Gain Clone Parts List-Source

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:42:37 GMT, "Alan Smithee" <somewhere@asdf.com>
wrote:

>I would like to build a pair of gain clone amps.
>Could someone tell me which variant of gain clone is considered the best.

I've come across a "gain clone" in my websurfing before, but I
don't recall it being discussed here at alll, so this probably isn't
the best place to ask.
Perhaps the most active pro-audio DIY forums is this one:
http://prodigy-pro.com/forum/
but I didn't see where gain clone is discussed there either.
They're mostly into recreating classic preamps and compressors, and
don't bother with equipment such as power amps they can get
off-the-shelf for modest (compared to classic gear) prices.
Googling for "gain clone" brings up several links and forums that
appear more relevant to what you're asking, mostly
<http://www.diyaudio.com>. As for what Usenet newsgroups might have
info, go to http://groups.google.com and look for gain clone.

>I'm experienced at soldering and building projects. Also, could someone post
>a parts list and a source for buying the parts in North America. Thx.

Dunno about a parts lists (except the links Google shows), but
digikey.com is a good parts source for a project like this.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The Gainclone is simply a power amp IC and its surrounding passives,
supply and heat sink. Everything you need should be readily available
from any electronic supplier (which excludes Radio Shack).

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1111670105k@trad
> In article <11447r1i2fnticc@corp.supernews.com> rcrowley7@xprt.net
> writes:
>
>> It would appear that a "gainclone" is nothing more than
>> a minimalist application of a National Semi LM 3886,
>> is it?

Agreed.

>> There doesn't appear to be anything magic about
>> the chip nor the external circuitry.

Indeed some of the external circuitry seems kind of minimalist.

>> Most of the cachet
>> appears to be the aura that has grown up around it and
>> the artistic packaging.

Agreed. All it seems to need is a $666 hand-turned walnut knob or two.

> Where is this 'cachet' for the Gain Clone?

All over the web, as Richard ably pointed out with his google-based
survey.

>I've never heard of it. Is
> this an audiophile product, an instrument amplifier, something to
> connect your iPod to?

It seems to have most of the attributes of an audiophile product.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Have a read of this approach....
http://www.trutek-uk.com/Nicks_audio/gc_technical.htm

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Jim Gregory" wrote ...
> Have a read of this approach....
> http://www.trutek-uk.com/Nicks_audio/gc_technical.htm

From one of the pages linked from that URL
(http://www.adx.co.nz/techinfo/audio/gainclone1.htm)

"A Gainclone, surprise surprise, is a clone of the Gaincard, so it usually
has these features:
* a power opamp / audio opamp chip such as the National LM3875
* a very physically short feedback loop (one resistor)
* generally miniaturised construction with short path lengths throughout the
circuit
* a minimalist "Zen" approach with minimal extra components, but all high
quality
* relatively tiny power supply filter capacitors (1000uF)
* often made using point to point construction rather than a PCB
* built up in a flashy or imaginative box with separately housed transformer

In fact, Gainclone has come to mean "any minimalist chip amp intended for
high quality sound", and their popularity has continued to grow since I
first stumbled onto their existence at the beginning of 2003."

"Executive summary: Gainclones work because of the unbelievably good
performance of the National Semiconductor amplifier chips."

Anybody know how the "relatively tiny power supply filter capacitors"
contribute to the "high performance" of this device?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111713080.885952.10210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> You can build a "Gainclone" for between $25 and $100 a channel
> inclusive of all parts and less if you are a good scrounger.

This web site has some of the most over speced and overpriced parts
for building a Gainclone that I've ever seen. The stereo model
including all parts but power transformer and case is $55 or $27.50
per channel.

The lm3886 chips are about $5.20 one-up from regular parts
distributors like Digi-Key

>While it is not IMO "high end audio" it maes an excellent project for
beginners
> and the amps can be used for bench and utility purposes or for a
> kitchen, garage or pad system. Unless you have a lot of amps
> laying around you probably should, in fact.

At $100 per channel one can come close to buying the Behringer home
amp which runs over 200 wpc.


> People not familiar with good horn speakers are always amazed how
> much and how good sound can be generated with eight watts into one.
> While I do not recommend eight watt amplifiers of any type for full
> range listening it makes for a fun demo. Eight WPC into K-Horns or
> La Scalas in a moderately large living room will have the cops over
> with no danger of damaging the speakers. (The windows maybe.)

