I have said this before, but maybe now is the better time: As nCore has excellent objective performance, people with problems with the nCore should start looking how their sources perform. I think, in many cases the nCore amp is just magnifying the problems coming from the source. When the "haze" goes away, the problems are revealed and it is easy to put the blame on the device that made the problems exist.
Like julf said: "The nc400 has extremely good measurable, objective performance. That might not be everyone's cup of tea.". With good/suitable source nc400 is certainly step forward. One less thing to worry about. You just need to feed it with whatever you like to hear.
Like julf said: "The nc400 has extremely good measurable, objective performance. That might not be everyone's cup of tea.". With good/suitable source nc400 is certainly step forward. One less thing to worry about. You just need to feed it with whatever you like to hear.
I agree, but what I said is that all the measurements I have seen so far confirm the specifications Hypex has published. Those specifications clearly don't include "tightness of bass", but neither do any other measurements I have seen. Some people buy stuff based on measurements (backed by sound engineering principles), some might prefer to listen to them first.
I do not agree...
This does not explain the people who hear that the Ncore seems to be missing something, which is present with another amp (and the same source). Certainly the Ncore may "expose" problems elsewhere, this is one of the reasons I like the Ncore for helping me hear what my DAC is doing. But most who feel the Ncore is not "perfect" feel that way because they hear something missing which other amps have; not becasue the Ncore is revealing a problem elsewhere.
This does not explain the people who hear that the Ncore seems to be missing something, which is present with another amp (and the same source). Certainly the Ncore may "expose" problems elsewhere, this is one of the reasons I like the Ncore for helping me hear what my DAC is doing. But most who feel the Ncore is not "perfect" feel that way because they hear something missing which other amps have; not becasue the Ncore is revealing a problem elsewhere.
I haven't seen that kind of output noise. Have you followed all the guidelines about keeping output leads short and tightly twisted?
All it tells is that some people seem to feel they are missing something. That might or might not be related to the sound quality of the nCores.
If you say so...
By the way, who has ever claimed the nCores are perfect? I'm more than happy with "good enough".
I've posted pictures previously: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendors-bazaar/190434-hypex-ncore-240.html#post3675804
I suspect the "tightness" was the lack of frequency response ripples, which in turn was because the Hypex amp was not adversely affected by varying load impedance and phase angle. I'd call that a superior design; and although there is a test for that sort of thing (the Power Cube), I haven't seen results for Hypex products.
Right
I put "perfect" in quotes for a reason. Certainly by all common measures they are "perfect" in that distortion products are all below the accepted thresholds of audibility. There are many on this thread, sometimes yourself included, who presume that if one prefers the sound of a different amp to the Ncore, that that listener actually prefers the other amp because of its faults (a euphonic coloration): this presumption infers a view of the Ncore as "perfect".
I disagree with this presumption, and am willing to suggest that there may be problems with the Ncore of which we are not yet aware (in terms of measured performance) in relation to some traditional class A and A/B amplifiers.
I put "perfect" in quotes for a reason. Certainly by all common measures they are "perfect" in that distortion products are all below the accepted thresholds of audibility. There are many on this thread, sometimes yourself included, who presume that if one prefers the sound of a different amp to the Ncore, that that listener actually prefers the other amp because of its faults (a euphonic coloration): this presumption infers a view of the Ncore as "perfect".
I disagree with this presumption, and am willing to suggest that there may be problems with the Ncore of which we are not yet aware (in terms of measured performance) in relation to some traditional class A and A/B amplifiers.
Right - it looks like one of the output leads has a connecting ear going outwards (away from the other connecting post) forming a bit of a loop close to the input leads. Not sure if it makes a difference, but it is one of the things to watch out for.
That is your interpretation of it.
HiFi / high end audio is a funny business. Manufacturers can make outrageous claims without any evidence, but customers can also claim faults and defects in products without any evidence. In what other business is that be possible?
Since when has any "test" done by a "high end" magazine been proof of anything?
