So the braided shield goes into the IEC connectors ground slot and another cable is inserted into the IEC connectors ground slot too then the other end is attached to the chassis, correct?
So, the single metal post on the bottom of the smps600 is touching the chassis...and will be grounded with doing what was written above, ie, IEC Safety Ground should be connected to the chassis.
Thanks.
So the braided shield goes into the IEC connectors ground slot and another cable is inserted into the IEC connectors ground slot too then the other end is attached to the chassis, correct?
So, the single metal post on the bottom of the smps600 is connecting to the chassis...and therefore will be grounded with doing what was written above, ie, IEC Safety Ground should be connected to the chassis..
But won't be grounded if the above is not done, right?
Thanks.
So, the single metal post on the bottom of the smps600 is connecting to the chassis...and therefore will be grounded with doing what was written above, ie, IEC Safety Ground should be connected to the chassis..
But won't be grounded if the above is not done, right?
Thanks.
If the chassis is not connected to earth, ie the IEC is not grounded to the chassis with the braided shield, then the smps600 having 1 metal post/foot connected to the chassis will make the chassis act as an antenna? Radiating EMI because there is not a drain/earth ground where the EMI can go. Correct?
btw, this is curious to me, just trying to learn about grounding.
No. Incorrect. There is a common signal ground reference between the boards inside the chassis. That common ground can be connected to mains earth for safety reasons, but it doesn't need to be for radiation/EMI/hum/etc. reasons.
The nc400 input circuit is a differential input, so it doesn't care about ground (OK, to be very precise, it doesn't care about ground very much - the common mode rejection ratio is 55 dB).
A metal box will attenuate radiation (or not) independent from whether it is connected to the mains safety ground or not. At radio frequencies, that safety ground/earth connection is not a very good conductor anyway.
The only reason you might want to connect the chassis to mains earth/ground is safety in case something goes wrong inside your chassis, and mains gets shorted to the chassis (or somebody pokes a long metal pin into the chassis).
I'm beginning to think that my one amp that keeps cutting in and out may be nampon related. Is there anyway that i can use my voltmeter to check and see if I have something more then 0V on my nampon? If so where exactly would I connect the leads of my meter. I lifted nampon so it wasn't connected to anything and put one lead on the nampon and one lead on the signal ground/chassis and my meter showed nothing with it set to AC, but when I put it to DC I have 3VDC from nampon to chassis?
The XLR Pin 1 is the balanced interconnect cable's shield contact point. By connecting it to the chassis at the jack, it makes a better shield system. It keeps the interference on the outside of the chassis and the cable's shield. The important point is that Pin 1 is not part of the audio circuit. In fact Pin 1 of the cable is sometimes not connected at the receive end.
The "common signal ground reference point" is more difficult to describe.
But let's start with a chassis that has 1 power supply and 4 audio circuit boards. You make one solid connection to the chassis near the I/O jacks and call it the 'Star Point'. The power supply 'common' has it's only wire connected to the 'Star Point'. Each audio circuit board 'common' has it's only wire connected to the 'Star Point'.
Note: The IEC Safety Ground is not part of the audio circuit, so it DOES NOT connect to the 'Star Point', it connects to the chassis at the IEC connector.
The "common signal ground reference point" is more difficult to describe.
But let's start with a chassis that has 1 power supply and 4 audio circuit boards. You make one solid connection to the chassis near the I/O jacks and call it the 'Star Point'. The power supply 'common' has it's only wire connected to the 'Star Point'. Each audio circuit board 'common' has it's only wire connected to the 'Star Point'.
Note: The IEC Safety Ground is not part of the audio circuit, so it DOES NOT connect to the 'Star Point', it connects to the chassis at the IEC connector.
Last edited:
Indeed, that's the key point. Mains earth is for safety, and has nothing to do with signals. You can debate if a "star" system is the best, but that is a signal ground issue, independent of mains earth.
Measure DC between pins 3 and 4 on J9 (the audio in connector). There should not be any voltage there.
