Who makes the simplest circuit? And does it sound great?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
The simplest circuit I believe I have have ran across with regards to speakers were a pair of DCM Time Windows. Don't recall the model but when we cracked it open, we were surprised to see only 3 components in the crossover. One resistor, one capacitor and one inductor IIRC. For what they were, they sounded pretty decent for such a simple design. The imaging was really nice.
Tom
Tom
with the darTZeel NHB-458 there are "only" three (3) analog, discrete junctions (transistors) in the entire signal path per polarity......compared to the already very low count of 6 for the NHB-108.
the a/c fuse has been replaced with a sophisticated thermal breaker. easy to reactivate, it also allows for a better electrical contact; a mandatory thing considering the huge current peaks involved.
i'm not sure that these aspects of the design are actually simple.
it does sound very non processed and musical to my ears in my system. it seems i'm listening thru electronics less than ever before.
the a/c fuse has been replaced with a sophisticated thermal breaker. easy to reactivate, it also allows for a better electrical contact; a mandatory thing considering the huge current peaks involved.
i'm not sure that these aspects of the design are actually simple.
it does sound very non processed and musical to my ears in my system. it seems i'm listening thru electronics less than ever before.
Possibly easiest comparison are active vs passive preamps such as that from Music First Audio.
A very well designed and engineered passive preamp has a lot going for it over comparable active preamp, and also against even a fair few of the high end active preamps.
Music First Audio is pretty well recognised over here in Europe for such products and what they bring compared to active.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/musicfirst/passive.html
Much more difficult to argue simplistic circuit benefits regarding power amplifiers as there are good simple and complex designs out there, but with the simple designs usually being much more expensive - if considering the very well designed/engineered products IMO.
Cheers
Orb
A very well designed and engineered passive preamp has a lot going for it over comparable active preamp, and also against even a fair few of the high end active preamps.
Music First Audio is pretty well recognised over here in Europe for such products and what they bring compared to active.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/musicfirst/passive.html
Much more difficult to argue simplistic circuit benefits regarding power amplifiers as there are good simple and complex designs out there, but with the simple designs usually being much more expensive - if considering the very well designed/engineered products IMO.
Cheers
Orb
I had a pair of Gallo spakers with just a cap in series to the tweeter, 1st order - not a bad speaker..also, I have heard the 47Labs amo and liked it with the right speakers...but also heard great gear with tons of wires and components below the hood..go figure!
My Quad II Fortys are as simple as it gets. And they sound really good.
The Valvet Class A monos (6k/pair) use only one transistor in the signal path I believe. I have a hankering to demo a pair.
The Valvet Class A monos (6k/pair) use only one transistor in the signal path I believe. I have a hankering to demo a pair.
How about the original Quad amps with real GEC KT-66 output tubes, Mullard rectifer, and Phillips EF-86 tubes?
Love Quad IIs old and new. Love Eicos too.
Valvet A3.5 Mk2s are really good. I bought myself a pair.
I would say that Nelson Pass has the honors for the yet simplest circuit. (the first watt amps...) (one active element? )
That would also be his mantra "simple sounds better".
Now, They sound somewhat different, than most other amps, maybe it's the absence of artifact that fumbles the listener? Some like them!
And, In Norway we have a local hero, called Knut Øystein Lauvland, proprietor of a company called Doxa Sound. "Doxa.no"
You could say it's a variation of what Nelson Pass is doing.
The Doxa amps are really really neutral and clear. Some 35 to 70+ watts I believe, so "quite" powerful for "simple circuit" designs.
They share the philosophy at least, simple is better.
Imperial.
That would also be his mantra "simple sounds better".
Now, They sound somewhat different, than most other amps, maybe it's the absence of artifact that fumbles the listener? Some like them!
And, In Norway we have a local hero, called Knut Øystein Lauvland, proprietor of a company called Doxa Sound. "Doxa.no"
You could say it's a variation of what Nelson Pass is doing.
The Doxa amps are really really neutral and clear. Some 35 to 70+ watts I believe, so "quite" powerful for "simple circuit" designs.
They share the philosophy at least, simple is better.
Imperial.
Last edited:
Interesting you mention the Classics. I had the gold-plated Jubilee version next my 40s, both tricked out with NOS tubes. I run 100db speakers, so headroom isn't an option. I ended up preferring the KT88s, but can see why the Classics would be preferred to many---they are "intimate" amps.
You might look at TdeP's updated Peter Walker design in the Quad 88. They are quite inexpensive used and I believe would sound much better than the ARC amp you've had recently.
KeithR
I just ordered a pair of Valvet 3.5II 50 watt Class A monos...will see if simple is best in SS-land.
I have had FirstWatt SIT-1s in my system, but did not feel they were optimal. Headroom was still a bit compromised at 10 watts and I felt vocals had many SET-ributes, but ultimately the decay wasn't there so it seemed odd overall. Think leading edge, vocal bloom, ss decay--it didn't work for me.
I have had FirstWatt SIT-1s in my system, but did not feel they were optimal. Headroom was still a bit compromised at 10 watts and I felt vocals had many SET-ributes, but ultimately the decay wasn't there so it seemed odd overall. Think leading edge, vocal bloom, ss decay--it didn't work for me.
Einstein said, make things as simple as possible...but no simpler. It is judging where the 'no simpler' bit starts that is so hard.Surely a single ended triode amp wins for simplicity..easily. But there is a price for that simplicity...a price not everyone wishes to pay. As for crossovers, just use a full range driver, sounds better too. But in physics there are no free lunches...every decision comes with its own price.
Let me know how that goes. What isn't much widely known is that Knut Cornils of Valvet originally built his amps to go with high efficiency speakers (Horns and SS are popular in Germany and France). He even had two models of horn loudspeakers in the line-up that he has put on hold for now. I'm currently using mine with speakers built around Fostex full range drivers. You can imagine how intolerant of distortion in the form of grit and grain these can be.
The strain gauge cartridge drive I have consists of one transformer and one battery per channel. I bypassed the batteries with small caps, but still, it would be pretty hard to devise a circuit that accomplishes a task as difficult with fewer parts.
Our amplifiers have only one gain stage. Since they don't have output transformers, they don't have to boost the gain up to a high voltage and then knock the voltage down again in the transformer. So the amp can be a lot simpler as a result.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |