Hi Peter..
I've been watching... and waiting... following the Chip Amp board for a very long time... I think that this is one of the most elegant amps I've seen posted... Unfortunately I have current hungry speakers which will probably require multi-amping...
A couple of quick questions.. what input selector switch are you using...... and just how bad is that attenuator... how does it compare to similarly priced volume controls?
Thanks,
Steve
Again... it is very pretty....
I've been watching... and waiting... following the Chip Amp board for a very long time... I think that this is one of the most elegant amps I've seen posted... Unfortunately I have current hungry speakers which will probably require multi-amping...
A couple of quick questions.. what input selector switch are you using...... and just how bad is that attenuator... how does it compare to similarly priced volume controls?
Thanks,
Steve
Again... it is very pretty....
I'm using Grayhill swith for sources.
The attenuator is really bad. If you would buy a stereo with such performing attenuator, you would take it back for a refund;-)
It is not acceptable, although it seems to sound pretty good.
I mean for your personal use, when you don't switch to often, it is OK, but I wouldn't offer anything like that myself to anybody.
Sorry Brian, I didn't know about its performance
The attenuator is really bad. If you would buy a stereo with such performing attenuator, you would take it back for a refund;-)
It is not acceptable, although it seems to sound pretty good.
I mean for your personal use, when you don't switch to often, it is OK, but I wouldn't offer anything like that myself to anybody.
Sorry Brian, I didn't know about its performance
I've also been having some problems with cracks and pops coming from attenuators. The ones I used (in a Dynaco Pas hot rod) are the knock-off alps units (RH2702) found on ebay. I think these attenuators break contact between steps thus causing the pops. I tried three units all have the same fault. Not only is this annoying but also dangerous to sensitive speakers with limited xmax like my fostex full rangers.
Peter Daniel said:I'm using Grayhill swith for sources.
The attenuator is really bad. If you would buy a stereo with such performing attenuator, you would take it back for a refund;-)
It is not acceptable, although it seems to sound pretty good.
I mean for your personal use, when you don't switch to often, it is OK, but I wouldn't offer anything like that myself to anybody.
Sorry Brian, I didn't know about its performance
I still find it worth $50, but I would never sell it in a product.
It is still quite a nice volume control, and I have gotten used to the noise that it makes... I relate the sound that it makes to the sound of a machine gun.
Nevertheless, it is built quite nicely. Too bad it has issues.
--
Brian
Vibration Sensitivity
Peter
In another thread you mentioned that your excellent GC's have been very sensitive to placement.
In the pursuit of the evolvement of your GC's have you tried to minimise this and is it reflected in this chassis design?
My experience of solid metal enclosures such as this one suggests that maybe some damping of the enclosure particularly the heatsink could be of benefit. Perhaps a wooden or acrylic base/top.
thanks Simon
Peter
In another thread you mentioned that your excellent GC's have been very sensitive to placement.
In the pursuit of the evolvement of your GC's have you tried to minimise this and is it reflected in this chassis design?
My experience of solid metal enclosures such as this one suggests that maybe some damping of the enclosure particularly the heatsink could be of benefit. Perhaps a wooden or acrylic base/top.
thanks Simon
SS1 said:
Thay are not included with a chassis, as this is very personal choice. You don't even need a volume switcher, as the regular pot fits nicely here as well. This Tawanese attenuator could be a nice choice, unfortunately I can't really recommend it, you might not like the pops it makes.
As to the source selector, Grayhill makes pretty nice ones and they are not as expensive as Elma (I guess)
Re: Vibration Sensitivity
Building a chassis for a GC is a big gamble on many occasions, as some mechanical solutions produce better results than other.
The aluminum, GainCard influenced chassis, in my experience sounds very open, airy and a bit bright maybe. The acrylic one, that I've built previously, had a bit less high frequency extention, and the maple cube had it even less (the sound was on a dull side). Adding spikes helped a bit, but both those designs sounded different than aluminum chassis.
The monoblocks and Patek amp, use more of the copper and bronze, and it seems like they produce less of the brightness and put more stress on midrange and more round sound. Some people prefer it, some not (I actually prefer it). However, they sound very focused and there is a feeling of the solid sound.
If some of you remeber my first monoblocks, kind of flat design with black heatsinks in rear part, I had really big problems in making tham to sound right. Whatever I used for feet, they always seem to sound coloured and not properly focused. I didn't really like them.
Now, this new amp, maybe I should call it kit amp, for some reason sounds "right". I compared it today to Amp-1 and it is smoother, more relaxed than the AMP-1 without any sign of stress and edgyness, but at the same time, it is not any less detailed at all. One listener actually prefered this amp to AMP-1, while the other claimed more air and speed makes AMP-1 sound better. Much influence here comes from the capacitors choice and the attenuator.
