Cost, and difficulty to make at scale. This is why LFD gear is bench-made one at a time, because they use a lot of point-to-point wiring (even if it looks like a PCB from the top).
Just a quick note to report that the improvements brought about by the removal of the Goldpoint's PCB, and hardwiring of the circuit instead with solid-silver wire, have been significant, and once again confirms to me that, when possible and practical, hardwiring is the way to go. One of the biggest advantages in this instance has probably been the significant reduction in the number of solder joints.
So what were the sonic benefits? Mainly, the removal of a perceived 'artificiality': as if there was something holding back the music and not allowing it 'full reign', and consequently, since the hardwiring and PCB removal has taken place, music has been allowed to 'breathe' properly, resulting in greater overall levels of clarity and a more convincing rendition of instruments and vocals.
In short, this passive device now makes music sound more 'effortless' and natural, as well as increasing both detail retrieval and musical insight. I'm unsure just how much influence the solid-copper/minimal-metal construction of the WBT RCAs have had on proceedings, as they were fitted at the same time as the hardwiring was done, but previous experience has taught me that there are always subtle, but worthwhile gains to be had when using plugs and sockets a) with minimal metal content, and b) that feature signal conductor/contact points made from either solid-silver or solid-copper.
The increase in signal conductivity/integrity, offered over their high-metal content/brass conductor counterparts, is usually always audible in a revealing (and well sorted) system. Therefore, in that respect, I'm sure that the WBTs are playing their part in the truly superb sounds I'm hearing now from this passive device. It is certainly one of the items I'll be bringing to the forthcoming NEBO bake-off, where it'll be interesting to see what others make of it now :cool:
Marco.
Very interesting, Marco... I'm still very interested in this to be honest. So would you say that the GP is better with digital or analogue? Or is it a suck it n see kinda thang?
Shouldn't this thread title be changed?
The Goldpoint SA4M-47 case might still be in use, but it ain't a Goldpoint SA4M-47 inside ;)
Very true, Chris. The Goldpoint was an experiment, and my first serious foray into the world of passive 'preamps', and as such has served as a valuable learning curve into what to do and what not to do with a series-type passive device, within of course the context of my system. It's been an interesting and rewarding journey :)
Jo, I'll come back to you later on that. Got a busy day today, with various things unrelated to hi-fi, one of which is finally sorting out a new set of wheels for my car. What a saga that was!! Anyway, that's one for another thread.
Laters :cool:
Marco.
This thread made for an intetesting dinner time read. I did skim lots of it; is the conclusion that the Croft and the passive are staying in the system Marco?
Hi Martin,
Yup... They're very close to each other in overall performance, with the Croft adding just a touch of expansiveness and 'airiness' (the valve thing), but probably for ultimate transparency, and the ability to forensically 'peer into' recordings, the 'Goldpoint' has it.
I also need the Croft for its superb phono stage! :cool:
Marco.
It does both with equal aplomb, Jo. Thus modified, it is an extremely transparent device, and acts as a veritable 'open window' onto recordings, providing a level of musical insight that is simply breathtaking. As such, it doesn't really have a 'sound' - what you hear is simply the source music, unhindered in all its glory :)
Highly recommended, but don't waste money like I did buying a Goldpoint. If you want what I've got now (or even better what Ian has), just PM Duncan for the details, and he'll build it for you :cool:
The Z-Foils are where the real magic stems from ;)
Marco.