Quote:
Hmmm, don't ya think things have improved since the 50's?

Somethings have and somethings haven't. Most tube amplifiers still run in UltraLinear operation, a rather brilliant idea from the '50's. I know your opinion of tube amplifiers, and that is not the issue here, dup, so don't repeat your mania in those affairs.

You ask me to look at a picture and tell you whether something sounds good? How is that possible, dup? The amplifier in question certainly has shorter signal paths than an equivalent printed circuit board product would have. Are short signal paths your enemy also, dup? Do you not understand their advantage?

The amp in the picture is full of copper. Rather heavy gauge copper in some areas. How is that not better than an amp full of "foil" traces? Foil, dup! Not copper, not heavy gauge. Foil! What is that foil made of? What metals are in that foil in your amplfiier and speakers, dup? You've never answered that question. Until you do, let's not get rolling on something else you can't understand.

Circuit boards have the advantage of consistency from board to board. If the circuit is well designed physically, a printed circuit board will be the same each time. They are also cheap to produce, which is why they are used in mass production.

However, circuit boards have a high dielectric constant. This is harmful to analog signals. Another problem - that Jan already mentioned - is that large copper fill areas (ground planes or sinks) are often used to complete the circuits between the active elements on the board. These inject noise into the circuit as the power delivery paths are commonly shared with signal return paths. This can be avoided on a printed board, but this costs more money and takes a lot care - something that is often lacking in circit board design. Another issue is that it doesn't take much vibration to crack a circuit trace or a solder joint on a circuit board.

PtP often sounds better than a board circuit. With PtP the leads of individual components connect directly to the circuit nodes, resulting in much shorter signal paths - a key component in accurate, low noise circuits. PtPt also allows many components to be connected in very little space as there are three dimensions to work in, not just the two dimensions of a circuit board. In PtP circuits there are no common ground planes; that is, only one source and one sink are interconnected, keeping noise low.

PtP increases reliability and if soemthing should go wrong the unit can always be fixed by replacing the individual component that has failed. With a circuit board design the board must be replaced. This is generally easy to accomplish but only if another board is available. PtP circuits can also be easily upgraded or refurbished over time as heat takes its toll on components. With a printed circuit you are generally stuck with the older compromised components on the board and it is difficult to replace the active components with newer or better pieces.

There are many old techniques and concepts that are better than their modern equivalent. Consider hand-made violins, hand crafted food, the shave of a single edge razor in the hands of master barber, the patina of hand-rubbed marble sculpture, real musicians playing acoustic instruments live. All of these are more expensive and labor intensive than their modern counterparts - and each is vastly superior.

The best practice is to incorporate those new techniques, materials and components which are superior, while retaining the best of the old.

Terrific post, Elk.

dup, have you ever seen a printed circuit board after it's been repaired when the foil lifts from excessive heat and clumsy hands during a repair? Not a pretty sight and not one that's going to be good for sound quality. Big ol' boogery glob of tin and lead solder hanging on there!

This is very good modern PtP wiring; http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/primaluna/primaluna.html

While this is excellent PtP IMO; http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/genesis/m60.html

These are production amps. The only thing I've seen better is a one off, hand wired MC240.

This is a somewhat controversial subject, but PC boards can actually be better than Ptp if done right. I do agree that others use poor techniques and problems do result.

Pc boards can have these advantages.

Gets rid of wires and solder connections by connecting leads, even multiple leads directly together. This reduces multiple wires and solder connections.

Even the low resistance copper bussbar grounds cause feedback problems that can affect sound.

Consistency from unit to unit can be much better with pc boards.

Capacitance from parts to ground can be much much lower, resulting in higher frequency response.

Place the hot parts from the board, use the natural lead length for less heat transfer to the connection. I have not had one problem with heat from small signal tubes affecting boards.

dup, what in the world does it take for you to say, "Gee, I see your point"?

I'd be a bit careful about siding with dup. Once he finds out you use dual mono volume pots, you'll be in for it!