8 watts is 9 dB over 1 watt. La Scalas are 104 dB/w @1 meter, so the
proposed combination would produce 113 dB @ 1 meter or 107 dB @ 2
meters or 101 dB at 4 meters. Normal listening distance for you would
probably be someplace between 2 and 4 meters. 101-107 dB peaks hardly
represent an outstanding sound level for enthusiastic listening.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>8 watts is 9 dB over 1 watt. La Scalas are 104 dB/w @1 meter, so the
>proposed combination would produce 113 dB @ 1 meter or 107 dB @ 2
>meters or 101 dB at 4 meters. Normal listening distance for you would
>probably be someplace between 2 and 4 meters. 101-107 dB peaks hardly
>represent an outstanding sound level for enthusiastic listening.

Plus 3dB for two speakers, uncorrelated, leaves you pretty much in the
same ballpark. Realistic orchestral volumes, but not headbanging and
not your-old-friend-spinning-some-tunes-away-from-the-spousal-unit-
at-your-place volumes.

Owned a pair of LaScala's thirty years ago, still living in
apartments, and would have to say that their main limitation
in home use is the 2x2 foot mouth. As Paul so often said, you
can't miniaturize a wavelength.


But I still tend to prefer smallish-output amplifiers. I'm still
not certain why; I tend to ascribe the best motives to myself,
natch, but others might easily see foibles. That's life.

Chris Hornbeck

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in message
newsca74199so1pjcph2llcdl6k0a9mi4gho7@4ax.com
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:00:49 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> 8 watts is 9 dB over 1 watt. La Scalas are 104 dB/w @1 meter, so
the
>>> proposed combination would produce 113 dB @ 1 meter or 107 dB @ 2
>>> meters or 101 dB at 4 meters. Normal listening distance for you
>>> would probably be someplace between 2 and 4 meters. 101-107 dB
>>> peaks hardly represent an outstanding sound level for enthusiastic
>>> listening.
>>
>> Plus 3dB for two speakers, uncorrelated, leaves you pretty much in
>> the same ballpark.
>
> Sorry, forgot to add that all these numbers are for free space, and
> low for reverberant space. Where the speakers are directional (like
> the 3kHz to 7kHz region of the LaScalas!) the free space numbers
apply
> pretty well.
>
> Otherwise, you get somewhat higher levels in normal rooms.
> Still the same ballpark.

If I wanted to bang some heads I'd be looking for peak volumes in the
120 dB range, OSHA be #@!!.

A perfectly ordinary way to get head-banging SPLs with La Scala or
better sound quality in a modern context would be to get some good
mains or stage monitors from the live sound department (ca. 98 dB watt
sensitivity) and drive them with some 27 dB watt (500 wpc) amps.
Throw in an eq and adjust to suit your taste. EV ZX-5s come to mind.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Alan Smithee wrote:

> I would like to build a pair of gain clone amps.
> Could someone tell me which variant of gain clone is considered the best.
> I'm experienced at soldering and building projects. Also, could someone post
> a parts list and a source for buying the parts in North America. Thx.

So, basically, you want someone to do all the hard work for you ?

The gainclones are based around a half decent National Semiconductor consumer
power amp IC. Nothing particularly special. The IC will perform as intended
provided that the implementation of the circuit and pcb layout is competent.

The attention given to these ICs by the audiophool fraternity speaks volumes
about their way of thinking.


Graham

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I agree. Bvt given the nvmber of wonderfvl low power configvrations
ovt
> there, from single-ended MOSFET amps (like the schematics on the
Nelson
> Pass website), to Fvtterman amps bvilt with some of the wonderfvl
high
> cvrrent Rvssian regvlator tvbes (a pair of 6C33Cs can be set vp to
have
> a maximvm power transfer impedance of NINE ohms, no transformer
needed),
> down to conventional devices rvn well into class A, I don't see why
anyone
> wovld go the SET rovte.


It started becavse a pair of 300B SET amps was the cheapest way for
Japanese avdiophiles to have a 300B system, which had great prestiege
and statvs. They almost literally worship the 300B as if it were the
hvge wooden phallvs carried throvgh the streets. The WE 91 became a
great favorite even thovgh it's basically like the amps in school film
projectors of the 50s and 60s-it's jvst for the projection booth.

I'm not at all svre the 6C33C is really svitable for avdio. It's a low
HT regvlator pass or shvnt tvbe for the Cadillac-sized all tvbe radar
in the MiG-25 interceptor and was actvally discovered in the West when
Belenko defected-covld it really have been thirty years ago? I think
Japanese avdio philes got a few before the fall of the Soviet Union,
thovgh.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The one 6C33C amp I heard impressed me not at all, whatsoever, but it
was driving Thiels,so maybe that's why. But I have heard of pretty big
biasing and gain issues with unit-to-unit variances which might be OK
in their designed application, not OK at all in this service.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42458FA7.A85130FE@hotmail.com
> Jim Gregory wrote:
>
>> Have a read of this approach....
>> http://www.trutek-uk.com/Nicks_audio/gc_technical.htm
>
> A complete load of technically inaccurate drivel.

