A question to Pass design team regarding Ono
I am about to built my second version of Ono phono stage. Just today I stumbled across Stereophile Recommended Componenets and this is what they write about Xono:
For MF, listening to great recordings through the Pass Labs Xono became "an overwhelming experience". While retaining the same basic design, the 76dB-gain Xono excels in areas in which its predecessor, the Aleph Ono, faltered. The Ono's soft bass is now firm, and a threadbare midrange has been fleshed out nicely. "One of the most accomplished-sounding phono stages" MF had ever heard. It's ultra-low noise floor, transparency, resolution of detail, ambience retrival, and tonal neutrality were "absolutely Class A. (Vol.25No1)
All that sounds great, especially when it comes from Michael Fremer. So my question is, if it's not a secret, what mainly brought that transformation to the original Ono design? I was already searching for alternative choices, but after reading this, I can't hold myself from trying an "improved" version of Ono
I am about to built my second version of Ono phono stage. Just today I stumbled across Stereophile Recommended Componenets and this is what they write about Xono:
For MF, listening to great recordings through the Pass Labs Xono became "an overwhelming experience". While retaining the same basic design, the 76dB-gain Xono excels in areas in which its predecessor, the Aleph Ono, faltered. The Ono's soft bass is now firm, and a threadbare midrange has been fleshed out nicely. "One of the most accomplished-sounding phono stages" MF had ever heard. It's ultra-low noise floor, transparency, resolution of detail, ambience retrival, and tonal neutrality were "absolutely Class A. (Vol.25No1)
All that sounds great, especially when it comes from Michael Fremer. So my question is, if it's not a secret, what mainly brought that transformation to the original Ono design? I was already searching for alternative choices, but after reading this, I can't hold myself from trying an "improved" version of Ono
In that case I will follow an official guideline and also experiment on my own
The Xono is based on the design pioneered in the Aleph Ono. The basic Ono design has not changed but been extend and refined. The separate power supply combined with the additional filtering and dual mono power supply design contribute to the lower noise floor and sonic improvements. The main circuit board layout has been completely revised to reduce noise, shorten the signal path and reduce the length of connecting wires. Sonically critical parts have been optimized and upgraded through continued extensive listening tests.
The Xono is based on the design pioneered in the Aleph Ono. The basic Ono design has not changed but been extend and refined. The separate power supply combined with the additional filtering and dual mono power supply design contribute to the lower noise floor and sonic improvements. The main circuit board layout has been completely revised to reduce noise, shorten the signal path and reduce the length of connecting wires. Sonically critical parts have been optimized and upgraded through continued extensive listening tests.
Peter:
Caveat: I normally pick my componentry from the beginning of the design process for performance characteristics and physical constructions that I think are "correct", and I also design circuitry in ways that (I hope) reduce the influence of componentry. Perhaps, therefore, my designs are less sensitive to componentry choices than other designs.
With that warning in mind, in my own experience (on my own circuits), circuitry operating points, board layout (including the use of additional layers) and harness design have a substantially greater influence on performance (both measured and perceived) than choice among nominally similar componentry. Not even close.
Now this doesn't mean that I believe that the measured and sonic effects of componentry should be pooh-poohed, or you won't get a big difference if you do something like changing the feedback resistor from a bulk-metal foil to a carbon-composition type in a humid environment.
But I do think that it is possible to study the schematic and board layout and predict what the appropriate componentry should be for top-notch performance and perceived sonics. Normally my initial componentry choices survive intact to the end of the design process.
>The separate power supply combined with the additional filtering and dual mono power supply design contribute to the lower noise floor and sonic improvements.<
Separate dual mono power supplies should be sonically worthwhile, and will probably also give you better crosstalk and channel separation measurements.
>Sonically critical parts have been optimized and upgraded through continued extensive listening tests.<
Sometimes I am surprised by the results of listening test regarding the final choice of componentry, but in my case, this normally doesn't happen. I do listening tests all the time, yes, but in retrospect they usually tell me what I *shouldn't* do (or use), rather than what I should.
