Re: What makes a power amp to have a better soundstage
Hello
Greg refer to the fact that I wrote; "and for the Aksa 55 input, I presume it's very similar to the DX amp input", I wrote that because Carlos say that he did base few of his Dx amps ideas on some of the Aksa amp. I did not see the Aksa amp but only a partial schematic from a 2004 thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35899&perpage=10&highlight=&pagenumber=2
I know that Aksa was base on the project 03 amp and Hugh Dean start by the project 61 amp to become the Aksa 55
Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
Gaetan
sandyK said:
Hello
Greg refer to the fact that I wrote; "and for the Aksa 55 input, I presume it's very similar to the DX amp input", I wrote that because Carlos say that he did base few of his Dx amps ideas on some of the Aksa amp. I did not see the Aksa amp but only a partial schematic from a 2004 thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35899&perpage=10&highlight=&pagenumber=2
I know that Aksa was base on the project 03 amp and Hugh Dean start by the project 61 amp to become the Aksa 55
Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
Gaetan
Hello
Hugh Dean wrote six design rules who seem to be very important for a amp with tube sound and best soundstage;
(From his Aspen web page)
"It emerged that there were essentially five critical design rules to a greatly improved solid state, push-pull, Class AB amplifier. They were subtle, but simple to implement. They are:
* Prevent Interstage Crosstalk – Properly decouple the supply rail for the low current stages.
* Foster Voltage Amplifier Linearity – Operate the voltage amplifier at constant current, but avoid the bland CCS.
* Minimise amplitude/phase intermodulations – Split DC offset and AC feedback control.
* Eliminate Switching Transients – Implement accurate and progressive charge suckout on the output stage drivers.
* Specify the highest quality (silver mica) and lowest value lag compensation capacitor.
* Choose Semiconductors with care, focusing on speed and current linearity."
Gaetan
Hugh Dean wrote six design rules who seem to be very important for a amp with tube sound and best soundstage;
(From his Aspen web page)
"It emerged that there were essentially five critical design rules to a greatly improved solid state, push-pull, Class AB amplifier. They were subtle, but simple to implement. They are:
* Prevent Interstage Crosstalk – Properly decouple the supply rail for the low current stages.
* Foster Voltage Amplifier Linearity – Operate the voltage amplifier at constant current, but avoid the bland CCS.
* Minimise amplitude/phase intermodulations – Split DC offset and AC feedback control.
* Eliminate Switching Transients – Implement accurate and progressive charge suckout on the output stage drivers.
* Specify the highest quality (silver mica) and lowest value lag compensation capacitor.
* Choose Semiconductors with care, focusing on speed and current linearity."
Gaetan
What makes a power amp to make a better soundstage
Gaetan
Many of those points also apply to neutral and accurate sounding SS amplifiers. I do not agree with Hugh Dean's philosophy of artificial warmth. It simply isn't necessary, for best results.
I prefer the more recent and fully documented findings of Douglas Self as a good starting point. But I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.
Greg, Do Dave's or my amplifiers need to use
harmonic shaping to have a natural warmth?
Now I've put you on the spot! Hugh vs. Douglas !
SandyK
Gaetan
Many of those points also apply to neutral and accurate sounding SS amplifiers. I do not agree with Hugh Dean's philosophy of artificial warmth. It simply isn't necessary, for best results.
I prefer the more recent and fully documented findings of Douglas Self as a good starting point. But I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.
Greg, Do Dave's or my amplifiers need to use
harmonic shaping to have a natural warmth?
Now I've put you on the spot! Hugh vs. Douglas !
SandyK
Re: What makes a power amp to make a better soundstage
Hi sandyK,
I don't know. Have you tested them on an analyser? Dave's and your highly modified Silicon Chip amps are very nice indeed. I'd like to have them in my system for a few weeks for extended listening.
I've never heard a Douglas Self amp so I can't compare it to anything.
regards
sandyK said:
Hi sandyK,
I don't know. Have you tested them on an analyser? Dave's and your highly modified Silicon Chip amps are very nice indeed. I'd like to have them in my system for a few weeks for extended listening.
I've never heard a Douglas Self amp so I can't compare it to anything.
regards
I would be dancing if i could make mine Dx so good as Aksa 55
Despite my efforts, my unit is worst....i could not produce Aksa sonics.
Lovely thread...people placing ideas with education, one cooperating with the other...very nice.
