"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
"malcolm" wrote in
news:VdyAb.251651$Dw6.871099@attbi_s02:


(snip)


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

plenty of toroidal transformers availible,
try
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...3842&St=2352&S
t2=-5 4511875&St3=-80298645&DS_ID=3&Product_ID=123271&DID=7

http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/avelspecs.pdf

500VA twin primarys of 0-110 Vac and twin secondarys of 0-25 Vac

you will get 35-0-35 Vdc from the output if using full bridge
rectification,
and then have plenty of headroom to regulate down to 23.5 Vdc.
Parts Express in the USA are good and quick from what I have found,
and Maplin, Rapid, RS, Farnell in the UK.
regards malcolm





Found a 25v transformer on RS - I'm switching my allegence from Maplin -
RS seem to have a better range available.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

RS or Radio Spares as they used to be known in the olden steam days,
are more of a pro company,
but they started to cater for the 'buying gadgets on business orders'
racket.
how many companys need MP3 players and similar toys at work........
regards malcolm

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
"malcolm" wrote in
news:VdyAb.251651$Dw6.871099@attbi_s02:


(snip)


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

plenty of toroidal transformers availible,
try
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...3842&St=2352&S
t2=-5 4511875&St3=-80298645&DS_ID=3&Product_ID=123271&DID=7

http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/avelspecs.pdf

500VA twin primarys of 0-110 Vac and twin secondarys of 0-25 Vac

you will get 35-0-35 Vdc from the output if using full bridge
rectification,
and then have plenty of headroom to regulate down to 23.5 Vdc.
Parts Express in the USA are good and quick from what I have found,
and Maplin, Rapid, RS, Farnell in the UK.
regards malcolm





Found a 25v transformer on RS - I'm switching my allegence from Maplin -
RS seem to have a better range available.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

RS or Radio Spares as they used to be known in the olden steam days,
are more of a pro company,
but they started to cater for the 'buying gadgets on business orders'
racket.
how many companys need MP3 players and similar toys at work........
regards malcolm

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
"malcolm" wrote in
news:VdyAb.251651$Dw6.871099@attbi_s02:


(snip)


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

plenty of toroidal transformers availible,
try
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...3842&St=2352&S
t2=-5 4511875&St3=-80298645&DS_ID=3&Product_ID=123271&DID=7

http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/avelspecs.pdf

500VA twin primarys of 0-110 Vac and twin secondarys of 0-25 Vac

you will get 35-0-35 Vdc from the output if using full bridge
rectification,
and then have plenty of headroom to regulate down to 23.5 Vdc.
Parts Express in the USA are good and quick from what I have found,
and Maplin, Rapid, RS, Farnell in the UK.
regards malcolm





Found a 25v transformer on RS - I'm switching my allegence from Maplin -
RS seem to have a better range available.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

RS or Radio Spares as they used to be known in the olden steam days,
are more of a pro company,
but they started to cater for the 'buying gadgets on business orders'
racket.
how many companys need MP3 players and similar toys at work........
regards malcolm

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Dec 2003 18:47:32 GMT, Dave Ryman
wrote:

I'm having a lot of trouble finding the transformer I think I need on the
internet, or instructions for building one from a kit.

First, I BELIEVE I need a 1.5 kva transformer (or in that ballpark).

Each amplifier circuit I'm building wants +30v, 0v and -30v (60v
transformer with centre tap). Each circuit is to be protected by a 5A
fuse. There are to be five such circuits running from one supply. I am
therefore assuming that I need a step-down transformer to provide 60v
from a 240v supply, and that this needs to be rated at 1.5kva. I may have
my sums wrong - please correct me if I do!

I could conceivably use 5 300va transformers, but these seem just as hard
to find.

What can I do? Any advice warmly appreciated.

Building your system as five monobloc amps with independent 250-300VA
trannies will give excellent results - and lots of audiophile 'street
cred'!

**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior 'headroom'.
* A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy and implement,
than 5 small trannies.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Dec 2003 18:47:32 GMT, Dave Ryman
wrote:

I'm having a lot of trouble finding the transformer I think I need on the
internet, or instructions for building one from a kit.

