New TK2050 board

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Heatsink or pop

May be there is something else will burn the chips that I don't know. Please tell me if you know anything(experience) about that.:)
That's a weird question but this is what I have seen so far:

1. The outputs will burn at 30v if the heatsink doesn't sit flush and tight.
2. The driver chip can die if there is a pop or peak over 5v on the input.

This chip set is more fragile than a 3886 but sounds much better.
 
That's a weird question but this is what I have seen so far:

1. The outputs will burn at 30v if the heatsink doesn't sit flush and tight.
2. The driver chip can die if there is a pop or peak over 5v on the input.

This chip set is more fragile than a 3886 but sounds much better.

Thanks for share your experience:)
For item 2, I think using 100pF MKP solder to the RCA connectors(from input+ to ground) will help to anti clipping. For TC2000 max input sensitivity is 1.5V, we have to control the gain of pre-amplifier too.
 
Hi guys, how far are we from T3 availibility ? waiting for it to build my "Arnold" amp project :spin: ;)

Nick, I am sure you will provide the appropriate meanwell smps too, right ?

Not that far. We are testing it currently. I have been too busy last week, but have been using it a couple of weeks. The issue with the PSU board, "T3e" is that it wont turn on the relays when using 41V smps. It will power up the amps, so its not that the caps are putting the smps into failsafe, it's something else.. I have been running the T3 without the T3e, and it works good. There is a pop sound on on/off, which seems to vary with what kind of input is connected. With my DAC (both direct out ouput and RCA output) it makes a moderate but tolerable pop on turn on on my 99db speakers. (quieter sound on turnoff). But when I connected my ipod the pop was lounder, too loud to be tolerable on the 99db speakers. So the T3e would be necessary in some environments.
I have also experience a slight noise issue when powering both amps from one SMPS sometimes, but not all the time. Also on 99db speaker, on 87db speakers I havn't heard any.

A questions about smps:
the 48V 600W meanwell is more than 3 times as expensive as the 350W. Could we use 2 x 350W smps in parallel instead? I guess there has to be a drawback to this (noise?), else there wouldn't be any marked for the 3 x as expensive 600W. ?

One option would be to use 1 x 350W smps on each monoblock, but if using the T3e PSU board it would only be one input. Could maybe connect one smps to the psu board, powering only one amp, and another smps directly to the other amp? Both speakers should be muted by the relays when powering off the smps connected to the psuboard then.

alkasar:contact me if you cannot wait any longer :)
 
dual mono

Considering the amount of rated power you are after with this amp, I think you will find that running two 350 watt SMPS and two filter/ relay modules for a complete dual mono arrangement will sound the best and be the only reliable way to eliminate these phantom noise issues. I fear that you will have much grief with noise complaints if you market the two channel filter board. Also, is the heatsink temp ok to go up to 48v? I would measure the temp under the chip vs. the temp at the fins. That is a long way to pipe the heat from the chip to the fins. I would hate to see you have problems with heat failures when buyers start mounting that heatsink to a wooden case.
.
.
Not that far. We are testing it currently. I have been too busy last week, but have been using it a couple of weeks. The issue with the PSU board, "T3e" is that it wont turn on the relays when using 41V smps. It will power up the amps, so its not that the caps are putting the smps into failsafe, it's something else.. I have been running the T3 without the T3e, and it works good. There is a pop sound on on/off, which seems to vary with what kind of input is connected. With my DAC (both direct out ouput and RCA output) it makes a moderate but tolerable pop on turn on on my 99db speakers. (quieter sound on turnoff). But when I connected my ipod the pop was lounder, too loud to be tolerable on the 99db speakers. So the T3e would be necessary in some environments.
I have also experience a slight noise issue when powering both amps from one SMPS sometimes, but not all the time. Also on 99db speaker, on 87db speakers I havn't heard any.

A questions about smps:
the 48V 600W meanwell is more than 3 times as expensive as the 350W. Could we use 2 x 350W smps in parallel instead? I guess there has to be a drawback to this (noise?), else there wouldn't be any marked for the 3 x as expensive 600W. ?

