[germanium]

Quote:

You need to define 4 times as strong, otherwise this post is worse than useless. times it's power rating

4 Times it's power rating which means also double the voltage & current. Most amps can not produce even twice the power so they just clip the wave form  but with the stasis amp it didn't just clip, it blew the voltage amp which was directly connected to the load as when the amp overloaded it came out of stasis exposing the true nature of the load to the voltage amp when the current mirror couldn't keep up with the load. I suspected this possability as soon as I seen the write up from threshold.
 
I figured it was pretty clear when I said 4X it's rating meaning 4X times it's rated power so if it's rated for 100 watts you ask it to produce 400 & since most amps can't they clip.
 
The reason for this test was McIntosh was showing off thier anticlipping feature that if you did the same to thiers the amp would automatically limit itself by reducing gain to avoid clipping. gain would return as soon as the overload disappeared 

 

[dvw]

Quote:

Yeah many fail to realize its not just the core pieces of the DAC/Amp. Its also what it is build around. You can have a world class DAC chip wired to ****ty internals and you will get mediocre sound. Same goes for having average core components built around good internals (You can get great sound and even better than some highly touted DAC chips).
 

Okay; let's try to break this down. This is what a $30 router has inside: a SoC with a 300MHz CPU, an Ethernet switch, WiFi transceiver, USB interface; 64MB DDR2 RAM, 32MB flash. What does a DAC/amp has; a DAC with USB interface and power supply. You can add an amplifier with discrete or integrated amplifier ($0.30 to $0.50 cost). The differentiator  might be the power supply. The point is a DAC/amp is a very simple device compared to a router or a PC. Heck I can buy a laptop for less than $500. The only reason audio equipment is selling higher is because nobody is looking what's under the hood and there's some magic with the design. But with all these innovations, we should be seeing a bunch of patents. Other than big manufacturers like Harmon, there is very little patent granted.
 
People on this board most likely are smart shopper in PC. Others that are less computer savvy might pay a higher price or buying something they don't need. Remember the audio CDRs? Some people I know actually thought music can ONLY be recorded on audio CDR.

 

[ultrabike]

Quote:

The only reason audio equipment is selling higher is because nobody is looking what's under the hood and there's some magic with the design. .

 
I think some of it has to do with sales volume and manufacturing.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvw /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
[snipped to keep it short]
 
 The only reason audio equipment is selling higher is because nobody is looking what's under the hood and there's some magic with the design. But with all these innovations, we should be seeing a bunch of patents. Other than big manufacturers like Harmon, there is very little patent granted.

 

• Economies of scale. Mass production in China. Labor conditions that most in the 1st and 2nd world nations would never tolerate. Tens of millions of routers vs. hundreds or tens of DACs/amps.
• Some people do look under the hood. You are making too broad an assumption.
• See a few posts above. Every circuit design in audio has pretty much been invented. Also not enough volume/money to make it worthwhile to hire expensive specialized patent lawyers to sue each other. Harmon is big enough though.
• Finally, you can always build your own amp or DAC from parts. Just that it's harder than building a water-cooled PC; and high voltages could get you killed. Heck, building a custom PC yourself these days can be more expensive than buying one outright with similar components.

 

[kiteki]

Originally Posted by dvw /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Okay; let's try to break this down. This is what a $30 router has inside: a SoC with a 300MHz CPU, an Ethernet switch, WiFi transceiver, USB interface; 64MB DDR2 RAM, 32MB flash. What does a DAC/amp has; a DAC with USB interface and power supply.

 
So you're saying a DAC should be cheaper than a router, aren't internal sound-cards actually very cheap?  It's the high-end development cost like all the employees at Texas Instruments or whereever which raises the cost for the higher-end units, the same applies to capacitors etc., you don't have that sector in routers, hence there is no elevated cost.

 

[Magick Man]

Okay; let's try to break this down. This is what a $30 router has inside: a SoC with a 300MHz CPU, an Ethernet switch, WiFi transceiver, USB interface; 64MB DDR2 RAM, 32MB flash. What does a DAC/amp has; a DAC with USB interface and power supply. You can add an amplifier with discrete or integrated amplifier ($0.30 to $0.50 cost). The differentiator  might be the power supply. The point is a DAC/amp is a very simple device compared to a router or a PC. Heck I can buy a laptop for less than $500. The only reason audio equipment is selling higher is because nobody is looking what's under the hood and there's some magic with the design. But with all these innovations, we should be seeing a bunch of patents. Other than big manufacturers like Harmon, there is very little patent granted.