First, I BELIEVE I need a 1.5 kva transformer (or in that ballpark).

Each amplifier circuit I'm building wants +30v, 0v and -30v (60v
transformer with centre tap). Each circuit is to be protected by a 5A
fuse. There are to be five such circuits running from one supply. I am
therefore assuming that I need a step-down transformer to provide 60v
from a 240v supply, and that this needs to be rated at 1.5kva. I may have
my sums wrong - please correct me if I do!

I could conceivably use 5 300va transformers, but these seem just as hard
to find.

What can I do? Any advice warmly appreciated.

Building your system as five monobloc amps with independent 250-300VA
trannies will give excellent results - and lots of audiophile 'street
cred'!

**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior 'headroom'.
* A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy and implement,
than 5 small trannies.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Dec 2003 18:47:32 GMT, Dave Ryman
wrote:

I'm having a lot of trouble finding the transformer I think I need on the
internet, or instructions for building one from a kit.

First, I BELIEVE I need a 1.5 kva transformer (or in that ballpark).

Each amplifier circuit I'm building wants +30v, 0v and -30v (60v
transformer with centre tap). Each circuit is to be protected by a 5A
fuse. There are to be five such circuits running from one supply. I am
therefore assuming that I need a step-down transformer to provide 60v
from a 240v supply, and that this needs to be rated at 1.5kva. I may have
my sums wrong - please correct me if I do!

I could conceivably use 5 300va transformers, but these seem just as hard
to find.

What can I do? Any advice warmly appreciated.

Building your system as five monobloc amps with independent 250-300VA
trannies will give excellent results - and lots of audiophile 'street
cred'!

**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior 'headroom'.
* A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy and implement,
than 5 small trannies.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****. I
just listen to stereo. My amp uses a 2.5kVA transformer (split wound, for
separate supplies for each channel), driving two bridges and 125,000uF of
filter capacitance for each channel. Each channel can supply 120 Watts @ 8
Ohms. It sounds nice and can drive *any* load impedance.

Big trannys are good things. You do need to pay attention to bridge
rectifier ratings and you'll likely need a 'soft start' feature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****. I
just listen to stereo. My amp uses a 2.5kVA transformer (split wound, for
separate supplies for each channel), driving two bridges and 125,000uF of
filter capacitance for each channel. Each channel can supply 120 Watts @ 8
Ohms. It sounds nice and can drive *any* load impedance.

Big trannys are good things. You do need to pay attention to bridge
rectifier ratings and you'll likely need a 'soft start' feature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****. I
just listen to stereo. My amp uses a 2.5kVA transformer (split wound, for
separate supplies for each channel), driving two bridges and 125,000uF of
filter capacitance for each channel. Each channel can supply 120 Watts @ 8
Ohms. It sounds nice and can drive *any* load impedance.

Big trannys are good things. You do need to pay attention to bridge
rectifier ratings and you'll likely need a 'soft start' feature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.


Thats good, because the figures given were all over the shop.
sci.electronics.design and sci.electronics.basics would probably be
happy to help further.


Regards, NT

I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.


Thats good, because the figures given were all over the shop.
sci.electronics.design and sci.electronics.basics would probably be
happy to help further.


Regards, NT

I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.


Thats good, because the figures given were all over the shop.
sci.electronics.design and sci.electronics.basics would probably be
happy to help further.


Regards, NT

On 9 Dec 2003 17:38:37 GMT, Dave Ryman
wrote:

(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.

I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

I'd stick with something around the kilowatt level, however, and
looking at the Maplin catalogue, you could certainly hook up two of
their 450VA 12+12 volt toroids to give a 900 VA 24-0-24 supply for
sixty quid, which has to be a pretty good deal.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 9 Dec 2003 17:38:37 GMT, Dave Ryman
wrote:

(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.

I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

I'd stick with something around the kilowatt level, however, and
looking at the Maplin catalogue, you could certainly hook up two of
their 450VA 12+12 volt toroids to give a 900 VA 24-0-24 supply for
sixty quid, which has to be a pretty good deal.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 9 Dec 2003 17:38:37 GMT, Dave Ryman
wrote:

(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.