BTW, Nelson, kudos on the Stereo Sound award for the Rushmore. Congratulations!
regards, jonathan carr
Caveat: I normally pick my componentry from the beginning of the design process for performance characteristics and physical constructions that I think are "correct", and I also design circuitry in ways that (I hope) reduce the influence of componentry. Perhaps, therefore, my designs are less sensitive to componentry choices than other designs.
With that warning in mind, in my own experience (on my own circuits), circuitry operating points, board layout (including the use of additional layers) and harness design have a substantially greater influence on performance (both measured and perceived) than choice among nominally similar componentry. Not even close.
Now this doesn't mean that I believe that the measured and sonic effects of componentry should be pooh-poohed, or you won't get a big difference if you do something like changing the feedback resistor from a bulk-metal foil to a carbon-composition type in a humid environment.
But I do think that it is possible to study the schematic and board layout and predict what the appropriate componentry should be for top-notch performance and perceived sonics. Normally my initial componentry choices survive intact to the end of the design process.
>The separate power supply combined with the additional filtering and dual mono power supply design contribute to the lower noise floor and sonic improvements.<
Separate dual mono power supplies should be sonically worthwhile, and will probably also give you better crosstalk and channel separation measurements.
>Sonically critical parts have been optimized and upgraded through continued extensive listening tests.<
Sometimes I am surprised by the results of listening test regarding the final choice of componentry, but in my case, this normally doesn't happen. I do listening tests all the time, yes, but in retrospect they usually tell me what I *shouldn't* do (or use), rather than what I should.
BTW, Nelson, kudos on the Stereo Sound award for the Rushmore. Congratulations!
regards, jonathan carr
I will not comment on this directly, but here's an interesting observation I made, while reading the latest Stereophile Recommended Components section:
ML 38 preamp, when it came out, was regarded by JA as a state of the art and soon became his reference preamp. Later, Madrigal upgraded the circuit board to Teflon based material with two additional layers. Also, 15 passive parts per channel were upgraded (to what it seem Vishay resistors and one teflon cap). Otherwise the componentry and layout remained unchanged. Now this preamp became the reference for JA and he was raving how much better it is over the previous one.
I believe that Madrigal team claimed at that time that only the parts which brought audible difference were substituted and it was all based on listening tests.
Now, we read that in version 380S of the preamp, the circuit, pcb material, and remote-controlled volume control are the same as those in earlier no.38S preamp, the substitution of 106 passive components left JA searching for words: "how do you describe something that's superficially identical to your reference, but better?..."
ML 38 preamp, when it came out, was regarded by JA as a state of the art and soon became his reference preamp. Later, Madrigal upgraded the circuit board to Teflon based material with two additional layers. Also, 15 passive parts per channel were upgraded (to what it seem Vishay resistors and one teflon cap). Otherwise the componentry and layout remained unchanged. Now this preamp became the reference for JA and he was raving how much better it is over the previous one.
I believe that Madrigal team claimed at that time that only the parts which brought audible difference were substituted and it was all based on listening tests.
Now, we read that in version 380S of the preamp, the circuit, pcb material, and remote-controlled volume control are the same as those in earlier no.38S preamp, the substitution of 106 passive components left JA searching for words: "how do you describe something that's superficially identical to your reference, but better?..."
Peter:
Sounds very familiar. And since the first time that I tried Vishays and Black Gates was (I believe) in 1980, it also feels rather nostalgic.
Yes, I've had similar experiences when changing passive components. And as you quoted, big difference. But after a time, you realize that sonic change is not always sonic improvement, and you will also begin to understand what types of component constructions and characteristics will work best for any given location in your design. It will start to feel as though the design itself dictates what components it needs, and those choices should be pretty much spot-on in subsequent listening tests. And if those choices sometimes include low TCR low-inductance resistors or teflon capacitors, so be it.
