# The Stereoid Amp concept amp ...



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

The Stereoid amplifier is something we are exploring at TCA.

As with Gizmo, we are looking at razor thin profit margins - think 75 WPC for $179 delivered to one's home. 

The question is - what demand is there for a totally no frills amplifier ? 

Speak up, guys ... :boom:


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Washburn1 said:


> I firmly believe that the biggest demand would be for an amp with minimalist design for the sake of sonic quality, BUT at least the convenience of having remote vol and input select.
> whether those are considered "frills" may depend on the person though...
> I personally don't consider a minilalist remote "frills".


I appreciate the input. 

Your vote is for a remote to be included, Are you expecting the remote to also change the inputs ?


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

craigsub said:


> The Stereoid amplifier


I think you are missing some digits to call it a steroid amp. Maybe 1750 watts per channel.

Bare bones 75 watts per channel does not interest me too much because you have so many options in the 50-150 watt range already and you would still need a pre etc. You have to make a good case for going to separates in a budget system considering what you can get for under $400 (sometimes WELL under) with a new or used integrated or stereo receiver.

For a higher end system you might be willing to shell out $$$ for a better sounding 75 watt amp, but in a budget system there are probably better places to squeeze out more performance first.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

wait is this an amp or integrated? 

If it is an integrated, I would say a remote that can 1) turn it on and off, 2) adjust volume, and 3) change inputs would be pretty important. At least have the IR sensor even if the remote is not included so you can use an existing universal remote or buy one as an add on. 

I think you also have to consider digital inputs if you are going to sell to non-audiotweeker geeks.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

This is an integrated amp ... and once we get some ideas what everyone is seeking, we will get with the design team to see what they can cook up.

There will also be no DACS, nor anything digital in this amp. It is strictly going to be an integrated amp with analog inputs, 2 channels.


----------



## alphaiii (Nov 30, 2007)

I imagine many who don't have an interest in this won't voice their opinion, so I figured I would.

For someone in my position, it's hard to find something relatively inexpensive to use in a 2.1 bedroom or pc setup that has the features I'm looking for...

The options seem to be:
1) small digital integrated amp - gizmo, t-amp, trends, ect...low power, no remotes, some don't have sub outs, often only have one input (usually RCA)...price range varies

2) integrated amps - pretty much the same issues as with #1

3) expensive separate pre-amp/amp...I know little about these because I can't afford this route

4) home theater receivers...multiple inputs, remote, sub out...but more channels and features than needed so this ups the cost...much larger size 

I am in the market for small digital integrated with DAC, remote, sub out, 2-3 inputs (w/ at least 1-2 being digital), usb, crossover with more than one setting...75w @ 8ohm would be awesome, but being realistic...50w would make me happy. 

The proposed "Gizmo-2" looks to have EXACTLY what I want...and I have no doubt there are quite a few others that would want this type of product.

As you can see I have no demand for a "no frills" 75wpc amp, but I have no doubt some do. Hopefully, enough of those folks will add their input.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

craigsub said:


> There will also be no DACS, nor anything digital in this amp. It is strictly going to be an analog amp, 2 channels.


If you include a remote with input and volume control, make it piano black and have it use 6L6 power tubes and you can deliver it for less than $399 I will buy 2 of them


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

alphaiii said:


> I imagine many who don't have an interest in this won't voice their opinion, so I figured I would.
> 
> For someone in my position, it's hard to find something relatively inexpensive to use in a 2.1 bedroom or pc setup that has the features I'm looking for...
> 
> ...


Gizmo-2 will be exactly what you seek ... a $200ish amplifier with lots of features, 50 WPC, and a great value.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

m-fine said:


> If you include a remote with input and volume control, make it piano black and have it use 6L6 power tubes and you can deliver it for less than $399 I will buy 2 of them


LOL ... Seth is going to BEAT on you ... :boxer:


----------



## droht (Sep 15, 2008)

I think you have to look at the Trends TA 10.1 at $150 as competition. For someone who really wants simple set up with superior sound quality this is the way to go. Why would I buy a "totally no frills" integrated for $179? You better give me some frills, unless you can get in the perceived SQ ballpark of Trends. And no, I do not tend to think that the wpc delta matters that much.

The frills I'd want are a remote, ability to easily add a sub, and 2 inputs.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

droht said:


> I think you have to look at the Trends TA 10.1 at $150 as competition. For someone who really wants simple set up with superior sound quality this is the way to go. Why would I buy a "totally no frills" integrated for $179? You better give me some frills, unless you can get in the perceived SQ ballpark of Trends. And no, I do not tend to think that the wpc delta matters that much.
> 
> The frills I'd want are a remote, ability to easily add a sub, and 2 inputs.


Got it ... There is "not much" difference between 15 and 75 WPC. 

Where does one purchase the Trends ?


----------



## droht (Sep 15, 2008)

craigsub said:


> Got it ... There is "not much" difference between 15 and 75 WPC.
> 
> Where does one purchase the Trends ?


 Craig, audiomagus.com is a popular retailer for the Trends. I know the watts can make a difference, but I (and more than a few others around here) have been shocked or enlightened or something about how much sound amps like the Trends can produce. For how I listen I don't think I need a lot of wpc. But I'm not in the "house party" mode any more either. 

edit: If you are letting Bill preview a Gizmo I'm sure he (and the ATL crew) will work it out against some of the Trends-class gear.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

droht said:


> Craig, audiomagus.com is a popular retailer for the Trends. I know the watts can make a difference, but I (and more than a few others around here) have been shocked or enlightened or something about how much sound amps like the Trends can produce. For how I listen I don't think I need a lot of wpc. But I'm not in the "house party" mode any more either.
> 
> edit: If you are letting Bill preview a Gizmo I'm sure he (and the ATL crew) will work it out against some of the Trends-class gear.


I have read all the tests on the Trends. None was a properly set up blind test. Therefore, the "matching the sound quality of amps 100 times the price" is the the same realm of hype we have seen in magazies for years. You know the type of test: "Speaker "A" sounded as good as those 5 times the price". I will wager this "superior attack and decay" in the mids so many report is really a roll off in the deepest bass. 

At the NJ GTG, several attendees heard the LS-6's with the monster Parasound Halo Amp driving them. When Matt pointed out it was the little Gizmo, they were quite surprised. I have no doubts the Gizmo will acquit itself rather well against the Trends amp. 

Bill is going to be working as a sales consultant with TCA. Should he decide to run another test, it will be properly constructed. :thumbsup:

And thanks for the info on Audiomagus. They are now added to my favorites.


----------



## dweeke (Oct 30, 2006)

http://www.stereomojo.com/SHOOTOUT2007INTEGRATEDS.htm

http://www.tweakcityaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27

Here are your blind (or pretending to be blind) shootouts, Craig. 

I didn't think the Trends was all that great without some tweaks. I guess it's different strokes for different people in different systems. You just have to find what works for you regardless of how some reviews turn out.


----------



## albee (Feb 12, 2008)

In this price range sound quality is all important---with remote volume. I'm not too lazy to shut the **** thing off. But, if it's Class D why do I need to, right? Remotes are just a fact of life. Got to have one. Two inputs would be fine, also.