Damn, i did realise that the company i bought my chassis sent me the wrong type. I did order a Galaxy GX283 with 10mm aluminium front and it also should have alu top and bottom. The company sent me with 3mm front but that did i see directly and contacted them so a 10mm front is on the way. But now when i finally started to assemble the amps did i realise that they also sent me 2mm iron top and bottom not alu.
Is this ok with these nc400 and smps600 modules? Do the steel bottom/top make problem with any magnetic issues or? Normally most chassis for hifi is alu so i doesnt know if this will work fine and haven´t started to assemble them yet...
Is this ok with these nc400 and smps600 modules? Do the steel bottom/top make problem with any magnetic issues or? Normally most chassis for hifi is alu so i doesnt know if this will work fine and haven´t started to assemble them yet...
Should sound still fine. However alu is considered better in certain ways as you mention, and if you ordered and payed for something -that is what you should receive.
BTW, most hifi is stuffed in cheap magnetic steel place chassis. Its only the more expensive audiophile gear that typically (but not always) is built in alu boxes
well maybe some of you already read this in the class D thread. out of mere accident, I received an almost vintage, entry-level priced class A/B amp for testing. I decided to buy it after 10 minutes. what I always suspected to be wrong in my system turned to be true: it WAS the UCDs. the difference was jaw dropping, before I almost stopped listening to music because the UCDs made everything sound synthesizer-like. with the new amp I feel bad that I have to eventually go to sleep. this is absolutely beyond the accurate vs euphonic debate because for the life of me I can't accept that ALL music is supposed to sound almost unlistenable. no, before anyone utters the question, absolutely no DBT was involved. when I switched it on I expected nothing more than the lifeless, boring sound, typical of consumer-level audio equipment and instead I was slammed against the wall by the extraordinary sound.
so, IMO, yes, UCD = hype. it's consumer-level sound, nothing more.
does this say something about NCORE? no, absolutely not. as a matter of fact I'm even more curious if the NCORE solved those problems. meanwhile, my system turned from lifeless to great at a ridiculous price.
try not to read into this more than you should, and that is that a very hyped Hypex product, for me turned to be exactly what some accused it of being: mid-fi.
yes, I've been know to switch views before. it's called growing this is a man being as frank as it gets.
so, IMO, yes, UCD = hype. it's consumer-level sound, nothing more.
does this say something about NCORE? no, absolutely not. as a matter of fact I'm even more curious if the NCORE solved those problems. meanwhile, my system turned from lifeless to great at a ridiculous price.
try not to read into this more than you should, and that is that a very hyped Hypex product, for me turned to be exactly what some accused it of being: mid-fi.
yes, I've been know to switch views before. it's called growing
this is a man being as frank as it gets.Wouldn't that have been the logical second step (after comparing to a known good UCD amp, to check there wasn't something wrong with your UCD amp)?
in Lt. Data voice: "yes, that is a definite possibility. however, the probability is very small"
and here's why. first, the UCD was on par with all the entry-mid priced amps I've tried. slightly better in some aspects. in fact it beat hands-down the also much hyped (I capitalized the word by accident, LOL) First Watt F4. indeed, there is a small probability that the F4 itself was defective but it's unlikely. what I believe happened was F4's complete inability to drive my speakers.
next. in a prior conversation with a rather Hypex-skeptical person, that person told me "the UCDs are just mid-fi amps, nothing more". that is exactly what I'm hearing.
third. I have done my measurements. actually, rather extensive ones. the distortion spectra, THD vs freq, THD vs power and all that correlated with the public measurements (for instance, the ones for the Channel Islands amps, made by Stereophile) extremely well, actually mine seemed a bit better.
and, mind you, with lesser speakers the differences between my UCD-based amp and other amps were vanishingly small, a definite difference in the bass department but nothing more.
nevertheless, I'd me more than happy to listen to a pair of commercial UCD-based amps to recalibrate my opinion. I still believe class D is the way to go. but for now, I feel that I'm actually closer to the truth than I was before. in a way I'd almost say that I feel free, at last
Last edited:
Agree, that is pretty good verification that they are working as they should.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.