Switched to Class D or get left behind?

[2FarGone]

Class D is very very good. And its affordable. Some would say Atmasphere is expensive. But I say the amps driving the M9 in another thread are expensive. Are Class D amps going to replace them. Probably not for a variety of reason. Many with nothing to do about sound. And plenty to do with sound.

Class D is shocking good when you consider a young couple in a condo with a pair of book shelf streaming Spotify. And thats probanly 90% of the market for stereo gear. As they look for a little better, and some more better, class D is going to remain the price point they can afford. Not tube and not AB. Not unless one or the other starts earning real money.

Frankly, I think you’ve nailed it. I have a small system running on a pair of Fosi V3s that sounds better than it has a right to. I also have a Rowland model 10 class D amp with upgraded power supplies that, after having some undisclosed issues addressed, sounds better than any amp I’ve ever owned in that system, and I’ve had a few good ones.

In my mind, it’s all about money and always has been. The anti-audiophile crowd loves to sneer at expensive equipment, and the price to performance ratio of some class D amps is pretty high, which gives that crowd some ammunition. But there will always be those of us that are chasing a different ideal.

 

[Randy Myers]

Class D is very very good. And its affordable. Some would say Atmasphere is expensive. But I say the amps driving the M9 in another thread are expensive. Are Class D amps going to replace them. Probably not for a variety of reason. Many with nothing to do about sound. And plenty to do with sound.

Class D is shocking good when you consider a young couple in a condo with a pair of book shelf streaming Spotify. And thats probanly 90% of the market for stereo gear. As they look for a little better, and some more better, class D is going to remain the price point they can afford. Not tube and not AB. Not unless one or the other starts earning real money.

You are making a point that I believe I have tried to make several times. Yes, there are folks who can and will buy the ultra-end of audio gear. But I also believe a vast majority of the market is the young couple in a condo who enjoy music but can't or do not want to afford crazy levels. I also believe that both manufactures, and especially magazines are missing the target by emphasizing the ultra hi end and mainly as exclusion of entry level. The future audio enthusiast will come from the entry level for the most part. The smartest companies realize this. This is just my opinion, I expect in a forum such as this many will disagree. But I say in total confidence it has for the most part always been this way and today I it is even more so.

 

[Hear Here]

You are making a point that I believe I have tried to make several times. Yes, there are folks who can and will buy the ultra-end of audio gear. But I also believe a vast majority of the market is the young couple in a condo who enjoy music but can't or do not want to afford crazy levels. I also believe that both manufactures, and especially magazines are missing the target by emphasizing the ultra hi end and mainly as exclusion of entry level. The future audio enthusiast will come from the entry level for the most part. The smartest companies realize this. This is just my opinion, I expect in a forum such as this many will disagree. But I say in total confidence it has for the most part always been this way and today I it is even more so.

I must be in neither camp - best kit at whatever the cost, or the best inexpensive kit for a small flat.

I do question those who spend 5-figure sums on amps, preamps, vinyl, etc when they feed this signal to a 4-figure pair of speakers. That's barmy to me. My speakers are well into the 5-figure mark, but I have found that careful purchase of an all-in-one (or more recently a streamer preamp and Class D power amp) delivers as good a sound as I can expect from my costly speakers. I chose this kit from a dozen other amps, mostly much more costly, but the combination of performance, features and user friendliness makes me pretty happy. Yes I could improve the sound marginally, but the cost would be huge. I have always considered that speakers are far and away the most important ingredient for life-like, ralistic and believable sound, and cables (you need lots of them with a pile of separates) far and away the least important, so I do away with them as far as possible. With modern kit, this previously necessary evil can be virtually eliminated, so adding to the budget for the important stuff!

 

[Randy Myers]

I must be in neither camp - best kit at whatever the cost, or the best inexpensive kit for a small flat.

I do question those who spend 5-figure sums on amps, preamps, vinyl, etc when they feed this signal to a 4-figure pair of speakers. That's barmy to me. My speakers are well into the 5-figure mark, but I have found that careful purchase of an all-in-one (or more recently a streamer preamp and Class D power amp) delivers as good a sound as I can expect from my costly speakers. I chose this kit from a dozen other amps, mostly much more costly, but the combination of performance, features and user friendliness makes me pretty happy. Yes I could improve the sound marginally, but the cost would be huge. I have always considered that speakers are far and away the most important ingredient for life-like, ralistic and believable sound, and cables (you need lots of them with a pile of separates) far and away the least important, so I do away with them as far as possible. With modern kit, this previously necessary evil can be virtually eliminated, so adding to the budget for the important stuff!

