Official Classe SSP-800 thread. - Page 11

Thanks for taking the time to share your impressions Tim!

Tim,

Very informative review and great photos! I have been waiting not so patiently for someone to post their impressions.

I assume that you used the CDP-502 pictured above for your 2 channel, CD listening, but, did you use analog or digital (coax) connections? I ask because I don't know if the Classe CD player and Classe prepro share the same dacs, or if using an analog or digital connection for CD playback will sound any different.

I'd also like to know how mutli-channel SACD's sound through the analog connections since Classe takes great pride in their analog prowess.

Have you had a chance to evaluate the prepro using an hdmi connection for movies with the standard dolby digital or dts soundtracks?

Thanks again Tim for taking the time to share your impressions of the SSP-800, and you are the first one to do it here!!

Jeff.

Glad to help. It seemed like an SSP-800 owner needed to step up and talk about how this thing sounds. Like I said, I'm not one that usually hears much of a difference between front-end gear (I'm more of a speaker guy), and while I think most non-audiophiles would not notice the refinement offered by the Classe, the improvement in sound quality seems quite evident to me.

I can't run SACD via analog because the Classe player does not play SACD, but I can run SACD via HDMI out of my PS3 if you like. I am also going to exchange the CDP-502 for a CDP-300 to get the multichannel DVDA output the 300 offers that the 502 doesn't.

The impressions of the SSP-800 sound quality I gave were based on a coax digital connection between the CDP-502 and the SSP-800. It is my understanding that the SSP-800 and the CDP-502 use the same BB PCM1792 DAC's, but that the analog output on the 502 is supposedly better than the 800. I haven't test this yet.

I have not tested any movies through the SSP-800 yet, but I will comment on that as soon as I do.

All high end companies say that when they are out of the technical loop and are faling behind. Mcintosh and ron c over on audio karma has been saying this from the get go.


Funny how only the "high end" has this.


Mr placebo.

Nope, not placebo.

Truth is, I cut my teeth in the hobby by reading through all of the back-issues of the Audio Critic. I'm also a rational /analytical thinker, so I tend to side more with solid engineering than the need for artistry when designing an audio component. So if anything, I expect *NOT* to hear a difference between similarly measuring components and IME I have not heard drastic changes in the sound quality of components / speakers over time.

I may not hear a lick of difference between now and the 300 hour mark with the SSP-800. But I can say with confidence that what I heard the first night was clearly different than the second night. Seems quite possible to me that at the very least, the SSP needed to reach proper operating temp. But who knows.

Try to keep an open mind. Even science has proven time and time again, what we once thought was the truth changes as new people come into the field and challenge conventional thinking.

But all of this is beside the point. If you are so against what the high-end offers, start a thread on it. This thread is for owners or interested parties in the SSP-800. There are plenty of debates on whether or not there are differences in sound quality between components. We don't need another one here.

Who knows? That is your thinking behind the difference in sound?


Not in audio, we have proven all the snake oil means wrong especially when it comes to cables.


Who said I was against what the high end offers? I was interested in the SSP-800 until I read it only uses the 1792 DAC's on the from end and not the surround channels. I am not talking about components sounding different but questioning you on break in and warm up.

I also own the PS3 (80 gb, older version) that supports SACD, so yes, I would greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts about how the Classe handles SACD. Am I correct in my understanding that the PS3 coverts the DSD bitstream to PCM which is them sent to the prepro via HDMI? Does the PS3 also covert a multi channel SACD to MPCM for output over HDMI?

Also looking forward to your movie experience with this prepro. Thanks!

Jeff.

Yes, that is my thinking since I did not run a lab experiment to quantify why the sound of the SSP-800 was different between the first and second day. I think it is *possible* that warm up could have been the cause, but outside of hooking the SSP-800 up to some sort of analyzer to measure any differences in the output when it is warm vs. cold, I have to rely on what I hear. The difference could be in my mind, it could be due to warm up, or it could be due to a number of other things. Since I don't know, I use the phrase, Who knows?


