Buckeye 3 Channel Purifi Amp Review

[Buckeye Amps]

I have a strong feeling it will be a moot point soon

 

[droid2000]

I have a strong feeling it will be a moot point soon

I received one of your two-channel purifi amps a couple of weeks ago. Are you going to send out a replacement part? Should I even bother "fixing" it if it's inaudible? I guess it would help resale value for picky buyers.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

I received one of your two-channel purifi amps a couple of weeks ago. Are you going to send out a replacement part? Should I even bother "fixing" it if it's inaudible? I guess it would help resale value for picky buyers.

Yes in response to sending out replacement part. Just waiting to test a couple of options and set up logistics

 

[Descartes]

This was not expected and was not an attempt to have a known/flawed product pushed through review.

While we did robust testing during development and prototyping, I cannot account for why this issue was not identified or observed early on. But I do take full responsibility.

As Amir briefly acknowledged, now that we are aware of and able to reproduce the issue on our end, we have been testing furiously to identify the exact cause so we can produce a fix.

Transparency and communication with the community has been one of the "pillars" I've tried to build my business upon. As soon as we identify the exact issue and the appropriate fix, it will be implemented ASAP, including for current customers as needed.

Please let us know when it is fixed! I assume you will send a revised amplifier to Amir for testing?

 

[amper42]

Yes in response to sending out replacement part. Just waiting to test a couple of options and set up logistics

What material is the new tab made of?

 

[Buckeye Amps]

What material is the new tab made of?

Brass

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Please let us know when it is fixed! I assume you will send a revised amplifier to Amir for testing?

It’s definitely fixed and yes, a new 3ch is being sent back to Amir for testing.

 

[Too Many Notes]

I have a strong feeling it will be a moot point soon

Indeed! Best possible outcome for all involved. And contrary to the suggestion above, your forthright communication, ownership of the issue, diligent efforts to correct it, and offering a fix to everyone with an early unit should serve to bolster your reputation and instill the utmost confidence in those who choose to purchase a Buckeye. My hat’s off to you, sir. Cheers and well done.

 

[Futility]

Now Dylan, can you imagine new business prospects?

You can start marketing binding post upgrades: "Take your sound to a whole 'nother level only for 59.99 a pair!"
You can also offer premium upgrades: "oxygen-free single-crystal copper", silver-plated, gilded, pixie dust-coated...

 

[Stinga]

Dylan, any plans to build a 5 channel Purifi - can it fit in 1 case?
Cheers Al

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Dylan, any plans to build a 5 channel Purifi - can it fit in 1 case?
Cheers Al

It’s somewhat on my radar, though I am a little reluctant since I myself find it very difficult to recommend spending extra money on Purifi amplification for surround sound channels.

 

[Futility]

I'll let Dylan correct me if I'm wrong but 5 channel Purifi would require a different or dual power supply. The one in 3-channel amp is already maxed out.

I was torn between ordering 3 channel or 5. My setup is 4 full-range towers and a fairly large center channel, so I went with a 2+3 channel amps.

The amps are stacked on top of each other, as they don't get hot at all. The only nitpick I have is the difference in their sizes. I'll take and post pictures later.
If I were to do it again, I would have asked Dylan to build the 2 channel amp inside a 3-channel enclosure. This way both amps would stack nicely.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Yes, for a five channel Purifi, you’d need either dual SMPS1200 or an SMPS3k.

It could be done and fit into a 17” wide case. But again, it’s hard for me to bring a product out that I myself would not use or endorse as a hobbyist if money is a consideration.

 

[Billy Budapest]

It’s somewhat on my radar, though I am a little reluctant since I myself find it very difficult to recommend spending extra money on Purifi amplification for surround sound channels.

A lot of people listen to multichannel music and in those cases, the surround channels are not bandwidth limited and are losslessly compressed and deserve as clean an amplifier as the front channels, IMHO.

In fact, most Blu-ray and UHD content offers lossless compression for all channels.

If we are talking garden variety Dolby Digital or DTS, those employ lossy compression schemes. If we are talking Dolby Pro Logic, the surround channels are bandwidth limited. But those are older formats.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the days of treating surround channels like second-class audio citizens have long passed!

Well, unless you are talking streaming . . .

 

[Buckeye Amps]

A lot of people listen to multichannel music and in those cases, the surround channels are not bandwidth limited and are losslessly compressed and deserve as clean an amplifier as the front channels, IMHO.

