Jump to content

Discussion - There have been no great advances in the High End world in the last 25 years.


Recommended Posts

But while it isn't necessary for those designs it certainly doesn't represent a red flag that gets waved in some camps where ... they see an SMD amp/preamp design and say .... it must sound bad. Either through hole or SMD can be used equally well in that application. Power dissipating active devices and large capacitors are by necessity through hole (with a few exceptions but lets not muddy the waters), other components (diodes, decoupling capacitors, resistors, line gain stage etc) I would be happy with either producing excellent results and I have seen measurements of SMD based power amplifiers that are truly astounding, though their performance is not 'because they are SMD' it's because they have 4 layer PCB with well thought out design and component selection, apart from a few decoupling capacitors everything could be mostly changed to through hole components but the PCB would grow and it doesn't need to be any bigger because the SMD components are available and they are human solderable without any fancy gear (tweezers, a light and a temp controlled soldering iron are not fancy). Rework can be done with a $60 hot air station, again not something beyond the scope of someone interested could get a hold of.

 

FWIW if I am soldering something myself ... I'm normally happier with SMD, rework of SMD is a new skill but not impossible by any stretch, some techs will discourage the use of SMD simply because they are not able to get the new skills. It is unfortunate when these opinions of respected individuals get stated as fact.

 

 

 A friend of mine recently had his Krell FPB-300 fail, and the cost of repairs was about $2000. Just imagine the cost if the amp was hybrid SMD. Sure, SMD is serviceable but the additional cost of labour would probably push the cost of repairs well beyond the point cost effectiveness.  

 

Unlike low powered source components, high power linear amplifiers do tend to require more regular servicing and failure rates are significantly higher, so from a serviceability POV it's best to try to keep the PCB design as simple as possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



 A friend of mine recently had his Krell FPB-300 fail, and the cost of repairs was about $2000. Just imagine the cost if the amp was hybrid SMD. Sure, SMD is serviceable but the additional cost of labour would probably push the cost of repairs well beyond the point cost effectiveness.  

 

Unlike low powered source components, high power linear amplifiers do tend to require more regular servicing and failure rates are significantly higher, so from a serviceability POV it's best to try to keep the PCB design as simple as possible.

 

Agree,

 

Preferable with High Wattage, throught the hole.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm...that is why I say, better to have through hole components in High End equipment. Easier and cheaper to fix.

 

Those are two good reasons to have it in Low End equipment!  :hiccup

 

Logic is such a confusing topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Exactly. 

 

Because it makes manufacturing cheaper and repairs more expensive, SMD is the industry's best friend.

The Australian way of life, high taxes and labour would make most things prohibited in repair cost, SMD does bring benefits to the table and I do agree with you comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. 

 

Because it makes manufacturing cheaper and repairs more expensive, SMD is the industry's best friend.

 

In that case, replacement modules are cheaper too. Good for high-end repairs. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Exactly.

Because it makes manufacturing cheaper and repairs more expensive, SMD is the industry's best friend.

And diyers who aren't afraid to learn something new, as I tried to explain, I have found that until I get scary small parts I actually find smd easier.

The only reason to not learn smd techniques for even small time diy construction is if the components selected are technically inferior (they aren't) or the two health related reasons 1. failing eyesight (often with adequate lighting this isn't such a problem) or 2. Abnormally unsteady hands (I am no surgeon!)

I have soldered qfn 20 parts by hand ... That is no lead other than under the edge of 4 sides of the IC and 0.5mm spacing ... With a normal soldering iron. That's when it gets hard and rework without hot air is out of the question, but again, its only $60 and some YouTube tutorials away. 0805 is quite straightforward with patience. I personally would not pay a tech if they are so unwilling to learn something new like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



And diyers who aren't afraid to learn something new, as I tried to explain, I have found that until I get scary small parts I actually find smd easier.

The only reason to not learn smd techniques for even small time diy construction is if the components selected are technically inferior (they aren't) or the two health related reasons 1. failing eyesight (often with adequate lighting this isn't such a problem) or 2. Abnormally unsteady hands (I am no surgeon!)

I have soldered qfn 20 parts by hand ... That is no lead other than under the edge of 4 sides of the IC and 0.5mm spacing ... With a normal soldering iron. That's when it gets hard and rework without hot air is out of the question, but again, its only $60 and some YouTube tutorials away. 0805 is quite straightforward with patience. I personally would not pay a tech if they are so unwilling to learn something new like this.

 

I'm long sighted, so I use magnifiers for SMD work, but my hands are still rock steady, so no problems there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was pretty amazed when I first heard a subwoofer satellite system at grenfell hifi.  Despite that amazement I stuck with a safe bet and got the paradigm 2 way bookshelves 3SE back in the 90's, which are still with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ime, speakers have not advanced much and much reflects in careful cabinet design and matching drivers for the cabinet design.

 

DAC's have advanced a great leap but with different flavors.

 

Solid state amplifiers have also advanced quite a bit despite good oldschool JFETS and TO metal case transistors being discontinued (mostly lack of HV parts).

