.

It's built and working and I had been listening to it for the past two months.  Here's what it does well: great bass control, very smooth midrange, tons of resolution, and plenty of dynamics.  But the highs are just not right.  It sounds very coarse and piercing above 10khz.  My ears ring after listening to it for extended periods of time.

As a point of comparison, I put my Quicksilver monos back in the system last week.  I lost out on all the good stuff the tripath was delivering, but the high end, though a little ragged in the 8khz range is much more listenable.  And the midrange is just gorgeous.  Overall, the tubes just deliver more musical satisfaction.  But the whole point of this experiment was to get rid of the tubes.

What I don't know is whether the treble issue with my tripath is a problem with my implementation of the eval board, or if my ears are just not suited to the sonic character of digital amps.  I had a similar experience with a XR45 that I had for about 3 months last fall.

I will say that I have mild tinnitis from my years of mixing live rock bands and so I tend to be very sensitive to treble reproduction.  Anything brittle-sounding drives me nuts and aggravates the ringing in my ears.

So I'm kind of stuck.  I want the tripath to work for me but I'm not sure what else to do with my project to make it sound right to me.

[mcgsxr]

Great input from all so far!  Thanks for taking the time to read, and share your experiences to date.

Zane9 – I think that what you added makes sense – for B&M stores, this technology is not yet broadly known, and so the analog X.1 receivers are still FAR more profitable for stores.  Most people know what these devices look like, and sound like.  As the technology becomes more prevalent (I believe that these amps show enormous potential to end up in most “lifestyle” products, and will soon be found in monitors and LCD panels etc – small package, big sound, cheap…) there may be an increase in the viability of assigning floor space to them – for now they are niche products, seemingly being introduced at both ends of the spectrum, at the same time!  Digital amps are found in the low end, and at the high end, but not yet in the middle, where the profits likely lay for big box stores.

Dmason – building on what Zane9 said, you raise an interesting point about how the sound of these amps (the JVC’s in your case I think) might have been designed to mimic Japanese audiophile products, but built to a price point.  I like that concept, and clearly there are accountants involved in the projects on these, and yet they do sound good.  Perhaps it is just pleasant happenstance, either way, I will take it!

TheChairGuy – hits me where I live with his comments about higher end stuff, and the likeliness of ownership.  That is exactly what I feel, with mortgage payments, car payments, RESP contributions, RRSP contributions – geez, I am starting to sound like an accountant… I want the best sound I can afford, and at present, I cannot afford to toss great gobs of dosh at this game, so the digital side of things is attractive to me.  That said, I am enough of a music nut to want really good sound, and willing to explore tweaking these little gems for some time to come.  

I also like your point about economies of scale.  That is linked to most people’s thoughts on these receivers, with mainstream acceptance will come increased numbers of products built around a digital engine.  That will spawn greater research into making them cheaper (for some companies) and making them better (for the same $$, for other companies), and extracting the highest amount of performance from them, for still other companies.  Either way, as they become more and more common, their cost will drop – a funny thing to think about, as we all seem to agree that they already offer significant value for the $ - it is headed even further in that direction, in the coming months, in my estimation.  

Whether or not the “average” consumer will be swayed by these remains to be seen, but I cannot see how they will not – after all, the average consumer could likely care less about the quality of the sound (beyond a lowest common denominator point) and cares most about packaging and ease of use.  Well, these can certainly be made small, and should blend into most TV racks (hey, I am talking about Mr and Mrs Average here) and be remote controlled – that sparks success in that realm.

On the other side of that coin are the sliver of the populace who could care about good sound – some of them (us) will be swayed what is delivered by these little grey barges, and that is what matters to them.  Seems win/win so far.

Ahh, but the last part is the most fun – how many of us like some of our gear because it is different… If I have the same gear as you, how can I claim to be so into music and equipment… That is where the high end will come in, and find ways to focus on extracting the highest performance, the most beautiful components etc.

In my books, this technology has a long runway, in several directions, but I suppose only time will tell.

I like Bwanagreg’s comment about tubes – not necessarily the sound, some find these digital amps tube like, others not so - but about the simplicity, and safety – 1 box, as mentioned by sharper, and less concern about reliability/biasing/matching that might occur with tubes.

Lastly, Russtafarian shares his experience with the sound of his project.  This I find very interesting, as for him, it can be a little shrill on the top end.  Interesting, since for others this is perceived as clarity, resolution and detail.  I think.  I think that is what the upper end is described by others as, it is that way to me, but I am a detail freak, and have different tastes than others, naturally.

It would seem that the sound of the top end is “distinct” if you will – for some too stark, and uninvolving perhaps, for others it allows one to peer further into the music.

Perhaps that is why some REALLY like digital amps when mixed with tube preamps – off the receivers for a moment, but that mixture would seem to be a synergistic match, again only for some.

Thanks again all, and please do continue to add, comment and toss ideas about these around – I, for one, love reading about this stuff – interesting to try to extrapolate from the differing views, what different combinations of gear, in other rooms, might sound like.

Have a good one,

Mark in Canada

[Bwanagreg]

As I think about this a little more, I think part of my positive reaction to Tripaths comes from a sense of relief as much as anything else.

First off I've heard very few solid-state amps I liked, especially of the affordable variety. I had and loved a VTL tube amp for 10 years, until one day it caught on fire. I had several tubes short out or otherwise fail me before that, but the fire was frightening.

I eventually replaced it with an inexpensive but sweet sounding AMC EL-34 amp. It too chewed through several sets of tubes (the cherry red glow of a shorting tube was something I was beginning to recognize too easily) and had to be serviced a few times before it started to work reliably.

The AMC settled in and continues to work well, but always in the back of my mind, as I turned it on, I half-expected to here the sound of uncontrolled current surging through a tube. As you can imagine that takes a psychological toll. I listen to music and watch my big screen to relax, not to troubleshoot.

Then the Powerwave came along. I plug it in, it works. Oh, and it sounds better than it has any right to for the price and lack of audiophile pedigree. I plug the AMC back in and wonder how many hours I have until meltdown. Audiophilia Nervosa anyone?

I have to guess that the relief factor has contributed in some way to my sonic evaluation of the Tripath. I have a sense of ease when listening to the amp – can that be as much due to my more relaxed state of mind as the sound? Does the fact that I can now reduce my equipment budget and invest the money for an early retirement make me like it more? Could be. Subjective evaluations are what this hobby is ultimately all about, and it is the total package – performance, appearance, cost, maintenance, etc – that impacts your psyche. I would never claim that any amp is perfect. I don’t even know what that means. The amp's total gestalt field is probably what we are really talking about, isn't it?

[Russtafarian]

What a difference a weekend makes.  I cruised down to the SoCal listening session Saturday and took my Tripath frankenstein project with me.  

The intent was not to play it, they had more than enough amps.  But I just wanted to see if anyone there had any ideas as to how I might tweak or improve my implementation. So I set the amp on a table in the "chill room" and popped the cover.  A few folks took a look and offered suggestions.  

Bob Levi suggested I try copper instead of silver hookup wire.  Since all my interconnects are silver, this could make a big difference.  Silver has sounded the best with the SS and Tube amps I've used until now.  But in my rig, copper may be better choice for the Tripath.  I've got some nice fine gauge stranded copper wire at home for the input leads and for building some new interconnects.

Mike Garner from Cryotweaks got me into a few sheets of ERS cloth to try.  Thanks Mike!  I'm going to experiment with placing these on top of, inside and around the amp to see if the sheets can tame some of the EMI/RFI that the amp spews into the rest of the system.

A few hours later, Steve McCormack showed up.  Yes, THAT Steve McCormack!  He was gracious enough to look over the amp and give me some ideas.  He'd never worked with a Tripath, but it didn't take him long to figure out what they were trying to do.  He suggested removing a few caps, replacing a few others with better polystyrene caps, and reversing the secondary leads feeding the rectifier.  He also concurred with Bob's idea of trying copper wire.

So now I've got some really solid ideas to work with.  Thanks to all those who offered their suggestions and of course to Mad Dog for getting everyone together.  It's now time to fire up the soldering iron and get busy!

[coleco]

First post BTW.

Interesting thread.

My general feeling is that I go with the 'happy accident' scenario with digital amps.

Some high end digital amp company, err, I forget what it was called, was bought by texas instruments, which in turn was used by panasonic. The chipset just happened to be a wonderful technology. It's application was for use in high end audio. I'm conviced panasonic is using it because it's cheap.

Panasonic does not, nor will they ever care about high end audio. It's just not cost effective. I mean *good enough* sets the bar at a certain place. The general public does care enough to audition audio before they buy. Is the panny sounds 'better' next to the competition they will choose it over the sony or whatever. Let's give the company *some* credit. The thing is that If it already sound great, ie, my panny xr50 sounds great for money, they're just not going to spring for more expensive parts.

Think about it.

These companies sell units in the *millions*. If it's a choice between a $1 capacitor and a $2 capacitor, if it only improves the sound 1%, they're going to go for the $1 cap, cause when you sell a million units,  that equals a million dollars.

A high end audio company can spend that money on the $2 cap because they sell the unit for $5000. Maybe they only sell a thousand units but they only employ a hundred people. So that $2 only costs them $1000.

Other than the sound quality, the connectivity and practicality of this unit just can not be ignored.

However digital amps may change the whole paradigm of the general populations buying habits. People *do* want quality.

