B'ASS Current Amplifier

[arvind]

Hi Peter,

What's the dimensions of the B'ASS unit? I couldn't find it in the threads.

Best regards,

Arvind

[PeterSt]

Hi Arvind,

234 x 234 x 74 mm.

Regards,
Peter

[christoffe]

Hi Peter,

you saw my email on Montag, 30. Mai 2016 12:06

Joachim

[PeterSt]

Yes Joachim, I did. Thank you.
(and I didn't see a question in there)

Peter

[Bigear]

Hi Peter,

I'm in for the BNC one.

Regards,
Quint

[esimms86]

Hi Peter. I know that B'ASS can be used with any DAC. I was just wondering then if you've tried out B'ASS with other non-Phasure DACs and, if so, how did it(they) sound with the upgrade. Just curious.

Esau

[PeterSt]

Hi All,

I added a table with prices to the first post.


Peter

[acg]

Hi Peter,

How does one figure out how many "amplifiers" we need?  Is it a case getting a few and then seeing if that is enough.  Will we be able to add more "amplifiers" in later on if we see the need?

Regards,

Anthony

[PeterSt]

Hey Anthony,

This is such a good question that I don't have the answer.

Maybe the whole feature of allowing you guys to choose is causing troubles now. Maybe my hunt for always keeping the price as low as possible, is killing.



Example of my own situation :

I have 4 levels of amp at my service and the past days I used 3. This is because 4 can be too much, or maybe for certain music it is too much. Anyway, 3 is enough for me, and 4 I try some times. Notice that usually when I try 4, I know in advance that it will work (say that I can hear that, derived from 3). Then, a next day things may not sound the best (which already always is the case the first 20 minutes - despite all being On 24/7) and I switch back to 3.

Yesterday I tried something new and sound was superb;
It didn't take long to switch on #4.
Possibly it has been my best evening ever ...

When it still is so that tonight (or other days) I switch off #4 again, I don't need a #5; 4 is actually on the edge already and things need to be really good to have it on. However :
When I'd enter a stage that #4 never is switched off any more, I WILL make me a 5th. How else can I know whether that will be better again ?

And also to keep in mind : a month ago I did not have my LPS and what I did back then with hopping between 3 and 2, turned into hopping between 4 and 3. Just because something improved. And you know, by now I start to wonder how an open baffle speaker (it still is that ) is even capable of producing such powerful bass, which now plainly feels like there's a few cubic meter of cabinet around it that pumps up itself with air before a vent opens and the power escapes in a blast. It really starts to be outrageous.

Btw it is interesting in itself to observe what actually happens, because adding "normal power" to the bass, brings something very different. So as we know I can easily DSP-in way more bass "level", but that does not work at all because it changes the balance. All will be too heavy and in the end coloured. This just adds power as such. Literal power.
And if people would complain about their DACs (the NOS1(a) ahead) that there's no power coming from it, then OK. But this is not so and thus this is a dimension we are not aware of.
Hey, this reminds me of the passive I/V conversion I played with for about a year (with the first NOS1 and prior to real production). It suited me well, but a sort of forced by the commercial situation and not so efficient speakers (mine already were 115dB at the sime) I *had* to swap to active I/V conversion. Then too I was shocked because it was actually better and I did not expect that at all. Now, thinking back of that situation, this was with 4.8mA of initial current and no molesting active device. But how does that poor weak signal end up at the amplifier ? say totally collapsed and tired because of the long travel. It isn't disturbed but it disturbs itself by breathing too heavy (so to speak). So better add an active device and 80mA of current, so the signal may be disturbed a little, but no wobbling breath taking is in order and at least all arrives in good shape.
We now do this again in superfold and as said with a factor of ~6 per amp level. Now we have an athlete and his heartbeating is not even disturbing his balance after arriving. One problem he has : he is so good and fast that he's having problems in the curves of the track and tends to break out of them. He really needs banked curves in order to be so fast and firm. And the faster he goes (more amp) the more banking he needs (better system as a whole). So without the banking he needs to hold back a bit (less amp).

So how much do we need ?
For fun, here is the table again :

	2 amp	3 amp	4 amp	5 amp	6 amp	7 amp	8 amp
1. RCA-In / RCA-Out					131516		156518
2. RCA-In + XLR-In / RCA-Out + XLR-Out			160524
3. BNC-In / BNC-Out (incl. Blaxius set)					144536		169538
4. BNC-In / BNC-Out x 2 (bal., incl. 2x Blaxius set)			173544
5. RCA-In / RCA-Out x 2 (balanced)			160554

Now cut out all the BS with headphone outputs, volume controls and Input selections, and there you have it. Just think that your best ever DAC NOS1a got ~1700 more expensive again, but that you will drop dead from being astouned. And worse, because you can set the sound.
Worse again, because what you can not achieve today (be stuck at 4 levels) can still work in 2017 when some idiot finds another gag that improves at the general level, which now allows your B'ASS to switch on that other level, always there waiting for you.

Peter

[acg]

Hey, this reminds me of the passive I/V conversion I played with for about a year (with the first NOS1 and prior to real production). It suited me well, but a sort of forced by the commercial situation and not so efficient speakers (mine already were 115dB at the sime) I *had* to swap to active I/V conversion. Then too I was shocked because it was actually better and I did not expect that at all.

Peter, there was a time when I would have been concerned about an active I/V but those days are long gone.  In my eyes active at the source is just "necessary" for the reasons that you say about current (and more).

