The return of the Klipsch minibox

[Erik Mandaville]

Dean: "Some, like me -- have invested a lot of time and money into serious two-channel."

You are not alone -- I have too. I've not only invested serious money, I've invested much more than that in terms of the time I have taken to research and build my own amplifiers and preamps (and various 'generations' of those components). I was not planning on suddenly moving in the direction of multi-channel music listening; I only wanted to try it -- in the most objective way possible.

As I said, it may not be for everyone. Yet, if someone else tries it and decides that it's not for them, the fact that there ARE others who do like it and embrace the technology will not be changed.

SMT and PCB are similar enough, I would say, in that they share many things in common. In either case, the fact that a component may use either of the two DOES NOT in my estimation, automatically quality if it as 'un hi-fi.' I agree that it makes changing parts difficult, which should only be done by someone who knows what he/she is doing, anyway.

Again, I feel too much emphasis is being placed on the KIND or TYPE of construction (including parts used) and not enough on the design aspect. The design is THE single most important part of any component, which, once that is done, might then be fine-tuned or 'seasoned-to-taste' by the use of different kinds of capacitors, resistors, and other passives.

It's my opinion that the best parts in the world will not make a poor design better.

Erik

[NOSValves]

"It's my opinion that the best parts in the world will not make a poor design better."

It may make it better but no way can it make a poor design a good design. I would say if its that poor of a design why bother.

[Erik Mandaville]

Hey, Craig:

I have a preamp to fix (almost done, actually) and send back to you.

"It may make it better but no way can it make a poor design a good design. I would say if its that poor of a design why bother."

Going on the assumption that 'better' (more expensive?) parts can provide addtional levels of transperancy, smoothness, clarity, and so forth, it seems to me that the inclusion of such parts in a subjectively 'poor' design (the truth about which may not necessarily be agreed upon by everyone)may actually make such a design even worse -- rather than better. Why? because they would logically possibly bring the weaker aspects of the design all the more to the forefront.

A show of hands at your convenience, please: How many of you feel at peace with and very much enjoy the two channel systems that you (and I) have worked so hard to balance, tweak, and improve?

This is largely a rhetorical question. My point is simply that, if you really love and believe in what you have been able to do thus far, why in the world should/would it matter to you (IN THE LEAST!) if some guy in SE comes along and says he thought multi-channel surround, provided in a very subtle and quite elegant fashion, came along and said he thought he honestly liked this new multi-speaker array (gee, that sounds pretty hi-fi-ish!) better than the two channel system he has been devoted to for the past 25 years!?

I believe it should not matter, because I am the fool who will be the one to have to sit down and listen to it -- and no one else (unless they have also tried it and like it as much as I).

FWIW: The preamp I'm now using and will probably continue to use for months to come is a vacuum tube linestage -- not solid state. It sounds fine, and I have finally refound the combination of lifted and unlifted grounds on power cords that prevent a ground loop hum we have here. It's quiet and clear sounding, but it's not the...

Erik

[NOSValves]

Eric,

I wondered what you did with that preamp. I'm in no hurry for it I only sent it because I thought you were interested in hearing and playing with it. After all it was just collecting dust around here.

Craig

[Erik Mandaville]

I worked on it for a bit, Craig. The person who had it before you (I know you haven't even had to even look at it, much less do anything with it, made some obvious errors in wiring based on what I have seen against the shematic. I did a bit of work, and found some really strange ground connections, which were corrected. There are a couple other things that need to be done, but it takes time to figure out some of the changes this other fellow did -- I'm sure with the best intentions in mind.

It's safe here, and I would like to fix it before I send it to you -- if that is ok.

Erik

[Erik Mandaville]

And I appreciate that kindness in loaning it to me, Craig! If I haven't said so here before -- Thanks!

Erik

[sfogg]

Erik,

"You are not alone -- I have too.  I've not only invested serious money, I've invested much more than that in terms of the time I have taken to research and build my own amplifiers and preamps (and various 'generations' of those components). "

I had done the same before moving to surround. A DC-1 replaced a Quicksilver tube pre-amp and a Curcio Audio tubed DAC in my system. Most people I know that listen to music in surround sound were die hard 2 channel people long before they moved to music in surround.

Shawn

[NOSValves]

----------------

On 12/29/2004 7:18:56 PM Erik Mandaville wrote:

I worked on it for a bit, Craig. The person who had it before you (I know you haven't even had to even look at it, much less do anything with it, made some obvious errors in wiring based on what I have seen against the shematic. I did a bit of work, and found some really strange ground connections, which were corrected. There are a couple other things that need to be done, but it takes time to figure out some of the changes this other fellow did -- I'm sure with the best intentions in mind.

