Point to point vs pcb (probably yet again)

Richardj

OK, had a little search but couldn't find an easy answer, so, does a hand wired point to point valve amp actually sound 'better' than a well designed hand assembled pcb valve amp? Lets assume with identical good quality cab and speaker. Can of worms opened!

ICBM

No.

Different - probably even if the circuit (schematic) is exactly the same, due to layout affecting coupling between wires and components - but not "better".

ecc83

And when you start to get into very high gains P2P makes stability/hum issues tricky. More or less a de-bugging exercise for every individual chassis.

Turret tag is better but once you have a PCB sorted, its sorted!

Dave.

p90fool

Point-to-point is great for prototyping and for vintage accuracy, but be careful what you buy, it's often the only option for builders who really don't know what they're doing.

I actually LIKE pcbs, it's what I'm most familiar with, and I'm quite comfortable repairing and modifying them. They're also satisfying and fun to make.

hywelg

As a generalisation though, you do tend to get into pcb's the more complex a circuit is. If you were to compare a ptp with a pcb of the exact same circuit the differences will be minor. However with a pcb there is no way to experiment with lead dress.

There is a difference between the sound of a simple circuit and a complex one. That the simple, old, circuits used to be ptp is why people think they sound different. However when an amp manufacturer makes a reissue of a classic amp and uses pcb's most players who try both report there is a difference. Good or bad thats for you to decide.

jpfamps

ecc83 said:

And when you start to get into very high gains P2P makes stability/hum issues tricky. More or less a de-bugging exercise for every individual chassis.

Turret tag is better but once you have a PCB sorted, its sorted!

Dave.

We've built several high gain amps with channel switching using turret board with absolutely no stability/hum issues, and no need for debugging.

Equally there are PCB amps with known stability issues (eg the Blues Junior).

Forge

There is a lot of unjustified snobbery about p2p.

PCBs are fine, particularly when you work with lots of components and tonally I cannot see a major factor that would make one better than the other in terms of tone - I like the aesthetics of p2p and it makes mods and maintenance easier.

A GOOD p2p amp will be serviceable for a lifetime that is the main difference but how many of us actually keep an amp for that long? For fuzz pedals I mostly use p2p because it is a blank canvas rather than painting by numbers, plus the low component count allows for this.

If you look at mass production pedals made nowadays you will find a lot of manufacturers have moved to SMD, because it is cheaper to use a machine than employ real people. It is also quicker to use reels of components rather than pick them singly. SMD works fine but repairing them of modding them is much more difficult and that is why the warranty repairs are mainly full board swaps for these. It is only the reason why builders like DAM are much more expensive due to component selection, NOS parts, individual tuning for each pedal and manual labour.

So PCB yes, SMD not so much.

ICBM

hywelg said:

However when an amp manufacturer makes a reissue of a classic amp and uses pcb's most players who try both report there is a difference.

But they also almost never use the same component types or the exact same layout, even when they do use precisely the same circuit.

There are very few cases where you can truly compare the two - one of the only examples is the Marshall amps made in 1973 where in that year they changed from turret board to PCB while keeping the circuit and the component types identical - but even then, there is a small change in layout.

If you can take a 1973 Marshall and think you can tell just by listening to it whether it's turret or PCB, good luck! Although I think if you compare enough of them, there is a small difference which you start to be able to recognise, the variation between individual examples of each is larger than the general difference between one construction and the other.

Richardj

Cheers guys, having built up to having a couple of (what I think are) good quality and very nice sounding valve amps, the '65 DRRI and the Cornford Roadhouse 30 (OK not to everyone's taste, but I genuinely like them), it was how much would be gained but moving up further into hand wired territory.  I would naturally hope the craftsmanship and attention to detail to be better but in real world 'better' sound?

Forge

Then it is not the hand wiring per se that will make a difference but the design, component selection and ear of the builder. The end result may not be better, we all have different ideas about what better is in terms of tone.

I can't hear "roadhouse" without thinking Peter Griffin....

p90fool

I think you could get closer to what you personally want from an amp like the DRRI with careful speaker and valve choice than you could by throwing money randomly in the direction of "handmade" amps.