I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

I'd stick with something around the kilowatt level, however, and
looking at the Maplin catalogue, you could certainly hook up two of
their 450VA 12+12 volt toroids to give a 900 VA 24-0-24 supply for
sixty quid, which has to be a pretty good deal.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****. I
just listen to stereo. My amp uses a 2.5kVA transformer (split wound, for
separate supplies for each channel), driving two bridges and 125,000uF of
filter capacitance for each channel. Each channel can supply 120 Watts @ 8
Ohms. It sounds nice and can drive *any* load impedance.

Big trannys are good things. You do need to pay attention to bridge
rectifier ratings and you'll likely need a 'soft start' feature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




13amp plug fuses dont like big Toroidals

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****. I
just listen to stereo. My amp uses a 2.5kVA transformer (split wound, for
separate supplies for each channel), driving two bridges and 125,000uF of
filter capacitance for each channel. Each channel can supply 120 Watts @ 8
Ohms. It sounds nice and can drive *any* load impedance.

Big trannys are good things. You do need to pay attention to bridge
rectifier ratings and you'll likely need a 'soft start' feature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




13amp plug fuses dont like big Toroidals

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****. I
just listen to stereo. My amp uses a 2.5kVA transformer (split wound, for
separate supplies for each channel), driving two bridges and 125,000uF of
filter capacitance for each channel. Each channel can supply 120 Watts @ 8
Ohms. It sounds nice and can drive *any* load impedance.

Big trannys are good things. You do need to pay attention to bridge
rectifier ratings and you'll likely need a 'soft start' feature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




13amp plug fuses dont like big Toroidals

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw
on a significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing
superior 'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less
expensive to buy and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right
back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.



Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house. A big Yamaha
amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the appropriate surround program.
When I listen to Music, I use a program called "Cellar club" - this
simply enriches the sound with an extrapolated rear channels. Being good
quality, it sounds good, even with music. The important thing is that the
amplification is clean, responsive and gives a faithful reproduction.

I have quite a small lounge with quite poor acoustics, so the processing
done by the amp helps provide a big warm sound: The sound difference
between that and "Effect off" is major.

Dolby films need the amp, and would not "work" in ordinary stereo. The
same is true of many concerts (Rock or Classical).

Yes, you could get more of an audiophile amp, but you couldn't better
this amp much unless you spent £1,000s on a serious Power amp and pre-
amp: Money I don't have! In the medium budget range (£300-£800 for the
amp), you couldn't do much better. Yes, someone will argue that till the
cow's come home, but I did have demos of different amps and formats when
I bought the system - at a respectable HiFi shop, I should add.

In the case of the PC, which is why I want a multi-channel amp in the
first place, music can be played fairly "straight", but soundcards have
outputs for surround sound channels, used for games with surround sound
effects. For music playback (MP3s), I intend for the regular stereo
channels to be fed to the front L&R with the same signal coming out of
the rear L&R, too. I had thought about a mono signal coming out of the
centre speaker in this scenario - any thoughts?

At the end of the day, what sort of system set up is being used depends
on what you want, your environment, and the type of material you play.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw
on a significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing
superior 'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less
expensive to buy and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right
back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.



Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house. A big Yamaha
amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the appropriate surround program.
When I listen to Music, I use a program called "Cellar club" - this
simply enriches the sound with an extrapolated rear channels. Being good
quality, it sounds good, even with music. The important thing is that the
amplification is clean, responsive and gives a faithful reproduction.

I have quite a small lounge with quite poor acoustics, so the processing
done by the amp helps provide a big warm sound: The sound difference
between that and "Effect off" is major.

Dolby films need the amp, and would not "work" in ordinary stereo. The
same is true of many concerts (Rock or Classical).

Yes, you could get more of an audiophile amp, but you couldn't better
this amp much unless you spent £1,000s on a serious Power amp and pre-
amp: Money I don't have! In the medium budget range (£300-£800 for the
amp), you couldn't do much better. Yes, someone will argue that till the
cow's come home, but I did have demos of different amps and formats when
I bought the system - at a respectable HiFi shop, I should add.

