Power amp manufacturers 2024

[TLS Guy]

I think the question regarding dynamic range is valid (hopefully @PENG will respond, he knows more than I). It's my admittedly limited understanding that these purify and hypex amps with switching supplies don't offer much in the way of dynamic headroom above rated power, unlike a standard a/b amp with unregulated supplies which can often provide an extra db or two above rated power, albeit briefly. So that may be something the prospective buyer should keep in mind. "Too much is just enough" is a rule I try to follow regarding amps; clipping is to be avoided.

Otherwise, the hypex and purify amps have SOTA performance that leaves traditional a/b amps in the dust. They really seem to approach the "straight wire with gain" ideal. Clarity? They got it.

Another point to clarify: I thought the Buckeye amps were the more budget conscious compared to the Nord and Appolon amps. I could be wrong. They are available with the latest and greatest purify modules.

Any amp will clip and have a rapid rise in distortion whatever its class. An extra 1 or 2 db headroom is neither here nor there. The only exception is class A amps which do have a 'softer' clip in that the distortion contains more even harmonics over odd which are less objectionable. However, I find distortion that is at audible levels objectionable however it is "dressed up."

 

[TLS Guy]

In all of that you still don't justify your previous statement fwiw. You said Amir/ASR did at 187 at 7ch so where did that come from? I don't believe Amir has done a 7ch ACD test, not sure his gear accomodates such.

I never said he di., I just extrapolated his five channel result to seven, which I think is entirely reasonable as the difference is inconsequential. It is not even a db.

 

[ski2xblack]

Any amp will clip and have a rapid rise in distortion whatever its class. An extra 1 or 2 db headroom is neither here nor there. The only exception is class A amps which do have a 'softer' clip in that the distortion contains more even harmonics over odd which are less objectionable. However, I find distortion that is at audible levels objectionable however it is "dressed up."

Agreed, but that's why it behooves the OP @Jack N to choose consevatively, in any case.

To be more specific using examples in my collection, I have an old class g amp rated at 50 watts, but due to the dual rail supply brings 6.7db of dynamic power, able to output over 250w into 4 ohms for a full second or two. I also have a traditional a/b amp rated at 150@8ohms, 1.5 db dynamic headroom that can also do >250w into 4 ohms. For practical purposes, with a dynamic music signal, they're similarly powerful amps. If I were to replace either of those with a purify based amp, one with little or no dynamic headroom, I would go with one with a continuous rating above my expected maximum use (so long as it will clear 250@4ohms, which is what the calculations say is slightly more than I will ever use), just to be on the safe side. Too much is just enough.

 

[ryanosaur]

Wow. Lots of Class D stuff. Do all of you guys use Class D? I've read reviews from "Pro" reviewers but I always have that thought in the back of my mind "Is this guy getting paid by the company to review this?" I'd be really interested to hear from people who actually use it on a regular basis as to how D compares to AB. Is the dynamic range as good? Is the clarity there? Etc.

I use them for Mains, Center and Surrounds. I will buy more.

Just look at the reviews on ASR. Hypex and Purifi Amp Modules own many of the top slots when it comes to their measurements. Yes, they can deliver in all the departments that you would expect a SOTA Amp to deliver in.

Upon switching from my Outlaw 2200 MonoBlocks to the NC400 Monoblocks, there was no change in SQ. The Hypex Amps measure much cleaner than the Outlaws.

The key thing is that we are now dealing with minutiae in measurements. In many regards, there is no audible difference in Purifi or Hypex Modules of similar power even though the Purifi Modules may be a little cleaner. We are dealing with measurements which are near the noise floor of the best Audio Precision Analyzers. We literally need better measurement gear to keep up the arms race in ClassD Amps.

 

[lovinthehd]

I never said he di., I just extrapolated his five channel result to seven, which I think is entirely reasonable as the difference is inconsequential. It is not even a db.

Interesting formula for going from measured 5x ch to your imagined 7x....

 

[TLS Guy]

Interesting formula for going from measured 5x ch to your imagined 7x....

Well its not. It is entirely reasonable and just math. It is clear by the distortion that his five channel measurements were at absolute max power. So that is the max power available from the power supply. So it is entirely reasonable to combine the five channel power ratings and then divide by seven. That is perfectly reasonable and appropriate, and will err on the side of over estimating the the seven channel power, but only insignificantly. Imagination has nothing to do with it.

 

[highfigh]

In all of that you still don't justify your previous statement fwiw. You said Amir/ASR did at 187 at 7ch so where did that come from? I don't believe Amir has done a 7ch ACD test, not sure his gear accomodates such.

By "accommodate", so you mean 'testing all channels at the same time and acquiring the results in a short time'? I'm not sure that's necessary- as long as all channels of a multi-channel amplifier are connected to the proper loads at the same time, testing of each can be done fairly quickly, depending on the criteria for the tests. If the amp design and power supply are robust, it should survive and if not, it should be redesigned, IMO.

