Blimey....

Blimey, I am still in shock (and a little confused) by the difference a top notch power supply can make. As someone has already pointed out, no musical signal actually passes through its circuitry so how/why does a power supply have such a profound effect on the final SQ?

To be honest we have been told for years to invest in the power supplies in our Naim systems and the how and why don't really matter. The fact that a PS has this wonderful impact is all we really need to know. It also goes a long way to 'justify' the huge cost of what is a glorified transformer.

There I go, showing my ignorance again. 

nigelb posted:

Blimey, I am still in shock (and a little confused) by the difference a top notch power supply can make. As someone has already pointed out, no musical signal actually passes through its circuitry so how/why does a power supply have such a profound effect on the final SQ?

To be honest we have been told for years to invest in the power supplies in our Naim systems and the how and why don't really matter. The fact that a PS has this wonderful impact is all we really need to know. It also goes a long way to 'justify' the huge cost of what is a glorified transformer.

There I go, showing my ignorance again. 

From what I understand of Naim amps, a simplified way to look at a power supply is that it provides the energy required by the circuit it supplies to produce its output, which in the case of an audio circuit is an amplified version of the input signal. Audio signals are alternating at the wide range of frequencies that the music is composed of. Ultimately the loudspeaker converts the electrical energy into sound wave energy. So just as the sound energy is constantly varying so is the electrical energy being drawn from the power supply.

The capacitors of the power supply provide a reserve which is topped up. Apart from the smoothing effect of the capacitors, energy is being supplied by the mains at the rate it is being output by the speakers and the heat generated by the electrical components. This is just conservation of energy. It is wrong to think that the power supply is not experiencing the audio signals: it is - it just that it’s not doing so actively. 

According to Jason on my recent factory tour the Statement can go from zero to 9000 watts in a picosecond. Obviously this only lasts for microseconds. When a power supply cannot provide the energy required by an audio circuit, the output current of the audio circuit will be less than that required for the circuit to behave linearly.The signal is then being distorted.

A SuperCap is used by the 282 and the 252. The 252 uses a Burndy which allows the circuits to be supplied independently from the PS. This probably means that the individual circuits are ‘quieter’. What I’m not quite sure of is whether each output of the SuperCap has its own secondary tapping.

Hope this makes a bit of sense. I’m only a physicist by education rather than an audio engineer. Just trying to give a simplied view.

Phil

I’m a bit concerned about some of the claims said to have been made by Naim staff during factory visits.

Last week there was the assertion that a Statement system consumes £600 worth of electricity quiescent consumption if left on. Ignoring the fact that the existence of a standby mode using only about £1 PA had been overlooked, by my calcs based on a typical electricity cost of 13p/unit in the UK, a stereo Statement system according to published specs would only consume about half the declared amount - so either the claim was wrong or the published specs are wrong.

Now this claim of 9000W/pS. Expressed in typical units for amplifier measurement, this equates to 268 000 000V/μS (or in different terms, power can rise from zero to 9000W in 1/50 000 000th of one cycle of the highest frequency sound a human can hear - indeed, that would be superlative performance in a microwave transmitter amp!). That is an incredible rise time, and whilst I am not in a position to say it is not posssible, I do have to wonder if the unit# may hav3 got mixd up somewhere...

I do think that if there are exaggerations being made by Naim staff, or mishearings by visitors, they should be addressed in order not to mislead, in either direction - and should my scepticism regarding the slew rate be unjustified I wholeheartedly apologise. Perhaps Naim could step in here for the record on these points. ( [@mention:1566878603985147] 

Blimey is not a word in the American dictionary...

Crikey may not be either, but Americans get the gist of both words.

Crikey ... might be the new contender for topic title starter.

For Americans, maybe Yowza?

I suspect the analogy here is with a car, any car. The PSU is the car engine. Swap the engine out for a more powerful one and the car handles differently. Exactly how differently will also depend on how well the suspension and brakes etc are set up on the base model. I also suspect that this is partly the reason why some PSUs sound "overblown" when used on some amps as staying with the same analogy, on those amps the suspension and brakes set up can't handle the extra power.

Pushing this analogy as far as I can, then the base 272 is a Golf GTI with the engine replaced by a 1600cc unit, still a nice car but not very dynamic. Put the GTI engine back in and it is obviously much better. It works in both situations because the brakes, suspension and steering are all top notch.

Duck for cover now....

Mike

Gordon Bennett!!