I mean even the stupidest people know when they looking at a quality picture on a tv.  My parents spent three grand on a 42" Sony LCD because it 'looked the best' to them. And I agree. Once I calibrated the thing it's pretty damn good.

The average person is willing to pay $3000 for a quality tv. They're *not* willing to pay it for an amp.

The prices for high end audio are way *way* out of wack.  I listened to a Denon amp that retails for $600 'just for fun'. What a piece of garbage. $600 is still a substantial amount of money.

I mean this the *low end*. Some hard core audio guys might laugh at you and say 'you expect to get *good sound* for $500?'.. err, well.. yes?

I mean look at the computer hardware. This is on the total opposite end of the price scale. You can buy incredible pieces of technology for a couple hundred bucks.  Brand new CPUs run under a hundred dollars.


I mean you have to blame part of this on the people buying the equipment. Some people will still buy $1000 digital interconnects and be conviced they sound better. What exactly do you think the cable is doing to the 1s and 0s?

That's the wonderful thing about digital amps. they're bringing audio into the digital age and in line with other digital equipment. Unfortunately high end audio companies will continue to throw in some good caps and sell their units for $10000, and the panasonics and sonys will cut corners and sell the units for $300.  Other than digital amps being 'not quite ready for prime time' in some ways (see below), they make audio reasonable and *fun* for the average person. Make a set of 'HD-14's, buy a decent pair of floorstanders which *can* be had for <$1000, and now yer talkin!


Russtafarian mentioned that his DIY amp that it sounded 'shrill' and too trebley. I immediately noticed the same thing with my xr50 hooked up to my Energy C5s. I was about ready to return the unit, as buying it was just an experiment anyway, when I deciced to play with the treble control.  I had to turn it right down to -10db but at that level it sounded totally natural. I did hours of listening tests and fiddling with the parametric eq on my computer and I'm very happy with the sound now just with the treble turned down to -10.  I'm having some psychological issues with the fact that an amp should be tonally neutral with the tone controls at 0, but after doing checking the response with a mic it's totally neutral. I'm not sure if others have had this issue. I think it may be an issue with the crossover in my speakers. The C5s have a fancy '2.5' way crossover. I'm not too knowedgable but the panny is a non-feedback which I've heard are 'touchy'. In any case the amp was definately sending too much treble to the speakers.

I just want to comment that the emphasis in the treble is very gradual going up to 20khz. Maybe a couple db an octave, and doesn't seem to produce any other abberations, so it's kind of subtle at first, and slowly drives you mad.

Luckly the tone control on the panasonic seems to cut it down perfectly.  Anyway, as I don't have any other decent speakers here to compare, so can't say if this happens with all speakers, or if it's an 'issue' with some speakers. Suffice to say I will probably be holding on to this amp , and looking at other digitals amps with great interest in the future.

[mcgsxr]

Cool points raised by many so far, and a decent read all around,  I would say.

Russtafarian - glad that you were able to get some advice on what alterations to make, to increase your ROI on that project!

Coleco - welcome, glad to see new faces around this thread!  I think you cast a good line when you mention that the Panny is likely just luck, and that the company is making the cheapest, decent amp that they can market.  You mention that you think they would never use more expensive parts, since the average consumer would fail to pony up the $$ for it.  Could be.  Could also be a glowing opportunity for a savvy product manager to offer another version, one with improvements to the PS, critical caps, internal wiring, IEC (all the stuff that people go and DIY), with some intelligent markup - since a company like Panny can likely lean on significant economies of scale, said improvements could not add more than 20-30% to their bottom line, and could be sold on a small or special order basis.  Sort of like what NAD does with their BEE series, and the intent of that designation - a semi-custom response to the interests (not necessarily needs) of the small percentage of buyers that we represent.

As for the highs on the XR50, I wonder if that is indicative of the whole XR lineup - I saw the smallest one from last year (XR10 or 15) at the local Future Shop for US$145 - tempting for a 5x50wpc receiver...

I continue to like the sound that my stock Teac tripath based amp drives, even with the 4 ohm load - I suspect that this piece does better with a higher resistance load (heard it on my friend's DIY 8 ohm speakers and it sounded less stressed).   I cannot imagine better sound for CAN$200 - Period.

I look forward to the eventual return of my modded unit from Bolder.


Mark in Canada

[coleco]

Considering the price point digital amps *could* start an arms race of sorts. Internet hype does pull a lot of weight these days, I mean not just here, look what people are saying on amazon etc.  Sound quality could start to mean a lot more.


The highs are an oddity on this unit. My C5s are easy to drive, 8 ohms without any huge impedence spikes, and *very* tonally neutral... but when the treble is set to 0, there's obviously too much energy in the upper frequencies. It seems like a very gradual increase though. I've done hours of subjective and objective testing, and turning the treble down to -10 doesn't seem to destroy the sound at all. The amp now sounds *very* nice. I have about 200 hours on it and I'm hearing the 'magic' that everyone talks about.

