Yes I remember that was one of the first GaN designs. Expensive beast ! I recall there was a company that designed and built all kinds of electronic equipment who had a proprietary amplifier board. I wonder if anyone used it.
Quest for the Best Amplifier
- Thread starter Mike Hanson
- Start date
S-Man
StrivingON
The first to use GaN (at least from one of the leading semiconductor manufacturers) was Samsung, in HT.
The semiconductor manufacturers are much more interested in the volume they get from these type of companies than from piffling little hi-fi nonsense companies!!!
S-Man
StrivingON
I think you are right. I built a Rozenblit hounded grid preamp, which had excellent measurements and was supposed to have the virtues of solid state and valves.
It did add its own character to the sound (which I preferred to do without).
I think it’s possible that this character is due to acoustic feedback not distortion.
I wonder if the measurements would be the same if they were taken in a room with a hi-fi playing loud, versus in a nice quiet lab?
karlsushi
pfm Member
Great write-up @Mike Hanson
As Tony L points out, get the amp/speaker combo right and you can then tinker with the front end to taste.
It's interesting to hear how many modern speakers seem to 'need' such crazily high power ratings, just to get them operating properly.
One small observation that stuck out to me, aside from the main ones that have already been discussed by far more technical minds than my own. Using a buffer 'and' an active pre seems to me to be counter-intuitive. Buffer with a passive, yes, but with an active pre, where impedance matching shouldn't be an issue, this seems to be adding unnecessary circuitry to my mind.
On which, has your friend tried a passive with the buffer placed after (obviously removing the Benchmark pre). That would be a worthwhile bit of added 'fun' to try.
Anyway, I do hope your friend isn't 'too' happy with the current result. What will you both do to fill your time!
As Tony L points out, get the amp/speaker combo right and you can then tinker with the front end to taste.
It's interesting to hear how many modern speakers seem to 'need' such crazily high power ratings, just to get them operating properly.
One small observation that stuck out to me, aside from the main ones that have already been discussed by far more technical minds than my own. Using a buffer 'and' an active pre seems to me to be counter-intuitive. Buffer with a passive, yes, but with an active pre, where impedance matching shouldn't be an issue, this seems to be adding unnecessary circuitry to my mind.
On which, has your friend tried a passive with the buffer placed after (obviously removing the Benchmark pre). That would be a worthwhile bit of added 'fun' to try.
Anyway, I do hope your friend isn't 'too' happy with the current result. What will you both do to fill your time!
Mike Hanson
Trying to understand...
He intends to consider replacing the tube buffer and SS preamp with a tube preamp at some point. In the meantime the combo sounds wonderful, in spite of the fact that it's extra stuff inline. And if he can't find anything to better it, then that's ok too.
OzBrit Audio
pfm Member
That is surprising for class D. Your class AB Hegel I would expect to put out more heat
I wonder why. Apparently the Orchards run cool as a cucumber from what I have read
OzBrit Audio
pfm Member
Well I have a theory on why valve buffers can help. I think its what's they don't let through more than how they modify what they do let through.
Let me start with an observation I made with a Schitt Saga Pre Amp that I owned for a while. This is a valve unity gain pre amp with a stepped attenuator volume control. It also allows to switch in a and out the valve part, so used as either passive or active. When audio science measured it it was pretty much close to prefect and they actually gave it a good wrap based on this. Distortion levels incredibly low something like 0.001%, a perfectly flat frequency response, extremely low noise, very low crosstalk.
When listening to the valve section in play one thing I noted that if my frond end was sounding a little 'gritty' then the valve pre did a pretty good job of taking this out. Switching to passive mode and the grit came back. It was quite obvious switching AB using the supplied remote. Unfortunately the sound signature was also degraded in terms of dynamics and imaging irrespective of which mode was selected. Curiously though if I removed the valve and the pre was just used purely as a passive mode I could detect zero change in the sonic signature.
The point here being even though this pre measured perfectly it could change the sound signature for both better and worse. It certainly wasn't adding any hormonic distortion to the mix. So it doesn't surprise me that Mike putting this in the signal chain can produce a better outcome through the loudspeakers.
Those who still doubt this, well this review notes that a passive pre using a transformer and stepped attenuator made his system more musical, improved soundstage and took out long term listening harshness. Have a read
In this case not a valve but a transformer doing some filtering?
Just my theory but interesting to hear what others think?
wulbert
pfm Member
Great post! Thank you Mike for your tenacious quest for perfection (so that I don’t have to!).
I always enjoy reading about the experiences of knowledgeable and curious people who have a vision of what they are seeking. And the generosity to share their findings.
I have similar reservations about “soundstage”. I often wonder if it’s mostly a fleeting artefact that happens inside the human brain (like those “3D” postcards with two images, where you cross your eyes to reveal the 3 dimensions). But can also be engineered into a good recording of a performance where there actually was a sound stage.
I always enjoy reading about the experiences of knowledgeable and curious people who have a vision of what they are seeking. And the generosity to share their findings.
I have similar reservations about “soundstage”. I often wonder if it’s mostly a fleeting artefact that happens inside the human brain (like those “3D” postcards with two images, where you cross your eyes to reveal the 3 dimensions). But can also be engineered into a good recording of a performance where there actually was a sound stage.
I recently bought another EE Minimax Pre based on very positive memories from the past. Happy to say in this case memory has not coloured my judgement as it is excellent. I have been using a Django TVC and to be honest there's not much in it. I get the perception the EE has a larger soundstage, but they are both ultra clear and dynamic sounding. By comparison a Khozmo pre I had sounded squashed and opaque. Latterly I have been using them with SE200's.
