personally? For the money i'm willing to spend, yes!
I never heard it head to head with other amps (except for my own, which aren't expensive, a '99 midrange japanese reciever...)
The things I like most are the effortless dynamics, the soundstage and most of all, higher frequency sounds are just that much better and calmer - any other amp was harsh on my ears before I heard this one.
Krells would better be an improvement on the UcD's if you look at the cost of these!
When totally finished, I'll take my amp to the high-end shop to audition new B&W's, where i'll put it up against some high priced gear, and see what it gives.
I'm not going to say that this amp is the "mother of all amps" but for the price I paid, I can't imagine anything better - except newer and better class-D designs.
Maybe it's very subjective, but it's... my kind of sound.
I think these amps, if modded with new caps and such (weakest link I guess), can give any amp a run for their money, except for extreme low-ohm speaker situations, then the amp limit comes in to play. really expensive amps can pump a lot more amperes.
Then again, UcD has 2 transistors to amp the signal, some of these big bad boys have 8 or more.
I never heard it head to head with other amps (except for my own, which aren't expensive, a '99 midrange japanese reciever...)
The things I like most are the effortless dynamics, the soundstage and most of all, higher frequency sounds are just that much better and calmer - any other amp was harsh on my ears before I heard this one.
Krells would better be an improvement on the UcD's if you look at the cost of these!
When totally finished, I'll take my amp to the high-end shop to audition new B&W's, where i'll put it up against some high priced gear, and see what it gives.
I'm not going to say that this amp is the "mother of all amps" but for the price I paid, I can't imagine anything better - except newer and better class-D designs.
Maybe it's very subjective, but it's... my kind of sound.
I think these amps, if modded with new caps and such (weakest link I guess), can give any amp a run for their money, except for extreme low-ohm speaker situations, then the amp limit comes in to play. really expensive amps can pump a lot more amperes.
Then again, UcD has 2 transistors to amp the signal, some of these big bad boys have 8 or more.
OK, sorry I misunderstood.
I haven't owned all that much in the way of seriously high end gear, but I think my UCD400's with decent caps and powersupply are probably weighing in with £2,000 to £4,000 gear.
That said, it's a qualified comment because I think in terms of stereo imaging and bass control the UCD is probably one of the best things I have *ever* heard, and certainly would compete with £10,000+ amplifiers that I have heard. It grabs speakers and takes hold of them in an Iron grip and produces incredible imaging and solid bottom end (true of nearly all Class D amps though)
The only area which I think it is not in the *unlimited* price bracket is the very top end treble. Howeve, that said I just built a new amp (pictures on the way), again with UCD400, and this time using normal aerovox caps (not the T things). I put 40,000uF per module (20,000 per rail) and each module has a seperate powersupply. This seems to pip my previous amps in quality terms and in particular the treble is even sweeter.
My test is whether you can turn the amp up to shocking levels and then whether it *sounds* loud, ie whether distortion is setting in. Really low distortion speakers and amps will let you ruin your hearing very easily because they don't *sound* as loud as a distorting boom box.
So actually with this high end powersupply (which probably cost as much as the modules), these amps really take a step up in quality.
In case a potential buyer is reading and assuming I am criticising - far from it. This is by far the best amp I have ever owned, and it competes with the best I have *ever heard* regardless of price. My comment is only that it doesn't perhaps compete with *unlimited* priced amps at the very top end of the treble and perhaps a tube or SET amp would be *slightly* better for the top end?
I took my older Zappulse and UCD400 amps to the local hifi meet where they were up against a serious Class A Pass Labs design and I think they more than held their own - according to the group! The new UCD amp will be going along to the next meet and hopefully be up against even stiffer competition.
I'm looking forward to seeing more commercial amps based on the UCD. I think it's a very high end amp, even more so when you consider the low price.
I haven't owned all that much in the way of seriously high end gear, but I think my UCD400's with decent caps and powersupply are probably weighing in with £2,000 to £4,000 gear.