[Red Dragon Audio]

coleco,

I turn down the treble too but not that much..I like a little "sparkle" in my cereal.  Sometimes I find the music is just too hot to begin with and I come way off and for other music I usually have it set to just -2 or -3.

[coleco]

coleco,

I turn down the treble too but not that much..I like a little "sparkle" in my cereal.  Sometimes I find the music is just too hot to begin with and I come way off and for other music I usually have it set to just -2 or -3.

I see from your pics that you have the xr45. I have the xr50 so there's obviously differences between the two.  The C5s are pretty tone neutral, within +/-3db 40hz-23khz. Like I said there's no accounting for a particular amp interacting with a crossover so who knows.

I'm going to go down to A and B sound soon and get them to play the amp through a whole bunch of speakers and see what happens. I've tried the amp with a pair of old technics floorstanders and some JVC speakers from a mini system but they're both so rolled off sounding and sonically comprimised that I couldn't determine if it was the C5s that were causes the excess of treble. I don't own any other 'good' speakers.

I did some objective measurments, ie, frequency response and harmonic distortion.. there doesn't seem to be any other funny business.

This unit sounds so good even using my sblive 5.1 as a source that it's definately a keeper. I'm going to buy a chaintech 710 soundcard so I can send 24/192 right to the card through a tos link.

[Zero]

Great thread.

Whether the performance we see in these inexpensive new units are brought to us by a coincidental happy fluke or the result of technology fusing together, one thing is certain; these inexpensive pieces have raised the bar for what can be obtained for their price-point.

They are economically smart, run cool, can fit in slim chasis's, and have this detailed and powerful sound about them that most people cannot resist.  As more products roll off the assembly lines, it only seems to be getting better.  There are of course many obsticles and frustrations with this new technology.

For starters, it is all placeaboo.  There is no romanticism about owning a $200 dollar player you can pick up at Costco. Your parents or grandparents may even own the same thing!  Surely no self respecting audiophile could dare allow that to happen!!  Whether people want to admit it or not, owning that cool gear with the renouned name is a mark of pride and to a lesser majority, status.  

When I worked at Circuit City (spare your insults), I spoke to one of my co-workers about the Panasonic SAXR-25.  I informed him of its capabilities and just how well this unit could sound.  He disregarded it as a complete piece of crap and, I quote, "would be ashamed of myself if I ever sold it to anyone".  A month later, we had a display to set up which used the 25.  He was then schooled..  

Unfortunately it is not just the uninformed semi educated sales associates, but the consumers and audiophiles alike that share the same association with size, power, and name.  I dont believe it is a fight with technology so much as it is with physcology, be it Joe Carpenter or Mr.Audiophile Esq.  I have enough difficulty getting my friends to give these digital driven amplifiers (both seperates and receivers) a try simply because of their cost and manufactorer.  I dont know which is worse, the fact that they close their minds to opportunity, or the fact that I can relate to their hesitation.

On another note, it is all too easy to get caught up in a product that seems too good to be true.  A tuner/amp/pre amp/etc in one chasis thats $300 that can best most receivers / integrateds / seperates under 1g?  One of two things happen when a person is hyped.  They either have their expectations met and thusly perhaps over-state the brilliance of their find, or fail to have them met and grossly under-exagurate their find.  Sometimes you will find reviews that fall accordingly in the middle.  When rumors of the Panasonics and Sonys got around, it was the best thing since sliced bread.  A year has gone by now, and the bread just keeps getting better, and cheaper.

This is both good and bad.  Its good that the level of quality rises as the price drops, but bad if your wanting to dip into this realm that has new offers quite frequently.  

The digital sound is a sound all to itself.  Some people will be thrilled,  and then satisfied only for awhile till their tastes change.  Some may be hooked and stick with the technology for a long time.  Others wont be impressed and will resort back to their old ways while still keeping a lazy eye open. As per Totem Acoustics slogan; "hearing is believing".  

On a side note: We audiophiles tend to form patterns.  We latch on to something that catches our fancy, but the question is for how long will it suit our fancy? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months?  I believe only a lucky few of us (who truly have the sickness) count their blessing if they last a year. Digital amps offer a clean sound that is easy to love and appreciate, the question is whether or not the owner will continue to enjoy what originally took them by surprise.

"Thar be a change in the winds".  Some like to be at the forefront, others like to wait. Some are curious and dip their hand in the cookie jar, others wait to see what becomes of the curious type.  There are those who wait till there are little choices left, and some who will by any means necessary keep to tradition -  whatever type you are, one thing is certain, digital amplifiers are becoming the future of audio/visual entertainment... and that boys and girls, I think is a very good thing for us all.