Sure now has 2 different 2-channel boards for sale. They are the same price.
2*100 watt @ 4ohm TK2050 Class-D Audio Amplifier Board_Sure Electronics' Webstore
2*100W @4Ω TK2050 Class-D Audio Amplifier Board_Sure Electronics' Webstore
One is based off the 4 channel board but with only 2 channels operational. They have different components on them though, so I'm wondering:
1. Which has better stock components?
2. Is one a better platform to upgrade (more space, better design/layout etc.)?
2*100 watt @ 4ohm TK2050 Class-D Audio Amplifier Board_Sure Electronics' Webstore
2*100W @4Ω TK2050 Class-D Audio Amplifier Board_Sure Electronics' Webstore
One is based off the 4 channel board but with only 2 channels operational. They have different components on them though, so I'm wondering:
1. Which has better stock components?
2. Is one a better platform to upgrade (more space, better design/layout etc.)?
Blow up
That's weird. Must be they figure they can at least get two of the four channels working with out it blowing up as the earlier ones have been doing. I wouldn't touch those four channel boards unless they run out of the two channel style.
Yeah you're probably right, also the regular 2 channel (only) version is spec'd to 36v while the other one is only spec'd to 30.
Before I order this part and the 36v meanwell psu from Sure, does anyone have any suggestions or recommendations? Any special instructions I should give Sure? Any other parts/products that Sure carries that would go well with the board or I can use to upgrade it?
Before I order this part and the 36v meanwell psu from Sure, does anyone have any suggestions or recommendations? Any special instructions I should give Sure? Any other parts/products that Sure carries that would go well with the board or I can use to upgrade it?
Can't say much about stock components being unable to know the brands and models of the parts used, but personally I like the layout of the smaller board much better, while the bigger board has easier to replace parts.
Their binding posts and banana plugs are cheap, I regretted not getting. Perhaps not to those in the U.S. who get access to much more online parts shop with free delivery, but I only got Farnell.
Comparison of the two boards:
Their binding posts and banana plugs are cheap, I regretted not getting. Perhaps not to those in the U.S. who get access to much more online parts shop with free delivery, but I only got Farnell.
Comparison of the two boards:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Are most people using 10k volume controls? My understanding of electrical circuits is pretty limited, however isn't a 10k volume pot going to be a difficult load for your source or preamp? I'm just curoius as I'm getting ready to order a couple sure boards to start working toward an active two way set up. I'm planning on doing the crossover with a Passive Line Level Crossover if possible. Obviously one of the amps will need a volume control to match levels. I'm just worried 10k won't work well with the PLLXO. Obviously a buffer is an option, but that would entail more of a cash outlay and I'm a little short on that right now. Any insights or opinions? I'm using an op amp based preamp designed by Rod Elliot.
thanks
Joe
4k
My stepped attenuators are 4k. The input impedance is more like 10k at the louder settings. Lower values of pots will sound more dynamic and have less of the drawbacks of passive volume controls. Keep the wires following the pot as short as possible as this is where the sound is lost. Any active source will have no problem with 10k.
Am I right in assuming the stepped attenuators you are using are a serial type as your input impedance is 'more like 10k at the louder settings'?
I'm going to try an build a ladder type stepped attenuator, so would it be worth going with a higher value like 5k, 6k or even 10k as the input impedance is fixed when using a ladder type stepped attenuator? I plan to use interconnects that are are 2ft long...
I'm planning to take the signal directly from the DAC chips in my DCX (AK4393's I think), and use a coupling cap before the signal hits the stepped attenuator, in order to remove any DC in the signal. Are you using a coupling cap after your stepped attenuator also or is this 2nd cap not needed as I believe your setup is pretty similar to this?
Last edited:
Shunt attenuator
.
2 feet cables seem short but in my experience, you will still hear them robbing you slightly. If aesthetics and convenience are secondary to getting the best sonics, I would recommend mounting the volume controls to the boards in the empty spot between the connectors and the heat sink. Or at least hardwiring from a housing front panel to the amp to keep the wires to 6 inches.
.
You may want to try digital volume control with a fixed pad on the amp first as the Sure 2X100/ Tripath runs at a gain of only 16V/V and the direct out modified Behringer will be 10 db quieter than stock and will only need a few db of attenuatiion in order to get a nice (loud) listening level with 88db speakers. I have found that digital volume control starts getting slightly noticeably opaque by -12db but up to that point can be more transparent, if much less flexible, than adding an attenuator.
.
You still need a cap between the amp and your control to keep the amp's DC from shorting through the attenuator. As well as the other cap to keep the dac's DC from shorting.
