Hi everyone. I'm planning to build a class D amp and would like to get your opinion about these 3. Anyone with experience or heard all of them; care to share with me your observation about the sound of each? The Tripath amps I previously owned all have some "rough/screechy" highs, do these 3 share the same high frequency signature with the T-amps? I'm also looking for an amp with coherent low end, it will be paired with MA10Ps in pensil cabinets.
I would appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Anton
I would appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Anton
Last edited:
have you looked at these?
Hi,
Have you looked at the amps at Class-dmodule.com?
here is a german forum who tested these against hypex B&O and abletec
Neue Class D Module aus China Testbericht, Elektronik - HIFI-FORUM
Michel
PS. I'm sorry if this is not allowed (class-dmodule.com is my company)
Hi,
Have you looked at the amps at Class-dmodule.com?
here is a german forum who tested these against hypex B&O and abletec
Neue Class D Module aus China Testbericht, Elektronik - HIFI-FORUM
Michel
PS. I'm sorry if this is not allowed (class-dmodule.com is my company)
Firstly, it doesn't really seem to be any sort of proper test, and secondly the hypex modules he talks about are not ncores but ucd180's.
At least you are up front and open about it...
...and BaoYeHeng provides some rather decent datasheets to go with the modules. Doesn't indicate pre or post-filter feedback but it looks to me like a better than average pre-filter feedback implementation. If so, nCore is literally a couple orders of magnitude more capable in controlling a driver.
Michel, it'd be up to a mod to decide whether post 2 meets the blatantly commercial criteria of the rules (see link at top of page).
Michel, it'd be up to a mod to decide whether post 2 meets the blatantly commercial criteria of the rules (see link at top of page).
LJM 15D modules
I'm an enthousiastic user of the class D LJM L15D Pro modules based on IRS2092 chipset. I compared these with Hypex UCD180 oem version and really prefer the L15D. This because of the more lively and natural presentation.
But an important underestimated aspect is the input impedance. The Hypex modules are provided with input buffers which increase the normal amplifier module impedance of 1,8 kOhm into 100 kOhm. The L15D have an input impedance of about 3,3 kOhm. A fair comparison would be without the buffer of the UCD180. But I do not own (borrowed them) these modules and will not resolder someone's else property
.
For a friend who owns expensive (4500 Euro) Phonar speakers (EDMA modified) we auditioned some amplifiers and he loved my own assembled stereo L15D modules with single Hypex SMPS module (costs €150 without enclosure etc). So I had to build another set for myself, which replaces my DIY single ended tube amplifier. I always loved my SE Tubes but these class D modules handles my speakers more well with more attack and control.
Would be interesting to compare these L15D with the modules of Michel listed on his class-dmodule.com site, because they offer the same IRS2092 chipset. At least this chipset is capable of high audio qualities and to be rcommended.
My experience with low impedance input amplifiers is that potmeters for volume control in front of the amp are unusable. This sounds bad. A driver with low output impedance is absolutely required. The best solution I experienced is a step-down transformer before the amp. Yes, a transformer volume control (TVC) is the best solution but very expensive (>€500). I solved this issue wit Sowter transformers with a selectable -10 dB attenuation (€175 for 2 pcs) and use my streaming device for the fine volume control. I love it
I'm an enthousiastic user of the class D LJM L15D Pro modules based on IRS2092 chipset. I compared these with Hypex UCD180 oem version and really prefer the L15D. This because of the more lively and natural presentation.
But an important underestimated aspect is the input impedance. The Hypex modules are provided with input buffers which increase the normal amplifier module impedance of 1,8 kOhm into 100 kOhm. The L15D have an input impedance of about 3,3 kOhm. A fair comparison would be without the buffer of the UCD180. But I do not own (borrowed them) these modules and will not resolder someone's else property
.For a friend who owns expensive (4500 Euro) Phonar speakers (EDMA modified) we auditioned some amplifiers and he loved my own assembled stereo L15D modules with single Hypex SMPS module (costs €150 without enclosure etc). So I had to build another set for myself, which replaces my DIY single ended tube amplifier. I always loved my SE Tubes but these class D modules handles my speakers more well with more attack and control.