Wattage? 75 would be great but 50 really great sounding ones would be fine also.

Plus, regular AC plug--no power adapters.

Can I get it by 6/15?


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

We made no allusions to the fact that we were doing anything but having fun. Plain and simple. Even with our simple nonscientific format it was quite an endurance test and pretty stressful....

Not something I plan on doing again thank you very much.

I will echo Dweekies comments...I find the Trends a little "dark" without mods.

Don't forget also, its not 15 vs 75 watts its more like 6-8w vs 75w...big difference.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

billnchristy said:


> We made no allusions to the fact that we were doing anything but having fun. Plain and simple. Even with our simple nonscientific format it was quite an endurance test and pretty stressful....
> 
> Not something I plan on doing again thank you very much.
> 
> ...


I cannot imagine you NOT doing another one of these tests. You just need to participate in one properly done ... the bar will be open afterward ... :stirthepot::yes::thumbsup:


----------



## soloz2 (Feb 13, 2008)

Personally, a no frills amp appeals more to me than an amp with bells and whistles.

I'd say a nice integrated with 3 or so inputs, remote optional, pre out, sub out would be very nice to have for a small 2 channel or office setup.


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

Okay...if the bar is open........maybe....


----------



## BradJudy (Feb 12, 2008)

My (probably unpopular) vote would be for basics - good SQ (low noise, wide bandwidth), two inputs (manual switching is fine, since input switching isn't a frequent task to me), relatively small form factor (desktop size, not rack width).

No gee-wiz features required. 

Remote is a possible option, but I'd focus on volume/mute before power on or input selection. 

Basically, I'd want an x-empower.  :stirthepot:


----------



## BradJudy (Feb 12, 2008)

craigsub said:


> Where does one purchase the Trends ?


If you'd like, I can lend you mine. I sent it down to Bill for a while along with my amp switch box, which I could also send you (although Bill decided it interferes with SQ and made amps sound the same).


----------



## stereojunkie (Apr 14, 2008)

I like a nice simplistic design, but have a normal 17" chasis to tie in with the looks of a standard size cdp and what not. Something that would compete with the Music Hall, Cambridge Audio, Marantz stuff....keep the face clean, 2-4 knobs, controls sub out for sure....remote optional.....but 50-75 watts of good clean power....or more


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

My "perfect" amp for my bedroom or office would be this:

2 inputs with a simple toggle switch, a volume control, and a set of full range volume dependent outputs that I could add a powered sub to.

Nice and simple. :thumbsup:


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

stereojunkie said:


> I like a nice simplistic design, but have a normal 17" chasis to tie in with the looks of a standard size cdp and what not. Something that would compete with the Music Hall, Cambridge Audio, Marantz stuff....keep the face clean, 2-4 knobs, controls sub out for sure....remote optional.....but 50-75 watts of good clean power....or more


In terms of sonics, keeping with those excellent companies is doable. The actual frame size of the amp will be the same as AV123's X-Amp. 

This will allow us to maximize sound quality for the :greedy::greedy::greedy::greedy: you spend.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

BradJudy said:


> If you'd like, I can lend you mine. I sent it down to Bill for a while along with my amp switch box, which I could also send you (although Bill decided it interferes with SQ and made amps sound the same).


Thanks, Brad - But I don't think it will be necessary. $150 for an 8 watt amp is not much competition. :thumbsup:


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

BradJudy said:


> My (probably unpopular) vote would be for basics - good SQ (low noise, wide bandwidth), two inputs (manual switching is fine, since input switching isn't a frequent task to me), relatively small form factor (desktop size, not rack width).
> 
> No gee-wiz features required.
> 
> ...


You are being heard. I need to find out if making a remote standard can be done while keeping costs in line.

I "think" doing it as an option would make for an expensive option.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

craigsub said:


> You are being heard. I need to find out if making a remote standard can be done while keeping costs in line.
> 
> I "think" doing it as an option would make for an expensive option.


If you include the IR sensor and the remote capability standard, the remote itself could be optional, or you could just tell people where to get a universal remote.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

craigsub said:


> Thanks, Brad - But I don't think it will be necessary. $150 for an 8 watt amp is not much competition. :thumbsup:


Yeah but if those 8 watts sound real good and someone comes out with a high sensitivity line of speakers (hmmm who would have plans for that?) it could become competition.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

m-fine said:


> Yeah but if those 8 watts sound real good and someone comes out with a high sensitivity line of speakers (hmmm who would have plans for that?) it could become competition.


A Gizmo will still toast it for less money. :thumbsup:


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

> If you include the IR sensor and the remote capability standard, the remote itself could be optional, or you could just tell people where to get a universal remote.


I think the actual motorized pot and all the internal stuff required for a remote controlled system is where a lot of the expense is...the remote itself isn't much unless you are doing a solid billet of aluminum or chunk of hardwood.


----------



## Jed M (Mar 1, 2008)

I would be fine with it being as minimalist as possible. I don't even need a remote, but if you did I would use it only for volume. A couple inputs and solid speaker connections would be great. Not to sound like a parrot, but X-Empower is what I would like to see.

This is a really cool company, Craig. Glad to get my first post in. :kissass:


----------



## dweeke (Oct 30, 2006)

Remote sounds like a $$ option for that category. The Poppulse (check audiomagus) does have a remote for $229, but that's hovering at the 25 watt category and has only 1 input. 

I would like to see a better sounding amp than the Gizmo regardless of power and a 2 or 3 input switcher. That's my input. :salute:


----------



## BradJudy (Feb 12, 2008)

craigsub said:


> A Gizmo will still toast it for less money. :thumbsup:


Wait a second - you didn't even know where to buy these amps, how do you know what sounds better? :fryingpan:


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

BradJudy said:


> Wait a second - you didn't even know where to buy these amps, how do you know what sounds better? :fryingpan:


Simple ... at the point the Trends is clipping, we will still have another 4 dB of headroom.

Gizmo was measured at 25 watts @ 4 ohms with .09978% THD + N.

Trends is Specified to deliver 9 watts @ 4 ohms with 0.1% THD.


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 6, 2010)

craigsub said:


> There will also be no DACS, nor anything digital in this amp. It is strictly going to be an analog amp, 2 channels.


This is not a digital switching amp like the Gizmo and all the other X products?


----------



## ThorCorps (Mar 6, 2008)

craigsub said:


> Simple ... at the point the Trends is clipping, we will still have another 4 dB of headroom.


Craig, let me point out that you're being an asshole. By your statements, sound quality isn't important, only power. I guess the loudest subwoofer is always the best too, eh?


----------



## dweeke (Oct 30, 2006)

craigsub said:


> Simple ... at the point the Trends is clipping, we will still have another 4 dB of headroom.


Haha. So if we rephrase the question for Bradjudy, do the first 8 watts of the Gizmo sound better than the first 8 of the Trends? 8 watts of anything will deafen me on my speakers :nervous:


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

billnchristy said:


> I think the actual motorized pot and all the internal stuff required for a remote controlled system is where a lot of the expense is...the remote itself isn't much unless you are doing a solid billet of aluminum or chunk of hardwood.


