Sonic Impact Sneak Peek

albee · « **on:** 10 Apr 2005, 06:32 am »

Not sure if anyone has seen the latest Sonic Impact test models that are due out this summer so here's a peek courtesy of 6moons. The 2026 will be an upgraded version of the current SI and will be $119. It's 50 watt sister will be the 2050 starting at $299. The 2050 better be special at that price!

soundboy · « **Reply #1 on:** 10 Apr 2005, 07:05 am »

Wow! $300??

There's still competition from all the other digital amps by Panasonic and JVC. And who knows what TEAC has up its sleeves?

mcgsxr · « **Reply #2 on:** 10 Apr 2005, 01:51 pm »

Well, I assume that the 2050 is so named, based on using that chipset, so it should provide 2x30wpc, that might help justify the price - mind you, folks have spent more on tweaks than that...

-Richard- · « **Reply #3 on:** 10 Apr 2005, 05:44 pm »

It would be wonderful if some brave soul within our audio
community would be willing to give this second generation
of the Sonic Impact a spin...the new prices should demand
a much more robust performance...perhaps even close to
state of the art considering the high level of the JVC F10
for example...they are not cheap...but perhaps there is magic
under the hood...

Warm regards -Richard-

Bemopti123 · « **Reply #4 on:** 10 Apr 2005, 05:50 pm »

"Manufacturer, willing to upgrade standard product to keep up with the demand of the modding masses." More power is welcome, but then, I wonder how much a behemoth or large manufacturing plant can really tweak a product to justify increase of price. The original was just too affordable and even with that, the sonic satisfaction was inversely increased. At $300? will people bite into with as much abandon as the original that used to cost as low as $20? Only time will tell.

albee · « **Reply #5 on:** 10 Apr 2005, 06:13 pm »

Keep in mind the dealers that sold SI never asked MSRP. That may be the saving grace. The 6moons blurb was in the NEWS section and indicated that one of their associated reviewers has them now. Unless there have been some decent upgrades the 2050 would be risky especially since it doesn't have the magic architecture of the 2024.

lcrim · « **Reply #6 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 01:08 am »

Albee:
What did you mean by "magic architecture"? Is there some architectural difference between the 2024 and 2050 Tripath chips?

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #7 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 02:22 am »

I like the very classic and clean casework. If there's a decent break off MSRP I'd give one a shot. But I'll tell you what would really rock- that exact same product with a USB input!

Vinnie R. · « **Reply #8 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 05:13 am »

Quote from: lcrim

Albee:
What did you mean by "magic architecture"? Is there some architectural difference between the 2024 and 2050 Tripath chips?

Hi Larry,

Yes, the Tripath TA2024 and TK2050 are a little different:

--The TK2050 "chipset" actually uses two separate chips: the TC2000 audio signal processor (5V CMOS IC used to convert the input signal to a switching pattern), and the TP2050 power stage (MOSFET output stage IC). The TK2050 is a little more complex than the TA2024 (implementing on a board will require somewhat longer signal paths, larger parts count), but has the ability for a larger power output.

--The TA2024 is a fully integrated solution (one chip). IMO, the simplicity of this design makes it the "magic" chip (shortest signal paths, least number of parts, etc.). Of course, the output power is limited to "flea amp" status, but within that power range, it will amaze most listeners if implemented correctly.

Howver, both use Tripath's DPP techology and require a similar external low-pass filtering circuit, so they are similar...but different

Hope this helps,

panomaniac · « **Reply #9 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 12:51 pm »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

But I'll tell you what would really rock- that exact same product with a USB input!

Well Rob, how about the PowerWave USB audio adapter from Griffin? USB sound card with Tripath power with the TA2024 chip (I think). Might have to buy one of these to see if it can be "hot rodded."

Dmason · « **Reply #10 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 12:55 pm »

In my own experience with Tripath amps, having owned the Carver ZR500, ZR1000, SI, PowerWave, Teac, and having built an amp around the 500 watt evaluation board, what really set things apart from the crowd with Tripath sound were the following:

-minimal implementation of Tripath technology
-battery power using SLA.
-optimized parts set.

