[danlaix]

I'm not sure if this thread has been posted before.
But i was wondering if anyone knows or has the design
or schematics for the HeadRoom Airhead Amp?

I've tried looking thru the search but cant find any.

Anyone? Thanks.

 

[Squalish]

I don't have it or know anything about its legality, but it isn't just the airhead design you're looking for, Headroom uses the same base amplifier section in all their amps, with different quality parts, and different quality power supply and crossfeed sections.

 

[danlaix]

Squalish, thanks for replying.

I realise that too. It seems that the difference between the Airhead and the Total Airhead is the output capacitors.

But does anyone knows the base design or schematics?

 

[Ebonyks]

While i don't know the exact schematic, from what i've heard, it's very simliar to a Cmoy

 

[Squalish]

It looks a bit different from most pics of CMOYs I've seen.

I think that Headroom products are potted, so it wouldn't be easy to hack one apart for a schematic, as it was with the RA-1(once they got past the Invincible Wood Glue(tm)).

 

[Rotareneg]

The old 2 AA Total Airhead isn't potted or anything.

 

[danlaix]

wow, nice pics Rotareneg.
I see that the Total Airhead is using the Oscon caps.

Now u have the amp, maybe u can sketch out the schematic
and contribute it to the head-fi community..?

 

[tangent]

It's not his to "contribute". It's one thing to publically reverse engineer an amp like the RA-1 that's got a totally generic circuit, but quite another to do that to amps with some modicum of originality.

We like Headroom. Let's respect their choice to keep their design secret.

 

[AIM9x]

agreed... without headroom, i would never have found head-fi, and without headroom i would never have found the etys for 270 and actually bought them... along with the then-discontinued KSC-35s. I've had so much fun with both of these cans, I can't see how I ever lived without them.

 

[Rotareneg]

I'm sure if Headroom wanted people making copies of the Airhead they'd have released the schematics themselves.

 

[mekanoplastik]

Quote:

Originally posted by tangent It's one thing to publically reverse engineer an amp .[]....but quite another to do that to amps .....[]

reverse ingeneering is reverse ingenering, period, you either condemn it or not.....i dont understand the disctictions.....grado makes fantastik headphones...dont they deserve some "privacy" as well?

i am not saying "go ahead" but i think grado lost some credibility thanks to some "cotributions" by some people and that was not nice....neither would be for headroom.


m.

 

[tangent]

Quote:

grado makes fantastik headphones...dont they deserve some "privacy" as well?

I have no problem with people opening it up and noticing that it uses a completely uninspired circuit and posting about that publically. I'm not thrilled that people then went and figured out the individual parts brands and values, but that's a small step from the first one. If you use a generic design, you're open to being outed, IMHO. Nothing interesting is being given away; it's just the fact that there is a lack of interesting details being exposed in this situation.

If a person wants to go buy an Airhead and trace out the schematic themselves, that's also a separate issue. The problem is publishing that schematic if the circuit is indeed somewhat novel. If they wanted the schematic published, they'd do it themselves.

 

[spott]

let the builder give out the schematic, tangent willingly gives out the schematics for his META amp, and thats his choice, untill headroom decides to give out the schematic for their airhead, or total airhead amps, i recomend you don't reverse engineer it and publish it, if you want to reverse engineer it to learn from it fine, but don't publish it. I know if i wanted a total airhead i'd buy one, i don't need the schematic.

 

[jiggler]

If there is no patent protection for the Airhead circuit, and it can be readily ascertained from reverse engineering, it may be freely copied. My billing rate is $215 per hour so there is about $10 worth of advice from patent counsel.