In the case of the PC, which is why I want a multi-channel amp in the
first place, music can be played fairly "straight", but soundcards have
outputs for surround sound channels, used for games with surround sound
effects. For music playback (MP3s), I intend for the regular stereo
channels to be fed to the front L&R with the same signal coming out of
the rear L&R, too. I had thought about a mono signal coming out of the
centre speaker in this scenario - any thoughts?

At the end of the day, what sort of system set up is being used depends
on what you want, your environment, and the type of material you play.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw
on a significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing
superior 'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less
expensive to buy and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right
back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.



Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house. A big Yamaha
amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the appropriate surround program.
When I listen to Music, I use a program called "Cellar club" - this
simply enriches the sound with an extrapolated rear channels. Being good
quality, it sounds good, even with music. The important thing is that the
amplification is clean, responsive and gives a faithful reproduction.

I have quite a small lounge with quite poor acoustics, so the processing
done by the amp helps provide a big warm sound: The sound difference
between that and "Effect off" is major.

Dolby films need the amp, and would not "work" in ordinary stereo. The
same is true of many concerts (Rock or Classical).

Yes, you could get more of an audiophile amp, but you couldn't better
this amp much unless you spent £1,000s on a serious Power amp and pre-
amp: Money I don't have! In the medium budget range (£300-£800 for the
amp), you couldn't do much better. Yes, someone will argue that till the
cow's come home, but I did have demos of different amps and formats when
I bought the system - at a respectable HiFi shop, I should add.

In the case of the PC, which is why I want a multi-channel amp in the
first place, music can be played fairly "straight", but soundcards have
outputs for surround sound channels, used for games with surround sound
effects. For music playback (MP3s), I intend for the regular stereo
channels to be fed to the front L&R with the same signal coming out of
the rear L&R, too. I had thought about a mono signal coming out of the
centre speaker in this scenario - any thoughts?

At the end of the day, what sort of system set up is being used depends
on what you want, your environment, and the type of material you play.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one

Dave Ryman wrote:


**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.

Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house.
A big Yamaha amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the
appropriate surround program. When I listen to Music, I use
a program called "Cellar club" - this simply enriches the sound
with an extrapolated rear channels. Being good quality, it
sounds good, even with music. The important thing is that the
amplification is clean, responsive and gives a faithful
reproduction.

Last time I tried playing back a recording made with a pair of DPA
4006's via dolby surround it had less spatial depth than if played back
via "plain" stereo.

I have quite a small lounge with quite poor acoustics, so the processing
done by the amp helps provide a big warm sound: The sound difference
between that and "Effect off" is major.

I trust you.

Dolby films need the amp, and would not "work" in ordinary stereo.
The same is true of many concerts (Rock or Classical).

You make an important point: the need to insure that also minimalistic
recordings works well on a system like yours, and some minimalistic mic
setups do work better with surround playback than others.

Yes, you could get more of an audiophile amp, but you
couldn't better this amp much unless you spent £1,000s
on a serious Power amp and pre-amp:

Sure you could, but that is a different discussion. The point you try to
make is that "more electronics is better than less electronics". So is
not the case, less electronics always wins because it distorts less.
Which is to say that in the case of a recording made with an omni pair
one will be best off by connecting just a power amp - if need be via a
volume control and a pair of quality loudspeakers.

Adding ambience to a recording made with an omni pair is hardly ever
likely to work simply because such a recording has plenty stuff that has
a fairly large phase-angle difference between channels already. Just
that is to the best of my knowledge the explanation of its ability to
extend outside the stereo image and occasionally wrap the listener in
sound via a "plain" stereophonic playback.

In the case of the PC, which is why I want a multi-channel amp in the
first place, music can be played fairly "straight",

No, where is your logic?

but soundcards have outputs for surround sound channels,
used for games with surround sound effects.

Hmm yes.

For music playback (MP3s), I intend for the regular stereo
channels to be fed to the front L&R with the same signal
coming out of the rear L&R, too.

What is the difference between playing back music and playing back
music? - yes - it may be that some mp3's are encoded so that some of the
surround information is lost, but it is still "just music" and some of
will have natural surround information and will be enhanced via surround
playback.

I had thought about a mono signal coming out of the
centre speaker in this scenario - any thoughts?

