I begin this longwinded post (Ron, you can just ignore it!) by addressing a presumption that brightness equates with detail. This is a false equivalency. What artificially high brightness sometimes does is make the details more apparent, it does not create them. The 3rd track appears to be in same order as both 1 and 2. Amp 2 is both less bright and more detailed. I can hear through some of the “mud” that veils the YT presentations. I can hear far more detail in 2 than in 1. I can hear more distortion in 1 than 2. Unfortunately, the darkness of the YT presentations masks much of the depth of beauty in presentation 2.
With the addition of the Liberty track I would like to point out that there is a certain disassociation from the "attack" to the "body"--perhaps resonance--of instruments. This can be heard with: the impact of the hammers on the Rhodes' tines, the mallets on the drums and the rosin layden bow with the cello. A common problem with class D amplifiers is this disassociation. On presentation 1, it is hard to hear whether it is a Rhodes or a synth version of a Rhodes. This disassociation is why, on preliminary listens, class D often sounds more detailed and crisp than excellent traditional amplifier designs. Note that this disassociation can also be a challenge between excellent class A and class AB amplifiers, although the effect is much more subtle. This artificial detail is also why listener fatigue is generally a byproduct of these amplifiers.
Listening to the source material of all 3 tracks, bypassing the secondary recording and inferior transmission via YT can make the differences between YT presentations more clear. Among other points, that the source presentation reveals the fullness of the details that are buried deeply within presentation 2 are far more accurate and representative of all 3 recordings. FI my system is Classe CA-2300, Classe Sigma SSP, ProAc Response 5, Innuos ZenMini with external power supply and full Nordost Valhalla loom… a relatively modest system.
I will go out on a limb and state my conclusions from this exercise:
1. Through listening—even utilizing a handicapped medium (YT) and recording chain (a microphone recording of a reproduction of source material)—differences between an inexpensive and a very expensive amplifier on a suitably revealing system can clearly be discerned.
2. Presentations 1, 2 and 3 of all tracks are the same relative amplifiers and that those amplifiers are 1–Rouge and 2–mystery high end amp(s). I find 1 to be less detailed, less natural sounding, less 3 dimensional, less defined, less authoritative bass and generally inferior and exhibiting a degree of disassociation between attack and resonance.
These are exactly the characteristics that one might expect when comparing a $2K Class D amplifier with nearly any well designed and executed high end class A or AB amplifier. Note: this does not invalidate the Rouge as a good amplifier at it's pricepoint. It could be a good 2K amplifier but compared to an amp costing 20, 30 or even 50x, it is objectively inferior. Whether the difference is worth the money is a highly personal decision and would certainly differ for any individual. In truth, my wife would suggest that 2K is way to much to spend on any amplifier, let alone…
3. For me this exercise lends credence to the statements: “you get what you pay for” and “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” and even “the law of diminishing returns applies”—The Rouge is not bad and I have no idea how it compares to other similarly priced amps, but it is reasonable to expect that to get much better performance you might have to pay a lot more money. This exercise illustrates that painful reality.
Perhaps, someday, there will be technological advances that allow an inexpensive design to truly outperform a current, expensive design. In 35 years of searching, I have yet to experience this panacea although I think the gap has closed a bit.