So we know everything there is to know about audio then? There will be no new discoveries in the field at any point in the future?

Were you aware of this recent discovery?

MIT finds new hearing mechanism
Discovery could lead to improved hearing aids

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/hearing-1010.html

An excerpt:
MIT Professor Dennis M. Freeman, working with graduate student Roozbeh Ghaffari and research scientist Alexander J. Aranyosi, found that the tectorial membrane, a gelatinous structure inside the cochlea of the ear, is much more important to hearing than previously thought. It can selectively pick up and transmit energy to different parts of the cochlea via a kind of wave that is different from that commonly associated with hearing.

How much empirical evidence do you have that there is no change in a component's sound when operating at different temperatures or after electrical current has passed through it for a period of time? Or are you just taking studies that you have read as gospel? In other words, what is your first hand experience in determining whether there are differences in sound with break-in?

An objectivist that relies on lab reports to determine the truth has no better grasp of the truth than a subjectivist using his/her ears.


And why does the use of different DAC's for the rear channels automatically rule out the SSP-800? Are you saying that you can hear the difference between a DAC with 123 dB SNR (PCM1796) and one with 127 dB SNR (PCM1792)? Or maybe it is that you can hear the 0.0001 difference in THD between the two? Care to prove that in a blind test?

What if the differences between those two DAC's are inconsequential and it is the analog circuitry of the SSP-800 that makes a bigger difference in the ultimate sound quality? Or something else in overall circuitry design? The sound of a prepro is not determined solely on the DAC's used.

Sure, I was aware of it. However, this discovery does not disprove any of the other mechanisms and only gives us an explanation of something we knew we didn't know (yet). Pick another example.

Tim, do not bother arguing with Doug Windsor (formally BluRay_1080p before being banned from the forum). You will only end up frustrating yourself. If you ignore him he tends to move to another thread where people react to him. Or just do what most people do and put him on your ignore list.

My point to using that example is to show that it is possible that there is more to what is important to the human perception of sound quality and how we measure what is important than we currently know.

The MIT article mentions the need to create a whole new class of measurement tools to study the effect of the tectorial membrane and that the membrane is more important to hearing than previously thought. If that is the case, then maybe there more to what we hear than can be captured through the typcical measurements published on THD, SNR, Dynamic Range, FR, etc..

Then again the mind is a tricky thing, and I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I think there are changes in sound quality where there likely are none.

Yeah, I read though his history of posts, so I knew what I was getting into. I just didn't feel like ignoring him quite yet.

In short, yes - you can use your PS3 to play SACD via HDMI. Rebelman is currently doing just that. I am using my Oppo 980.

How about you email classe and see what they think. Your who knows assumption has been used for cables, cable lifts, the little orange clock and every other snake oil product.


Do you even read the articles that you post?

The team's discovery has implications for how we model cochlear mechanisms. "In the long run, this could affect the design of hearing aids and cochlear implants," says Ghaffari. The research also has implications for inherited forms of hearing loss that affect the tectorial membrane.

And this has what to do with anything we were talking about? Unless you have some type of hearing loss.


If something sounds different then there would be a different measurment and we would be well aware about this change. Are you saying that the molecular structure changes over time by passing an electrical signal through something? If so why does break in only occure in audio and why does it only happen in the "high end" or "named" components?


Is this your defence for being wrong?


The main reason is why did classe cheap out on the rear channels? Why then not run a different DAC on each channel or save some money and go with a much cheaper DAC for everything.


It would have helped if he read the whole article before posting it.


People hate being proven wrong on this site for some reason.


Sure, go re read the whole article.

Everyone please ignore him!

Yeah, I'm done.