You probably remember the discussions here about whether amplifiers should be tested with one or two channels vs ACD- many thought that ACD wasn't necessary since all channels don't need to provide full power simultaneously, but I was one of the people who asked "What if all channels need to provide full power for some reason?" The answer is usually simple- the amp will puke, sometimes taking out at least one speaker although proper protection should be included in the design.

 

[highfigh]

I suspect that is because he did not have enough gear to measure 7 amps at once. However you ca assume that five channel test is close or if not at max power. In db terms that five channel output extrapolated is as close to 200 watts seven channel as makes no difference. You can see though that the distortion of that amp is not the best on the planet, with distortion starting to rise above 100 watts. Whether that is audible is another matter, but it might be.

The wider issue is the wisdom of having seven channels in one box, from one power supply.

I think one, two or at most three amps in one box is optimal. I think home AV systems need to be much more aligned to professional practice. I would like gear to be pretty much designed around the 19" rack mounting standard. That would make for better looking neater systems, better grounding practice better service access.

Most people don't have the space for a system like yours and because 19" racks look 'industrial', it's not the preferred appearance- Interior Detonators/designers, ya know. Another issue is "How large does the rack need to be?". 19 RU may be OK now, but what happens if the system is expanded and some pieces become taller? The space available may not allow this and some homes don't have a basement, where power amps could live without taking space from the equipment that needs to be accessed, e.g., players that accept media (discs, tapes, LPs, etc).

I know, I know- this stuff could be in a cabinet with closeable doors if appearance is important but that adds to the already significant price of decent equipment.

One power supply could be placed in a separate enclosure- it's done in commercial/industrial applications all of the time but they use Electrical Engineers and certified installers to make sure everything is done correctly and grounded & bonded properly, not just 'I got a guy who knows about this stuff'.

 

[highfigh]

Too much is just enough.

You're becoming more American every day.

In auto racing, the saying 'There's no replacement for displacement' is used and it's applicable in audio- if it needs to perform well, it needs to be powerful (or provide lots of current). Or both.

 

[TLS Guy]

Most people don't have the space for a system like yours and because 19" racks look 'industrial', it's not the preferred appearance- Interior Detonators/designers, ya know. Another issue is "How large does the rack need to be?". 19 RU may be OK now, but what happens if the system is expanded and some pieces become taller? The space available may not allow this and some homes don't have a basement, where power amps could live without taking space from the equipment that needs to be accessed, e.g., players that accept media (discs, tapes, LPs, etc).

I know, I know- this stuff could be in a cabinet with closeable doors if appearance is important but that adds to the already significant price of decent equipment.

One power supply could be placed in a separate enclosure- it's done in commercial/industrial applications all of the time but they use Electrical Engineers and certified installers to make sure everything is done correctly and grounded & bonded properly, not just 'I got a guy who knows about this stuff'.

The type of furniture I see in pictures here, with inelegant furniture containing equipment is the center of the room under the TV I think gives the interior detonators ammunition.

Racks can be on castors and placed to one side. Racks can be trimmed out like I have done. You buy one bigger than you need and use spaces, which can be removed to add units as required.

I think making gear readily mountable in a 19" rack would be a big step forward. You can make the mounting hardware removable. Marantz used to do this and still should. All receivers and pre/pros should be able to be bolted to a 19" rack. Racks also make bonding grounds much more certain.

 

[Jack N]

“Too much is just enough” Love it! Reminds me of Home Improvement – MORE POWER!!!

Ok. We’re getting off track again. When I first started this thread I really wasn’t thinking about anything other than class AB. D had crossed my mind, but to be honest I wasn’t considering it all. I do have to say this thread has gotten me think otherwise, and that I need to do some homework so I have a better overall understanding of how class D works (like what are the “modules” that were referred to, the differences in power supplies, and that kind of thing) before I make a decision. Can somebody point me in the direction of a good class D “101” starting point?

 

[lovinthehd]

As far as modules, Hypex and Purifi are quite popular, some ICEpower are out there, too.

There's a so-named thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/class-d-amplifiers-101.7355/

 

[ryanosaur]

As far as modules, Hypex and Purifi are quite popular, some ICEpower are out there, too.

There's a so-named thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/class-d-amplifiers-101.7355/

I don’t recall seeing a review, but now that you mention it, Ice is supposed to have some new modules bordering on the Hypex and Purifi standards. Pascal modules are supposed to be very good too, but harder to come by.

 

[Golfx]

Wow. Lots of Class D stuff. Do all of you guys use Class D? I've read reviews from "Pro" reviewers but I always have that thought in the back of my mind "Is this guy getting paid by the company to review this?" I'd be really interested to hear from people who actually use it on a regular basis as to how D compares to AB. Is the dynamic range as good? Is the clarity there? Etc.