The point here isn't that one is better than the other in virtually anything. The thread exists because dup took a reference I made to PtP wiring being desirable and distorted it to try proving everyone other than dup is nuts. I certainly never advocated a PtP wring scheme as he portrayed at the top of the thread.

As Elk suggests, and the PrimaLuna and Genesis amps show, both technologies have their place and can exist side by side when common sense is applied. Of course, common sense is not what fuels dup's posts.

I've seen your amps written up. Since you've responded to this thread, I have a few questions.

Quote:
Gets rid of wires and solder connections by connecting leads, even multiple leads directly together.

Removing solder from a connection is, I think, a great idea. We are no longer talking about typical printed circuits, however, as these must be hand assembled. Right? But this route you've described seems as if it would be affected by vibration and oxidation. I notice you use very small transformers in your unit. Lower vibration? How does a no-solder connection fare over time? How does a no-solder component get repaired? It would seem once you've broken the original connection, it can never go back the same way. If it does, this must not be a tech's favorite way to do service.

Quote:
Even the low resistance copper bussbar grounds cause feedback problems that can affect sound.

What you seem to be saying is that all busbars cause problems similar to those found on a printed circuit board. Is this then a real advantage of the printed circuit board? Sounds a bit like spin to me.

Quote:
Capacitance from parts to ground can be much much lower, resulting in higher frequency response.

I'm guessing "can" is an important word here.

Quote:
Place the hot parts from the board, use the natural lead length for less heat transfer to the connection. I have not had one problem with heat from small signal tubes affecting boards.

I'm confused. You don't use tube sockets?

Finally, what are you favorite 6DJ8 tubes for a phono section of an Audible Illusions? I have been using some NOS gold pin Seimens but they have problems with microphonics.

Quote:
However, circuit boards have a high dielectric constant. This is harmful to analog signals.

As opposed to the more prefered low dielectric constant?
We like signal leakage? Isolation is bad? What is the dielectric value between two wires on a terminal strip?

Quote:
Another problem - that Jan already mentioned - is that large copper fill areas (ground planes or sinks) are often used to complete the circuits between the active elements on the board. These inject noise into the circuit as the power delivery paths are commonly shared with signal return paths. This can be avoided on a printed board, but this costs more money and takes a lot care - something that is often lacking in circit board design.

Large PC board ground plans are a good thing as they reduce the resistance value between the common returns minimizing ground loop problems by placing all returns at the same value. They also can be routed to provide shielding to signal traces and reduce noise. Yes, there is both good and bad PC board design.

Quote:
PtP often sounds better than a board circuit.

Do we have a good comparision of two identical circuits except that one has PtP and the other has a PCB?
I bet not. Probably many other variables.

Quote:
With PtP the leads of individual components connect directly to the circuit nodes, resulting in much shorter signal paths - a key component in accurate, low noise circuits. PtPt also allows many components to be connected in very little space as there are three dimensions to work in, not just the two dimensions of a circuit board. In PtP circuits there are no common ground planes; that is, only one source and one sink are interconnected, keeping noise low.

So if short lead lengths are good then those damn surface mount components must be the best. Besides most of their connections being internal, the interconnections are also very short. With the remote mounting of large caps and tubes relative to each other and/or a terminal strip I don't see how PtP can have shorter signal paths than a PCB having most of the components mounted directly to it.
No common ground planes? I thought that the definition of a ground plane is a single common reference point.

Quote:
With a circuit board design the board must be replaced.

Not true at all. Often it is cheaper to replace the board than it is to repare it based on the economics of board cost vs. troubleshooting/labor cost.

Quote:
it is difficult to replace the active components with newer or better pieces.

But we all know that newer or better is a step backwards.

Quote:
There are many old techniques and concepts that are better than their modern equivalent. Consider hand-made violins, hand crafted food, the shave of a single edge razor in the hands of master barber, the patina of hand-rubbed marble sculpture, real musicians playing acoustic instruments live. All of these are more expensive and labor intensive than their modern counterparts - and each is vastly superior.