When this happened, it took the Tripath sonic into a whole other universe. To me, the TA2024 is the pride of the fleet, exactly because it is minimal. If it is sound you are after, Less=More philosophy will clearly get you there. The larger, more complex these designs become, the more EMI/RFI they generate and absorb, and the noisier they sound. By the time you get into the Jumbo chips, (100 wpc +) they required so much surgery to make good, it isnt worth the bother, IMHO. The 500 watt job was truly noisy, and I estimated I would have to spend three times what I had invested in the build, just to clean up the final product.

The Tripath sonic wrought from the TA2024 under the above conditions is so in advance of its brethren, that it matters not the fact that it is 6 watts. Okay, so I made it 11 watts just by employing 4 Ohm speakers, and using high sensitivity drivers, which are always the finest anyway. When you have 97db speakers, 11 watts may as well be 1100 watts, if you are resigned to Dynaudio type sensitivity, for example. If you are looking for fine audiophool sound with Tripath stuff, I strongly recommend staying within the realm of the TA2024 and 2050 and battery power them. Clearly, Tripath sonics were meant for battery power, in high end audio.

miklorsmith · « **Reply #11 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 02:18 pm »

If you have 101 db speakers, 11 watts is like 2200 watts then. Excellent!

The Druids continue to improve. They flow like water. My amazement has not diminished. The 101 db rating makes the small tripath sound like Thor. Bass delivery is solid and full and integrated with the whole. This setup sounds like a perfect fusion of hi-eff and hi-power. It can play LOUD if you need, while maintaining perfect composure.

It is only a matter of time until the Druids take over the world!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

Cool visual, eh?

Dmason · « **Reply #12 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 02:50 pm »

Mike's example is exactly what I am talking about.

If you desire superior sonics and deem either of these two Tripath chips as "not enough power," I GUARANTEE you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. ie: your speakers are too insensitive as to be inadequate to the task. You need more sensitive, better speakers before you can shift gears.

Absolute Music Frees the Soul
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Freedom or Corruption?

With today's expected UPS delivery of the Ultimate Tripath Amplifier, I will have owned a total of 8 Tripath amps, and have experienced this technology in its various iterations, so I have been able to formulate opinions based on EXPERIENCE. A friend of mine who on my recommendation now has a full on assault version of the battery Tripath paradigm and has been comparing it nightly to a pair of $20,000 Lamm monoblocks he is currently writing a review on for the Robb Report.

Fabulous, indulgent tube equipment. Would you care to guess which amplifier he and his pointy eared audiophool friends prefer? So, if you convince yourself of "not enough power, AND you want great sound, you need to either think about first upgrading speakers, OR, perhaps deep down what you really want is....More Power.

albee · « **Reply #13 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 02:54 pm »

Dmason: What is the Ultimate Tripath Amplifier, please?

Dmason · « **Reply #14 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 02:58 pm »

Albee,

Just an expression. The "ultimate" is based on the above implementation, with the best parts, short signal paths, etc. Everything we have learned, using the best of everything. It is a Conclusion, NOT an opinion. I think ultimate is a decent enough term for the best sounding amp [recipe] I have ever heard...hope this helps.

lcrim · « **Reply #15 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 04:37 pm »

Dan and Vinnie:
Your enthusiasm for this technology has been a feature of this site for some time now. I have always had cordial relations with you both and I hope that will continue. I do however hold a somewhat different view regarding battery power.

Is there something inherently magical about DC power from an SLA battery that actually affects sound quality? Will tweakers start playing with formulations of acid to achieve more brilliant highs and deeper lows? The argument when taken to its extreme starts to become silly.

I can't help thinking that a Tripath chip used with a properly designed linear power supply with adequate filtering would provide at least equal performance and avoid the convenience issues. The cost would probably be equivalent as well.

Dmason · « **Reply #16 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 05:22 pm »

"the cost will probably be equivalent as well."

The cost will not be equivalent. If battery power works well, why bother with linear power supplies and associated prophylactic solutions, in other words, why prefer a more complex, convoluted and expensive solution to a more direct, and elegant solution which requires less investment? To get the very best out of the Carver ZR1600 will cost about $3,000 in aftermarket modification, not including the cost of the amp. And, it will not sound as openly musical as a battery powered TA2024. The ZR will power less sensitive speakers. The only caveat with the TA2024 is that one must use sensitive speakers, which are always the best anyway. I cannot make this point more clearly.

Larry,

Case-in-point: The owners of optimized, battery driven TA2024 and TQ2050 chips are not arguing about, nor showing a conclusive preference for conventional linear or switching power supplies. The argument is coming ONLY from people who haven't hooked up with what's coming out of these things. Proof is always in the pudding.

