How good are the Pass/AKSA amps in reality?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Those design restraints the DIY'er usually meets, are manufacturing and financial limitations.
Another limitation that keeps most of us from walking the wild side of life, is as ironic as it may sound, time.
If you take a look at what's behind my WWW button below, you can see a design that steps a bit out of the norm. What you also soon will realize, if you decide to do the same, is that the amount of time, skill, equipment and cash it takes, is somewhat prohibitive in the eyes of most people.

So, we're back to the clone in the box, simply cause it's possible, within limit of what most people are willing to put into such a project.


Magura :)
 
Oh yes I had already done that BTW and liked the construction of your box. As a Dane you may have a better idea of where I'm coming from. I visited Denmark many times and when I'm there just love the design of everyday items. I literally spend days walking looking at "stuff". Why? Because the designers aren't scared to challenge conformity, go back to BASICS of form and function.

Is it really THAT much more difficult to construct? Or are we just comfortable with safe old beige boxes?
 
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Pete Fleming said:
Oh yes I had already done that BTW and liked the construction of your box. As a Dane you may have a better idea of where I'm coming from. I visited Denmark many times and when I'm there just love the design of everyday items. I literally spend days walking looking at "stuff". Why? Because the designers aren't scared to challenge conformity, go back to BASICS of form and function.

Is it really THAT much more difficult to construct? Or are we just comfortable with safe old beige boxes?


Well, I tried both the box and the circuit. I had a box designed with the help of a Norwegian sculpter (yes again scandinavian ;-) see attached. The amplifier was reviewed in L'Audipophile in 1998 IIRC, with marks 10-10-9.5-10 out of 40 total. Sales: zero. The look was too revolutionary, dealers told me.

Circuitwise I tried to discuss here building an amplifier based on Hawksford error correction. I was completely trampled to death, the most friendly comment was that it couldn't possibly work. I had it published in Elektor magazine and people are building it, so not all of my effort was lost.

So, my conclusion is that audiophiles and audio diy'ers are conservative in the extreme. They talk about 'breakthroughs' but the only accepted breakthroughs are old wine in new bottles.

Jan Didden
 

Attachments

  • spits&pre lowres.jpg
    spits&pre lowres.jpg
    93.1 KB · Views: 689
janneman said:


Sales: zero. The look was too revolutionary, dealers told me.

Jan Didden

I hadn't seen the box design Jan, but I'm sure it looked great in real life. But you see the point I'm making, I bet YOU liked it. As DIY who do we build for, how many sales do we need, just one (well two if you're married ha ha). We can afford to be revolutionary, and should be. But aren't, well at least not in my opinion. Without stereotyping too much, along with the Danes I often see some great design coming out of France and Italy. Unfortunately sometimes those guys don't QUITE get the idea that it should be form AND function ... and if it's Italian maybe they should include something about reliability :p Just kidding

Sadly beige sells, but so far haven't we just looked at variations of boxes, albeit great looking boxes. Step back and are they truly "radical". I agree, we truly are an ultra-conservative lot.
 
Pete Fleming said:


Is it really THAT much more difficult to construct? Or are we just comfortable with safe old beige boxes?


Yes, it really is That much more difficult, compared to a square sheet metal box, or as you like to name it, a shade of beige.

This particular design you saw at my WWW, is (a lot) on the wrong side of 1000 hours of work, some 200 to 300 CNC hours (mind you if you don't have a CNC mill and lathe at your disposal and the skill to do it yourself, it will set you back like 150usd per hour), literally hundreds of hours of other special machinery work (also not cheap if you have to go out an cough up for it), on the wrong side of 15.000usd in raw materials (copper, aluminum, polyester lacquer , plus another like 25.000usd worth of carbon for the heat transfer solution (fortunately sponsored by Honeywell).

Add another few hundred usd for the components, if you're not put off the idea yet ;)

So here's your reason why.

If you take a look at Jan's amps, those have set him back a pretty penny as well, even though he didn't go overboard in exotics and actually did stick to a somewhat conventional shaped box/heatsink solution.