Dx amplifier has almost the same topologie compared with the old Aksa 55.....difference is the zener into the long tail....no turn on noises...better bass than Aksa, almost the same voices but loose with a very good margin into the treble and sound stage...do not ask me why, as circuit secrets cannot be informed, and also, more than circuit i could not understand that increasing in sound stage....mean...the reason why..as supply was good and separated, exclusive supply to each one of the amplifiers, same sound source, same music and same speakers....in my mind there are some question marks.
Mine loose...all 8 votes including mine pointed the finger down to Dx amplifier.... despite it is very good too...but loose!
I need the informations you are posting here...i have my ideas, but i will love to have the chance to modify some ideas i have....changing ideas i will be evoluting.... i will be learning new things.
There are many things that contributes to Aksa sonics, one of those things are subcircuits used...parts you cannot see in the Dx amplifier, as i made mine, with the decision to avoid to use Hugh ideas....because obvious...not to clone the Aksa.
Well....people already prefere the Aksa Lifeforce....new schematic, very modern, good to listen and perfect to measurements...Aksa 55 is something that is beeing replaced...belong to Aspen Amplifiers story only....i am one of those purists, those fanatics that still love the unit..others already made the replacement, to the Lifeforce.
Lifeforce is too much perfect...has not distortions, better slew rate, better dinamics, clear treble, deep bass....perfect!...but has not the romance i love, the distortions into 0.5 percent...well.... a very personal, a very subjective passion...others also keep the 55 even having the lifeforce55....and there are others, the lifeforce 100 already made (200 watts into 4 ohms)...and this one i could not listen.
My Lifeforce was version number one...almost a prototype...the Lifeforces that are around are different.
Well..sorry..the conversation here is sound stage...because some comments on Dx and on Aksa i enter to comment that..but good to focus on the thread subject.
Sorry Gaetan.... excuses mois, je suis foule.
regards,
Carlos
Despite my efforts, my unit is worst....i could not produce Aksa sonics.
Lovely thread...people placing ideas with education, one cooperating with the other...very nice.
Dx amplifier has almost the same topologie compared with the old Aksa 55.....difference is the zener into the long tail....no turn on noises...better bass than Aksa, almost the same voices but loose with a very good margin into the treble and sound stage...do not ask me why, as circuit secrets cannot be informed, and also, more than circuit i could not understand that increasing in sound stage....mean...the reason why..as supply was good and separated, exclusive supply to each one of the amplifiers, same sound source, same music and same speakers....in my mind there are some question marks.
Mine loose...all 8 votes including mine pointed the finger down to Dx amplifier.... despite it is very good too...but loose!
I need the informations you are posting here...i have my ideas, but i will love to have the chance to modify some ideas i have....changing ideas i will be evoluting.... i will be learning new things.
There are many things that contributes to Aksa sonics, one of those things are subcircuits used...parts you cannot see in the Dx amplifier, as i made mine, with the decision to avoid to use Hugh ideas....because obvious...not to clone the Aksa.
Well....people already prefere the Aksa Lifeforce....new schematic, very modern, good to listen and perfect to measurements...Aksa 55 is something that is beeing replaced...belong to Aspen Amplifiers story only....i am one of those purists, those fanatics that still love the unit..others already made the replacement, to the Lifeforce.
Lifeforce is too much perfect...has not distortions, better slew rate, better dinamics, clear treble, deep bass....perfect!...but has not the romance i love, the distortions into 0.5 percent...well.... a very personal, a very subjective passion...others also keep the 55 even having the lifeforce55....and there are others, the lifeforce 100 already made (200 watts into 4 ohms)...and this one i could not listen.
My Lifeforce was version number one...almost a prototype...the Lifeforces that are around are different.
Well..sorry..the conversation here is sound stage...because some comments on Dx and on Aksa i enter to comment that..but good to focus on the thread subject.
Sorry Gaetan.... excuses mois, je suis foule.
regards,
Carlos
What make a power amp to have a better soundstage
Carlos
I think part of AKSA 55s performance is most likely due to Hugh supplying all components. Possibly hand picked semiconductors
with close matching where needed, and a particular HFE range.
He was probably supplying higher quality capacitors too.
There are ordinary capacitors, and there are more expensive capacitors , which also have very high slew rates.
Perhaps Greg can advise on the makes of the capacitors , whether they are audiophile types or generic types?
SandyK
Carlos
I think part of AKSA 55s performance is most likely due to Hugh supplying all components. Possibly hand picked semiconductors
with close matching where needed, and a particular HFE range.
He was probably supplying higher quality capacitors too.
There are ordinary capacitors, and there are more expensive capacitors , which also have very high slew rates.
Perhaps Greg can advise on the makes of the capacitors , whether they are audiophile types or generic types?