Would be interesting to compare these L15D with the modules of Michel listed on his class-dmodule.com site, because they offer the same IRS2092 chipset. At least this chipset is capable of high audio qualities and to be rcommended.
My experience with low impedance input amplifiers is that potmeters for volume control in front of the amp are unusable. This sounds bad. A driver with low output impedance is absolutely required. The best solution I experienced is a step-down transformer before the amp. Yes, a transformer volume control (TVC) is the best solution but very expensive (>€500). I solved this issue wit Sowter transformers with a selectable -10 dB attenuation (€175 for 2 pcs) and use my streaming device for the fine volume control. I love it
Richard,
About the low input impendance, you are right this is with our modules also the case is is only 4,7Kohm, the germany guy solved this by adding some input caps on the module, and I am working with the factory to change some components in the imput stage to increase the impendance (future updates). at the moment the German forum in preparing a group purchasing projects for our modules because they were very happy about the sound especially when the module had warmed up a bit. I'm happy to provide one of you guys a sample mono module for 50% discount (MY1-151PA) if you would test it and write about it.
Not only to help my business (lets be honest) but mainly that I have been searching for a plug and play amp for more that a year and listened to lots of them but the good ones are hard to get and the one you can get have lots of problems and are badly designed (bus pumping) or are very expensive, Finally I found one manufactured that has the best price performance and a very nice sound in the whole spectrum, and are ruggedly designed for PA and High end use, and want to share this with all of you.
Michel
About the low input impendance, you are right this is with our modules also the case is is only 4,7Kohm, the germany guy solved this by adding some input caps on the module, and I am working with the factory to change some components in the imput stage to increase the impendance (future updates). at the moment the German forum in preparing a group purchasing projects for our modules because they were very happy about the sound especially when the module had warmed up a bit. I'm happy to provide one of you guys a sample mono module for 50% discount (MY1-151PA) if you would test it and write about it.
Not only to help my business (lets be honest) but mainly that I have been searching for a plug and play amp for more that a year and listened to lots of them but the good ones are hard to get and the one you can get have lots of problems and are badly designed (bus pumping) or are very expensive, Finally I found one manufactured that has the best price performance and a very nice sound in the whole spectrum, and are ruggedly designed for PA and High end use, and want to share this with all of you.
Michel
For some pics and prices just Google or searh the Ebay for LJM L15D Pro.
An interesting link to read about thes boards is: L15D und stärker Digital Audio Amp mit IRS2092 [Archiv] - DIY-HIFI-Forum
Hi Michel, Your boards are really interesting and based on a fine chipset. It's a great idea to combine them with an integrated power supply. Each module has its own supply and no wiring needed, what makes it more simple to built an amp. I hope DC protection for the speaker is integrated (supply voltage switched off when DC is measured at speaker terminal)?
Be informed that placing Caps at the input will not change the input impedance for AC signals (so music), only block DC signals. May be the input caps are not really needed because the music source (i.e. CD player) will have output capacitors which block the dc from the source.
I removed the input capacitors (small Elco's) from the L15D boards resulting in a better sound (elco's are not the finest componenets to pass)
May be we discuss some aspects beter by direct email (and in Dutch
How many people is "everyone"?
I have yet to come across a single piece of hifi equipment that *everyone* likes or prefers. Tastes are different.
the use of the word everyone means that every one who compared both ncore and anaview have mention they prefered anaview.
Last edited:
audiovisjion at gearslutz, who actually build and sells hypex ncore amp admitted that the anaview AMS amp from amphion was better (with the one18) then his hypex ncore amp. His room is stellar and I trust veru much his opinion.