The Gizmo volum control is push button not a manual POT so I don't think we are talking much in the way of components (all cheap off the shelf stuff i think).


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

ThorCorps said:


> Craig, let me point out that you're being an asshole. By your statements, sound quality isn't important, only power. I guess the loudest subwoofer is always the best too, eh?


Do you REALLY think resorting to that type of name calling is necessary ?

Sound quality is important, of course. I have been involved in blind listening tests for 30 years, and when set up properly, the differences in amplifiers is very hard to discern.

The times I have heard a difference was subtle differences in the deep bass, and this was usually due to a better ability to deliver current - ie - a better power supply. And even these cases were over the period of many hours worth of listening. 

I will wager quite a few $$$$ that the first 9 watts on Gizmo and Trends will be impossible to tell apart. 

If anyone cares to take this wager, please, let me know.

Now, Thorcorps - The next time you want to call me an asshole, at least do it without putting words into my mouth, ok ? I never said that loudness is the only criteria. Lighten up, man.


----------



## imported_theophile (Apr 18, 2008)

*Not Sure if You'd Call This-No Frills!?*



craigsub said:


> The Stereoid amplifier is something we are exploring at TCA.
> 
> As with Gizmo, we are looking at razor thin profit margins - think 75 WPC for $179 delivered to one's home.
> 
> ...


1. 75-100 Very Clean Sounding Watts (able to handle 4 ohm load)!
2. 2 Inputs and 1 selectable sub output (80hz X-over)
3. Pre-Amp Volume\Balance Controls-Input Selector-(Tone controls could be left out to save $$$) 
4. Analog inputs, maybe a Toslink Digital input (if adding DAC)
5. Remote Control with volume, input selection, full range\sub X-over selector
6. Satin Black Brushed Al. Face Plate
7. $200-$225

Ted


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

theophile said:


> 1. 75-100 Very Clean Sounding Watts (able to handle 4 ohm load)!
> 2. 2 Inputs and 1 selectable sub output (80hz X-over)
> 3. Pre-Amp Volume\Balance Controls-Input Selector-(Tone controls could be left out to save $$$)
> 4. Analog inputs, maybe a Toslink Digital input (if adding DAC)
> ...


Ted - You just described "Gizmo 2", except it would be 50 WPC. And I am not sure about the Satin black. :salute:


----------



## ThorCorps (Mar 6, 2008)

craigsub said:


> Do you REALLY think resorting to that type of name calling is necessary ?
> 
> Sound quality is important, of course. I have been involved in blind listening tests for 30 years, and when set up properly, the differences in amplifiers is very hard to discern.
> 
> ...


Yes, Craig, I do. I'm trying to make a point.

I read through the thread and got more annoyed as I read each of your responses. You have made it clear that you are not familiar with T-amps, which concerns me since you are jumping into an investment in the "general" field (small, low power 2-channel amps) and using bluster, not confidence to state that the product you will be selling is simply better. I know that you have heard the prototype of the Gizmo and I expect that it sounds very good. I'd love it to sound great and blow away all of the competition. While you mention that you don't hear much difference in properly set up amplifiers, there is quite a bit of difference in low-powered units. Many people have been listening to the SI T-amps, the Trends, the KingRex, etc and there are considerable differences before you get to the point of clipping. I'd simply suggest that you listen to a little of the potential competition to familiarize yourself with it. Brad made a nice offer (I've heard his Trends and liked it) and you simply blew it off with retorts. That's bad form. If you continue, you'll turn your own forum into AVS.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

ThorCorps said:


> Yes, Craig, I do. I'm trying to make a point.
> 
> I read through the thread and got more annoyed as I read each of your responses. You have made it clear that you are not familiar with T-amps, which concerns me since you are jumping into an investment in the "general" field (small, low power 2-channel amps) and using bluster, not confidence to state that the product you will be selling is simply better. I know that you have heard the prototype of the Gizmo and I expect that it sounds very good. I'd love it to sound great and blow away all of the competition. While you mention that you don't hear much difference in properly set up amplifiers, there is quite a bit of difference in low-powered units. Many people have been listening to the SI T-amps, the Trends, the KingRex, etc and there are considerable differences before you get to the point of clipping. I'd simply suggest that you listen to a little of the potential competition to familiarize yourself with it. Brad made a nice offer (I've heard his Trends and liked it) and you simply blew it off with retorts. That's bad form. If you continue, you'll turn your own forum into AVS.


While you are digging yourself deeper here, and you seem to know so much about what I have and have not done with T-amps, please, tell me exactly what experience I have with T-amps. 

Then, please, show me one properly set up, blind test of T-amps. 

The floor is yours.


----------



## imported_theophile (Apr 18, 2008)

*Great!*



craigsub said:


> Ted - You just described "Gizmo 2", except it would be 50 WPC. And I am not sure about the Satin black. :salute:


Cool Craig-50 to 100 watts\channel will be Very Sufficient and the black satin face would simply match my other components...but certainly not a deal breaker! :thumbsup:

BTW, have the ELT525's mated with the EP500 in my office\2-channel 10 X 12 room, powered with a 6 yr old Sony multi channel receiver, but I Know the Giz2 WILL Sound Better! :cloud9:

Ted


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

theophile said:


> Cool Craig-50 to 100 watts\channel will be Very Sufficient and the black satin face would simply match my other components...but certainly not a deal breaker! :thumbsup:
> 
> BTW, have the ELT525's mated with the EP500 in my office\2-channel 10 X 12 room, powered with a 6 yr old Sony multi channel receiver, but I Know the Giz2 WILL Sound Better! :cloud9:
> 
> Ted


Based on what Matt (M-Fine) was getting from a pair of ELT's in a similar size room from the Gizmo (at the New Jersey GTG), I think you are likely going to be tickled. :thumbsup:


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

I think you will need a sasquatch with that thepole, but other than that your lookin' good. 

Well, OK, maybe the ep500 will do.


----------



## ThorCorps (Mar 6, 2008)

Thanks for the floor, Craig.

I think it's interesting that you keep editing your posts right after you make them to attempt to correct your wording for posterity. Yes, we all know that they can be edited within a minute or so and not reflect that an "edit" was made.

Brad pointed out very clearly that if you didn't even know where to purchase a Trends, how did you know that the Gizmo sounded better? Your full reply is what I had posted, which was your statement about when the Trends began to clip, the Gizmo would still have 4dB of headroom. As I was replying to that post, you edited your original to add the two statements comparing the THD. Obviously dweekie saw the same original post. (I'd like to apologize in advance to Brad and dweekie for feeling that I had to reference their posts). If you did not know where a Trends could be purchased, there is no question that you have not done your research. No one has to be a mind reader with respect to your T-amp experience. You have made your experience very clear.

Then in your reply to me, after you posted it (after I'd already quoted it in full), you went back and added the last sentence that I was putting words in your mouth implying that you had stated that loudness was the only important criteria. So, you edited 2 posts to show that you don't care only about loudness. Good for you.

Now we have another post by you attempting to "call me out" instead of addressing the points that I made. Once again, that is very AVS of you. It's a little too easy for people to push your buttons.