I would say I am probably more in neither camp also. I do have a decent chunk on change (in my view) into my system, but none of my components would fall into the range of a nice high-end car. My point is that what I see in magazines and many of the manufactures is this emphasis on the ultra-high end while neglecting the entry level. I 100% believe the entry level and slight step ups from there is where the future generations will come from. I also believe this race to the top is not good as a whole for our hobby because capturing the younger generation is quite important for longevity in our hobby.

 

[Hear Here]

I would say I am probably more in neither camp also. I do have a decent chunk on change (in my view) into my system, but none of my components would fall into the range of a nice high-end car. My point is that what I see in magazines and many of the manufactures is this emphasis on the ultra-high end while neglecting the entry level. I 100% believe the entry level and slight step ups from there is where the future generations will come from. I also believe this race to the top is not good as a whole for our hobby because capturing the younger generation is quite important for longevity in our hobby.

Yes, all good points. The generation now listening to Spotify or YouTube via their poxy phones over earbuds will one day hopefully realise that this really isn't anything like a live performance - and they've probably never heard real instruments playing live. At the concerts they go to, they are still listening to paper or plastic cones being pushed back and forth by magnetic fields.

Hopefully at least some will eventually appreciate the sound that good hi-fi can generate and the associated excitement factor.

The hugely costly stuff that seems to be a feature of a couple of high-end forums, seems to attract its buyers as much by their fancy and very expensive boxes as their audio quality. A first-class sound can be achieved without these crazy prices, but some regard their hi-fi in much the same way people regard Rolex watches. Rolex is no better at its job of telling the time than a £30 Micky Mouse watch, but some want to show off their fashion credentials by having Rolex on their wrists and goodness knows what on their hi-fi shelves! What a strange lot the Human Race is!

 

[Michaels HiFi]

Yes, all good points. The generation now listening to Spotify or YouTube via their poxy phones over earbuds will one day hopefully realise that this really isn't anything like a live performance - and they've probably never heard real instruments playing live. At the concerts they go to, they are still listening to paper or plastic cones being pushed back and forth by magnetic fields.

Hopefully at least some will eventually appreciate the sound that good hi-fi can generate and the associated excitement factor.

The hugely costly stuff that seems to be a feature of a couple of high-end forums, seems to attract its buyers as much by their fancy and very expensive boxes as their audio quality. A first-class sound can be achieved without these crazy prices, but some regard their hi-fi in much the same way people regard Rolex watches. Rolex is no better at its job of telling the time than a £30 Micky Mouse watch, but some want to show off their fashion credentials by having Rolex on their wrists and goodness knows what on their hi-fi shelves! What a strange lot the Human Race is!

I agree with many of your points.

I would add I am thankful for those who buy the $100,000 servers, DAC and other gear as much of that technology works its way down into the more affordable gear the rest of us buy.

 

[RepublicOfTexas69]

I agree with many of your points.

I would add I am thankful for those who buy the $100,000 servers, DAC and other gear as much of that technology works its way down into the more affordable gear the rest of us buy.

In some cases it worked it way up..

 

[Kingrex]

On another thread I made the mistake of saying young people don't know what live music sounds like because they can not afford to pay for concert tickets. Someone called me on it. When I went searching for numbers, I found there were something like 30 million concert tickets sold a year in the 70. There has been a consistent rise in ticket sales where they are around 90 million today.

My point it that the enthusiasm to listen to music seems to be there. And people will spend some money on it. But we also know the gap between the wealthy and not is wider. And the middle class has shrank. Although more went up than down. There is a pretty health percent of people in the US and the world that have enough to afford say a $50K system. Hence, the manufacture and magazine are focusing on the high end. As a forum and community, we seem to gravitate to it too. There are a lot of YouTube influencers that focus on the affordable. Who watches that young Asian kid that talks about Fosi and other, sub $300 amps and speakers. I have once or twice, but that is not what I am seeking to buy, so its not often.

