Power Supply units!

[silviajulieta]

No, I have both. I still have my totally dual mono, two box cj ART around til it's sold (something you haven't touched on as another variable), my two box King/Cello that can double as a tape or phono preamp and my one box cj GAT that is my current reference.

Dear Myles: I understand what you say. What I try to say is that in an hypothetical situation: that cj Art two boxes at 60K against the AR-SP50 single box at 60K , please forget for a moment about performance and only in a buy choice by price.

I with out doubt will buy the two box design, it is more comfortable for my " mind ". I feel better with that choice an not the single box. Maybe your choice could be different and nothing wrong with that, each person is unique.

Many of us ( including me ) already learn that two boxes designs are the way to go against similar audio items that comes in single box. This like a wide assumption and with out take in count other issues like landscape/space on two-box against only one box or the like.

In the other side could be that other people learn the single box approach that I can't imagine how could be that learning. I'm talking of normal HE customers.

Again, I'm not against the multi-box approach I only made my first post trying to answer the thread question: """"" seperate power supplies for various components? Is this really necessary or just another marketing ploy to get us to part with dollars? """""""" and I start my answer with: ++++++ IMHO it is possible to design in " one box " ..... +++++++ .

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[silviajulieta]

Raul,

I am sorry if your use of English as a second language causes you difficulty in expressing yourself clearly here. Many of your statements did sound as though you knew things that others did not. There are some very well educated people on this forum, with many of them VERY knowledgeable about audio gear. It is not any single individual's place to say what constitutes a good design.



Exactly. Unless we are better engineers, we should not be so critical. We are free to buy whatever component we wish.

Lee

Dear Lee: Seems to me that you have a " problem " with almost everything I post here. Seems to me that you are looking for " sights " that could mean: ++++ your statements did sound as though you knew things that others did not. +++++++
I have to say that this is not my attitude. Now, where is the real issue if you tell me that you know " Venus " and I don't?, no one IMHO knows everything: you know a lot of things where I'm unaware of it and other people too and I know or have experiences that you did not.
Again WHICH THE PROBLEM WITH THAT?, please explain me because I don't understand your overall complaints. I need to understand your point of view that I did not yet.

Btw, I know for sure the " high caliber " of the people in this forum, please don't think that I'm a " fool " that expose my self just for fun but things are that I like to learn.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[silviajulieta]

Of course multiple people can collaborate on a design. But partitioning the interface and testing of each module allows this to happen much easier. If someone for example designed the output stage of an amp, you can't test and manufacture it independent of the driver stage.


Anything is possible to be sure . But consider that the fan could cause sonic anomalies of its own, costs extra, requires thermodynamics analysis to make sure it can properly cool things, and its failure, could cause the rest of the system to fail too. So there is a big trade off there. Extra heatsinks makes the device heavier and is also quite expensive. To the extent two boxes solve the same problem and provide some marketing value, that may be a better way to go.


Clearly there are state-of-the-art single box designs. I was not taking a position one way or the other in the argument . But simply answering the engineering question in an objective manner having run into the same issue many times in managing design of hardware products in multiple companies. There is a reason external power supplies are so popular in electronic gear.

While I am typing this, there is another reason to have a separate box and that is regulatory certification. Getting UL/CSA mark requires long lead time tests and require multiple redesigns when they do crazy things to it like zapping it with high voltage on anything coming out of the box. By just taking the power supply to them (since that is the only thing with A/C connection), you significantly limit how much work you have to do and at any rate, can get that work done before the rest of the design is complete. This latter reason is the top explanation for why so many electronic devices have external power supplies. You get a pre-certified device and you are good to go.

Dear Amir: As I posted the audio item design approach is a designer privilege. All your points are valid and like you posted before: ++++There are sound engineering reasons for both schools. ++++++

I was a little unaware on your last one about UL/CSA certification, good to know it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[RBFC]

Raul,

I don't know you, and can only read what you post here. My point is simple: If you don't design preamplifiers and power supplies, how can you make statements that imply how they should be or could be designed? It's fine to be curious about design choices, but we haven't had to face the design challenges that the manufacturer did. Therefore, we are speaking without adequate information. Writing bad information on a public forum is not good for that forum. We hope to attract well-known gear designers here to discuss the process. Will they want to come when they read what you said about "multi-box units are to get higher prices and look good to the consumer"? Unless you know exactly why they chose to use a separate power supply, you are only guessing, and that is bad for this forum. It's OK for you to say that you don't prefer multi-box units, but not OK to say that there is no good reason for them.