My "speculation" is based on one hand on pretty solid evidence (I am sure you have heard of The Bob Carver Challenge (where he incidentally proved the Stereophile wrong)), and experience from working with a bunch of musicians on their amps.
No, it isn't. See above.
And what makes you think the nCore has problems?
In my case, i used to hate bass coming from the AB amps i owned. The woolly warmth that was taking all the bass impact away (and tbh ruining lower part of the mid range as well), which i refer to as the "haze". Its something that in my opinion should not be there the first place. So, in my case taking something away actually made everything so much better.
I personally don't need that that woolly "umbh!" for a bass, when I can have a firm "puk!" too. Maybe that is not for everyone. On the other hand, i have heard similar changes just by changing the source with the nc400.
But, you have a point there. Maybe some people like the "haze" and trying DIY nc400 is a disappointment for them. However, for some people getting rid of the "haze" is equally an upgrade. I am just glad its not my problem anymore
.
Last edited:
Simple...
"And what makes you think the nCore has problems?"
The fact that there are many people who prefer the sound of other amps, and most of those people cite very similar explanations of sonic flaws they perceive with Ncore.
For myself, I really, really like the Ncore, I think mine is an excellent amplifer. But, I think my Pass X150.5 is better (not just different). Despite the low noise and excellent apparent detail retrieval of the Ncore, there seems to be something missing when it comes the body of individual images, and also the complex harmonics. I also perceive the same truncation of decays noted by other listeners. I have heard similar descriptions of why many others prefer different amps to Ncore. Yes, this is not scientific, but there is enough anecdotal evidence from different sources, which is fairly consistent, to suggest that there is some area where the Ncore is lacking.
I feel there is enough evidence to suggest that there is something different sounding about the Ncore in relation to some very good class A and A/B designs, and I also feel the evidence suggests that the difference is not one of more accuracy, but of something missing, or wrong. I would like for the more technical (and open) minded here to perhaps discuss what this (difference) could be, instead of debating that the Ncore is "perfect" and all other amps are euphonically colored if one perceives them to be better (or different).
So, for example: the Ncore output filter is going to interact with varying speaker loads at different frequencies-is this a possible explanation for problems in some systems? How about the ultrasonic noise on the Ncores' output, could this be causing distortion of some type in the audible band, or in the speaker drivers themselves in a way which would not show up in normal measurements?
"And what makes you think the nCore has problems?"
The fact that there are many people who prefer the sound of other amps, and most of those people cite very similar explanations of sonic flaws they perceive with Ncore.
For myself, I really, really like the Ncore, I think mine is an excellent amplifer. But, I think my Pass X150.5 is better (not just different). Despite the low noise and excellent apparent detail retrieval of the Ncore, there seems to be something missing when it comes the body of individual images, and also the complex harmonics. I also perceive the same truncation of decays noted by other listeners. I have heard similar descriptions of why many others prefer different amps to Ncore. Yes, this is not scientific, but there is enough anecdotal evidence from different sources, which is fairly consistent, to suggest that there is some area where the Ncore is lacking.
I feel there is enough evidence to suggest that there is something different sounding about the Ncore in relation to some very good class A and A/B designs, and I also feel the evidence suggests that the difference is not one of more accuracy, but of something missing, or wrong. I would like for the more technical (and open) minded here to perhaps discuss what this (difference) could be, instead of debating that the Ncore is "perfect" and all other amps are euphonically colored if one perceives them to be better (or different).
So, for example: the Ncore output filter is going to interact with varying speaker loads at different frequencies-is this a possible explanation for problems in some systems? How about the ultrasonic noise on the Ncores' output, could this be causing distortion of some type in the audible band, or in the speaker drivers themselves in a way which would not show up in normal measurements?
And what makes you think that is not just their personal preference?
There is also "fairly consistent" anecdotal evidence that the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot exist.
I appreciate your use of the more than appropriate word "feel".
Nobody is calling it perfect. Or even "perfect".
In view of the extremely low output impedance I would say this scenario is pretty unlikely.
Again quite unlikely - loudspeaker drivers tend to act as low pass filters.
