What's different UCD180 and UM10155

[xxxxxxx]

I interest to build new amp.

How about UCD180 V.S. UM10155

http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/.../UM10155_1.pdf

Thanks.

[ntropy]

They are both designed by Bruno Putzeys. Bruno worked for Philips (now NXP) before he worked for Hypex where he designed the UcD180.
The UcD180 is, as far as I understand, based on this UM10155 application note but is an improved design with better switch driver and other improvements.
Bruno sometimes answers on diyaudio as well but since parts of the ucd180 modulator print is covered in black expoxy, I guess the exact changes remain a mistery

[xxxxxxx]

Thanks for your answer.

And how about sound of Ucd compair to Tripath.

[Anthony C Smith]

the main difference is a passive pole added to the feedback and some additional startup circuitry, search for Bruno's AES paper that gives more details

[classdphile]

Originally posted by Anthony C Smith
the main difference is a passive pole added to the feedback and some additional startup circuitry, search for Bruno's AES paper that gives more details

That's not what was asked, but would be the very least of the differences that we won't be discussing.

Of pertinence to the question is that one is a completed, refined, robust high performance module that only needs a PSU.

NXP offers only the most basic concept, without refinement is crippled, and a diy version of it will mirror the lack of ability or dedication of the user. It would be the more challenging of projects with the greater potential to learn and the least potential for performance.

Such a question answers for itself.

[xxxxxxx]

Thanks for all comment.


Now I'm use Pop-Pulse and Trend TA-10.1

It's give excellent sounds for my system. (my old amp is gainclone.)



But I want to make or buy new amp.

To give more sounds quality for my system.

UCD180 is an Answer?


Thanks.

[Anthony C Smith]

Originally posted by classdphile



That's not what was asked, but would be the very least of the differences that we won't be discussing.

What a very terse and rude way of replying;
as both items are available as complete modules just requiring a psu my reply was very relevant; the main difference is the passive pole; this also makes a very great difference to the stability and operation of the modulator.
Having tried it myself it explains the performance differences from those ucd amplifiers built to the patent (no passive pole) and Bruno's comercial implimentation (with passive pole)- I was merely pointing to the fact the AES paper contains this information for those people interested