I don't use a $30 router, because I got tired of replacing them every 6 months. I bought a Cisco for $250 and it has full remote management capabilities, a real 5 port gigabit switch, a robust hardware firewall, and a lifetime advance replacement warranty. I've not even had to restart the thing, except when it does firmware updates. It's been a joy to own.

Personally, I think most of this comes down to different people's interpretation of what "value" means.

 

[billybob_jcv]

That $30 consumer router is probably using the reference design available from Broadcom or Atheros.  No R&D required.

 

[dvw]

Quote:

 
So you're saying a DAC should be cheaper than a router, aren't internal sound-cards actually very cheap?  It's the high-end development cost like all the employees at Texas Instruments or whereever which raises the cost for the higher-end units, the same applies to capacitors etc., you don't have that sector in routers, hence there is no elevated cost.

Yes, that's my point. Most of the R&D cost are beared by TI, Yamaha, the silicon vendor. The R&D cost for a router chip is approximately $10M and a DAC is less than $1M. A single wafer will yield more than 20K DAC and a lot is 24 wafers. So you can expect a single run can be about 400K DAC produced. The silicon guys can not go for low volume business or they'll be out of business. I should know this since I am a product line manager. So to me the most expensive part of the system is the power supply, large capacitors and knobs. But since we are talking about a headphone amp, these things should not be super expensive. In my opinion, the price should be between a decent sound card and a reasonable preamp. The silicon cost is minimal. The real cost is in the power supply and casing and a very good 50W power supply is less than $10. 
 
If we only compare the silicon cost, router is about $10.00 and DAC/amp is $1.00.
 
Someone talked about the economic of scale. This is quite true. The manufacturing cost for 10 vs 10K can be as high as 10X. But from a consumer point of view, this is not competitive. Since I sell the chips, I think it is a total rip off, since I am making significantly less money than the guys making the boxes.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Since I sell the chips, I think it is a total rip off, since I am making significantly less money than the guys making the boxes.

 
But, with a good design, you also don't have marketing and sales costs the box maker has.  You aren't out fighting for shelf space at Costco & Bestbuy - all you have to do is send a reasonably attractive female sales rep out to talk to the geek HW engineers, and you sell a 100,000 chips...  

 

[dvw]

Quote:

 
But, with a good design, you also don't have marketing and sales costs the box maker has.  You aren't out fighting for shelf space at Costco & Bestbuy - all you have to do is send a reasonably attractive female sales rep out to talk to the geek HW engineers, and you sell a 100,000 chips...  

You haven't seen our sales rep.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

You haven't seen our sales rep.

lmao

 

[purrin]

Quote:

Yes, that's my point. Most of the R&D cost are beared by TI, Yamaha, the silicon vendor. The R&D cost for a router chip is approximately $10M and a DAC is less than $1M. A single wafer will yield more than 20K DAC and a lot is 24 wafers. So you can expect a single run can be about 400K DAC produced. The silicon guys can not go for low volume business or they'll be out of business. I should know this since I am a product line manager. So to me the most expensive part of the system is the power supply, large capacitors and knobs. But since we are talking about a headphone amp, these things should not be super expensive. In my opinion, the price should be between a decent sound card and a reasonable preamp. The silicon cost is minimal. The real cost is in the power supply and casing and a very good 50W power supply is less than $10. 
 
If we only compare the silicon cost, router is about $10.00 and DAC/amp is $1.00.
 
Someone talked about the economic of scale. This is quite true. The manufacturing cost for 10 vs 10K can be as high as 10X. But from a consumer point of view, this is not competitive. Since I sell the chips, I think it is a total rip off, since I am making significantly less money than the guys making the boxes.

 
Your view is too myopic. You would be surprised how much the individual parts for say even a simple design such as the Pimeta would cost. Find a bill of materials, don't forget a custom metal chassis, front plate, back plate, and the "little" stuff such as fuses, jacks, wire, washers, screws, switches, lights, heatsinks, etc. (some customers like this stuff) and then come back. Heck some quality jacks or big caps cost more than DAC chips.
 
