Duffy Moon said:
Hereby the updated datasheet: http://www.hypex.nl/docs/SMPS400_67_47_37.pdf
We are running a pre-production batch and everythings looks fine.
I plan to release the SMSP 400 in a couple of weeks now!
Sales will be roughly around € 100,00 ex. VAT.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
avr300 said:
No, the SMPS 180 is a completely different SMPS. The SMPS 180 is with a PFC, so the output voltage is stabalised with mains voltages between 100V and 250V.
The SMPS 400 (and upcomming SMPS 1200 and 3000!) is an unregulated SMPS. However with synchronical rectifying to avoid power supply pumping problems. Please the read the datasheet for all details.
Jan-Peter
Jan Peter, I still don't see how it can work with UcD400: UcD400 shuts down at 68V and SMSP400-67 has 67V output with 230V in, with output proportional to input voltage.
It means that SMSP400-67 reaches 68V (UcD400 limit) with an input of just 233,4 V.
Isn't much safer to regulate it for an output of 62V @230Vin, so that it should reach 67,4V @250Vin ?
Input voltage is not perfectly regulated at 230V, but guaranteed only between +/-10% by power companies (at least in Italy, but I don't think it makes a big difference elsewhere).
In places with a lot of industries, for example, 250+V are easily reached during weekends, when industries don't absorb their average power load.
Best regards
Riccardo
It means that SMSP400-67 reaches 68V (UcD400 limit) with an input of just 233,4 V.
Isn't much safer to regulate it for an output of 62V @230Vin, so that it should reach 67,4V @250Vin ?
Input voltage is not perfectly regulated at 230V, but guaranteed only between +/-10% by power companies (at least in Italy, but I don't think it makes a big difference elsewhere).
In places with a lot of industries, for example, 250+V are easily reached during weekends, when industries don't absorb their average power load.
Best regards
Riccardo
<SNIP>Grifondoro said:
If you read the latest document that Jan-Peter kindly linked, you'd see that there are 3 versions with the following output voltages: 67, 47 and 37. Presumably the 47V model is suitable for the UcD400.
A shame the price isn't actually € 100,00! Maybe a special, limited introductory offer for diyAudio subscribers Jan-Peter?
Well it was worth a try.
Jan Peter:
I am looking forward to the new SMPS400/67/47/37.
I plan to build a dual mono UcD 400.
I have downloaded the SMPS PDF spec sheet.
A piece of data that is missing is the current sourcing capabilities of the supply.
Would you be so kind as to post the current sourcing capabilities at each of the 3 voltages options?
Regards,
Doug
I am looking forward to the new SMPS400/67/47/37.
I plan to build a dual mono UcD 400.
I have downloaded the SMPS PDF spec sheet.
A piece of data that is missing is the current sourcing capabilities of the supply.
Would you be so kind as to post the current sourcing capabilities at each of the 3 voltages options?
Regards,
Doug
Doug Fraser said:
Hi Doug,
We do not like to disclose the current sourcing capabilities. The SMPS 400 is optimised to work with our UcD modules (or another half bridge Class-D amplifier).
The product combination is rated as follows;
230VAC: SMPS 400 + UcD400 --> 400W @ 20Hz in 4 ohm.
Best regards,
Jan-Peter
The truth is that class D amplifiers driving speaker loads with music may draw high power transients, but average power consumption is very low.
For example, my new amplifier plays +/-160V of strong bass music (full range) on 2.7 ohms (two cold voice coils in parallel, 15 inch woofers) and the power meter hardly goes over 400W, even with some clipping, yet the lights in the house dim due to the 6KW transients teasing the mains line
Power supplies for class D amplifiers are designed to cope with that power consumption pattern, but then power ratings are not easy to estabilish or to understand. Essentially there is a long term thermal limit, a short term current limit, and maybe another middle term thermal limit too.
Most of the people that buys these modules would have a very hard time understanding this, and particularly, comparing power supplies from different brands.
For example, my new amplifier plays +/-160V of strong bass music (full range) on 2.7 ohms (two cold voice coils in parallel, 15 inch woofers) and the power meter hardly goes over 400W, even with some clipping, yet the lights in the house dim due to the 6KW transients teasing the mains line
Power supplies for class D amplifiers are designed to cope with that power consumption pattern, but then power ratings are not easy to estabilish or to understand. Essentially there is a long term thermal limit, a short term current limit, and maybe another middle term thermal limit too.
