TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
The Nords look like great value- what input buffer stage would you recommend and is the basic one ok?
class d.
- Thread starter the loaf
- Start date
The Nords look like great value- what input buffer stage would you recommend and is the basic one ok?
muzzer
Numb Nut
Well the Mola Mola Kalunga mono blocks sell for aprox $16500 according to a online review
johnhunt
pfm Member
Well the Mola Mola Kalunga mono blocks sell for aprox $16500 according to a online review
Clearly you would be paying much of it just for the (brilliant ) name
Music freak
pfm Member
Then tell the crowds, how one can easily, and quickly identity the definite 'sound signature' RIGHT throughout their manufactured range of (for example) of say Bowers & Wilkins or Naim speakers- either current or of past incarnations.
Like a too open heard piece of music, just thinking of the examples I have above-mentioned.... I can actually 'hear the typical sonic behaviour
/ presentation of these two brands in my head, as I write. I also expect many other people have the same unexceptional ability.
The 'clipping factor' of amps, you mention - in this day and age is in most cases- a non absent problem., unless some idiot wants to see 'how far they can abuse a Hi Fi system.
. Plus how many amps are currently designed that cannot face ohm loading around 6 ohms down to a flash or two of 4 ohms...at the very worst? Long gone the plethora of 15/16 ohm speakers being the 'norm' where pissy 10 to 20 watts - a side amps, even cost substantial money - that is - unless a buyer deliberately wants to revisit the modern produced - 'exotica reincarnations of ' 50's/60's /70's. fare.
I beg to differ at what I consider an incredulous statement, if a person claims they cannot audibly detect / or recognise the basis of meaning either that - in description or practical effects of the term) "synergy" .
O.K Some people may have an opposing a positional argument view : such isolationist 'ivory tower opinions' which in the first instance, are mired in practical flaws.
Where does a normal intending buyer who is not a Hi Fi technician have the expertise , ability or time -to sit down , add up the various influencing ' electrical equations' and immediately make unerring / guaranteed " driven properly" choices based on a set of laid out measurements?
I have found, too many 'Tech's ,( after a bit of probing) regarding the basic foundations of what constitutes " musical construction" to them, have a complete lack of judgement plus an appalling taste : of what actually represents the usual strictly defined 6 criteria points of music -itself. When they wished to demonstrate equipment with 'example discs' , that one could easily imagine -seemed to be have had, the microphones I;E: jammed inside pianos etc, / swinging freely to & fro - attached to trapeze swings ( producing sonic vertigo !) or perhaps then mastered by balance engineers with faulty hearing aids.
You get to a point where you start staring at some of these self promoting /espousing Tech heads and dealers ....expecting to see - not human ears attached to their head .... but instead( as a substitute), - a pair of tin soup -cans with an attached string neck falter !
How often , one has seen the hilarious antics of auditioning dealers, desperately / feverishly rushing around a shop's precincts trying to change / attach some 'new this or that (more expensive of course!!) part/ cable/-whoever' like a frantic switchboard telephonist in disarray, blowing mental fuses.
The only way to get around this problem..is to use YOUR OWN set of long -trained (through listener experience) - ears.
Using one's OWN ears to gain enough satisfactory pleasure measure is 'I think' , at least 90 % to 95% of importance of any purchase deal.
Many an alleged expert dealer /manufacturer can rant & rave on, all they like -about many an assembly of connected products, they offer for sale & have recommended with their alleged ' technical knowledge'..... which I have heard and auditioned , down the decades.
Perhaps, too - over the years I was a bit too polite ...by NOT immediately , telling them....the particular goods they wished to show off 'as a ideal combination model' had no ( what was / and long is accepted as '"synergy" ) and therefore .... sounded like a collection of assembled -together , over-priced s....t!
radamel
Music Fiend
Well the Mola Mola Kalunga mono blocks sell for aprox $16500 according to a online review
Economical doesn't come cheap!
Cheers!
muzzer
Numb Nut
£12600 opposed to £1260 for the Nord mono blocks using similar technology.
I wonder what the extra 11 grand buys?
radamel
Music Fiend
I'm sure Keith will be around momentarily to explain that.
I got the UP model, with the upgraded input board. I think its well worth the money. I bought all the op amp options as well, and have tried like 20 different op amps in the input buffer as well (since its possible and i felt adventurous).
I think the Sonic Imagery Labs 994 is a safe bet when getting the amp. It is very good discrete op amp and i think the best option. I have found some other options too for the input buffer op amp too. At least LME49990 (dual to mono) and OPA827 (dual to mono) seems to be very nice.
