So at risk of labouring the obvious: On your UCD module, you have pins for signal positive, negative and signal ground. So we wire an incoming balanced signal with the twisted pair signal wires to the positive and neg lines on the UCD. Then we take the balanced cable shield connection straight to the chassis (not to the star connection ground point?). What is then connected to the UCD signal ground line?
wytco0 said:classd and Jan-peter, thanks for reminding me that these modules are not digital, silly me
Well, sure they ain't digital, but I think that doesn't negate the desire to have an "integrated" power amplifier. These cheap high quality modules open up some very interesting options for having some very high quality active speakers, and optional integrated volume control does solve a few problems.
In a nutshell it's quite hard finding a 12 way volume control... Even if I needed to put all the same type of amp in the system to make this work, it would still be an interesting compromise.
Is there an opportunity to work something in by altering the way the comparator works, or is the only option the TACT way, where the voltage is varied? (Which then presumably puts a lot of design issues into the powersupply)
UcD180 results
I just got my UcD180s wired up and put them on my audio Precision for testing. I am very pleased that they worked first try and the specs I have measured so far seem excellent. I am getting slightly better THD+N than the ICE Power modules I have been using the past couple years. 0.015% vs 0.018%. The S/N ratio with an unregulated power supply was 108db (A-weighted) and of course, the frequency response was as flat as anyone could want. I will publish graphs from the AP in the next few days. Extensive listening tests will be done this weekend.
However, at this stage of the game I can say that I am happy with the results and I recommend these modules to the DIY market. I also have a pair of the UcD400s but have only just now dug up power transformers to test them. I will post results for those as well, as soon as I have them.
In the mean time I am going ahead and designing a 1U rack amp using two UcD180s with a small 24/96 DSP included using the TAS3103.
I just got my UcD180s wired up and put them on my audio Precision for testing. I am very pleased that they worked first try and the specs I have measured so far seem excellent. I am getting slightly better THD+N than the ICE Power modules I have been using the past couple years. 0.015% vs 0.018%. The S/N ratio with an unregulated power supply was 108db (A-weighted) and of course, the frequency response was as flat as anyone could want. I will publish graphs from the AP in the next few days. Extensive listening tests will be done this weekend.
However, at this stage of the game I can say that I am happy with the results and I recommend these modules to the DIY market. I also have a pair of the UcD400s but have only just now dug up power transformers to test them. I will post results for those as well, as soon as I have them.
In the mean time I am going ahead and designing a 1U rack amp using two UcD180s with a small 24/96 DSP included using the TAS3103.
Ewildgoose,
Connect this three wires to a XLR, whereby pin#1 of the XLR must be connected to the chassie.
No, this not possible you can only control the volume by changing the powersupply voltage by an open loop Class-D. The UcD is not an open loop, but a self oscillating Class-D amplifier.
You can consider perhaps those digital volume control IC, some are not bad at all......
Dmfraser,
Thanks for spending some time to evaluate our products. I highly appreciate this
Jam,
We have a small serie of a preproduction samples of the Ucd400. We have send several to some of our potential customers.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
www.hypex.nl
Connect this three wires to a XLR, whereby pin#1 of the XLR must be connected to the chassie.
No, this not possible you can only control the volume by changing the powersupply voltage by an open loop Class-D. The UcD is not an open loop, but a self oscillating Class-D amplifier.
You can consider perhaps those digital volume control IC, some are not bad at all......
Dmfraser,
Thanks for spending some time to evaluate our products. I highly appreciate this
Jam,
We have a small serie of a preproduction samples of the Ucd400. We have send several to some of our potential customers.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
www.hypex.nl
There is no such opportunity. The UcD amps (and most other analogue class D amplifiers) have their voltage gain set by a pair of resistors in a very similar way to a standard linear amplifier. The only way to change the gain on a UcD amplifier, like a linear amplifier, is to modify this feedback network. Only with class D amplifiers it's more complicated because you have to make the loop gain track as well (although this would be a good idea with linear amps too - which explains the popularity of current-feedback topologies that do so automatically).ewildgoose said:
So really, really, forget that UcD switches. It walks like an analogue amplifier and it quacks like one.