That said, it's a qualified comment because I think in terms of stereo imaging and bass control the UCD is probably one of the best things I have *ever* heard, and certainly would compete with £10,000+ amplifiers that I have heard. It grabs speakers and takes hold of them in an Iron grip and produces incredible imaging and solid bottom end (true of nearly all Class D amps though)
The only area which I think it is not in the *unlimited* price bracket is the very top end treble. Howeve, that said I just built a new amp (pictures on the way), again with UCD400, and this time using normal aerovox caps (not the T things). I put 40,000uF per module (20,000 per rail) and each module has a seperate powersupply. This seems to pip my previous amps in quality terms and in particular the treble is even sweeter.
My test is whether you can turn the amp up to shocking levels and then whether it *sounds* loud, ie whether distortion is setting in. Really low distortion speakers and amps will let you ruin your hearing very easily because they don't *sound* as loud as a distorting boom box.
So actually with this high end powersupply (which probably cost as much as the modules), these amps really take a step up in quality.
In case a potential buyer is reading and assuming I am criticising - far from it. This is by far the best amp I have ever owned, and it competes with the best I have *ever heard* regardless of price. My comment is only that it doesn't perhaps compete with *unlimited* priced amps at the very top end of the treble and perhaps a tube or SET amp would be *slightly* better for the top end?
I took my older Zappulse and UCD400 amps to the local hifi meet where they were up against a serious Class A Pass Labs design and I think they more than held their own - according to the group! The new UCD amp will be going along to the next meet and hopefully be up against even stiffer competition.
I'm looking forward to seeing more commercial amps based on the UCD. I think it's a very high end amp, even more so when you consider the low price.
Well said, ewildgoose 
I also think that UCD's are forgiving with not-so-good sources but obviously sound excellent with better ones, wich will appeal to a larger audience
I think it has to be with some kind of HF noise rejection. At first you think that it has lower HF extension and later you realize that you only hear natural sounding highs
OK, some of you will say that it's only "geting used" to the sound but I think that the "relaxing factor" that is perceived with UCD's is maybe due to our brain's recognition of a "naturally reproduced" sound. Maybe I'll move to the "perception and reality forum"
Enjoy.
I also think that UCD's are forgiving with not-so-good sources but obviously sound excellent with better ones, wich will appeal to a larger audience
I think it has to be with some kind of HF noise rejection. At first you think that it has lower HF extension and later you realize that you only hear natural sounding highs
OK, some of you will say that it's only "geting used" to the sound but I think that the "relaxing factor" that is perceived with UCD's is maybe due to our brain's recognition of a "naturally reproduced" sound. Maybe I'll move to the "perception and reality forum"
Enjoy.
Yes, that's the first thing I noticed as well.
Firstly... "Hey, high sounds different... like less?"
A bit further on the listening test: "Hey, highs are so clear now!"
The secret sauce of the UcD is the harmonic distortion that is the same across all the bandwidth of the amp. That's what sets it apart from typicall class AB sound - which you don't "know" until you heard UcD.
Getting used to? Listen a few 100 hours on your amp and then go back to your former amp (I did, as I tested the UcD's on my receivers' PS and then moved it to another case) - it was really shocking, the highs were blown, staging gone, and the dynamics flat. It's worse going back than going forward.
Hi,
Really a 100 hours? I'd think it wouldn't take more than a few dozen to disgust you with the tinny and fake sound most other amps have.
I understand the UcD is not unique in it's harmonic ability/frequency response, but they are rare and the others who do manage it haven't done it cheaply.
Regards,
Chris
Really a 100 hours? I'd think it wouldn't take more than a few dozen to disgust you with the tinny and fake sound most other amps have.
I understand the UcD is not unique in it's harmonic ability/frequency response, but they are rare and the others who do manage it haven't done it cheaply.
Regards,
Chris
maxlorenz said:Well said, ewildgoose
I think it has to be with some kind of HF noise rejection. At first you think that it has lower HF extension and later you realize that you only hear natural sounding highs
Yves Smolders said:
I suspect reduced RF susceptibility might have something to do with it.
Wendy Carlos has a studio in New York City, where RF noise levels are quite high, and in desperation installed a Faraday cage around the control room. Lo and behold, the noise floor on every piece of gear decreased, in some cases dramatically.
