Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Discussions › Is anyone building the KGSSHV?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is anyone building the KGSSHV? - Page 3

post #31 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by verwandlung View Post

I guess what you said about mk1 is also valid for the mk2 in that case, isn't?

 


I don't know - I've never listened to the mk2.

 

post #32 of 433
Thread Starter 

Thank you all. I was not saying that I would miss having two volume controls or no RCA, simply that the price could be a little high, especially considering the absence of those features.

 

One other thing I didn't mention because it is pretty common for this amp is that there is only one entry for the headphone, so no possibility to use two pairs of cans at the same time. Hence this question: would I be able to use my DAC with two different amps at the same time (one using the RCA, the other one the XLR) for the few times when I like to listen to music someone else? Or is it just a bad idea, or simply something which will not work?

 

 

post #33 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by verwandlung View Post



Thank you. I guess that answer my previous question as to how both amps compare. basshead.gif



i spent $4k a year ago to get the die made for the heatsink that will be used for this amp and others.  it's just sitting around!  wish i had the time, but orders for the BHSE need to be filled, and then I can make some progress on it.  it will be a single box amp because otherwise it would cost as much as the BHSE.  really the only difference in cost between building a BHSE and a KGSSHV is the cost of a quad of EL34 tubes and 2 more wires on the umbilical cable.


Edited by justin w. - 12/10/11 at 10:38pm

HeadAmp Audio Electronics - home of the Pico and Gilmore amps.  Now with Audeze, Fostex, HiFiMAN, Sennheiser, and STAX.
Find us at www.HeadAmp.com

Reply
post #34 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

 

The Headamp KGSS used dual volume controls in lieu of a balance control. In my view it's completely unnecessary, and annoying. Stepped attenuators track extremely well between the L/R channels, there's none of the nonsense that pots have of being off by several dB at the bottom of the volume range. Headphones don't have room interactions, so unless there's something wrong with your hearing, I don't see why you'd need a balance control, and having to make sure the two steppers are lined up every time you want to adjust the volume is just a PITA.

 

The Stax split volume control/balance is a way better system, but I never use that either. My KGSSHV uses a single balanced attenuator, and incidentally also is XLR only. I don't think $1850 is all that bad. There's not a huge supply of the things, and it's not as if you can just go order one from Headamp instead.
 

 


The reason the KGSS used dual volume controls was because at the time I started building that amp (end of 2003), I'm not sure there were any dealers selling the quad stepped attenuators (required for a balanced amp)  and I didn't have the volume at that time to buy directly from DACT.  so, I used the parts available to me, which meant there would be dual volume controls.

 

There were improvements to the build quality of the KGSS in the last couple years.  You're not going to see it just looking at the chassis, however.  The improvements are internal.

 

HeadAmp Audio Electronics - home of the Pico and Gilmore amps.  Now with Audeze, Fostex, HiFiMAN, Sennheiser, and STAX.
Find us at www.HeadAmp.com

Reply
post #35 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin w. View Post

it will be a single box amp because otherwise it would cost as much as the BHSE.  really the only difference in cost between building a BHSE and a KGSSHV is the cost of a quad of EL34 tubes and 2 more wires on the umbilical cable.


Unless there's some noticeable effect on the sound (noise), single box is better in my opinion - more convenient and easier to place.

 

I'll definitely sign up for it when you offer it! I've been enjoying the KGSS for over 4 years now.

 

post #36 of 433
Quote:

Originally Posted by verwandlung View Post

 

One other thing I didn't mention because it is pretty common for this amp is that there is only one entry for the headphone, so no possibility to use two pairs of cans at the same time. Hence this question: would I be able to use my DAC with two different amps at the same time (one using the RCA, the other one the XLR) for the few times when I like to listen to music someone else? Or is it just a bad idea, or simply something which will not work?


That shouldn't be a problem at all. As long as the single ended and balanced outputs of your DAC are active at the same time (most are) you can connect two amps to the same DAC and use them simultaneously.

 

post #37 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin w. View Post



i spent $4k a year ago to get the die made for the heatsink that will be used for this amp and others.  it's just sitting around!  wish i had the time, but orders for the BHSE need to be filled, and then I can make some progress on it.  it will be a single box amp because otherwise it would cost as much as the BHSE.  really the only difference in cost between building a BHSE and a KGSSHV is the cost of a quad of EL34 tubes and 2 more wires on the umbilical cable.


It will definitely make a lot of people happy if Headamp makes a HV. Single box can definitely be done, even with the 500V version. That's what mine is. It's a little tight inside, but it works. Interesting that there weren't quad SAs available back then, I had always just assumed that you wanted to offer a balance adjustment. While we're talking SAs, might I humbly suggest switching to Goldpoint? Noticeably better than DACT, IMHO.

 

post #38 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

might I humbly suggest switching to Goldpoint? Noticeably better than DACT, IMHO.

 


Goldpoint certainly has a better feel to it when you turn the knob. Have you found other advantages?