The chassis seem to be OK and taking the lid off didn't make much of a difference. One could use acrylic here, but personally, I don't think this would be an improvement.
But I recommend acrylic platforms and this is what I'm using under all my amps. I also don't think that this design needs any damping, but it never hurts to try
SineEra said:
Building a chassis for a GC is a big gamble on many occasions, as some mechanical solutions produce better results than other.
The aluminum, GainCard influenced chassis, in my experience sounds very open, airy and a bit bright maybe. The acrylic one, that I've built previously, had a bit less high frequency extention, and the maple cube had it even less (the sound was on a dull side). Adding spikes helped a bit, but both those designs sounded different than aluminum chassis.
The monoblocks and Patek amp, use more of the copper and bronze, and it seems like they produce less of the brightness and put more stress on midrange and more round sound. Some people prefer it, some not (I actually prefer it). However, they sound very focused and there is a feeling of the solid sound.
If some of you remeber my first monoblocks, kind of flat design with black heatsinks in rear part, I had really big problems in making tham to sound right. Whatever I used for feet, they always seem to sound coloured and not properly focused. I didn't really like them.
Now, this new amp, maybe I should call it kit amp, for some reason sounds "right". I compared it today to Amp-1 and it is smoother, more relaxed than the AMP-1 without any sign of stress and edgyness, but at the same time, it is not any less detailed at all. One listener actually prefered this amp to AMP-1, while the other claimed more air and speed makes AMP-1 sound better. Much influence here comes from the capacitors choice and the attenuator.
The chassis seem to be OK and taking the lid off didn't make much of a difference. One could use acrylic here, but personally, I don't think this would be an improvement.
But I recommend acrylic platforms and this is what I'm using under all my amps. I also don't think that this design needs any damping, but it never hurts to try
It seems like there is enough interest to proceed with production.
Please let me know what options you'd like to see. Are the choices I presented here are satisfactory, or you'd like to see things differently?
There is no question that both front and rear panels will be available blank as well, and anybody can make their own cut outs. But we could settle on at least two different versions of the rear panel. One could be like I did here, with 3 inputs (unless majority wants to have 4). And the other version could be for the amp without source selector; it means just one input and output for each channel and in that case the jacks and binding posts could be placed symetrically in the back, looking more like a dual mono configuration.
Please post your preferences and suggestions.
What about color? I would think about clear anodising, unless large number of interested parties would prefer any other color? Is placing of AC socket fine with anybody? As it's now, there is absolutely no trace of any RF interference.
Also, what kind of cut outs for binding posts? I think Cardas layout is pretty universal (0.5" holes with 0.76 spacing). But if patented posts are to be used, additional center hole is needed. But if I'll do that on all panels, a use of single posts (without mounting plate) won't be possible as the hole will be exposed. In that case I'll probably open just the main holes and somebody who uses patented posts will make the additional hole by himself?
Please let me know what options you'd like to see. Are the choices I presented here are satisfactory, or you'd like to see things differently?
There is no question that both front and rear panels will be available blank as well, and anybody can make their own cut outs. But we could settle on at least two different versions of the rear panel. One could be like I did here, with 3 inputs (unless majority wants to have 4). And the other version could be for the amp without source selector; it means just one input and output for each channel and in that case the jacks and binding posts could be placed symetrically in the back, looking more like a dual mono configuration.
Please post your preferences and suggestions.
What about color? I would think about clear anodising, unless large number of interested parties would prefer any other color?
Is placing of AC socket fine with anybody? As it's now, there is absolutely no trace of any RF interference.Also, what kind of cut outs for binding posts? I think Cardas layout is pretty universal (0.5" holes with 0.76 spacing). But if patented posts are to be used, additional center hole is needed. But if I'll do that on all panels, a use of single posts (without mounting plate) won't be possible as the hole will be exposed. In that case I'll probably open just the main holes and somebody who uses patented posts will make the additional hole by himself?
I probably won't use a source selector. Extra holes in the back panel are not problem for me. I'll just leave the unused ones open. I did like the idea of partially pre-drilling any extra holes from the inside of the panels. It would be quite easy to open them up for future additions. I like unfinished, as I will brush the surface and then coat with a clear laquer. But clear anodized is fine too. I may choose a different wood for the sides, so unfinished panels are fine too.
Sheldon
Sheldon
Will make the option for no AC socket cut out, so if somebody wants to install it from the bottom, they will have to make the opening by themselves.
Two options will be available, one like in the picture (no space for 4 pairs) and dual mono with one input symetrically on ea. side (same for binding posts).
Two options will be available, one like in the picture (no space for 4 pairs) and dual mono with one input symetrically on ea. side (same for binding posts).
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.