Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Start with the dictionary definition of "digital" posted by J. Phelan on March 20, 2017 at 10:01:15
Clearly you've not read my prior posts...
I have in fact built class D amps. We've been developing our own for some time and have a patent in the works. I also linked a simple class D amp for you to look at, easy to build, and had you read the simple article (with lots of photos) at that link, you would also know that all class D amps are an analog process.
From the Wikipedia page on Class D amps:
The term "class D" is sometimes misunderstood as meaning a "digital" amplifier. While some class-D amps may indeed be controlled by digital circuits or include digital signal processing devices, the power stage deals with voltage and current as a function of non-quantized time. The smallest amount of noise, timing uncertainty, voltage ripple or any other non-ideality immediately results in an irreversible change of the output signal. The same errors in a digital system will only lead to incorrect results when they become so large that a signal representing a digit is distorted beyond recognition. Up to that point, non-idealities have no impact on the transmitted signal. Generally, digital signals are quantized in both amplitude and wavelength, while analog signals are quantized in one (e.g. PWM) or (usually) neither quantity.
emphasis added; after that follows why class D is in fact not digital.
Your company never sold a class D amp.
And you keep linking *outdated* information.
Besides Harley, here's another. Note the statements "digital input fed directly to the output stage", "keeps everything in the digital domain".
So how it works for you is that facts go out of date. Would it help if that Wiki page got refreshed recently??
So Norman Crowhurst (was writing 60 years ago) can be ignored? How about Shannon- I suppose he's pretty out of date too huh? and that Nyquist dude- he's so old he's dead? Sheesh!
The Wiki page is factual. If class D had somehow become true digital in the meantime, it would have been an article worth the front cover of every audio magazine in the world.
But apparently you only believe people who listen to stuff for magazines as the only possible experts in the world.
How about people that actually have an engineering degree or work on class D amps or anything like that?
Do you think that because we've only sold tube amps so far, that tube amps are somehow the only thing I know??
Is there any possibility that you simply don't me as a person? Any rational person would know the answer right away- you don't know me, don't know my qualifications, don't know what my job entails, etc. You just have made-up stories.
You've been taken in by advertising; hype, hook, line and sinker.
You have no proof you built a class D amp. I could say *I* built one !!
Now, it's not "marketing", it's "magazines". John Atkinson and Robert Harley were "taken" by advertising. I don't think so.
Digital amps are the future !!
Don't confuse the situation with facts huh?
I'm sure it does not matter how many awards I've gotten (about 35 or so) or how long I've been in business (over 40 years) or anything like that. You'll go with someone that writes instead of someone in the industry that actually makes amps for a living. Because you have to be right.
It'll be interesting when someone actually makes a digital amp.
From the link below:
Footnote 1: The D in class-D does not stand for digital, as some commentators have suggested. Rather, D was just the next available letter in the alphabet when amplifier circuit topologies were being classified. A class-D amplifier can be either digital or analog in operating principle.
The author, John Aitkinson, happens to be misleading in this comment, as there is no such thing as a digital amplifier. If you change the last sentence above to read " A Class-D amplifier is analog in operating principle" then the entire paragraph would be correct. How about I see if we can get JA to weigh in on this?
Mmmm...John Atkinson 'misleading', I hope he sees this.
You're the only person who says "no such thing as a digital amp". There is.
Now a schematic, which eschews analog stages. No wait, this is phony too !!
I've spent some time on that site in the past as it often comes up in Google searches. I would direct you to other portions of the site which refute your claims but since you've not read a lot of that sort of thing in the past there is no expectation that you would do so now.
JA would be welcome in the discussion. I'm sure he can clarify.
Can't refute the page I linked.
Atkinson and Harley have enough credibility, they don't have to 'clarify'.
By causing this thread to 'spiral', you pulled more attention to it. Thanks to you, they'll now be a buzz on (true) digital amps...
If you're claiming that the amp at that thread is a digital amp, well it uses analog process to do its job. Quite literally there is no way it can't.
This is true of any amplifier that can drive a loudspeaker.
If a reviewer that has never built an amplifier before wants to contest that, all that happens is he's wrong. In JA's case, I'm pretty sure he was using shorthand with his use of 'digital amplifier' and I'm also sure he would be happy to clarify that for you.
Did John tell you he would clarify ? These are digital amps, as the schematic shows...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: