Class A power amps and electricity crisis..
- Thread starter Manos_Bits
- Start date
I've been very happy with horn speakers (my poison is Avantgarde) since 2002. At first I chose tube amps, SETs using single 845 or PX-25 valves, but they still use far more mains power than my present amp - a 200 watt NAD M33 with Purifi Eigentakt amp. I decided to move from tubes to SS to reduce the hassle factor of having to maintain those amps. The noise floor is now very much lower (important with 107 dB speakers) and I can listen to music for several hours per day without any worries about maintenance or power consumption. My whole set-up (200 watt amp playing at healthy volume, 2 x 1000 watt amps in speaker enclosures, router, mains filter block and 65" TV on standby) use less than 60 watts in total.
Oh. I didn’t know that my kit sounds like that!
Here a total of 140 W class D is controlled by trigger from my preamp. On the other hand the PC running the crossovers and Logitech Media Server is on 24/7.
Must add that we don’t need air conditioning in my part of the world.
I would think that an abandonment of class A by manufacturers is market and not policy driven.
Last edited:
I'd be more wary of invitation to the family yacht that skillfully alludes to his monoblocs as water wings.
Say, you live near a remote body of water and have expressed awareness of conservationism.
Abandonment of Class A / AB by manufacturers is driven by the raw materials market and overhead costs equally as much as a changing consumer market. Who are largely educated through marketing and mass media, both striving for ease of delivery. Even on the opposite end of that scale there is pushback against changes that impel adjusting to free discussion of (un)popular opinion.
I think you will find a larger consensus of members here abstaining from shallow praise of those who have bought into the highly priced end. Than biting away at those who appear to have interests in pursuing the high end at the juncture they currently find themselves.
Say, you live near a remote body of water and have expressed awareness of conservationism.
Abandonment of Class A / AB by manufacturers is driven by the raw materials market and overhead costs equally as much as a changing consumer market. Who are largely educated through marketing and mass media, both striving for ease of delivery. Even on the opposite end of that scale there is pushback against changes that impel adjusting to free discussion of (un)popular opinion.
I think you will find a larger consensus of members here abstaining from shallow praise of those who have bought into the highly priced end. Than biting away at those who appear to have interests in pursuing the high end at the juncture they currently find themselves.
if you want to listen to something more economical for the sake of the environment. here the chord spm 14000 with switching power supply. a real opponent for the gryphon
SPM 14000 Mk. II
https://jazzgroove.org/devices?channel=mix1#tunein-custom-url This explains how to get the station via tune in.
As you can see from that Devices page, there is a wide variety of equipment/methods. I listen to the station via Roon, which gives me access to all five channels (Mix #1 and #2, Dreams, Gems, Smooth Jazz). The recommended PLS file format sounds very good for internet radio. Of course, the source itself (file resolution, mastering, etc.) governs the overall sound.
For me, this is mostly background listening, but I have found music this way too. In Roon, you can click on the album if it is available (via Qobuz), which takes you to the Roon album view where you can learn more about the musicians, the recording and the like. Very handy since this can be done via mobile device and/or computer.
now replaced by this:if you want to listen to something more economical for the sake of the environment. here the chord spm 14000 with switching power supply. a real opponent for the gryphon
SPM 14000 Mk. II
chordelectronics.co.uk
partial description of the amp:
ULTIMA is the company’s most accomplished amplifier in its 30-year history and one that draws on Chord Electronics’ three decades of proprietary-technology amplifier manufacturing. It features an all-new circuit topology, the first completely new design since those early days. The new dual-feed forward error-correction amplifier technology is a progression of Dr Malcolm J Hawksford’s (emeritus professor at Essex University) technical paper, refined by Bob Cordell of Bell Labs.
ULTIMA contains Chord Electronics’ next-generation amplifier tech, a design which features Cordell’s advanced dual-feedforward error-correction topology, plus John Franks’ own advanced concepts in ultra-high-frequency power supplies.