BTW, Jan, could you post a pic of the Pax? I think it's a good example of bending the conservative rules a bit, but still retain a classic look.


Magura :)
 
Oh please don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the amount of work that has gone into these designs, indeed it's often the most time consuming aspect of a project. My point is, why are we putting them in boxes at all? Are we designing them this way because it has been found over many years of trial and error, to be the best way to contain the circuitry? Or do we do it this way because ... err well, just because.

The example I gave of designing a circuit that was exceptionally long and thin, so much so that it could be put into a tube between the source and speaker. This wasn't intended to be a realistic example, it was just something that popped into my head as I was typing, but why not? It's been said that the construction would be too difficult. How easy is it to slit a tube to enclose it! No it doesn't have a beautiful design on the front, no it doesn't represent hundreds of hours of hard and passionate labour. But what it would be is revolutionary, not bound by marketing departments, accounting departments, boring CEOs, or commercial design constraints, instead bound only by imagination in achieving the fundamental function.

Don't worry I'm fully prepared to be shot down in flames, called a lunatic, or worse. That generally happens when somebody challenges the status quo. People get very defensive and come up with a million reasons why something WON'T work. In my example, "The power supply won't fit", so make it external. "It will overheat", so use a different method to transfer heat. "It's a cr@p idea", probably.
 
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Pete Fleming said:
Oh please don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the amount of work that has gone into these designs, indeed it's often the most time consuming aspect of a project. My point is, why are we putting them in boxes at all? Are we designing them this way because it has been found over many years of trial and error, to be the best way to contain the circuitry? Or do we do it this way because ... err well, just because.

The example I gave of designing a circuit that was exceptionally long and thin, so much so that it could be put into a tube between the source and speaker. This wasn't intended to be a realistic example, it was just something that popped into my head as I was typing, but why not? It's been said that the construction would be too difficult. How easy is it to slit a tube to enclose it! No it doesn't have a beautiful design on the front, no it doesn't represent hundreds of hours of hard and passionate labour. But what it would be is revolutionary, not bound by marketing departments, accounting departments, boring CEOs, or commercial design constraints, instead bound only by imagination in achieving the fundamental function.

Don't worry I'm fully prepared to be shot down in flames, called a lunatic, or worse. That generally happens when somebody challenges the status quo. People get very defensive and come up with a million reasons why something WON'T work. In my example, "The power supply won't fit", so make it external. "It will overheat", so use a different method to transfer heat. "It's a cr@p idea", probably.

I'm pretty sure your idea of a 'tube amp' ;-) can be made to work. There's not much that can't. It will present some formidable and interesting challenges, but if you want to do something radically new go for it.

I'm not even sure it can't be made a commercial success. As an example, some of those 'beige boxes' are milled from solid aluminum at the tune of 3 or 4 k$ each. That's 10k of the retail price right there, and not yet a part in sight. So, there is some leeway, but your problem is also nobody knows you. If you'r a famous designer, you can get away with a lot of strange things and people will attribute it to your genius. With me, and probably you, they just will say you'r bonkers ;)

Jan Didden

Edit: I think my sig says it all..
 

Attachments

  • pax.jpg
    pax.jpg
    79.6 KB · Views: 561
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
The fronts are pewter, specially treated with heat under a specific atmosphere. I don't the details, the artist has his own website:

http://www.helgijoensen.no/pages/crag.html

Really beautifull. But you are right, it doesn't 'fit' to other parts of the system, visually. That's part of the problem. I would have to design a CD transport, DAC, maybe tuner. At one time we had some plans for a matching speaker with this artwork at the front panel. In the end we ran out of money :bawling:

Jan Didden
 
janneman said:
The fronts are pewter, specially treated with heat under a specific atmosphere. I don't the details, the artist has his own website:

http://www.helgijoensen.no/pages/crag.html


Interesting technique. Thanks for the link.

Really beautifull. But you are right, it doesn't 'fit' to other parts of the system, visually. That's part of the problem. I would have to design a CD transport, DAC, maybe tuner. At one time we had some plans for a matching speaker with this artwork at the front panel. In the end we ran out of money :bawling:

Jan Didden

So, was the inside of the amp as interesting as the outside? :)
 
Jan,

Just for the Pax I'm buying every edition of Elektor (despite absurd costs here in Oz) and reading about your masterpiece.

