Class T-amps

[aquapiranha]

I have been a fan of tripath for some time, ever since I had a Trends TA10.1 which I modified and which sounded bloody fantastic on the Sachiko's (FE206En) I had a the time. I now have the Sure 4 X100W tripath board as it is four channel which is what I need to run my OB's actively. I think it sounds great. I have also heard a selection fo 'chip' amps (LM1875, 3886) and these too sound brilliant.

All in a ll a cost effective way to get good sound.

[dave2010]

I'm not very good in electronics but what I understand is that T uses pulse width modulation and Class D amplitude modulation.
Class D is not digital, it uses a oscillator to amplify, in essence it is AM, (amplitude modulation) well known from AM radio. http://www.hypex.nl/docs/allamps%20hypex%20layout.pdf
Both are pretty frugal, Class D > 90%
This is probably the reason why D is implemented in all kind of portable devices.


Yes, maybe it is not the best possible Class D implementation but as a 'proof of concept' a very interesting experiment.
I drive my Apogee's with 2 Class D mono blocks, UCD 400 with HxR regulators: http://www.hexateq.com/

Now I've tried my experiment with my Sony BDV-E300 surround amplifier. Initial impression was that it did sound different, very bass light. Also exhibited some tininess and boxiness. Of course as this kit is intended for movies some of the issues may have arisen from processing inside the box. I tried to turn most of this off. Detail in the treble seemed good but I've now reverted back to the Pioneer A300, and the sound is much improved overall with a much better balance and stronger bass. I did wonder if the Sony was slightly better at the top though, with maybe low distortion - but it's hard to be sure. A few pieces worked quite well, and got me into foot tapping mood, but I'm glad to be back listening to the Pioneer A300.

With hindsight this doesn't really prove too much, as it's quite likely the AV system has been built down to a price, and is adequate for purpose, but was never really intended for audio use. I was surprised at the lack of bass, though in a surround system this would be taken care of with the sub-woofer. I tried putting that in too, but it didn't really make much difference. Indeed I wasn't sure that it was on - or at least if it was, it may not have been picking anything up. As I said already, this could depend on what kind of sneaky processing goes on in the box.

I suspect that a cheap class-T amp (one declared definitely to be) would not do much better, but a good one might. I am still wondering whether it'd be worth trying one of the HLLY amps mentioned here, or one of Temple Audio's Bantams. However, regarding the Bantam, TA has now introduced a new model - the Bantam Gold, and I'm not sure if it is a class-T amp. From the blurb I've read it might not be, and if it's significantly better, as they claim, and doesn't cost too much more then maybe there'd be no point in following up the class-T amps further.

Just found the prices on the Gold model - around twice the basic Bantam.

Someone on another forum said that the Bantam (would have been an older model - not the Gold) was comparable with a Pioneer A400 - possibly better.

[aquapiranha]

Hi Dave. The Bantam uses a two channel board by Sure, (or at least it used to, not 100% positive that is still the case) the same people who make my amplifier. It is easy to modify to get even greater performance from it, just like most of them including the Trends amp I had. There is also a thread about the HLLY on Diyaudio..

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendo...rue-pearl.html

[Ali Tait]

I think the Hlly is excellent,but only when driven with my valve WAD Pre 2.On it's own I'd say it's good but not great.Adding the pre makes it great.

[dave2010]

I think the Hlly is excellent,but only when driven with my valve WAD Pre 2.On it's own I'd say it's good but not great.Adding the pre makes it great.

Any particular reason for that? Is it a lack of gain, or something else? Not sure about the specs of the WAD Pre 2 either - whether it makes things more convenient, or has other benefits or features.

How would it (the HLLY) do with a Caiman - any ideas?

I see you've been looking at/posting in other forums. Do you think the new HLLY will be any good when it comes out? Bit pricier though.

[Ali Tait]

I found soundstaging in particular much better using the pre2,and it just sounds a more open.I'm not saying it's bad on it's own,it isn't,but to my ears the pre2 turns a good amp into an excellent one.It may be the case that it would be equally as good with the Caiman.Perhaps it just needs an active pre to make it sing.It wouldn't be the first amp to need that!

I would have been very happy with it on it's own if I hadn't heard it with the pre2.I only bought it for AV duties,though it's easily good enough to use as a main amp.Plus of course,using the highly reavealing ER Audio statics makes the difference more obvious.The fact that it sounds much better than I expected was a happy bonus.Amazing SPPV.Can't think of a conventional amp that'll come anywhere near it for the money.

[Ali Tait]

As for the new one,dunno,hlly says it's better,but then he would!

[dave2010]

As for the new one,dunno,hlly says it's better,but then he would!

As also the new Bantam one promoted by its developers.

[Ali Tait]

Aye,I'd like to compare the Hlly to the Bantam.I was going to buy a Bantam,but saw the extra power of the Hlly,good for driving my statics.

[Covenant]

Does anyone make a good Tripath power amp? I would like to try one with my Lightspeed attenuator.