What is it with these Blimey threads and analogies first fish and now cars, the 272 is a Golf GTi? And what in god's name is a picosecond? 

Bob the Builder posted:

Gordon Bennett!!

What is it with these Blimey threads and analogies first fish and now cars, the 272 is a Golf GTi? And what in god's name is a picosecond? 

It’s a flight of fancy...a diversion...fun!

G

Mike1960 posted:

The PSU is the car engine. Swap the engine out for a more powerful one and the car handles differently. Exactly how differently will also depend on how well the suspension and brakes etc are set up on the base model. I also suspect that this is partly the reason why some PSUs sound "overblown" when used on some amps as staying with the same analogy, on those amps the suspension and brakes set up can't handle the extra.

Yeah, a HCDR on my SN2's pre steered me into a ditch. Thankfully I found a good tow truck and I'm now back on the road. Moral of the story: PSUs may not be fit for lesser drivers and use your car analogies sparingly.

Ironically,  now that the 555PS is ‘plumbed-in’ our bathroom fitters have arrived 1st thing this morning to start on the new downstairs shower room.

Water off and much banging & sawing going on.

Grrrr.

DynFan160 posted:

Blimey is not a word in the American dictionary...

I’t is a call to be blinded.

Blinded by the light of wisdom, understanding, and insanity perhaps? 

Innocent Bystander posted:

DynFan160 posted:

Blimey is not a word in the American dictionary...

I’t is a call to be blinded.

SO - the Gro'cers A'postro'phe has became self-aware and turned against its creator's.

'!

The remaining hope for humanity was that , like time on a stopped clock, it would occasionally stumble into the correct position.

Paradoxically, those who are bewildered by them retain just enough knowledge to get things consistently wrong.

Having some fun with this at moderately low volume...There’s a fantastic ‘tactility’ to the notes and a real presence to the performance now.

G

Bob the Builder posted:

And what in god's name is a picosecond? 

It’s a millionth of a microsecond, a millionth of a millionth of a second... it’s fast. When I was young, it was faster than fast: picosecond laser pulses were just over the horizon. Now, it’s a million times slower than the new fast... it’s a million attoseconds, and an attosecond is about the shortest timescale we can access experimentally with really really fast lasers. The poster who challenged the validity of the assertion about kilovolt per picosecond risetimes in conventional electronics, such as the Statement, had good reason imho... A picosecond is a really short time... Blimey doesn’t begin to describe it!

Regards alan

alan33 posted:

Bob the Builder posted:

And what in god's name is a picosecond? 

It’s a millionth of a microsecond, a millionth of a millionth of a second... it’s fast. When I was young, it was faster than fast: picosecond laser pulses were just over the horizon. Now, it’s a million times slower than the new fast... it’s a million attoseconds, and an attosecond is about the shortest timescale we can access experimentally with really really fast lasers. The poster who challenged the validity of the assertion about kilovolt per picosecond risetimes in conventional electronics, such as the Statement, had good reason imho... A picosecond is a really short time... Blimey doesn’t begin to describe it!

Regards alan

So……blink and it is gone, right? That fast?

Blimey Graeme, your Blimey thread has reached page 2 and you haven't even told us what the 555 sounds like yet. Must have got diverted, in typical Blimey thread style!

Blimey you are not hanging around Graeme and I will be interested in your thoughts with the 272/555 and Tab 10s once the plumbers have cleared off.

Several months ago when I was looking for a PSU for my 272 I auditioned the XPS2 (unit about 9 years old) and an ex demo XP5xs, not much in it for me plus the ex demo XP5xs was cheaper plus almost new so opted for this and saved a few quid.

One day I will try the 555 but the wife wants a caravan up in the North Yorkshire moors next year so the 555 will have to wait.

For now my 272/XP5xs/250/Tab10s is the best sound my room has witnessed

Innocent Bystander posted:

I’m a bit concerned about some of the claims said to have been made by Naim staff during factory visits.

Last week there was the assertion that a Statement system consumes £600 worth of electricity quiescent consumption if left on. Ignoring the fact that the existence of a standby mode using only about £1 PA had been overlooked, by my calcs based on a typical electricity cost of 13p/unit in the UK, a stereo Statement system according to published specs would only consume about half the declared amount - so either the claim was wrong or the published specs are wrong.