Yes, try to play music back not with added effects and enhancement, but
simply "as if surround". Unfortunately dolby labs do not seem to have
considered the relevance of being able to disable dolby decoding of the
rear channels (DOH!), but it may still give a very realistic "be there"
improvement of the playback.

At the end of the day, what sort of system set up is being
used depends on what you want, your environment, and the
type of material you play.

Yes.

Dave


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Dave Ryman wrote:


**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.

Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house.
A big Yamaha amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the
appropriate surround program. When I listen to Music, I use
a program called "Cellar club" - this simply enriches the sound
with an extrapolated rear channels. Being good quality, it
sounds good, even with music. The important thing is that the
amplification is clean, responsive and gives a faithful
reproduction.

Last time I tried playing back a recording made with a pair of DPA
4006's via dolby surround it had less spatial depth than if played back
via "plain" stereo.

I have quite a small lounge with quite poor acoustics, so the processing
done by the amp helps provide a big warm sound: The sound difference
between that and "Effect off" is major.

I trust you.

Dolby films need the amp, and would not "work" in ordinary stereo.
The same is true of many concerts (Rock or Classical).

You make an important point: the need to insure that also minimalistic
recordings works well on a system like yours, and some minimalistic mic
setups do work better with surround playback than others.

Yes, you could get more of an audiophile amp, but you
couldn't better this amp much unless you spent £1,000s
on a serious Power amp and pre-amp:

Sure you could, but that is a different discussion. The point you try to
make is that "more electronics is better than less electronics". So is
not the case, less electronics always wins because it distorts less.
Which is to say that in the case of a recording made with an omni pair
one will be best off by connecting just a power amp - if need be via a
volume control and a pair of quality loudspeakers.

Adding ambience to a recording made with an omni pair is hardly ever
likely to work simply because such a recording has plenty stuff that has
a fairly large phase-angle difference between channels already. Just
that is to the best of my knowledge the explanation of its ability to
extend outside the stereo image and occasionally wrap the listener in
sound via a "plain" stereophonic playback.

In the case of the PC, which is why I want a multi-channel amp in the
first place, music can be played fairly "straight",

No, where is your logic?

but soundcards have outputs for surround sound channels,
used for games with surround sound effects.

Hmm yes.

For music playback (MP3s), I intend for the regular stereo
channels to be fed to the front L&R with the same signal
coming out of the rear L&R, too.

What is the difference between playing back music and playing back
music? - yes - it may be that some mp3's are encoded so that some of the
surround information is lost, but it is still "just music" and some of
will have natural surround information and will be enhanced via surround
playback.

I had thought about a mono signal coming out of the
centre speaker in this scenario - any thoughts?

Yes, try to play music back not with added effects and enhancement, but
simply "as if surround". Unfortunately dolby labs do not seem to have
considered the relevance of being able to disable dolby decoding of the
rear channels (DOH!), but it may still give a very realistic "be there"
improvement of the playback.

At the end of the day, what sort of system set up is being
used depends on what you want, your environment, and the
type of material you play.

Yes.

Dave


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Dave Ryman wrote:


**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.

Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house.
A big Yamaha amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the
appropriate surround program. When I listen to Music, I use
a program called "Cellar club" - this simply enriches the sound
with an extrapolated rear channels. Being good quality, it
sounds good, even with music. The important thing is that the
amplification is clean, responsive and gives a faithful
reproduction.

Last time I tried playing back a recording made with a pair of DPA
4006's via dolby surround it had less spatial depth than if played back
via "plain" stereo.

I have quite a small lounge with quite poor acoustics, so the processing
done by the amp helps provide a big warm sound: The sound difference
between that and "Effect off" is major.

I trust you.

Dolby films need the amp, and would not "work" in ordinary stereo.
The same is true of many concerts (Rock or Classical).

You make an important point: the need to insure that also minimalistic
recordings works well on a system like yours, and some minimalistic mic
setups do work better with surround playback than others.

Yes, you could get more of an audiophile amp, but you
couldn't better this amp much unless you spent £1,000s
on a serious Power amp and pre-amp:

Sure you could, but that is a different discussion. The point you try to
make is that "more electronics is better than less electronics". So is
not the case, less electronics always wins because it distorts less.
Which is to say that in the case of a recording made with an omni pair
one will be best off by connecting just a power amp - if need be via a
volume control and a pair of quality loudspeakers.