I don't have anything personal against you, and I have no issue with posts you've made here in other discussions. I truly hope you clearly understand what I am saying here. If you still feel that I have a problem with everything you write, you're wrong. I want this forum to be filled with accurate information and good discussions.

Lee

 

[Gregadd]

I invited Raul here to post about anolg because of his vast real world experience with all things analog. We don't agree on everything but that is not the point. J&R Essential 3160 is phonolinestage( a name invented by Raul) is a preamp designed by Raul and his engineer partner Jose'. I do think at least he has a basis for his position. Albert Porter has had the preamp and deemed it among the best. Not bad for a tube guy like Albert
Despite poking a little fun at him I am a serious one box guy except for speakers. When a had a vinyl rig I refused to buy a preamp that did not include a phono section. I was thrilled to learn the integrated amp had made a reappearance. I waited in vain for the appearance of the promised Moscode integrated amp. I think I actually heard the prototype at a New York audio show.

I am a serious one box guy.

I assure you Rauls' credentials are legitmate. Now we can we return to the topic of this thread? The Allerts cartridge reviewd by Michael Fremer in Stereophile was on loan from Raul! Enough said.

 

[silviajulieta]

Raul,

I don't know you, and can only read what you post here. My point is simple: If you don't design preamplifiers and power supplies, how can you make statements that imply how they should be or could be designed? It's fine to be curious about design choices, but we haven't had to face the design challenges that the manufacturer did. Therefore, we are speaking without adequate information. Writing bad information on a public forum is not good for that forum. We hope to attract well-known gear designers here to discuss the process. Will they want to come when they read what you said about "multi-box units are to get higher prices and look good to the consumer"? Unless you know exactly why they chose to use a separate power supply, you are only guessing, and that is bad for this forum. It's OK for you to say that you don't prefer multi-box units, but not OK to say that there is no good reason for them.

I don't have anything personal against you, and I have no issue with posts you've made here in other discussions. I truly hope you clearly understand what I am saying here. If you still feel that I have a problem with everything you write, you're wrong. I want this forum to be filled with accurate information and good discussions.

Lee

Dear Lee: I already design ( along a friend. ) my own Phonolinepreamp that comes with outboard PS, so I have some experience about. No I'm not thinking or saying that I'm better than any one but I have some experience on the subject, maybe not at the level of commercial manufacturers but I'm not totally unaware on design subjects.

I don't say that +++ you don't prefer multi-box units, ++++ you say it. What I say is that you can design first rate audio items in a single box like Halcro, Dartzeel or many other out there. That Halcro or Dartzeel exist can prove that my statement could be true and not because I said it but because exist those single top rated audio items.

+++++++ " I want this forum to be filled with accurate information and good discussions. " ++++++

very good target. I wonder: Where or which or whom is the judge to decide about? do you know IMHO that that judge must have a wide and whole deep knowledge on every single topic here to attain that " marvelous " targets in a open forum like this??

I'm not against it, hope you can do it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Gregadd: Sorry to duplicate what you posted in my post but I was unaware of yours.

Appreciate your words, thank's.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[RBFC]

Thank you for telling us a little about your background. It now makes a bit more sense why you stated the things you did. It would have made things clearer if you had told us of your experience earlier in the thread. Why did you use an external power supply for your preamp if you believe it is not necessary? What was your role in designing the J&R?

For the record, I do not own a multi-box preamp. I haven't had one for 15 years. I simply believe that one opinion does not constitute a constructive debate.

Amir offered several solid reasons why it may be beneficial to use an outboard power supply: heat, noise, and ease of submission for electrical certification. Splitting the design may also allow different designers free reign to maximize the performance of each portion of the component. There's no "debate", since we haven't heard from designers who prefer a separate power supply.

Raul,

Thank you for your patience in attempting to communicate in a second language. Since I know very little about electrical engineering, I will now bow out of this discussion. I'm sure you can understand why I would question your intentions when making the statements you did.

Lee

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Interesting debate...

As usual there is no clean answers. There are technical reasons why it could be easier to use two boxes. There are also very valid reasons why you could leave the whole ting in one box and achieve the same results.

