[gerado]

Anyone here tried to get rid of their IC and plugs by hardwiring their pre amp, power amp and source with the same wire that is in the GK and LF.
ie, solder printed circuit in and out to its in and out mate component with a simple wire.

cant see why whats outside the box should be any different to whats inside provided the components sit near each other and use short lengths.
Better still anyone put their gk inside the same box to the LF?   Is RF noise an issue?

Interested in what sound benefits or otherwise anyone experienced if you have done this.

I have all sorts of trouble maintaining consistent connections with RCA contact, and surely a touch contact with the live central rca pin cant be that good. I know that there are some good plugs which make good contact with the earth bit, the round outside bit of the plug , but what goes on hidden in the small hole is a mystery. Once all set wouldnt soldering the  components be the ideal solution?
One could mount some soldering points where the RCA plugs normally are on the back so in case a divorce was required you did not need to open the case.

yes? no? maybe?

[whubbard]

I would not call myself an expert by any strech of the word, the correct term for me would be amature, however I have heard many things from experts.

From what I hear soldering power cables, and interconnects IMPROVES the quality of the line!
...I just wouldn't do it as I want to have full flexability in moving everything around.

[jules]

Yes, absolutely!

For practicality I'm using a soldered at one end, Vampire RCA at the other system, with the shortest possible [GK-1 to amp, about 150mm] length of cat 5. Living well away from a major city,  I don't have any RF issues though you might have problems in some places.

Another thought in this direction that others might like to opine on is that it's better use of resources [money  ] to have the best RCAs for low strength signal inputs and that where signal strength is stronger, cheaper RCAs are ok. I'm a little surprised at your observations about lack of contact though. I agree that the design of an RCA is fraught with potential problems but they usually seem to be ok. Could you elaborate on your experiences a bit?

The general consensus on the GK-1/LF in one box matter is that it's very tricky to pull off and usually results in hum of some sort. Theoretically possible but you really don't want to get to the end of the project only to find it doesn't work and there's not enough flexibility to change it.

jules

[whubbard]

You use Cat5 are you RCA Wire??

I'm going to use it as my speaker cable...but I wouldn't ever use it as an interconnet.

How well does it handle the sound?

[jules]

Cat 5 is the recommended wire inside the various AKSA kits. I suppose there are going to be opinions either way about its "sound" relative to say multi-strand wire but if RFI isn't a problem then Cat 5 is fine.

The only problem I've noticed with it is that it can crack near the point it's soldered. I presume the heat leaves you with a gradient between a nice annealed bit of copper and a tempered bit ... fatal if there's much flexing.

jules



 

[gerado]

Hi Jules,

A few reasons for my post

1. Personally if have found that uneven contact between left and right channels cause me a lot of grief with one channel sounding just a little louder or one channel sounding a little muffled. Not a lot but enough for me to notice and distract me to the point of frustration tilting my head one way and another and cleaning my ears.
I resort to disconnecting everything , cleaning the ends , some of the points are split in 4 so I dilate them a little, and reconnect. Sometimes they just need a wiggle about. The same can be said about speaker wires. It affects my enjoyment so much I was wondering if others have noticed similar asymmetries and how they may have overcome it.

2. I have never understood the logic behind using just decent wire inside the box and magical wire interconnects outside it which cost many times more and sometimes silly money. Thinking logically why not just continue the wire past the RCA point bypassing it directly into the next component. OK you loose flexibility however considering the extends we go to,  to optimize our systems the RCA connection seems to be such a primitive and outdated part   compared to the rest of the electronics it is surprising there is no better connecting system.(balanced connections are pretty much the same -light contact between 2 metal surfaces).

3. I was interested if anyone noticed an improvement in sound by hard wiring everything together.Theory is one thing, but does it sound better in practice and what is the difference. Clarity,detail,bottom end, top depth of stage, imaging etc?

4. Is there an alternative already to the RCA/XLR plug?

[whubbard]

Speaktron Neutrik is something you could use.

Again,
Direct solder is a really good idea if you don't mind dealing with it.

[PSP]

I have not hardwired ICs or speaker cables to their respective printed circuit boards, but I have removed the occasional PCB solder pin (provided by Hugh for signal input) and lived to regret it.  If you never move your ICs or cables or never again want to work on your amp it may be OK to hard wire everything.  But when I have run a nice input cap directly from the input RCA to the PCB (and not the pins supplied by Hugh), I find that any slight movement can lift the foil from the PCB and then I must repair the broken trace with an additional solder joint.  Soon, my PCB is nasty-ugly and increasingly prone to intermittent connections and noise.  Besides, I could never hear the benefit of "going direct." 

