Parts quality affects performance
Join Our Community Subscribe to Paul's PostsWhen this particular Fact or Fiction proposition was originally proposed I passed it over because its answer seemed so evident. Yes, of course, parts quality affects performance. It’s a no-brainer, right? Maybe not to everyone.
We can easily agree that low tolerance parts that change value depending on temperature or variability in their construction can measurably impact delicate crossover and filter circuits, increase distortion, and upset the balance of essential circuitry, but that is not what I mean when posing this question. No, I am referring to the actual materials and technologies behind the building of those parts assuming tolerances and variabilities are the same: the type of film in capacitors and resistors, the materials in dielectrics, the base metals in connectors and wires.
To our engineering staff differences in capacitor construction, for example, are so obvious as to be classified as night and day: a REL Cap vs. a Jantzen, or Mundorf of the same value and materials. This is a particularly difficult problem when we are working on building equipment to a price point. We’re unwilling to compromise sound quality and thus we have to apply inordinate amounts of clever combinations of quality parts and circuit tricks to afford what we want. It may mean that if we cannot afford the quality of a particular drop-in-easy coupling capacitor required to achieve the performance we want we will have to spend another week of engineering time designing a lower cost DC servo circuit instead.
I remember well when we first launched Ted Smith’s amazing DirectStream DAC for the first time we spent a similar week’s worth of engineering time choosing whether it sounded best to use thick or thin film SMT resistors in the output attenuator. Common wisdom is that thin film SMT parts sound best and that’s what we populated the first production run boards with, but something just wasn’t right when we activated the attenuator. After hours and hours of work we discovered in this one instance, it was thick films that won the race. We had to hand remove (using a microscope for some of the techs to even see them) the parts and replace them with thick films before we released the products.
So, yes, parts quality affects performance.
Audio Note specialise in this, offering the same design with a different component specification, sometimes a dozen or more options for the same design. My speakers are a special edition with upgraded components (I’ve owned both).
Conversely, I bought a pair of valve amplifiers, English made, from a US auction site, and brought them back to the UK for upgrading. They guy who made them told me that he had to put USA-made V-Cap capacitors in for the USA market, even though he considered the amplifiers worked better with much cheaper German Mundorf capacitors.
Fully agree, why shouldn’t it matter…
The interesting observation for me is, that while speaking about „neutrality or coloration“ of components, a lot (the selection of parts, the quality of them and circuit design etc.) influences it’s coloration, tonal micro balance and voicing. Just as (probably a little less than) one can tweak e.g. a record player‘s coloration/accuracy with the choice of cartridge, arm, player and resonance control. Or as we all do it with combining amps and speakers at the end.
Everything matters, everything is colored and nothing‘s „neutral“ 😉
I guess, Paul, you are playing here with a tautology or hendiadys. If performance is an aspect of quality then quality parts must affect performance. 🙂 Take a vacuum tube from Kron or Elrog and compare it with cheap Chinese copies. But probably you address the fact that a component as a resistor or a capacitor changes the sound when made from a different material or produced by a different production process even if the measured parameter value is identical. But does a single parameter describes the properties of a component? Does the body weight and length (BMI) characterizes the physical condition of a person? Same problem with cables! And strange enough: Cryogenic treatment should here also change the “audiophile relevant” and not measurable parameters. Thus having such highly complex systems as a stereo chain it would be more helpful to get a priority listing showing which kind of tweaking brings the biggest improvement.
‘hendiadys’ was a new word for me. Always grateful to learn new words. I am not sure how easy it will be to sneak it into the general dinner table conversation but I shall certainly give it a try. The adjective ‘hendiadactic’ seems the most promising variant.
I thought it was a grauniadism.
🙂
This doesn’t have a simple answer. The answer is it depends on the part, its function, and many other factors. If your amplifier was assembled with stainless steel screws or gold plated screws it wouldn’t work any better. The engineer has to decide what quality of part to use for a particular application. That is the function of a specification, to give detailed instructions as to what parts must do to satisfy his design. For most parts there is a point of diminishing returns and a point of no usable benefit with improved parts. The quality of design, assembly, testing, consistency are equally important.
I had this argument with Andrew Benjamin a few years ago. He was really into expensive collectors wristwatches. They are works of art and precision. It can take a skilled watchmaker a year to create one. They contain jeweled bearings and the most precise parts imaginable. Some cost over $100,000 and are prized by collectors. Yet even the best of them, the most accurate of them was beaten by the most accurate wristwatch in the world at the time, a $400 Casio electronic watch. But for practical reasons, most people will find a $10 Walmart watch just as satisfactory, especially considering that you have to change the time twice a year anyway. For the most critical scientific instrumentation none of the best wristwatches is remotely accurate enough. A Cesium based atomic clock might lose or gain one second in 100,000 years.