Yes, I run a Behringer DEQ or DCX2496 direct from the dac, out through a coupling cap as does DrVega. Panomaniac prefers transformers but it gets expensive with 6 in a DCX. My attenuators are fixed series 4k with a switched shunt. This allows an attenuator to be built with only 1 switch deck. A series attenuator uses 1 deck but has 12-24 solder joints and resistors in the path compared to only 2 for ladder or shunt . Ladder types seem to have technical advantages until you think it through. A 10k ladder is an easier load for the source at quieter levels although I have been reading that measured performance of the dac chip can actually improve when loaded with 3k. The sonic challenge for a passive volume control is the high output impedance which is, in effect a restriction in current that would be useful to drive the signal through the R, C, and L of the following cables and input stages of the amp. E.E. type theorists that don't believe in listening insist that these values are so low in any reasonable cable length so as to be ignored, but thousands of reports of listening tests by people drawn to the cheap price and purity of passives show mixed results when replacing an active volume control due to the increased interactions with a passive. The two keys to getting superior sonics along with the cheaper costs of passive are in choosing the lowest possible output impedance that your source will still drive, and minimizing the the cable length that follows the attenuator. Now, back to ladder vs. shunt. A 10k ladder (or series, or pot) has 10k input at all settings but the output impedance will change from 0 at full volume to 6.6k at -12db to 8k at -18db and continue to rise at quieter levels. The shunt style has a 4k output at all levels and the input is 20k at -2db dropping through 4.6k by -18db. But the 4k actually has a lower output impedance than the 10k series (pot) or ladder from -5db and quieter where most controls end up getting used, staying at 4k while the others are rising.
.
2 feet cables seem short but in my experience, you will still hear them robbing you slightly. If aesthetics and convenience are secondary to getting the best sonics, I would recommend mounting the volume controls to the boards in the empty spot between the connectors and the heat sink. Or at least hardwiring from a housing front panel to the amp to keep the wires to 6 inches.
.
You may want to try digital volume control with a fixed pad on the amp first as the Sure 2X100/ Tripath runs at a gain of only 16V/V and the direct out modified Behringer will be 10 db quieter than stock and will only need a few db of attenuatiion in order to get a nice (loud) listening level with 88db speakers. I have found that digital volume control starts getting slightly noticeably opaque by -12db but up to that point can be more transparent, if much less flexible, than adding an attenuator.
.
You still need a cap between the amp and your control to keep the amp's DC from shorting through the attenuator. As well as the other cap to keep the dac's DC from shorting.
Excellent info Scott, thanks. I think I was getting series and shunt configurations mixed up in my previous post, but after reading your post shunt does look like a nice solution in this case. Shunt has 1 less switch contact in the circuit compared to a ladder configuration, which is no bad thing also.
I've already ordered a pair of unpopulated stepped attenuators, and I'm tempted to try wiring 1 up as a 4k shunt and the other as a 4k (or 10k) ladder and see how they compare... I'm still getting my head around how impedances work out between various sources and amps - it's turning out to be a little more complex than knowing Ohm's law!
I should have mentioned in my previous post that I'll be keeping the stepped attenuators very close or on the Sure PCB, but I'll be using 2ft or 3ft interconnects between the DCX and the Sure amp. I thought that it would be best to try and make these as short as I can as there will now be no op-amps in the circuit, so the DAC is now having to deal with driving the cables also. Am I right in assuming that cables have more effect when driving lower impedances?
I still have not had time to do the direct out mod yet however, but I'll try using the digital volume control first, I'm already using the DCX's volume control to pad my tweeter down -6db however. My plan is to eventually achieve the -6db gain reduction on my tweeter channels with the stepped attenuator, which is why I've opted to populate the stepped attenuators myself as opposed buying some pre-made ones.
I've already ordered a pair of unpopulated stepped attenuators, and I'm tempted to try wiring 1 up as a 4k shunt and the other as a 4k (or 10k) ladder and see how they compare... I'm still getting my head around how impedances work out between various sources and amps - it's turning out to be a little more complex than knowing Ohm's law!
I should have mentioned in my previous post that I'll be keeping the stepped attenuators very close or on the Sure PCB, but I'll be using 2ft or 3ft interconnects between the DCX and the Sure amp. I thought that it would be best to try and make these as short as I can as there will now be no op-amps in the circuit, so the DAC is now having to deal with driving the cables also. Am I right in assuming that cables have more effect when driving lower impedances?
I still have not had time to do the direct out mod yet however, but I'll try using the digital volume control first, I'm already using the DCX's volume control to pad my tweeter down -6db however. My plan is to eventually achieve the -6db gain reduction on my tweeter channels with the stepped attenuator, which is why I've opted to populate the stepped attenuators myself as opposed buying some pre-made ones.