In your own edited words, "Lighten up, man". Don't blow people off in your own forum. You're trying to start a new business.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

craigsub said:


> I will wager quite a few $$$$ that the first 9 watts on Gizmo and Trends will be impossible to tell apart.


I'll take you up on that! I get to sit nearfield (to compensate for the low volume level) with a set of LS-9's or a speaker with similar frequency response and I select the sample tracks. 

not that this will be a fair test, but I don't place money on the line in fair bets


----------



## BradJudy (Feb 12, 2008)

m-fine said:


> I'll take you up on that! I get to sit nearfield (to compensate for the low volume level) with a set of LS-9's or a speaker with similar frequency response and I select the sample tracks.


Nearfield with line arrays is an odd choice. Watch out though - Craig is one of the few people who could arrange such a session.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

ThorCorps said:


> It's a little too easy for people to push your buttons.


When you start by calling someone an asshole, you should expect that. If you try to NOT push his buttons you might get further, maybe even convince him to give the T-amp a shot in his systems.


----------



## imported_theophile (Apr 18, 2008)

m-fine said:


> I think you will need a sasquatch with that thepole, but other than that your lookin' good.


Er, "Ted" is much easier to pronounce (And Spell), hehe! :goodvibes:

Ted


----------



## Cujobob (Feb 12, 2008)

craigsub said:


> The Stereoid amplifier is something we are exploring at TCA.
> 
> As with Gizmo, we are looking at razor thin profit margins - think 75 WPC for $179 delivered to one's home.
> 
> ...


To me, it would really depend on what kind of amplification you'd be talking about. When I think of monoblocks (I think that is what this is?), I think of something worthy of being used in a 2-channel setup.

I'd be totally interested in gear without frills with top notch sound in mind. Meaning I'd like high-end caps and all the goodies inside without a bunch of options that appeal to 20% of people but all 100% of people have to pay for them.

Sorry, if any of this was talked about, i've not yet read all the way through this thread.


----------



## dweeke (Oct 30, 2006)

m-fine said:


> I'll take you up on that! I get to sit nearfield (to compensate for the low volume level) with a set of LS-9's or a speaker with similar frequency response and I select the sample tracks.
> 
> not that this will be a fair test, but I don't place money on the line in fair bets


You already had a pre-test on a modified Trends. It's a bit unfair, don't you think? :greedy: 

Edit: Just the way you like it.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

BradJudy said:


> Nearfield with line arrays is an odd choice. Watch out though - Craig is one of the few people who could arrange such a session.


LOL, the test would not be designed to sound good, just to easily expose a difference between how the T-amp and Gizmo handle something in particular that I will need enough SPL to hear. I figure placing the LS-9's about 4 feet apart facing each other with me in the middle would do just fine.

In other words, I would be gaming the game, not evaluating the SQ of the two amps. If Craig will pay me $$$$, I have no problem with evaluating the SQ myself when I get home.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

ThorCorps said:


> Thanks for the floor, Craig.
> 
> I think it's interesting that you keep editing your posts right after you make them to attempt to correct your wording for posterity. Yes, we all know that they can be edited within a minute or so and not reflect that an "edit" was made.
> 
> ...


I have owned a Sonic Impact Super T for several months. I bought it last fall at the recommendation of BradJudy. 

Up to its limits, it does what an amp is supposed to do: drive speakers. 

Perhaps you could help me, though. What specific point(s) did you want me to address ? 

I am not trying to be provocotive here, Thorcorps. I have experienced literally 100's of blind tests which had people who SWORE they heard this huge difference in components unable to hear a difference under a properly done blind test.

As for editing posts - yes, I added additional wording to make for a more detailed explanation of why I am posting what I am.


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

Cujo, 

this would not be a monoblock amp, but a stereo model that fits into the X-amps case.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

dweekie said:


> It's a bit unfair, don't you think? :greedy:


Thats why I am so interested in the offer, and I promise not to feel too guilty afterward. BTW, it is not the experience with the trends that makes it unfair.


----------



## BradJudy (Feb 12, 2008)

craigsub said:


> I have owned a Sonic Impact Super T for several months. I bought it last fall at the recommendation of BradJudy.


Are you sure it was me? I've never owned the Super-T, although I have certainly recommended the SI Gen2 (which I do own) to multiple people.


----------



## ThorCorps (Mar 6, 2008)

m-fine said:


> When you start by calling someone an asshole, you should expect that. If you try to NOT push his buttons you might get further, maybe even convince him to give the T-amp a shot in his systems.


You're right, of course. While I wasn't participating in the conversation, I was getting worked up nonetheless, resulting in the above.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled Stereo^2id discussion. I'll go relax and watch a movie.


----------



## dweeke (Oct 30, 2006)

m-fine said:


> Thats why I am so interested in the offer, and I promise not to feel too guilty afterward. BTW, it is not the experience with the trends that makes it unfair.


Don't forget the 50hz and 150hz test tones as test tracks. I believe the lower frequencies will be pretty dampened by the built in crossover of the Gizmo, if that stays in tact. :yes:


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

We could probably say that without mods the stock 2024 based t-amps are rolled off too.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

BradJudy said:


> Are you sure it was me? I've never owned the Super-T, although I have certainly recommended the SI Gen2 (which I do own) to multiple people.


You recommended SI as a great choice for comparing to the X-19, though you did not say which exact model. 

I went for their best, which was the Super-T.


----------



## Cujobob (Feb 12, 2008)

craigsub said:


> Do you REALLY think resorting to that type of name calling is necessary ?
> 
> Sound quality is important, of course. I have been involved in blind listening tests for 30 years, and when set up properly, the differences in amplifiers is very hard to discern.
> 
> ...


Craig, I'm confused...with the different types of amplifier technologies out there, you're saying they'd all sound the same if they had similar power supplies and wattage ratings? What about things like SET amps? Everyone says they sound better, is it due to the current the amps use?

What would you say about pre-amps then?


----------



## ThorCorps (Mar 6, 2008)

Craig, we're fine and we can drop it. I simply wanted you to consider that there are a good number of low-power amps out there (we were obviously talking Tripath in particular, thus mentioning the SI, Trends, KingRex) that many of us feel sound good (and different from one another, subtly or not, whether due to the different Tripath chips or additional overhead that some offer) and didn't want them to be idly dismissed by you, which is how it appeared. Cool?

-Stuart


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Cujobob said:


> Craig, I'm confused...with the different types of amplifier technologies out there, you're saying they'd all sound the same if they had similar power supplies and wattage ratings? What about things like SET amps? Everyone says they sound better, is it due to the current the amps use?
> 
> What would you say about pre-amps then?


I tend to be pretty careful about the words I use. Even then, they often get "changed" into something I did not say.

I am not saying "all would sound the same". 

I am saying that in order to demonstrate a true, audible difference, a proper blind test needs to be done. 

If Matt was here, and we fired up 2 different T-amps - or any other type of amp, for that matter, on a pair of LS-6's, and we did 100 tests, Matt would have to be able to confirm which amp was which, at least 80% of the time.

To keep things honest - Matt will hear each 50 times ... and all he will know is a switch was made. 