One option would be to use 1 x 350W smps on each monoblock, but if using the T3e PSU board it would only be one input. Could maybe connect one smps to the psu board, powering only one amp, and another smps directly to the other amp? Both speakers should be muted by the relays when powering off the smps connected to the psuboard then.

alkasar:contact me if you cannot wait any longer :)
 
I can wait a bit, but not too long :D :rolleyes:

my view about smps for T3
available meanwell smps se series : 200 / 350 / 450 / 600 / 1000 / 1500

1. some people will want to build a mono amp. There will be a need for 350W smps
2. for stereo hifi, people will not use the full 2x300W. this is with 10% distorsion anyway. (BTW what is the max power of 517B with 0,1% THD in 4 Ohms?) Given the amp and smps efficiency, I am pretty sure that a single SE-450 is sufficient in most cases for a stereo amp.
3. for high power stereo amp, two times 350W in dual mono wiring is the best choice.

Some may want to build 5 or 7 channels HT poweramp, and want different smps combinations. But you can wait a bit to see where demand goes.

If it was me, given the high price of SE-600, i would start by providing SE-350 and SE-450 at appropriate voltage.
my 2 cents ;)

oops almost forgot : T3e should allow dual mono wiring
 
Last edited:
S-350

I think you may find that two S-350-48 MeanWell supplies cost less than one SE-450 anyway.
.
.
I can wait a bit, but not too long :D :rolleyes:

my view about smps for T3
available meanwell smps se series : 200 / 350 / 450 / 600 / 1000 / 1500

1. some people will want to build a mono amp. There will be a need for 350W smps
2. for stereo hifi, people will not use the full 2x300W. this is with 10% distorsion anyway. (BTW what is the max power of 517B with 0,1% THD in 4 Ohms?) Given the amp and smps efficiency, I am pretty sure that a single SE-450 is sufficient in most cases for a stereo amp.
3. for high power stereo amp, two times 350W in dual mono wiring is the best choice.

Some may want to build 5 or 7 channels HT poweramp, and want different smps combinations. But you can wait a bit to see where demand goes.

If it was me, given the high price of SE-600, i would start by providing SE-350 and SE-450 at appropriate voltage.
my 2 cents ;)

oops almost forgot : T3e should allow dual mono wiring
 
Hi, guys.
Finally we found what's wrong with the T3e. If power supply is DC, it will be polarity sensitive. The + of power supply have to be connected to the right screw for control circuit use, otherwise the relay will not turn on( but no harm to amplifier or other parts).
I have test it under 30~50V DC and it work good, but 36V~50V will be better for relay.
 
Noise

humm... interesting.
unfortunaltely, S series stop at 350W max.
So the only advantage of a single SE-450 would be size.

BTW what exactly is the "phantom noise" you mentioned ?
There are reports, and I can duplicate it, of an odd, low level noise when two separate boards are run off of one power supply. Even batteries. It is like a ground hum but higher in frequency. Some people call it a whistle. I would call it a tone. I believe it is caused by the near identical switching frequencies beating in interference and modulating the grounds. Full mono with multiple $40 S-350-48 will be the way to go with the 517b. I would probably order mine without the heatsink and give up the slim form for some more traditional stock that I already have that would mount the board right to the fins. Board and fins oriented vertically.
 
New 2.1 channel design

Hi, I was working on a new 2.1 channel amplifier for days. It's DDX and input S/PDIF directly ( so it's a power DAC actually) .
As a system, I add a mcu and HID like LCM, remote receiver and rotary encoder, etc.
I just think that will be another interesting project. Any ideas? ;)
 

Attachments

  • v3 2.1 channel.PNG
    v3 2.1 channel.PNG
    90.9 KB · Views: 5,582
Looking good.
Arjenshenzen/arjenhelder says he is working on something similar based on a ta2020 board (only without the .1 part :p)

Yours looks much more powerfull though.
Maybe try some smaller caps parallel instead of one big cap, it reduces the equivalent ESR.
Also, placing the buffercap(s) closer to the chips might be a good idea.

Will there be a separate board for the digital input?

Edit: i also see 2 Vins, does this mean this board requires a symmetrical psu?
As there is only one buffer cap, which cannot buffer both lines..
 
I don't finished the first sample, but I hope the price will be another surprise ;)
This is DDX which means no analog signal before output to speaker, which is different from TA2020(analog input itself).
The digital input are all built in on board now, so the HID(human interface device) part is now separated for convenience of installation.
And 2 Vins are for symmetrical AC input( half bridge circuit is used for AC-DC). If a DC power is used, single rail is enough.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.