It's safe here, and I would like to fix it before I send it to you -- if that is ok.

Erik

----------------

Yea I talked to Loyd about the preamp and he said he knew the owner was doing all kinds of goofy stuff with it. No big deal play with at your leasure like a said before I really have no use for it and will just sell it sooner or later. Well unless it sounds real good which I think it may I thought it sounded pretty good if you could ignore the nasty buzzing hum.

Craig

[djk]

Think about it:

Have you ever seen a polypropylene cap available in SMT?

Have you ever seen a polystyrene cap available in SMT?

Because of soldering heat issues the film used in SMT caps is slightly worse than Mylar as far as sound quality goes.

Pro sound doesn't care about things like this.

A $1500 DSP based crossover I bought has cheap opamps, cheap 3 terminal regulators, polarized electrolytics in the signal path, ceramic caps everywhere.

[Erik Mandaville]

I have thought about -- many times, in fact.

Regardless of the quality of the parts used in the DSP you bought, if you aren't happy with the sound, there are other options.

For my own part, I would be more interested in a quality design using lower-grade parts than an ineffective circuit composed of the best of what's available. I also don't think electrolytics at certain points in the signal path is a prerequisite for disaster. Some think electrolytics are an unwise choice for such applications as cathode resistor bypass duty, however I have built amplifiers and preamps both with and without them, and find there is improved gain and broader bandwidth if the cathode resistor is bypassed, most often by way of an electrolytic capacitor. They are used for this purpose in some of the best designs I have seen and built.

There are many companies that make effective use of non-polarized electrolytics for crossover duty, such as in some woofer circuits, where the type of capacitor used is perhaps less critical than it is in HF tweeter circuits. I have built crossovers myself using non-polarized electrolytic capacitors rather than plastic tubular types, and found them totally satisfactory, not to mention reasonably priced.

It often seems to me that the very instant the term 'Hi-End' is used with regard to audio equipment, prices sky rocket exponentially. It's as if common folk have suddenly found themselves on some sort of sacred ground, where even the wires used to connect preamps to amps and amps to speakers are given special important designations, such as the names of precious and semi-precious stones, famous mountains, snakes (Diomond back), etc. And the cost for that product -- which usually consists of not much more than a coaxial or twinaxial cable becomes quickly ridiculous. In fact, some people won't buy less expensive but good cable by virtue of the fact that it's less expensive than the one in the store called something like 'Nirvana' or 'Caviar'(yuk!)And there are the complex and long winded (like this post)descriptions in published catalogs. All of that really adds of the cost, as if the product itself were not good enough. The encyclopediac explanation of exotic geometries and descriptions of molecular structure of the 99.9999% pure copper or silver is needed to help justify the $6,000 cost for three feet of cable. LOL!

...I'm obviously getting carried away with this. Sorry about that.

Erik

[sfogg]

"Think about it:

Have you ever seen a polypropylene cap available in SMT?

Have you ever seen a polystyrene cap available in SMT?"

An SMT design can also use conventional through hole parts where needed in the circuit. Just because it is SMT doesn't mean every single part must be.

"A $1500 DSP based crossover I bought has cheap opamps, cheap 3 terminal regulators, polarized electrolytics in the signal path, ceramic caps everywhere."

So?? How does it sound?

Erik,

"For my own part, I would be more interested in a quality design using lower-grade parts than an ineffective circuit composed of the best of what's available. "

I agree. I think many focus on parts quality as that is all they can readily identify with. They may not know a good design from a bad design but they can certainly read the labels on a couple of parts and check that against audiophile 'lore.' Then the preconceived notions set in about xyz based on those few parts choices.

Shawn

[NOSValves]

----------------

On 12/30/2004 6:26:44 AM Erik Mandaville wrote:

I have thought about -- many times, in fact.

Regardless of the quality of the parts used in the DSP you bought, if you aren't happy with the sound, there are other options.

For my own part, I would be more interested in a quality design using lower-grade parts than an ineffective circuit composed of the best of what's available. I also don't think electrolytics at certain points in the signal path is a prerequisite for disaster. Some think electrolytics are an unwise choice for such applications as cathode resistor bypass duty, however I have built amplifiers and preamps both with and without them, and find there is improved gain and broader bandwidth if the cathode resistor is bypassed, most often by way of an electrolytic capacitor. They are used for this purpose in some of the best designs I have seen and built.

