Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
There's a lot of fake Aksa schematics.... i was thinking was Hugh..but he told he did
not.....maybe one of his friend did...several options, no one the correct one..this way, spread people going in different directions... strategy is the name of the game... diverge, confuse, scatter, dilute, confound, disguise, redirect.
People will never discover, unless a traitor give the correct copy of the schematic..... i do not even believe this is possible.... because Aksa customers wants exclusivity...so... the schematic found in the internet will kill their exclusivity..... this would represent a loss on the investment made to obtain the best amplifiers.
Imagine someone paying ....let's say.... 300 bucks for each channel.... lovely Aksa amplifiers.... do you believe this guy will be happy watching the schematic in the web?... everybody having for free when the guy paid the price?.
Because of these reasons, i do not believe someone have paid, will publish, or let people dismount to watch inside, or to make pictures, or to have schematic, or to borrow the unit to produce a reverse engineering.
This thread will produce curiosity..... thank's lord!, Hugh will sell more because of that...and he deserves that!
regards,
Carlos
not.....maybe one of his friend did...several options, no one the correct one..this way, spread people going in different directions... strategy is the name of the game... diverge, confuse, scatter, dilute, confound, disguise, redirect.
People will never discover, unless a traitor give the correct copy of the schematic..... i do not even believe this is possible.... because Aksa customers wants exclusivity...so... the schematic found in the internet will kill their exclusivity..... this would represent a loss on the investment made to obtain the best amplifiers.
Imagine someone paying ....let's say.... 300 bucks for each channel.... lovely Aksa amplifiers.... do you believe this guy will be happy watching the schematic in the web?... everybody having for free when the guy paid the price?.
Because of these reasons, i do not believe someone have paid, will publish, or let people dismount to watch inside, or to make pictures, or to have schematic, or to borrow the unit to produce a reverse engineering.
This thread will produce curiosity..... thank's lord!, Hugh will sell more because of that...and he deserves that!
regards,
Carlos
Last edited:
Carlos I think all these considerations haven't their place here. Gregs work (topic subject) has Hugh approbation that's why i would go foward. If i could buy one of hugh commercial construction i would do it not for exclusivity but for quality. Music is for me a pure egoist pleasure...I don't bother about other
Marc
Marc
They similar but different, c4 is not the matter. But I think that both has same "secret". The secret is how it being favorite for home amp even if there are newer amplifiers with many new topologies, Also this amp makes Tubes has less choice here (in my country).
This AKSA 55 may did the same to being greater famous amp than ocl150w when everyone start to build it, and Hugh did very good to design it.
Anyone that need to built should find the crucial spots, to reach the best. The OCL shows some spots, but it still has common high freq sounding, and I think AKSA 55 is better at this.
This AKSA 55 may did the same to being greater famous amp than ocl150w when everyone start to build it, and Hugh did very good to design it.
Anyone that need to built should find the crucial spots, to reach the best. The OCL shows some spots, but it still has common high freq sounding, and I think AKSA 55 is better at this.
OCL150W is not AKSA55 copy and AKSA55 is not OCL150W copy. There are many amplifier similar with this and using same technique, you may get more complex at sony TA1055 (even comercial did good start with it).
Hi, Carlos, isn't your amp become famous with the same?
Last edited:
Onto is 100% correct, lots of circuits of amps on the net, many very similar. It has been pointed out to me (with deep sarcasm!!) that the AKSA is a fully complementary version of the Citation 12, which I think was designed by Nelson Pass, IIRC. In fact it was inspired by another kit amp, the Digi125, which was designed by a fellow Australian in the eighties.
However, it is not important how it came about, or who inspired it. Nor is it important to comment about 'exclusivity' and other elitist notions. The amp is certainly a very good one, and has some magic, particularly on popular music, but as a kit it has run its course with Aspen and I've been obliged to move on to new things which are both higher in quality and which are NOT kits, since they relentlessly consume tens of hours each week in email help.
I do not delude myself that it is a brilliant piece of design at all. Those critics who would attack me are right; the design is NOT original at all. BUT, in a practical sense it is very well implemented, with all the sonic pressure points identified and exploited, and that is the real secret. There is a role in audio for both the strategic thinker, the general, and the practical man, the non-commissioned ranks. I am the latter, and proud of it, because the generals can't use soldering irons or write technical instructions.