Yes, many old techniques do still work well, but not becuase of any current known reasons. But then again, we don't know all the questions, so we don't have all the answers.

And DUP of course a PC board can't sound as good as wire because teh thickness to width ratio is wrong. Especially compared to using wire with the magical "golden properties". You really should have known.

Geez, dup, you must think being King of the Dead Zone is some kind of honor.

Quote:
Modern musical instruments are much better now than the older hand made stuff,...

Nonsense. Pre-war Bach trumpets, older violins, early Buffet clarinets, etc. are all prized as having superior workmanship and sound. Similarly, hand-crafted modern instruments remain the pinnacle. Of course, there are aspects that machines do better - like the initial machining of trumpet valves - but the final lapping is done by hand. This is true even of electric guitars; Abyss and Zion come to mind, not to mention the custom shops of the big manufacturers.

And there are many superbly made older cars that are vastly superior to modern mass-produced machines in fit and finish, handling, acceleration, interior design, etc. Vintage Ferrari v. Audio RS4, not even a tough call. Just start by looking at the paint...

Cyclebrain, I don't know why you made your response to me and the quoted only Elk's post. Fruedian slip? None the less, I do have some comments on your post.

Quote:
Yes, there is both good and bad PC board design.

I believe that's the point everyone here, other than dup, has been making. I would hate to think of a PtP wired home theater receiver or DVD player. There have been multiple, repeated and consistent problems with printed circuit boards in tube power amplifiers.

Has this become an either or situation? One must be bad while the other is always good?

Quote:
PtP often sounds better than a board circuit.

Do we have a good comparision of two identical circuits except that one has PtP and the other has a PCB?
I bet not. Probably many other variables.

You don't think many of those designers who moved away from the lower cost (just toss the entire board full of components rather than do a repair, you know) printed circuit boards in their high end amplifiers (Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, etc.) listened to the effects of the different circuit layouts and assembly techniques before making a decision to go with one or the other? How long have you been in this hobby, Cyclebrain?

Other variables? Yes, tube amps have problems with printed circuits. They are unreliable in certain parts of a tube power amplifier and many tube pre amplifiers. As I told my clients, anything sounds better in your home than it does in my service department. So, yes, I think we can say, printed circuits can affect the sound in a very negative manner if the ciruit stops working.

Quote:
With a circuit board design the board must be replaced.

Not true at all. Often it is cheaper to replace the board than it is to repare it based on the economics of board cost vs. troubleshooting/labor cost.

Cheaper? The troubleshooting costs are often close to the same. You have to find the problem. If the tech knows the problem with a board full of IC components can be traced to the final signal at the output of the board, that can be cheaper. But now we are typically talking about a board full of IC's and surface mount components. You are spinning the broadest sense of why a designer would choose PtP or printed circuits. In a computer or HT component where chips are the only way to build, PtP is not an option. I think we all but one realize that much. But you seem to give no credence to the value of PtP in audio circuits as we see them employed in high end consumer gear. Are you being willfully blind or willfully ignorant?

Quote:
So if short lead lengths are good then those damn surface mount components must be the best.

It would appear so. In class T amplifiers, surface mounts do tend to sound better due, it seems, to the very short signal paths they offer. However, we are now discussing another type of design where PtP of the Tripath chip based amplifiers is not an option. I have, though, had to remove components from a Tripath based board and the foil lifts quite easily. See my comments above regarding foil lifting and the repairs that can happen afterwards. "Can" happen. Not always will. But most of these boards are ruined if a minor mistake is made. I've worked with seasoned techs who have cursed printed circuit boards. And the repair technique you advocate, replacing the entire board, has led us to many throw away components. It's cheaper to buy new than to repair printed circuits. Now, that's progress!

Quote:
it is difficult to replace the active components with newer or better pieces.

But we all know that newer or better is a step backwards.

Now you are sounding very much like dup. Attack the other side without reason or logic. Congratulations! You've turned a corner in your posting, cylcebrain.

