or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › List of PWM Amplifiers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

List of PWM Amplifiers. - Page 9

post #241 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlf9999 View Post

that is a sure sign that you need a real and competent electronics engineer,

Indeed.
post #242 of 357
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Please add this piece to the list, it includes a 5 channel digital module with patent pending technology.

REVOX M-51

Nice, but I think it belongs in Grayson73's digital receiver listing instead - together with the naim n-Vi
post #243 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyCold View Post

Nice, but I think it belongs in Grayson73's digital receiver listing instead - together with the naim n-Vi

Agreed. But I got to admit, after a quick glance over what it is, it seems pretty cool!
post #244 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlf9999 View Post

Anticable: $1.
Naked copper wires: $10.
Listner impressions: $1,000.
Getting muralman to substantiate his conclusions: priceless.


The theory is, electrons are captured in wraps, to be rereleased into the wire randomly, causing distortion. The question is, what if the heavy insulation is removed? In science, we test the hypothesis to reach a conclusion. Like reported in the testimonials I gave you, I did that test, and I gave you my conclusion. End of story. Test for yourself, if you think I am not telling the truth.
post #245 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlf9999 View Post

one that is competent and understands electronics.

The designer of the H2O is an electronics engineer by trade, and brilliant amp designer by vocation. As an engineer, he is a conservative when it comes to unsubstantiated claims. What he found is, fully shielded cords bring out the best in class D, and digital amps. That find matches our testing of such cords on TacT and ICE amps.
post #246 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

The theory is, electrons are captured in wraps,

first of all, you need to tell us what "wraps" you are talking about here. is it wheet or multi-grain, or something else?

2ndly, get a basic college level physics book and try to understand how signals are transmitted. a hint for you: electrons travel at about a few centimeters a second in a copper wire. And ask yourself if that changes your understanding of the above "explanation".

Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

to be rereleased into the wire randomly, causing distortion.

just where did you get this 'exotic' understanding of the laws of physics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

Like reported in the testimonials I gave you,

religions are built on testimonials. Sicence on the other hand is built on facts, and logic.

BTW, what amps did you make? I will make a note of avoiding it at all costs.
post #247 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlf9999 View Post

first of all, you need to tell us what "wraps" you are talking about here. is it wheet or multi-grain, or something else?

2ndly, get a basic college level physics book and try to understand how signals are transmitted. a hint for you: electrons travel at about a few centimeters a second in a copper wire. And ask yourself if that changes your understanding of the above "explanation".



just where did you get this 'exotic' understanding of the laws of physics?



religions are built on testimonials. Sicence on the other hand is built on facts, and logic.

BTW, what amps did you make? I will make a note of avoiding it at all costs.


First of all, I am talking about any "insulation" thicker than a coat of lacquer. That should have been self evident.

Secondly, I never said I build amps.

Religion cannot be substantiated through testing. That is why religion had to get out of the way of scientists throughout history, as understanding of natural law supplanted old myths.

Scientific theory is supported by testing. The results of that testing is published. Other scientists are expected to retest the the theory.

Are you denying capacitance exists, or are you saying it doesn't matter?
post #248 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

Are you denying capacitance exists, or are you saying it doesn't matter?

Third choice: neither.

What you described isn't capacitance. If it actually occurs, it's a new phenomenon and could win you a Nobel Prize if you document it well.
post #249 of 357
"In science, we test the hypothesis to reach a conclusion. Like reported in the testimonials I gave you, I did that test, and I gave you my conclusion. End of story. Test for yourself, if you think I am not telling the truth."

Scientific tests are verifiable and repeatable. Yours are purely your personal subjective impressions, are they not?

Get same results with blind testing and then you'll have something.
post #250 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

Are you denying capacitance exists, or are you saying it doesn't matter?

actually I was trying to get you to understand that the mechanism of signal transmission you proposed isn't really what happens: electrons do not transmit the signal, or we would have some really serious delays.

I was hoping you could spot the logical holes in your argument.
post #251 of 357
Quote:


The theory is, electrons are captured in wraps, to be rereleased into the wire randomly, causing distortion.

Do you have any evidence to support your theory?
post #252 of 357
Charge, the word we were looking for is charge........ Ooooooh, darn.

Targus and Noah, Anti-Cable's supremacy over anything we compared it to was clear to all I happened to be in the same room with. Double blind testing wasn't necessary. A reviewer friend of mine did find something better, and we all agreed, that is Shunyata helical SC.

I happen to live in a den of deep pocket wire rollers. There has never been disagreement of the above results, with any sensitive system we tried.
post #253 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

Double blind testing wasn't necessary.

Yes, that's usually the case.
post #254 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

Double blind testing wasn't necessary. .

that's why they invented religion.
post #255 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlf9999 View Post

that's why they invented religion.

I don't think Galileo double blind tested his discovery of moons around Jupiter. The whole notion of blind testing being a de facto scientific method is laughable. Ever since science was organized into a peer review system, the experiments were made, published, and challenged.

Last I looked, the faithful don't base their faith on what they see and hear.
post #256 of 357
Quote:


The whole notion of blind testing being a de facto scientific method is laughable.

Your concept of science is also "laughable".
post #257 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

I don't think Galileo double blind tested his discovery of moons around Jupiter.