Cheers,
Hugh
However, it is not important how it came about, or who inspired it. Nor is it important to comment about 'exclusivity' and other elitist notions. The amp is certainly a very good one, and has some magic, particularly on popular music, but as a kit it has run its course with Aspen and I've been obliged to move on to new things which are both higher in quality and which are NOT kits, since they relentlessly consume tens of hours each week in email help.
I do not delude myself that it is a brilliant piece of design at all. Those critics who would attack me are right; the design is NOT original at all. BUT, in a practical sense it is very well implemented, with all the sonic pressure points identified and exploited, and that is the real secret. There is a role in audio for both the strategic thinker, the general, and the practical man, the non-commissioned ranks. I am the latter, and proud of it, because the generals can't use soldering irons or write technical instructions.
Cheers,
Hugh
Hugh, even if it is not a "brilliant piece of design", your ultimate approaches and the time you spent tweaking the schematic, adding some other components to the design, removing others, changing some of them, and your components selection. The amplifier you produce becomes worth the money paid for it.
Sure you will not stick to a single design Hugh; as a brilliant designer, tuning guru, and listener, you have more newer designs and more beautiful ideas and tweaks.
Sure you will not stick to a single design Hugh; as a brilliant designer, tuning guru, and listener, you have more newer designs and more beautiful ideas and tweaks.
Thank you Hugh, it is understood. However, since you raise that particular issue, it is somewhat bewildering that we focus on distortion qualities in this and other discussions of worthy products. Imaging, stereo separation or focus - or what you will - is rarely discussed.
I would have thought it an issue of practical if not technical interest in a stereo amplifier.
The authenticity or origin of such designs can IMHO only be a familiarity issue. There have been precursors to almost every basic amp circuit I have seen on forum. Imagine how many there would be collectively to all members and particularly those with the widest experience.??
Digi 125 with MJ802/4502 once blew my neighbours away and brought the constabulary in small force. Not my favourite anymore.
I would have thought it an issue of practical if not technical interest in a stereo amplifier.
The authenticity or origin of such designs can IMHO only be a familiarity issue. There have been precursors to almost every basic amp circuit I have seen on forum. Imagine how many there would be collectively to all members and particularly those with the widest experience.??
Digi 125 with MJ802/4502 once blew my neighbours away and brought the constabulary in small force. Not my favourite anymore.
Last edited:
Metal, Ian,
Audio amps are marketed on THD, frequency response, and power. And looks. Nothing else. In truth, the cognoscenti will assess their amps in their homes where possible with their own source and speakers. Very few will have an Audio Precision 2, so they will immediately start to assess the gear on all the predictable, cliched qualities like imaging, vocal projection, sound stage, presence, layering, depth of image, musicality, etc. Significantly, almost none of these qualities, which are much bandied about in the hifi press, are measureable, or, if they are, no company has taken the trouble to set up and promulgate such parameters. And they are all assessed by ear - quelle horeur!! A few like slew rate, PSRR and intermodulation distortion have been tried, but never caught on, so they are now largely ignored by the marketers.
As a result, the avid consumer will stick to his linguistic descriptors so beloved by high end magazines, flawed though they be and the object of much lampooning by the technical designers. I have found though that you ignore these qualities at your peril. You cannot consistently sell an amp which has no image depth to speak of, for example, particularly now that the cheapest Class D amp will image very well indeed and deliver terrific bass besides. Actually, you can sell anything, if you push it hard enough, discount a little, and lavish marketing dollars on the advertising. But the fact is, high end is such a tiny part of the total audio marketplace that expensive research projects to isolate and measure these nefarious qualities is not justified, and the numbers of sales can be pretty much ignored. It seems to me that every lunatic on the planet appears to want to build high end amps in small commercial numbers anyway! It is no small technical challenge to produce a creditable audio amplifier, particularly with oriental competition as it is at present, and lots of people have tried, many of them successful in other fields before they began. A good example is the proprietor of Monarchy Audio in SF, one Mr Toon. No, the mass market is where the dollars lie.
A really good designer could probably tell you how to design for image depth in a SS amp, for example, or vocal projection, or how to make a 'musical' amp, but you won't see them discussing these issues here!! Jealously guarded information, I would think.