Keeping this simple - let's look at 10 switches. It might be:

ABABBABAAB

OR

BAAAAABBBB

OR

AABBBBBAAA

The differences in amps, if they are properly designed, is going to be VERY small. Matt would have to identify which amp he was hearing each time - with an 80% accuracy. Several years ago, there was a blind amp test done on the infamous AVS, and when I tried to explain the only blind test of amps that I ever tried that worked was a long term, in home test, all **** broke loose. 

Now - if an amp has a rolled off response curve, or is playing with high THD (which can sound like warmth if clipping has not occured), then differences are easily heard.


----------



## Cujobob (Feb 12, 2008)

craigsub said:


> I tend to be pretty careful about the words I use. Even then, they often get "changed" into something I did not say.
> 
> I am not saying "all would sound the same".
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply...not disagreeing with you at all, I simply don't have the cash to try out a lot in my own system so hard to form an educated opinion.

Also, I believe that DBTs have flaws...but that's another thread altogether. They're still better than the alternative IMHO...just can't be taken for 100% truth.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

ThorCorps said:


> Craig, we're fine and we can drop it. I simply wanted you to consider that there are a good number of low-power amps out there (we were obviously talking Tripath in particular, thus mentioning the SI, Trends, KingRex) that many of us feel sound good (and different from one another, subtly or not, whether due to the different Tripath chips or additional overhead that some offer) and didn't want them to be idly dismissed by you, which is how it appeared. Cool?
> 
> -Stuart


Cool ... I do like the Sonic Super-T. It's a pretty cool little amp. Have an adult beverage on me. :thumbsup:


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

Maybe there should be a thread about the technique for this because I don't think many of us know what a "true" blind test is. It looks fascinating, scary, annoying and tiring at the same time!

How much do you think fatigue would play into that?

Can you switch tracks or do you keep with the same stuff?

Could you do multiple sessions? (IE 10 switches per session).


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Cujobob said:


> Thanks for the reply...not disagreeing with you at all, I simply don't have the cash to try out a lot in my own system so hard to form an educated opinion.
> 
> Also, I believe that DBTs have flaws...but that's another thread altogether. They're still better than the alternative IMHO...just can't be taken for 100% truth.


Last year, I posted this about the blind speaker test we did at our GTG:



> I think the panel members came away with a greater understanding of how hard audio truly is to get a grasp on when blind listening is brought into the equation. Specifically, guys who were SURE they were hearing one thing were reporting different results under blind conditions.


Of course, my system sounds better with the McIntosh MA-6900 in it than it did with the Emotiva in it. Except, of course, when I tried it blind.

I wonder what would happen if I tried the SI Super-T, the Gizmo, and the $5000 McIntosh in a 3 way blind test ... I KNOW who wins when the lights are on ... :yes:


----------



## Cujobob (Feb 12, 2008)

craigsub said:


> Last year, I posted this about the blind speaker test we did at our GTG:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So if I find a vintage McIntosh receiver...gut it...and put my digital amp inside...it will improve the sound of my setup?

Will do!


----------



## dweeke (Oct 30, 2006)

Interesting. Many times, even with the mentality that something will sound better, I get the opposite impression. Anyway, I don't think blind tests are all that useful anyway. There's a big difference between 30 second interpretations and living with something.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

billnchristy said:


> Maybe there should be a thread about the technique for this because I don't think many of us know what a "true" blind test is. It looks fascinating, scary, annoying and tiring at the same time!
> 
> How much do you think fatigue would play into that?
> 
> ...


It is all of these things for one major reason: it is a hard thing to do. 

If the differences are as big as we think, no fatigue would occur. 

I know it irritated some people when I mentioned the 4 dB difference in output .... but headroom is EASILY heard, even under blind conditions. :yes:


----------



## Cujobob (Feb 12, 2008)

craigsub said:


> It is all of these things for one major reason: it is a hard thing to do.
> 
> If the differences are as big as we think, no fatigue would occur.
> 
> I know it irritated some people when I mentioned the 4 dB difference in output .... but headroom is EASILY heard, even under blind conditions. :yes:


If you're unfamiliar with a piece, does that make it easier or harder to find differences in sound? I've heard people take both sides of that argument, as well. If familiar is best, you'd have to have a group that is all familiar with the same piece to get good results one would then assume.

I think of it like being at the eye doctor...which slide is better? "uh..could you show me that last one"...and sometimes you can barely tell a difference, so you just guess.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

dweekie said:


> Interesting. Many times, even with the mentality that something will sound better, I get the opposite impression. Anyway, I don't think blind tests are all that useful anyway. There's a big difference between 30 second interpretations and living with something.


You are pretty much on the same page as am I. In the late 70's, a gent named Paul Klipsch discussed about the only way to do a blind amp test:

Have your dealer put 2 in your system, leave it for a week, then switch. or not, for another week - repeat for about 6 weeks. 

Sometimes, a difference was audible ... sometimes not. 

The problem - it's not easy to find dealers like this today. 

The GOOD news - most amps are pretty **** good.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Cujobob said:


> If you're unfamiliar with a piece, does that make it easier or harder to find differences in sound? I've heard people take both sides of that argument, as well. If familiar is best, you'd have to have a group that is all familiar with the same piece to get good results one would then assume.
> 
> I think of it like being at the eye doctor...which slide is better? "uh..could you show me that last one"...and sometimes you can barely tell a difference, so you just guess.


I have always used a familiar piece(s). 

Good analogy on the eye doctor thing. No wonder I have blurry vision ... :dizzy:


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Cujobob said:


> So if I find a vintage McIntosh receiver...gut it...and put my digital amp inside...it will improve the sound of my setup?
> 
> Will do!


Absolutely ... sound stage will get wider and deeper, and bass will tighten up. :applause:


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Stereodude said:


> This is not a digital switching amp like the Gizmo and all the other X products?


I sent specs on the PE APA-150 to the guys, and I was thinking AB. However, it could end up a digitial ... stay tuned.


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

> So if I find a vintage McIntosh receiver...gut it...and put my digital amp inside...it will improve the sound of my setup?


If you do this don't guys in black trenchcoats and sunglasses show up at the door? :nervous:


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

craigsub said:


> If Matt was here, and we fired up 2 different T-amps - or any other type of amp, for that matter, on a pair of LS-6's, and we did 100 tests, Matt would have to be able to confirm which amp was which, at least 80% of the time.


First off, I specified LS-9's. I want to take them home with me after I win the bet .

Second, it would have to be a T-amps and a Gizmo. The idea being that I could readily hear the impact of the Gizmo's high pass on a full size speaker that extends well below 40 hz. If we are crossing both amps over at 100 hz, or even using bookshelf speakers that roll off in the 50's, I am not taking the bet so quickly.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

m-fine said:


> First off, I specified LS-9's. I want to take them home with me after I win the bet .
> 
> Second, it would have to be a T-amps and a Gizmo. The idea being that I could readily hear the impact of the Gizmo's high pass on a full size speaker that extends well below 40 hz. If we are crossing both amps over at 100 hz, or even using bookshelf speakers that roll off in the 50's, I am not taking the bet so quickly.


Matt, in that case, you would not be hearing the difference in amps. You would be hearing the effects of the crossover. 

