No. Like this is better. Use short thick links between channels power receiving points.
Attachments
SSLV1.1 vs SSLV1.2R
SSLV1.1 is far better than SSLV1.2R, I compared in my Simplistic NJFET RIAA first powered with 2 tx & 2 SSLV1.2R vs now 1 tx & 1 SSLV1.1, I tried Vref 10uF MKP & 220uF Pana FM: MKP more harmonics so more definition, lytic more body so more mids and lows, both have an excellent midrange & bottom end perhaps MKP is more crystal clear but all depends every personal taste to decide wich one is the best in each system.
I believe that the big upgrade is in the mids & lows areas also is far more 3D sound, Salas if you did the same with SSHV2 will be perfect for my taste.
SSLV1.1 is far better than SSLV1.2R, I compared in my Simplistic NJFET RIAA first powered with 2 tx & 2 SSLV1.2R vs now 1 tx & 1 SSLV1.1, I tried Vref 10uF MKP & 220uF Pana FM: MKP more harmonics so more definition, lytic more body so more mids and lows, both have an excellent midrange & bottom end perhaps MKP is more crystal clear but all depends every personal taste to decide wich one is the best in each system.
I believe that the big upgrade is in the mids & lows areas also is far more 3D sound, Salas if you did the same with SSHV2 will be perfect for my taste.
Last edited:
There is some feedback by Stixx and vgeorge regarding the subjective evolution of the high voltage ones in their thread. One thing about 1.1 for sure is that is released as a controlled layout pcb item, as intended and tested by me. I intentionally don't overengineer wide circulation regs because they tend to be difficult to work best with many loads and need many learned checks system wise regarding their phase margin. Edge specs are not everything IMO, and too high an open loop gain sounds ''stiff'' to me with most client circuits even when the colaboration is smooth.
Will see how works SSHV2 with the 26 preamp, Puresound P10 RIAA & Valve Itch, if it reach the same level of perfomance that you will reach with SSLV1.1 worth the work & the money