The Nord One UP model is kind of amp you can make sound little different, instead of buying another amp.
DevillEars
Dedicated ignorer of fashion
Time to don my "Anne Elk" disguise and put forth a theory... (No - not about the brontosaurus... )
In the years following the introduction of CD, we saw early players using (and sometimes tweaking) the available DAC chips. Next followed component manufacturers investing and producing their own bespoke DAC circuitry (ladder dacs, ring dacs, etc). Meanwhile, the mainstream digital IC manufacturers like Burr-Brown, ESS, Crystal, Wolfson and co, had upped their game and were producing DAC chipsets that were giving some of the high-end bespoke DACs a good run for their money.
As the Law of Diminishing Returns began to apply to R&D into new and improved DAC design, the high investment required in R&D around new and better DACs made it difficult for the smaller component manufacturers to carry on with in-house development and easier and more cost effective to piggy-back on the R&D spend of the large (and high-volume) DAC chip producers and simply try to value-add in areas such as ergonomics, discrete analogue output stages, better clocks, etc.
This approach allowed these "cottage industry" manufacturers to still market competitive digital components in their various ranges but without the massive R&D overhead associated with keeping pace with DAC performance enhancements being achieved by both the high-volume specialist DAC chip manufacturers and those high-end bespoke DAC developers.
My guess is that, eventually, all DAC chips will come from specialised DAC chip manufacturers who will be only entities who will have the required critical mass to continue the required R&D spend.
And this where the "Anne Elk type theory" regarding Class D amplifiers comes in...
Firstly, Class D technology has some inherent strengths: high efficiency, low heat dissipation (both of which are in line with the increasing focus on "greenness"), compactness, and availability of third-party "modules". Their perceived weaknesses of switching noise levels and brittle upper registers were real in early implementations, but these have been worked on to reduce their impact to the point where today's better Class D amplifiers no longer suffer from any really noticeable artefacts in these areas.
Meanwhile, Class A and Class AB amps have seen little or no quantum improvements in performance - just minor ones due largely to tighter tolerances, better circuit layouts, improved power supplies and regulation and more care in component matching. As a result, R&D costs can be contained and this is what keeps these amp classes going as your smaller "cottage industry" manufacturers can still afford to take their old base designs and focus their R&D spend on minor improvements.
Both (particularly Class A) are still basically old and inefficient designs and still pump out large amounts of heat and require large heat sink areas to dissipate this heat so that running temperatures don't climb too high. Not exactly green in today's world. And herein lies the rub - just how much longer with the evolving market be prepared to spend money on new amplifiers based on old designs whose only benefits lie in central heating savings in winter (sorry - couldn't resist... ).
And here's where the CD and amplifier trends could converge...
It's already started with a groundswell of amplifier manufacturers turning to third party Class D amplifier module manufacturers (B&O, Hypex, Tripath, etc) and in-sourcing the modules so that they can focus on their own core competences to provide differentiation in the marketplace.
At some point I see Class A amplifiers joining the in-line straight 12 cylinder, side-valve 8 litre car engines (at best, in museums and at worst in the waste bin). Class AB amplifiers may outlast Class A but are coming under pressure from the lack of potential for any significant or groundbreaking innovations. The automotive analogy here might be that Class D equates to hybrid petrol/electric cars while Class AB might be the latest small turbocharged OHC, fuel injected petrol/diesel engines...
Tomorrow's audio buyers will have different priorities to today's buyers when it comes to amplifier purchase decisions, so it's not wise to expect them to have the same priorities as us (dinosaurs?).
Amplifier manufacturers who are not aware of (or ignoring) the potential change in market behaviour will not survive - survival will demand an understanding of these changes AND a willingness to adopt or adapt to the changes.
And that, as the saying goes, is my theory and what it is too...
Dave
)In the years following the introduction of CD, we saw early players using (and sometimes tweaking) the available DAC chips. Next followed component manufacturers investing and producing their own bespoke DAC circuitry (ladder dacs, ring dacs, etc). Meanwhile, the mainstream digital IC manufacturers like Burr-Brown, ESS, Crystal, Wolfson and co, had upped their game and were producing DAC chipsets that were giving some of the high-end bespoke DACs a good run for their money.
As the Law of Diminishing Returns began to apply to R&D into new and improved DAC design, the high investment required in R&D around new and better DACs made it difficult for the smaller component manufacturers to carry on with in-house development and easier and more cost effective to piggy-back on the R&D spend of the large (and high-volume) DAC chip producers and simply try to value-add in areas such as ergonomics, discrete analogue output stages, better clocks, etc.