What does this have to do with amplifiers? In downtown Montreal, another RF rich zone, I found shielded speaker cables seemed to provide a blacker background for music. It's as you mentioned - there appeared to be a bit less highs, but listening further showed what was missing was a sense of "fuzz" between the notes.
Why would class-D amplifiers be less prone to this than standard amplifiers? There has been some speculation that RF noise on the speaker lines could get injected into the feedback path and get rectified at the junction of the differential pair. Why not UcDs? Take a look at the output stage: the very last component is a largish capacitor, which would tend to soak up stray RF coming in off the speaker leads before it comes close to the feedback path.
I suspect, just on a hunch, that class-Ds might also be relatively insensitive to speaker cable variations, but that's a topic for another day.
Cheers,
Francois.
Yeah, back at ya. This applies to all audio gear, when you're in doubt about the difference just switch back to crap and you'll see.Yves Smolders said:
Btw, I have listened to the UCD's (although NE not AD version) with some tweaks (I suspect upgraded caps) and the feeling about the high was the same. Btw, speakers were Infinity RSII (reference series from the eighties, open baffle tweeter and mid, ribbon tweeter, closed - I think - bass section, 2 x 8 inches poly drivers, some say that among the first PP in the world). Anyway, that thing still sells for around $2000, original price I think was around $10k, maybe more? Ah, and source was M-Audio soundcard. At any rate, Dire Straits made my skin crawl on this setup.
ojg said:
And now the review is up on their webpages:
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/805cia/index.html
Interestingly Mr. Atkinson took some new measurements after CI Audio fixed a "bug" in the original amp that limited the current output. The original sample only achieved 55W into 4ohm!. Even more interesting that the distortion at 1W/8ohm also improved by 20dB in the new version.
Sooo.... Maybe Jan Peter or Bruno have some comment on this? If I buy a UcD from Hypex today, which version do I get? And what versions have already been sold?
I'm not insinuating anything, but thought I should ask the question, since I'm sure somebody here would have done so sooner or later.
This is a general problem with selling to OEMs, that if the OEM manage to screw something up it reflects poorly back on the supplier whether it's their fault or not.
Another problem ofcourse is that Jan Peter or Bruno probably can't come right out and tell the truth about CI Audio, since they are a major customer.
Whoever made the mistake, at least we know that CI Audio's quality assurance procedures aren't quite good enough.
This is a general problem with selling to OEMs, that if the OEM manage to screw something up it reflects poorly back on the supplier whether it's their fault or not.
Another problem ofcourse is that Jan Peter or Bruno probably can't come right out and tell the truth about CI Audio, since they are a major customer.
Whoever made the mistake, at least we know that CI Audio's quality assurance procedures aren't quite good enough.
Stevenacnj ic right--they use the UcD400 in both amps now.
This was simply a screw-up by CIAudio re setting the current limiting on that particular amp.
Here is a link to a post from a couple days ago on Audiocircle, where he explains what happened.
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?p=186679#186679
Mark
This was simply a screw-up by CIAudio re setting the current limiting on that particular amp.
Here is a link to a post from a couple days ago on Audiocircle, where he explains what happened.
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?p=186679#186679
Mark
Hi Ojg,
Ah I see your true motive now, well done.
I strongly question them myself.
As to my thoughts of the "explanation" of what happened....
1. Did the guy not invent 20% of it it? (more on this later)
2. Did he not improve the stock product and have over a year to do it (he must know exactly what makes it tick then right?
3. The claim was made that his modules in particular can handle what, 200 to 400W while those of Hypex only ~55W..
5. During his no doubt thorough testing of his 20% of the design you'd think the 1/8 power problem may have cropt up at some point huh? I'm sure as a designer though he didn't try to implement something he was unsure of. You did change the gain of it... didn't you?
I find in his marketing he comes too close to claiming credit for inventing the technology himself, am I alone in that?
They've also made it sound like it's a problem that only got fixed by CIAudio since he said "They are the same but not, and you could just buy them from Hypex instead of from me, but if you still have to put it together yourself (sigh) and the standard Hypex units are only good for 55W" Now you can't say such things and not expect someone to jump on you over it. Here it is, and I invite those claims to be backed up right here.