For its part, a top-notch layout (board/harness) will reduce the degree of phase compensation and additional stability measures that you need, markedly drop distortion and may also improve the noise floor. All of which have the potential to improve the sound big-time.
I've never seen a layout which couldn't be improved on. It's a field that you can study and work on for years and years, and still only scratch the surface. And as I have said on numerous occasions previously, the board and harness layout *is* part of the schematic design.
True, layout design may not appear as flashy nor worthy of a high price-tag as exotic componentry. But over the years, I've concluded that time spent studying board design means rather more at the end of the day than time spent agonizing over component choice.
OTOH, I've also done things like having custom capacitors, resistors, semiconductors, transformers and what-not manufactured to my design and/or specifications. Undoubtedly studying and experimenting with componetry also has its points.
If you have the time and money, tackle both.
regards, jonathan carr
Sounds very familiar. And since the first time that I tried Vishays and Black Gates was (I believe) in 1980, it also feels rather nostalgic.
Yes, I've had similar experiences when changing passive components. And as you quoted, big difference. But after a time, you realize that sonic change is not always sonic improvement, and you will also begin to understand what types of component constructions and characteristics will work best for any given location in your design. It will start to feel as though the design itself dictates what components it needs, and those choices should be pretty much spot-on in subsequent listening tests. And if those choices sometimes include low TCR low-inductance resistors or teflon capacitors, so be it.
For its part, a top-notch layout (board/harness) will reduce the degree of phase compensation and additional stability measures that you need, markedly drop distortion and may also improve the noise floor. All of which have the potential to improve the sound big-time.
I've never seen a layout which couldn't be improved on. It's a field that you can study and work on for years and years, and still only scratch the surface. And as I have said on numerous occasions previously, the board and harness layout *is* part of the schematic design.
True, layout design may not appear as flashy nor worthy of a high price-tag as exotic componentry. But over the years, I've concluded that time spent studying board design means rather more at the end of the day than time spent agonizing over component choice.
OTOH, I've also done things like having custom capacitors, resistors, semiconductors, transformers and what-not manufactured to my design and/or specifications. Undoubtedly studying and experimenting with componetry also has its points.
If you have the time and money, tackle both.
regards, jonathan carr
Jonathan,
It is very true what you are saying. The more I experiment with exotic components, the more I understand that in a specific circuit and to achieve a specific sound, there isn't too many combinations of parts and not *any* exotic part fits the bill. It takes hours of carefull listening and comparing and only a certain combination of parts brings the best result. Sometimes the most exotic or expensive parts are simply no good and sound out of place.
Whenever I think about the design, I always try such layout that the actual requirement for a harness and wiring is minimized, and the connection points are rather dictated by a function and not the form.
What would you recommend for the RIAA caps to start with? Some people claim that silver mica is best for that, but I don't believe it. Madrigal is using Wima, but there are better choices than that. I was using MIT RTX, but they seem to be too big for such sensitive circuit. Boulder changed their site, and I don't see it anymore
It is very true what you are saying. The more I experiment with exotic components, the more I understand that in a specific circuit and to achieve a specific sound, there isn't too many combinations of parts and not *any* exotic part fits the bill. It takes hours of carefull listening and comparing and only a certain combination of parts brings the best result. Sometimes the most exotic or expensive parts are simply no good and sound out of place.
Whenever I think about the design, I always try such layout that the actual requirement for a harness and wiring is minimized, and the connection points are rather dictated by a function and not the form.
What would you recommend for the RIAA caps to start with? Some people claim that silver mica is best for that, but I don't believe it. Madrigal is using Wima, but there are better choices than that. I was using MIT RTX, but they seem to be too big for such sensitive circuit. Boulder changed their site, and I don't see it anymore
Peter,
You may wish to consider the North Creek capacitors.
In a previous thread Mr Pass let slip he has been secretly taste testing some of these and found the lesser expensive variety impressive.
On the subject of improvements it must be fun being a member of the Passlabs crew. That is having the rare privilege of taking gear home, evaluating it and being part of the tweeking & blending process.
