what are the differences between the different alephs?

[Bricolo]

Does one sound better? Or is it only the power?


And why do we only hear about (on this board) the aleph 2 ant aleph 5? (and off course, alephX)

[Nelson Pass]

Since no one else seems to want to tackle this:

The Aleph 0 and 0s were different from the later models.
They had 3 gain stages operating in single-ended Class A
to their 8 ohm power rating and push/pull beyond. The
Aleph 0 could drive anything, and had the same distortion
curve vs watts (up to clipping) for all impedances from 2 to
16 ohms, which I have not seen elsewhere. They also
had great control on the bottom end. They were warmer
and more detailed than your ordinary solid state amps,
but they could still be identified as having some solid
state character.

The Alephs 1.1 through 5 and also the 30 and 60 are all two
gain stage and use a patented current source for the output
stage. These amps were warmer and more romantic sounding
still, but they did not have as much bottom end control, and
they were not designed to have high power into low impedances.

Picture Aleph 3 as baby bear, Aleph 2 a momma bear, and
Aleph 1.1 as papa bear. OK, there a teenage called Aleph 5,
and an uncle Aleph 4.

The 3 the most tube-like of the bunch and had a sweet
top end. As the amps get bigger, they get more accurate
and pick up for bottom end control. By the time you get to
the 1.1, the top end is receding comparatively, but the
bass kicks some butt.

These are subtle enough things, but that's what I hear. My
favorite is the Aleph 2 as the best combination of accuracy
and musicality, but I live with all of them. The 30 and 60
are improvements on the 3 and 5, but we discovered that
everyone who whined about the original chassis had no
intention of buying the product with a conventional faceplate.

[TJ]

But Aleph 2 didnt get any ''award'' from mag... etc . What is going wrong ?
cheers

[Duck-Twacy]

Maybe something to do with the order in which they hit the market place? Which Aleph was first? Because from the outside they look rather similar, it was not interresting enough for the mags to review it again? (just guessing).

btw I allways wondered why there is no Aleph with 8 mosfets/channel.

[TJ]

what im not understand is why high power Aleph 2 lower end is better than Aleph 3 ! Like their grandfather said they are brother and sister ! it suppose not much different ! ........ '' MAGIC '' i think ! Did NP ever thinking of Aleph 3 MKIII Pass Signature ? or mod his Aleph 3 to become more balance sound ?
cheers

[GRollins]

There were several factors that had to be balanced. One was the amount of heat each size of chassis could dissipate. That, in turn, determined the bias once a power (hence rail voltage) had been chosen. Another was the cumulative capacitance of the banks of output MOSFETs, which tends to put an upper limit on how many output devices you could hang off the front end. Then there was the cumulative current delivery (transconductance) of the rear end taken as a whole. This is part of the 'mystery' of better bass in the Aleph 2 and 1, for instance.
Not to mention variables like the amount of capacitance in the power supplies, etc.
What you or I would do in building a DIY device is a completely different thing from what one would do in a business. Note, for instance, that the XA-200 is in the same chassis as the big X amp (minor differences in the face plate, though). It saves Nelson money when he can make one chassis do double duty. The same thing was true for the Alephs. Kept metal working costs down.
You could build an Aleph with 8 devices (four pairs) per channel quite easily. No problem at all. But Nelson had models at 30, 60, 100, and 200 watts. That's a pretty good spread for the market. There aren't that many people who would demand a model between the 2 (100W) and the 1 (200W) so it's easier to let them decide between 100 and 200W. As decibels go, there's not much to be gained by plopping a model down between the 1 and 2. You wouldn't sell enough of them to make a go of it.
Never forget that it's a business and that every decision has a financial cost/benefit ratio.

Grey

[moe29]

If i remember correctly, i thought the Aleph 3 got the best review of all the Alephs. Muse Kastanovich's review demanded a higher rating than class A for the "Baby Bear".

I think it was Sam Tellig of Stereophile that said the best sounding amp will have the least watts. I really think there is something to that. I in no way have the level of knowledge that others on this board have, but from my listening sessions i believe this is true. Lots of people scream for 100 W, 200 W, 1,000 W!!! But in my modest size living room my 7 watt 300B SET and 97dbl sensitivity speakers more that fills the bill.

Is it easier to build an amplifier of lower power? Is that why the first XA series maxes out at 200W?

I'd love to see a 30 watt XA for a price i could afford!

P.S. Mr. Pass, i loved the look of the Alephs!!!

[GRollins]

<i>POOF!</i>
The genie appears...
"You wished for a 30W XA?"
"Er, yes," moe29 said, somewhat nervously. (He didn't really expect the genie, you see. He just thought it was a tarnished brass lamp.)
"Your wish is granted. See the Aleph-X thread," the genie told him.
<i>UNPOOF!</i>

Grey

[Philo]

WAIT! Genie! Doesn't moe29 get three wishes?!? Ask him for the best psu design to go with the Aleph X and a corvette to carry it off in.

[moe29]

...let's see... a 30W AX.... A Corvette (silver)....

that's 2...

#3, i request the skillz to complete said project