It is evenly split.
Did you look at the drawing?
It's a completely symmetric hole pattern.
No it doesn't, please look at the proposed drawing.
It's a completely symmetric hole pattern.
This hole pattern allows the F6 to be mounted properly as well as every other single other amp design plus future pcbs that could be made even better than now.
It is a million birds with one stone.
It's UMS plus 8 extra symmetric holes. Completely symmetric
Last edited:
Right, I see what you have done now. No, I just looked at your picture and thought you had offset it all to one side. It's 9:30pm here and Gianluca pulled me in to comment before I went to sleep to keep the ball rolling.
I do appreciate the suggestion, but note it is specific to the F6 PCB. Any changes to the UMS will be made very carefully. While the cost to add more holes is minimal, we don't want to turn the heatsinks into swiss cheese just for the sake of one particular PCB. Changing the F6 PCB itself would be another way to approach the issue. It's a good idea (this whole issue of the F6 offsets) and worth investigating.
Going back to the three options I described, stocking this as a standard item (either with or without UMS), we don't need to know the quantities. If it's a custom job, we will need to know the exact quantity in order to prepare a quote.
I do appreciate the suggestion, but note it is specific to the F6 PCB. Any changes to the UMS will be made very carefully. While the cost to add more holes is minimal, we don't want to turn the heatsinks into swiss cheese just for the sake of one particular PCB. Changing the F6 PCB itself would be another way to approach the issue. It's a good idea (this whole issue of the F6 offsets) and worth investigating.
Going back to the three options I described, stocking this as a standard item (either with or without UMS), we don't need to know the quantities. If it's a custom job, we will need to know the exact quantity in order to prepare a quote.
Last edited:
It is going to be far simpler to add 8 holes than redesign the F6 pcb.
Considering how many people that have already invested in an F6 PCB and are very dissatisfied with the situation, it would be appreciated by a lot of people who already invested money in it.
Last edited:
The UMS was a carefully considered design based around the needs of the proposed boards 8 years ago. A few things have changed since then, and in due time, a carefully considered UMS 2.0 update will be appropriate. Feedback will be invited and will be most welcome.
But we aren't going to go adding new holes just to suit the needs of a specific project. I think it's generally a good idea for the UMS to have the least possible number of holes possible to support the widest range of possible projects. When the UMS was designed, we paid a price per hole which made the number of holes particularly important - we didn't want people paying for holes they weren't going to use. Now Hifi2000 has more advanced machinery and I believe the price difference is not significant.
Why the F6 PCB was designed the way it is is not a question I can answer right now but it would be a good answer to know. Possibly the use of a 5Ux400 chassis or the split heatsinks of the 5U chassis wasn't even considered by the designer. I couldn't tell you right now. In all these years, I don't think I've heard anyone bring this issue up until very recently.
Whatever is your requirement we are very happy to help. But changes to the UMS are going to be done slowly and with careful review. That's not to say we aren't going to implement your idea, and that's not to say your idea isn't great, but the UMS is a reference a lot of people rely on now, and people will be relying on V2.0 for the next decade.
But we aren't going to go adding new holes just to suit the needs of a specific project. I think it's generally a good idea for the UMS to have the least possible number of holes possible to support the widest range of possible projects. When the UMS was designed, we paid a price per hole which made the number of holes particularly important - we didn't want people paying for holes they weren't going to use. Now Hifi2000 has more advanced machinery and I believe the price difference is not significant.
Why the F6 PCB was designed the way it is is not a question I can answer right now but it would be a good answer to know. Possibly the use of a 5Ux400 chassis or the split heatsinks of the 5U chassis wasn't even considered by the designer. I couldn't tell you right now. In all these years, I don't think I've heard anyone bring this issue up until very recently.
Whatever is your requirement we are very happy to help. But changes to the UMS are going to be done slowly and with careful review. That's not to say we aren't going to implement your idea, and that's not to say your idea isn't great, but the UMS is a reference a lot of people rely on now, and people will be relying on V2.0 for the next decade.
Countless people have been whinging about the situation if you hang out on the build threads for years.
Some people don't have split heatsinks, so it's not a problem for them.
I don't think it's a great idea to make drastic changes to the UMS since you would upset hundreds of people that have already purchased boards.
The changes I suggested affect absolutely no one in any negative way from allowing them to build the existing amp projects.
It fixes one ongoing issue and opens up the ability to run longer boards which is a very logical/rational thing to allow given the heatsink has plenty of real estate in that direction.
People around here know I don't sleep (like literally) my mind thinks about this stuff 24 hours a day.
I've thought about all of these issues a million times over, that is why I build my own cases.
These changes make sense and have no negative consequences.
I know you're bloody tired.
I will be still awake when you're waking up. Hahahaha
Anyway, I guess there is no rush on this. No pressure. It's all good.
Some people don't have split heatsinks, so it's not a problem for them.
I don't think it's a great idea to make drastic changes to the UMS since you would upset hundreds of people that have already purchased boards.
The changes I suggested affect absolutely no one in any negative way from allowing them to build the existing amp projects.
It fixes one ongoing issue and opens up the ability to run longer boards which is a very logical/rational thing to allow given the heatsink has plenty of real estate in that direction.
People around here know I don't sleep (like literally) my mind thinks about this stuff 24 hours a day.
I've thought about all of these issues a million times over, that is why I build my own cases.
These changes make sense and have no negative consequences.
I know you're bloody tired.
I will be still awake when you're waking up. Hahahaha
Anyway, I guess there is no rush on this. No pressure. It's all good.
Last edited:
That would be the easy way out. If we added new holes every time a project wanted them, the UMS would have a lot more holes than it does now.