Shield is at least connected to the UcD ground pin, hot to noninverting in, cold to inverting. It is further recommended to tie the shield to chassis as well by making a direct connection from pin 1 of the XLR chassis part to the earth lug that's also on it. Don't use the black neutrik chassis parts, because the black paint prevents the thing from electrically contacting the chassis.ewildgoose said:
Jan-Peter said:
I'm a potential customer, too
but I guess then some customers are more potential than others <g>
PS - that entire XLR balanced to unbalanced gear wiring thing should be put in a simple FAQ - I'm getting a headache just reading the discussion (probably because I didn't get one of those UCDs in the mail so I can visualize this better
Peter
UcD vs ICE
What is in common:
Both will work from an unregulated power supply.
Both are analog amplifiers. What this means is that while they are both switching amplifiers, the amplifiers are analog in that the pulse width of the PWM output is an analog of the audio and that the PWM signal is created by comparitors and other such devices. An amplifier is digital only if at some point the internal signal is in some pulse code format. That is not the case with either of these.
Both have comparible THD+N, frequency response and other specs with maybe a slight edge with the UcD product.
Both have feedback loops and thus have the advantages and disadvantages of feedback.
Both have a balanced input.
Differences
UcD uses a dual power supply. ICE uses a single polarity main power supply plus separate ±12V to ±15V supplies depending on model.
UcD is a half bridge unit with no standing DC on the output. Therefore it is bridgeable.
ICE is a full bridge unit. There is standing DC on each side of 1/2 the supply. They cannot be used in stand alone amplidiers because if this DC voltage and receive agency approval. As well, they cannot be bridged further.
UcD appears to be available to the DIY market. I do not know of any source of ICE modules for the DIY market.
The UcD people have sent me samples of the 180 and 400. The ICE people sample me on all their new units and bought me a nice dinner in New York City last October.
ICE have modules now with a built in switching power supply.
UcD has current limiting. The UCE ASP series have current limiting but the A series does not.
Overall, for ease of use, the UcD are easier to deploy as there are fewer connections to be made and fewer power supply voltages needed. The UcD are easier for a builder of linear amplifiers to relate to. The only difference is heatsink size. The ICE module needs more thought given on how it is to be deployed as it does need more supply voltages and the mounting is not quite as friendly.
However, I do have a lot of experience with the ICE modules, having deployed thousands of ICE modules and once they are properly deployed, they are an excellent sounding and very reliable amplifier. Just don't short the output on a A series unit or short either speaker line to ground. This restriction is OK on a powered loudspeaker but not on a stand alone amp.
To build a stand alone amp, in the conventional manner, the UcD are easier to deploy and likely to be somewhat more reliable because of the current limiting. More suitable for the DIY market.
What is in common:
Both will work from an unregulated power supply.
Both are analog amplifiers. What this means is that while they are both switching amplifiers, the amplifiers are analog in that the pulse width of the PWM output is an analog of the audio and that the PWM signal is created by comparitors and other such devices. An amplifier is digital only if at some point the internal signal is in some pulse code format. That is not the case with either of these.
Both have comparible THD+N, frequency response and other specs with maybe a slight edge with the UcD product.
Both have feedback loops and thus have the advantages and disadvantages of feedback.
Both have a balanced input.
Differences
UcD uses a dual power supply. ICE uses a single polarity main power supply plus separate ±12V to ±15V supplies depending on model.
UcD is a half bridge unit with no standing DC on the output. Therefore it is bridgeable.
ICE is a full bridge unit. There is standing DC on each side of 1/2 the supply. They cannot be used in stand alone amplidiers because if this DC voltage and receive agency approval. As well, they cannot be bridged further.
UcD appears to be available to the DIY market. I do not know of any source of ICE modules for the DIY market.
The UcD people have sent me samples of the 180 and 400. The ICE people sample me on all their new units and bought me a nice dinner in New York City last October.
ICE have modules now with a built in switching power supply.
UcD has current limiting. The UCE ASP series have current limiting but the A series does not.