Being part of the best of the best I mean.
macka
You may wish to consider the North Creek capacitors.
In a previous thread Mr Pass let slip he has been secretly taste testing some of these and found the lesser expensive variety impressive.
On the subject of improvements it must be fun being a member of the Passlabs crew. That is having the rare privilege of taking gear home, evaluating it and being part of the tweeking & blending process.
Being part of the best of the best I mean.
macka
And if you enjoy your work it can also be fun.
I recall a biographical note in the Pearl article sums up the definition of work rather nicely.
Fifteen years or so ago Pass placed an advertisement in the back of Audio Amateur which said,
Assistant Wanted. High Pay, No Work, All Glory
(Wayne is the guy who got the job.)
But we are all aware Mr Pass is supported by a highly dedicated team who work tirelessly to sustain the success of Passlabs.
Macka
I recall a biographical note in the Pearl article sums up the definition of work rather nicely.
Fifteen years or so ago Pass placed an advertisement in the back of Audio Amateur which said,
Assistant Wanted. High Pay, No Work, All Glory
(Wayne is the guy who got the job.)
But we are all aware Mr Pass is supported by a highly dedicated team who work tirelessly to sustain the success of Passlabs.
Macka
I have made the Ono and it has been for me a really interesting experience about components choice, in this case caps. I have mono power supply and I used r-core trans.I started with polycarbonate 10uF caps, Ero 1810 , and micas in the rria network. My previous phono was tubes kind and at first the Ono seemed a big improvment with incredible tight and rich bass really impressive but after a while I recognized a disturbing mid-high and high sandy effect. I just remembered those story about ss sound. I took away the Ero from signal circuit, it was just one 10uf capacitor since I used PD tips for the output cap, and I switched to polypropilene Arcotronics, the kind used with motors as suggested from some big head. I was again shocked at how much difference one single cap can make in such a complicate system as mine , active xo quadriamped horns. It was mellower than my previous phono valve and the bass just hanging around without control. So I decided to take a new step because I was feeling the circuit potential I thought it was a matter of tuning. I bought Rel cap PPMX the 10uf and rtx in the rria.
I have spent quite a lot but I must admit they are completly another class from my previous caps.
Now I have sold the tube one and I really enjoy the Ono fantastic resolution and sound, control deep of stage and grain free are the most distinguished characters.
I have spent quite a lot but I must admit they are completly another class from my previous caps.
Now I have sold the tube one and I really enjoy the Ono fantastic resolution and sound, control deep of stage and grain free are the most distinguished characters.
Peter:
>What would you recommend for the RIAA caps to start with?<
The RIAA caps that I normally use are teflons in hermetic packaging. US manufacturers include CRC (Component Research Corporation) and Hi-Rel Capacitors. I haven't tried the Russian teflons yet.
>Some people claim that silver mica is best for that, but I don't believe it.<
I've used silver mica in the past, and some of the older Connoisseurs contained these, but today I stay as far away from them as I can. Certainly they sound very, very different from the teflons. Subjectively they appear to add a treble "spice" that can help juice up a system of low resolution, but I find this quality obnoxious on more neutral-sounding systems. They also add a sort of sparkling grain to the sound, like someone was sprinkling fine metallic powder into the soundstage.
>MIT RTX.<
I think that we did RTXs for some of the "Crosby" modded Spectral DMC-10Z preamps, while other DMC-10Zs got the PPFXs. As you say, the RTX is a rather large part. After we established that the Teflons sounded better, I didn't try to go back and establish a precise hierarchy for the RTX nor PPFX. I sometimes use the MITs in DC servo applications, but don't have any particular emotions regarding them, either for or against. I don't think that these are too bad, but they definitely can be improved on.
I agree that knowing of an affordable, compact RIAA cap of high-quality would certainly be useful!
regards, jonathan carr
>What would you recommend for the RIAA caps to start with?<
The RIAA caps that I normally use are teflons in hermetic packaging. US manufacturers include CRC (Component Research Corporation) and Hi-Rel Capacitors. I haven't tried the Russian teflons yet.