:dizzy:


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 6, 2010)

craigsub said:


> I sent specs on the PE APA-150 to the guys, and I was thinking AB. However, it could end up a digitial ... stay tuned.


Isn't the whole design Doug cooked up all digital? I would think dropping back to an analog design would not leverage any of the work done on all the other X products.


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 6, 2010)

I think the Stereoid should have / be:

- 75W x 2 (or more) at 8 ohms.
- Integrated Amp (with a volume control)
- Support an IR remote (for at least volume)
- Have at least 2 sets of RCA inputs
- Be a digital switching amp (like the X-amp and friends)


----------



## BradJudy (Feb 12, 2008)

craigsub said:


> I sent specs on the PE APA-150 to the guys, and I was thinking AB. However, it could end up a digitial ... stay tuned.


Just don't have them duplicate the gain spec - the PE APA150 has way too much gain, IME, for a desktop amp.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

BradJudy said:


> Just don't have them duplicate the gain spec - the PE APA150 has way too much gain, IME, for a desktop amp.


Thanks - I have a feeling Stephen will be doing a digital for us, anyway. I am anxious to see what he can do ... :thumbsup:


----------



## Theogenes (Mar 5, 2008)

I know this has been said, but put my vote for SQ above all else. Having said that, I think it's only fair to mention that what I am considering using it for would be my secondary setup upstairs which is one source only (computer). I think that might be a valuable question to ask as well during the planning phase-- what is everyone planning to use this for? For me, for example, it would be going upstairs because integrating it into my HT setup downstairs would be a real pain if I wanted to retain the ability to keep my multichannel setup without a switcher (and I do). So for me at least, this would be directly competing with the likes of the SI Gen 2 (which I have), the Trends 10.1 (which I just received and am listening to now), the NuForce Icon (which I have been trying diligently to resist), et al. I already plan on purchasing a Gizmo for the same system, so I guess the Stereoid would be competing with that too . Just my (admitted scattered) thoughts. Looking forward to seeing how it turns out! Thanks for allowing us to be a part of the process, Craig!


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 6, 2010)

BradJudy said:


> Just don't have them duplicate the gain spec - the PE APA150 has way too much gain, IME, for a desktop amp.


They shouldn't duplicate the APA150 at all. They already sell it for $160. I can't see selling a clone of it (feature wise) for more money being a good seller.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Stereodude said:


> They shouldn't duplicate the APA150 at all. They already sell it for $160. I can't see selling a clone of it (feature wise) for more money being a good seller.


Seth, I said I sent the SPECS on it to the guys. It's a pretty large stretch to go from that to calling what we will do a clone. 

By sending specs, it allows Stephen and Doug to see what is already available.


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 6, 2010)

craigsub said:


> It's a pretty large stretch to go from that to calling what we will do a clone.


Which is precisely why I said, "I can't see selling a clone of it (feature wise)...". I was referring to cloning the specs / features, not the whole thing. I thought my post made that pretty clear. :scratchchin:


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

craigsub said:


> Matt, in that case, you would not be hearing the difference in amps. You would be hearing the effects of the crossover.
> 
> :dizzy:


I would be hearing a difference between the two units by listening to something outside the linear range of one or both amps. 

The point is, the setup of the test goes a long way to determining whether it is easy, hard, or impossible to audibly detect a difference. If I know the two amps well enough I can design a "blind" test to come out with the result I desire. That also means the gear and material you listen to will determine how much of a difference is audible in real world listening.

I think the specs measured with a single sine wave, through a consistent resistor load, lead people to believe their amps are more linear and have lower distortion than they probably have with a variable impedance load (loud speaker) and real world material with many simultaneous frequencies. Since different amps will behave differently as they go non-linear or distort, I think this is what people are hearing when they can honestly hear a difference between amps.

So, what makes an amp a better sounding amp? Do you prefer it to stay within its linear limits with low distortion, or do you want one that goes non-linear or distorts in a pleasing fashion? I don't think that is as simple of a question as it first seems.


----------



## godawgs5 (May 1, 2008)

I have not read through this whole thread yet but I thought I would give my two cents anyways:
Simple amp = 2 channel with capabilities to run 4 ohm loads and bridge the channels to run as a monoblock. 
Less Simple = Maybe a couple finish options to match over components. Hopefully it runs cool and is small. Power button on the front with a dimable power indicator light.


----------



## dweeke (Oct 30, 2006)

godawgs5 said:


> Power button on the front with a dimable power indicator light.


Ha, that's one of the best ideas I've heard. Who hasn't been blinded by the recent trend of using ultra bright leds in electronics?


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

Or just not use laser-beams as LEDs. :nervous:


----------



## Cujobob (Feb 12, 2008)

dweekie said:


> Ha, that's one of the best ideas I've heard. Who hasn't been blinded by the recent trend of using ultra bright leds in electronics?


I have an old Monster Power Conditioner that annoys the **** out of me with its ugly LEDs. I really need to bring the Panamax downstairs (at least all blue is more appealing)


----------



## HAL (Sep 22, 2009)

The no frills integrated sounds interesting. 

Here are my ideas for the unit:

1) Great sound quality!
2) preamp control with repeatable dB steps (i.e. 0.5dB/step).
3) remote control.
4) Power level 25W to 75w for desktop setup.
5) three inputs remote selectable.
6) interstage coupling between preamp section and amp section either DC coupled or servo controlled so that it has bass response!
7) small case for desktop environment.
8) same as Brad, wide bandwith, low distortion.
9) Cool looking case! 
10) no tone controls.
11) The preamp section using something like the Burr Brown (TI) PGA2310 with a small microcontroller for remote and level set. 
12) numeric display for level setting.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## cbc (Feb 19, 2008)

billnchristy said:


> My "perfect" amp for my bedroom or office would be this:
> 
> 2 inputs with a simple toggle switch, a volume control, and a set of full range volume dependent outputs that I could add a powered sub to.
> 
> Nice and simple. :thumbsup:


That'd work for me too, just add a remote to control volumes & you got a weiner!:goodvibes:


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

> The no frills integrated sounds interesting.
> 
> Here are my ideas for the unit:
> 
> ...


Could you imagine HAL's amp WITH frills? 

J/K HAL but that is a **** of a list!


----------



## dvenardos (Sep 27, 2008)

I think you guys have missed the application of powering the rear/side surrounds in a mono-block situation. A lot of people would like the xamp for L/R/C but a 75 wpc stereo amp for the rear and side surrounds would be an excellent application because 150 wpc is overkill for those channels. In which case you don't need any frills.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

dvenardos said:


> I think you guys have missed the application of powering the rear/side surrounds in a mono-block situation. A lot of people would like the xamp for L/R/C but a 75 wpc stereo amp for the rear and side surrounds would be an excellent application because 150 wpc is overkill for those channels. In which case you don't need any frills.


The problem is they are calling this thing an "amp" when it really is an "integrated". A simple 80-100 watt per channel amp will appear in the X-amp line and will serve as exactly the product you describe except for the extra 5-25 watts.


----------



## HAL (Sep 22, 2009)

Bill,
That is actually close the the old Audio Alchemy DLC preamp, tied to a stereo amp. I really like that preamp! 