My concern (well a little question mark in the back of my mind) with all this current amplification in the B'Ass is whether its effects are unique to your situation (your gainclones) and whether we are going to get this "improvement" with other power amplifiers.  Will it work with amplifiers of other topologies such as triodes or Class D or...?  That is a little unknown, at least from where I sit, however I generally believe that current is very important when driving an amplifier.  So I guess my question is whether you have tried the B'Ass anywhere else other than with your gainclones?  And sorry to put you on the spot like this...honest question...please know that I am standing first in line for one of these things.

Cheers,

Anthony

[PeterSt]

Hi again Anthony,

I must apologize because I recall the same question already asked, while I never answered it (not sure whether it was you). So here goes :

If you look back in the first post, you can see that I there adjusted the first sentence; I did that a couple of hours ago. So what I did yesterday was changing the title, and for comfort call it a current amplifier (everybody seems to understand that). But it is not that all all, or not really or say half. This is how "buffer" suits better, but now not everybody understands.

Please keep in mind that half of this is reasoning; if it was really 100% knowing, I would have done it like this 6 years ago. That is, if I would have been as creative as I am today.

Somewhere in this topic (probably in the first few posts if not the very first) I talked about the utilisation of the current when it is needed. This is typical buffer behaviour. So it is not that we put 1A to your power amplifier - it draws 1A when it needs that. Think back of the NOS2 power amp testing again (at least this is how I got the idea) and think "loudspeaker". The lower the resistance ("impedance") the more current will flow, right ? And now the fun : the more some frequency requires current, the more current will flow *IF* it is available.
Remember, impedance behaviour is not consistent - it depends on frequency; say that one frequency implies less resistance than another, then current must be readily (almost literally) pushing - ready to be absorbed.

So it is nothing like "let's put our power amps under current" (this would be a lot of Dutch in that sentence) but we make it available.
And apparently there's much more required than we could imagine, or otherwise it wouldn't improve.

Point of course is again (and excuse me if I am repeating myself from posts elesewhere) that math never tells us in this situation that such things can ever be helpful. So again I give the example of the 6GHz interlink (which so much is in the very same physical realm) which also can't help once the interlink is 10MB capable (hey, we only need 20K !). But I think it is merely a matter of disturbances occurring otherwise, them tearing down the remainder of the building. Thus, if one frequency requires more current (and this can easily be an inaudible frequency in the GHz range !) which is not really available, it is taken from the other frequencies, so to speak, and all collapses.
Ever back I also talked about the idea of a song with hardly highs in it, being better in the basses; there's now more current available for that "one frequency".

That this is now about a power amplifier and not a loudspeaker, does not make much difference to the (actually simple) idea. It is only that some gurus in the past determined the math for frequency loss etc. in cables with resistance and inductance plus capacity etc. ... and that apparently there's more behind the horizon.
Anyway, an amplifier too won't have a linear impedance and it is only that everybody will tell you that 47K or 45K really seriously never ever can make a difference. Yes, but this is au-di-o.

Anyway, it is about the availability of the current.

What I lack at this moment is a good reasoning of how it can be too much. And this is not like in "as is" but like in "relates to the environment". So at this moment this is guessing with blah like "the baddies are amplified as well". Yeah, nice. And probably even true. But first we should not talk about "amplification" as such, but we should speak merely in terms of "allowing good shape" (good control is another nice one, telling nothing more than the fact).
And oh, we don't need to think long about numerous changes and applications which make our systems sound better. But what I like to see through is how - the other way around - the system not being better yet, this "allowing of good shape" works out for the worse (must detach one amp evel). Would it then really be so that the lesser sounding system now is putting forward everything, including the bits which are "less" ? seems logical if we see that nasty highs similarly do not allow the louder levels. Not so loud is fine, but don't make the music as a whole too loud or it starts to hurt.

The nice thing is that the number of levels allowed for the day, is really a measure in itself. So yesterday I had a Day Four !! - and my system must have behaved superbly.
haha

Peter

[AlainGr]

Peter,

I was told by someone that judging by the frequency response plot of my main speakers (from my sig) and the consequent change in impedance (depending on the frequency), my power amp (also in my sig) would switch very quickly from 200 (under 8 ohms) to 400 watts per channel (under 4 ohms) - back and forth, mutilating the sound.

Would such a situation be put more in evidence with a B'ass ?

Alain

[PeterSt]

Hi Alain,

mutilating the sound.

I am not sure whether you want to say that the sound is destroyed. I think you want to say the opposite, right ?
Possibly you wanted to say mutate ? (as in mutation)

Anyway, what I tried to make clear was the same (I think you want to say) : the readily available current is "pushing" to be sucked in when required and FAST (otherwise it is useless).

Peter

[AlainGr]

Peter,

Well... "Mutilating" the sound (200 > 400 watts > 200, etc...) while impedance is "swinging" back and forth would "affect" the sound, but not in a good way. That was said from the frequency response and the change in impedance.

In other words, if my speakers would show a better response, without swinging between 4 and 8 ohms, the sound would be better.

Sorry if my very limited knowledge is showing...

Alain

[PeterSt]

Nothing wrong with your knowledge.

Would such a situation be put more in evidence with a B'ass ?

Is it possible to rephrase that ? (that English is too difficult for me and BIAS expectation lures (see previous post)).

Thanks,
Peter