2. amps-preamps
  3. 1353688456

Merrill Audio VERITAS Amps: Any other experiances?

Despite the Sandy Hurricane interruptions, Merrill was kind enough to provide me the opportunity to audition his Merrill Audio Veritas Mono-block amps with my system. He delivered the amps and I listened for approx 48 hours over a period of three days. It should be noted that never once in this time frame did I or anyone else listening experience listening fatigue.

The Veritas units were temporary replacements for my ARC VTM200 MONO-blocks and other than a short experience with my neighbors ARC 610 Mono-Blocks which really brought my Maggies to life, it was a reawakening as to what my Maggies can do given sufficient power. It's not that the VTM200 don't do a good job, its that financially, moving up with more powerful tube amps is out of the question.

Basically , I was overjoyed with what I was listening to. With the Veritas supplying 700 watts per channel vs the 200 tube watts, which is fundamentally 3 and one half times the power I had been feeding them, it was the first time I heard the Maggies with the power they were recommended to be supplied with other than the 610 experience. It should be noted that every piece of electronic audio equipment I have is TUBE centered. The presentation of the Veritas into the system was the first time a pure solid state unit had been introduced to the system and the lasting impression was WOW...just like the web site stated!

We listened to vinyl as well as CDs...Jazz and full orchestration as well as solo piano, cello and violin. Beside myself and occasionally my wife, the listening panel included Blaine Handzus of the NJAS as well as an interested neighbor along with Merrill.

If and when I replace the ARC VTM200s, the Veritas would be at the top of the list.

Having heard Class D amps at other systems, I had never been totally satisfied with what they delivered but the Veritas units presented a completely satisfying and different audio presentation. In short, the 'you are there' effect the Maggies are famous for with the proper watts was stunning.

Simply put, the Veritas are an audio achievement, with extremely accurate front to back definition as well as a superbly accurate soundstage presentation. The holographic effect of instrument position within the orchestra was excellent.

But more to the point, the sounds of the instruments themselves were very accurate. My wife, who listens to live music on a daily basis, both strings, keyboard and horns made the comment that she "could hear the cellos and violas breath".

It was a sad hour when Merrill came back to take his amps away!
128x128jafo100
dan92075
23 posts
 
Audiozen,
The Bel Canto amplifiers that are replacing the power module with a linear supply instead of a switching supply are still keeping the class d amp the same module.
This means its a class D pulse width modulated amplifier.

I wish you would stop claiming that every new class D amp is no longer a pulse width modulated amplifier - pulse width modulation is pretty much intrinisic to a class D audio amp.
jdec
123 posts
 
Audiozen has been messing up information about the Hypex UCD/Ncore topic, and he just reaized it but does not want to recognize it yet.

>@Audiozen,
have you actually heard the Merrill Audio Veritas and/or the ARC D450M amps?<

The answer is obviosly No, he hasn't.
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
Are the Merrill Audio Veritas equipped with 20A or 15A IEC power inlets?

Thanks, Guido
hifial's avatar
hifial
332 posts
 
15A IEC.
noble100's avatar
noble100
2,419 posts
 
Very intriging. I started reading this thread to learn more about the Merril Veritas class D monoblocs.

However, this thread quickly evolved(devolved?) into a discussion of ownership rights to various class D technologies, patent and trademark ownership in both Europe and the U.S. and other undisclosed matters.

It's obvious that 'Audiozen' has a different viewpoint than 'Hifial' and 'Guidocorona'. Hifial and Guidocorona, on one side, are arguing that Hypex owns "hypex"and "ncore" technologies and trademarks but not the Ucd technology and trademark, conceding that Phillips owns these since Bruno Putskeys invented this while employed by Phillips. Audiozen, on the other side, agrees that Phillips owns the UcD rights but implies that the "ncore" rights may belong to Phillips, since he claims the "ncore" name and technology may have begun developement under Bruno while he was still employed by Phillips.

It seems like each side is trying to establish timelines for either current or future legal disputes regarding 'hypex" and "ncore" ownership rights. Does anyone know if Hypex and Phillips are engaged in a legal dispute or potential future litigation? Or is this just a public spat between rival class D companies?

I find this very interesting but I have no stake in this game/dispute. In trying to understand the hidden agendas displayed in their respective thread postings above.
It appears to me that:

1. Hifial is definitely Jean-Peter van Amerongen, CEO and owner of Hypex Electronics in The Netherlands. His position in this dispute is clearly backing Hypex's interests which is completely understandable.
2. Guidocorona is an Italian named Guido ? that appears to work for, or with, Hypex. I'm not sure what his employment position is but he is clearly in support of Hypex's interests.
3. Audiozen, I currently think either works for or represents the interests of Phillips but I'm not certain. He seems intent on trying to muddy the waters in regards to when Bruno Putzkeys began work on the "ncore" technology. He also seems to have an undisclosed agenda but he may just be a rival razzing a competitor and spreading misinformation.
4. Bruno Putzkeys is a Polish born amplifier engineer and designer whom both sides refer to often in their thread posts. He worked for Phillips in The Netherlands when he invented the UcD (Universal class D) technology and modules that utilized PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) which marked the birth of class D amplification. Sometime in 2005, Bruno left Phillips and joined Hypex as their head of R&D in order to further his development of his class D technology, since Phillips had just previously discontinued funding for his amplifier research and development. Whether or not Bruno worked on 'ncore', or even referred to any part of his UcD creation with the name 'ncore, is a major point of contention between the 2 parties since this could imply ownership rights of 'ncore'.

Even though I have no skin in this game, I'm going to follow future developments closely. If anyone has aditional knowledge of this dispute, or wants to clarify or correct any of my statements or information, please post them. I may be reading too much into this, but I think I'm smelling ulterior motives and an undisclosed story here.

Audiozen, can you tell us if you have an undisclosed stake in this dispute and whether you're employed by any audio company? If so, is it Audio Research or Rowland?

Guidocorona, can you tell us if you have a stake and if you're employed by Hypex? If not, are you employed by another audio company?

Just my 2 cents and thanks,
Tim
More to discover