The BB (now TI) PGA2310 is supposed to be an improvement over the original Crystal Semiconductor CS3310 IC. Higher power supply rails for more headroom. :applause: 

The issue with the DLC was the input and output coupling caps were electrolytics due to size constraints. This limited the LF response from my observation. Going with a DC coupled or DC servo output should solve that issue.

The nice thing is the TI IC is a direct replacement for the CS3310!


----------



## dweeke (Oct 30, 2006)

HAL said:


> The issue with the DLC was the input and output coupling caps were electrolytics due to size constraints. This limited the LF response from my observation. Going with a DC coupled or DC servo output should solve that issue.


Really? Interesting. I've mainly had excessive LF and limited HF with electrolytics. It must be the type. DC coupling or servo is far better, I agree.


----------



## HAL (Sep 22, 2009)

dweekie,
If the DLC had the room, I would put in four, 10uF+ Sonicaps to replace the electrolytics. Other than that, still one of my favorite preamps. :thumbsup:


----------



## dvenardos (Sep 27, 2008)

m-fine said:


> The problem is they are calling this thing an "amp" when it really is an "integrated". A simple 80-100 watt per channel amp will appear in the X-amp line and will serve as exactly the product you describe except for the extra 5-25 watts.


Ah, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## cbc (Feb 19, 2008)

Anyone else not getting email notifications on replys to threads in here?
I'm subbed to 4 or 5 different ones, checked my settings , all showing instant email notification, but not getting any emails on replies...:nervous:


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 6, 2010)

m-fine said:


> The problem is they are calling this thing an "amp" when it really is an "integrated". A simple 80-100 watt per channel amp will appear in the X-amp line and will serve as exactly the product you describe except for the extra 5-25 watts.


Well, you still might want an integrated if you have to balance the volume of the internal amp with an external amp since it seems the X amps have no gain control on them.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Stereodude said:


> Well, you still might want an integrated if you have to balance the volume of the internal amp with an external amp since it seems the X amps have no gain control on them.


Seth - I am possibly jinxing this, but we are exploring the viability of getting a 75 WPC integrated amplifier into the Gizmo chassis. If we can do this, look for something simple, probably without a remote, in the $149-$169 delivered range.


----------



## dvenardos (Sep 27, 2008)

cbc said:


> Anyone else not getting email notifications on replys to threads in here?
> I'm subbed to 4 or 5 different ones, checked my settings , all showing instant email notification, but not getting any emails on replies...:nervous:


Yep, same for me.


----------



## ddoonie (Mar 28, 2008)

I'm very basic in my needs for an integrated. 

1 or 2 analog inputs.
2 Digital/optical inputs
SOLID Sounding DAC
Preouts and sub out

That sums it up for me...


----------



## Larry D (Feb 12, 2008)

Judging from all this discussion back and forth, maybe what you should build next is quality basic no-frills preamp, then make the amplifiers at different power/price points to satisfy everyone. Preferably a hybrid preamp with a tube stage. 

I saw a simple video camera being demonstrated earlier this week on HSN. Push one buttom, it starts; push it again, it stops. Push another button and view playback. Fits in you shirt pocket. Okay, on the side was the USB plug. No cables required. It just unfolded or swung out exposing the USB plug. The software was built-in. Just unfold the plug, plug it into your computer.

I thought, wouldn't it be a good idea to have an amp, a preamp, a DAC, a Phono amp, a headphone amp, all designed like that? Tiny little modules that simply plugged into each other, depending on what you wanted. In fact, you could even put the Remote Control in a separate module for those who wanted it. Amp/preamp; add a DAC; or add Headphones or Phono. It would fit into a single horizontal chassis and every module would face frontwards. The chassis would have various sized faceplates to fill in the empty spaces. If you got everything -- each one would have a plug on the side (or you could just use custom short cables in the back -- almost like jumpers) -- if you used every module, it would fill up the front completely. If you used only a few modules, you would fill in the blank space with a faceplate. It seems like that would be a good system to market because it allows a person to choose, also enter on a budget and upgrade so the customer would keep coming back for more; also, you could upgrade the amps from low power to more power; or upgrade anything -- better DAC, improved Phono Stage, whatever. Oh, you could also have a "Tube Stage" module. This way you're not stuck with one design that may not sell, or go out of date, or be by-passed by competitors or new technology, whatever. Oh, I forgot the FM module, the HD module, the XM Radio Module... and this doesn't even mention the Squeezebox type additions.


----------



## ddoonie (Mar 28, 2008)

I completely agree with Larry. This sounds like the best of all worlds allowing people to pay for what they want/need, allowing for upgradeability in a cost effective manner. This would also allow for the ability to sell each individual component, satisfying more people. $50 Solid DAC, $80 Amp, $80 preamp, already up to $210. Each component being priced fair below the cheapest alternative (superdac for $100).


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

The problem is you can't make a $50 Solid DAC and $80 amp and $80 pre, especially since in your model you have to duplicate the powersupply and case. It will always be more expensive to make something modular than to make an all in one box.


----------



## ddoonie (Mar 28, 2008)

Fair enough as i was arbitrary in my pricing, but using the same casing and power supplies for all units would lower the costs considerably.


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

Biggest problem with PSUs is the voltages required for different things:

Some DACs/opamps are +12/-12, some are +15/-15 some have a +/-5v, amps have 12-30v + PSU requirements and tubes need high plate voltage or there are some 24v plate tubes. 

Sure you could use a 30+v supply for everything and keep stepping it down but it would require a lot of componentry and if something failed you would have a lot of potential for damage.


----------



## ddoonie (Mar 28, 2008)

But is it possible to source components that use similar power requirements? I'm just thinking of the saying 'good at everything, great at nothing', maximizing the performance per dollar would be my selling point (which i'm sure is the goal of TCA), rather than just cheapest all arounder... The random pricing i threw up could be used say, if all components were purchased as a package. Slight increase if you buy 2 of 3 components. And individual pricing slightly more... Someone that wants to use their CD player's DAC may not want to pay for the DAC that IS included, so buying solely a pro and amp would maximize their dollar/performance. Or even just buying the pro to integrate with a current separates system for 2 channel listening..

Dont get me wrong, an integrated first, with all you can cram in for the dollar, would be a sound product. But i like the fact that you can upgrade each component independent of the others.

Maybe the separates as a product later down the road...


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

ddoonie said:


> Fair enough as i was arbitrary in my pricing, but using the same casing and power supplies for all units would lower the costs considerably.


Even if it is the same case, 3 of them costs 3 times as much as one. The components costs wont all tripple, but you still have to pay for 3x circuit boards and 3x assembly and so forth. Don't forget 3x shipping, packing warehouse space etc. 

If an all in one unit costs $200, I would not be surprised if it cost $90-100 a piece to get the same quality in 3 different boxes, maybe more.


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

The biggest part of developing a modular system (believe me, I have thought it out, blueprinted it etc) is the amount of redundancy you have to engineer in.

You have to have connections ready for any and all possible combinations.

On top of that, it would be a pretty unique product meaning you have to engineer, from the ground up, something like a PC chassis that has easily installed and removed components. (AND keep it attractive somehow)

Im not saying it isn't possible, it certainly is...but it isn't very probable either.