If you were to add $3000 to the cost of an audio amplifier you’d be far better off investing in in a better power supply than a better power cord. Is a speaker cone machined out of a billet of aircraft grade aluminum a better choice than a paper cone? In many ways, it is probably a worse choice. OTOH, the quality of manufacture and parts as well as the quality of design dictated which turntables I bought. Often small manufacturers have poor process control. If you’ve ever worked in a manufacturing plant that produced products for the military or other high end buyers or ever worked to ISO 9000 standards you’d know that the quality of process is tight, every step documented and tested to be sure the end product will be as close as possible to the prototype in every way. Most high end audio manufacturers who produce in boutique quantities can’t afford this even if they know about it. In mass manufacturing of high quality products random samples are taken for both destructive and non destructive testing. They are also run in environmental chambers to simulate aging or other machines operated them repeatedly to see how long it takes for them to fail and in what way they fail. In the best manufacturing plants all incoming materials and parts are quarantined for incoming quality control inspection before they can be incorporated in the assembled product. Field audits of the supplier’s operation are also performed periodically and have to be documented.
The difference between a Nikon film camera designed for professionals, the F type and those designed for amateurs the N type is not the technological capability, it is the ruggedness. Titanium bodies instead of composite bodies. gasketing that protects against dust and moisture, shutters rated to be reliable with 150,000 firings instead of 50,000 firings. Used professional cameras of this type have often taken quite a beating in their lives.
Engineers are usually accountable to their employers or customers to justify costs based on valid reasons. Simply saying I’m going to build the best of anything just because I’m using the best parts does not guarantee the best real life results.
Watches are mostly jewellery that tell the time. The same could be said for some audio equipment.
Turntables are mechanical devices and for that reason I got one from a precision engineering company that made a turntable rather than an audio company without the manufacturing capabilities.
As shown the other day, injection moulded cones are generally better than vacuform, but more expensive to make. They have sufficient rigidity. Machined metal cones are more rigid and more expensive, but it does not make them better. In fact they are usually worse, and would be no better if gold plated.
The art of the consumer is paying for what delivers and not paying for the glitz.
Expensive mechanical wristwatches are precision instruments of an earlier era. they are made and adjusted meticulously by people who are extraordinarily skilled in their art. These are not the cheap mechanical watches like Timex that were mass produced. Their cost is justified by the skilled labor, materials, and time that went into creating them. But they are an obsolete technology that has been eclipsed by something far better and cheaper for the function it is required to perform for over 99 percent of the wristwatch market and even for the remaining fraction of a percent who insist on a a very accurate portable time piece. Of course if you have a smart phone you don’t even need a wristwatch, it will tell you precisely what time it is and will be as accurate as the best watches you can buy at any price.
Yes, to all the above.
We also need to consider mass production. Many engineers are quite meticulous with their designs but when handed over to manufacturing a lot of corner cutting is done both to reduce costs and to simplify assembly … What comes out the door is seldom exactly what the engineer designed.
A topic already discussed here on other occasions, on which opinions are issued that do not reach any agreement, such as many audio topics.
More than 25 years ago, Frank VanAlstine designed entirely new circuits for devices manufactured by Dynaco and Hafler, using chassis, transformers, AC cables, switches and other original minor parts.
The resulting sound of such transformations is simply spectacular compared not only with that produced with stock devices, but also with other generally more expensive products.
Well, Van Alstine used standard capacitors of the brand IC (Illinois Caps) manufactured in the USA, and film resistances at 2% tolerance. Today, after so many decades, these devices continue to work as well as at the beginning of the transformation, I can attest to that, because my Double 400, PAT-4, Pat 5, St-120, have never been damaged, it is more their capacitors they have not shown deterioration over time;
On the other hand, some capacitors marked as audio grade, (of economic price) to incorporate them, do not offer significant improvements in the circuit, compared with standard models manufactured today in Asia.
Previously, I have obtained gratifying results by replacing Dayton audio grade capacitors, with the oil Mundorf, of the most economical line of this brand.
This is a matter of subjectivity.
Not totally on topic, but not…not:
https://tapeop.com/podcasts/episode-21-bob-clearmountain
If you’re unfamiliar with his work, just listen to the credits at the beginning, and if you don’t care about pop and rock, then skip to around 21:00 – 25:00, to get a satisfyingly balanced perspective on the Analog vs. Digital “debate”. He is associated with Apogee Electronics as a user since the early days (and his wife works there), which is where they start at around 21m.
