Is your amplifier's maximal current 7A? I quess not. You stated that "can produce up to... ...1000 Watts in 2 Ohms"
7A is absolutely not a big current, it is just a little more than the idle current (carrier signal) on choke, if we trust your specs!
"typical ring core coil" vs. your ferrit core:
The difference is only 6 dB, wich is not a big thing I think, and can be easily explained by a higher inductance (other manufacturer doesn't allow so high residual as you). Or was their inductance equal? BTW: What is "typical"?
I must admit, the huge idle current on choke, and low inductance effectively improves sound quality, but I'm sure it is not the only way, what is more, it is not compatible with some other improvement methodes (UcD, or other kind of post-filter feedback).
I dont know why do you say this, and what does it means. With what kind of feedback? With post-filter feedback it is definitely possible to lower THD, as you admited before. (Of course not completely remove!)
Thanks for the curves!
7A is absolutely not a big current, it is just a little more than the idle current (carrier signal) on choke, if we trust your specs!
"typical ring core coil" vs. your ferrit core:
The difference is only 6 dB, wich is not a big thing I think, and can be easily explained by a higher inductance (other manufacturer doesn't allow so high residual as you). Or was their inductance equal? BTW: What is "typical"?
I must admit, the huge idle current on choke, and low inductance effectively improves sound quality, but I'm sure it is not the only way, what is more, it is not compatible with some other improvement methodes (UcD, or other kind of post-filter feedback).
I dont know why do you say this, and what does it means. With what kind of feedback? With post-filter feedback it is definitely possible to lower THD, as you admited before. (Of course not completely remove!)
Thanks for the curves!
Hey guys,
An early "analogue input" design of mine, 120W 8Ohms 6.67KHz , the Non - Harmonics are due the generator / bench pickup.
Production designs are even better, but if you don't mind, I will keep these results unpublished until the products "hit the shelves".
(0dB 120W 8R)
John
An early "analogue input" design of mine, 120W 8Ohms 6.67KHz , the Non - Harmonics are due the generator / bench pickup.
Production designs are even better, but if you don't mind, I will keep these results unpublished until the products "hit the shelves".
(0dB 120W 8R)
John
Attachments
No, not that easy it's was a research what we did last year. At the moment we are too busy with the UcD700 project. At the end of this year we will start to work again on an UcD with active integrators. (...probably)
Not it's a part of the amplifier design, to increase the loop gain and so decrease the THD.
Originally posted by Pasi P;
Very interesting about this magic integrator also
Yes indeed.....when you run the test on the AP I double check everything if I didn't measure wrong........
But I didn't.....
Jan-Peter
Isn't this thread getting way off track? The guy wants us to tell him which Class D module that he should buy. (Not that we can really know for certain...........) As interesting as it is, maybe we need to start a
"Zap-pulse vs Hypex/UcD smackdown" thread, where the 2 of you guys can try to one-up the other. All you are succeeding in doing right now is confusing the hell out of him. Something that he probably does not need more of.
Jocko
"Zap-pulse vs Hypex/UcD smackdown" thread, where the 2 of you guys can try to one-up the other. All you are succeeding in doing right now is confusing the hell out of him. Something that he probably does not need more of.
Jocko
Ah....ok, the questions is always, what's the best?
- sonic performance.
- power.
- easy mounting.
- reliability.
- the most accepted.
- the lowest EMI.
So it's not easy answerd what's the best. I thought I could post a nice measurement as a start..........
Ampli: Ok, the be serious. Read the Class-D topics about different solution what are currently available.
Jan-Peter
- sonic performance.
- power.
- easy mounting.
- reliability.
- the most accepted.
- the lowest EMI.
So it's not easy answerd what's the best. I thought I could post a nice measurement as a start..........
Ampli: Ok, the be serious. Read the Class-D topics about different solution what are currently available.
Jan-Peter
Jocko Homo said:
Hi Jocko,
I partly agree with you. However, asking such a question (which one is the best) is asking for trouble as everyone has his or her favorite amp, so you will just get lots of answers but still don`t know which would suit you best.
Because of that, I refrained from making any comment. But OK, my piece of advice:
The UcD modules have an extremely low noise floor, much lower than the standard ZAP or the 2.2SE ZAP. There seems to be a low noise ZAP version, don`t know about the noise level of that one. The noise was too much for my application (active speakers) but maybe OK with a conventional passive system or if you already have sufficient hearing damage or ifn you buy the low noise ZAP.
