Aleph 5 parts and physical layout. - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Pass Labs

Pass Labs This forum is dedicated to Pass Labs discussion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th September 2004, 05:08 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Trondheim
Default Aleph 5 parts and physical layout.

Hi,

I've been meaning to build two aleph 5 monoblocks for some while now, but progress has been slow during summer. A cold norwegian summer will change this. I've almost finished deciding what components to use.

This is what I plan to use for one monoblock:
500VA toroid with 30V secondaries from reichelt
4x39000uF/50V panasonic tha series from digikey
irfp240 from reichelt
1% resistors from reichelt.
The rest of the components will also be bought from reichelt.

Heatsinks are already bought from conradheatsinks. Exellent quality and speedy service.

I will be using Kristijan's pcb and his powersupply design, except I'll use 4x39000 instead of 8x22000 caps. This gives a bit less F but I dont think this will hurt the quality of the psu? Btw, is 4x22000 per rail better than 2x44000?

If anyone has any objections regarding the parts I've chosen, please advice.

My next worry is the physical layout of the amplifier. I've attached a picture of two possible solutions(forgive me the crude drawing but hopefully the idea will get across.) Wich one is better when trying to keep noise from trafo, power wires etc. away from pcb and signal wires? Will the difference be negligable?

Regards

Eystein
Attached Images
File Type: jpg amp.jpg (12.5 KB, 448 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 05:16 PM   #2
Netlist is offline Netlist  Belgium
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
Netlist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Eystein
4 caps has the advantage to make a CRC or CLC setup
Drawing 1 is better IMO. (PCB further away from PSU.)
Good luck and keep us informed.

/Hugo
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 05:26 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Trondheim
Sorry, I was a bit unclear on that one. What i meant was CCLCC instead of CLC. Is there any difference.
And thanks for the reply. I too think the top one is the best, but size is also an concern. The last one will be a bit smaller(no big isn't always beautiful )
Will there be much difference though? I guess this i difficult to quantify just from a drawing but if I risk noise with the last I'll obviously go for the first.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 05:34 PM   #4
Netlist is offline Netlist  Belgium
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
Netlist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
From memory (can be wrong at my age ) I think Nelson does something like CLCLCLC or from picture of XA200 it was CRCRCRC.
PCB further from PSU is always better unless you use a good shield (Hum).
Good ground connections (star ground) is also very important. Try to pay much attention to that.

/Hugo
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 05:40 PM   #5
eLarson is offline eLarson  United States
diyAudio Member
 
eLarson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Depending on the height of your Conrad heatsinks (I'm getting the 151mm high, double-flanged kind, personally) and the height of your transformer and capacitor, you could end up with the tops of the capacitors sticking out of the top of your amp if you put the caps over the transformer.

That said, I'd go with your upper drawing provided that it all fits under the lid. (I wish it did with mine. )

Erik
__________________
Would a woodchuck bother to chuck MDF?
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 05:58 PM   #6
jleaman is offline jleaman  Belgium
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Send a message via AIM to jleaman
what about like this ?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg here.jpg (11.6 KB, 360 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 06:04 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Trondheim
We're getting the same heatsinks then. If I go with the first picture, my plan is to add a cm of height using the bottom plate of the amp. My plan is anyways to bend it at the sides to mount the heatsinks. Adding height is just a matter of mounting them higher on the bent bit. (if you understand my explanation. ) If more space is needed, a possibility is to put the caps on their side. This will save space for their mountings top and bottom.

Dimensions then will be 30x26x16 for one monoblock. The front plate will hide the little cm anyways.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 06:11 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Trondheim
Quote:
Originally posted by JasonL
what about like this ?

I've thought about that one. But that will require me to cut of a bit of the flanges on the heatsinks(looking at the bottom one), and I'm worried that the thermal resistance will be worse if I make them smaller?
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seeking for advice: routing/physical layout Onvinyl Solid State 7 7th June 2009 06:12 PM
Physical layout for integrated stereo GC falcott Chip Amps 3 25th October 2006 10:02 PM
KG 400RB Parts Layout david maurer Solid State 4 29th July 2006 08:09 AM
811A SET Monoblock physical layout suggestions corbato Tubes / Valves 2 14th December 2005 09:00 AM
physical layout of 6B4G PP amp? zix Tubes / Valves 20 15th August 2004 09:43 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:17 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2