You are correct that it's not competitive, but no one is forcing you to buy any of these things. Heck, my wife's hair dryer is less competitive than a WiFi chip. Personally, I would never want to be in the chip or high-tech manufacturing business, it's a little bit too competitive - the word cutthroat comes to mind. (My dad, now retired, was in the electronics manufacturing business in the Bay Area.)

 

[mikeaj]

Quote:

The O2 (or ODAC) is not unique with having well documented objectives and documentation (the O2 failed in its portability objectives in many peoples' eyes - many wished the O2 could have been a similar form factor to the iPhone, but I digress). If you've been around the block, you would know of the CMOY, PPA, Pimeta, Dynahi, Dynalo, Beta22, mini3, Gamma1+2, Millet Hybrid, etc. Their development was actually more open and involved many people (engineers and hobbyists who had access to their own test equipment) who are now mostly retired from here. There weren't as many (or any!) dedicated headphone amps back in those days, and people wanted to try "different" stuff (there was a reason for it back then - curiosity - of course it's easy with hindsight to point fingers, get all self-righteous, and deride people from trying "different" stuff, or only relying on "primitive RMAA" instead of using a Prizm dScope.)
 
From there, many people wanted "better", more fancy designs, i.e. tubes, moar power, prettier enclosures, or "unicorn droppings" as you say. And it all took off.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by exotic topologies or antiquated topologies. Almost every amplifier circuit in audio was designed 50 years ago. And the stuff that works continues to be used. As for Class A, crossover distortion for class B amplifiers can be seen on the waveform on a scope. Of course that leads to the discussion of feedback, which then leads to the timeless argument of no, minimal, or lots of feedback, which has existed for 50 years.
 
The point is that we don't have to be self-righteous poopooheads about it. To each his own.

 
Much of what I wrote was not worded very well, so thanks for picking up on those things.  Several of the amps you mentioned don't particularly reach the same kinds of performance levels; unless I'm missing something, most are not tested on an AP analyzer / dScope / similar (granted, some with a sufficiently-fast scope to check stability and some tested for output power levels—those being the primary things I would say software-based analysis is lacking). I'm aware that many of those efforts involved many people.  I hadn't heard of the Dynahi, but I know of the others in varying amounts of detail:  from just a little bit, to a decent amount.
 
One of my points is that the idea of "better" seems to have been lost or at least blurred.  At one point, hi-fi meant high fidelity, right?  But that's a very old debate too.  Of course, I'll grant that different people have different preferences, and what really counts is for people to have what sounds better to them.  But there's a strong resistance to evaluating "better" in ways like audio measurements and controlled listening tests, which of course benefits the audio industry [edit: and reviewers, and sites like this one], enabling the current market.
 
By "exotic toplogies", I mean things like Audio-gd's ACSS, though I admit that I have no idea what is involved with that.  Is it something very common masquerading as some unique marketing bullet point?  Maybe I'm overstepping myself here.  I would consider most topologies developed for valve amps, like circlotrons, exotic and antiquated these days.  Antiquated and exotic are not necessarily bad, by any stretch of the imagination.  You're definitely right that most amp topologies are quite old, with Class D variants and the like as exceptions.  Most of the research in amplifiers (audio or not...mostly I mean not audio) these days is for low-power applications, as far as I can tell.
 
I think that the fact that there's a debate about feedback in audio, makes many turn their noses at the entire field.  That's not to say that every design need necessarily use feedback somewhere, but to market not having any feedback as an advantage would strike many as odd.

 

[purrin]

Thanks for clarifying. The headphone hobbyist thing is really in it's infancy. I would like to think that I am one of those people trying to make sense of things with better measurements (at least for headphones.) I'm sure with time, we will see more measurements of head-amps, etc. JA of Stereophile has done a pretty good job with DAC measurements over the past decade (I do hate it though when the same type of apples-apples measurements are not consistently applied across the board, especially with certain very pricey DACs, but that's an entirely different topic.) 
 
The debate on feedback is good. Keeps things interesting. I know designers who feel that Nelson Pass should at least put a little bit of feedback on his amps! The world wouldn't be very colorful if everyone drove a Camry or listened to a K601 out of an O2.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

You haven't seen our sales rep.

 
Then you are leaving money on the table!  Trust me, it works...