In fact, most Blu-ray and UHD content offers lossless compression for all channels.

If we are talking garden variety Dolby Digital or DTS, those employ lossy compression schemes. If we are talking Dolby Pro Logic, the surround channels are bandwidth limited. But those are older formats.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the days of treating surround channels like second-class audio citizens have long passed!

Well, unless you are talking streaming . . .

I could see use case for critical multi channel music usage...but that's about it for me in terms of 5ch Purifi recommendation.

It's not about the quality of the source in regards to loseless movie soundtracks. The fact is in real world setups, when listening to even the best TrueHD/Atmos track, I would make a bet that you would not hear the difference between say a Hypex NC252 and a Purifi 1ET400A driving the surround speakers. Money better spent elsewhere then worrying about having Purifi for surround speakers.

 

[EJ3]

I'll let Dylan correct me if I'm wrong but 5 channel Purifi would require a different or dual power supply. The one in 3-channel amp is already maxed out.

I was torn between ordering 3 channel or 5. My setup is 4 full-range towers and a fairly large center channel, so I went with a 2+3 channel amps.

The amps are stacked on top of each other, as they don't get hot at all. The only nitpick I have is the difference in their sizes. I'll take and post pictures later.
If I were to do it again, I would have asked Dylan to build the 2 channel amp inside a 3-channel enclosure. This way both amps would stack nicely.

I have 2 individual 20 amp circuits (serendipity by the designer/home builder in 1968 that happen to meet my needs when I moved in in 2022) near my stereo gear.
I have a UPS on each one.
There are 5 Quintuplet NAD 2200's (resto-modded [circuit design not changed, just modern components]) by Peter @ QuirkAudio.com (one of which was tested by Amirm here: NAD 2200 Vintage Review [see the LAB input test]), as well as the rest of my gear splitting the load between the 2 outlets.
I am currently running the system 2.2 (a pair of Dahlquist M-905's and a pair of self customized [passive 12" dual voice coil subs for up to 80 Hz {that can be easily be setup as 4 OHM or 2 OHM circuits)]).
As I switch things up a bit from time to time, I run at least 2 of the 2200's in bridged mono (4 OHM mode) and sometimes one or another in stereo 2 OHM mode.
I have been collecting the NAD's with the intent to build a larger system 2.4 or 4.4 (QUAD? I have 2 APT/Holman Pre-Amps that, together, can do that) but have now moved into a smaller home.
I have been mulling over a pair of resto-modded (if Peter at Quirk Audio would take them on) Proton D1200's (an uncommonly attractive amplifier to me [mostly due to the meters]) for my subs.
NAD's Bjørn-Erik Edvardsen's had a big hand (collaboration) in the clever circuitry designs that gave the Proton D1200 amplifiers (very similar to the G amplifier topology of the NAD 2200's) the ability to perform like higher end amplifiers while keeping their cool.
HMM, BUCKEYE's 3's (and possibly 5's) are also intriguing, as they are some of the very, very few CLASS D that I would consider.
And they would reduce massive amounts of hiding clutter (clutter to my significant other, at least). A very important consideration since I became married (for the only time) when I was 48 (now together for 18 years).
And if meters were available (as an option, perhaps) from Buckeye, on some of my sub woofer channels...
My amp plans could drastically change.

 

[Too Many Notes]

FWIW, someone just posted a video review on YT.
TL;DW he experienced lower speaker levels than with the Emotiva he came from but was pleased by what he heard.

 

[Dj7675]

FWIW, someone just posted a video review on YT.
TL;DW he experienced lower speaker levels than with the Emotiva he came from but was pleased by what he heard.

Different volume levels is just a matter of gain I believe. Most Emotiva amps have a gain of 29dB (1.6v to reach max volume) and the Purifi is between 15-25 depending on the setting set at.

 

[Too Many Notes]

Different volume levels is just a matter of gain I believe. Most Emotiva amps have a gain of 29dB (1.6v to reach max volume) and the Purifi is between 15-25 depending on the setting set at.

My thoughts exactly and commented the same on his video. If I understand Amir's review, the Buckeye requires around 2 volts at high gain for full power.

 

[Espiritiv]

It’s somewhat on my radar, though I am a little reluctant since I myself find it very difficult to recommend spending extra money on Purifi amplification for surround sound channels.

I like the 5 CH idea for simplicity for someone who just has a 5.1 setup.... For me i would prefer my LCR+ side surrounds with the same headroom.