The ULTIMA mono amplifier unit has an incredible 64 proprietary MOSFET power devices that demand the most advanced and refined drive circuitry, suitably devoid of sound-degrading components. The drive circuitry features an ultra-low-distortion, high-voltage amplifier operating at very high speed: 300 volts-per-microsecond technologies with advanced feed-forward and feedback compensation techniques.
ULTIMA is the company’s most accomplished amplifier in its 30-year history and one that draws on Chord Electronics’ three decades of proprietary-technology amplifier manufacturing. It features an all-new circuit topology, the first completely new design since those early days. The new dual-feed forward error-correction amplifier technology is a progression of Dr Malcolm J Hawksford’s (emeritus professor at Essex University) technical paper, refined by Bob Cordell of Bell Labs.
ULTIMA contains Chord Electronics’ next-generation amplifier tech, a design which features Cordell’s advanced dual-feedforward error-correction topology, plus John Franks’ own advanced concepts in ultra-high-frequency power supplies.
The ULTIMA mono amplifier unit has an incredible 64 proprietary MOSFET power devices that demand the most advanced and refined drive circuitry, suitably devoid of sound-degrading components. The drive circuitry features an ultra-low-distortion, high-voltage amplifier operating at very high speed: 300 volts-per-microsecond technologies with advanced feed-forward and feedback compensation techniques.
My impetus to examine class D in more depth was simply driven by hearing some that really didn't sound bad at all. I came to realize that this rising star of the last 15 years was reaching ascendancy and if I didn't take it seriously I might get left behind. That was 6 1/2 years ago. It took us a while but we got the amp going. Now as some of you know my company makes all triode class A2 zero feedback fully differential balanced OTLs. They've gotten plenty of nice reviews over the decades as well as many awards.
I switched over from the tube amps at home to the class D about a year ago. Its nice to be able to say it is just as smooth in the mids and highs as the tubes were. Its a bit more transparent. I don't miss the tubes at all.
My point here is raw materials, cost, overhead and all that had nothing to do with it. The sound and the sound alone did. Its a happy coincidence that the amp draws so much less power, makes almost no heat, is smaller and that goes with that. IMO tube power amps are on borrowed time and class A of any type is too.
My magic 8 ball is agnostic on this point, but it seems to me these will always be desired by some folks and in production at some level. But perhaps that is what you are saying -- the majority of production will be Class D just as the majority of cars will be electric.
I think you're right, but its likely going to be more for nostalgia, like playing a restored Fender Princeton or some cute little tube amp like the Dynaco ST35, for the fun of it, with no expectation of being the most transparent, musical amp around. Usually though, when things go to nostalgia, like a classic 1958 Triumph Speed Twin, its not enough to support the larger manufacturers.
Inside of that broad statement moving away from murderous aristocratic plots. You would qualify for the second portion - a changing consumer market. After observing sufficient development to distract from the work you had previously been fully committed towards. Something germinated among your technical thoughts that suggested finding continued success in that direction.
In reality there is a third aspirational force brushed to the surface. Regardless of the technology or period it occurred in. There are always unfortunate dismissals of superior designs. Quite often they're abandoned within short timespan preceding obsolescence of interest. In this case supply and, realized or non, demand abdicated on their successful introduction by outside forces. Being ahead of your time or others can have the same outcome. Thank you for your reply and chance to correct this oversight which is related more directly to the type of work you do.
The hard truth is none of the foundational pieces of modern stereo would exist in their current form if groupings of the better minds and craftsman hadn't pursued that exact direction over another.
Well one problem that all tube amps and nearly all solid state amps have is that they have pretty important limitations that prevent them from being able to use enough feedback. As a result of course they have less feedback than they should- and that feedback is causing problems!
We've all heard that problem too- the amp is harsher and brighter than real life- than the recording its supposed to reproduce. Of course there are a good number of manufacturers, us included, that avoided that problem by having no feedback at all. But that opens up the amp to tonal anomalies related to the speaker impedance.