Everyone else, just listen to the whole thing.
The words used in today’s question allow for wide interpretations of meanings. In this question “Performance” can cover a multitude of parameters, from tolerance to longevity. It can even cover aspects that cannot be measured. Same goes for the word “Quality”. Quality can be visual exterior finish or ruggedness.
I would rephrase the question “Part cost affects source reproduction”.
My personal response to this question is still vague, “Not always”. Part cost does not always guarantee desired performance. And technology continues to advance, resulting in better performance at lower cost.
My experience tells me there are two conflicting answers to this question:
1) If you are looking for perfection in your products, use Military grade parts –instead of commercial or consumer grades– and be as picky as you want to be, even re-selecting within the parts you do order. Choose your manufacturers, film thickness, size, etc. with utmost care, on a component by component basis, just as Paul has described. Yes the quality and construction of parts certainly does matter… your customers will love you!
2) If you want your products to stay in service you need to be careful to not design circuitry that is wholly dependent on exact specifications and specific characteristics of certain parts. You have to know that at some point down the road a service technician is not going to be able to get the *exact* part you used and will end up replacing a blown cap or burned resistor with a “generic” part. If your designs are so specific this can seriously affect their behaviour your customers will hate you.
This ain’t “the good old days” when a technician could pull out a file and cut a notch into the side of a resistor to fine tune it’s value or touch test a dozen caps to find the right one… SMT parts and other miniaturization pretty much ensures that anything not repairable with more or less generic parts is destined for the dump.
You write “ … when we are working on building equipment to a price point“. The truth is that designers are ALWAYS building to a price point. Sometimes it is a nebulous price point where the designer concludes that the incremental increase in performance does not warrant the incremental increase in cost, but it is still always there. Virtually any product can be improved upon in some way, if the cost of that improvement would be deemed acceptable.
Doesn’t matter whether we’re talking hi-fi, cars, cameras, wristwatches, or refrigerators.
By the way, that performance improvement might be in a first-order attribute, such as sound quality; a second-order attribute such as reliability or longevity; or a third-order attribute such as touch & feel and aesthetics.
I think the same way. I never really understood when Paul first mentioned the DS DAC was a no compromise unit and then that the BHK pre was a cost no object design. I think both were not.
Probably Paul meant, that for the first prototypes they had no limit in mind…in case of the DAC then Ted stripped it down and it still was great while the first pre prototype already was a budget compromise but still better than expected.
Just my guess.
Yeah, it’s usually unhelpful to play semantics with the language used to describe honest intentions. We all understand that “cost no object” is inherently an exercise in hyperbole, but at the same time it should convey an honest intent in a situation where a strictly correct form of verbiage would be dry and unappealing.
I think what we all take from “cost no object” is that the product is going to be expensive as a result of design decisions taken in the knowledge that both the performance and the resultant selling price would be somewhat higher that a casual observer might expect given the vendor’s trajectory to that point. That’s an intentionally broad brush, because I think every individual will form their own takeaway from any specific instance.
I think where we would all agree is that “honest” must be the operative word here. Even though, as we know, the most honest of endeavors will still attract the vitriol of the community of trolls.
Well said!
My slight confusion with such „cost no object“ statements is associated with the future arrival of the TSS DAC and the question if PSA will then establish a complete higher product line. As a preamp matching the TSS would probably also look different.
I think interpretation of “cost no object” can only be backward-looking. Future products or product directions are inherently speculative.
Regarding the “TSS DAC”, I would imagine that the go-ahead decision to proceed with the design and manufacture of such a product can only have been made once the success of the DS (and also the BHK series) had become clear, thereby re-establishing the brand’s performance/cost baseline at a level significantly higher than where it stood prior to the development of the DS.
I understand the argument but I’m not sure I fully agree.
I would agree that the trust in Ted (or BHK) had to be proven by market success and therefore the confidence to let him work on a more expensive piece. But the decision to place products in a 6k, 12k or 20k price range could be made independently from start imo. And „cost no object“ to me doesn’t mean „to make our own highest priced product“ but „to apply all meaningful best design practices along with own developments and improvements“. That would have included e.g. dual chassis designs etc. By all means 6k isn’t „cost no object“, not even backward-looking 😉
I think there would have been enough self confidence of Ted or BHK at the beginning to be able to make a noticeably better product at e.g. a 12k price point.
I think 6k was a fixed margin from the beginning (which is no bad thing at all).