He didn't examine them under a microscope, either. Different discoveries require different scientific tools.

Quote:


The whole notion of blind testing being a de facto scientific method is laughable. Ever since science was organized into a peer review system, the experiments were made, published, and challenged.

On the contrary; double blind testing is often used in scientific testing where placebo effect and other biases might otherwise yield questionable results. For example, in the medical field, double blind testing helps separate useful medicines and treatments from the ineffective ones and the snake oil.

For comparative listening tests, double blind testing is highly valuable--certainly more so than sighted tests and anecdotes are.
post #258 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Targus View Post

Your concept of science is also "laughable".

I have a BA degree in the Biological Sciences, and have done considerable post graduate work. The procedure published Biologists follow is as stated. I do understand control populations, placebos etc..

The truth is, if all audio choices centered around double blind tests, no one would ever buy anything. The whole industry would grind to a halt.

The only blind test I took part in was during a digital cable shoot out using a SET system. blindfolded or not, no one heard the slightest difference between the most rude AV tri-wire, and five others of varying prices and materials. We were all getting hopeful we could save some serious money. When it came to the most expensive, blind folded or not, we all could tell this one from all the others. This was a total bummer to us. The cable was a Virtual Dynamics. The BB construction of this cable is radically different from most.

My point being, with my electronics, and speakers, every wire, and front end leaves it's personal stamp on the final product, like never I have witnessed before. These differences are not small.

We are talking about these kind of amps, and I want to impress on folks reading that if they want to make these speedy amps sound their best, then they have to search out the cleanest attending components.

Magnet wire produced the most definitive change for the better in my system. Come on over, I will demonstrate.
post #259 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

The truth is, if all audio choices centered around double blind tests, no one would ever buy anything. The whole industry would grind to a halt.

you are absolutely right on this point: the entire exotic cable and ultra-high-end audio industry wouldn't have existed with dbt.
post #260 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlf9999 View Post

you are absolutely right on this point: the entire exotic cable and ultra-high-end audio industry wouldn't have existed with dbt.

Since this thread is suppose to be about various class D amps, I wonder if any of you doubters of anything I have to say, own any of the aforementioned amps?

With my H2O Signature monos, H2O Fire preamp, Anti-cables, and Apogee Scintillas, I can point out every good and bad quality of each component you plug in, including every wire.

If you do not own 2 or more of the above, you won't know what I am talking about, and will continue to bring up angels on a pin arguments.
post #261 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by muralman View Post

Since this thread is suppose to be about various class D amps, I wonder if any of you doubters of anything I have to say, own any of the aforementioned amps?.

I would be the first to admit that I don't own any of the things you mentioned here.

However, do you own any of the electron "wraps" you mentioned earlier? do you own any of the "truth"/"science"/"facts" you mentioned here as well?

somehow I doubt it greatly.
post #262 of 357
So is there a pure "digital" amp with optical/coax/usb input under $1000?
post #263 of 357
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gevorg View Post

So is there a pure "digital" amp with optical/coax/usb input under $1000?

the Panasonic XR series (current model is XR57, you might be able to get XR55 if you look). They are AV receivers but they are so far the only ones under 1K that don't do any analog conversion at all.

Not sure how much the Theta Digital Virtu PowerDAC is - probably > $1000
post #264 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyCold View Post

the Panasonic XR series (current model is XR57, you might be able to get XR55 if you look). They are AV receivers but they are so far the only ones under 1K that don't do any analog conversion at all.

Not sure how much the Theta Digital Virtu PowerDAC is - probably > $1000

Wow, so there is nothing in between a $2-300 receiver and a multi-thousand dollar amp?

How can they be the only ones, what about DPR2005, VRS-7100, and all other receivers in the digital receivers sticky thread?
post #265 of 357
Thread Starter 
the other receivers are using digital amplification, but takes an analog signal to generate the PWM, so there is a DAC stage before the amplifier. AFAIK only the TI Equibit converts PCM signal directly to PWM (used in the Panny, and possibly Kenwood as well)
post #266 of 357
Thanks for the explaination.

So if both the XR55/57 and VRS-7100 have TAS5076 for processor and TAS5182 for controller, they have the same sound quality?

My only purpose for the receiver is to take digital signal and play music on a pair of speakers.
post #267 of 357
Thread Starter 
Quote:


So if both the XR55/57 and VRS-7100 have TAS5076 for processor and TAS5182 for controller, they have the same sound quality?

not necessarily so - the processor and controller are only 2 components out of a thousand other components in a receiver
post #268 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyCold View Post

AFAIK only the TI Equibit converts PCM signal directly to PWM (used in the Panny...

The List of Digital HT Receivers thread lists the latest Panasonic XR57 as TI PurePath. Which Panasonics use the Equibit chip?
post #269 of 357
Would the Crown Class - I amplifiers fit the bill for a 'digital' amplifier?
post #270 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by gevorg View Post

The List of Digital HT Receivers thread lists the latest Panasonic XR57 as TI PurePath. Which Panasonics use the Equibit chip?

Purepath is the rebadged Equibit. All the Panasonic SA-XR receivers are Equibit/Purepath.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › List of PWM Amplifiers.