Newer Portable Amps Should Be..
Oct 22, 2008 at 8:27 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 37

ZephyrSapphire

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Posts
2,192
Likes
13
Designed to be thinner/slimmer/less thick/whatever you call it, dangit. Most of us do not care if it is 2" by 2" or even 1" by 1". The current wave of new portable amps are downright still just too thick to be pocket friendly. You can't freakin' call it an improvement over the last generation of amps if it's still as thick as the previous batch or thicker than the previous batch regardless of sound, unless of course the previous generation was already thin enough.. I, as a consumer and a portable head-fier, am very disappointed that there has not been any progress in making amps more portable, at all. Mind you, this is excluding USB DAC amp combos at the moment since they are targetted for individuals who use transportable rigs.
angry_face.gif
Don't mind me, I don't know how to design amps or even read schematics, but I'm sure a lot of headfiers wouldn't mind if the parts were spread out, flat to decrease thickness.
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 8:38 PM Post #2 of 37

jamato8

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Posts
17,983
Likes
2,837
So you would something more in line with the thickness of the Nano or some of the other ipod types? I can understand that. The SR-71A doesn't bother me when I carry it around but I hear you. Part of the problem is that the attenuator (volume control) takes up some height and the slim attenuators often are not all that good, and that affects sound. One of the best requires a size in height like the 71A or the Xin Reference. There are some though that might allow for a lower height but not that much. I will take quality to a little thinner until someday, if ever, a high quality thin volume control is manufactured that tracks well and is made of good material.
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 8:48 PM Post #3 of 37

ZephyrSapphire

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Posts
2,192
Likes
13
Well that would be wonderfully thin but I personally say 0.5" would be thin enough. Even 0.6" would be okay. As long as it is pocket friendly. It doesn't necessarily need to be the best sounding amp out there (yet) but I would personally love if amp builders started concentrating on making slimmer amps which sound good as oppose to making newer amps which are basically the same size as the last generation which were still such a hassle to bring around. Even the Tomahawk is a hassle to carry around IMO.
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 8:56 PM Post #4 of 37

jamato8

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Posts
17,983
Likes
2,837
Ok. I don't find them a hassle though. I even will put the 71A in my cargo type pocket of my shorts.
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 9:14 PM Post #5 of 37

ZephyrSapphire

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Posts
2,192
Likes
13
Well can't argue about your preference there. If Dr. Xin was able to create 2 wonderful sounding amps, the Supermini (0.6") and the Supermicro (0.7"), (mind you I've only heard the Supermicro) I don't see why other amp makers can't do so?
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 9:46 PM Post #6 of 37

Punnisher

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Posts
2,655
Likes
40
The Tomahawk is small enough to pocket as long as you have the right source (Nano).

I built my rig around it and I have no problems pocketing it.

But it would be nice to have an amp the size of a 5.5g ipod.
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 10:46 PM Post #8 of 37

ZephyrSapphire

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Posts
2,192
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by busyx2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The upcoming Nuforce Icon-Mobile is a low profile under 1" thick, with rechargeable Lithium battery and work as USB DAC when connected to PC (while being charged by the USB). Battery life as headphone amp exceeds 13 hours.

Nuforce, Inc



Erm. A lot of portable amps are already under 1" thick?
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 11:04 PM Post #10 of 37

Punnisher

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Posts
2,655
Likes
40
The tomahawk is approx .75" thick.

The 2move is approx 1.120" thick.

And to think I used to use my 5.5g/2move portably, wow. It's a total of 1.625 inches! (not counting rubber band and feet)

My new portable rig is exactly 1.0625" thick, much more reasonable.
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM Post #11 of 37

ZephyrSapphire

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Posts
2,192
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The tomahawk is approx .75" thick.
My new portable rig is exactly 1.0625" thick, much more reasonable.




Still too thick for practicalities IMHO.
tongue.gif


But reasonable, of course.
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 11:13 PM Post #12 of 37

qusp

Member of the Trade: Twisted Cables
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Posts
7,743
Likes
61
this is a little dissapointing man; I can here to witness a war and its rather dull indeed.
biggrin.gif
nah but seriously the size of decent caps, batteries and volume controls is a limiting factor; I think you will find that people will take quality sound over diminutive size every time. well normal people anyway
tongue.gif
plus another design consideration is that it is best to design an amp in a few layers sandwiched together so that the amp section can be surrounded by ground planes in a sort of cage to avoid RF interference as much as possible
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 11:23 PM Post #14 of 37

ZephyrSapphire

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Posts
2,192
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by qusp /img/forum/go_quote.gif
this is a little dissapointing man; I can here to witness a war and its rather dull indeed.
biggrin.gif
nah but seriously the size of decent caps, batteries and volume controls is a limiting factor; I think you will find that people will take quality sound over diminutive size every time. well normal people anyway
tongue.gif
plus another design consideration is that it is best to design an amp in a few layers sandwiched together so that the amp section can be surrounded by ground planes in a sort of cage to avoid RF interference as much as possible




Well I have to agree that normally people will take sound quality over size but yeah, as I said, with all these already well known smaller amps, they could spread the components wider to reduce overall thickness. Sandwich is good, of course. But I personally don't see a major affect if they added an extra 1" to the width or length of an amp. The difference would like what? 1~5% Or maybe even less
tongue.gif
 
Oct 22, 2008 at 11:42 PM Post #15 of 37

qusp

Member of the Trade: Twisted Cables
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Posts
7,743
Likes
61
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZephyrSapphire /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well I have to agree that normally people will take sound quality over size but yeah, as I said, with all these already well known smaller amps, they could spread the components wider to reduce overall thickness. Sandwich is good, of course. But I personally don't see a major affect if they added an extra 1" to the width or length of an amp. The difference would like what? 1~5% Or maybe even less
tongue.gif



lol ok I had a look over there
smily_headphones1.gif
but even if oyou stretch it out youstill have to allow for decent caps which are usually around .6" atleast
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top