I will, I will, I promise I will, but I had one more thing to say and I type slow and hate to have wasted that time. As if it were not already wasted but this may give him SOMETHING to think about before his next useless post on the same subject in other threads. He was already asked not to post in my own thread and deleted twice today by a moderator that's catching on. We can only hope that sentiment spreads throughout the entire forum. So here's what I had planned to say, I hope it was worthwhile and doesn't p**s off everyone else.


I didn't realize that you even disagreed with the concept that a piece of electronics needs to at least warm-up before it can be measured and it's specs can approach those of what you read!
Are you not familiar with the term "DRIFT" of various types and differing reasons concerning electronic components?

A very easy to see example would be to just turn off a radio with meters that was tuned perfectly to a station.
Let it cool back down to room temp and turn it back on again.
You'll find at this point the station is no longer perfectly tuned but don't try to re-tune it just yet.
Let the tuner "warm-up" and after a few minutes, when it does, you'll find the station is once more perfectly tuned in.
It has nothing to do with the airwaves or anything else but the fact that it was first measured tuned while warm vs. the room temp measurement.

The same applies to all other things electronic but I think is most easily seen with a simple radio tuner.

Perhaps you don't see the claims of any performance differentiation before or after a break-in period on the low-end components your familiar with is because the tolerance of the parts used is so far apart to begin with, that there is no way it'll make any noticeable difference if you run it at a sub-zero temp brand spankin new or warmed up after a few hours.

Have you ever given that a thought?

My guess, of course not cause there is no such thing as a better part to make a better component.
And no such thing as the bothersome process of the matching of these better parts, that don't exist in your world in the first place!

Look into these concepts and get back to us.

Since you are no longer welcome in this thread either,
this will give you the prefect opportunity to open the thread I suggested to you before. The "Argue A Fact With DougWinsor" thread.

I thank everyone else for their time and wish all a good night.

Makes sense to me BB, but Doug is hopelessly close minded to anything but his own beleifs.

PS - got a good chuckle out of your suggested "Argue a fact with Doug Winsor" thread.

I will answer this for people who are interested in knowing why, as I asked Dave Nauber this very same question. The 1792's are found on L/C/R and the Sub and I believe Aux channels, just not surround and rear.

Why? It is simple. Cost.

If you recall, Classe was working on a product called the SSP-900. It was a cost-no-object statement piece to be priced at $25,000. It had the 1792's in dual-differential mode for every channel. Classe abandoned the project because the engineers were not happy with it. Dave felt that if the company couldn't be proud of it, then how could he expect customers to be. That is my paraphrase of what he said, not a direct quote.

In designing the SSP-800, obviously they had hoped to come in a certain price range. Because of that, compromises had to be made. They evaluated single DACs vs. dual DACs and determined that the difference wasn't noticeable enough to justify it for the SSP-800. The 800 is meant to be a stripped muscle car (sleeper), not a rolls royce. At CEDIA last year, they expected it to be priced between $10,000 and $12,000. We should be very greatful they decided on $8,000. They also did the same evaluations for the use of DACs in each channel. They had to put them in the Aux channels, because they can also be used for bi-amping. They decided not to put them in the surround and rear channels because they felt, again, that the difference wasn't noticeable.

The SSP-800 is engineered to have the right parts where it counts, not to have them there just for the sake of having them there. If you follow that logic, it will also answer you why they didn't add THX or Audyssey. They put an EQ on board for people who needed it, but their testing with it (as I was told) found that all it did was make the sound louder.

I'm not going to get into the debate of which method is better. There is no "right" or "wrong" - it is simply personal preference. Everybody is different and not everybody will like the SSP-800. I will say that I haven't read or seen one person who has heard it that has said they did not like it though.

Ignore who?

Mebbe but the "typical measurements" used in audio are objective and external and, frankly, have no reference to the ear or to neural processing. The new class of measurement tools referred to in the article refer to neurophysiological tools.

Sure, there will always be new things to learn and appreciate but, at present time, I do not see the relevance of this finding to the present arguments.

You disagree with me but can not argue your opinion or what you heard so you just quit?