I'm not actively following the F6 thread, but I'm only aware of one person who has mentioned this to the helpdesk.
Very dissatisfied is a strong phrase. The feedback I have got from the big brain people I have asked in the past about this issue (how important it is to have transistors mounted in the middle of the heatsink) have told me that the positioning doesn't really make much difference at all to the end result. Heat is drawn quickly into the whole heatsink. I'm afraid I don't have any specific statistics, but I got the impression the difference in temperature would be a couple of degrees at most, far less an impact than daily temperature variation. Feedback on that topic is welcome. For this particular PCB, it's not ideal, but not the end of the world either, and in the scheme of things a much better option than spending an extra USD200 for custom holes on 4 heatsinks. What matters is you're happy with the end result and sleep well at night.
Last edited:
Thanks for letting me know. As I mentioned previously, I've only heard of one person inquiring about this. That was in a review of the chassis, and they still gave it 5 stars out of 5. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.
More holes may mean every single person pays a few dollars more. More holes may mean the heatsink has been turned into a mess. Maybe neither are actually issues, or are important in the scheme of things.
I'm very open to discussing this, I'm just making it clear it won't happen overnight (making it into the UMS). Adding it to your custom chassis, or a batch, no problems. Just let us know the exact specification, and exact quantity, and we can quote.
I'll call you tomorrow for a yarn
I already have this on my heatsink.
As you can see it is not a mess.
If it only adds $5 to $8, it's a very small additional cost.
If people vote against paying for the additional cost then fair enough.
I am not doing this for me, I am doing it for other people that I listen to complain about issues on a daily basis.
I'm very sorry if I haven't explained this clearly.
The problem is the 98% of people who are not building the F6, in a 4 heatsink Deluxe, using this specific PCB, would need to pay the extra cost. And once this PCB is retired or revised, people would pay that cost for decades to come. I've also mentioned that cost might not be an issue any longer.
From what I can see here, the issue here is not with the UMS, but specifically the design of the F6 PCB when it is used on the 5Ux400 chassis. I doubt the designer considered this. Should thousands of DIYers have another few holes in their heatsink over the coming decades? As I said, I'm open to that discussion.
Regards making you exactly what you want, there's no issue. Just let us know exactly what you want. Easy peasy.
Regards changing one of fundamental parts of the diyAudio store's product offering, I'm open to discussion. Just saying it won't happen overnight.
I hope that makes sense.
The problem is the 98% of people who are not building the F6, in a 4 heatsink Deluxe, using this specific PCB, would need to pay the extra cost. And once this PCB is retired or revised, people would pay that cost for decades to come. I've also mentioned that cost might not be an issue any longer.
From what I can see here, the issue here is not with the UMS, but specifically the design of the F6 PCB when it is used on the 5Ux400 chassis. I doubt the designer considered this. Should thousands of DIYers have another few holes in their heatsink over the coming decades? As I said, I'm open to that discussion.
Regards making you exactly what you want, there's no issue. Just let us know exactly what you want. Easy peasy.
Regards changing one of fundamental parts of the diyAudio store's product offering, I'm open to discussion. Just saying it won't happen overnight.
I hope that makes sense.
If people think it is stupid then fair enough, let them be the judge.
I did say it wasn't just for F6 but also allow the use of longer boards and more effectively use up the real estate of the heatsink.
In the end that is the only direction you can actually go in, so you're destined to do what I am suggesting.
I understand your point of view, though. It's worth thinking about it.
Maybe we should just a make it a custom order. Get Gianluca to quote with and without the 8 additional holes, and they can vote on it.
I did say it wasn't just for F6 but also allow the use of longer boards and more effectively use up the real estate of the heatsink.
In the end that is the only direction you can actually go in, so you're destined to do what I am suggesting.
I understand your point of view, though. It's worth thinking about it.
Maybe we should just a make it a custom order. Get Gianluca to quote with and without the 8 additional holes, and they can vote on it.
Last edited:
Just so it is clear to everyone.
Right now the longest board eg F4 is 250mm
With my suggested modifications you will be able to install a board with a length of 330mm and use up more heatsink real estate.
If people think it's dumb let me know and we will get rid of the idea entirely.
It would also correct the F6 problem.
Right now the longest board eg F4 is 250mm
With my suggested modifications you will be able to install a board with a length of 330mm and use up more heatsink real estate.
If people think it's dumb let me know and we will get rid of the idea entirely.
It would also correct the F6 problem.
I am losing patience with your lack of thought and spamming when you're not even interested.
IF YOU BLOODY LOOK AND USE YOUR BLOODY BRAIN, MY MOD ACTUALLY MOVES THE JENSEN EVEN CLOSER TO THE BACK PANEL THAN STOCK, and it also centers it on the split heatsink.
SO IT'S EVEN BETTER THAN STOCK ON SPLIT HEATSINKS.
Cheers.
Have a nice day.
Sorry for losing patience, but I can only take so much of this.
Last edited:
pico. So block me then. It was not written to you anyway. But to Jason.
And it's not allowed to shim in if your not interested in bying a chassis straight away. Sorry me.
Read a little about heat tranfer. Maybe, just maybe you will get my point regarding way to big heatsinks and spacing between output devices.
And it's not allowed to shim in if your not interested in bying a chassis straight away. Sorry me.
Read a little about heat tranfer. Maybe, just maybe you will get my point regarding way to big heatsinks and spacing between output devices.
Regardless if they are going into UMS or not, i think it is a good idea to add the extra holes to this chassis.
I do not know what i will be building in the future so the extra holes may come in handy.