 

post #39 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin w. View Post



i spent $4k a year ago to get the die made for the heatsink that will be used for this amp and others.  it's just sitting around!  wish i had the time, but orders for the BHSE need to be filled, and then I can make some progress on it.  it will be a single box amp because otherwise it would cost as much as the BHSE.  really the only difference in cost between building a BHSE and a KGSSHV is the cost of a quad of EL34 tubes and 2 more wires on the umbilical cable.



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post


It will definitely make a lot of people happy if Headamp makes a HV. Single box can definitely be done, even with the 500V version. That's what mine is. It's a little tight inside, but it works. Interesting that there weren't quad SAs available back then, I had always just assumed that you wanted to offer a balance adjustment. While we're talking SAs, might I humbly suggest switching to Goldpoint? Noticeably better than DACT, IMHO.

 


the reason I use the DACT is for PCB mounting.  GoldPt never offered a PCB mount version (maybe they do now).  But overall I am tired of SAs, especially the 24 step ones, and want to move exclusively to high-end potentiometers.  I just don't want to go exclusively with the Alps RK50 on the BHSE and  possibly exclude someone from being able to afford it.

 

HeadAmp Audio Electronics - home of the Pico and Gilmore amps.  Now with Audeze, Fostex, HiFiMAN, Sennheiser, and STAX.
Find us at www.HeadAmp.com

Reply
post #40 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by visualguy View Post


Goldpoint certainly has a better feel to it when you turn the knob. Have you found other advantages?

 


I've occasionally seen noise issues with DACTs when changing steps, never with Goldpoints. I haven't done any lengthy A/B comparisons of the two in terms of sound, but to the best of my knowledge I think the Goldpoints may sound a bit better.

post #41 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin w. View Post

the reason I use the DACT is for PCB mounting.  GoldPt never offered a PCB mount version (maybe they do now).  But overall I am tired of SAs, especially the 24 step ones, and want to move exclusively to high-end potentiometers.  I just don't want to go exclusively with the Alps RK50 on the BHSE and  possibly exclude someone from being able to afford it.

 

 

Which pots were you thinking? I've seen the TKD pots spoken of pretty highly, but have no experience with them. The standard Alps pots are pretty meh. I looked at several SAs for my HV build, and unfortunately most of the 40+ step ones are not available as quads. I settled on the 48-step Khozmo Z-foil, lot of money for a SA, but it should sound really good. The problem with Khozmo though is that it may take them two tries to actually get you the one you ordered.

 


Edited by DaveBSC - 12/10/11 at 11:51pm
post #42 of 433

Quad pots FTW!!!  smily_headphones1.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by verwandlung View Post

There is of course always the possibility of getting a new 727 and get it modified (by either one of the person you, Spritzer, and I don't remember who else, recommended). I am surprise though that there is not much difference between the 323 and the non-mofified 727. Hum, it seems that I always come to the same conclusion: just order that BHSE!

 

Meanwhile, I hope to be lucky enough to find a used KGSS. By the way, what is a good price for a used KGSS? Someone here wanted to sell a five years old KGSS for $1850 (with only one volume control and no RCA and 450VW caps). Should I jump on it? 


Well I don't mod 727's (unless you find me in a really good mood) bur any experienced DIY'er can easily do the mod.  You only need 4 resistors (high quality metal film) and to adjust the amp afterwards. 

 

Nothing wrong with the KGSS having 450WV caps.  It runs off a dual 280VAC transformer and runs on +/-350VDC rails so those caps are well within spec. 

 

post #43 of 433
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin w. View Post



... it will be a single box amp because otherwise it would cost as much as the BHSE.  really the only difference in cost between building a BHSE and a KGSSHV is the cost of a quad of EL34 tubes and 2 more wires on the umbilical cable.



I am very glad to learn that this (KGSSHV) is in the pipeline. 

 

Justin, do you think that you will make a batch 4 of BHSE after you are done with the next one (expected to be completed sometime mid 2012)? Is it too early to know?

post #44 of 433
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post

Quad pots FTW!!!  smily_headphones1.gif
 


Well I don't mod 727's (unless you find me in a really good mood) bur any experienced DIY'er can easily do the mod.  You only need 4 resistors (high quality metal film) and to adjust the amp afterwards. 

 

Nothing wrong with the KGSS having 450WV caps.  It runs off a dual 280VAC transformer and runs on +/-350VDC rails so those caps are well within spec. 

 

 

Spritzer, I was referring to the two guys in NYC that you and someone else mentioned a while ago when I asked whether you knew people here who would do that job for me. But there is no need to come back on that topic since the 727 (modified or not) is becoming less and less of a option for me. It will be either the BHSE or most likely (with even more patience) the KGSSHV when Justin is ready!

Thanks.
 

 

post #45 of 433
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post


That shouldn't be a problem at all. As long as the single ended and balanced outputs of your DAC are active at the same time (most are) you can connect two amps to the same DAC and use them simultaneously.

 



That is what I suspected. I am pretty sure they are (have a Bel Canto 2.5). 

Thanks. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Discussions › Is anyone building the KGSSHV?