ok, showoffs, you made me get my camera out. javascript:smilie('
')
Neat enclosure, there daz84. With these modules, about all the work is in finding a case and tooling it (or making it, as daz84 did). Using wood with sheet aluminum is a nice trick.
Here are shots of one of a pair of mono 180sg amps I made using SMPS180 supplies. The enclosure is an extruded case I found on eBay (for abut $11 ea +shipping). They managed to just barely not fit in about every orientation of the two modules I tried. I finally ended up mounting one to each half of the extruded clamshell, with their corners overlapping (but not touching) in the connector area. The end result looks really nice, though I wish the case were a bit larger in thickness, then I might be tempted to add another 180hg module to each and bridging. Not that I need more power, they play with plenty of headroom (and are remarkably smooth and quiet), but just 'because'.
I even ended up buying black button-head metric hex head screws to match the case (and heatsink threads), and bought a knockoff copy of a Roper Whitney hand punch to make clean looking holes for the vents (on bottom front and back top).
I made these to do some DiffMaker tests on (and also to listen to, of course). Tests not done yet, and listening has only gone on a few days so far. Really, really nice amps.
')Neat enclosure, there daz84. With these modules, about all the work is in finding a case and tooling it (or making it, as daz84 did). Using wood with sheet aluminum is a nice trick.
Here are shots of one of a pair of mono 180sg amps I made using SMPS180 supplies. The enclosure is an extruded case I found on eBay (for abut $11 ea +shipping). They managed to just barely not fit in about every orientation of the two modules I tried. I finally ended up mounting one to each half of the extruded clamshell, with their corners overlapping (but not touching) in the connector area. The end result looks really nice, though I wish the case were a bit larger in thickness, then I might be tempted to add another 180hg module to each and bridging. Not that I need more power, they play with plenty of headroom (and are remarkably smooth and quiet), but just 'because'.
I even ended up buying black button-head metric hex head screws to match the case (and heatsink threads), and bought a knockoff copy of a Roper Whitney hand punch to make clean looking holes for the vents (on bottom front and back top).
I made these to do some DiffMaker tests on (and also to listen to, of course). Tests not done yet, and listening has only gone on a few days so far. Really, really nice amps.
SMPS400
In addition to their SMPS180, Hypex is coming out with an SMPS400. For those who haven't seen it yet, here is a link to the Hypex datasheet of their new 400 W supply:
http://www.hypex.nl/docs/SMPS400_67_47_37.pdf
It will be available with outputs of either 67, 47 or 37 Volt. Availability is estimated in about 6 weeks. They are also working on a SMPS700.
In addition to their SMPS180, Hypex is coming out with an SMPS400. For those who haven't seen it yet, here is a link to the Hypex datasheet of their new 400 W supply:
http://www.hypex.nl/docs/SMPS400_67_47_37.pdf
It will be available with outputs of either 67, 47 or 37 Volt. Availability is estimated in about 6 weeks. They are also working on a SMPS700.
Jan-Peter,
Don't know if you're still around.... Can you give an estimate on price for the SMPS400 ?
Can't wait untill it's available.. I've waited for months and was almost tempted to start building a 2 x UcD180 amp with SMPS180.
Finally my 2 x UcD400/SMPS400 is going to be reality!
Can I pick up my soon-to-be-placed-order at your office?
(woon in Grunn!)
Cheers,
Jorn
Don't know if you're still around.... Can you give an estimate on price for the SMPS400 ?
Can't wait untill it's available.. I've waited for months and was almost tempted to start building a 2 x UcD180 amp with SMPS180.
Finally my 2 x UcD400/SMPS400 is going to be reality!
Can I pick up my soon-to-be-placed-order at your office?
(woon in Grunn!
) Cheers,
Jorn
Jan Peter, from what I've seen studing the draft datasheet, smps400 seems to be a completely different project from smps180.
Main differences I descovered:
Pros of 400 vs. 180:
- smaller
- more efficient (92%, found in your comunication to registered customers, not in datasheet)
Cons of 400 vs. 180:
- output directly proportional to main voltage, while 180 has output indipendency from main tension
- 400 doesn't have near unity power factor
Do you confirm these differences ?
What is the power factor that should be expected from smps400?
Considering that main tension in UE should be 230V +/- 10% and output 67Vout@230Vin, is the mentioned 72Vout a limit that already causes the shutdown of the module?
Best regards!
Riccardo
Main differences I descovered:
Pros of 400 vs. 180:
- smaller
- more efficient (92%, found in your comunication to registered customers, not in datasheet)
Cons of 400 vs. 180:
- output directly proportional to main voltage, while 180 has output indipendency from main tension
- 400 doesn't have near unity power factor
Do you confirm these differences ?
What is the power factor that should be expected from smps400?
Considering that main tension in UE should be 230V +/- 10% and output 67Vout@230Vin, is the mentioned 72Vout a limit that already causes the shutdown of the module?
Best regards!
Riccardo
Grifondoro said:
Hi Riccardo,
indeed this is correct.
This new SMPS 400 is actually a replacment of a traditional transformer and PSU. With the following advantages:
- much lower weight and size.
- all capacitors are on the primary side to reduce power supply pumping, we are using synchronical rectifying.
- Due to synchronical rectifying less ripple current has to pass through the transformer.
- short circuit protected.
Indeed this SMPS has no PFC, a traditional transformer and PSU has this either.
>output 67Vout@230Vin, is the mentioned 72Vout a limit that already causes the shutdown of the module?