Quote:
And DUP of course a PC board can't sound as good as wire because teh thickness to width ratio is wrong.

Spelling like dup too! You are both still ignoring the fact that PtP can have a more appropriately sized gauge throughout the signal path for the current that dup says requires "lots of copper". Since dup loves his 10 gauge copper cables, when was the last time you saw a printed ciruit trace the equivalent of a 10 A.W.G. cable? How cheap would that be? What would be the advantage of a printed circuit over PtP in that application?

Thank you for your contribution, Cyclebrain. I only wish it had presented both sides of the issue rather than choosing to ignore those things that do not agree with your chosen position.

Quote:
Actually my pre amps are hybrid, . . . Tubes in teh preamp and SS componets tubes are used for what tubes do best, . .

With your hatred of tubes I remain exceedingly amused that you choose a hybrid, admitting that tubes are better than SS in some ways. It must be painful for you to acknowledge that there are times that old is better than new.

As I keep pointing out, the best practice is to use the old when it is best; the new, when it is superior. Same with circuit boards and PtP - circuit boards are great for repeatability, and they are cheaper, smaller, and simple to repair. Great for mass produced equipment, computers, telephones, all sorts of things. There are also excellent sounding pieces with only circuit boards. There are many ways to wonderful sound.

SASAudio, thanks for your post! Great to have another vantage point.

Quote:
Yes, many old techniques do still work well, but not becuase of any current known reasons. But then again, we don't know all the questions, so we don't have all the answers.

Cyclebrain, great to have you on board.

I fully agree. We are still learning. There are things we don't understand, things that we can't measure, etc. This is what makes science so fun. Once we know we can decide what old techniques are worth keeping and which should be tossed.

In your opinion, are there any circumstances when PtP is better than circuit board construction? (Other than one-offs and the like).

I'm not trying to cut this discussion short but I think we all know why this thread exists. dup is once again trying to prove someone else is stupid and he chose the most outrageous example he could find of PtP wiring. He is taking a comment I made in another thread and attempting to show only he knows what is right when it comes to audio by offering no proof of either side of the issue, only ridicule. Nothing new here.

I don't believe this is the black or white issue dup would like to make it. No more than dup insistence tubes are always bad, as Elk has pointed out. Therefore, is the issue not which is better but which is better in a particular application? Or, as Elk has inquired, " ... are there any circumstances when PtP is better than circuit board construction?" I would answer in the affirmative.

No, once again you can't keep your mouth shut and you're looking for support for yet another smear campaign against DUP. Get over it.

"I'd be a bit careful about siding with dup. Once he finds out you use dual mono volume pots, you'll be in for it! "

Yikes, I see Jan.

"The point here isn't that one is better than the other in virtually anything. The thread exists because dup took a reference I made to PtP wiring being desirable and distorted it to try proving everyone other than dup is nuts. I certainly never advocated a PtP wring scheme as he portrayed at the top of the thread."

I understand. Dup is a rather 'interesting' character to say the least.

"Removing solder from a connection is, I think, a great idea. We are no longer talking about typical printed circuits, however, as these must be hand assembled. Right?"

Yes Jan, hand assembled but I do not rid of solder connections as you express it. I probably could have been clearer.

My stuff isn't perfect in this regard because of physical limitations, but many times I can connect multiple leads in one solder connection, reducing wires and multiple solder connections.

Which brings up a good point. Typical 'PC boards' require each part to have its own solder connection. I feel it is better to combine connections into one, if possible. I call it "lead to lead" (copyrighted 1996) connecting.

"But this route you've described seems as if it would be affected by vibration and oxidation."

I don't think resistors are vibration prone, but caps can be, so I glue them above the board to hold them firm, yet away from the board.

I guess another plus is that capacitance between foils is also minimized since there isn't that much of it. Leads are already tinned.

"I notice you use very small transformers in your unit. Lower vibration?"

That and since the circuit is class A operation, no huge tranny is needed as the average current is constant. I am one who believes in minimizing potential sonic problems such as using too much core material.

