I am too poor to afford an Aleph J, especially when I am halfway across the planet from Reno Hi-Fi. Same reason too where an exchange program is concerned and sad to part with the Aleph 3.
I guess just have to live with this poison in my blood until the schematics of the Aleph J is released and try to build one. What a sad life we music lovers live.
Mr. Pass, from a designer of your calibre, there can never be a last word. So it makes it even more agonising.
I just managed to got myself an old pair of Snells Type J/III speakers and paired it with the Aleph 3, and all that heard it, reckoned it was really musical, better than my present Epos ES-11. Nelson Pass is right again. Efficient speakers will be the best partners. Thank you sir. !!!
I just managed to got myself an old pair of Snells Type J/III speakers and paired it with the Aleph 3, and all that heard it, reckoned it was really musical, better than my present Epos ES-11. Nelson Pass is right again. Efficient speakers will be the best partners. Thank you sir. !!!
I don't happen to think that efficient speakers are necessarily
the best. They are interesting and entertaining, and if you
like minimalism they have a particular appeal.
I don't happen to think that Zens or Alephs (or anything else)
represents the pinnacle in reproduction. They are interesting
approaches in minimalist thinking, and they offer aesthetic
value on more than one level.
"We take our obsolete technologies and turn them into art."
- Marshall McLuhan
the best. They are interesting and entertaining, and if you
like minimalism they have a particular appeal.
I don't happen to think that Zens or Alephs (or anything else)
represents the pinnacle in reproduction. They are interesting
approaches in minimalist thinking, and they offer aesthetic
value on more than one level.
"We take our obsolete technologies and turn them into art."
- Marshall McLuhan
> www.electronluv.com
I salute you, Sir.
But then since beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and I suppose those "pieces of art" are beyond my financial capabilities (whether I admire their beauty is quite another matter), I guess I'll stick to my very ordinary, black & silver anodised aluminium, all solid state, Pass Lab copies (I refrain from using the word Clone), whenever I pick up enough motivation to sort out the not-supposed-to-be-there oscillations.
Patrick
I salute you, Sir.
But then since beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and I suppose those "pieces of art" are beyond my financial capabilities (whether I admire their beauty is quite another matter), I guess I'll stick to my very ordinary, black & silver anodised aluminium, all solid state, Pass Lab copies (I refrain from using the word Clone), whenever I pick up enough motivation to sort out the not-supposed-to-be-there oscillations.
Patrick
I havn't heard anyone (Nelson) descibe how using a JFET input stage helps sonically imporve the Aleph. The 30 is different than the other Alephs because it was 3 stage correct?
Hence, Mr. Pass also elluded to other Aleph designs following suit....so am I to assume that the 5 and perhaps 1.2 (the one I'm building) will re-emerge with worked over J-boards?
Back to my first paragraph, how does this change the sound if the original (sound) was so natural to begin with???? How do you improve upon the improved.
Very cool move by the way Mr. Pass. A nice thing to do for your loyal followers/buyers.
C
Hence, Mr. Pass also elluded to other Aleph designs following suit....so am I to assume that the 5 and perhaps 1.2 (the one I'm building) will re-emerge with worked over J-boards?
Back to my first paragraph, how does this change the sound if the original (sound) was so natural to begin with???? How do you improve upon the improved.
Very cool move by the way Mr. Pass. A nice thing to do for your loyal followers/buyers.
C
I count the whole output stage as a single stage, just like I
count a complementary follower as a single-stage, even though
it consists to two banks of transistors delivering current out of
phase with each other. Same with differential pairs. I don't
count cascodes unless they are the only stage, as with the D1
I/V converter.
count a complementary follower as a single-stage, even though
it consists to two banks of transistors delivering current out of
phase with each other. Same with differential pairs. I don't
count cascodes unless they are the only stage, as with the D1
I/V converter.
I believe the original 0 was three stages, but was updated to two. The 30 was a two stage amp from the beginning.