JohnPerry

I'm not sure of the technical specifics of it. But i've gone through a hell of a lot of amps over the years and the hand-wired jobs i have now are incomparably nicer sounding that the PCB amps i've had. The real night-and-day comparison was when i sold a vibroverb reissue and bought a silverface PR. The PR was twice the amp really. The vibroverb was fine (and good enough for Jeff Buckley, let's face it) but it didn't have the clarity or richness of the old PR. There may be other factors in play but the most obvious was the way it was wired, i'd have thought

ICBM

JohnPerry said:

I'm not sure of the technical specifics of it. But i've gone through a hell of a lot of amps over the years and the hand-wired jobs i have now are incomparably nicer sounding that the PCB amps i've had. The real night-and-day comparison was when i sold a vibroverb reissue and bought a silverface PR. The PR was twice the amp really. The vibroverb was fine (and good enough for Jeff Buckley, let's face it) but it didn't have the clarity or richness of the old PR. There may be other factors in play but the most obvious was the way it was wired, i'd have thought

So not the different circuit, different speakers, different transformers, different caps, different resistors or different valve types, then?

ThePrettyDamned

I think high gain is more reliably going to be quiet with pcb, but as @jpfamps has said, it can be done.

I wouldn't want a 6505 or a Randall to develop noise issues because a turret board layout wasn't perfect. Besides, they sound great as is...

It's all in the builder, too. There are some 'boutique' (independent) amp builders who are proper dedicated, knowledgeable builders who understand the circuitry and can tweak or even design a unique corcuit. There are others who have worked out that, to many, a turret board means superior tone so they churn out a few clones a year and charging a bit more than for a normal amp. Don't get them confused.

My dream amp would be a 3 channel style, with channel 1 being a warm solid state clean with tons of headroom for pedals, and channel 2 and 3 being identical 5150 lead channels but one of them would have a regular eq, the other would have a knob that basically turns up the "djent" frequency on top. I don't know if that would go on a turret, let alone point to point! And keeping that quiet would be challenging enough.

GuyBoden

Point to point amps are easier to see, this makes them easier to maintain, diagnose faults, change components and modify. Try doing that with the PCB board in an amp like a HRD.

ICBM

GuyBoden said:

Point to point amps are easier to see, this makes them easier to maintain, diagnose faults, change components and modify. Try doing that with the PCB board in an amp like a HRD.

The HRD is very easy to work on once you know how to tip the PCB down and out of the chassis while leaving everything connected up. There's even a trick to use the ground wire to hold it up at the right angle to work on while maintaining the ground connection. (Screw it to the endmost stand-off.)

If you want awkward, try a Peavey Classic 30

SickSquid

The debate has been covered well enough without me adding to it.

I like PCB due to the compactness allowing so many features. It can be done cheaply, which some big makers using far eastern builds do go in for. But, if through-plated, power tube sockets are kept separate, and flying leads are used for pots rather than mounted to the board, it is my go to choice for amps as I like channel switchers with options.

p90fool

GuyBoden said:

Point to point amps are easier to see, this makes them easier to maintain, diagnose faults, change components and modify. Try doing that with the PCB board in an amp like a HRD.

Sure, why not? I've been modifying amps for decades, every one of them PCB-based. I'm less comfortable with P2Ps rat's nest of components hanging in mid-air to be honest, but quite happy removing and replacing components on PCBs, or cutting and altering board traces.

Maybe it's because all my P2P amps smell like burning duffel coats and are full of spiders

GuyBoden

My problem is that I can't see the components on a PCB board, they're too small, but I can see them on a Point to Point board, it's probably age related.

ICBM

GuyBoden said:

My problem is that I can't see the components on a PCB board, they're too small, but I can see them on a Point to Point board, it's probably age related.

You still can't see where the wiring goes under that board without either lifting it or tediously beep-metering it all though - so not very different from a PCB really.

That isn't point to point either, it's turret board .

This is point to point…

http://diyaudioprojects.com/Tubes/6T9-Push-Pull-Tube-Amp/6T9-Tube-Amp-point-to-point.jpg

You'd have fun with that!

GuyBoden

Ok, I misunderstood the true meaning of Point to Point, but I still prefer using turret or eyelet boards than PCBs, because I can see the components. I can't imagine true point to point as in your pic, being very practical on a complex build.