Now, I always use Hugh's PCB pins for these connections.

Peter

[bhobba]

I have all sorts of trouble maintaining consistent connections with RCA contact, and surely a touch contact with the live central rca pin cant be that good. I know that there are some good plugs which make good contact with the earth bit, the round outside bit of the plug , but what goes on hidden in the small hole is a mystery. Once all set wouldn't soldering the  components be the ideal solution?
One could mount some soldering points where the RCA plugs normally are on the back so in case a divorce was required you did not need to open the case.

yes? no? maybe?

I would say there is something in this.  Many years ago I read an article on the design of a ultra low distortion amp by Leo Simpson.  It was class A with the usual amount of overall feedback you see in class AB designs to get rid of crossover distortion; and had distortion almost below measurably.  He found with such a low amount of distortion even connectors contributed to the distortion.  Interestingly, in listening  tests, the amplifier sounded 'cleaner' than other amps.  Whether that was at the cost of other areas was not commented on - but I suspect the use of such large amounts of feedback may have 'sucked' the life out of the music (it is well known that it is very difficult to design amplifiers with large amounts of negative feedback and good transient response).  Even amplifiers are compromises -clean sounding vs 'life'.  If the lowering of distortion is audible in Hugh's designs is debatable.  I suspect some listening tests are required.

Thanks
Bill

[kyrill]

the lower the voltages the more benefit from soldering

except changing cables and moveability of the system there are no disadvantages

and the more you solder the more you will hear the total benefits. but i have no experience of it. as i am constantly experimenting, i did not choose for this approach yet. you will save a lot of expensive plugs if you make yr own cables.

 but transparency cannot be generated on the spot, only the removal of veils

[kyrill]

I- - - - If the lowering of distortion is audible in Hugh's designs is debatable.  I suspect some listening tests are required.

Thanks
Bill

Hi Bill

reading the forum well, not debatable will be the hearing of the lowering of distortion and much more transparency,  i have no doubt in that. The ear must have as reference in trillion daily sounds ZERO distortions of any electronic nature
debatable maybe the relative  musicality
is there convincing decay and bloom? and other matters

[Greg Erskine]

I would say there is something in this.  Many years ago I read an article on the design of a ultra low distortion amp by Leo Simpson.  It was class A with the usual amount of overall feedback you see in class AB designs to get rid of crossover distortion; and had distortion almost below measurably.  He found with such a low amount of distortion even connectors contributed to the distortion.  Interestingly, in listening  tests, the amplifier sounded 'cleaner' than other amps.  Whether that was at the cost of other areas was not commented on - but I suspect the use of such large amounts of feedback may have 'sucked' the life out of the music (it is well known that it is very difficult to design amplifiers with large amounts of negative feedback and good transient response).  Even amplifiers are compromises -clean sounding vs 'life'.  If the lowering of distortion is audible in Hugh's designs is debatable.  I suspect some listening tests are required.

Hi bhobba,

I get to listen to modified versions of these SCULD class A and class AB amps on a fairly regular basis. From what I understand the standard kits don't produce the results (that us AKSA owners would expect), but the ones I get to hear have been modded over many years. Most of the components have been changed, careful attention has been made to matching components, as well as regulated front ends etc. The final results are very good indeed, very musical, lovely amps.

For those not wanting to (or not capable of) spending the years in development, the same (or better) results can be achieved overnight by buying an AKSA or one of the newer ones.  Hugh (and his team) has done this laborious work for us.

My point is, although topology is important, its really the implementation that makes an amp exceptional. It's the implementation that changes an off the shelf "clean sounding" amp into an "lively sounding" amp.

Normal disclaimers, IMHO, YMMV, system synergy, room acoustics.....

regards

[bhobba]

reading the forum well, not debatable will be the hearing of the lowering of distortion and much more transparency,  i have no doubt in that. The ear must have as reference in trillion daily sounds ZERO distortions of any electronic nature
debatable maybe the relative  musicality
is there convincing decay and bloom? and other matters
[/quote]

Hi Kryill

That ultra low distortion amp had distortion, if I remember correctly, below .0005%.  The gear the designer had could simply not measure it.  It is in relation to distortion of that magnitude the distortion of connectors was measurable.  Hugh designs, while having more that acceptable distortion, are not quite that low, so connector distortion may be masked, or may not be.  Which is why I would like to see some listening tests.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

For those not wanting to (or not capable of) spending the years in development, the same (or better) results can be achieved overnight by buying an AKSA or one of the newer ones.  Hugh (and his team) has done this laborious work for us.

