Buckeye Amps: Purifi 1ET6525SA (the successor to the 1ET400A)

[Buckeye Amps]

I thought it was established that you AP was well within spec? If I remember correctly you said AP confirmed it was? Sp how are you going to resolve this shortcoming?
So is the performance you are quoting on the website the module spec or that of the final amp with buffer?

Still working with AP.

 

[jamesdyson]

Still working with AP.

So the performance you are quoting on the website is that of the module, not an amp with buffer.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

So the performance you are quoting on the website is that of the module, not an amp with buffer.

Correct. But it is the same exact buffer board we have been using with the 1ET400A, which has been reviewed before. So no worries there.

 

[jamesdyson]

Correct. But it is the same exact buffer board we have been using with the 1ET400A, which has been reviewed before. So no worries there.

Sorry if I'm being OCD about this but I want to establish facts before I part with cash, so I do worry.
This is the same buffer you are using in the new 9040 amp? According to the Purifi data sheet the module sinad is about 117dB at 5 watts. Your data indicated a sinad of only 105dB at the gain level I require to use a standard 4 volt dac as a source.
So it seems reasonable to conclude that this new 6525 amp will also be limited to that level regardless of how much better this new module performs.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Sorry if I'm being OCD about this but I want to establish facts before I part with cash, so I do worry.
This is the same buffer you are using in the new 9040 amp? According to the Purifi data sheet the module sinad is about 117dB at 5 watts. Your data indicated a sinad of only 105dB at the gain level I require to use a standard 4 volt dac as a source.
So it seems reasonable to conclude that this new 6525 amp will also be limited to that level regardless of how much better this new module performs.

That is the penalty for using higher gain.
And the 9040 board is a different design.

So not the most reasonable conclusion.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Not to be direct but you clearly question our buffer board implementations. If that is the case, there are other options out there. Don't really feel like rehashing the same talk from the 9040 thread here.

 

[jamesdyson]

That is the penalty for using higher gain.
And the 9040 board is a different design.

So not the most reasonable conclusion.

That depends how quiet the buffer is. So what is the 5 watt sinad for the 6525?

 

[jamesdyson]

Not to be direct but you clearly question our buffer board implementations. If that is the case, there are other options out there. Don't really feel like rehashing the same talk from the 9040 thread here.

Yes I do. I think its clear there is a bit of obfuscation going on here. It's the APs fault, can't show you the data from the improved e1da dac, can't show you the data for this new 6525 amp. You publish module performance not the amp performance on your website.Thanks, I will look at other options.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Yes I do. I think its clear there is a bit of obfuscation going on here. It's the APs fault, can't show you the data from the improved e1da dac, can't show you the data for this new 6525 amp. You publish module performance not the amp performance on your website.Thanks, I will look at other options.

No worries!

 

[Oniiz86]

$50 more
And no, still using the 1612 (which, again, is what Purifi uses for their reference board designs outside the 9040). And gain stage staying the same.

It is essentially form fit/function of the 1ET400A so no need to refresh input board, etc.

It appears the 1ET6525SA's Gain settings have been slightly revised according to your website, they're now 26dB (High), 21dB (Med), 16dB (Low) compared to the previous 1ET400A & 1ET9040BA, 1ET7040SA which are 25.5dB (High), 20.5dB (Med), 15.5dB (Low).

 

[Norcal]

This thread should be retitled ‘please tolerate our obsession with minutiae’.

 

[Oniiz86]

Yes, you're quite right, just like the terribly dull Denzel Washington film it's "The Little Things" that matter

 

[Stereoed]

Hi Dylan,
I would ask you.
Will you bring a 1ET6525SA Monoblock.

Thanks in advance.
Edmund from Germany

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Hi Dylan,
I would ask you.
Will you bring a 1ET6525SA Monoblock.

Thanks in advance.
Edmund from Germany

Most likely not. With the 9040BA monoblock, there isn't much motivation to offer the 6525SA as a monoblock, especially since the outgoing 400A monoblock configuration was not very popular.

The 2ch configuration is the perfect sweet spot instead of a pair of monoblocks.

 

[franzhaenel]

The power rating for the 6525SA is 230 W @ 8ohm and 480 W @ 4 ohm. Is it correct that it's 109% higher @ 4 ohm? For the 7040SA and 9040BA they are exactly 100% higher and I think the 1ET400 was a bit below 100%.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

The power rating for the 6525SA is 230 W @ 8ohm and 480 W @ 4 ohm. Is it correct that it's 109% higher @ 4 ohm? For the 7040SA and 9040BA they are exactly 100% higher and I think the 1ET400 was a bit below 100%.

Yes, that is correct

 

[EdW]

Yes, that is correct

More voltage output into 4 Ohms than 8 Ohms. So the voltage output clip level increases as the load impedance decreases, That is certainly a new type of amplifier design
Or just different distortion levels for the 2 specifications?

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Instead of creating a new thread, officially turning this into the 6525SA thread going forward (since everything else about the amplifier is shared from the previous 1ET400A essentially).

First post has been updated.

 

[Full Zhou]

Hello, is there any newer replacement for purifi 1ET7040SA?

 

[Buckeye Amps]

Hello, is there any newer replacement for purifi 1ET7040SA?

No