In most amplifiers, the feedback is applied to a tube or transistor somewhere near the input of the amp. That tube or transistor isn't really linear, so the feedback signal is distorted before it can even do its job!
As a result IMD and higher ordered harmonics are generated and the ear perceives both as brightness and harshness. Class D allows you to overcome this problem, so the feedback isn't generating these distortions in the same way. In our case (I can't speak for other class D amps as there is quite a lot of variation in their designs!) the sources of distortion tend to cause lower ordered harmonics, much like in a tube amplifier, but at a much lower level.
Being fully aware I'm not the only one rightfully cautious tackling electrical nuance of designs under construction . Whether or not your Class D scale well. They will produce as good of sound as you are capable of. Which is not often the case today with churning product cycles in the age of consumer QA/QC many Class D amps enter the market to satisfy. Variation with exclamation mark added is well justified.
To my knowledge outside ideas from other industrial concerns have yet to bleed in. Energy recapture for instance. I mention this dislocation of subject not to divert your expertise into basic discussion closer to my own understanding your field. Merely to note this discussion came about due to the lack of these exact farther reaching solutions in ready use depriving many of full usage what they own. That designs not only need to improve in line with the direct aims of legacy designs. Provide expansive answers for this pressing call to address smaller needs.
Admittedly this near fully lands in the well placed private enthusiast's hand which can sustain the endeavor beyond certain collapse of desired or accustomed sound quality. An arena vacated by the larger business interests that factored into the most productive era of audio ending by turn of the century.
But all assumptions aside does anyone here have any background in life cycle assessment or any specific data on embedded energy (gross process requirements especially) versus operational energy for any of the general types of amplifiers being discussed here let alone specific models of amplifiers.
As I’ve mentioned before the built environment is reasonably well served with research in this area and energy and transport industries are perhaps less so but generally more data is available and those industries have a bit better handle on it than anything I’ve been able to find in terms of any substantial proper carbon accounting for the electronics industry. Generally my understanding is that as electronics become more efficient in operational energy they are tending to become considerably more inefficient in terms of embedded energy and some suggestions after talking with my nephew who teaches robotics and engineering that it’s quite possible that sum embedded energy could outstrip operational energy (if it hasn’t done so already) within the near future within the electronics industry. In which case the sustainability strategy swings around considerably with regards to high tech versus low tech.
The inconvenient truth is that for all the assumptions being made here about real impacts on whole of life energy usage (let alone anything approaching a proper sustainability assessment) is that we are probably creating more green house gasses here in this thread than we are ever likely to be saving. Just sayin.
As I’ve mentioned before the built environment is reasonably well served with research in this area and energy and transport industries are perhaps less so but generally more data is available and those industries have a bit better handle on it than anything I’ve been able to find in terms of any substantial proper carbon accounting for the electronics industry. Generally my understanding is that as electronics become more efficient in operational energy they are tending to become considerably more inefficient in terms of embedded energy and some suggestions after talking with my nephew who teaches robotics and engineering that it’s quite possible that sum embedded energy could outstrip operational energy (if it hasn’t done so already) within the near future within the electronics industry. In which case the sustainability strategy swings around considerably with regards to high tech versus low tech.
The inconvenient truth is that for all the assumptions being made here about real impacts on whole of life energy usage (let alone anything approaching a proper sustainability assessment) is that we are probably creating more green house gasses here in this thread than we are ever likely to be saving. Just sayin.
I think you are clutching at straws. If you take a logical look at the alternative offerings of a massive, power-hungry hand-built amp with a large production low power-demanding Class D one, no one will conclude that the former is more environmentally friendly - either in terms of manufacture or in full-life running costs.
Oh ffs. Zero effort and just zero understanding. Outline the underlying criteria and qualities that make for environmentally friendly design. I was at least trying to stick to energy resourcefulness… if you wanted to expand this into terms of environmental impacts do you actually understand how whole of life environmental sustainability assessments are done. I’ve been running training in industry for the last two decades in this.
Last edited:
Similar threads
