appearance vs performance

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 3878 times.

rustneversleeps

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 266
appearance vs performance
« on: 7 Mar 2008, 11:41 pm »
During the course of building a Pas 3i, I've run into a dilemma.

I have an almost perfect double cabinet in walnut for my dyna gear, and part of the Pas 3i mod requires to move the power transformer to the back, which would look like crap when fitted in to the golden walnut cabinet.

Moving the power transformer to the back makes perfect sense, reduces noise and all, the old Phase Linear amps did that. But from a vintage audio point of view, with the power transformer sticking out in the back of the cabinet is not very statically pleasing to the eyes, and it may decrease it overall nostalgic value.

Which one would you pick?

some young guy

Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #1 on: 8 Mar 2008, 01:28 am »
I've toiled over this question myself lately. I just sold my beautiful wood faced, exposed tubes, tube amp and replaced it with a sterile looking hybrid aluminum faced amp. While it doesn't look nearly as cool, it sounds sooo much better. For me, in the end sonics won over aesthetics for sure. That is what we're after... right?

SET Man

Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #2 on: 8 Mar 2008, 01:40 am »
Hey!

   Appearance Vs. Performance?

   Performance first for me without question! :D

   Well, if I really care about appearance than I don't thin I would be still using my ugly duckling DIY speaker after all these years. :lol: Like the old saying... "Don't judge a book by its cover" The same goes with audio, especially my speaker I guess :wink:

Take care,
Buddy :thumb:

rustneversleeps

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 266
Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #3 on: 8 Mar 2008, 02:11 am »
A Japanese proverb, "your meal should be as pleasing to the eyes as to your taste."

Some DIY are presentable, fit right, and not ugly

Go to the Minnesota Audio society site, there you'll find the pictures (if they haven't been removed) of some DIY projects look as ugly as hell, I'd never allow them to be in my house no matter how they sound, not only ugly, they are safety hazard with cables and wires hanging every whichway.

What I need is a compromise, the best of both worlds.

SET Man

Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #4 on: 8 Mar 2008, 02:20 am »
A Japanese proverb, "your meal should be as pleasing to the eyes as to your taste."

Hey!

   Yes, for food I agreed since you have to touch it and put it inside you. :D

   But for audio is it all about sound first to me... but that's just me :wink:

Take care,
Buddy :thumb:

martyo

Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #5 on: 8 Mar 2008, 04:02 am »
Maybe Japanese proverbs don't apply to audio, just listen.  :D

Zero

Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #6 on: 8 Mar 2008, 04:27 am »
I'm not sure an amplifier should be making noise in the first place!  :scratch: :lol:

I am one of those people that firmly believe that the environment you're in plays a crucial role in the over-all experience. It's all about balancing the yin and the yang.  /> insert ZEN smiley here

Just how noisy is the amplifier? If it's tolerable, I would position the transformer where it is least visibly offensive. The noise should be detectable during operation only. A visual crime on the other hand will assault you 24/7.


Toka

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 845
Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #7 on: 8 Mar 2008, 04:35 am »
I really don't care what something looks like, so long as it sounds good (and doesn't present any sort of safety hazard). Audioland is full of pretty boxes that cost a pile and don't deliver...no thanks. I mostly listen with the lights dimmed/off, and my eyes closed. And I only care to impress myself.

gjs_cds

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 327
Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #8 on: 8 Mar 2008, 04:42 am »
I think the real answer here is Mu.

...Which is roughly translated to mean, "Unask the Question."

With either option, you'll be dissatisfied.  So figure out another option (that wouldn't sacrifice sonics or aesthetics) and build a better mousetrap.

rustneversleeps

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 266
Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #9 on: 8 Mar 2008, 05:33 pm »
What I need to do is to come up with a solution that would allow the power transformer to be left inside the chassis, but will achieve the same result as it would be mounted outside of the chassis.

Shielding, grounding, and isolating the power transformer may be required. I'd call it Super Pas 3iii

satfrat

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 10855
  • Boston Red Sox!! 2004 / 2007 / 2013
Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #10 on: 8 Mar 2008, 05:45 pm »
What I need to do is to come up with a solution that would allow the power transformer to be left inside the chassis, but will achieve the same result as it would be mounted outside of the chassis.

Shielding, grounding, and isolating the power transformer may be required. I'd call it Super Pas 3iii

Yep,,, that was my thought. Maybe a transformer shield made of Ti-Shield that when properly grounded will allow you to place that transformer anywhere you want to. Percy Audio is the place to go for Ti-Shield.  :D

Cheers,
Robin

tgp06

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 72
Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #11 on: 8 Mar 2008, 06:15 pm »
Rust-
The outboard transformer increases the depth of the unit(measured from back of faceplate)from 7.75" to 10".A CAB-2D at 11'' deep,designed to stack two PAT-5/AF-6 size units,covers the transformer.It has vent slots on the top,so it isn't totally invisible from directly above.One on the Bay right now-starting at $25-don't know the condition.
Tom

Wayner

Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #12 on: 8 Mar 2008, 06:34 pm »
I'm sure Frank put the tranny on the ouside because  he had to. Trannies and sensitive circuits don't mix well and the odds of making a really good Faraday shield is stacked against you. Mumetal is the best material, but galvanized steel is a good second best. The shield must have iron in it which deflects the magnetic field created by the transformer. The field will be intense. The shield should be at least 16ga. but I really doubt it will work as well as putting the transformer on the outside.

W

rustneversleeps

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 266
Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #13 on: 8 Mar 2008, 07:18 pm »
The double cabinet I have was designed for the Pas 3 and FM 3 pair, and it is 8.5" deep, the depth of the Pas 3 is 7.75", so part of the power transformer will be sticking out if mounted outside of the chassis. I guess I'll have to live with that. The power supply board may phisically interfere with the power transformer if left inside

The cabinet on Ebay looks to be a single unit with vented top, meaning the metal cover of the unit may have to come off, the cabinet doesn't look to be in very good shape.

I guess I could put the Pat-4 Omegastar in the cabinet with the FM-3, and leave the Pas 3i out all by it's lonesome.


tgp06

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 72
Re: appearance vs performance
« Reply #14 on: 8 Mar 2008, 08:26 pm »
You have PM.