I can certainly appreciate the engineering, and the design elegance, don't feel no one appreciates it....

Peter,

Conservatism reigns supreme in most technologies, progress depends only on unreasonable men.

I believe the trick is to downplay the radical new approach, and dress it in the fashions of the day. Only the very perceptive will then know it's there, and the buyers will not be scared away by 'bleeding edge' technology.

Hugh
 
Pete Fleming said:
an ultra-conservative lot.

Rational lot fits the bill better, placing the emphasis on functionality is part of what distincts the audiophiles, and only to some degree.
Most do not have the means and/or skills to venture into exceptional architectural design, and best bang for the buck on a limited budget remains spending on parts instead of looks.

There are plenty examples of outstanding DIY encasing designs, but the majority seems to concentrate around LSP and valve amps.
Structural rigidity and EMI/RFI shielding requirements pose serious design constraints for solid state gear, both for DIY and serial production.
For an example, a project i'm working on is an enhanced replica of a major league amp. The case of the original production model was designed by former ML engineers and lacks both on rigidity and shielding levels. I was told that the initial case design for the amp was so far out that it was not possible to shape it in alloy with regular mechanical production techniques.

I have two 8" lengths of a very large cross-section sail yacht boom lying in the attic of my barn, waiting for inspiration/transpiration to be used as both cases and heatsinks for 2 power amps. Something esthetically out of the rectangular ordinary like that is not everyone's cup of tea, and in monetary terms only possible at scrap cost for a single individual as the base material costs a fortune new.

Folks with mechanical engineering training, and people as Maggie who get paid for doing it during day hours, do not need to learn a second trade to build audio gear.
Witnessing individuals without any formal technical education who build/assemble something that looks and sounds as good as off-the-rack is smart and admirable enough.
 
Magura said:
Those design restraints the DIY'er usually meets, are manufacturing and financial limitations.
Another limitation that keeps most of us from walking the wild side of life, is as ironic as it may sound, time.
If you take a look at what's behind my WWW button below, you can see a design that steps a bit out of the norm. What you also soon will realize, if you decide to do the same, is that the amount of time, skill, equipment and cash it takes, is somewhat prohibitive in the eyes of most people.

So, we're back to the clone in the box, simply cause it's possible, within limit of what most people are willing to put into such a project.


Magura :)

The "time part" is easy enough to cure; Just throw out the TV and stay off all the other shallow entertainment. It will give most people countless hours to kill.... The other limiting parts are less easy to cure.

:)
 
The one and only
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Pete Fleming said:
So why are 99% of the DIY efforts merely clones in some
fashion or another of what would be found on retail shelves?

When we first embark upon a new and unfamiliar enterprise,
like small boats we stay close to the shore. We shed our
conservatism as we acquire experience and skills.

It seems that virtually all the great musicians, authors, designers,
what-have-you started off with baby steps, imitating other
successful examples.

Part of my success in DIY is that I try to cater to those people
specifically (not the smarty-pants guys) with simple designs.

It's odd, one of the more successful designs has been the
Son of Zen (SOZ) which is probably also the simplest - two
transistors and some resistors, and a lot of heat sinking.
Looking at the project gallery photos, you get the impression
that there are quite a few guys intimidated by transistors but
who can weld, mill, and turn any metal you want.

:cool:
 
Pete Fleming said:
Oh please don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the amount of work that has gone into these designs, indeed it's often the most time consuming aspect of a project. My point is, why are we putting them in boxes at all? Are we designing them this way because it has been found over many years of trial and error, to be the best way to contain the circuitry? Or do we do it this way because ... err well, just because.



Here is an example of an F4 amp that was shown at last year's Burning Amp festival.
attachment.php
Sorry I don't remember who made it. But it is Nelson's design packaged in nothing that resembles a beige box.

A better picture can be seen

here Look at post 720

Bananaslug86
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.