Most of the people that buys these modules would have a very hard time understanding this, and particularly, comparing power supplies from different brands.
Jan-Peter
Thank you for the response.
The reason I ask is that my speakers dip down to about 2.3 ohms between 125Hz to about 250Hz.
One of the benefits of the UcD modules is their ability to provide a lot of current to low impedance speakers. This of course is dependent on the power supplies ability to provide the current to the UcD module.
So perhaps I can rephrase the question. Down to what load impedance will the UcD modules provide 400W when using the new SMPS?
Thanks
Doug
Thank you for the response.
The reason I ask is that my speakers dip down to about 2.3 ohms between 125Hz to about 250Hz.
One of the benefits of the UcD modules is their ability to provide a lot of current to low impedance speakers. This of course is dependent on the power supplies ability to provide the current to the UcD module.
So perhaps I can rephrase the question. Down to what load impedance will the UcD modules provide 400W when using the new SMPS?
Thanks
Doug
Doug Fraser said:
I don't see huge problems here. The maximum output power for the SMPS 400 is close to 600W for shorts moment @ 20Hz. We have tried two UcD400 in bridge to a 4 ohm load (bandpass subwoofer), indeed during hard clipping the SMPS 400 shuts down due to current protection for a second. But is hard clipping at 4 ohm in BTL, of course we do not recommend this....
Two UcD400 bridge for 8 ohm load works great!
Jan-Peter
Eva said:The truth is that class D amplifiers driving speaker loads with music may draw high power transients, but average power consumption is very low.
For example, my new amplifier plays +/-160V of strong bass music (full range) on 2.7 ohms (two cold voice coils in parallel, 15 inch woofers) and the power meter hardly goes over 400W, even with some clipping, yet the lights in the house dim due to the 6KW transients teasing the mains line
Power supplies for class D amplifiers are designed to cope with that power consumption pattern, but then power ratings are not easy to estabilish or to understand. Essentially there is a long term thermal limit, a short term current limit, and maybe another middle term thermal limit too.
Most of the people that buys these modules would have a very hard time understanding this, and particularly, comparing power supplies from different brands.
Interesting project, how are you going to rate your combination?
Did you see the new Powersoft http://www.powersoft-audio.com/product_list.php?id_menu=213&obj=128 ?
I wonder how they are rating their product, judging the very small SMPS transformer I really wonder how they test it....
Regards,
Jan-Peter
Jan-Peter said:
Sorry, I missed that part!
We have developed our SMPS 400 for our line of Class-D amplifiers. But if your SS amps are fine with a liniear transformer/PSU they will be fine too with our SMPS 400....., with the advantage of lower weight smaller size....
Jan-Peter
Hi Jan Peter;
After reading all the post I still do not fully understand the differences between the SMPS180 SMPS400 and the regular PS.
1. If Class D amps can accept ~10% mains voltage variation why is the SMPS180 stabilized?
2. If not why aren't the regular and the SMPS400 stabilized?
3. In terms of audio quality (Hum, Noise, dynamic response) is there a difference between the SMPS and the linear PS. If not is it your recommendation to always go with the SMPS?
Thanks
Wow... Talk about teasing...Eva said:...
For example, my new amplifier plays +/-160V of strong bass music (full range) on 2.7 ohms (two cold voice coils in parallel, 15 inch woofers) and the power meter hardly goes over 400W, even with some clipping, yet the lights in the house dim due to the 6KW transients teasing the mains line
...
Is there any chance to see a picture of this baby?
Thanks in advance.
xenu said:
Hi Xenu,
it's very simple, the SMPS 180 is with a PFC and the SMPS 400 is without. The SMPS 180 has all capacitors on the secondary side to avoid power supply pumping, and the SMPS 400 is having synchronical rectifying to avoid the pumping problem. By the SMPS 400 all energy is covnerted back to the primary capacitors.
It's two complete different products.
Answers to your questions;
1. The SMPS 180 is stabilized due to the PFC regulation. Disadvantage is lower efficiency (single stage flyback converter).
2. The SMPS 400 (and upcommning 1200W and 3000W SMPS!) is designed to have as high as possible efficiency, at this power level it is not possible to use a single flyback convertor.
3. Liniear power supplies does sounds still very good, we have found out that if you have the EMI extremely low the sound of the SMPS can also be very good. Meeting the official EMI standards is definitely not enough to beat a linear power supply....sound wise spoken...
Regards,
Jan-Peter
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.