Easiest solution is to put a swicht (better if bipolar) between plug and PS.
If you want to use the turn-off signal offered by the board, you have to ask more details to Nick, but I think you have to send to the two pins 0V/+5V to turn off the amplifier.
There isn't any compatibility issue. For sure you will have more undistorted power, but I don't know if sta517b sounds significantly better than sta508 or sta510, however I've read so in "New TK2050 board" thread.
Last edited:
I absolutely agree with you. Especially if you need more power (for exemple to power three T4 modules I think "A1000" from connex would be a best-buy).
Will do, so far so good on five units with linear power supplies. But I use a lot of buffering.
That sure is a "Best -Buy"!
I may have 4 T4s for our HT system. Three for the fronts (2 way) and 1 for the sides. Wondering if I could get away with an A1000 for all four? With our super efficient Klipsch speakers it's highly unlikely that I would ever run anywhere near full power on all amps at the same time.
Ummm...should be enough, but I don't know about its reaction at peaks of power. If budget is an issue, go with A1000 and I think you will be happy, but to be sure about the result I would go with 2000R.
Generally going beyond what amplifier needs (at least class D, because of its high efficiency) is quite useless, but undesizing probably is not good [even if this is a limit case]...peaks of power, also at not so high volume, require a lot of current...
Generally going beyond what amplifier needs (at least class D, because of its high efficiency) is quite useless, but undesizing probably is not good [even if this is a limit case]...peaks of power, also at not so high volume, require a lot of current...
Thanks for the response.
No sense pushing my luck with an undersized supply, ie using the A1000.
So looks like two choices here:
1. One SMPS2000R $178.
2. Four A350SMPS @ $50 = $200.
Not a big difference in price so which might be the better choice? Is there an advantage to separate supplies for each amp: Less interaction between amps? Certainly more case space and wiring for the separates.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Rod
I would be inclined to go for the SMPS300R rather than the A350SMPS even though they are a bit more expensive.
What do you want the physical design to be for the amps? One box or two or four as this will affect choice as well. Yet another (and attractive) option between the two would be to use 2xSMPS800R each powering two T4s - especially if you also want the system for good old fashioned stereo use as well as HT.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Okay, now 4 choices:
1. One SMPS2000R $178.
2. Four A350SMPS @ $50 = $200.
3. Four SMPS300R @ $56 = $224.
4. Two SMPS800R @ $ 100 = $200.
Still not a big spread in prices so I would prefer to use the approach that gives the best SQ. I'm curious why you were suggesting the 2 800s for stereo? Is it because I would have 400 watts of supply available for each front speaker?
I'm open on the physical design and size is not a problem. I could put these in separate cases or all in one. It seems that one large case might be cheaper than 2 or 4 separates. Is there any SQ advantage to having a separate case for the supply or supplies?
Rod
It is because you can use one supply per channel, IE getting the best channel separation possible. Then, you bi-amp your speakers on one supply per speaker.
Because the tweeter-amp doesnt require a whole lot of power, the bass unit will get plenty, but you will also keep the positive sq from bi-amping.
Because the tweeter-amp doesnt require a whole lot of power, the bass unit will get plenty, but you will also keep the positive sq from bi-amping.
Thanks.
Yes, I had planned on bi-amping our fronts and center. What you are suggesting is that we can get better channel separation using separate supplies for each channel. That could argue for 4 separate supplies, ie one per amp. But I guess in HT the channel separation is not as much of an issue. And by using two of the SMPS800R supplies I will actually have 800 watts of supply available per stereo channel (when listening to stereo), not 400 watts as I stated in an earlier post.
Beginning to look like using two SMPS800R's is the way to go.
Rod
Yes indeed. I find it helpful to first consider how many 'important' channels there are where it is important to maximise separation. This gives you a minimum number of desired independent power supplies, and for stereo is two. For HT, well I leave that to you to decide
Now if you have some of those channels split into components i.e. bi-amping or tri-amping the channel there is a choice. If you think it most important to minimise interference (e.g. you don't want heavy base modulating the treble) you can go for individual small supplies. If you want to maximise overall capacity on the grounds that all two/three sub chanels aren't going to be maxed out at once there is benefit in having a single big supply shared between the two or three. Which is best? Well you can argue for ever on that, and we probably will
But, as it is DIY, think of it like this. If you get 4x250/300 amps and fit them you are done, and what is the fun in that? If you get 2x800 you can try listening to the difference between bi-amping one channel with1x800 source or 2x800 sources. And if you hear a difference you can then buy some separate 300W supplies for the treble units, or even more 800s for the treble or ....