Last edited:
-6db
I continue to use 8 foot cables between my direct out modified DEQ and the amps with excellent results so keeping that cable short is not as much of an issue. Trying to use a set of attenuators with one pair always offset from the others to get the -6db will be tough to get the resistors available in the exact value that you need to make the steps stay exactly matched because even with the vast range of values that are available, the exact number you need might not be. My attenuators will be within .2% across all six when they are on the same step but the next louder step might be 2.3db and the next quieter step might be 1.9 depending on the resistor values that are available so if you try to use the tweeter attenuator 3 clicks quieter than the woofer's to make the general offset, the relative levels might change .5db either way as you go through the range of listening levels. Does that make any sense? It might not be a big deal in practice but it could be more accurate to change the gain of the amps as needed to get rid of the digital attenuation. We have +6 and +9 selections built right onto the boards already with the switches. Of course there is always a catch, the amps sound better to me at the lowest gain. Eliminating R14/34 should give an increase in volume level. +6db? And sound better following a passive volume control? Not sure yet as I haven't tried it but it should be louder. It might make the TC2000 more vulnerable to pops. Aren't trade offs fun? It is worth it in the end.Excellent info Scott, thanks. I think I was getting series and shunt configurations mixed up in my previous post, but after reading your post shunt does look like a nice solution in this case. Shunt has 1 less switch contact in the circuit compared to a ladder configuration, which is no bad thing also.
I've already ordered a pair of unpopulated stepped attenuators, and I'm tempted to try wiring 1 up as a 4k shunt and the other as a 4k (or 10k) ladder and see how they compare... I'm still getting my head around how impedances work out between various sources and amps - it's turning out to be a little more complex than knowing Ohm's law!
I should have mentioned in my previous post that I'll be keeping the stepped attenuators very close or on the Sure PCB, but I'll be using 2ft or 3ft interconnects between the DCX and the Sure amp. I thought that it would be best to try and make these as short as I can as there will now be no op-amps in the circuit, so the DAC is now having to deal with driving the cables also. Am I right in assuming that cables have more effect when driving lower impedances?
I still have not had time to do the direct out mod yet however, but I'll try using the digital volume control first, I'm already using the DCX's volume control to pad my tweeter down -6db however. My plan is to eventually achieve the -6db gain reduction on my tweeter channels with the stepped attenuator, which is why I've opted to populate the stepped attenuators myself as opposed buying some pre-made ones.
Scott, do you really need the cap between the DAC and the attenuator? Won't the DAC see the attenuator as a 10k ohm load, not a short?
I want to build a six channel, remote control 10k Alps pot into the DCX. I'd like to avoid a second cap in the signal chain. Isn't the input cap on the Sure amp enough?
-dr_vega
Hi all diy gurus. I stumble upon this thread and am interested in this amp as well. There are several questions thou, and I am hoping that you all can help me out:
1. I wanna make this amp into a monoblock, can I just add in a preamp? Website said adding in a preamp will kill the chip. Anyone tried before?
2. Since I wanna make it into a monoblock, one of the channel will be going into an active sub. Will that kill my sub? Sub is a Active sub with 200W of power.
I thank everyone who spend the time to read and those who help. Thanks a lot
1. I wanna make this amp into a monoblock, can I just add in a preamp? Website said adding in a preamp will kill the chip. Anyone tried before?
2. Since I wanna make it into a monoblock, one of the channel will be going into an active sub. Will that kill my sub? Sub is a Active sub with 200W of power.
I thank everyone who spend the time to read and those who help. Thanks a lot
a) I do not think you know what the word "monoblock" means.
b) Many users just use a passive preamp (ie. a potentiometer or stepped attenuator). It's possible to use a preamp, but you need to be a little careful so as not to send too hot a signal to the amp chip. In practice, such a signal will be very loud, so I doubt anyone has ever killed a chip this way.
c) You do not want to send an amp output to the line level inputs of your active sub. Doing so will damage the input stage of your subwoofer amplifier.
b) Many users just use a passive preamp (ie. a potentiometer or stepped attenuator). It's possible to use a preamp, but you need to be a little careful so as not to send too hot a signal to the amp chip. In practice, such a signal will be very loud, so I doubt anyone has ever killed a chip this way.
c) You do not want to send an amp output to the line level inputs of your active sub. Doing so will damage the input stage of your subwoofer amplifier.
Short
.