>Some people claim that silver mica is best for that, but I don't believe it.<
I've used silver mica in the past, and some of the older Connoisseurs contained these, but today I stay as far away from them as I can. Certainly they sound very, very different from the teflons. Subjectively they appear to add a treble "spice" that can help juice up a system of low resolution, but I find this quality obnoxious on more neutral-sounding systems. They also add a sort of sparkling grain to the sound, like someone was sprinkling fine metallic powder into the soundstage.
>MIT RTX.<
I think that we did RTXs for some of the "Crosby" modded Spectral DMC-10Z preamps, while other DMC-10Zs got the PPFXs. As you say, the RTX is a rather large part. After we established that the Teflons sounded better, I didn't try to go back and establish a precise hierarchy for the RTX nor PPFX. I sometimes use the MITs in DC servo applications, but don't have any particular emotions regarding them, either for or against. I don't think that these are too bad, but they definitely can be improved on.
I agree that knowing of an affordable, compact RIAA cap of high-quality would certainly be useful!
regards, jonathan carr
jcarr said:
I like that description, and this is what I noticed too
I have a similar view on MIT. While pretty neutral somehow they don't sound completely natuaral. I tried bypassing them with silver foil caps, but although it seemed to be better in the beginning, in a long run proved even worse.
I'm recently very content with Siemens MKV caps and so far I found them to sound most natural, especially in trebles. But again, they are pretty large.
Components
Peter,
The Teflon CRC caps are very good they have the best DA of all caps I've tested. We used these caps in high speed sample and hold circuits because of the DA and there low leakage. Also, I have found that they are great in a phono RIAA filter.
Telfon circuits board are very close mounting the components in air. If your using high impedance parts the PCB can effect the circuits performance Teflon is superior here. Also, PCBs can have lots of distributed capacitance which can make thing worst just as a poor solder mask can. The Teflon PCBs are a pain to work on, the traces don't hold, but they are great for high temp and high impedances.
Peter,
The Teflon CRC caps are very good they have the best DA of all caps I've tested. We used these caps in high speed sample and hold circuits because of the DA and there low leakage. Also, I have found that they are great in a phono RIAA filter.
Telfon circuits board are very close mounting the components in air. If your using high impedance parts the PCB can effect the circuits performance Teflon is superior here. Also, PCBs can have lots of distributed capacitance which can make thing worst just as a poor solder mask can. The Teflon PCBs are a pain to work on, the traces don't hold, but they are great for high temp and high impedances.
CRC Caps
The company I used to work for used these in high temp well logging equipment. The application became outdated when the instruments went from analog to digital.
These are still available surplus around Houston for a dollar or two each. John Tucker of Exemeplar had a box full when he lived here I sold a bucket full to someone for 200.00 couple of years back.
But one warning, they have steel leads. They were welded to the circuit boards.
I used to stuff these in everything. But I think they are far from neutral.
A lot of the surplus caps had H numbers printed on them. These were the stocking numbers at my previous employer. Most were Custom Cap or TexCap branded, but may have been made by CRC.
If they now make them with copper leads these would be awsome. But the model shown on the website are far from state of the art sonically. They were made to work in a 600 degree environment, not offer special electrical characteristics.
George
The company I used to work for used these in high temp well logging equipment. The application became outdated when the instruments went from analog to digital.
These are still available surplus around Houston for a dollar or two each. John Tucker of Exemeplar had a box full when he lived here I sold a bucket full to someone for 200.00 couple of years back.
But one warning, they have steel leads. They were welded to the circuit boards.
I used to stuff these in everything. But I think they are far from neutral.
A lot of the surplus caps had H numbers printed on them. These were the stocking numbers at my previous employer. Most were Custom Cap or TexCap branded, but may have been made by CRC.
If they now make them with copper leads these would be awsome. But the model shown on the website are far from state of the art sonically. They were made to work in a 600 degree environment, not offer special electrical characteristics.
George
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.