This conversation is running a bit off the rails, but I’ll try to clarify my philosophy about vacuum tube circuit design and construction approaches before checking out. It’s only one man’s opinion …
Take a Thöress phono stage and an ARC phono stage to your most highly recommended tube amp technician and ask them which they’d prefer to service. One of these products will outlive its maker in terms of serviceability and the other one won’t.
One could argue that the product should always be serviced by the manufacturer – all well and good as long as they’re in business and in the same continent as you.
Of course, people will line up on both sides in terms of how they view their investment. I tend to think in terms of heirloom quality, but I think you knew that ;-)
In the linked photo, it may be difficult to make out the circuitry, but the Thöress is using tag strip construction - a close relative of turret board construction. The implementation is some of the most beautiful and robust I’ve ever seen. In the old days, this would have been called instrumentation grade. Much of this has been lost on us as circuit board construction has been adopted for cost savings and ease of manufacture by lower skilled, lower paid workers.
http://www.theaudiobeat.com/highend2013/highend2013_thoress.htm
There are plenty of discussions on the sonics of circuit board construction vs. vintage construction methods (point to point, turret board, and tag strip). There are subtle differences between point to point and the other two traditional techniques, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s think of all of them as “traditional”.
The key sonic discussion points center on the significance of the added capacitance in the circuit board (the fiberglass/epoxy). Some will argue that the added capacitance is insignificant, and others will take the opposite stance. The other frequent discussion point is that with a circuit board, you don’t get to choose your “wire” (the circuit board traces). Think about this, the next time you ponder a $2K interconnect.
From a maintenance perspective, if the manufacturer goes out of business and the circuit board blows up, you’re out of luck. Not so with traditional wiring techniques.
I have no way of reliably fact checking the two contradictory comments below, but even if ARC can service every product they’ve ever made, I want to point out that I’d recommend taking a product’s construction methods into consideration, as circuit board construction would compromise a company’s ability to service it.
Note that I have no commercial interest in either Thöress or ARC, but I use these two products as examples of two highly regarded companies who embrace polar opposite construction philosophies.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier Design
Take a Thöress phono stage and an ARC phono stage to your most highly recommended tube amp technician and ask them which they’d prefer to service. One of these products will outlive its maker in terms of serviceability and the other one won’t.
One could argue that the product should always be serviced by the manufacturer – all well and good as long as they’re in business and in the same continent as you.
Of course, people will line up on both sides in terms of how they view their investment. I tend to think in terms of heirloom quality, but I think you knew that ;-)
In the linked photo, it may be difficult to make out the circuitry, but the Thöress is using tag strip construction - a close relative of turret board construction. The implementation is some of the most beautiful and robust I’ve ever seen. In the old days, this would have been called instrumentation grade. Much of this has been lost on us as circuit board construction has been adopted for cost savings and ease of manufacture by lower skilled, lower paid workers.
http://www.theaudiobeat.com/highend2013/highend2013_thoress.htm
There are plenty of discussions on the sonics of circuit board construction vs. vintage construction methods (point to point, turret board, and tag strip). There are subtle differences between point to point and the other two traditional techniques, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s think of all of them as “traditional”.
The key sonic discussion points center on the significance of the added capacitance in the circuit board (the fiberglass/epoxy). Some will argue that the added capacitance is insignificant, and others will take the opposite stance. The other frequent discussion point is that with a circuit board, you don’t get to choose your “wire” (the circuit board traces). Think about this, the next time you ponder a $2K interconnect.
From a maintenance perspective, if the manufacturer goes out of business and the circuit board blows up, you’re out of luck. Not so with traditional wiring techniques.
I have no way of reliably fact checking the two contradictory comments below, but even if ARC can service every product they’ve ever made, I want to point out that I’d recommend taking a product’s construction methods into consideration, as circuit board construction would compromise a company’s ability to service it.
cleeds wrote:
ARC will service almost every product it has ever made over its 40+ year history to original factory spec, or better. So it’s obvious its products are "maintainable." It is not at all clear what point you’re trying to make here.
perfectpathtech wrote:
Tonykay- I sold my Classic 120’s 3 years ago after owning them for 7
Like yourself saved a long time to buy a used pair. The same mono blew up 3 times! Dumped them as-is. Sad part is gent I sold them to couldn’t repair it, he sent it to ARC, and they said it was irreparable!
When Bill Johnson passed and the company sold, first thing they did was throw away their vast parts supply for all previous products! Mr Johnson has to be rolling in his grave!
Note that I have no commercial interest in either Thöress or ARC, but I use these two products as examples of two highly regarded companies who embrace polar opposite construction philosophies.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier Design