I also wrote an article concerning DC coupling and how deep bass is artificially accentuated. It also affects the midrange. This is much more of a problem in solid state designs because of multiple DC coupled stages. The results are accentuated deep bass with the associated harmonics being reduced in comparison. I use three proprietary methods, looking for discrepancies, when testing for proper bass response. (Contact me if you want to read that article.)

"How does a no-solder connection fare over time? How does a no-solder component get repaired?"

I use solder connections as explained above. Anyway, no problems in 11 years (since my company began) with any solder connection cracking, breaking, becoming intermittent, looking burnt. As you mentioned it is how it is done.

One can design a component to be 'destruction proof'. By that, I mean if a tube fails, say shorts, nothing around it will blow. So the only other problem would be if a part, winding, or a cap failed on its own. Even then, no heat problem.

"What you seem to be saying is that all busbars cause problems similar to those found on a printed circuit board. Is this then a real advantage of the printed circuit board? Sounds a bit like spin to me."

That is an interesting question. It depends on how a bussbar is employed, even in a single stage design. It is also more problematic in multiple stage designs than single stage designs that I have seen.

One of the stages will not 'see' the original source ground perfectly because of interference from the other stage.
The resistance of the ground bussbar, although low, is still enough to cause the signal from one stage to superimpose on the other stage. It is a low level, complex feedback situation involving phase relationships and maybe more.

Let me ask, has anyone had the problem of 'bleedthru' from one source to another? One is listening to one source but hears music from the other source during quiet passages, or when paused.

There is virtually no current flowing from the offending source, since the selector switch was near perfect (I was able to rule it out) and the impedances involved are so high.

Let me jump ahead with my own experience, and state that by simply installing separate 6" wires from each input jack to ground (the ground has to be short for sure.) Puff, the problem completely disappeared, zilch. Previously, only one 6" wire was used to ground all the input jacks.

This is just a simple example, but I think also a revealing example of how touchy an audio design can be.

I hope you understand fully why I connect multiple leads and then solder them. This keeps any resistance between leads to a minimum.

I hope this explains things Jan.

Quote:
Let me ask, has anyone had the problem of 'bleedthru' from one source to another? One is listening to one source but hears music from the other source during quiet passages, or when paused.

The last time I experienced this problem was in an old Sylvania receiver from the 1970's. Being a Sylvania receiver from the 1970's the problem stopped when the unit went up in smoke.

Quote:
... by simply installing separate 6" wires from each input jack to ground (the ground has to be short for sure.) Puff, the problem completely disappeared, zilch. Previously, only one 6" wire was used to ground all the input jacks.

How does this differ from star grounding?

Any advice on those 6DJ8's?

"The last time I experienced this problem was in an old Sylvania receiver from the 1970's. Being a Sylvania receiver from the 1970's the problem stopped when the unit went up in smoke."

Oh boy, smoke. It was just an example of how touchy even a 'simple' wire is in a design.

"How does this differ from star grounding?"

My understanding of star gounding is that of grounding all the leads and wires at one point; while bussbar grounding is connecting leads along a given length of a wire.

With star grounding, extra wires may have to be used to connect parts leads or other points to the star.

"Any advice on those 6DJ8's?'

I tried to be as careful as possible choosing tubes for my designs. Alot is going to depend on the design and parts used, especially coupling capacitors.

I can say is that I tried at least 10 people auditioning my preamp inline and out, and none could tell the difference. I also suggested to some that they would hear a difference, but none could. I also use some custom manufactured coupling caps because I haven't found one currently being produced that was very good. I have not, however, tested them all, especially the more expensive ones.
But then I do not see how the more expensive caps will improve the sound.

Quote:
No, once again you can't keep your mouth shut and you're looking for support for yet another smear campaign against DUP.

No? No to what, LS?

Quote:
Get over it.

