mocenigo

Ok then. I must be doing something right then because I end up attacked by both objectivists (I have been attacked for suggesting that listening is useful, of course if controlled, by id*ots that consider ONLY measurements) and subjectivists that have been hurt by the above mentioned objectivism zealots. Anyway, I will refrain from this type of discussion here in the future because I find too awkward to have to like to a "parallel" thread each time I want to know how a listening test is performed. I understand the reason, and I agree that those zealots are a PITA. But a better solution would be desirable. In the meantime i would appreciate an apology for having been called a jerk.

Nope, I have not called them insecure for following the rules. I called them insecure because as soon as I asked whether the evaluation was done sighted or controlled they immediately went into a defensive-offensive mode. Mine was a legit question and one could have made their point just by replying in a less aggressive way. If one replies to a legit question by attacking and by necessity moving the discussion to the merits of sighted listening, THAT's a sign of insecurity — they know their evaluation method does not stand any reasonable scrutiny. To be clear, it is fine to have sighted listening, once one makes it clear that it is a subjective impression following it, not an absolute better/worse determination. Expressing this in a proper way does justice also to the discussion on the R26. It was not my intention to divert from that topic, but I wanted to understand which weight to assign to that particular opinion.

I am going to report this one :-)

If you read the discussion, I just asked how the first evaluation was. Then *I* was attacked as if I were a measurement fanatic (which I am not). Anyway, stay assured that I will not engage in further discussion with some of those insecure folks.

I know their TOTL Absolute. Absolutely stunning.

Ok, makes sense. I have been able to distinguish two DACs this way (the Soekris 1541 and the TEAC UD501 are sonically very very similar, as well engineered and well measuring DACs should be, and they both drive a high Zin power amp — but the Soekris produced a slight hash from my 108Db sensitivity tweeters) and two different opamps in the same Apollon amp (exactly the same procedure). I have nothing against anedoctal, as long as it is claimed as such. Not only, but it *can* lead to new discoveries, such as Purifi addressing hysteresis distortion. Being a zealot serves nothing and I was not being one (at least not intentionally). It was the claim that most DACs sound audibly different that piqued me a bit. It is an obvious exaggeration.

How was the testing methodology?

In a sighted listening test?

Hello @87mpi, what do you find funny in my reply?

HI @87mpi, what was so funny for you?

The second one has more potential because the signal and the +V are not close to each other and therefore there is no inductive coupling between them. In most practical applications the first one may sound better because integrated opamps are usually built with tighter tolerances than individual resistors, capacitors etc. The only discrete opamps that actually beats the integrated ones seems to be the Weiss. As for personal, subjective sonic preferences, I cannot conjecture which one a person I do now know could prefer, provided they can actually hear a difference.

There are a few reviews in hifi magazines, comparing the Purifi, Orchard Starkrimson to each other and to other amps. One is https://audioxpress.com/article/fresh-from-the-bench-a-tale-of-two-class-d-amplifiers-orchard-audio-bosc-and-purifi-audio-eigentakt-eval1 and a perhaps even more significant one is https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1420-purifi-audios-pint-sized-powerhouses where we read: This is subjective, but it is a fact that technically the Purifi (and Orchard) are at least as good as the best and more expensive AB amplifiers on the market, that the recent 1et9040BA, and the soon-to-be-released NC1000x will match and surpass the measurements of the Benchmark AHB2 and the big Halcro amps, so the sound quality offered by the (relatively few) good amplifiers in the hiend can be matched for "change money" in comparison. This is called progress. DACs are following the same pattern. These are great times. Of course, if one wants a Patek Philippe, not going to stop them... The link to the Magico A1 review is https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/1399-magico-a1-loudspeakers

Some people have tried. Anedoctal evidence (so, not real evidence) is that it does not make a difference. Measurements show more noise residuals at 50Hz (or 60Hz) as a consequence of leakage from the transformer, and 100Hz (or 120Hz) because or rectification noise. Class D amps are designed to have a high Power Supply Rejection Ratio, so even if the SMPS were noisier (and good SMPS are less noisy than the best linear power supplies) they would not really care. "600va transformer, rectifier and big capacitance" is per se a recipe for a bad power supply, since the capacitance per se filters little. One should include also inductances, and ideally the filter stage should start with an inductance, so a LC or even LCLC filtering. But this also requires a larger transformer (850VA, in place of 600VA), and larger transformers are more expensive than large capacitors. Inductances are also quite expensive. THEN we would have a linear power supply that can compete with the cleanliness of a well made SMPS, but it would be much larger, much more expensive, and less efficient.

In fact, with decent DACs it is almost always a different interaction (electrical or otherwise) with the other components, mostly downstream, that leads them to apparently sound differently. Two decent DACs put in similarly optimal conditions with respect to the other components will sound indistinguishable. I know that many claim otherwise, but no properly conducted test has ever shown we can hear the differences, except by some young people with a setup that unnaturally emphasises the high treble (and this mostly shows audibility of filters than of the DAC proper) or with some leakage (the “famous” tests by SBAF are amenable to observing losslessly compressed file sizes). In any case, the actual differences are so small that if we preferred to consider them as irrelevant even if we believed to be able to distinguish them, we would enjoy music more. If we like to hear differences, then we should have more fun with speakers, headphones and listening room treatment :-) that’s what I do. I know it is a hobby, and it is fine, but if it becomes an obsession then it ruins what counts: music enjoyment.

how to ruin a perfectly valid amplifier module :-)