Overall, for ease of use, the UcD are easier to deploy as there are fewer connections to be made and fewer power supply voltages needed. The UcD are easier for a builder of linear amplifiers to relate to. The only difference is heatsink size. The ICE module needs more thought given on how it is to be deployed as it does need more supply voltages and the mounting is not quite as friendly.
However, I do have a lot of experience with the ICE modules, having deployed thousands of ICE modules and once they are properly deployed, they are an excellent sounding and very reliable amplifier. Just don't short the output on a A series unit or short either speaker line to ground. This restriction is OK on a powered loudspeaker but not on a stand alone amp.
To build a stand alone amp, in the conventional manner, the UcD are easier to deploy and likely to be somewhat more reliable because of the current limiting. More suitable for the DIY market.
up and running...
again!
after "some" initial trouble (eg replacing the ne5532 opamps) it's working again. When replacing one opamp, something went wrong (no clue as to what) and i completely blew up one channel. The second channel works perfectly, btw.
Got another module from hypex and it's working again. when i was there they tested the ad8620 i used. on the scope it gave some very nasty noise (ab switching? maybe it got too hot during soldering). Anyone else tried a 8620 yet?
ps die lemsteraak wordt mooi!
again!
after "some" initial trouble (eg replacing the ne5532 opamps) it's working again. When replacing one opamp, something went wrong (no clue as to what) and i completely blew up one channel. The second channel works perfectly, btw.
Got another module from hypex and it's working again. when i was there they tested the ad8620 i used. on the scope it gave some very nasty noise (ab switching? maybe it got too hot during soldering). Anyone else tried a 8620 yet?
ps die lemsteraak wordt mooi!
Balanced Input
I connect the + input to pin 3 of the XLR, the - input to pin 2 and the input ground to pin 1.
Chassis ground is connected wherever gives the least noise. This may be XLR pin 1 as well, to the power supply common, to the Ground on the board or to the output ground. Which one works best depends on the quality of the rest of your wiring and physical layout.
If using an unbalanced input, isolate your jack from chassis ground. Connect the + in to the hot and both the - input and the input ground to the shell of the input connector. Connect chassis ground as above.
I highly recommended isolated input jacks as I find the shell of the input jack is seldom the optimum place to make your chassis ground connection. I know it seems silly to isolate the input jack when an ohmmeter will show zero ohms between it and the chassis anyway but isolating the input jacks and then finding the quietest place to make chassis ground is one of the ways to get the best possible signal to noise ratio. I always start my designs with the circuitry totally isolated from the case and determine the best place to ground experimentally in keeping with the needs for agency approval. I never actually run any signal through chassis ground.
I connect the + input to pin 3 of the XLR, the - input to pin 2 and the input ground to pin 1.
Chassis ground is connected wherever gives the least noise. This may be XLR pin 1 as well, to the power supply common, to the Ground on the board or to the output ground. Which one works best depends on the quality of the rest of your wiring and physical layout.
If using an unbalanced input, isolate your jack from chassis ground. Connect the + in to the hot and both the - input and the input ground to the shell of the input connector. Connect chassis ground as above.
I highly recommended isolated input jacks as I find the shell of the input jack is seldom the optimum place to make your chassis ground connection. I know it seems silly to isolate the input jack when an ohmmeter will show zero ohms between it and the chassis anyway but isolating the input jacks and then finding the quietest place to make chassis ground is one of the ways to get the best possible signal to noise ratio. I always start my designs with the circuitry totally isolated from the case and determine the best place to ground experimentally in keeping with the needs for agency approval. I never actually run any signal through chassis ground.
Although it will not reach it full potential in power terms would an UCD 180 module suffice in sound quality with a -35/+35 Volt feed.
I'm considering testing the modules and have a casing and psu available. As I don't need 100watts to establish whether the module sounds good I would like to know wheter there are sonic differences when using 35 volt supply(tranny is 25-0-25V)
I also have zap modules (not finalised yet) and they seem to perform best with oversized VA ratings. I noticed that some are using modest Va ratings for the psu. Would a single 300Va be sufficient for 2channel (8ohm load loudspeakers) or are there large sonic differences when the psu is oversized (600Va+)
If necessary I can go up to 540.000Uf on caps (8 pcs 68.000uF available, from an unfinished aleph project) although this looks kind of overdone.