Dantimax (elektronik) - Control_boards
.
and have ordered some Lightspeed LDR optocouplers to start work on a multi channel remote that can control 12 channels at the amps. The only hang up with this is the difficult matching of the LDRs. In the meanwhile I am content to have the DCX on the coffee table in front of me and use the digital volume control for fine tuning with the main volume control via direct attenuators at the amps.
The dac chip has 2.4v dc on it's outputs, as the amp does on it's inputs. I don't know how it will sound or how long the chips will last to let this run to ground through 10k. Maybe you can dig out some passive cross speakers and try a fixed pad on two channels of the DCX to see. I think you will also find that you are not willing to give up the sound quality that will be lost by having a passive volume control so far from the amps. Aside from the cap issue, you can try the fixed pads on all channels of the DCX to hear the impact before starting the project with the remote ganged pots. I have started looking at these remote VolControl2 modules
.
Dantimax (elektronik) - Control_boards
.
and have ordered some Lightspeed LDR optocouplers to start work on a multi channel remote that can control 12 channels at the amps. The only hang up with this is the difficult matching of the LDRs. In the meanwhile I am content to have the DCX on the coffee table in front of me and use the digital volume control for fine tuning with the main volume control via direct attenuators at the amps.
Well there, TheSeekerr, if you read from my post, you'll see that I am a noob. Just that I am kinda interested in Class D amp, and always wanted a monoblock. What I know about monoblock is it is a power amplifier, with it's own PS, and it does not have the crosstalk as other stereo amps. Please correct me if I am wrong. Although the internet has a lot of information, some sites can be misleading, or didn;t really explain clearly. Hope you didn;t mind my stupidity.
b. a passive preamp? hm......does it includes line selector? What happened if I were to connect a phono stage or a DAC? will it work too?
c.thanks for the advice.
I think I should let you know too, that I am don;t have much knowledge in electronics (i am in different field), but I am interested in audio, and wanna go for DIY amps since it won;t burn a big hole in my pocket (low pay and very limited funds)
Thanks for replying. ^^ Take care
Thanks, Scott. Now that I have, with your help (air-cores), got the Sure amp sounding pretty good, I'm working on making it more convenient.
-dr_vega
Hi all,
I'm purchased two of these amps to power my mid-range and tweeters in a tri-amp setup. The mid will be hi-passed @ about 900Hz so I'm not too concerned with lower freq. resolution... Are most of these mods implemented to improve the bass response of this amp, or are there any *simple* modifications that you can recommend to sweeten up the mid/top end?
I'm horrible with a soldering iron but I'm working on it)
Thanks
I'm purchased two of these amps to power my mid-range and tweeters in a tri-amp setup. The mid will be hi-passed @ about 900Hz so I'm not too concerned with lower freq. resolution... Are most of these mods implemented to improve the bass response of this amp, or are there any *simple* modifications that you can recommend to sweeten up the mid/top end?
I'm horrible with a soldering iron but I'm working on it
)Thanks
mods
The mods are for the whole range. Probably more noticeable on a tweeter or mid than in the bass.Hi all,
I'm purchased two of these amps to power my mid-range and tweeters in a tri-amp setup. The mid will be hi-passed @ about 900Hz so I'm not too concerned with lower freq. resolution... Are most of these mods implemented to improve the bass response of this amp, or are there any *simple* modifications that you can recommend to sweeten up the mid/top end?
I'm horrible with a soldering iron but I'm working on it
Thanks
Hi all,
I'm purchased two of these amps to power my mid-range and tweeters in a tri-amp setup. The mid will be hi-passed @ about 900Hz so I'm not too concerned with lower freq. resolution... Are most of these mods implemented to improve the bass response of this amp, or are there any *simple* modifications that you can recommend to sweeten up the mid/top end?
I'm horrible with a soldering iron but I'm working on it
Thanks
I'm just working on getting mine together so I can't speak from personal experience, however from following the thread it sounds like the two biggest improvement can be had from changing the input caps and changing the inductors on the output. Lots of different choices for input caps. I've really enjoyed Obbligato copper caps with other tripath amps. Here's a web page for winding your own inductors, which is what people here seem to have the most luck with as far as inductors go. These should both be simple modifications, and give improvements across the frequency range. Good luck.
I also have a quick question for people using the 36volt meanwell supplies. I'm building an oak enclosure for my amp and was planning on routering in some small vent in the top of the enclosure for the amp to help keep it cool enough. Have people found the power supply to get hot as well? In other words should I vent above where the power supply goes to try and keep it running cool as well? I'm only running one amp per power supply and am going to use a passive line level crossover so each amp should have an fairly easy load. I'm guessing there is no need to vent above the power supply, but I wanted to check in to make sure.
thanks
Joe
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.