Simply; if he likes the sound, it ain't broken to his ears and he has no reason other than curiosity to test other cables. If the reason for his question is that he is not satisfied with the sound, the cables could be a good place to start searching for something else. The fact that his cable isn't made for audio could (although not necessarily) mean that it isn't optimal in his application
The best zipcord-like cable I have tried is the naim nac a5. It isn't cheap for what it is, but it somehow performs like few other cables and bettering it tends to become very expensive.
That said, if he is primarily interested in HT, getting proper cabling can get very expensive and is probably not worthwhile due to other limitations that are very difficult to get around in most HT setups.
best,
I think that is how a lot of the high-end audio industry works. "But are you *really* sure a more expensive cable wouldn't be better?"
I think that is how a lot of the high-end audio industry works. "But are you *really* sure a more expensive cable wouldn't be better?"
Yup, and that could be said for the audio business in general -and most other business that sell life-style products.
Hypex is of course no exception.
No you cannot manage with a simple 2X ucd180 + smps400, you need the ncore costing 5times a much. Also knowing that the smps400 cannot drive the nc400 to its limits, you simply need the smps600 although it costs 2.5X the smps400 seemingly for no other reason that it can.
Nothing wrong with that, its just the way that markets work. When looking at the copper prices, my humble guess would actually be that the cable business has a tighter connection between production costs and marked prices than electronics like the Hypex modules. And still nothing wrong with that, we just have to acknowledge that the same arguments goes more than one way.
All the best,
Regarding previous residual HF on output & EMI discussion I've discovered
following Hypex document that explains it quite well.
http://www.hypex.nl/docs/appnotes/EMI_appnote.pdf
In short, it is nothing to worry about, i.e:
- does not damage common tweeter
- does not produce audible intermodulation artifacts
- does not radiate AM from short speaker cable (much)
following Hypex document that explains it quite well.
http://www.hypex.nl/docs/appnotes/EMI_appnote.pdf
In short, it is nothing to worry about, i.e:
- does not damage common tweeter
- does not produce audible intermodulation artifacts
- does not radiate AM from short speaker cable (much)
It seems those with the Veritas nc1200 amps are still claiming that the nc1200 is in another league in comparison to the nc400. Bruno has said there should be no material difference in the sound (and the nc400 actually has better specs) yet, it seems most who have compared prefer the nc1200....Simply a case of validating their purchases or is the nc1200 better than the nc400 sound-wise?
I have also heard that Hypex has set a minimum retail price of $9000 for those building the nc1200 amps. I was hoping someone would skip the fancy case and jewelry and perhaps offer a nc1200 at a much cheaper price than the $9000 (coincidence?) price most seem to be asking....If the price fixing is true, I guess we won't be seeing that...
I have also heard that Hypex has set a minimum retail price of $9000 for those building the nc1200 amps. I was hoping someone would skip the fancy case and jewelry and perhaps offer a nc1200 at a much cheaper price than the $9000 (coincidence?) price most seem to be asking....If the price fixing is true, I guess we won't be seeing that...
I've read several explanations about how wire inductance and capacitance has no possible audible affect on the listening frequencies with speaker wire. It also makes sense that shielding would have make no audible difference at its voltage. It may be the case that inductance and capacitance might have an interaction affect with amplifiers, causing the amplifiers to respond differently. Probably most everyone here has a more critical ear than myself, and if such an affect is not something that's become apparent to them by now, I wouldn't think it's going to make a noticeable difference to me in my setup. Thanks guys.
I'd found this helpful article...
Speaker Cable Face Off
Sound dynamics is what I'm looking to optimize, as the noise floor is already well below what I could hear. I believe group delay measurements have the most direct correlation to sound dynamics. I've read a lot in the past about the audible threshold of group delay relative to frequency. This article gives group delay measurements relative to various speaker wire configurations and length, at 20 KHz which is the frequency we're most sensitive to group delay. 50 feat of 10 AWG appears to have well under an audible affect in regard to group delay.
I was really just looking to hear from others if they feel I'd be missing out on a "whole lot" of NC400 potential with my setup. I'd rather not position all of the bulky equipment up front if it's a minute difference. The noise from the equipment fans alone would not be fun. I currently have it all in an isolated hush box in the back of the room, and I like how the room has no technical glamour.
---------------------------------------
Sorry to jump around, but I'm also looking to optimize the NC400 by controlling EMI. EMI isolation has been touched on in the "Ncore Improvements" thread at audio circle, but I won't post there because I saw their policy discriminates against the 2nd amendment. I've worked with EMI control in other fields and here's my take...
EMI to the amp module would be reduced by separating the power supply within the enclosure by a conductive wall, and the wall surfaces would be coated with EM absorption material. Without absorption, the EMI would bounce around inside the enclosure, with much of it still making its way into the amp module compartment. EM absorption would eliminate the EMI before this occurs.
Additionally, the power supply wire bundle would be surrounded by EM absorption material and then wrapped with foil. The EMI from the bundle would be reflected within the bundle by the foil until its fully absorbed by the EM absorption material before it makes its way out of the end of the bundle at the amp module.
EM absorption material is most effective when the selected material is targeted for the EMI frequency range to be absorbed. Does anyone know what EMI frequencies need to be addressed here?
I'd found this helpful article...