In my view CIAudio's marketing tactics are deplorable. Dont' try laying claim to invention, own up to your own mistakes and do it without dragging someones name through the mud, when you're fully dependant upon them to produce your product in the first place. You may also find thorough testing would avoid such embarrasments. I feel what you did is like bill gates pointing a finger at Apple when win98 blue screened at time of press release.
I can't help but think that since 20% of the modules is their own "kept from Hypex" proprietary stuff, I guess it makes it impossible for Hypex to support these modules or any modification done to them, other than obviously being expected to take whatever blame comes along in stride.
I'll also take this oppertunity to point out why you should ignore those reviewers. The amp had a serious and I think what would have been an obvious flaw, yet still got a rave review..... enough said? I think so. "What's that son? Check my oil? Oooh no... no, you don't think I actually pay for these do you? Dime a dozen, really"
Reviews have their uses but aside from comic relief I wouldn't know what else?
Olg I'm sure you're right and Hypex is in the position to take that from them, but I've noticed that their first defence seems to be to put down Hypex and their products, possibly hurting the rest of their sales, as plainly demonstrated from posts like the above. I don't think buying the product from them should give them that kind of right, and write this in hopes they take it as a hint to clean up their act and become semi-respectable. The builder I mean... the reviewers I lost all hope for long ago.
Regards,
Chris
Oh and I sure as hell wouldn't say that changing a handfull of passives with those of your own liking is equivalent to a 20% original design work.
You must think we drool.
Ah I see your true motive now, well done.
I strongly question them myself.
As to my thoughts of the "explanation" of what happened....
1. Did the guy not invent 20% of it it? (more on this later)
2. Did he not improve the stock product and have over a year to do it (he must know exactly what makes it tick then right?
3. The claim was made that his modules in particular can handle what, 200 to 400W while those of Hypex only ~55W..
5. During his no doubt thorough testing of his 20% of the design you'd think the 1/8 power problem may have cropt up at some point huh? I'm sure as a designer though he didn't try to implement something he was unsure of. You did change the gain of it... didn't you?
I find in his marketing he comes too close to claiming credit for inventing the technology himself, am I alone in that?
They've also made it sound like it's a problem that only got fixed by CIAudio since he said "They are the same but not, and you could just buy them from Hypex instead of from me, but if you still have to put it together yourself (sigh) and the standard Hypex units are only good for 55W" Now you can't say such things and not expect someone to jump on you over it. Here it is, and I invite those claims to be backed up right here.
In my view CIAudio's marketing tactics are deplorable. Dont' try laying claim to invention, own up to your own mistakes and do it without dragging someones name through the mud, when you're fully dependant upon them to produce your product in the first place. You may also find thorough testing would avoid such embarrasments. I feel what you did is like bill gates pointing a finger at Apple when win98 blue screened at time of press release.
I can't help but think that since 20% of the modules is their own "kept from Hypex" proprietary stuff, I guess it makes it impossible for Hypex to support these modules or any modification done to them, other than obviously being expected to take whatever blame comes along in stride.
I'll also take this oppertunity to point out why you should ignore those reviewers. The amp had a serious and I think what would have been an obvious flaw, yet still got a rave review..... enough said? I think so. "What's that son? Check my oil? Oooh no... no, you don't think I actually pay for these do you? Dime a dozen, really"
Reviews have their uses but aside from comic relief I wouldn't know what else?
Olg I'm sure you're right and Hypex is in the position to take that from them, but I've noticed that their first defence seems to be to put down Hypex and their products, possibly hurting the rest of their sales, as plainly demonstrated from posts like the above. I don't think buying the product from them should give them that kind of right, and write this in hopes they take it as a hint to clean up their act and become semi-respectable. The builder I mean... the reviewers I lost all hope for long ago.
Regards,
Chris
Oh and I sure as hell wouldn't say that changing a handfull of passives with those of your own liking is equivalent to a 20% original design work.
You must think we drool.We have a lot of customers, DIY and OEM'rs.
