Buckeye Amps case changes

[Buckeye Amps]

In other threads Buckeye Amps said that they couldn't easily offer Speakons ?sp? because it meant having two different cases.

What about creating a sub-panel that could be switched / customized? So you'd have a single large cutout for the plate?

Honestly its a silly idea that comes from a lack of coffee in the morning.

Unfortunately the back panel of the case is also attached to the bottom and front as one piece

 

[Descartes]

Here are a few pics of the ones mentioned above:

These are so cute and much nicer, I want to buy made in the USA but since my amps are in the open, they need to look nice!

 

[Descartes]

Understandable but at this time we are only going to carry one case design.

Will ever consider better cases for a little bit more green

 

[im_gumby]

Unfortunately the back panel of the case is also attached to the bottom and front as one piece

I know. But the idea would be to create a cutout in that panel that could be swapped.

I know this is a bad example, but take a look at PC cases.
They have a cut out for the servers and then the servers have a sub panel that's attached to the motherboard.
But I think you might be able to do something similar, or rather the case manufacturer.

Like I said, it was something I thought of early in the morning before I had my several cups of coffee so I can function.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Will ever consider better cases for a little bit more green

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. To do a whole other case, like the one we are doing for our integrated amp, requires a large upfront cost due to minimum order quantity. Which in turn requires a large amount of inventory space.

 

[im_gumby]

Did you consider rolling the sides and bottom as one piece then separates for front, back and top?

Or if you could create a single aluminum 'ladder' frame that could be bent 90 degrees at the corner?
It would probably be more expensive and heavier.

If you challenged your supplier, what would they say in terms of design?

 

[im_gumby]

Ok, just to give you an example ...

Class A Aluminum Chassis HIFi Project Box Amplifier Case Size 310*430*120MM | eBay

Power input socket 1. Aluminum plate thickness: 3MM. Appearance size: depth 310 width 430 height 120MM. Front plate: 8MM. Rear plate: 3MM.

www.ebay.com

Note: Not that I'm recommending this... but here's a case where the front and rear panels come off.
This way you can replace the rear panel while keeping the rest the same. I know you have to run the numbers and will also consider other issues. But just as a design idea.

[edit] this is another similar case.

DIY HiFi Class AB Aluminum Chassis Audio Amplifier Case Size D307 W430 H90mm | eBay

DIY HiFi Class AB Aluminum Chassis Audio Amplifier Case Size D307 W430 H90mm.

www.ebay.com

I think this case looks a little cleaner, see if your guys can do this?
HTH

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Ok, just to give you an example ...

Class A Aluminum Chassis HIFi Project Box Amplifier Case Size 310*430*120MM | eBay

Power input socket 1. Aluminum plate thickness: 3MM. Appearance size: depth 310 width 430 height 120MM. Front plate: 8MM. Rear plate: 3MM.

www.ebay.com

Note: Not that I'm recommending this... but here's a case where the front and rear panels come off.
This way you can replace the rear panel while keeping the rest the same. I know you have to run the numbers and will also consider other issues. But just as a design idea.

The original cases I used had an independent front and rear design. But for various reasons I switched to the cases I use now.

 

[Billy Budapest]

I think the cases look good.

 

[Sined]

Buckeye Amps may not have the crazy sexy look of a Pass Labs or a D'Agostino, but for a fraction of the price, they beat them easily on the test bench when electronic performance is what that counts. If I had to impress someone with my system, I would do it with its SQ rather than its look or its price...

New owner of two 3 channels Purifi 1ET400A amps for a few weeks now (with the new case and new connectors), thanks to ASR for their elaborate review, that help me a lot in my decision. I just love them, so clear, dead silent when idle, great reserve of power to deal with peaks without any pain, running without any heat problem; my speakers have never been so happy to work with such a great partner !!

(No, I don't work for Dylan, simply a fully satisfied enthusiastic customer that wishes to share his happiness !)

 

[Ashrum]

I like the new case and new binding posts, the only thing i have found missing as far as connections on the amps would be a 12v trigger out. that way you can chain the 12v trigger from on amp to the next. I would help those with limited 12v trigger outs and running multiple devices that need a 12v trigger with out the need to have a trigger repeater box.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

I like the new case and new binding posts, the only thing i have found missing as far as connections on the amps would be a 12v trigger out. that way you can chain the 12v trigger from on amp to the next. I would help those with limited 12v trigger outs and running multiple devices that need a 12v trigger with out the need to have a trigger repeater box.

For most situations, a simple 3.5mm Y splitter works. Our 12v triggers only need 10mA to trigger on/off so one Trigger Out from the source can work on multiple amps without a repeater box.

 

[im_gumby]

Have got to ask... while Buckeye is Hypex/Purifi ... what are your thoughts on the use of GaN? It seems that there are mixed results. (AGD, Orchard and then Peachtree)

Thx...

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Have got to ask... while Buckeye is Hypex/Purifi ... what are your thoughts on the use of GaN? It seems that there are mixed results. (AGD, Orchard and then Peachtree)

Thx...

I'll actually be talking about GaN on an upcoming podcast appearance, along with a blog write up on our website soon.

The short: GaN will be beneficial step forward for numerous power reasons (lower idle, smaller size for same or more power output) once price comes down to make it comparable to current MOFSET implementations.

But the subjective opinions of GaN amplifiers having "better" sound or *insert adjective here* is similar to one saying the Hypex NCx500 is that much better to hear over the Purifi 1ET400A..it is splitting very small hairs.

 

[goryu]

I'll actually be talking about GaN on an upcoming podcast appearance, along with a blog write up on our website soon.

The short: GaN will be beneficial step forward for numerous power reasons (lower idle, smaller size for same or more power output) once price comes down to make it comparable to current MOFSET implementations.

But the subjective opinions of GaN amplifiers having "better" sound or *insert adjective here* is similar to one saying the Hypex NCx500 is that much better to hear over the Purifi 1ET400A..it is splitting very small hairs.

It's a bit more nuanced perhaps: it all depends on the circuit implementation whether GaN or current devices- when you have a state of the art circuit like Purifi and Hypex, you get state of the art results independent of the devices. Similarly, Orchard has used the GaN devices in a modern, well designed class d implementation with very good performance. Others, like Peachtree, use, in comparison, a rather outdated implementation that results in poorer performance and load dependency. It's been proven that discussion of which "sounds better" is listener dependent and without any correlation necessarily to actual performance. GaN does have some advantages but unless the implementation is clever enough to exploit them, simply using them doesn't necessarily guarantee any improvements.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

It's a bit more nuanced perhaps: it all depends on the circuit implementation whether GaN or current devices- when you have a state of the art circuit like Purifi and Hypex, you get state of the art results independent of the devices. Similarly, Orchard has used the GaN devices in a modern, well designed class d implementation with very good performance. Others, like Peachtree, use, in comparison, a rather outdated implementation that results in poorer performance and load dependency. It's been proven that discussion of which "sounds better" is listener dependent and without any correlation necessarily to actual performance. GaN does have some advantages but unless the implementation is clever enough to exploit them, simply using them doesn't necessarily guarantee any improvements.

Correct. I should have added in my response something along the lines of "properly implemented GaN in a properly designed amplifier" instead of implying it.