Pass Aleph 30 manual
http://passlabs.com/products.htm
ass Product Philosophy and Design Theory
When I started designing amplifiers 25 years ago, solid state amplifiers had just achieved a
firm grasp on the market. Power and harmonic distortion numbers were king, and the largest
audio magazine said that amplifiers with the same specs sounded the same.
We have heard Triodes, Pentodes, Bipolar, VFET, Mosfet, TFET valves, IGBT, Hybrids, THD
distortion, IM distortion, TIM distortion, phase distortion, quantization, feedback, nested
feedback, no feedback, feed forward, Stasis, harmonic time alignment, high slew, Class AB,
Class A, Pure Class A, Class AA, Class A/AB, Class D, Class H, Constant bias, dynamic bias,
optical bias, Real Life Bias, Sustained Plateau Bias, big supplies, smart supplies, regulated
supplies, separate supplies, switching supplies, dynamic headroom, high current, balanced
inputs and balanced outputs.
Apart from digitally recorded source material, things have not changed very much in twenty
five years. Solid state amplifiers still dominate the market, the largest audio magazine still
doesn't hear the difference, and many audiophiles are still hanging on to their tubes. Leaving
aside the examples of marketing hype, we have a large number of attempts to improve the
sound of amplifiers, each attempting to address a hypothesized flaw in the performance.
Audiophiles have voted on the various designs with their pocketbooks, and products go down
in history as classics or are forgotten. The used market speaks eloquently: Marantz 9's
command a high price, while Dyna 120's are largely unwanted.
So far there has been a failure in the attempt to use specifications to characterize the
subtleties of sonic performance. Amplifiers with similar measurements are not equal, and
products with higher power, wider bandwidth, and lower distortion do not necessarily sound
better. Historically, that amplifier offering the most power, or the lowest IM distortion, or the
lowest THD, or the highest slew rate, or the lowest noise, has not become a classic or even
been more than a modest success.
For a long time there has been faith in the technical community that eventually some objective
analysis would reconcile critical listener's subjective experience with laboratory measurement.
Perhaps this will occur, but in the meantime, audiophiles largely reject bench specifications as
an indicator of audio quality. This is appropriate. Appreciation of audio is a subjective human
experience. We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical
analysis be the arbiter of fine wines. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but
are no substitute for human judgment.
As in art, classic audio components are the results of individual efforts and reflect a coherent
underlying philosophy. They make a subjective and an objective statement of quality which is
meant to be appreciated. It is essential that the circuitry of an audio component reflects a
philosophy which address the subjective nature of its performance first and foremost.
Lacking an ability to completely characterize performance in an objective manner, we should
take a step back from the resulting waveform and take into account the process by which it
has been achieved. The history of what has been done to the music is important and must be
considered a part of the result. Everything that has been done to the signal is embedded in it,
however subtly.
Experience correlating what sounds good to knowledge of component design yields some
general guidelines as to what will sound good and what will not:
1) Simplicity and a minimum number of components is a key element, and is well reflected in
the quality of tube designs. The fewer pieces in series with the signal path, the better. This
often true even if adding just one more gain stage will improve the measured specs.
2) The characteristic of gain devices and their specific use is important. Individual variations
in performance between like devices is important, as are differences in topological usage. All
signal bearing devices contribute to the degradation, but there are some different
characteristics are worth attention. Low order nonlinearities are largely additive in quality,
bringing false warmth and coloration, while abrupt high order nonlinearities are additive and
subtractive, adding harshness while losing information.
3) Maximum intrinsic linearity is desired. This is the performance of the gain stages before
feedback is applied. Experience suggests that feedback is a subtractive process; it removes
information from the signal. In many older designs, poor intrinsic linearity has been corrected
out by large application of feedback, resulting in loss of warmth, space, and detail.
High idle current, or bias, is very desirable as a means of maximizing linearity, and gives an
effect which is not only easily measured, but easily demonstrated: Take a Class A or other
high bias amplifier and compare the sound with full bias and with bias reduced. (Bias
adjustment is easily accomplished, as virtually every amplifier has a bias adjustment pot, but it
should be done very carefully). As an experiment it has the virtue of only changing the bias
and the expectations of the experimenter.
As the bias is reduced the perception of stage depth and ambiance will generally decrease.
This perception of depth is influenced by the raw quantity of bias current. If you continue to
increase the bias current far beyond the operating point, it appears that improvements are
made with bias currents which are much greater than the signal level. Typically the levels
involved in most critical listening are only a few watts, but an amplifier biased for ten times
that amount will generally sound better than one biased for the few watts.
For this reason, designs which operate in what has been referred to as "pure" Class A are
preferred because their bias currents are much larger than the signal most of the time. As
mentioned, preamp gain stages and the front ends of power amplifiers are routinely single
ended "pure" Class A, and because the signal levels are at small fractions of a watt, the
efficiency of the circuit is not important.
4) Given the assumption that every process that we perform on the signal will be heard, the
finest amplifiers must employ those processes which are most natural. There is one element
in the chain which we cannot alter or improve upon, and that is the air. Air defines sound, and
serves as a natural benchmark.
Virtually all the amplifiers on the market are based on a push-pull symmetry model. The push-
pull symmetry topology has no particular basis in nature. Is it valid to use air's characteristic
as a model for designing an amplifier? If you accept that all processing leaves its signature
on the music, the answer is yes.
