Should I be disappointed with SSL?(alphalink AX)

[Svart]

So, a couple of grand poorer, I opened my new Alpha link AX pretty much as soon as I took it from fedex's hands.

I should have pictures in a few days but I'll describe what I see for now.

jrc njm4565(.46$ each) opamps(buffering duties) I haven't traced them out to see what configuration they are in yet though.

highlights(lowlights?) 4v/us slew, drives 400R loads@ 20vp-p, 90db CMR, 1.2uvrms voltage noise

AK4620BV (~4-8$ each) 24bit 216khz stereo codec. Pretty much the normal dual bit/switched cap stuff here.

analog I/O is AC coupled through SMD electrolytic capacitors, unknown brand, 10uf 35v. NO servos here.....

Analog board says SSL, ADAT/Digital board says SYDEC.

simple off the shelf SMPS bolted in the box.

Lm7805 power for AD/DA..

19"x2Ux8" aluminum box, about 80% empty space... no fans, etc.

Everything is SMD.

I'm still waiting on the Mixpander card from Oxford to be able to use the setup so I still don't know how it sounds or compares to my MX2424.

Now comparing the MX2424:

has opa2604 in every opamp duty. higher performing AD/DA ICs, MUCH larger inductors and caps on analog boards, LDO Vregs for AD/DA, MUSE and Cerafine caps for I/O decoupling.

Should I be disappointed with SSL for seemingly going seriously cheap here? I'll wait to pass judgement on the sound but I serious think they could have invested more money into the boxes..

Anyone have any of the other SSL boxes that can take a look and see? I'm wondering if the higher line of MADI boxes have better analog I/O.

How does this compare to other company's boxes (apogee, digi, etc..)?

 

[Svart]

Ok, since that didn't encite discussion, I would like to discuss the usage of the njm4565 opamp in this application.

going along with JRC's other designs, they are rarely gems and usually boast about performance that looks great on paper but usually falls flat in real applications.

A quick glance at the very sparse datasheet shows that this part "drives 400R". From testing other JRC opamps that claim to drive heavy loads, I've come to the conclusion that they do drive the loads but their distortion performance is marginal at best. If those load parameters are not met, then the distortion performance degrades signfigantly. Should we assume that this part is no exception? The opamps are only driving active parts, and with only a guess I would say that the loads will be much lighter than 400R..

The 5532 drives 500R loads easily and has signifigantly better distortion numbers at lighter loads as well as a higher slew. I would have figured this opamp would be their default opamp for sure as this is their jellybean opamp for their consoles.


Any thoughts?

 

[SonsOfThunder]

Svart,

This is the reason I DIY. I know what's in the boxes and I have a hard time shelling out that much cash for the hardware. I know that in low production situations, you are paying a higher portion of the R&D and engineering.

Personally, If I paid the price you paid for that and found anything JRC in the signal path, I'd be pissed. JRC makes some alright low-cost opamps, but for that kind of money, I'm with you, I'd expect more.

 

[Rochey]

3 things...

1 - SSL bought Sydec last year I think. Sydec is the old Soundscape group.

2- JRC opamps have been used by some of TI's competitors on reference designs for high end ADC's. Depending on specification of the ADC used, the JRC is occasionally good enough.

3 - Those codecs are 113dB ADC and 115dB DAC Codecs. This isn't bad - to give you an idea of scale, the Creative 1616M (their flagship audio interface) uses AK5394A's (123dB -- was the highest performance in the industry) and the CS4398 (120dB) DAC.
In all fairness, Creative doesn't get the full performance from these converters.



Given all these factors, the one thing we can't measure on paper is the sound. Have a listen, and tell us what you think.

/R

 

[Svart]

AK5394A: I have these in my mx2424 now as well as well as their top 'o the line DACs. I didn't hear much difference between the old ones and the new ones actually. It still sounds boomy and like a towel is over the speakers.

JRC: the JRC 5532 and 5534 as hailed as being fairly good, I believe SSL uses these in all their new consoles now.

In all fairness though, SSL has a reputation to keep and even though the analog sections are supposedly still Sydec designed, I have to believe that SSL gave them a look to make sure they gave them the quality they are known for.

I'll still give it a listen and compare.

 

[SSLtech]

I'd be very cautious about dismissing a piece of gear based on what chips it uses... Otherwise the Harrison 4032 consoles (which use 741s extensively in the audio path) could be presumed worthless...

Likewise, I have gear where the 5534 doesn't sound good. However, drawing the conclusion that the 5534 is always a weak link would be to deny the Amek 9098i can sound any good.

I know it's tough, but just hold your horses until you can HEAR it.

If anything, I'd take your experiences and experiments with the MX2424 (I have dozens of them here, remember!) as teaching that the choice op-amps is FAR from what makes something sound good... -I mean otherwise, you'd have been able to chip-swap the Tascam into something usable, -you get my drift?

Have a listen. Till then have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. :wink:

Keef

 

[Svart]

I remember touring the joint with BR and Amorris and saying to myself, "Christ, you TEACH people to use these??" while looking at all the tascams laying about... :green:

I know what you are saying Keef, the mixpander card was delivered today, I still have to wait until saturday before I have time to install and play.. :green:

I'm planning on using reaper with the setup, so far I have heard good stuff for the reaper/ssl setup but I'm still wondering how to get the mixpander control panels and reaper working together well.

I guess it's really comparing apples to oranges here talking about opamps in situational usage. The 5534/5532 is a touchy part but when decoupled well and used with care it rocks. It's just that the JRC parts are known to have problems, especially with their "value" parts.

I'm hoping that they designed with their ears and not with their eyes.

 

[Svart]

something else you guys might be interested in is what I am thinking of doing with the analog sections of the mx2424..

I have some ADAT tx and rx ICs which I plan on placing on some PCBs and hooking the analog boards to. this should give me another 24 i/o via adat optical though the SSL box.. I think that should give me the ultimate comparison between the two.

EDIT:

If you want to save about 1K$ on the setup, call up Altomusic in middleton NY and ask for Thomas.

 

[TomWaterman]

Svart, didn't see the thread before otherwise it most certainly would have incited discussion from me.

I sort of agree with Keith about the chip issue HOWEVER I'm really interested in the analogue board.

I have heard both sides of 'a' story from a reseller and SSL but was under the impression that the analogue boards were re-done since the original Sydec boxes by SSL themselves.

I was hoping some superanalogue design ides had creeped in there i.e DC servos and 5532(4) and OPA2604 chips...guess not.

PCB silkscreen seems to suggets they have changed something...

I'm more disapointed that its a bolt-on PSU inside...however I really hope the box works well for you.

The Mixpander DSP looks flexible and I wanted one of these for a while.
Eager to hear your thoughts.

Hey maybe you could design a new analogue stage with lundahl transformers and BFBlokes? Hahaha

-Tom

 

[Svart]

Hey maybe you could design a new analogue stage with lundahl transformers and BFBlokes?

not a bad idea but damn it would be expensive! :green: :shock:

I'll keep everyone informed. I'm just looking for a neutral and reliable system. I'll let the other gear color it.

 

[TomWaterman]

[quote author="mediatechnology"]I don't thinks its built by the craftsmen and women of Whitney and Begbrook in Oxfordshire.[/quote]

Oh yeah definitely they were shipping them in by the box load when I was in Oxford....still think they might scan over them for a QC there...but probs made in the far east.

-Tom

 

[Michael Krusch]

I have a consumer Onkyo cd player which sounds almost as good as my expensive studio converters. I opened it up and it's equiped with a cheap Toshiba converser (ca. 90dB) and njm4565 and elkos in the signal path.
So wait till you hear the it.

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="Svart"]I'm hoping that they designed with their ears and not with their eyes.[/quote]
I understand how you feel about it so far and would most likely have felt the very same.
But isn't it honest to say that you've done some evaluating with your eyes as well ?

I realize it might be nigh impossible to do for tech-minded people, but in a situation as yours that you have to wait for a complete setup, it might be better to keep the lids closed before the music has had a chance to speak.

Having said that, I myself can't recall gear that I bought and first had a listen to before opening :wink:

Regards,

Peter

 

[Svart]

But isn't it honest to say that you've done some evaluating with your eyes as well ?

I sure have, I admit I am guilty of that. I'm still on the fence though, if the unit sounds great, then it's money well spent. If it doesn't, then I can guess where the problems are.

I'm going to try to get it hooked up and running tommorrow if I don't get called into work..again..

As far as craftsmanship, the unit looks fine. It's really a simple unit, not much to screw up if you ask me.

Once I get everything running, I'll pull the unit again and take pictures and get a rough BOM estimate going as well.

 

[SonsOfThunder]

>>>But overall what distinguishes this from a box bought at Guitar Center?

 

[mwkeene]

In my experience the BOM costs get multiplied by a factor of 4 for sale price (at 1K quantities). When you're selling a 30 dollar part (which this isnt obviously) 5 cents makes a huge difference. It sucks that china can make a part for sometimes less than our BOM costs. How do you stay competitive in a market where that is possible? People gotta be willing to spend more money for quality these days.
-Mike

 

[Svart]

Well, I really expected to see the same "superanalogue" type setup with this box even though they really never said anything like that. the best I found from SSL was, "upgraded converters and the analog sections were gone through and tweaked" from a couple employees of SSL.

That being said, I don't blame them for trying to make a buck or 2000, they almost bit the dust until peter G helped them out..

I still need to listen to the system, I bet it sounds just fine, SSL is noted for tweaking out good performance from ICs that most folks consider(ed) inferior and I still can't shake the feeling that they would not produce something that could/would detract from their reputation.

Good performance is what I expect, however, seeing what they use really leaves me thinking that it could be better in some way even if the sound is good. I'm not really talking about the converters so much as the opamps. They are wide SOICs or DMP as JRC calls them so they are a little harder to find replacements for but the 5532 comes in a wide SOIC that would work.

 

[Svart]

SMD caps aren't *that* bad, they look like panasonic SMD caps at least. I wonder about the 10uf value though but I suppose it might be part of the freq response too, especially since I don't know the following circuit's impedence and such.

we'll see. I've been asked to work tommorrow, but after work I'll run straight to the studio to get this hooked up/running and report back.

Heh, POOGE. I haven't heard that in a while! :green:

 

[aurt]

Totally off topic...

mediatech,

You worked at MicMix? I'd kill for dynaflanger schematics. I don't know why, but there's a certain thing that the envelope follower does for a couple of things... high hats, barky guitars, you know. It's hard enough to find one to buy, so it's something I'd consider putting together.

 

[Svart]

But the 4565 (as well as the 1646 or 2141) may rock at slewing current.

true. I was thinking that in the back of my mind for some reason. It's a brute part and from what I have read and seen, it LIKES the load. In fact it needs it to work properly or the distortion figures go through the roof.