In fact you illustrate one of my points perfectly, that “cost no object” has no precisely definable meaning, and is subject to a wide latitude of interpretation.
Agreed!
At least one exception: the four designers that did the original Constellation power amp where assigned the task with cost no object, just state of the art. Came out at $150,000.
Testimony that parts matter:
Back in the 1980’s I read a very strong review in either Absolute Sound or Stereophile about a new product, an external D to A converter that I believe was the original PS Audio Digital Link. I ordered four of them to sell in my audio store, (SOUNDSCAPE, Baltimore, MD). Upon receiving we (me and my associates) compared it to the sound of a $750 Denon CD player using the Denon digital out with high hopes based upon the review. In fact we could hear little difference. We were puzzled but as these thing go, we put the DACs aside figuring to follow up but it was not until weeks later…..we received a letter from PS Audio explaining how they had been getting variable reports about its sound quality, very positive to negative. The letter went on to say that they discovered that the samples that were getting poor reactions used a resistor in the digital circuit that was different that the original production. Apparently when manufacturing ran out of the original brand they purchased a different brand of exactly the same value. As I believe Paul wrote..who would have thought that a resistor in the digital stage could make an audible difference. The letter invited us to return the four units and that they would remove the offending resistors in favor of the better sounding ones (or words to that effect.) We did return them and upon receiving the rejuvenated units, auditioning them showed an immediately obvious better sound worthy of the review we had read and of course we when on to successfully promote the product. For those readers who are newer “audiophiles” it is interesting to note that at one time the industry had little idea that capacitors could effect sound quality until a landmark two-issue article in Audio magazine. It is available on-line, called “Picking Capacitors.” In short order Dahlquist replaced all eight capacitors in their DQ10 speakers with better caps that made a world of difference.
John Dorsey, SOUNDSCAPE
Parts quality absolutely makes a difference as anyone who has played with audio electronics will tell you. To make matters more complicated parts with similar values but different makes sound different, not a night and day difference but significant enough that some may consider it night and day. Some times though the difference can be startling specially with wire and resisters. Capacitors too are not far behind even of the same make but different design and grade. It is always a trial and error exercise but well worth it. Regards.
Not only sound quality is affected by better parts, but I think longevity. Output transistors and caps especially can take a lot more “abuse” before they die off.
This can be true but it isn’t always so. Military parts are closer tolerance than commercial or consumer parts, typically 1% … but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily more robust. I’ve cooked a few military chips over the years, usually because of simple mistakes. No matter what grade it is a 5 volt chip is still a 5 volt chip.
The type and quality of components makes a huge difference to the transparency of any system. Capacitors, resistors etc all have their sonic impact. Consider even a standard potentiometer compared to a switched restive ladder gain network. Capacitor ‘sound’ is widely variable as are cables. Everything makes a difference. I once designed and contructed a series stabilised power supply for my turntable from discrete components. The output was rock solid but actually sounded worse than the two parallel toroidal transformers I was previously using. The turntable isn’t much of a load so why? Impedance perhaps.
During my years in audio (trade and otherwise) I have experimented with and constucted many hundreds of cables, the more I experimented the more I realised how difficult it is to build a really great sounding cable. I take my hat off to companies who get it right, I can understand the high price in many cases as R&D is hugely time consuming.
Yes, everything matters.
I have always remained baffled by the indisputable fact that power supplies make a difference to the sound of a turntable, even beyond the point where you’ve built in sufficient headroom above the “good enough” point. Various potential mechanisms suggest themselves, each less plausible than the other, but I haven’t yet heard a rational explanation.
This is exactly my biggest brainteaser, too. How can a motor drive unit with its power supply affect vinyl sound so dramatically.
I use a very sophisticated 3 part motor/motor control/power supply unit myself as it makes amongst the most important sound difference. It’s another league than rigs with standard motor management of easily up to a rig price of ~15k depending on their focus.
Richard, I’m completely baffled too. The over-spec stabilised power supply provided exactly the same voltage and current. The difference in performance compared to the two paralleled transformers with full wave rectifier and a blackgate smoothing capacitor was astounding. The stabilised supply was dramatically worse in sound quality. The turntable speed and stability was correct with both power supplies so it remains a puzzlement to me. Maybe someone can hazard a guess as to why.
Has any audio designer ever “thrown together” a design to run as a trial run, and discovered for reasons he could not explain, that sounded superior to anything he has heard before?
Actually the DIY crowd does this all the time … you do your design work, you build your *only* copy of the device then you tinker to improve it. I’ve built a couple of dozen amplifiers but I’ve never been lucky enough to hit all the right parts first time around although I should imagine it would be possible.