Or I guess, possibly....in terms of sound quality , would running them as parallel monoblocks be better than bridged monoblocks since it seems the volume gain isnt that much difference from going normal stereo to bridged monoblocks...its a very long thread and I was I was just curious as to the consensus especially from those with experience going through all the trouble of comparing the 3 overall differences.....in terms of speaker choices for now, I plan on hooking mine up to boston acoustic A150s....which should match nicely in a smaller room, especially
I happened to prefer the parallel connected configuration of my first pair of ACAs (with mods). Both bridged and parallel configured monoblocks sounded better than a single amp. That is, until I started building ACAs with linear power supplies and higher voltage. I thought both versions of my ACA-220 (dual mono) sounded better than the first pair of kit amps.
The basic circuit is quite versatile, and capable of being reconfigured and extended to higher performance.
The basic circuit is quite versatile, and capable of being reconfigured and extended to higher performance.
Last edited:
Pretty much any LED will work. However some have attached resistors, but they will say if they do. The cheaper ones are usually less bright which is usually a good thing. We use various LEDs from various sources when we make the kits.
When you say dual mono do you mean a linear supply with a transformer? If you mean a “power brick” such as come with the kits then just get a second identical one and wire each channel separately. Would be best to have a second power jack in the back panel.
When you say dual mono do you mean a linear supply with a transformer? If you mean a “power brick” such as come with the kits then just get a second identical one and wire each channel separately. Would be best to have a second power jack in the back panel.
Last edited:
I made the ACA with ease due to the very good complete kit and the guide.
Now I plan to built an F5 and to me it is more complicated because mainly of the PSU and get the missing parts.
Tha ACA kit is complete, the F5 isn't, then you have the settings at the end which seems quite tricky also !
In the end I don't think the F5 is an easier built.
Build an Aleph J, M2x, or F5 before you jump off the deep end with expensive mods to the ACA.
I thought about upgrading the ACA's, but took 6L6's advice and went on to an Aleph J, and am glad I did.
I wound up not doing any upgrades on my ACA's so can't compare the AJ to hot rodded ACA's, but I really don't think they could ever be as good as a stock AJ.
Modding something up to a higher level of performance has an appeal of its own as well, and I still may yet try some of Tungsten Audio's tricks.
While I have an AJ to listen to, that is.
That was my experience as well. ACA sounds very good but the J just has more resolution, which helps to bring out the subtleties in a good performance. Particularly on vocals the J is very hard to beat.
I built a v1.6 ACA to the stock specs and have it integrated as part of a very modest system with a AKSA Lender pre, Schiit DAC and phono pre, Uturn Orbit turntable, Fostex ff105wk speakers in P1000e enclosures, and Dayton 8" Sub. I read threads like that for the M2x and see how people comment on what a step up these amps are from the ACA. As a system though I have to imagine you need the other components to support the enhanced sonic capabilities of say a M2x compared to an ACA. At what level would that be? Would I notice a huge change or would my effort be better put towards other components?
I will say I really enjoy my system but have only ever heard run of the mill commercial equipment with no effort put in setup in other's homes so really have nothing beyond that to compare it to. Of course it may be best to keep it this way for my wallet