Raul. I think make a valid point about marketing. This is controversial but we hear with both our ears and our eyes ... Psychology is at play and if I were to make Signature version of anything, putting in two separate boxes or even four as is the case for the Lamm peamp makes a lot of marketing sense ... In any products success on the marketplace is often a mixture of good performance and marketing ... Often marketing has more weight than performance in success ... even with audiophiles ...

Now as an aside, I would like to see more gear with batteries.. Batteries are the best source of DC .. Period ... Big Enough Batteries, stable DC for month before recharge so why not, these are easier to make in two or more boxes by the way ... Not so easy with tubes but for SS...

 

[silviajulieta]

Thank you for telling us a little about your background. It now makes a bit more sense why you stated the things you did. It would have made things clearer if you had told us of your experience earlier in the thread. Why did you use an external power supply for your preamp if you believe it is not necessary? What was your role in designing the J&R?

For the record, I do not own a multi-box preamp. I haven't had one for 15 years. I simply believe that one opinion does not constitute a constructive debate.

Amir offered several solid reasons why it may be beneficial to use an outboard power supply: heat, noise, and ease of submission for electrical certification. Splitting the design may also allow different designers free reign to maximize the performance of each portion of the component. There's no "debate", since we haven't heard from designers who prefer a separate power supply.

Raul,

Thank you for your patience in attempting to communicate in a second language. Since I know very little about electrical engineering, I will now bow out of this discussion. I'm sure you can understand why I would question your intentions when making the statements you did.

Lee

Dear Lee: I already do it in other thread and even on this one, pages 3, 4 and 5 with posts 27, 34 and 46 respectively.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Frantz: Page 4 post 34. Our co-design unit was at the begin a battery design. I use it and tested over two years before we switch to AC PS. During our tests and research ( with different kind of batteries. ) we can´t find any advantage with re-chargeable batteries over our fully regulated AC PS design. I still have the battery full unit.

One of the " adavantage " that we customers assume because the AHEE teach in that way is that a battery operated unit/item has no electrical " noise/distortions " due that don't flow AC througt it. Well, in a well AC design we have not either. Everything in on the design and the circuit needs.

Now, there are several ways to design PS DC or AC ( the theme is always controversial because each approach has its own proponents and both proponents could make sense to us " mere mortals ". ). I don't know if you remember the Mark Levinson Reference 33 where they design a PS with its own " electrical supply ": the design has a clean and pure electrical signal that does not comes direct from the house electrical source.
My Acoustic Signature TTs comes with a similar approach where the normal electrical house source fluctuations can't affect it du to its PS own electrical design.

I respect your: " period " word ( posted. ) about DC approach but I think that good different approaches can works. Which prefer your audio item designer? , will you decide an item buy because of that subject? what do you like? why?

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Dear Frantz: Page 4 post 34. Our co-design unit was at the begin a battery design. I use it and tested over two years before we switch to AC PS. During our tests and research ( with different kind of batteries. ) we can´t find any advantage with re-chargeable batteries over our fully regulated AC PS design. I still have the battery full unit.

One of the " adavantage " that we customers assume because the AHEE teach in that way is that a battery operated unit/item has no electrical " noise/distortions " due that don't flow AC througt it. Well, in a well AC design we have not either. Everything in on the design and the circuit needs.

Now, there are several ways to design PS DC or AC ( the theme is always controversial because each approach has its own proponents and both proponents could make sense to us " mere mortals ". ). I don't know if you remember the Mark Levinson Reference 33 where they design a PS with its own " electrical supply ": the design has a clean and pure electrical signal that does not comes direct from the house electrical source.
My Acoustic Signature TTs comes with a similar approach where the normal electrical house source fluctuations can't affect it du to its PS own electrical design.

I respect your: " period " word ( posted. ) about DC approach but I think that good different approaches can works. Which prefer your audio item designer? , will you decide an item buy because of that subject? what do you like? why?

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Raul,

This thread is becoming tiresome and lately your arguments have become more and more of the stickman and circular variety.

I don't give a rat's ass about whether the said unit comes in one, two or four or more units. Neither do 99.99999999999999999999% most audiophiles unless they're space constrained. In English, we call this making a mountain out of a molehill. The only thing that is important and counts is how does say the cj GAT sound compared next to an ARC Anniversary Reference preamp? Or an Allnic preamplifier, etc.