Cheers,
Hugh
Audio amps are marketed on THD, frequency response, and power. And looks. Nothing else. In truth, the cognoscenti will assess their amps in their homes where possible with their own source and speakers. Very few will have an Audio Precision 2, so they will immediately start to assess the gear on all the predictable, cliched qualities like imaging, vocal projection, sound stage, presence, layering, depth of image, musicality, etc. Significantly, almost none of these qualities, which are much bandied about in the hifi press, are measureable, or, if they are, no company has taken the trouble to set up and promulgate such parameters. And they are all assessed by ear - quelle horeur!! A few like slew rate, PSRR and intermodulation distortion have been tried, but never caught on, so they are now largely ignored by the marketers.
As a result, the avid consumer will stick to his linguistic descriptors so beloved by high end magazines, flawed though they be and the object of much lampooning by the technical designers. I have found though that you ignore these qualities at your peril. You cannot consistently sell an amp which has no image depth to speak of, for example, particularly now that the cheapest Class D amp will image very well indeed and deliver terrific bass besides. Actually, you can sell anything, if you push it hard enough, discount a little, and lavish marketing dollars on the advertising. But the fact is, high end is such a tiny part of the total audio marketplace that expensive research projects to isolate and measure these nefarious qualities is not justified, and the numbers of sales can be pretty much ignored. It seems to me that every lunatic on the planet appears to want to build high end amps in small commercial numbers anyway! It is no small technical challenge to produce a creditable audio amplifier, particularly with oriental competition as it is at present, and lots of people have tried, many of them successful in other fields before they began. A good example is the proprietor of Monarchy Audio in SF, one Mr Toon. No, the mass market is where the dollars lie.
A really good designer could probably tell you how to design for image depth in a SS amp, for example, or vocal projection, or how to make a 'musical' amp, but you won't see them discussing these issues here!! Jealously guarded information, I would think.
Cheers,
Hugh
Hi Hugh,
Well you are number four thousand.
When it comes to marketing amps don't forget a catchy name too... I'm sure that helps sell stuff
I guess my "Mooly amp" never quite cut it in the name dept. Imaging ! Any thoughts on deliberately introducing crosstalk at HF ?
When it comes to marketing amps don't forget a catchy name too... I'm sure that helps sell stuff
Yeah true, and I can't say AKSA, I always say ASKA. Don't know why
Can't say Vietnamese either, I say Viet-my-knees. Must be brain damage or a fat tongue.
I had that choice 2 years ago , but chose the "narrow" path. The "D" will image well (I have heard hypex UDC 180's) , but our "historical" analog amps will do better. I must disagree that cheap class D sounds good ... it is freakin' cheap , usually all on the IC.. not audiophile with careful component selection and discrete output switchers like the hypex's.
Along the narrow path one can actually learn the finer points of fidelity as it applies to amplification. The class D "boomer" boys just chuck the 500 watt amp to get the new 1KW for bragging rights.
As far as the 55's design , it has by far the greatest ratio of simplicity to fidelity. Any student can have better sound than most commercial offerings with 50$ and the guts from an old HT receiver ($free power supply$) as well as learn the basics of amplification. BTW - Cool that you have released the 55 to the forum
.. OS
Last edited:
I thought that's what they were called for years and even after I built my first one.
Looks like this thread is going valuable with secret imaging and "what happen with ClassD?". Thanks Hugh. I promise its the last secret I post here from OCL and not detail, it is feedback balancing (we says :nyeimbangno pantulan). Only clues erfect balancing with 2 speaker in single box and common balancing with transformer elco and resistor. I see that someone rising baby here.
Also I see that the winner OCL150 schematic is modified by unexperienced MODer. Replacing R3 30K balancing resistor with 33K needs speaker or transformer balancing test to readjust the CCS current and then change R5 for lowest offset. I still have pair of them original, Here is the original schematic. Hehe... the WON!!
Me to, at the first I feel that its ASKA, but its AKSA.
erfect balancing with 2 speaker in single box and common balancing with transformer elco and resistor. I see that someone rising baby here.CCS help to deal with 5% resistor value and voltage range, because this amp is designed for mass production and fast built. For example, with CCS, R3 perfect value is 28.5Kohm and start gaining with 26Kohm, they are far, and 30Kohm will not reach 26Kohm.
Also I see that the winner OCL150 schematic is modified by unexperienced MODer. Replacing R3 30K balancing resistor with 33K needs speaker or transformer balancing test to readjust the CCS current and then change R5 for lowest offset. I still have pair of them original, Here is the original schematic. Hehe... the WON!!
Me to, at the first I feel that its ASKA, but its AKSA.