Now this claim of 9000W/pS. Expressed in typical units for amplifier measurement, this equates to 268 000 000V/μS (or in different terms, power can rise from zero to 9000W in 1/50 000 000th of one cycle of the highest frequency sound a human can hear - indeed, that would be superlative performance in a microwave transmitter amp!). That is an incredible rise time, and whilst I am not in a position to say it is not posssible, I do have to wonder if the unit# may hav3 got mixd up somewhere...

I do think that if there are exaggerations being made by Naim staff, or mishearings by visitors, they should be addressed in order not to mislead, in either direction - and should my scepticism regarding the slew rate be unjustified I wholeheartedly apologise. Perhaps Naim could step in here for the record on these points. ( [@mention:1566878603985147]&nbsp

A picosecond is a million millionth of a second. Digital circuits for Ethernet and computers easily work at 1 Gbs (1 thousand millionth of a second). The rise time of such signals is easily 1 thousandth of that. Should we be surprised if audio circuits respond as  quickly - not really.

The information provided is not about being able to hear a rise time, but about the amount of energy that can be delivered to fuel the Amplifier for very short periods of time. The energy is the product of the wattage and the time rather than watts divided by time as suggested above.  I think we all get the car analogy of what more horsepower does for you. 

It’s seems that the running cost of Statement also surprises some people.

Phil

Adam Meredith posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

DynFan160 posted:

Blimey is not a word in the American dictionary...

I’t is a call to be blinded.

SO - the Gro'cers A'postro'phe has became self-aware and turned against its creator's.

'!

The remaining hope for humanity was that , like time on a stopped clock, it would occasionally stumble into the correct position.

Paradoxically, those who are bewildered by them retain just enough knowledge to get things consistently wrong.

Yep, the iPad has a language rule of its own: corrupt whatever those non-American speakers try to type! 

Filipe posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I’m a bit concerned about some of the claims said to have been made by Naim staff during factory visits.

Last week there was the assertion that a Statement system consumes £600 worth of electricity quiescent consumption if left on. Ignoring the fact that the existence of a standby mode using only about £1 PA had been overlooked, by my calcs based on a typical electricity cost of 13p/unit in the UK, a stereo Statement system according to published specs would only consume about half the declared amount - so either the claim was wrong or the published specs are wrong.

Now this claim of 9000W/pS. Expressed in typical units for amplifier measurement, this equates to 268 000 000V/μS (or in different terms, power can rise from zero to 9000W in 1/50 000 000th of one cycle of the highest frequency sound a human can hear - indeed, that would be superlative performance in a microwave transmitter amp!). That is an incredible rise time, and whilst I am not in a position to say it is not posssible, I do have to wonder if the unit# may hav3 got mixd up somewhere...

I do think that if there are exaggerations being made by Naim staff, or mishearings by visitors, they should be addressed in order not to mislead, in either direction - and should my scepticism regarding the slew rate be unjustified I wholeheartedly apologise. Perhaps Naim could step in here for the record on these points. ( [@mention:1566878603985147]&nbsp

A picosecond is a million millionth of a second. Digital circuits for Ethernet and computers easily work at 1 Gbs (1 thousand millionth of a second). The rise time of such signals is easily 1 thousandth of that. Should we be surprised if audio circuits respond as  quickly - not really.

The information provided is not about being able to hear a rise time, but about the amount of energy that can be delivered to fuel the Amplifier for very short periods of time. The energy is the product of the wattage and the time rather than watts divided by time as suggested above.  I think we all get the car analogy of what more horsepower does for you. 

It’s seems that the running cost of Statement also surprises some people.

Phil

Indeed not anything about being able to hear a rise time, but the ability of the transistors to switch that fast and the reservoir capacitors to discharge that fast  - which based on my knowledge of electronics seems unlikely, however I don’t pretend to be au fait with Naim’s design and whatever specific components they use, so merely express my incredulity and concern that something inaccurate may have been said or heard.

And my comment about electricity was not the running cost, but the idle cost, which did not tally with the advertised information, so if correct the published spec needs changing.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Filipe posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I’m a bit concerned about some of the claims said to have been made by Naim staff during factory visits.

Last week there was the assertion that a Statement system consumes £600 worth of electricity quiescent consumption if left on. Ignoring the fact that the existence of a standby mode using only about £1 PA had been overlooked, by my calcs based on a typical electricity cost of 13p/unit in the UK, a stereo Statement system according to published specs would only consume about half the declared amount 

 

Indeed not anything about being able to hear a rise time, but the ability of the transistors to switch that fast and the reservoir capacitors to discharge that fast  - which based on my knowledge of electronics seems unlikely, however I don’t pretend to be au fait with Naim’s design and whatever specific components they use, so merely express my incredulity and concern that something inaccurate may have been said or heard.