This thread has basically become about YOUR preamp. In fact, it's beginning to sound more like marketing your preamp than anything else. Ths thread has really ceased to contribute anything useful and should really be closed.

 

[Gregadd]

I invited Raul here to post about anolg because of his vast real world experience with all things analog. We don't agree on everything but that is not the point. J&R Essential 3160 is phonolinestage( a name invented by Raul) is a preamp designed by Raul and his engineer partner Jose'. I do think at least he has a basis for his position. Albert Porter has had the preamp and deemed it among the best. Not bad for a tube guy like Albert
Despite poking a little fun at him I am a serious one box guy except for speakers. When a had a vinyl rig I refused to buy a preamp that did not include a phono section. I was thrilled to learn the integrated amp had made a reappearance. I waited in vain for the appearance of the promised Moscode integrated amp. I think I actually heard the prototype at a New York audio show.

I am a serious one box guy.

I assure you Rauls' credentials are legitmate. Now we can we return to the topic of this thread? The Allerts cartridge reviewd by Michael Fremer in Stereophile was on loan from Raul! Enough said.

I retract this part of my comment as I have been unable to find the post on Audiogon. My apology to Raul and Albert.

Albert Porter has had the preamp and deemed it among the best. Albert did have al imited oppurtunity to audition it.

 

[silviajulieta]

Raul,

This thread is becoming tiresome and lately your arguments have become more and more of the stickman and circular variety.

I don't give a rat's ass about whether the said unit comes in one, two or four or more units. Neither do 99.99999999999999999999% most audiophiles unless they're space constrained. In English, we call this making a mountain out of a molehill. The only thing that is important and counts is how does say the cj GAT sound compared next to an ARC Anniversary Reference preamp? Or an Allnic preamplifier, etc.

This thread has basically become about YOUR preamp. In fact, it's beginning to sound more like marketing your preamp than anything else. Ths thread has really ceased to contribute anything useful and should really be closed.

Dear Myles: Frantz ask and I give my opinion. It is something wrong with that?, IMHO everyone can post in this forum.

Don't worry I'm done here. my preamp? don't worry about, I'm not on the commercial business and I don't need to " promote " anything.

The thread has not be close because my posts. I'm active when I have something to share. Do you don't like it? why read it?

Please don't stress.Good bye now and be happy!!!

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Gregadd]

Here is what Albert said on Audiogn:

Sorry Greg and others, the reason I don't mention Lloyds phono is because I had it in my system twice and do not like it. Perhaps It's because my cartridge is .2MV output and Lloyds phono is 22 DB less gain than my Io.

Perhaps It because its transistor and I prefer tubes. I hate saying anything negative about Walker products because I love my turntable and the Walker HDL's beyond belief.

I don't think it's possible for any high end company to make a group of products that are accepted across the board. Many companies make products that I like and yet other things in their line do not appeal to me. I think this is true for everyone at Audiogon, at least it appears that way with the diversity of product we choose to power our music.

The Essential is transistor and very clean, it has sufficient gain, meaning I could live with it (on that judgement only) and for that reason, if forced to choose between the Walker phono and the Essential, I would go with the Essential.

Right now I have no intention of moving from Aesthetix. I'm not certain any product made anywhere can move me from Aesthetix, but I am willing to listen again, and to all products that qualify to do the job.

At this very moment, with no other experience to draw on (I would NEVER make a decision that way!) If forced to move from my two Aesthetix pieces I would look at the Lamm phono and the Audio Research REF series.

That is just talk, not a valid comment on what is or what should be. I am extremely slow to change reference pieces. I prefer to work on reducing the flaws that exist (with my and all systems) and get the most of what is already there. As I have mentioned before, there is more excellent equipment available today than at any time in the history of audio.

I have no doubt Raul will find buyers that will crown the 3150 as "the" reference piece in their system with no consideration for replacing it with anything made. It's certainly good enough to qualify for that, especially for those that want solid state and compare the 10K (current) price with Boulder and other mega pieces and what they command in the market.


Albertporter (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)

 

[Gregadd]

Albert went on to say:

First of all, Raul wanted me to listen to the Essential, not do a comparison between it and my Aesthetix.

We disconnected both of the Aesthetix units and set up the Essential before our listening session.