 

Tube amplifiers have advanced in some ways but still about the same as 20 years ago.

 

Headphones have advanced a fair bit as well but mainly different flavors, let's not forget the Orpheus, Omega and R10 are still some of the best sounding legends out there, but only remain of value due to being collectors wares.

 

Other electronics such as high end home theater systems such as DVD players and TV's, these 2 areas have advanced big time.

Edited by DefQon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ime, speakers have not advanced much and much reflects in careful cabinet design and matching drivers for the cabinet design.

 

DAC's have advanced a great leap but with different flavors.

 

Solid state amplifiers have also advanced quite a bit despite good oldschool JFETS and TO metal case transistors being discontinued (mostly lack of HV parts).

 

Tube amplifiers have advanced in some ways but still about the same as 20 years ago.

 

Headphones have advanced a fair bit as well but mainly different flavors, let's not forget the Orpheus, Omega and R10 are still some of the best sounding legends out there, but only remain of value due to being collectors wares.

 

Other electronics such as high end home theater systems such as DVD players and TV's, these 2 areas have advanced big time.

 

 

Everyone seems to agree that the past 2.5 decades were more about evolution than revolution, which is in contrast to the two decades of innovation and experimentation that proceeded them.

 

From my point of view, speakers have improved more than amplifiers, but it's mostly at the top end of the market, and mostly due to the higher cost of materials employed, which also makes them much more expensive.

 

I remember a discussion that I had with friends about 25 years ago, where we were all looking forward to a long term future of high res formats and high fidelity recordings that we could (then) only ever dream about. 

 

Part of that future has transpired, with high res PCM and DSD, high-res DAC's and high-res downloads etc, but high fidelity recordings never became as 'mainstream' as I'd wished for, or indeed expected. Maybe it was partly wishful thinking on my part, but I never envisaged such widespread use (abuse) of dynamic compression at both the recording and mastering phases and I never expected that production would evolve into such an automated 'sausage factory' process.  

 

Technology has been mostly used to make music cheaper rather than better, and that niche group known as 'audiophiles' became increasingly neglected (dismissed) by the music industry.

Edited by Art Vandelay
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



High End, High Prices, etc are alive and well in Asia--I was talking with a Hkg Importer-he has 4 pairs Dartzeel Big Monos on back order --sells all the AF1 Techdas's he can get his hands on

 

Par for the course in a society with !6% flat income tax :P

 

Willco

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to agree that the past 2.5 decades were more about evolution than revolution, which is in contrast to the two decades of innovation and experimentation that proceeded them.

 

From my point of view, speakers have improved more than amplifiers, but it's mostly at the top end of the market, and mostly due to the higher cost of materials employed, which also makes them much more expensive.

 

I remember a discussion that I had with friends about 25 years ago, where we were all looking forward to a long term future of high res formats and high fidelity recordings that we could (then) only ever dream about. 

 

Part of that future has transpired, with high res PCM and DSD, high-res DAC's and high-res downloads etc, but high fidelity recordings never became as 'mainstream' as I'd wished for, or indeed expected. Maybe it was partly wishful thinking on my part, but I never envisaged such widespread use (abuse) of dynamic compression at both the recording and mastering phases and I never expected that production would evolve into such an automated 'sausage factory' process.  

 

Technology has been mostly used to make music cheaper rather than better, and that niche group known as 'audiophiles' became increasingly neglected (dismissed) by the music industry.

 

Which makes all this chasing for the ultimate accuracy in sound reproduction a bit silly really - we really need to be looking at improving the quality of the content now - otherwise, what is the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

speakers have improved more than amplifiers, but it's mostly at the top end of the market, and mostly due to the higher cost of materials employed, which also makes them much more expensive.....Technology has been mostly used to make music cheaper rather than better, and that niche group known as 'audiophiles' became increasingly neglected (dismissed) by the music industry.

 

Maybe I haven't read this rightly, but it doesn't make sense to me. At any price range other than price-no-object, cheaper is better. The Pioneer SB22 is $200 a pair today, so how good was a $50 speaker in 1980?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I haven't read this rightly, but it doesn't make sense to me. At any price range other than price-no-object, cheaper is better. The Pioneer SB22 is $200 a pair today, so how good was a $50 speaker in 1980?

 

You're right. You didn't read it correctly. 

 

My point being that technology (and R&D) has been used to make the hardware better, at the expense of price, but at the same time the music we all play has been made cheaper by technology. 

 

It simply shows that technology can be employed to make a product better or it can be used to make it cheaper.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make all my own gear, the lot except media players and I'm yet to have a failure. In amps and preamps (valve of course) I wire component-2- component or if I have to point-2-point. Great for the sound but bad should I ever have to repair something. Most of my builds are a bit bird's nest which could make repair difficult. PCB, if they have to be used e.g. a DAC, could be easier to repair. IMHO they have a negative affect on the sound but make cheap manufacture possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
To Top