Adding ambience to a recording made with an omni pair is hardly ever
likely to work simply because such a recording has plenty stuff that has
a fairly large phase-angle difference between channels already. Just
that is to the best of my knowledge the explanation of its ability to
extend outside the stereo image and occasionally wrap the listener in
sound via a "plain" stereophonic playback.

In the case of the PC, which is why I want a multi-channel amp in the
first place, music can be played fairly "straight",

No, where is your logic?

but soundcards have outputs for surround sound channels,
used for games with surround sound effects.

Hmm yes.

For music playback (MP3s), I intend for the regular stereo
channels to be fed to the front L&R with the same signal
coming out of the rear L&R, too.

What is the difference between playing back music and playing back
music? - yes - it may be that some mp3's are encoded so that some of the
surround information is lost, but it is still "just music" and some of
will have natural surround information and will be enhanced via surround
playback.

I had thought about a mono signal coming out of the
centre speaker in this scenario - any thoughts?

Yes, try to play music back not with added effects and enhancement, but
simply "as if surround". Unfortunately dolby labs do not seem to have
considered the relevance of being able to disable dolby decoding of the
rear channels (DOH!), but it may still give a very realistic "be there"
improvement of the playback.

At the end of the day, what sort of system set up is being
used depends on what you want, your environment, and the
type of material you play.

Yes.

Dave


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

"malcolm" wrote in message
news:SNPBb.503906$Fm2.485887@attbi_s04...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to
buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****. I
just listen to stereo. My amp uses a 2.5kVA transformer (split wound,
for
separate supplies for each channel), driving two bridges and 125,000uF
of
filter capacitance for each channel. Each channel can supply 120 Watts @
8
Ohms. It sounds nice and can drive *any* load impedance.

Big trannys are good things. You do need to pay attention to bridge
rectifier ratings and you'll likely need a 'soft start' feature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




13amp plug fuses dont like big Toroidals

**Pay attention to the words: "...and you'll likely need a 'soft start'
feature."


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"malcolm" wrote in message
news:SNPBb.503906$Fm2.485887@attbi_s04...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to
buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****. I
just listen to stereo. My amp uses a 2.5kVA transformer (split wound,
for
separate supplies for each channel), driving two bridges and 125,000uF
of
filter capacitance for each channel. Each channel can supply 120 Watts @
8
Ohms. It sounds nice and can drive *any* load impedance.

Big trannys are good things. You do need to pay attention to bridge
rectifier ratings and you'll likely need a 'soft start' feature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




13amp plug fuses dont like big Toroidals

**Pay attention to the words: "...and you'll likely need a 'soft start'
feature."


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"malcolm" wrote in message
news:SNPBb.503906$Fm2.485887@attbi_s04...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw on a
significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing superior
'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less expensive to
buy
and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound ****. I
just listen to stereo. My amp uses a 2.5kVA transformer (split wound,
for
separate supplies for each channel), driving two bridges and 125,000uF
of
filter capacitance for each channel. Each channel can supply 120 Watts @
8
Ohms. It sounds nice and can drive *any* load impedance.

Big trannys are good things. You do need to pay attention to bridge
rectifier ratings and you'll likely need a 'soft start' feature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




13amp plug fuses dont like big Toroidals

**Pay attention to the words: "...and you'll likely need a 'soft start'
feature."


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw
on a significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing
superior 'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less
expensive to buy and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right
back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.



Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house. A big Yamaha
amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the appropriate surround program.
When I listen to Music, I use a program called "Cellar club" - this
simply enriches the sound with an extrapolated rear channels. Being good
quality, it sounds good, even with music. The important thing is that the
amplification is clean, responsive and gives a faithful reproduction.

**No. The important thing is that, as well as clean amplification and decent
speakers, that the source material is of the highest quality. Surround sound
(except for the very lmited number of SACD and DVD-A discs) is crap.
Compressed, compromised crap. Except for some SACD and DVD-A recordings, all
other surround sound schemes destroy musical information. Decent stereo
leaves it for dead.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw
on a significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing
superior 'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less
expensive to buy and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right
back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.



Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house. A big Yamaha
amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the appropriate surround program.
When I listen to Music, I use a program called "Cellar club" - this
simply enriches the sound with an extrapolated rear channels. Being good
quality, it sounds good, even with music. The important thing is that the
amplification is clean, responsive and gives a faithful reproduction.

**No. The important thing is that, as well as clean amplification and decent
speakers, that the source material is of the highest quality. Surround sound
(except for the very lmited number of SACD and DVD-A discs) is crap.
Compressed, compromised crap. Except for some SACD and DVD-A recordings, all
other surround sound schemes destroy musical information. Decent stereo
leaves it for dead.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able draw
on a significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing
superior 'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less
expensive to buy and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going right
back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.



Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house. A big Yamaha
amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the appropriate surround program.
When I listen to Music, I use a program called "Cellar club" - this
simply enriches the sound with an extrapolated rear channels. Being good
quality, it sounds good, even with music. The important thing is that the
amplification is clean, responsive and gives a faithful reproduction.

**No. The important thing is that, as well as clean amplification and decent
speakers, that the source material is of the highest quality. Surround sound
(except for the very lmited number of SACD and DVD-A discs) is crap.
Compressed, compromised crap. Except for some SACD and DVD-A recordings, all
other surround sound schemes destroy musical information. Decent stereo
leaves it for dead.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
.4...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:04:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Dave Ryman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
(snip)
**That may be true, but:

* A single power supply may allow all channels to be able
draw on a significantly larger energy reserve, thus providing
superior 'headroom'. * A single power transformer may be less
expensive to buy and implement, than 5 small trannies.



I'm not convinced I need a 1.5k tranny anymore - I'm going
right back
to
scratch again on the design.

**Fair enough. I don't listen to that new-fangled surround sound
****.

Really? You don't like live concerts? :-)

**Sure. I just don't listen to surround sound ****.



Right - I have a decent surround-sound system in my house. A big
Yamaha amp. When I play a DVD or Video, I use the appropriate
surround program. When I listen to Music, I use a program called
"Cellar club" - this simply enriches the sound with an extrapolated
rear channels. Being good quality, it sounds good, even with music.
The important thing is that the amplification is clean, responsive
and gives a faithful reproduction.

**No. The important thing is that, as well as clean amplification and
decent speakers, that the source material is of the highest quality.
Surround sound (except for the very lmited number of SACD and DVD-A
discs) is crap. Compressed, compromised crap. Except for some SACD and
DVD-A recordings, all other surround sound schemes destroy musical
information. Decent stereo leaves it for dead.




As I said before, it depends a lot on context: Different things very
often need different treatment - playing a game on the PC wants surround
processing, and doesn't need an awful lot of clarity. Playing music needs
as much clarity as you can muster. However, not all sources are perfect,
so we have to accept that an MP3 is not as pure as a well mastered CD.
Hence music played from a PC can be jiggered around with by the soundcard
and software (to a point!) without offending the listener, because the
listener is not expecting a truly pure sound anyway. In the case of a
GOOD surround amp, such as the Yamaha, there are many "programs" which
muck with the music and reduce the quality - but used correctly it is a
very competant amp. For example, some "surround" effects are dealing with
the bass, some are producing what is essentially a small echo, and some
are extrapolating extra channels. In a perfect world of perfect rooms
with perfect wooden floors and no soft furnishings, we can reproduce
sound through a single mono power-amp and say "wow": In an unperfect
world, we very often need to compensate for the size, shape or materials
in the room. The fact that the Yamaha engineers developed a lot of their
DSP technology in the concert hall where they were providing the sound
systems speaks volumes.

For most "surround" systems, I would tend to agree with you - most are
crap. But don't tar all such systems with the same brush.

At the end of the day, I do not have the money to revelop my house into
an acoustically perfect concert hall and install two stereos (one "pure",
the other "surround") - both in different rooms to avoid colouration from
the extra speakers on the other system.

--
Regards,
Dave


http://welcome.to/daves.website
http://travel.to/formula.one