Speaker Cable Face Off
Sound dynamics is what I'm looking to optimize, as the noise floor is already well below what I could hear. I believe group delay measurements have the most direct correlation to sound dynamics. I've read a lot in the past about the audible threshold of group delay relative to frequency. This article gives group delay measurements relative to various speaker wire configurations and length, at 20 KHz which is the frequency we're most sensitive to group delay. 50 feat of 10 AWG appears to have well under an audible affect in regard to group delay.
I was really just looking to hear from others if they feel I'd be missing out on a "whole lot" of NC400 potential with my setup. I'd rather not position all of the bulky equipment up front if it's a minute difference. The noise from the equipment fans alone would not be fun. I currently have it all in an isolated hush box in the back of the room, and I like how the room has no technical glamour.
---------------------------------------
Sorry to jump around, but I'm also looking to optimize the NC400 by controlling EMI. EMI isolation has been touched on in the "Ncore Improvements" thread at audio circle, but I won't post there because I saw their policy discriminates against the 2nd amendment. I've worked with EMI control in other fields and here's my take...
EMI to the amp module would be reduced by separating the power supply within the enclosure by a conductive wall, and the wall surfaces would be coated with EM absorption material. Without absorption, the EMI would bounce around inside the enclosure, with much of it still making its way into the amp module compartment. EM absorption would eliminate the EMI before this occurs.
Additionally, the power supply wire bundle would be surrounded by EM absorption material and then wrapped with foil. The EMI from the bundle would be reflected within the bundle by the foil until its fully absorbed by the EM absorption material before it makes its way out of the end of the bundle at the amp module.
EM absorption material is most effective when the selected material is targeted for the EMI frequency range to be absorbed. Does anyone know what EMI frequencies need to be addressed here?
Last edited:
I think it is a case of "if it ain't broken...". Wouldn't it be better to first find out if EMI is an issue, and if so, what frequencies are involved?
Did you read the EMI app note miero linked to?
I read through it, it addresses EMI "from" the amp, while I'm interested in limiting EMI "to" the amp.
I'm under the impression that if there's a need to spiral the power supply bundle to reduce EMI "to" the amp, that EMI would be greatly reduced beyond that if the bundle were surrounded with simple EM absorption and shielding.
I'm under the impression that if there's a need to spiral the power supply bundle to reduce EMI "to" the amp, that EMI would be greatly reduced beyond that if the bundle were surrounded with simple EM absorption and shielding.
Don't see any harm in doing the shielding. I know I won't be bothering.
Let us know if you notice any difference!
I see that twisting is for rejecting EMI like shielding, but I keep reading that shielding isn't needed for high level signals because EMI signals in the air are not powerful enough to drive a speaker by an audible amount. I never heard anything coming out of my speakers when my amp is off, so I'm more concerned about the affect of wire resistance on transients etc. It seems I wouldn't be missing out on too much of the NC400's potential here.
I have a multi-channel system.
I first purchased a pair of NC400 built by someone else to try out.
I then built my own set of NC400s - they sound exactly identical to the original NC400s I purchased.
I tried optimizing/tweaking these with SG Fuses, various power cords, etc.
Overall, when optimized the NC400s were on par sound quality wise with a Simaudio Titan Class AB amp, which I thought was very impressive, because thats a pretty good amp.
I then tried experimenting with bridging my NC400 - I noticed a small improvement but required a lot of ABing to discern.
I finally gave in and got the Veritas NC1200 - and immediately it was like wow - definitely its a better amp in every regard. There was bass in the 200-500Hz region that I didn't even know existed - its like someone cranked it up. In addition there was a much more fluid, analog sound. The treble just sounds more sparkly and detailed. The NC1200 is better in every area to the NC400. I really wish it was not - or I could have figured out how to adjust the NC400 to get this same level of sound - but at the end of the day I just gave in and paid the extra bucks and enjoying ever since!
So it seems EMI to the input signal is the primary source of overall interference, and twisted/star quad reduces this. This is probably the reason only shielded input signals are acceptable according to NC400 documentation. I'll apply EM absorption and shielding to the speaker wire as well, at least within the enclosure, and EM absorption to the outer wall of the shielded input lead within the enclosure.
EDIT: The audible difference between the NC400 and NC1200 likely lies in the additional headroom and the different power supply... cab over at audiocircle got this response from Hypex about the NC400 vs NC1200:
"When you use the NC1200 with our SMPS1200 and the NC400 with the SMPS600 there should not be a big difference. What you need to know is that most OEM customers that use the NC1200 now use there own power supply."
Last edited:
I am using Wisdom Audio L75 speakers which have active crossovers.
They have good efficiency so they are not power hogs.
I use the NC1200 on the planar magnetic portion (~240Hz to 20kHz)
I continue to use the NC400 on the lower portion (<240Hz)
Voltage gain:
* NC400 - 25.8dB
* NC1200 - 27.8dB (standard buffer)
Volume level on pre-amplifier must be adjusted by 2dB when switching between NC400 and NC1200, otherwise the NC1200 will sound "better" because it plays louder.
EDIT: Therefore voltage divider must be used before NC1200 when it bi-amps with NC400.
* NC400 - 25.8dB
* NC1200 - 27.8dB (standard buffer)
Volume level on pre-amplifier must be adjusted by 2dB when switching between NC400 and NC1200, otherwise the NC1200 will sound "better" because it plays louder.
EDIT: Therefore voltage divider must be used before NC1200 when it bi-amps with NC400.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.