Maybe down the road something like this would be doable. I would love to see us get to it first, but I have no doubts other companies are cooking something up...it just seems logical...that and I have a history of designing stuff that is already being thought of by others with way more money and resources than I. :thumbsup:


----------



## droht (Sep 15, 2008)

Maybe a compromise is a box large enough to fit "everything", but then the option to order various custom versions of that unit, with just the stuff you wanted. You'd gain some economy with same box I suppose, and people would not have to pay for what they don't want.

OTOH, there seem to be more accessible and affordable options every day in this arena. Not really sure we need to reinvent anything.


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Ok, guys - Here is what I am going to send to Doug for the "no frills" integrated:

1. 60-80 WPC @ 8 ohms
2. 75-100 WPC @ 4 ohms
3. 2 or 3 RCA inputs
4. Remote Control
5. Use either current Gizmo or X-Amp chassis (Gizmo would be limited to 2 RCA, for sure).

This seems to best match what everyone is seeking. :yes:

For clarity - we are still in the "let's hear your opinion" stage. Keep in mind, Gizmo 2 will be 50 WPC with lots of bells/whistles.


----------



## rumonkey2 (Jul 24, 2006)

craigsub said:


> Ok, guys - Here is what I am going to send to Doug for the "no frills" integrated:
> 
> 1. 60-80 WPC @ 8 ohms
> 2. 75-100 WPC @ 4 ohms
> ...


I like the sound of this - would probably end up being foundation for my _truly_ dedicated 2 channel system. "Desktop Gizmo" will be it at first - but my ultimate goal is to have my TT , a mid level CD player and small towers driven by a small, simple yet highly capable integrated...
It would be in our loft area with just a reading chair or two :thumbsup::yes:

But, of course, GIZMO2 may offer just that and more...


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

I forgot to add - a price under $200 with the remote control.


----------



## rumonkey2 (Jul 24, 2006)

craigsub said:


> I forgot to add - a price under $200 with the remote control.


:thumbsup: 'Mo Betta!


----------



## billnchristy (Feb 12, 2008)

From a design/cost standpoint I think 2 inputs would be easiest because you can use a switch...with 3 you are getting into rotary switches which cost mucho dinero. :thumbsup:

sounds like a good concept.


----------



## albee (Feb 12, 2008)

Hold the phone here! What about a balance control? And...the x-empower chassis. I want a compnent, not a desktop play purty.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

albee said:


> What about a balance control?


Just move your head to the left to make the left channel louder and to the right to make the right louder.


----------



## HAL (Sep 22, 2009)

billnchristy said:


> From a design/cost standpoint I think 2 inputs would be easiest because you can use a switch...with 3 you are getting into rotary switches which cost mucho dinero. :thumbsup:
> 
> sounds like a good concept.


Or three reed relays instead of rotary switches.


----------



## albee (Feb 12, 2008)

Yo, Fine, my head's too big and heavy to move around.


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

albee said:


> Yo, Fine, my head's too big and heavy to move around.


OK, we will have to get you a chair on wheels.


----------



## albee (Feb 12, 2008)

What's really bad is I waited around AV123 since 2005 waiting for a good sounding, inexpensive Class D amp only to be kicked in the teeth by MLS when he unceremoniously shipped it over here. Now, we have a whole new set of delays to contend with. This is not a tear against TCA but just the whole process of having expectations toyed with and finally dropped by the originator just to buy himself some more time.

I hope something happens fast around here because I've been through too much already.

:fryingpan:


----------



## Stereodude (Feb 6, 2010)

albee said:


> What's really bad is I waited around AV123 since 2005 waiting for a good sounding, inexpensive Class D amp only to be kicked in the teeth by MLS when he unceremoniously shipped it over here. Now, we have a whole new set of delays to contend with. This is not a tear against TCA but just the whole process of having expectations toyed with and finally dropped by the originator just to buy himself some more time.
> 
> I hope something happens fast around here because I've been through too much already.
> 
> :fryingpan:


Better buy something else to listen to in the mean time. :dizzy:


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

albee, All I can say is we will do our best to get an affordable, powerful amp to the market. 

I suppose MLS could have spent a few hours explaining exactly how the company that proposed to him the original version of X-empower pulled the plug on him, and how he then spent a lot of fruitless hours trying to get a replacement, but he was not able to. 

The guy averages 70 hours per week now, working on products, and did his best.

He did not "unceremoniously ship it over here", but rather asked if I could take over financing the project. 

I agreed, and here we are.


----------



## cubbie5150 (Apr 23, 2008)

craigsub said:


> Ok, guys - Here is what I am going to send to Doug for the "no frills" integrated:
> 
> 1. 60-80 WPC @ 8 ohms
> 2. 75-100 WPC @ 4 ohms
> ...


Sounds pretty nice for a no b.s. amp... I'm hoping you guys will eventually get around to something a little more mid-range--say, 125 - 150 wpc @ 8 ohms, in a chassis similar to the x-amp drawings shown by MLS, w/ remote. Oh, and a pre/pro to go w/ it would be nice as well!! Not asking for much, am I?:biglaugh: For an amp or pre-pro, I'd personally be willing to pay upwards of $500 each depending on specs & features... 

Seriously, I'm looking right now at some Emotiva gear, notwithstanding the big dust-up over how those guys dealt w/ MLS. That said, 'd rather look to TCA & AV123 for my audio needs....


----------



## craigsub (Sep 9, 2006)

Cubbie - Once we get rolling, adding new products will get easier with each one. The Chassis for Gizmo/X-Head and X-amp/X-Empower 2 will already tooled and ready to go. 

I could be off the mark here, but our "high end", 150 WPC design would probably have the most bang for the buck being an integrated with pre-outs / main ins, making it suitable for pre-amp use. 

Back to today, though, we just finished all the artwork for Gizmo, Gizmo's Gift Box and Carton. 

We are pushing full throttle on Gizmo, once that production is running, the DAC and Mid-range amp are up next.

I like your idea, especially in concert with our DAC ... lots of ideas here.


----------



## astrallite (Apr 30, 2010)

How much budget do you think you might be able the squeeze into a DAC? I know a high end Burr-Brown like the PCM1792 boasts 132db SNR, but it is pretty costly being ~$14 per DAC. 

It would be pretty obnoxious to get a top-shelf DAC in a integrated amp. Even if you were to charge a hefty penny (say close to $1k) it would still be better than any other pre-pro out there at this price or even double, or triple...Consider this, Denon's $7000 AVP-AH1's DAC is at least 2 steps below the PCM1792 (20.5bit SNR vs 22bit)... From a processor standpoint you would really have no competition (except DIYers I guess...)


----------



## imported_m-fine (Mar 15, 2008)

Its not the chip so much as the analog output stage that makes a big difference I think. $14 for the chip, plus a good power supple, opamps, quality caps and resisters plus a chasis to put it all in. It adds up.


----------



## astrallite (Apr 30, 2010)

That's true...well a $14 DAC might be overkill. The Denon AVP-A1H's DAC is the PCM1796, which is about $6, and still boasts 123db SNR which is greater than the dynamic range of SACD (120db).


----------

