I used a power supply like the ones proposed for Nelson Pass F5 turbo; super simple and I really am impressed by the results...
Different topic:
I have done a search of this thread, thought someone had converted the Honey Badger to a monoblock...but no.
Is it possible?
Different topic:
I have done a search of this thread, thought someone had converted the Honey Badger to a monoblock...but no.
Is it possible?
What do you mean by monoblock? That term usually means one channel, one PSU. Is that what you want or are you referring to bridging the amp, i.e. two channels bridged to create one mono output?
monoblock is one channel on one box with its own power supply...
i have resisted doing mono blocks, but my upcoming 300watt tube amp makes it mandatory....getting too old to be lifting heavy stuff...
i have resisted doing mono blocks, but my upcoming 300watt tube amp makes it mandatory....getting too old to be lifting heavy stuff...
I know what monoblock means, just wanted JDG to clarify what he meant. There's really not trick to doing a monoblock, just more work.
yes, you can also monoblock an existing 2 channel amp by bridging it, if that was what you were asking....JDG to confirm...
BR,C, cable, CCCC, cable, amplifier
This is a big power amp, not a preamp; So, if optional filters are added at the power supply board, the main goal is lowest loss, especially at large signal, which also includes the power supply tank/reservoir.
It *may* still be useful to knock the edge off the bridge rectifier noise output.
Usefulness is limited to:
A CRC power board may or may not help imaging at average (extremely low power) volume playback, and
A CRC power board may, probably, decrease modulation of amp stability and reduce harsh edges of clipping when amp is at full blast.
Basically, we want to use enough filtering to make the amp more *practically* powerful without using enough filter to cut the actual dynamic power. A filter that reduces the Power amplifier's dynamic power is ugly and I will try to avoid that.
P.S.
AndrewT and AJT have got it near perfectly, if one can ignore costs and bulk. This is a vital reference. Then the challenge is to decrease the costs and bulk without cutting the performance notably. I think that a bit filtering modestly applied can do more than excessive microfarads supply serving up an excessively slow capacitive timer. It is probably within that difference that filtering is wise, and it won't be much.
OStripper has CRC aboard Honey Badger at small signal locale, which has completed most of the job; and, thus any remaining "problem" is very tiny.
This is a big power amp, not a preamp; So, if optional filters are added at the power supply board, the main goal is lowest loss, especially at large signal, which also includes the power supply tank/reservoir.
It *may* still be useful to knock the edge off the bridge rectifier noise output.
Usefulness is limited to:
A CRC power board may or may not help imaging at average (extremely low power) volume playback, and
A CRC power board may, probably, decrease modulation of amp stability and reduce harsh edges of clipping when amp is at full blast.
Basically, we want to use enough filtering to make the amp more *practically* powerful without using enough filter to cut the actual dynamic power. A filter that reduces the Power amplifier's dynamic power is ugly and I will try to avoid that.
P.S.
AndrewT and AJT have got it near perfectly, if one can ignore costs and bulk. This is a vital reference. Then the challenge is to decrease the costs and bulk without cutting the performance notably. I think that a bit filtering modestly applied can do more than excessive microfarads supply serving up an excessively slow capacitive timer. It is probably within that difference that filtering is wise, and it won't be much.
Last edited:
Yes, it is possible--It is typical.
Honey Badger is normally employed as a dual mono; and therefore, the practical difference is the number of enclosures. If there should happen to be a difficulty, then please specify.
Bridging will cut an amplifier's fidelity in half, in trade for almost four times the power output. For woofers, it is probably a good deal, but otherwise it is sketchy. Actually, that is always sketchy; but, it is really fun for woofers. It is NEVER fun for tweeters and also not appropriate for audio quality in full bandwidth.
Last edited:
because you are using the same power traffo inside of the amp,
total power is only the sum of the power with both channels driven...
4 times the power is only a dream at times, seldom achieved with real amps...
total power is only the sum of the power with both channels driven...
4 times the power is only a dream at times, seldom achieved with real amps...
If you use the same load, it's 4 times the power:
250/8 mono -> 1000/8 bridged : 4x power.
When bridged, each channel is delivering 500/4 for 1000/8 modus: 2x the power.
250/8 mono -> 1000/8 bridged : 4x power.
When bridged, each channel is delivering 500/4 for 1000/8 modus: 2x the power.
NO !!!!
no amplifier pair no matter how good they are can ever give 4times times the power.
The rule that does apply was stated above, but for you I will restate it.
A bridged pair of amplifiers can deliver a maximum power that is doubled into a doubled impedance.
Or another way of stating it is sum the total of the two amplifiers and that is the deliverable power from the bridged. Magic does not come into it, you cannot invent an output of 400% !!!!
This part is correct.
AJT confirmed the same
Last edited:
"A bridged pair of amplifiers can deliver a maximum power that is doubled into a doubled impedance."
That's what I'm saying in my example. 500W into 4 ohm per channel gives 1000W into 8 Ohm bridged.
That's what I'm saying in my example. 500W into 4 ohm per channel gives 1000W into 8 Ohm bridged.
Here, 4x is relative. This same amp that does 500W/4 Ohm does 250W 8 Ohm. Let's say I have this 1000W speaker. On one channel it sees 250W. When bridged it sees 1000W. Thus the speaker sees 4 times the power when bridged.
Last edited:
250W 8ohm per channel, 500w combined total. Bridged 1000W 8ohm total. 2X the power, not 4X. Also, the outputs are seeing 4ohm load.
jdg123 still hasn't replied as to whether he was talking about normal monoblock or bridged.
jdg123 still hasn't replied as to whether he was talking about normal monoblock or bridged.
Last edited:
Our typical BJT output devices would never even come close - SOA would
be exceeded.
The many times mentioned MGxxxx "super BJT's" would even be stressed
at 1Kw !
OS
be exceeded.
The many times mentioned MGxxxx "super BJT's" would even be stressed
at 1Kw !
OS
the power transformer in your amp is the limiting factor...it does not change in size even if you bridge your amp...