And my comment about electricity was not the running cost, but the idle cost, which did not tally with the advertised information, so if correct the published spec needs changing.

Taking the running cost remark you made above. You decided that “keeping the Statement powered up” was to be interpreted as the quiescent power consumption being about twice the advertised figure and have made accusation about misleading specification. I doubt Jason was thinking about your interpretation. 

Jason was questioned about the picosecond, and was clear about the statement he made. As a statement about a power supply one does not even need to involve transistors as you have. It is essentially about the delivery of a quantity of charge at a fixed voltage for a very short duration. I can appreciate that the Statement power supply really can deliver energy much better than others.

Phil

Filipe posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Filipe posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I’m a bit concerned about some of the claims said to have been made by Naim staff during factory visits.

Last week there was the assertion that a Statement system consumes £600 worth of electricity quiescent consumption if left on. Ignoring the fact that the existence of a standby mode using only about £1 PA had been overlooked, by my calcs based on a typical electricity cost of 13p/unit in the UK, a stereo Statement system according to published specs would only consume about half the declared amount 

 

Indeed not anything about being able to hear a rise time, but the ability of the transistors to switch that fast and the reservoir capacitors to discharge that fast  - which based on my knowledge of electronics seems unlikely, however I don’t pretend to be au fait with Naim’s design and whatever specific components they use, so merely express my incredulity and concern that something inaccurate may have been said or heard.

And my comment about electricity was not the running cost, but the idle cost, which did not tally with the advertised information, so if correct the published spec needs changing.

Taking the running cost remark you made above. You decided that “keeping the Statement powered up” was to be interpreted as the quiescent power consumption being about twice the advertised figure and have made accusation about misleading specification. I doubt Jason was thinking about your interpretation. 

Jason was questioned about the picosecond, and was clear about the statement he made. As a statement about a power supply one does not even need to involve transistors as you have. It is essentially about the delivery of a quantity of charge at a fixed voltage for a very short duration. I can appreciate that the Statement power supply really can deliver energy much better than others.

Phil

 I voiced my concerns, and have suggested it is for Phil Harris if he sees it to determine whether any response or clarification is appropriate from Naim. As you seem to like to have the last word I will leave it at that - in any case having already made my points I have nothing to add or to argue...

It’s not about the last word, but........

The plumbers have gone!...Might get some listening tonight as MrsH out on the town.

G

 Bystander posted:

Filipe posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Filipe posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I’m a bit concerned about some of the claims said to have been made by Naim staff during factory visits.

Last week there was the assertion that a Statement system consumes £600 worth of electricity quiescent consumption if left on. Ignoring the fact that the existence of a standby mode using only about £1 PA had been overlooked, by my calcs based on a typical electricity cost of 13p/unit in the UK, a stereo Statement system according to published specs would only consume about half the declared amount 

 

Indeed not anything about being able to hear a rise time, but the ability of the transistors to switch that fast and the reservoir capacitors to discharge that fast  - which based on my knowledge of electronics seems unlikely, however I don’t pretend to be au fait with Naim’s design and whatever specific components they use, so merely express my incredulity and concern that something inaccurate may have been said or heard.

And my comment about electricity was not the running cost, but the idle cost, which did not tally with the advertised information, so if correct the published spec needs changing.

Taking the running cost remark you made above. You decided that “keeping the Statement powered up” was to be interpreted as the quiescent power consumption being about twice the advertised figure and have made accusation about misleading specification. I doubt Jason was thinking about your interpretation. 

Jason was questioned about the picosecond, and was clear about the statement he made. As a statement about a power supply one does not even need to involve transistors as you have. It is essentially about the delivery of a quantity of charge at a fixed voltage for a very short duration. I can appreciate that the Statement power supply really can deliver energy much better than others.

Phil

 I voiced my concerns, and have suggested it is for Phil Harris if he sees it to determine whether any response or clarification is appropriate from Naim. As you seem to like to have the last word I will leave it at that - in any case having already made my points I have nothing to add or to argue...

Moderated Post: Jonn, I've removed this GIF as it causes issues for some members. Please could members try not to post repetitive or animated GIFs, strobing images etc..