Now if you have some of those channels split into components i.e. bi-amping or tri-amping the channel there is a choice. If you think it most important to minimise interference (e.g. you don't want heavy base modulating the treble) you can go for individual small supplies. If you want to maximise overall capacity on the grounds that all two/three sub chanels aren't going to be maxed out at once there is benefit in having a single big supply shared between the two or three. Which is best? Well you can argue for ever on that, and we probably will
But, as it is DIY, think of it like this. If you get 4x250/300 amps and fit them you are done, and what is the fun in that? If you get 2x800 you can try listening to the difference between bi-amping one channel with1x800 source or 2x800 sources. And if you hear a difference you can then buy some separate 300W supplies for the treble units, or even more 800s for the treble or ....
Lots of 'food for thought' here! Seems like you are saying there is no clear cut winner in the debate between one large and several small supplies. You probably have a good idea in trying out the two 800s and doing some experimenting. I'm going to seriously ponder that approach.
Thanks for all the good ideas in this thread.
Rod
But there are more to go wrong, hence more chances of failure
Swing, meet roundabout ......
All of the above positions...
Here's more food for thought:
one thing I've noticed about these amps, is that given the same nominal voltage on the supply (and the same type of supply from the same vendor), the supply with the most available current is usually the one that has better SQ, i.e. a 36V/900W supply is "better" than a 36V/400W supply, even if you're only drawing "theoretical" peaks of 80W
Theory is one thing, actual experience can be different!
So, based on experience, I would vote for multiple individual supplies with WAAY excessive current capabilities.
Which is why I use mine with LiFePo4 batteries with peak current capabilities which approach the theoretically ridiculous, and yet deliver clearly audible performance improvements.
And yes, it IS much more expensive than almost any good smps, but IMO it's well worth it. This, BTW coming from someone who philosophically would much prefer taking the most economical approach! Too much Scottish (not Scotch) in my blood...
A Zen parable: Overkill rarely kills anyone...
Can be very true, depending on the luck of the draw.
Here's more food for thought:
one thing I've noticed about these amps, is that given the same nominal voltage on the supply (and the same type of supply from the same vendor), the supply with the most available current is usually the one that has better SQ, i.e. a 36V/900W supply is "better" than a 36V/400W supply, even if you're only drawing "theoretical" peaks of 80W
Theory is one thing, actual experience can be different!
So, based on experience, I would vote for multiple individual supplies with WAAY excessive current capabilities.
Which is why I use mine with LiFePo4 batteries with peak current capabilities which approach the theoretically ridiculous, and yet deliver clearly audible performance improvements.
And yes, it IS much more expensive than almost any good smps, but IMO it's well worth it. This, BTW coming from someone who philosophically would much prefer taking the most economical approach! Too much Scottish (not Scotch) in my blood...
A Zen parable: Overkill rarely kills anyone...
Last edited:
Reserves...
Now we're overkilling the overkill...
Also, it sometimes pays to have an extra supply or two handy... it may not be as critical as a hard drive, but it's a PITA when a supply dies... so extra supplies , and even amps are nice to have...
Now we're overkilling the overkill...
Advantages of multiple supplies:
+ Better channel separation, or so they say.
+ Flexibility in placement, could make for shorter runs of amplified signal cable
+ Built-in redundancy - One supply that normally serves a single channel can very well drive two channels anyway - you won't ever notice the current limits except on the biggest of the big peaks. If a supply fails, hook it up in parallel to another channel's supply.
+ Better channel separation, or so they say.
+ Flexibility in placement, could make for shorter runs of amplified signal cable
+ Built-in redundancy - One supply that normally serves a single channel can very well drive two channels anyway - you won't ever notice the current limits except on the biggest of the big peaks. If a supply fails, hook it up in parallel to another channel's supply.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.