In the thread Hotrodding the UCD modules there are a lot of idees how to give an own signature on the UcD modules.
So a part of a product is standard and a part are idees from the customer (DIY or OEM).
If somebody claims he has done something special big chance the claim is valid, and no marketing bull-sh-i-it
Jan-Peter
In the thread Hotrodding the UCD modules there are a lot of idees how to give an own signature on the UcD modules.
So a part of a product is standard and a part are idees from the customer (DIY or OEM).
If somebody claims he has done something special big chance the claim is valid, and no marketing bull-sh-i-it
Jan-Peter
First of all, congrats to CIAudio, and of course also to Hypex, Bruno & Jan-Peter, this is a fantastic review.
Bad side: We'll never know for sure why the initial CIaudio's didn't perform as they should. Just looking at the photo already shows a simple design flaw... how the UcD is mounted is just bad from a cooling point of view... but no more of that, I've never actually seen the product and so won't bad mouth it!
Hypex gets mentioned in the review so that's going to make OEM business for hypex for sure. I do hope Jan-Peter will keep support DIYers in the future, with good products at excellent prices...
I like the fact that CIAudio *doesn't* hide the fact that they are using custom modified modules that are "80% the same" than UcD180 - they could have been quiet about it as well, and avoid competition, but they play it fair - nice.
To be credible, the reviewers *had* to say something bad (as they always do), and had to find something that was marginally better than the CIaudio. They found it at a price tag of $3750.
So there it is: a well designed (and probably well modded) DIY UCD amp is worth a lot more than you all paid for!
But of course, everyone here already knew that!
Bad side: We'll never know for sure why the initial CIaudio's didn't perform as they should. Just looking at the photo already shows a simple design flaw... how the UcD is mounted is just bad from a cooling point of view... but no more of that, I've never actually seen the product and so won't bad mouth it!
Hypex gets mentioned in the review so that's going to make OEM business for hypex for sure. I do hope Jan-Peter will keep support DIYers in the future, with good products at excellent prices...
I like the fact that CIAudio *doesn't* hide the fact that they are using custom modified modules that are "80% the same" than UcD180 - they could have been quiet about it as well, and avoid competition, but they play it fair - nice.
To be credible, the reviewers *had* to say something bad (as they always do), and had to find something that was marginally better than the CIaudio. They found it at a price tag of $3750.
So there it is: a well designed (and probably well modded) DIY UCD amp is worth a lot more than you all paid for!
But of course, everyone here already knew that!
Yves,
I don't think there is any mystery about why the first review sample was performing poorly--
Check out my link to Audiocircle above.
CIAudio has repeatedly stated that he sent it out with the current limiting wrongly set--it was not a Hypex issue.
And I'm sure he feels as miserable about it as anyone....
It would be nice if some of the other folks--not you Yves!-- who enjoy trashing people from behind a keyboard had the bravery to pick up a phone and talk to them first....
Mark
I don't think there is any mystery about why the first review sample was performing poorly--
Check out my link to Audiocircle above.
CIAudio has repeatedly stated that he sent it out with the current limiting wrongly set--it was not a Hypex issue.
And I'm sure he feels as miserable about it as anyone....
It would be nice if some of the other folks--not you Yves!-- who enjoy trashing people from behind a keyboard had the bravery to pick up a phone and talk to them first....
Mark
And furthermore.....
Knocking the subjective reviewers is enormously popular
(see AA Critics Circle....) but about as worthy as shooting birds off a fence.
Maybe we who have admiration for the UcD capabilities should instead look on the positive side? Wes Phillips is generally considered a 'smart' reviewer.
A UcD180, which was under-performing, was competative with a $3750 amp!
Nice going....and thanks JP and BP (and get back to work!)
Mark
Knocking the subjective reviewers is enormously popular
(see AA Critics Circle....) but about as worthy as shooting birds off a fence.
Maybe we who have admiration for the UcD capabilities should instead look on the positive side? Wes Phillips is generally considered a 'smart' reviewer.
A UcD180, which was under-performing, was competative with a $3750 amp!
Nice going....and thanks JP and BP (and get back to work!)
Mark
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.