Aesthetix has been my reference for 7 years, Raul wanted the 3150 plus the rest of my system, so we were both OK with skipping the Aesthetix intro.

I judge only with my ears, not the numbers. The Essential is an excellent preamp-phono and although the specifications are impressive, that says nothing more about it's sound than the specifications of a Yamaha integrated or Boulder phono (both of these, typically a decimal point followed by multiple zeros as a distortion spec).


My psychic mind tells me Albert Porter had a serious reality check...


Psychicanimal, if that happened, I didn't realize it. Thanks for the update.

I hope to listen to the Essential again. Raul and I discussed that possibility and I offered to do some product photography as Raul has no professional images. At that time I could listen longer and in a relaxed mode and maybe even write a review at Positive Feedback. I can listen to a piece like this and rave about its merit, regardless if it qualifies as a replacement for my Aesthetix or not.

I think anyone who's read much of what I post here, I rave about Vandersteen, Kharma, Maggies, Quads, Avalon, Dynaudio, Martin Design and Evolution Audio (to name just a few). Does this mean I plan on selling my Dali Megalines and move to another speaker? .......No.

All those brands are superb designs but none of these speakers are necessarily better in EVERY area than every other one on the list. Each has major strengths and a little weakness and each represents a particular designers shot at perfection. There simply are NO perfect pieces in audio, not my Dali's, not the Aesthetix, not any brand spoken of in these forums.

However, I am not surprised when someone claims one of these as "best," or at least the best they've ever heard.

Not surprising, as they are all within the top tier.

As for Raul:
I reserve my opinion about the Essential 3150 quality sound reproduction against not only the Aesthetix one but about any other phono-line-preamp. This not belongs to my targets and I'm not the right person to do it because the Essential 3150 is an important part in the José and my life and we could have some bias in favor of the Essential 3150.

I would hope Raul would have a bias for the Essential, it's a project he is passionately involved in and the end result is a beautifully designed and built unit that I think will find great success.

There will also be people who prefer EAR, CAT, BAT, Aesthetix or ARC simply because these tube designs perform so differently than transistors. That is part and parcel of the high end business and neither confirms nor denies Raul's passion or the value of the Essential.

I look forward to another session with it, hope that happens as we discussed.
Albertporter (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)

 

[Albertporter]

Interesting to read my old Audiogon comments from several years ago. Not surprisingly I still feel the Aesthetix IO and Callisto are among the best ever and still stand by my comments that ARC and Lamm would have been reasonable contenders to race against the Aesthetix.

I am a tube guy and have been most of my audio life. A transistor unit such as the Essential had a tough grade to climb to even be acceptable for my system. That does not mean it's not a good product, but rather not to my taste. For a guy that hates fish, a trip to the finest seafood restaurant is still a disappointment, even if it's five star rated.

I always try to balance my opinion with common sense. I'm not the type to stomp on a product that might be ideal for another music lover. I generally state my preferences and unless the equipment in discussion has a major flaw, I refrain from deep criticism.

In person I'm more direct and detailed in my opinion. Too many things written in posts are misread, misunderstood or given weight that it does not deserve.

 

[Albertporter]

The post by Gregadd was pulled from Audiogon without the HTML code that separated comments of OTHER posters as a quote

a quote like this

That makes my comments and those of other run together a bit and not easy for readers here at What's Best to understand. In other words, some of the comments that appear to be mine are quotes plus replies from other Audiogon members.

 

[muralman1]

Raul,

I do hope that we get some actual designers join in and illustrate the concerns of one-box vs. multi-box. You say that Halcro/Dartzeel can prove certain things (that may have many causes & be impossible to fairly duplicate in an inboard vs outboard study), but seem to think that the multi-box designers have no hope of proving anything.

I'm glad that you feel your equipment and choices are superior. I sincerely hope that you enjoy every minute you spend with them. However, I do feel that your tone of posting and your comments to others have been rude and condescending. Therefore, I will now utilize my "ignore" feature for the first time. I've tried to explain why you seem to be fighting an uphill battle, but you behave like you are the only one who has "learned for the better". I am truly disappointed.

Lee

My amps are one box. That is because their large power supply fits in the same box as the ICE amp. The preamp has two chassis. It is important because otherwise the preamp would be a monstrous one box.