It probably does not make sense for high end manufacturer to focus on low $$$ product. That is a different type of manufacturing. They may not be scaled for it. Atmasphere probably sells hundreds of his class D amp a year. Fosi probanly sells 10s of thousands.
Where is your personal passion. Do you think Ralph gets personal satisfaction from the high quality components he makes. Would he get the same satisfaction adding 8 hours more work a day to his schedule to make a stamped out $180 amp. I doubt it. Thats just chasing money.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Atmasphere probably sells hundreds of his class D amp a year. Fosi probably sells 10s of thousands.

Economies of scale absolutely drive pricing, hence small boutique brands must charge more vs mass producers like Fosi. Of course 1000 of those Fosi et al will end up in the trash after a year or two, whereas Ralphs hopefully will be heirloom pieces. That's why I use Hypex. Sonically transparent vs load, very high line noise immunity and UcD modules running perfect after 17 years. Some newer designs aren't just transparent, they're a lot more reliable.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

Economies of scale absolutely drive pricing, hence small boutique brands must charge more vs mass producers like Fosi. Of course 1000 of those Fosi et al will end up in the trash after a year or two, whereas Ralphs hopefully will be heirloom pieces. That's why I use Hypex. Sonically transparent vs load, very high line noise immunity and UcD modules running perfect after 17 years. Some newer designs aren't just transparent, they're a lot more reliable.

And don't forget cheaper labor costs of the slave labor in China.

I would always rather support a US or European made product if for no other reason the massive Chinese government organized IP theft and spying.

 

[Randy Myers]

Economies of scale absolutely drive pricing, hence small boutique brands must charge more vs mass producers like Fosi. Of course 1000 of those Fosi et al will end up in the trash after a year or two, whereas Ralphs hopefully will be heirloom pieces. That's why I use Hypex. Sonically transparent vs load, very high line noise immunity and UcD modules running perfect after 17 years. Some newer designs aren't just transparent, they're a lot more reliable.

Some of this may be true, but not all less expensive gear is garbage that will end up in a trash heap in a few years. Also, many non-class D amplifiers last a very long time and retain their value incredibly well. McIntosh as an example, usually last a very long time and of all the pieces that I have owned and sold for whatever reason, always sold quickly and at decent prices. I have never encountered other equipment with as good of a pre-owned market.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

but not all less expensive gear is garbage that will end up in a trash heap in a few years.

I didn't say that.
But having thrown 20+ of those little cheapo D amps in the trash over the years, I speak from experience, not speculation.
Your experience different??

 

[Randy Myers]

In some cases it worked it way up..

100% true. Many times it nis a race to the top for some of these companies because the alure legitimacy they feel it gives to them and their brands.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

100% true. Many times it nis a race to the top for some of these companies because the alure legitimacy they feel it gives to them and their brands.

For sure. Halo products have long been shown in all industries to be quite a successful brand-growing and marketing tool.

 

[Hear Here]

I agree with many of your points.

I would add I am thankful for those who buy the $100,000 servers, DAC and other gear as much of that technology works its way down into the more affordable gear the rest of us buy.

I wonder if it's really that way round.

Isn't more likely that the tiny-volume, massively priced brands get their basic designs via the big brands that sell tens of thousands of units and have huge R&D budgets to design their next wonder product? The likes of NAD, Arcan, Audiolab, Cambridge, etc are probably at the forefront of audio design, but have to build their great designs to a price that attracts the level of sales they need. Then the big-price, low-volume brands (Rolex equivalents) copy (not illegally of course) these designs, maybe using better components, and put this into a crazy-priced jewel-like cases to attract the Rolex buyers?

 

[Michaels HiFi]

I wonder if it's really that way round.

Isn't more likely that the tiny-volume, massively priced brands get their basic designs via the big brands that sell tens of thousands of units and have huge R&D budgets to design their next wonder product? The likes of NAD, Arcan, Audiolab, Cambridge, etc are probably at the forefront of audio design, but have to build their great designs to a price that attracts the level of sales they need. Then the big-price, low-volume brands (Rolex equivalents) copy (not illegally of course) these designs, maybe using better components, and put this into a crazy-priced jewel-like cases to attract the Rolex buyers?

Could be. I''m sure that goes on to some extent.

I can only speak from experience when I look at brands such as Aries-Cerat, VAC, Pink Faun, Antipodes Audio, Aqua, MSB, Network Acoustics, Telegartner, etc - they want nothing to do with how the big brands do things and they create their own unique products.