This approach allowed these "cottage industry" manufacturers to still market competitive digital components in their various ranges but without the massive R&D overhead associated with keeping pace with DAC performance enhancements being achieved by both the high-volume specialist DAC chip manufacturers and those high-end bespoke DAC developers.
My guess is that, eventually, all DAC chips will come from specialised DAC chip manufacturers who will be only entities who will have the required critical mass to continue the required R&D spend.
And this where the "Anne Elk type theory" regarding Class D amplifiers comes in...
Firstly, Class D technology has some inherent strengths: high efficiency, low heat dissipation (both of which are in line with the increasing focus on "greenness"), compactness, and availability of third-party "modules". Their perceived weaknesses of switching noise levels and brittle upper registers were real in early implementations, but these have been worked on to reduce their impact to the point where today's better Class D amplifiers no longer suffer from any really noticeable artefacts in these areas.
Meanwhile, Class A and Class AB amps have seen little or no quantum improvements in performance - just minor ones due largely to tighter tolerances, better circuit layouts, improved power supplies and regulation and more care in component matching. As a result, R&D costs can be contained and this is what keeps these amp classes going as your smaller "cottage industry" manufacturers can still afford to take their old base designs and focus their R&D spend on minor improvements.
Both (particularly Class A) are still basically old and inefficient designs and still pump out large amounts of heat and require large heat sink areas to dissipate this heat so that running temperatures don't climb too high. Not exactly green in today's world. And herein lies the rub - just how much longer with the evolving market be prepared to spend money on new amplifiers based on old designs whose only benefits lie in central heating savings in winter (sorry - couldn't resist...
).And here's where the CD and amplifier trends could converge...
It's already started with a groundswell of amplifier manufacturers turning to third party Class D amplifier module manufacturers (B&O, Hypex, Tripath, etc) and in-sourcing the modules so that they can focus on their own core competences to provide differentiation in the marketplace.
At some point I see Class A amplifiers joining the in-line straight 12 cylinder, side-valve 8 litre car engines (at best, in museums and at worst in the waste bin). Class AB amplifiers may outlast Class A but are coming under pressure from the lack of potential for any significant or groundbreaking innovations. The automotive analogy here might be that Class D equates to hybrid petrol/electric cars while Class AB might be the latest small turbocharged OHC, fuel injected petrol/diesel engines...
Tomorrow's audio buyers will have different priorities to today's buyers when it comes to amplifier purchase decisions, so it's not wise to expect them to have the same priorities as us (dinosaurs?).
Amplifier manufacturers who are not aware of (or ignoring) the potential change in market behaviour will not survive - survival will demand an understanding of these changes AND a willingness to adopt or adapt to the changes.
And that, as the saying goes, is my theory and what it is too...
Dave
DevillEars
Dedicated ignorer of fashion
A large chunk of your high street outlet rental and flashy demo premises this allows? (Or am I being overly cynical?)
radamel
Music Fiend
Anyone knows the ability of the Hypex based amps like the Nord mono blocks to drive current into really low impedances like 2 Ohms?
Thinking of trying them out with my Obelisks but despite the high power ratings of class D amps, always worries about their actual current delivery
Thinking of trying them out with my Obelisks but despite the high power ratings of class D amps, always worries about their actual current delivery
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Bradders
The Pork Chop Express
I was running Bel Canto amps (which is the older ICE module) then assembled some Hypex NCores, which ultimately replaced them.
Have been very happy with Class D for 6+ years - I'm particularly impressed with the NCores, which seem good value compared to all the other stuff I have used down the years.
Have been very happy with Class D for 6+ years - I'm particularly impressed with the NCores, which seem good value compared to all the other stuff I have used down the years.
That high! Some speakers drop well below 1Ohm momentarily.
True and I believe obelisks do fall in that category
Thanks. That's reassuring. Any thoughts on their sound into the Obelisks compared to any other class A/AB amps you may have tried?
Linn use class d amplifiers in Sekrit dsm, Sneaky dsm and Kiko dsm
Bradders
The Pork Chop Express
I tried a KSA100 briefly, which heated the entire street and sounded a touch clunky. Possibly needed a service, but life's a bit too short to find out.
As I was happy with sound of the Bel Cantos, the Hypex seemed a simple solution (was a bit concerned about the infamous 1 Ohm peaks that the Obs present, which on paper causes a problematic load for the BCs).