I left Anthem MCA AB amps and went to Class D 5 years ago. I now have smaller, lighter amps that run cool and that have SOTA bench measurements. So why would anyone use AB other than nostalgia?

Check out ASR’s comparative bench measurements of his top reviewed amps. They are Class D with a smattering of Benchmark hybrid thrown in. The new 2nd generation purifi amps are relatively untouchable.

 

[highfigh]

The type of furniture I see in pictures here, with inelegant furniture containing equipment is the center of the room under the TV I think gives the interior detonators ammunition.

Racks can be on castors and placed to one side. Racks can be trimmed out like I have done. You buy one bigger than you need and use spaces, which can be removed to add units as required.

I think making gear readily mountable in a 19" rack would be a big step forward. You can make the mounting hardware removable. Marantz used to do this and still should. All receivers and pre/pros should be able to be bolted to a 19" rack. Racks also make bonding grounds much more certain.

Interior detonators care far more about making tributes to their design acumen (that term was actually used by someone who was applying for a job as an architect) than a livable home or business space. When I was about to start working on someone's home, I arrived and saw the homeowner with the ID (iot) in the master bath and when I was introduced as the AV person, the ID immediately started to say something about "I don't want to see sp....." and I cut her off by saying that I can find speakers that look like in-ceiling lights. She asked how I knew what she was going to say and I said "I know where you worked (before going out on her own). She seemed to think that she was responsible for the success of the previous place. She wasn't. This homeowner mentioned that she might like oil-rubbed brass outdoor light fixtures over the deck and the ID showed up with a couple of examples and when the homeowner asked about the price, it was $4000, each. The homeowner is wealthy, but not stupid.

I'm a woodworker and have built cabinets- they can easily be made to look 'built-in', but most people don't want the added cost of custom cabinetry, so the whole system ends up in one place, whether than's a good idea, or not. That obviously adds complexity WRT bonding, but it can be done fairly easily, if Sparky understands it and wants to do it. Some don't (either) and I had one say "I wish this was 25 years ago, so I wouldn't have to deal with this low voltage stuff" after I told him why I was unhappy that he didn't do what I had requested for the AV cabinet's outlet and projector power wiring.

An easy way to provide a bonding point is to install a junction box with a grounding stud inside, in a corner of a cabinet, rack, closet, etc that's close enough to make it convenient. Run a heavy ground wire to the panel and a ground buss near each group of AV pieces, with one adequately-sized wire connected to the grounding point.

The problem with this idea is that most AV equipment doesn't have a dedicated grounding screw for anything other than a turntable.

Middle Atlantic has made custom rack ears and trim panels for decades- consumers don't usually know about them because they just ask "Who?" when cabinet manufacturer names are mentioned.

 

[highfigh]

I brought a small subwoofer home to check for hum since it was doing that at the customer's house. There's no way it has a ClassAB amplifier because A) it's 8"x8"x8", it has no heat sink fins and it runs very cool. I'm not operating at extreme SPL, but it has had no problem with sound quality and probably has EQ built in because its small size would have eliminated any chance of doing so well at low frequencies in the past.

As much as I liked some of the equipment I had in the past that was Class AB, I think it's time to let that era go, but only if the ClassD equipment can truly perform- I'm not interested in anything that's trotted out to follow a trend when it's actually crap.

I want durable/dependable/set it & forget it, not costly/finicky/with all kinds of hard to source replacement parts.

 

[Jack N]

Thanks for the link. Looks like a good place to start, and looks like some interesting reading too.

 

[Kleinst]

I think it's going to be hard to beat Hypex NCxx2MP Amp modules in whatever configuration... for measurement and simplicity of implementation, regardless of whom is assembling and selling. (Unless, of course, they are simply inept at the assembly, that is. )

Sorry if you have been over this 100 times as I haven't seen all the posts, but know you had the outlaws and now have the class D, so any differences worth noting? Or just smaller, cooler and easier to maneuver?

 

[ryanosaur]

Sorry if you have been over this 100 times as I haven't seen all the posts, but know you had the outlaws and now have the class D, so any differences worth noting? Or just smaller, cooler and easier to maneuver?

Since I don't push the Amps beyond their sweet spot, hard to say. But within, they all perform as you'd expect. Clean power, no SQ differences.

Chassis for my DIY NC400 are both pretty chunky. So while they are 2- and 3-channel mono block configurations, they still take up some space and use a lot of aluminum. You can see some of the specs of other options from different dealers and their implementation will vary. In the end, so much depends then on what they are doing.

 

[Tankini]

@ryanosaur off Topic a bit, Do you use any home audio headphones? If so what manufacturer and brand if you don't mind stating. Been a over a Decade maybe two since I've had a decent pair of headphones can you recommend any? I can research it, though.