 

[Mr Peabody]

I wonder if it's really that way round.

Isn't more likely that the tiny-volume, massively priced brands get their basic designs via the big brands that sell tens of thousands of units and have huge R&D budgets to design their next wonder product? The likes of NAD, Arcan, Audiolab, Cambridge, etc are probably at the forefront of audio design, but have to build their great designs to a price that attracts the level of sales they need. Then the big-price, low-volume brands (Rolex equivalents) copy (not illegally of course) these designs, maybe using better components, and put this into a crazy-priced jewel-like cases to attract the Rolex buyers?

No, that is ridiculous. Just because those brands give you bells & whistles doesn't mean they are on the cutting edge of sound quality. Gear like Esoteric are so far ahead on digital playback people like you can't even imagine. The list of speaker manufacturers way beyond. Mostly technology trickles down due to the cost of R&D. It would be rare if anyone made a $500.00 then took that tech into a $10k unit. I can't think of any, can you?

Also, it's stupid to take a $25k speaker and connect it to $5k of electronics and say you've heard the best that speaker can do. For the record your components should about equal in ability throughout the chain.

I really just shake my head at some of the stuff you post.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

No, that is ridiculous. Just because those brands give you bells & whistles doesn't mean they are on the cutting edge of sound quality.

Not what he said. Your mind equates price with sound quality, as the Caltech et al study proved. The bling brands didn't invent a thing, they all take existing tech and do what marketing taught, big prices affect minds. proven science.
LPs, CDs, Open Reel, etc every source was invented by big and/or non bling brands. Stereo, surround, Transistors, tubes, horns, panels, piston drivers etc. The list goes on. Facts vs your opinions.

Also, it's stupid to take a $25k speaker and connect it to $5k of electronics and say you've heard the best that speaker can do.

Evidence? Let's guess, "I said so".
So, objective metric price = "best"....but "its all subjective". lol

For the record your components should about equal in ability throughout the chain.

I really just shake my head at some of the stuff you post.

For your record obviously. Price = "ability". Isn't (marketing) science wonderful?
Price Effect

 

[Mr Peabody]

I would say I am probably more in neither camp also. I do have a decent chunk on change (in my view) into my system, but none of my components would fall into the range of a nice high-end car. My point is that what I see in magazines and many of the manufactures is this emphasis on the ultra-high end while neglecting the entry level. I 100% believe the entry level and slight step ups from there is where the future generations will come from. I also believe this race to the top is not good as a whole for our hobby because capturing the younger generation is quite important for longevity in our hobby.

You see the better gear in magazines to give readers something to aspire to. Is it once a bottom feeder always a bottom feeder?

I can only speak for myself. Music was always a love before I owned anything. I first got from my parents a suitcase record player. from there an all-in-one. A few of those actually. I eventually got my first receiver in high school. So I am well aware of what it's like to use entry level. I was also on the pursuit of better sound as money became available for that. All along I have my subscription to Stereo Review which made me aware of things like CJ's tube CDP and other gear, high power and very cool power amps, etc.

As one who has used entry level for quite awhile and elevated to what I have now I feel I am qualified to know the benefit of higher end gear and determine diminishing returns.

You guys need to look at the big picture Hopefully those who buy the entry level will aspire to better some day. If something like Fozi was around when I was starting out I probably would have been all over it myself. It would have certainly fit better than my receiver and 12" 3-way speakers in my bedroom.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Not what he said. Your mind equates price with sound quality, as the Caltech et al study proved. The bling brands didn't invent a thing, they all take existing tech and do what marketing taught, big prices affect minds. proven science.
LPs, CDs, Open Reel, etc every source was invented by big and/or non bling brands. Stereo, surround, Transistors, tubes, horns, panels, piston drivers etc. The list goes on. Facts vs your opinions.


Evidence? Let's guess, "I said so".
So, objective metric price = "best"....but "its all subjective". lol


For your record obviously. Price = "ability". Isn't (marketing) science wonderful?
Price Effect

You assume too much. Price doesn't dictate absolute in sound quality but it's a fact that better parts are needed and cost more. Take a power supply for example, it costs more and absolutely essential for good sound.

You guys are nuts telling someone they can buy cheap crap and it sounds as good as high end gear. Those who have ears let them use them. Is the reason for your attempt to tare down highend due to you can't sell your stuff?