Why seek more power when more power is not needed? I am not making this argument taking into consideration that what stymies most of the audience who may be resistant to this heresy, is the concept of their speakers as being permanently fixed to their floors. If such is the case, then I strongly recommend that more powerful, more expensive, and less musical sounding amplifiers be considered. BUT, the batter driven TA2024 chip forces one to re-think exactly what effect an ampifier has on the sound.

Last, I am not making any attempt to change anyone's thinking, no agenda no bullshit, no nuthin. Just that I know what I am talking about, and have reached certain inalienable truths and conclusions about this stuff, again based-on-experience. I encourage all to feel free to allocate expenditures based on your own conclusions, and follow your heart and gut. Fact doesn't always influence opinion. Anyone with a mother oughta know that.

miklorsmith · « **Reply #17 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 07:05 pm »

The golden dream of amplification is straight wire, with gain, so I've read. What is a straight wire? The simplest device known which will carry electricity. Actually, the wire would add some coloration, so maybe some plasma convection device would be better.

Unfortunately, gain does not come from the heavens, it has to be created by complex devices. The higher the power requirement (gain), the more machinery/complexity is needed to achieve that gain. More gain equals more mechanics. Thus, increasing gain gets progressively further from the ideal of the straight wire.

At the other end of the speaker cable, crossover networks have the unenviable job of distributing high-level signal in real time to various drivers that, when combined, are supposed to sound like one cohesive whole. They do an admirable job, but when compared to a single-driver solution on a simple amp, it is far from perfect.

My last arrangement was a PS Audio HCA-2 (Stereophile Class A) and Gallo Acoustics Reference 3 speakers, which won the highest award 6moons has ever gifted. I loved the combination, it was sweet and musical and covered the entire musical range beautifully. In fact, this was one of the best arrangements I've heard.

Except that after listening to batteries and hi-eff speakers, the other combination sounded utterly broken. I literally put both pieces up for sale after 5 songs back on the hi-power stuff. You don't realize what is being robbed from the recording until you ditch all the extra schwag.

Theory will take you so far, but I'm scientifically inept and don't try to explain what I hear. I do trust my ears, and this combination leaves me wanting for NOTHING. I have no interest in upgrading my amp or speakers any more. In fact, the concept seems a little dated.

panomaniac · « **Reply #18 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 09:24 pm »

I'm interested in the battery versus AC PSU debate for the small T-chips.
When measuring and listening to mine, a good linear regulated PSU has the edge over the batteries. I used batteries from AA to SLA to deep cycle marine. AC PSU was home made.

What I found looking at power in an oscilloscope was that the T-amps throw a lot of HF hash back into the power rail. A battery, no matter how large, does little to attenuate this hash. Good caps do. I also found the regulated supply to be more stable than anything but the giant deep cycle battery.

So when you speak of an SLA as being the best solution, are you talking just an SLA, or an SLA with additional filtering? My feeling so far is that a large SLA decoupled by large caps and small hi-Q caps would be the ultimate supply. But not the smallest or most practical.

NOTE: My home speakers are not efficient.

So I would like to know from those who have speakers in the high 90s what differences you hear between battery only and a good regulated PSU?

(I need to take an amp to work where my speaks are 96dB/watt.)

Panelhead · « **Reply #19 on:** 13 Apr 2005, 09:43 pm »

I pulled the battery from my daughter's Power Wheel motorcycle and tried it for a while. It was slightly better sounding than 8 2400 mah AA cells. It was a 7 Ah SLA.
My fave is a regulated supply feeding a 54,000 ufd 4 pole Jensen cap. This comes on with the flip of a switch. The sound seems even faster than the SLA. The Jensen cap has only 2 inches of wire to the circuit board.
But I really think the inductance of the lead wire has a lot to do with this. The SLA had close to a foot of power wire and then went into the case. The length of wire may have created a bottleneck.
The Clari-T solution with the SLA inches way should allow quicker current delivery. But I agree that a proper designed linear supply will cost more than the SLA. The one I built for my next box has close to a 100.00 in parts alone. But it has minimal lead wire and adjustable output voltage. It should be capable of delivering 5 amps steady.
Once the box is finished and all hooked up, I may try the Power Wheel battery again.

George