My point is, although topology is important, its really the implementation that makes an amp exceptional. It's the implementation that changes an off the shelf "clean sounding" amp into an "lively sounding" amp.

All I can say - is - WELL SAID.  That Hugh has done all the hard work for us, and made the results available to all - YIPPII.  A lot of people may say $5K is a lot for a Soroya - and, especially considering my financial situation it is, but for what went into it, it is a friggen bargain.  My mouth is watering until my financial situation is such that I can get one.  It is likely I will build my system up in a number of stages - a panny at first, then a cheaper audiophile grade amp, then the Soraya, and I can post my observations along the way.

Thanks
Bill

[AKSA]

Very interesting points.

I am not 100% sure what makes a truly exceptional amp.  I am mindful of NP's comment:  'One part each topology, parts and layout'.  This ingenuously hides the truth, of course, but I can say I know now how to really ruin an amp, just one component can do it.

Those who place their faith entirely in measurements will usually be misguided;  connectors may indeed increase measured distortion but I'm damned if I can pick it in listening tests, unless the connection is truly horrible.  But a choice of component, and particularly the topology, will do it every time.

Ultimately, once the measuring is done, the listening tests should begin.  Then comes the tweaking to achieve the best component and operating point.  This takes a long time.  I'd have to say, in defence of Bill's very flattering comment that the Soraya is a freakin' bargain considering the iterations to reach the goal, you would only do it if you were a lunatic compulsive-obssessive.  It's like everything else in life I guess, regrettably you need to be something of a lunatic to do a really exceptional amp, and that will automatically place you on the fringe, refusing to follow the relentless push of convention.

But as Shaw says, only the unreasonable man will give us progress, and you have to be a lunatic to make any progress in this field because conventional engineering tells us all the problems are solved and zero distortion equals perfect sound.  But there are so many on both sides of the debate who hold powerful views, and argue well.  If you examine the Error Correction thread in DIYaudio, incredible, some really bitchy comments there from people who should know better, but have far too much education to set aside their prejudices.  It always gives me strength to know that in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is prince, but these days I find it much more serene to keep well away.

Greg, Alex has given me many interesting tips on the Ultra Low Distortion amp, and I would reckon  that he's well and truly right.  I agree with most of his points, which he has shared selflessly.  But I don't regard the tricks of the trade with any satisfaction;  I compete only with myself these days, and I must offer my sincere thanks to Colin in Vancouver who has unstintingly and energetically tried each and every one of my ideas.   

Cheers,

Hugh

[bhobba]

conventional engineering tells us all the problems are solved and zero distortion equals perfect sound. 

Hugh I am not so sure of that.  Distortion figures can never tell the whole story e.g. you can have distortion so low it is virtually immeasurable (witness that class A amp designed by Leo Simpson) but transient response that is horrid (and I don't know what the rise time of that amp is, but I bet it is not as quick as some of the modern ones).  Which is audibly the better spec to aim for?  Both are departures from what it is being fed.  Only our ears can tell us.  And even then I am wary.  Unless you have listened the amount Hugh has you can never be sure that after buying something that initially sounded great, it wont wear on you.  That is the reason I admire what you have done - you have done the hard work for guys like me who did get not get such an extensive 'ears on education'.

Thanks
Bill

[kyrill]

If all those measurements are so important why are tubeamps so lifelike and make a new rebirth?
tubeamps measure still very mediocre compared to super SS amps.

So the domain of normal measurements including rise time or slew time(?) is not the main domain olltho it interacts with this main domain to explain the musicality of the amp. Musicality is the main word a perfect amp cannot escape.

To test topology measurements are needed, but in that realm alone the perfect amp will never be born. I still think we cannot measure what we do not think of in advance. And this is the culprit.
If musicality and all its related properties IS by no doubt very complex, the mind cannot know in advance of all the related electronic properties that define a "perfect enough" amp
Only gradually, wrestling with empirical data we evolve our knowledge.
So maybe 20,50,80 years from now we have an extra set of measurements that may be able to describe minimum specs of such an amp.

So Hughs approach and others who start with measurements but never stop there is the ONLY way to go

[gerado]

Kyrill,

what a great point you make. We can only measure what we know.

But the ear does measure everything, yet it is almost never used in a scientific setting.

[bhobba]

So Hughs approach and others who start with measurements but never stop there is the ONLY way to go

Absolutely.

Thanks
Bill

[kyrill]

Kyrill,

what a great point you make. We can only measure what we know.

But the ear does measure everything, yet it is almost never used in a scientific setting.

Ah ya it measures alright. but in unknown metrics of the heart