``Though I build the hypex Ncore amps in Norway I have to admit the Anaview´s modules from Amphion is a better match. They somehow bring out a level of resolution and focus that is even more impressive. I would not hesitate to use any of the two though. I tested the Anaview against a couple of amps from Harman & Kardon today costing twice the price of the Amphion and witness the transparency ,liniarity, focus and phase response just falling apart. It was quite sad to see the face of the buyer when he heard the difference.``
reference post 2591: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/851143-high-end-nearfield-test-87.html
audiovisjion is very trustable. apart from him, I have seen a couple of guys at audiogon comparing directly ncore to anaview (even the oldest module, not the ams) and said they prefered anaview to ncore.
I think the only guy ive seen compared anaview to ncore and say he prefered ncore is omholt from here, but he comapred the old anaview module.
Last edited:
Hmm, looks like maybe another case of reducing amp performance to get round speaker limitations. The few specs on Anaview's amps aren't anything special and their one patent modulation suggests the modulation techniques mentioned in the marketing babble may only be used on the power supply (which I'm guessing may be forward as some of the features the patent mentions look like resonant emulation; if so it's kind of bizarre to do all that instead of implanting series LLC). And, usually if there's any real innovation behind the product, it manages to seep into the marketing rather than things like clipping indicators and temperature displays---it's kinda sad if the best you can come up with for a headline blub on your amp is that it has PFC, and worse when a 6dB variation in THD+N in frequency is touted as flat (well, at least it's flatter on the AMS modules). The relatively high distortion suggests limited loop gain and the THD+N curves suggest power stage performance starts to degrades over an order of magnitude below clipping. This could be poor modulator linearity but more commonly I've seen this with cost reduced output inductor selection in class D with pre-filter feedback.
The babble also babbles about parallel error correction. That might indicate class B dot D or B cross D where a class AB amp provides precision next to class D providing the power. However, the block diagram in the datasheet does not show this. So probably the babble is not meaningful.
Did you get a look at the innards? I'd be interesting to see how much they look like IRF's scalable reference design or some of IRF's lower cost through hole reference designs.
I also did a quick AES search and did not see any papers from Anaview which might offer implementation hints. In regards to the sound in = sound out requirement typical of professional audio, I don't see indication any of Anaview's modules have the loop gain or output impedance to compete effectively with nCore. I didn't do a hardcore dig on the references linked but there seems to be no mention of comparison with decently implemented IRS2092 pro audio amps like, oh, Peavey's IPR2s. Probably because Anaview only gets to 900W BTL, which isn't really competitive a market which normally requires a few kW.
So my best guess as to why an AMS or something would be subjectively preferable to nCore is the reduced control from the amp gets round speaker limitations. This is pretty normal---it's mostly what tube amps and current output amps are about---and two ways like the one shown in post 2591 are prone to cone breakup which tends to sound less harsh on less capable amps. It's a poor engineering choice but can be an acceptable compromise if one doesn't want to change speakers.
The babble also babbles about parallel error correction. That might indicate class B dot D or B cross D where a class AB amp provides precision next to class D providing the power. However, the block diagram in the datasheet does not show this. So probably the babble is not meaningful.
Did you get a look at the innards? I'd be interesting to see how much they look like IRF's scalable reference design or some of IRF's lower cost through hole reference designs.
I also did a quick AES search and did not see any papers from Anaview which might offer implementation hints. In regards to the sound in = sound out requirement typical of professional audio, I don't see indication any of Anaview's modules have the loop gain or output impedance to compete effectively with nCore. I didn't do a hardcore dig on the references linked but there seems to be no mention of comparison with decently implemented IRS2092 pro audio amps like, oh, Peavey's IPR2s. Probably because Anaview only gets to 900W BTL, which isn't really competitive a market which normally requires a few kW.
So my best guess as to why an AMS or something would be subjectively preferable to nCore is the reduced control from the amp gets round speaker limitations. This is pretty normal---it's mostly what tube amps and current output amps are about---and two ways like the one shown in post 2591 are prone to cone breakup which tends to sound less harsh on less capable amps. It's a poor engineering choice but can be an acceptable compromise if one doesn't want to change speakers.
have fun trying to convince yourself of whatever you need to convince yourself to feel better
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.