SandyK
Re: I would be dancing if i could make mine Dx so good as Aksa 55
Hello Carlos
No problems, talking about soundstage it's also talking about Dx amp, Aksa, Ska, Gem, Symasym, etc... your talk are alway interesting and it's sometime give some good color to the thread.
SandyK have a good point, about the quality of the parts, especially cap and output transistors, but is it enough to do so much in sound quality ?
As an example Greg Ball and his SKA amp, he say that he don't use special parts.
But did your Dx amp input topology are so different than Aksa amp ?
Maby input topology seem related to that Graham Slee article about interconect cables capacity ?
You say that the Dx amp "loose with a very good margin into the treble and sound stage" compared to the Aksa.
It's a very usefull hint, I mean that it's seem that if a amp lost even a bit of high frequencies informations it also lost soundstage. And it's apply to any amp.
Gaetan
destroyer X said:
Hello Carlos
No problems, talking about soundstage it's also talking about Dx amp, Aksa, Ska, Gem, Symasym, etc... your talk are alway interesting and it's sometime give some good color to the thread.
SandyK have a good point, about the quality of the parts, especially cap and output transistors, but is it enough to do so much in sound quality ?
As an example Greg Ball and his SKA amp, he say that he don't use special parts.
But did your Dx amp input topology are so different than Aksa amp ?
Maby input topology seem related to that Graham Slee article about interconect cables capacity ?
You say that the Dx amp "loose with a very good margin into the treble and sound stage" compared to the Aksa.
It's a very usefull hint, I mean that it's seem that if a amp lost even a bit of high frequencies informations it also lost soundstage. And it's apply to any amp.
Gaetan
Soundstage varies greatly between amplifiers; true. but...
I think everyone should take a trip to a recording studio one day and see how things are recorded. Your notion of the origin of soundstage will change a lot.
Forget about microphone position. it doesn't work like that. With the exception of classical music and "audiophile jazz" like chesky's products, instruments are recorded one-at-a-time, often using the same microphone and often in the same location, and the instrument's "position" is created in the control room on the mixing console using the pan pots. It's been like that since the 60's.
Drums are "close mic'ed"; each drum (and hi-hats) has its own mic with a pair of overhead mics used for the cymbals (not soundstage or ambience.)
The existing ambience in recording studios is not used very often. In fact many (the vast majority I would guess) recording studios have no ambience worth capturing. The positioning is created on the mixing colsole using the pan-pots and the effects units (digital reverb since the early 80's).
In live concerts, all instruments are close-mic'ed and treated as above, including the digital reverb part. Ambience mic's are used mainly for audience applause pick-up.
Even classical recordings are, to some extent, recorded with section-mics, and mixed later with ambience, sometimes even artificial ambience.
So what is soundstage? Is it reproduced/hindered by amplifiers? Or is it created by the amplifier? Let me know if you figure it out.
..Todd
I think everyone should take a trip to a recording studio one day and see how things are recorded. Your notion of the origin of soundstage will change a lot.
Forget about microphone position. it doesn't work like that. With the exception of classical music and "audiophile jazz" like chesky's products, instruments are recorded one-at-a-time, often using the same microphone and often in the same location, and the instrument's "position" is created in the control room on the mixing console using the pan pots. It's been like that since the 60's.
Drums are "close mic'ed"; each drum (and hi-hats) has its own mic with a pair of overhead mics used for the cymbals (not soundstage or ambience.)
The existing ambience in recording studios is not used very often. In fact many (the vast majority I would guess) recording studios have no ambience worth capturing. The positioning is created on the mixing colsole using the pan-pots and the effects units (digital reverb since the early 80's).
In live concerts, all instruments are close-mic'ed and treated as above, including the digital reverb part. Ambience mic's are used mainly for audience applause pick-up.
Even classical recordings are, to some extent, recorded with section-mics, and mixed later with ambience, sometimes even artificial ambience.
So what is soundstage? Is it reproduced/hindered by amplifiers? Or is it created by the amplifier? Let me know if you figure it out.
..Todd
I was going to say, I believe most people here realize how a soundstage is made on the majority of pop production albums. It's faked in a studio, we all know that. However, its not natural, and the "absolute Sound" or "Audio Truth" if you will, is normally based on what we get naturally. In other words, propper judgement of a soundstage is normally done with something recorded in a more real way. Thats why a lot of people buy audiophile cd's, because the recordings are more pure and natural. Usually the music sucks, so I don't own a lot of them, but for judging a soundstage I do use recordings recored in real space with true stereo micing techniques.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.