There are many companies that make effective use of non-polarized electrolytics for crossover duty, such as in some woofer circuits, where the type of capacitor used is perhaps less critical than it is in HF tweeter circuits. I have built crossovers myself using non-polarized electrolytic capacitors rather than plastic tubular types, and found them totally satisfactory, not to mention reasonably priced.

It often seems to me that the very instant the term 'Hi-End' is used with regard to audio equipment, prices sky rocket exponentially. It's as if common folk have suddenly found themselves on some sort of sacred ground, where even the wires used to connect preamps to amps and amps to speakers are given special important designations, such as the names of precious and semi-precious stones, famous mountains, snakes (Diomond back), etc. And the cost for that product -- which usually consists of not much more than a coaxial or twinaxial cable becomes quickly ridiculous. In fact, some people won't buy less expensive but good cable by virtue of the fact that it's less expensive than the one in the store called something like 'Nirvana' or 'Caviar'(yuk!)And there are the complex and long winded (like this post)descriptions in published catalogs. All of that really adds of the cost, as if the product itself were not good enough. The encyclopediac explanation of exotic geometries and descriptions of molecular structure of the 99.9999% pure copper or silver is needed to help justify the $6,000 cost for three feet of cable. LOL!

...I'm obviously getting carried away with this. Sorry about that.

Erik

----------------

Erik,

What I would have to ask is exactly how would you decide if the design is truly good or bad ? I personally have yet to see a piece of gear that couldn't be improved in some way by either better quality parts/ some value changes and tweaks. Heck the much of the gear being mentioned here by Shawn and others you would be hard pressed to get a schematic for and if you did it would take 3 months to decipher what it all means.

Craig

[sfogg]

Craig,

"I personally have yet to see a piece of gear that couldn't be improved in some way by either better quality parts/ some value changes and tweaks."

How do you know it is an improvement? Case in point Bruce R. from Transcendent has gotten a fair amount of heat over his choice of an electrolytic capacitor as a blocking cap at the output of the SE OTL. He has told people repeatidly that changing that cap out won't make any difference.... he felt it stupid to spend money on an expensive cap that does nothing more then the simple cap he used. What Bruce calls a 'frustrated audio designer' (IOW a cap swapper who doesn't understand design) would immediately jump up and swap out that cap. Problem is there have been several who have tried it, and I don't think anyone thought it made any difference in the sound. Heck, I've even seen at least one person suggest removing that capacitor all together. They would regret that if they did.

"much of the gear being mentioned here by Shawn and others you would be hard pressed to get a schematic for and if you did it would take 3 months to decipher what it all means. "

Actually a schematic wouldn't really tell you much about the Lexicon at all. If you had a schematic and built it *exactly* the same it still wouldn't be a Lexicon. The most important part of any processor like this is the software it runs. Put the Lex. in Dolby Pro Logic mode and with identical hardware it won't sound nearly as good as the same hardware running Music Logic would.

Shawn

[Erik Mandaville]

How would I decide if a circuit were a poor one? That would depend on many factors, and it's impossible to pin-point or isolate just one of those. I also don't think that ALL aspects of a design are necesarily poor, but maybe just one aspect of it. The sound might be 'changed' by adding a higher quality capacitor, but whether the change is for the better is again a very subjective thing. When judging the quality or characteristic of a given sound, it can't be anything other than subjective. One person might prefer a more liquid sort of midrange quality, whereas another person might like a sharper, maybe slightly drier kind response -- which might be obtained by using a poly cap of one brand or another over an oil. I have found tubular plastic capacitors 'different' sounding, and have been told by some that they were a bad choice and would bring about inferior sound. That was their opinion, not necessarily mine. Who was right? Neither of us and both of us. It is application dependent, and totally subjective in terms of the use of parts for fine tuning. I am also working on a PP Harmon Kardon amp for a friend of mine. Check out the inside of those and what do you see? all kinds of capacitors for one thing, including a very healthy portion of ceramic caps. They do in fact have their uses, and many on this forum have vintage amps that make use of them some place in the circuit.

You mentioned something about the terrible hum and buzz in that preamp, Craig. I mentioned that I thought I could fix that, but you seemed to be doubtful. Is this a sign of poor design (which it could be if the manner in which the circuit had been grounded was the source of the problem. In that case, what is a better quality capacitor going to do?! Nothing! Better transformers, better, resistors, expensive capacitors, fancy jacks, silver wire insulated with Teflon, etc., would do absolutely nothing in a circuit plagued by hum and noise that was cause by the approach to grounding or other similar problems. The last thing parts that had a reputation for being very revealing (in terms of music signals)would do for a design that had a bunch of grunge mixed in with that signal is improve it.