Agreed. Just goes to show that you can post just about anything on the
web.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> <calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1111870610.820872.286770@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>
> > I'm not at all sure the 6C33C is really suitable for audio. It's a
> > low HT regulator pass or shunt tube for the Cadillac-sized all tube
> > radar in the MiG-25 interceptor.
>
> <sarcasm on>
>
> I'm not sure that the 300B is really suitable for audio. It was ised
> as a low HT regulator pass or shunt tube for the Cadillac-sized
> all-tube radar that I worked on back in the late 60s.
>

I'm calling bullshit on you on this one Arny. You should have said
6AS7 or 6080 but the 300B was so obso-and not found anywhere outside
WE-that I'll only believe this if I see a schematic. Besides, US
fighter radars were barely Volkswagen sized then. The MiG-25 is a
70,000 lb airframe vs the Crusader/Deuce/Voodoo at maybe 25,000 and the
Six and Phantom at barely 40,000. Actually "Cadillac sized"
appropriately describes the MiG radar only if one inserts the qualifier
"Presidential bulletproof limo Cadillac". It's more the size of a
Humvee or a deuce-and-a-half truck.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111878420.738080.303770@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> <calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1111870610.820872.286770@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> I'm not at all sure the 6C33C is really suitable for audio. It's
a
>>> low HT regulator pass or shunt tube for the Cadillac-sized all
tube
>>> radar in the MiG-25 interceptor.
>>
>> <sarcasm on>
>>
>> I'm not sure that the 300B is really suitable for audio. It was
ised
>> as a low HT regulator pass or shunt tube for the Cadillac-sized
>> all-tube radar that I worked on back in the late 60s.
>>
>
> I'm calling bullshit on you on this one Arny.

Enjoy.

>You should have said 6AS7 or 6080 but the 300B was so obso-and not
found anywhere outside
> WE-that I'll only believe this if I see a schematic.

The schematics were classified at the time.

> Besides, US fighter radars were barely Volkswagen sized then.

Where did I say fighter?

Gotcha! ;-)

> The MiG-25 is a
> 70,000 lb airframe vs the Crusader/Deuce/Voodoo at maybe 25,000 and
> the Six and Phantom at barely 40,000. Actually "Cadillac sized"
> appropriately describes the MiG radar only if one inserts the
> qualifier "Presidential bulletproof limo Cadillac". It's more the
> size of a Humvee or a deuce-and-a-half truck.

The radar I worked on with 300B regulator tubes was the size of a
trailer with one axle that was towed behind a duce-and-a-half or a
unarmed APC-like vehicle that tripled as a generator and launcher.

Please see:

http://www.redstone.army.mil/histo [...] ama_03.jpg

The radar in question was the one in the middle with micky-mouse ears
styled antennas.

Here's a close-up:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/hawk54.jpg

Interestingly enough, this picture could have been taken of my unit in
Germany on field manovers. Only I don't recall emplacing on tarps.
(The radar with the flat-sided antenna in the background is science
fiction - it would never be emplaced that way in real life.)

In this picture the 300Bs were in power supplies, one of which was on
the far side of the transmitter cabinet on its far lower right. I
think there were 4 300Bs per power supply.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/hawk02.jpg

In the above picture the transmitter LV power supply was again on the
bottom right, seemingly painted white.

In the following picture the other two LV power supplies for the
receiver are on the lower left and right of the receiver cabinet.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/hawk67.jpg


Did I mention the towers that my 300B power supplies lived on? Here
are some pictures of a unit just like mine in Miami, but in Key West.
The towers, the buildings are very similar, but a little shorter.

http://www.missilesofkeywest.brave [...] oAlbum.htm

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 27 Mar 2005 10:43:45 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>>I really can't defend my preference for a single 845 triode
>>for conventional dynamic speakers, not even to my own satisfaction,
>>but especially to the newsgroup. Whatever "theories" I might have
>>are below practical testability, and so are just conjectures.
>
>It's worth trying, though. Build a PP 845 amp and see if you like the way
>THAT sounds. Then try a SE 845 amp with a plate resistor and DC blocking
>cap driving a PP output transformer. You waste a lot of power, but does it
>sound to you like the SE or the PP one? Maybe you like the thing the
>transformer is doing. Maybe it's something about the 845 and you'll like
>the PP one even better. I dunno.

A couple years ago I'd collected enough parts to do something
similar, four channels of paralleled 211's, with the intent of
comparing push-pull pairs to paralleled pairs of these channels.
I still have all of the parts, but lack the ambition. But someday...

Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck
"Recently my wife asked, "Do you have to analyze EVERYTHING"
and I only had to think a minute before I answered "--scott