Get over what, LS? That dup typically (constantly) takes the most ridiculous position on any topic? That a comment stating the value of PtP wiring can be turned into a barage of illogical mumblejumble? That the amp pictured at the top of this thread does not in any way represent the best of PtP wiring? That dup won't acknowledge equally poor circuit board design which is far more prevalent than errors in PtP wiring schemes? That Elk managed to wade through dup's ramblings to find dup's inconsistency? Get over what?

I'm sorry your idol has been knocked down a peg or three in these two threads, LS. But your sounding a wee bit three year oldish. I suggest you should just get over it if you have nothing more to contribute to the thread other than adding more insults and innuendo. dup is doing quite well in that regard by himself.

I hope to see you in the dead zone, LS. Your comments truly belong there.

Quote:
PI doubt if you have seen teh paint on either an RS4 or and old Ferrari....when you do, you will realize you are completly wrong.

You are too funny!

Look at the paint of any modern mass production car by standing at the rear and looking along the side. You will see orange peel and many other flaws. You will not see these on a hand made car. It's one of the many places the money goes.

You need to get out more. See the world!

You are correct however that current mass produced guitars are better overall than older mass produced guitars.

LS, are you really trying to portray DUP as victim?

Quote:
LS, are you really trying to portray DUP as victim?

No

Quote:

Quote:
No, once again you can't keep your mouth shut and you're looking for support for yet another smear campaign against DUP.

No? No to what, LS?

Quote:
Get over it.

Get over what, LS? That dup typically (constantly) takes the most ridiculous position on any topic? That a comment stating the value of PtP wiring can be turned into a barage of illogical mumblejumble? That the amp pictured at the top of this thread does not in any way represent the best of PtP wiring? That dup won't acknowledge equally poor circuit board design which is far more prevalent than errors in PtP wiring schemes? That Elk managed to wade through dup's ramblings to find dup's inconsistency? Get over what?

I'm sorry your idol has been knocked down a peg or three in these two threads, LS. But your sounding a wee bit three year oldish. I suggest you should just get over it if you have nothing more to contribute to the thread other than adding more insults and innuendo. dup is doing quite well in that regard by himself.

I hope to see you in the dead zone, LS. Your comments truly belong there.

You know its a reflection on yourself. You can't take DUP. That's DUPs problem? My problem? DUP has no alliance such as the Anti-DUP Yip Yip & The Watermelon Gang Alliance. And yet you would think he unfortunately has control of the board the way you get offended by his very presence. Take yo medicine

That made no sense what so ever! You have become even more inane than dup. Quite a feat!

LS, there are 25 potentially new visitors looking at this forum at the moment. Can't you please conduct yourself with some degree of dignity in public?

Drowning by your own hand must really suck.

What are you doing with your hand?!!!

Can't you please conduct yourself with some degree of dignity in public?

So now you're attacking my amplifiers?! What a joke!

dup, you only wish you had my amplifiers. Give it up, dup, you've lost this one. The pissing contest is over.

If you want to know what people think of your system, place a picture of it on the forum and let people vote as to whether they would stop to pick it up off the side of the road. That should be interesting.

Otherwise, leave my system alone. That's not what the thread is about and your sarcasm is akin to belittling Creek components, an act that got that post sent to the dead zone. Do you just intend to own the dead zone, dup?

Stephen, how do you decide when dup has crossed the line?

Quote:
Stephen, how do you decide when dup has crossed the line?

Another attempt at starting a smear campaign against DUP? Nobody likes a tattle-tale. Here is a novel idea. Put DUP on your ignore list. Me too. DUP hasn't crossed the line just because he doesn't like your amplifiers. "Stephen, DUP is looking at me! Make DUP stop looking at me. DUP is touching me. Make DUP stop touching me...."

LS, did I say you were acting like a three year old? I misjudged upwards of a good dozen or more months.

Here's a plan, LS. You place me on your "ignore" list. I would be honored with that position of distinction. Why do you read my posts in the first place? You don't contribute anything to the discussion when you reply. So why bother? Are you that obssessed with the idea dup can't take care of himself? It's a touching sentiment but just as misguided as any of your other concepts.