Progression?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant

Perhaps someone missed this along the line :eyebrows: PCBs unless they are drilled to alow cooling will restrict air flow under the chassis. Wires will not restrict airflow to such an extent. Leaking electrolytic capacitors cause PCBs to become conductive, with the voltages present in valve amps this could easily cause a fire with the PCB going up in flames.

Take it from me i have seen what high voltages & leaking capacitors do & it's no laughing matter :stalks:

Do i need to add anything else or have i said enough?

---

That's why I said well designed pcb's!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant

Perhaps someone missed this along the line :eyebrows: PCBs unless they are drilled to alow cooling will restrict air flow under the chassis. Wires will not restrict airflow to such an extent. Leaking electrolytic capacitors cause PCBs to become conductive, with the voltages present in valve amps this could easily cause a fire with the PCB going up in flames.

---

Fair points. And of course tube circuits tend to better lend themselves to point wiring. They're often much simpler and use fewer and often larger parts. With an efficient layout, you could probably lash up a tube amp with some turret boards and tag strips about as fast as you could with a circuit board.

Now, a complex solid state amp? Forget about it. :lol:

se

Yes, i fully agree with you Steve ;)

Most of the larger components already tend to have tags on them anyway, or at least it appears they can be purchased with tag mounts. Valve holders, transformers etc, which leaves few components such as capacitors & resistors etc that can simply be wired between the tags :)

It all makes sense :eyebrows: You'd end up with fewer connections than if using a PCB which can only be a good thing from a sound point of view.

Quote:

---

It all makes sense You'd end up with fewer connections than if using a PCB which can only be a good thing from a sound point of view.

---

Yes indeedio! :)

So, in terms of progress being made (the theme of this thread), some modern design techniques leave much to be desired compared to good old fashioned point wiring.

Next I'll tackle the way most affordable equipment is voiced these days (artifically thin and forward sounding), from CDPs to speakers, compared to the *best* vintage designs ;)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

Naah. Differential topologies had been around well before the introduction of the transistor and those same topologies work for transistors just as they do for tubes.

If an input stage used just one transistor it was for one reason; to save money.

se

---

I know that very well. Cost savings has been around from day one naturally. But in the early days of hi-fi it was not the only factor. Acceptable thd levels were much higher and the bar was raised along the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant

Most of the larger components already tend to have tags on them anyway, or at least it appears they can be purchased with tag mounts. Valve holders, transformers etc, which leaves few components such as capacitors & resistors etc that can simply be wired between the tags :)

---

Exactly, though a component won't always span the entire distance required.

Quote:

---

It all makes sense :eyebrows: You'd end up with fewer connections than if using a PCB which can only be a good thing from a sound point of view.

---

Yes. Though personally I rather like the old brown paper/phenolic boards. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find it here quite a long time. Can get the laminate material itself, but not copper clad.

Then I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and the subject came up and he said to just get the laminate and send it to the board house. It seems the board houses are now going over to the additive process for making boards, i.e. plating directly to the laminate rather than using copper clad and etching it off.

So that's got me rather excited, though I'm not sure yet whether their process will work with phenolic-based laminates. I'm hoping it will because I'm really wanting to try some boards made from linen/phenolic laminate.

se

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sahib

I know that very well. Cost savings has been around from day one naturally. But in the early days of hi-fi it was not the only factor. Acceptable thd levels were much higher and the bar was raised along the way.

---

Yes.

But what prompted me to reply to your original post was because you didn't say anything about acceptable levels of THD. Instead you said it was because it was "the only option."

se

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Yes indeedio! :)

So, in terms of progress being made (the theme of this thread), some modern design techniques leave much to be desired compared to good old fashioned point wiring.

Next I'll tackle the way most affordable equipment is voiced these days (artifically thin and forward sounding), from CDPs to speakers, compared to the *best* vintage designs ;)

Marco.

---

I thought the same Marco.When Gary came over he brought his Cambridge amp though,it had quite a warm and laid back presentation which was actually quite pleasant.Much better than I was expecting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Next I'll tackle the way most affordable equipment is voiced these days (artifically thin and forward sounding), from CDPs to speakers, compared to the *best* vintage designs ;)

---

As I was going to say before I got sidetracked replying to posts, I don't think we've progressed as much as the marketing departments would wish to lead us to believe.

Remember the "spec wars" back in the 70's? Where the mass market manufacturers were vying for the best specs? The more zeros to the right of the decimal place the better. It was a numbers game.

And we have much the same thing going on now, only taken to a different level.

Gotta use this wire because it's the highest purity, or has the fewest crystals. Gotta use that dielectric because it has the lowest dielectric constant. Etc., etc.

Most everything is ultimately geared toward improving some objective metric, with the implication that any objective improvement must be good, while neglecting the fact that we are subjective human beings, not pieces of cold, objective test gear.

It's caused a huge segment of the market to become unhealthily obsessed not only with purely objective metrics, but with the smallest of things. Forget about not seeing the forest for the trees. Or even the trees for the leaves. We're talking about missing even the leaves for the cells.

And that's literally the scale at which many are obsessing over.

I think in many cases we've lost track of the big picture.

Looking at it from a more philosophical point of view, we're being driven to seek pure yin, and eliminate all yang. But as the philosophy goes, without yang, yin ceases to exist.

I think we need to come back to a more healthy balance.

That's why I think some of the best vintage gear out there can ultimately be more satisfying than the most modern offerings.

They didn't worry about the cellular structure of the leaves. They got the basics right and they kept things relatively simple.

That approach has worked well for me. I try to get the basics right, keep things simple, and at that point, instead of trying to keep some number cruncher happy, I feed my soul.

And I guess that's what I don't care for in a lot of things out there. They lack soul. They come off to me as cold, cynical and contrived.

Anyway, them's my thoughts on the matter.

se

Awesome, Steve - I think that should be post of the year! I am in entire agreement :clap:

There are so many bits I could highlight, but with this you and I are so much on the same wavelength, it's untrue:

Quote:

---

And I guess that's what I don't care for in a lot of things out there. They lack soul. They come off to me as cold, cynical and contrived...

---

Hear, hear! :)

I'll comment more later.

Marco.