What qualifies as a gain stage is a contentious issue with some people, on a par with definitions of feedback. It depends on your point of view. A follower, for instance, doesn't offer voltage gain--in fact it loses a modest amount of voltage swing. To some people this means it's not a gain stage, in spite of the fact that it does provide current gain. Anything that hinges on semantics is a definite no-win situation. People will argue about it forever but never prove anything.
Grey
What qualifies as a gain stage is a contentious issue with some people, on a par with definitions of feedback. It depends on your point of view. A follower, for instance, doesn't offer voltage gain--in fact it loses a modest amount of voltage swing. To some people this means it's not a gain stage, in spite of the fact that it does provide current gain. Anything that hinges on semantics is a definite no-win situation. People will argue about it forever but never prove anything.
Grey
You are right - my error - the Aleph 0, 0s and the 1.0 were
three stages. The 0 and 0s remained so, and the Aleph
1 became the 1.2 with 2 stages. All subsequent Alephs were
2 stage, incuding the XA series.
What has become known as the Aleph current source was not
in these 3 stage designs - it was introduced with the Aleph 1.2
and Aleph 3, and has been used since.
Note that the Aleph current source circuit does not dictate 2
stages - it's just a current source - but it did lend itself well to
minimalist design, and so it has found its home in 1 and 2 stage
amps.
/pass/: memory bank without parity check
three stages. The 0 and 0s remained so, and the Aleph
1 became the 1.2 with 2 stages. All subsequent Alephs were
2 stage, incuding the XA series.
What has become known as the Aleph current source was not
in these 3 stage designs - it was introduced with the Aleph 1.2
and Aleph 3, and has been used since.
Note that the Aleph current source circuit does not dictate 2
stages - it's just a current source - but it did lend itself well to
minimalist design, and so it has found its home in 1 and 2 stage
amps.
/pass/: memory bank without parity check
GRollins said:
Yes, the argument about feedback is tedious. As long as you
can prove that any device's voltage gain depends on the output
voltage or degeneration resistor, you can argue this in a very
annoying manner.
Gain is Gain, though, and I make no distinction between voltage
gain and current gain. Some elements contribute little or no
gain - cascodes, level shifters, constant current sources. I don't
count them because while they bring performance to the table,
they contribute little or no gain. Hawksford's error correction?
Arguably a gain stage, but what's a couple of dB among friends?
regular ccs do provide some gain in the form of active impendence and yet
we dont see it as a gain stage(when compared to passive loads), we also do
see current gains such as efs as stages (well some of us) what strikes me though
is that the aleph vcs(v=variable) is not seen as a stage, at its input signal is
applied and has the same topology as a zen amplifier(or a simple se amp), so
is it a stage or not? given the fact that signal is applied i think in my opinion
is a stage because there could be a lot of gain if the engineer decides to
think so
aleph fanatic
cheers
we dont see it as a gain stage(when compared to passive loads), we also do
see current gains such as efs as stages (well some of us) what strikes me though
is that the aleph vcs(v=variable) is not seen as a stage, at its input signal is
applied and has the same topology as a zen amplifier(or a simple se amp), so
is it a stage or not? given the fact that signal is applied i think in my opinion
is a stage because there could be a lot of gain if the engineer decides to
think so
aleph fanatic
cheers
I think this has been addressed elsewhere at length and
cis the subject of some contention. This is why I usually
preface comments about feedback and gain stages with
some definitions of what I consider feedback or a gain
stage. Also, lots of times the lines are blurred. For example,
it's easy to have something that looks like a gain stage but
which contributes no gain - a unity gain level shifter comes to
mind.
cis the subject of some contention. This is why I usually
preface comments about feedback and gain stages with
some definitions of what I consider feedback or a gain
stage. Also, lots of times the lines are blurred. For example,
it's easy to have something that looks like a gain stage but
which contributes no gain - a unity gain level shifter comes to
mind.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.