Thanks for the explanation. I got some more reading to do and, maybe, another drain on the bank account.
EDIT: EIGHTEEN HUNDRED BUCKS! Yikes! I hope it is a whole lot better than the Lightspeed. It is a whole bunch more expensive.
Nonetheless, it is a very impressive beast.
TG
Sounds very interesting. I may try one. Does the Tortuga Audio one use critically matched LDRs like the Lightspeed? The whole idea behind the Lightspeed is the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. Hence, no muting, balance, or remote. Stereophile seem to think it is a very impressive product...
Anyone tried the Lightspeed Attenuator? I have. I picked one up last week and have been listening to it. Brilliant! So neutral and accurate. If you need something simple, inexpensive and dead easy to use, this puppy is for you.
More seriously, I doubt there is a preamp available at any price...
It makes setting precise levels for each channel impossible and reasonable listening difficult. A quality Alps volume pot and balance pot is a far superior solution. Channel matching between elements is superb and the balance pots are 'straight though' (metal to metal contacts) at the 12 o'clock...
No. In essence I am saying:
* Redgum amplifiers can fail, despite your prior claim (I don't believe that Ian would ever make such a claim).
* Ian Robinson is a pleasure to deal with.
* I don't much care for the sound of Redgum amplifiers and I loathe the twin volume control pots. (I acknowledge...
Why indeed? Let's begin with this gem: "and absolutely no burned out amplifiers the designer is aware of."
That statement is complete bollocks. However, I will state, for the record:
Redgum amplifiers are, IME, not particularly unreliable. In fact, their simplicity makes them reasonably easy...
And if you believe that twaddle, I have a very nice opera house for you to buy.
Points:
65 Watts @ 8 Ohms corresponds to an output of close to 23 Volts RMS.
23 Volts RMS across a 0.5 Ohm load = 1,058 Watts.
Trouble is, it can't be done. Such a claim ignores the fact that real output...
Rowland use (or used) VERY complicated temperature control systems for their amplifiers. As I recall, the bias adjustment involves the use of 6 or 8 pots, each of which interacts with the others. There is a lot of heat sink and stabilisation takes a long time, thus making service a long and...
A better solution would be to mount it on it's rear panel, so the nice looking heat sinks can do their job, using convection.
Oh, just wait until someone mentions Bybees, Dueland resistors and a host of other things. I'll down on them like a Tonne of bricks.
I read about this about a decade ago. I just figured they had given up, or just developed better silicon solutions. On the surface, a mechanical computer sounds bizarre, but given the dimensions involved, there could be some interesting developments afoot.
I have more than 40 years' experience in designing, building, modifying and servicing audio equipment. Many of my mods have been incorporated into hardware by large, internationally significant manufacturers over the years. I call dumb design when I see it. Putting the heat sinks under the...
Thanks for the welcome. And yes, the mass of the heat sink appears to be substantial, given the modest ratings of the amp. Nonetheless, there is very little in the way of convection cooling and any heat convected will be up through the chassis and keeping those electros snuggly warm. Very few...
Heat sinks on the BOTTOM of the amplifier!!!???
Insane. EVERYTHING inside the chassis will reach the same temperature as the output devices. Life-span of every electrolytic caps will be compromised. Bad idea.