Really, now lets see what Alimentall posted in that thread;


Do you agree with him?


I do not know how or what you search for on google but you should really read more on the subject that you are trying to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift

So which drift are we talking about? Ok I will just assume you mean drift in electronic measurements.


How old is this radio equipment you are using? Or once again did you not bother to read anything before you posted it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_drift


I looked at patents from the 50's that prevented this type of drift. If you want to talk about drift you better specify what you are talking about and I also looked at drift for electronics measurements and sensors.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=WLHk...sult#PPA287,M1

On page 16 you can use alternating direction method ADM to have drift free measurements.

On page 286 they also talk about offset and drift but I would still like to hear what connection you made with this and break in of your audio equipment.

Do you have a link that proves your assumption that "low end" gear does not require the same tolerances? Last time I looked a simple $1000 onkyo receiver had a better SNR then a high priced theta casablanca with xtreme DAC's. Again you just assume the type of equipment I run is low cost.


You sure do make a lot of assumptions.

Cost? you realize that the 1792 is $13.35.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder.../pcm1792a.html

and the 1796 is $3.70.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder...t/pcm1796.html

So you are telling me that classe wanted to save $50?


About audyssey?

I'm glad you know how to find prices. Now go argue with someone who cares. I'm just the messenger.

Do you even enjoy audio, and relaxing up to your system, or are you just here to try and prove everyone wrong and show how smart you are?

You can argue science and literature all day, but until you go listen to the SSP-800, please keep your comments to yourself about how you feel it is under-implemented. We know where you stand. Once you have something constructive to say after a few demo sessions, please come back and tell us what you think.

Its not that hard, I still do not see how they saved money doing this.


I post fact from fiction, nothing more.


There is nothing to argue and all I want to know is why they did not use the same DAC's for all channels, I found this odd and for 8K it does not look good.

I could not agree more, it is unfortunate that Classé who is claimiing that The SSP-800 is the best pre/pro out there is cutting corners on things like that, but hey $50 times 100,000 is $5M.

So the bean counters make the decisions, if you wanted all the same DAC like in Denon (24-bit/192-kHz DACs - Burr-Brown PCM-1791 PCM-1796 - 2 x 8 Channels) $2.85/each or Integra DTC 9.8, Classé would charge $12K for all the DAC

I really need to go and listen and hope that it is not a disappointment. Maybe I will ask my dealer if I could take it home Saturday afternoon and use it Sunday and Monday in my system.

I have just taken delivery of my classe SSP 800 on Friday, having had the SSP 600 on loan for 3 months in anticipation of it's arrival. I use B&W 802D + Macintosh MC501's + Classe CDP-502 / transparent cables. I had been very satisfied with the sound of the original set-up with the 600. The 800 does sound noticeably different. I'd anticipated that the change from 600 to 800 would deliver more detail / brighten the sound. This has not been the case, and I still coming to terms with the change in sound flavour.

I have noticed an increase in base energy. To my ear, there appears to be an increase depth to all sounds, particularly noticeable in instruments whilst vocals consequently sound less prominent. The change in sound feels warmer which was an initial concern since I'd been very happy with the balance achieved by pairing the classe 600 with the Mac amps. Having read the comments re: time to run-in the amp, I'm going to go back upstairs and listen some more. Each time I've revisited listening since it was installed, I've been more impressed. Let's see what the next 2 weeks brings.

Interesting was the SSP-600 better?

Hi WSE,

Attempting to save $50 on an $8K piece says a lot about the company. It doesn't look like they mind spending the dollars on the jewelry... I'll take a cheaper chassis and $50 more in parts. In volume, it is probably closer to 20% less or $40.

Speaking of volume... This industry is MUCH smaller than you might think. I'd be completely shocked if they sell 1000 in a year.

Now I do understand the debate by spending $50 here and $50 there (times 15 times) will make the BOM out of control. But not on the DAC!