Output voltage is proportional to the input voltage, 250V is max.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
Thank you very much Jan Peter for you clarifing, but I still don't understand one point.
Output voltage of smsp400-67 is 67Vout@230Vin.
+
UcD400 shuts down at 68V.
=
Max smps Vin when coupled with UcD400 should be 68/67*230= 233V, not 250V.
In order to manage correctly up to 250V peaks, (=230V+8,7%), you should
- reduce smps400 output @230Vin to 62V or
- increase shut down limit of UcD400 to something like 72-73V
It's not my job, so I know in advance that I can be completely wrong, but I preferred to ask you this on the forum anway, because I suppose that others could have the same dubts.
By the way, I don't see the same problem with smps400-47 coupled with UcD180: here output of 47V@230Vin and above limits (52Vout/250Vin) seem congruent each other and with UcD180 operating conditions/limits.
Best regards!
Riccardo
+
Output voltage of smsp400-67 is 67Vout@230Vin.
+
UcD400 shuts down at 68V.
=
Max smps Vin when coupled with UcD400 should be 68/67*230= 233V, not 250V.
In order to manage correctly up to 250V peaks, (=230V+8,7%), you should
- reduce smps400 output @230Vin to 62V or
- increase shut down limit of UcD400 to something like 72-73V
It's not my job, so I know in advance that I can be completely wrong, but I preferred to ask you this on the forum anway, because I suppose that others could have the same dubts.
By the way, I don't see the same problem with smps400-47 coupled with UcD180: here output of 47V@230Vin and above limits (52Vout/250Vin) seem congruent each other and with UcD180 operating conditions/limits.
Best regards!
Riccardo
Grifondoro said:Thank you very much Jan Peter for you clarifing, but I still don't understand one point.
+
Output voltage of smsp400-67 is 67Vout@230Vin.
+
UcD400 shuts down at 68V.
=
Max smps Vin when coupled with UcD400 should be 68/67*230= 233V, not 250V.
In order to manage correctly up to 250V peaks, (=230V+8,7%), you should
- reduce smps400 output @230Vin to 62V or
- increase shut down limit of UcD400 to something like 72-73V
It's not my job, so I know in advance that I can be completely wrong, but I preferred to ask you this on the forum anway, because I suppose that others could have the same dubts.
By the way, I don't see the same problem with smps400-47 coupled with UcD180: here output of 47V@230Vin and above limits (52Vout/250Vin) seem congruent each other and with UcD180 operating conditions/limits.
Best regards!
Riccardo
Thanks for your point.
We are runnig now a small pre-production run to see how everythings works in a small series. After we will update the specs and go for the production batch.
Of course the SMPS will be fully compatible with our UcDxxxST/HG/OEM serie!
Jan-Peter
Jan-Peter said:
Hi Jan-Peter
Why are you making a SMPS where the DC voltage depends on the AC voltage?
As I see it one of the main reasons for using a SMPS would be that the DC voltage would be the same at varying AC voltage.
So the quest would be to make a SMPS (for audio) with adjustable DC voltage, and I’m not thinking for use with solely class D amps.
Cheers
Stinius
stinius said:
The main reason to use a SMPS is to reduce weight, compared with our TR400 and PSU transformer we go from aprox. 4kg to aprox. 0.3kg.....
Thereby the UcD amplifier has a good PSRR, there is no need at all for a regulated PSU.
Please read this AES presentation;
http://www.hypex.nl/docs/allamps hypex layout.pdf
Regards,
Jan-Peter
Jan-Peter said:
The main reason to use a SMPS is to reduce weight, compared with our TR400 and PSU transformer we go from aprox. 4kg to aprox. 0.3kg.....
Thereby the UcD amplifier has a good PSRR, there is no need at all for a regulated PSU.
Please read this AES presentation;
http://www.hypex.nl/docs/allamps hypex layout.pdf
Regards,
Jan-Peter
Jan-Peter
I’m familiar with the AES presentation.
If you read my post you will see that I’m not talking about using the SMPS for UcD amps.
I’m thinking of a stabile PSU for SS amps.
Cheers
Stinius
Hi all the DIYers, Hi Jan-peter,
I have some questions about SMPS stand-by input and SMPS amplifier stand-by input.
Could you tell me if the gound ref. for these inputs is the ouput ground of the SMPS?
If the first answer is yes, and If I plan to use a µC board to control 2 SMPS, I will have to connect µC board ground to SMPS1 ground and µC board ground to SMPS2 ground too in my system.
Is this will not be a problem to connect all the ground together?
What about ground loop in this case?
Regards,
Franck
I have some questions about SMPS stand-by input and SMPS amplifier stand-by input.
Could you tell me if the gound ref. for these inputs is the ouput ground of the SMPS?
If the first answer is yes, and If I plan to use a µC board to control 2 SMPS, I will have to connect µC board ground to SMPS1 ground and µC board ground to SMPS2 ground too in my system.
Is this will not be a problem to connect all the ground together?
What about ground loop in this case?
Regards,
Franck
fram said:
Jan-Peter,
If applying DC to this input before power is no problem; I have another question.... I'm planning a stereo poweramp with an automatic power-on/off.
The plan: if there's an input signal, a relais switches on power to the smsps400. a while after the standby-voltage is made low to softstart the smps. If audio is gone, after 10 minutes the amp should be turned off. First, the standby-signal is put high, and after a while the relais disconnects the smsps400 from mains.
See attachment.
What Ton and Toff should I be thinking of?
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.