There is enough people for anecdotal evidence for anything hifi, thanks to internet. I bet there is enough negative anecdotal evidence for the pass lab amp too, and some are saying some other amp is better than it. And then, someone gives negative feedback on that third amp, because he just build an nCore, which is just great
.There is no such thing as "one size fits for all" in hifi. Why do people chase such things, i don't understand. They don't exist. Who gives rats a**, what amp the next person is using. But, if i find something better than nCore for myself, of course i'd change to that in a split seconds (well, if doesn't cost too much). So far I haven't had the need to even look for a solution, since i don't see a problem.
I believe, i have a great source (M-DAC premium fusion) plugged to a good amp (nc400), that are driving my so far favorite speakers (SA explorer master). I feel that if a even change the XLR cables, i am missing something. Hell, even changing the power cable seemed to do something wrong. Basically, because i am so used to the sound it gives me the most pleasure, exactly as it is now. I am assuming that is for everyone else too who are pleased with their setups.
If i tried some overhyped (no pun intended) "superamp" right now, i probably would not be please, because this setup is right there where it should be and all deviation from it sounds just wrong.
Last edited:
I think I understand what people mean by a "lack of decay". I hear the same when I compare UcD400HG with HxR vs. Ncore. It's like the UcD modules have a trail of distortion that's sort of comes as decay in the music. The Ncore doesn't have this, it's cleaner in the tonality and thus sounds "drier" without this trail.
In some setups the result might end being too dry. I experience a little bit of that with some horn speakers I have that have a narrow dispersion in the highs and are tuned quite dark. With those speakers and with some music, the UcD sounds better in this spesific area. I still overall prefer Ncore, but they do also reveal the speakers as being lacking some. With another pair of speakers, I don't experience this. They have 144 tweeters and have plenty of energy and openness in the highs.
Anyway, I'm thinking there could be two reasons why people experience the Ncore as "lacking in decay".
1. Like Julf mentioned, it's simply a lack of distortion. That's sort of what I experience subjectively when I compare Ncore with UcD as mentioned.
2. The other reason would be related to something audible that we still don't know what is. Maybe it could be the use of much feedback that is after all audible? Or something else we don't understand fully.
I lean toward the first, but I can't outrule number two for sure. Who knows.
In some setups the result might end being too dry. I experience a little bit of that with some horn speakers I have that have a narrow dispersion in the highs and are tuned quite dark. With those speakers and with some music, the UcD sounds better in this spesific area. I still overall prefer Ncore, but they do also reveal the speakers as being lacking some. With another pair of speakers, I don't experience this. They have 144 tweeters and have plenty of energy and openness in the highs.
Anyway, I'm thinking there could be two reasons why people experience the Ncore as "lacking in decay".
1. Like Julf mentioned, it's simply a lack of distortion. That's sort of what I experience subjectively when I compare Ncore with UcD as mentioned.
2. The other reason would be related to something audible that we still don't know what is. Maybe it could be the use of much feedback that is after all audible? Or something else we don't understand fully.
I lean toward the first, but I can't outrule number two for sure. Who knows.
I agree - Who knows?
But before spending a lot of effort in chasing this possible audiophile Loch Ness Monster, I, for one, want to have slightly more verification that it actually exists.
Right now we have some fairly unsubstantiated observations that could indicate a flaw in our current engineering and scientific understanding of how amplifiers work, but could also be explained by simple, traditional psychoacoustics and perceptional science. The established scientific way forward is to gather more properly verified observational data.
Regarding "faster decay" (and since it makes me feel all warm inside to quote myself ):
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/229456-no-air-class-d-yes-no-2.html#post3616883
Such observations do not pertain to NCores exclusively.
It's one of the "flaws" typically attributed to the (objectively) better amp during subjective comparisons.
):http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/229456-no-air-class-d-yes-no-2.html#post3616883
Such observations do not pertain to NCores exclusively.
It's one of the "flaws" typically attributed to the (objectively) better amp during subjective comparisons.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.