|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Solid State Talk all about solid state amplification. |
|
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 |
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
I got a couple new-to-me Adcom GFA-555s last week. First time I've seen the insides of one.
There's nothing in there! ![]() I have been using Proton D1200s for some years...know what they look like from having to fix them once or twice. There's a LOT of stuff inside a D1200. Granted, the 'DPD' design of the power supply in the Proton comes with a good bit of associated layout that the Adcom doesn't have. Still, the amount of space in the Adcom was a surprise. I've listened to Protons because I like their sound. I think the Adcoms sound MUCH better. I'm not operating under the misconception that 'more stuff' inside necessarily means anything, and in this case it doesn't. How is it, though, that an amplifier as minimalistic as the Adcom seems to work so well? There is no soft turn on, no relay protected outputs, not even a regulated supply. Is the Adcom superior merely through simple design? That is what Nelson Pass is known for, I guess. On the other hand, the complexity of the Proton D1200 doesn't make it BAD...does it? Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Yes, on both counts..... simpler is often better, but it's hard to tweak it so it's better.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kudus, & Malang
|
NO.. Better is better and worse is worse, no matter it is simple or complex. Simple is limited, it need more complex to be expanded, and the more it complex, the more its difficulty, and if it fail then become worse.
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
OK, how about this:
Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler..... Cukup jelas, dong? Hugh |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Recife - Brasil Northeast
|
regards,
Carlos
__________________
Try to build an amplifier folks ... it is pure adrenaline! |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
|
The basic design of the McIntosh MC2120/2125/2200/2205 makes the Adcom GFA555 look complex. A diff pair (a dual transistor) with a resistor for the current source, a Vas transistor with a resistor for the current source, bias, and the output stage.
__________________
Candidates for the Darwin Award should not read this author. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
I agreed with all the posts, Simpler is better!. But again if it is well design.I had a few Adcom and they are really good, I had an integrated Proton too , but "there is not comparison between them". Adcom way better than Proton!!! |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Re: 'Better is better and worse is worse...'
Well now...that is simply stated...and certainly true! How about saying it this way: Considering the Adcom GFA-555 to be straightforward in design (and it a good amp by most folks' opinion), and the earlier referenced Macintosh amps to be even straight-ER-forward, then why does anyone bother to complicate things to an n-th degree only to end up with a product that is not as good? Because razzle-dazzle sells a lot of product? Maybe part of 'more design' it is due to what people want. Fer instance, I'd like a silent power on/off in the Adcom: No pops, clicks, thumps, or fizzles. |
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: K-town
|
Complexity is relative. Suppose you want to build a direct coupled 'modular' amp, where each circuit block performs a single function. For example, you might have a series/shunt regulator circuit that is in itself an amplifier circuit. Then you would have one for the opposite rail. A direct coupled, separate pre-amp circuit might be another circuit block and don't forget the DC servo. Each circuit would be constructed and tweaked individually. In the end as a whole, the circuitry would appear very complex but relatively it may not be as such.
![]() However, such circuits are difficult to simulate because of the ‘complexity’ .
__________________
All the trouble I've ever been in started out as fun......
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| New Amplifier design | kzeprf22 | Solid State | 28 | 5th April 2009 03:45 PM |
| My first amplifier design, what do you think? | Fritzell | Solid State | 18 | 14th October 2005 01:12 PM |
| My first amplifier design | jaycee | Solid State | 40 | 8th July 2005 12:42 PM |
| Amplifier Design | PassFan | Tubes / Valves | 5 | 16th April 2003 10:45 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.08946 seconds (87.06% PHP - 12.94% MySQL) with 10 queries |