In other words, a poor or 'challenged' circuit design involves many, many factors other than the choice of parts used, and in such a case as this, Hovland or Jensen capacitors, expensive toroidal power and OPTs wound with silver, etc., will do nothing but make an already problematic design, IMO, worse.

I agree with you that better parts can often be used to achieve a sonic signature that may be better concerning individual tastes and preferences.

I'm typing really fast, so if there are lots of spellllllling errors, so what!?

[Erik Mandaville]

Craig: "Heck the much of the gear being mentioned here by Shawn and others you would be hard pressed to get a schematic for and if you did it would take 3 months to decipher what it all means."

I don't know about the availability of the schematics, but much of the gear we have talked about IS in fact available -- one such component being the SE OTL. But I think you're talking about far more involved and complex designs like the Lexicon. With that in mind, I guess I would have to ask your about how often you sit down with a cup of hot chocolate and eagerly absorb the power supply and signal circuit schematics of your CD player? It's a digital processor too, and is something I personally would tend to not worry about very much.

Maybe I'm missing your point...

Erik

[mike stehr]

"How do you know it is an improvement? Case in point Bruce R. from Transcendent has gotten a fair amount of heat over his choice of an electrolytic capacitor as a blocking cap at the output of the SE OTL."

All need the cap needs to do is block DC, correct?

The cap is not used as coupling with a specific frequency break point in mind, just to block DC in case tube/tubes decide to let go?

Yeah, just remove the cap. That makes sense....

[Erik Mandaville]

I'm bumping this up in order to clarify something I said. The schematic for the SE OTL is NOT available in the sense that it can be ordered. Some companies I have worked with have sold copies of schematics as an 'extra' or replacement. My Own Moondog schematic was literally torn up by Tonka when he was pup, and I was able to get another from Welborne Labs.

In deference to Transcendent Sound, the manual accompanies the kit, only.

OTLs are pretty interesting amps, and Rozenblit is one designer who truly makes every aspect of a circuit count -- without the use of really expensive parts. Shawn mentioned the DC blocking capacitor on the output, which is just a fairly standard electrolytic capacitor. Some seem to have a sort of knee-jerk response to that, and immediately dive into a chassis in order to extract all the 'cheap' looking (and costing) parts with the intention of replacing them with 'audiophile grade' components. All that capacitor does in the SE OTL(I say 'all,' but it is an extremely critical 'all'!)is block DC on the output. I know of several people who have changed it without any change in the overall sound of the amplifier. The use of feedback is another issue that seems to come up often. Correctly and carefully used, feedback can do very good things for an amplifier or preamp. That doesn't mean it is always the case, but is an important engineering device that is available for the right situation.

...and this ground has already been covered!

Erik

[sfogg]

Mike,

"just to block DC in case tube/tubes  decide to let go?"

It blocks the B+ that is always there when the tubes are powered. Getting back to an old thread if you power the SE OTL with nothing connected across the output and attach a multimeter on its outputs you will measure DC voltage as the capacitor charges (through the multimeter) you will see the DC voltage drop.

In a PP OTL amp there is a B- supply for half the tubes and part of setting up those OTLs is getting the B+ and B- supply balanced so that no DC flows through the speaker. When you make a single ended OTL you don't have that B- supply (unless you get complex) so that is the caps job to keep DC from flowing through your speakers.

In a transformer coupled amp it is the transformers job to block the DC.

Shawn

[NOSValves]

Eric,

Well my point really is that at least with the gear I work on there are no real crapy designs they all for the most part perform very well and all benefit from upgraded components. The big limitation I find with tube amps with output transformers is almost always directly related to the output transformer or power transformers almost all other weaknesses in the circuits can be fairly easily overcome. I just have very rarely ran into something that I couldn't play around with and make better. In fact I can't recall you ever stated something was crappy that you have worked on or auditioned.

Craig

[mike stehr]

Those SE OTL's do sound interesting indeed.

But I ain't got the scratch for a Transcendent kit.

But I do have a little cash to try the little Sonic Impact T-amp, might be fun for the poor audio dork.

I'm pretty curious to compare the little Digi-amp with the tube amps I have with Cornwalls.

Check out the little chassis you can get for the SI T-amp circuit. That stock looking SI amp enclosure makes me wanna stomp on it.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ampbox/page2.html

Not really too spendy, looks kinda cool, encourages ideas....wouldn't suck up much room in a 7.1 application?