With the ZAP 2.2SE, I also had problems to avoid whistling when two amps were used at the same time. Don`t know if that has been improved with the 2.3SE.
With the ZAP 2.2SE, I did not like the things that happened during power-off, it made weird whistles (I even got radio reception during shutdown while I have no tuner in my system) and it put a very low frequency signal on the output (woofer cone moving), so I did not want to use it with midrange drivers and tweeters. These issues maybe fixed with the ZAP 2.3SE.
The UcD modules have no problems with these whistles, indicating better EMI/RFI performance.
I have to say that the shutdown of the UcD400 modules that I have is less good than that of my UcD180, so when I use them to drive my tweeters directly, I want to shut them down with the standby option before the power rail voltage is removed. The hypex power supplies have a signal for this readily available.
Sound quality? Can`t really tell as I only briefly listened to the ZAPs on a passive system that has lower resolution than my current active setup. The UcDs sound great with very natural sound, really impressive. I have them (UcD180) slightly modded and of course removed the coupling caps and replaced them with BG HiQ NX, never listened to them with the original coupling caps. With the UcD400 modules I plan to remove the coupling caps and just use nothing as my preamp is DC free. The UcD400 bass is very good, fast, controlled and non-booming. But I never compared it with a ZAP.
Don`t know if this helps, someone else can write their positive experiences with ZAP and then you still don`t know who to trust or what to buy.
Best regards
Gertjan
Hello!
My configuration:
tweater: Visaton Mht-12
medium: SEAS M15CH
woofer: 2X SEAS W22EX
SUB: 2x Peerless XLS 12"
digital Crossover Behringer DCX 2496 had thought to use UCD 180 modules for medium and tweaters and UCD 400 modules for woofer and sub´s
All in active configuration.
A) That it seems to them my configuration?
B)would be correct to use a power supply ST for each pair of modulos UCD 180?
C)and to use a power supply ST for each mono module UCD 400?
D)Which toroidal it is necessary in each case, estereo and mono, for the UCD 180 and UCD 400?
Regards
My configuration:
tweater: Visaton Mht-12
medium: SEAS M15CH
woofer: 2X SEAS W22EX
SUB: 2x Peerless XLS 12"
digital Crossover Behringer DCX 2496 had thought to use UCD 180 modules for medium and tweaters and UCD 400 modules for woofer and sub´s
All in active configuration.
A) That it seems to them my configuration?
B)would be correct to use a power supply ST for each pair of modulos UCD 180?
C)and to use a power supply ST for each mono module UCD 400?
D)Which toroidal it is necessary in each case, estereo and mono, for the UCD 180 and UCD 400?
Regards
Welllllll I guess it'd be hard to translate the entire ucd180 thread so.... (you should try to if you can though).
Say a 200VA for a 180 perhaps would work fine but if you spent more money and pushed it up to around 500VA you get better load regulation from it, so it might be worth the extra money, and you may find it will run a little cooler. Additionally should you decide you need three more channels you'll be ahead of the game with a larger transformer.
You can run two channels of the UCD400 on as little as 500VA, but 800 would be nicer still.
Say a 200VA for a 180 perhaps would work fine but if you spent more money and pushed it up to around 500VA you get better load regulation from it, so it might be worth the extra money, and you may find it will run a little cooler. Additionally should you decide you need three more channels you'll be ahead of the game with a larger transformer.
You can run two channels of the UCD400 on as little as 500VA, but 800 would be nicer still.
Ampli;
My advise would be for every two modules one supply with one transformer.
tweater: Visaton Mht-12
medium: SEAS M15CH
UcD180-2x + ST supply + 160VA transformer
woofer: 2X SEAS W22EX
SUB: 2x Peerless XLS 12"
UcD400-2x + ST supply + 500VA transformer
This would be a nice setup.....4-way active.......
Regards,
Jan-Peter
My advise would be for every two modules one supply with one transformer.
tweater: Visaton Mht-12
medium: SEAS M15CH
UcD180-2x + ST supply + 160VA transformer
woofer: 2X SEAS W22EX
SUB: 2x Peerless XLS 12"
UcD400-2x + ST supply + 500VA transformer
This would be a nice setup.....4-way active.......
Regards,
Jan-Peter
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.