Columbo
pfm Member
Surprised me too. The Technics has a whole bunch of stuff going on inside though. Not Class A hot but too warm for my room. IIRC was over 50C surface temp. The Hegel barely gets over 30C.
Fourlegs
Trade: WAVE High Fidelity digital cables
On a different matter but still regarding ‘soundstage’, with digital equipment there is a view promoted by Rob Watts that user reports of ’better’ or ‘wider’ or ‘enhanced’ sound stage are more likely to be mistaken and all that is really being heard is distortion or noise artefacts. Likewise an impression of more ’life’ or ‘dynamics‘ in the music could be down to distortion or noise artefacts.
One might say does that matter as long as the music sounds better to the user but the problem can be that ultimately with extended listening the sound can become fatiguing.
On the other hand if what one really means by soundstage is a more accurate placing of instruments and voices then that is a legitimate goal.
Having been on the quest to find a new amplifier a few years ago to replace my well loved 845 valve amps I was initially tempted by amps which sounded hugely impressive but ultimately were rather fatiguing and failed to create pleasing music. Only when I listened to a Pass Labs XA30.8 power amp was the mission fulfilled.
Columbo
pfm Member
What is soundstage?
Not clued up on this stuff but a few things I half understand / have experienced (feel free to correct any misunderstandings, I'm in the Dunning Krueger zone here)...
Bass can add a sense of scale to the stage, first experience of this when adding a sub. The presentation feels like it scales and swells up a level or two
And then you've got reverb in the track which creates sense of acoustic space. (Which battles against the room reverb which can be confused for soundstage)
Then phase / pan effects within the track which can create a sense of things placed here, there and everywhere (which battles against phase effects from comb filtering when sound bounces off a surface creating a greater sense of space at the cost smearing and less clarity unless using diffusion)
Then you have air, typically associated with increased treble but makes those reverbs effects pop and linger more prominently
And then you have harmonics (distortion). No idea how that works but one reason some folk like valves for that 3D thing
With regards the Hegel it could be the combo of it's anti-distortion Soundengine thingy killing non-intentional harmonics? Also big damping factor, perhaps you lose some bass overhang/bloom which shrinks the scale a little? And the treble area does seem smoothed (without detail loss) which is why some folk might not like the Hegel (I have heard some folk describe Hegel as "slightly humid / dense”), though over time really comes to appreciate it as it makes for an incredibly agnostic low fatigue listening set-up which I only began to appreciate a few months later.
Mainly referring to the H390 here, not heard the H600 but imagine they're in the same house sound ballpark.
Not clued up on this stuff but a few things I half understand / have experienced (feel free to correct any misunderstandings, I'm in the Dunning Krueger zone here)...
Bass can add a sense of scale to the stage, first experience of this when adding a sub. The presentation feels like it scales and swells up a level or two
And then you've got reverb in the track which creates sense of acoustic space. (Which battles against the room reverb which can be confused for soundstage)
Then phase / pan effects within the track which can create a sense of things placed here, there and everywhere (which battles against phase effects from comb filtering when sound bounces off a surface creating a greater sense of space at the cost smearing and less clarity unless using diffusion)
Then you have air, typically associated with increased treble but makes those reverbs effects pop and linger more prominently
And then you have harmonics (distortion). No idea how that works but one reason some folk like valves for that 3D thing
With regards the Hegel it could be the combo of it's anti-distortion Soundengine thingy killing non-intentional harmonics? Also big damping factor, perhaps you lose some bass overhang/bloom which shrinks the scale a little? And the treble area does seem smoothed (without detail loss) which is why some folk might not like the Hegel (I have heard some folk describe Hegel as "slightly humid / dense”), though over time really comes to appreciate it as it makes for an incredibly agnostic low fatigue listening set-up which I only began to appreciate a few months later.
Mainly referring to the H390 here, not heard the H600 but imagine they're in the same house sound ballpark.
Salamander
pfm Member
That and where does it come from. The $64,000 question.
SteveG
pfm Member
I long since given up the quest to find the "best" solution (not that I could afford it anyway) so am content with systems that I enjoy and work well with the music I like. I used to worry about stuff like soundstage but don't these days!
Columbo
pfm Member
Feels like chasing various competing sweet spots...
Super high resolution but not fatiguing
Gigantic soundstage but not diffuse vague imaging
Treble and upper mids with enough bite but not to the point where you want to turn things down
Body and weight in the vocals but not to the point where they sound bloated or muddy
etc.
Made all the more difficult that different songs/genres, different quality in mixing will suit different systems better.
I've been aiming for a genre/mix agnostic system but I know, for example, some Franco Serblin designed speakers would be better for strings and piano, but then those speakers in turn wouldn't be so good with other stuff. Choose your poison
music fiend
life lusting
In my case it was quite simple.
I love piano pieces and wanted a stereo setup that reproduced piano quite well (which isn't easy, as you know). On top of that it should be able to reproduce a symphony reasonably well.
After getting both right I'm happy and everything else I listen to (especially alternative music and Jazz) also sounds good to me unless the recording is appaling.
Perhaps others would disagree and say that I'm deluding myself but as long as it works for me that's what counts, right?
I love piano pieces and wanted a stereo setup that reproduced piano quite well (which isn't easy, as you know). On top of that it should be able to reproduce a symphony reasonably well.
After getting both right I'm happy and everything else I listen to (especially alternative music and Jazz) also sounds good to me unless the recording is appaling.
Perhaps others would disagree and say that I'm deluding myself but as long as it works for me that's what counts, right?