( I know, lots of projects at the same time and only less than half really finished, but it is so much fun )
I'm considering testing the modules and have a casing and psu available. As I don't need 100watts to establish whether the module sounds good I would like to know wheter there are sonic differences when using 35 volt supply(tranny is 25-0-25V)
I also have zap modules (not finalised yet) and they seem to perform best with oversized VA ratings. I noticed that some are using modest Va ratings for the psu. Would a single 300Va be sufficient for 2channel (8ohm load loudspeakers) or are there large sonic differences when the psu is oversized (600Va+)
If necessary I can go up to 540.000Uf on caps (8 pcs 68.000uF available, from an unfinished aleph project) although this looks kind of overdone.
( I know, lots of projects at the same time and only less than half really finished, but it is so much fun
)
indoubt said:
i tried a toroid with 22V (~31vdc) secondaries and 30V (~42vdc) secondaries. With 30v secondaries it sounded much better.
when i used the lower voltage supply, the amp sounded lazy, not willing to produce music. Like (i've said this before somewhere in this thread) the musicians were playing just another set, they weren't enjoying themselves. Technically ok, but boring. With the higher voltage supply it sounded more 'involved'.
Re: up and running...
Hi Matjans
How about the sound with the 8620 ? Have you shorted the output caps ?
I've ordered 2 AD8620 but i'm very pleased with the 5532+ BG-N output caps presentation :
the UCD180 with this combination ( 500va r-core transformer , Elna Audio 12.000/63v caps ) outperforms my Accuphase307 (which had outperformed Krell kav300 , Chord spm1000 or excellent Denon Pma-s1 ...) on my system (DIY speakers : Esotar tweeter , Davis midrange Cabasse woofer )
Alain
matjans said:
Hi Matjans
How about the sound with the 8620 ? Have you shorted the output caps ?
I've ordered 2 AD8620 but i'm very pleased with the 5532+ BG-N output caps presentation :
the UCD180 with this combination ( 500va r-core transformer , Elna Audio 12.000/63v caps ) outperforms my Accuphase307 (which had outperformed Krell kav300 , Chord spm1000 or excellent Denon Pma-s1 ...) on my system (DIY speakers : Esotar tweeter , Davis midrange Cabasse woofer )
Alain
Alain,
great you like the sound of the UcD...
Please change also the voltage regulators when you go for an AD8620!!! Because the AD8620 has a maximum voltage rating of 13V, if you have the possability I would recommend the ON semiconductors voltage regulator and in a 12V version.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
www.hypex.nl
great you like the sound of the UcD...
Please change also the voltage regulators when you go for an AD8620!!! Because the AD8620 has a maximum voltage rating of 13V, if you have the possability I would recommend the ON semiconductors voltage regulator and in a 12V version.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
www.hypex.nl
Re: Balanced Input
thanks, Dan, that's what i needed to read. I'll be able to go from there. My RCA's on the Bottlehead Foreplay preamp are isolated from the chassis and I would do the same on the power amp. My wires aren't shielded, but they work just great in my current setup, so all I needed to know is how to wire up the modules to make them work as a replacement for my current amps. I can always mess with the cables and connections afterwards.
Here's a new question - important to my speakers which have rather large drivers (planars): What's the damping factor (http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mdampingfactor.html) of the UCD modules? I assume it is pretty good, but a ballpark value would help me compare them with my current amps (rated ">800").
Peter
dmfraser said:
thanks, Dan, that's what i needed to read. I'll be able to go from there. My RCA's on the Bottlehead Foreplay preamp are isolated from the chassis and I would do the same on the power amp. My wires aren't shielded, but they work just great in my current setup, so all I needed to know is how to wire up the modules to make them work as a replacement for my current amps. I can always mess with the cables and connections afterwards.
Here's a new question - important to my speakers which have rather large drivers (planars): What's the damping factor (http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mdampingfactor.html) of the UCD modules? I assume it is pretty good, but a ballpark value would help me compare them with my current amps (rated ">800").
Peter
Peter,
The UcD180 has an output impedance of <0.010. So you will have a dampingsfactor of 800.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
www.hypex.nl
The UcD180 has an output impedance of <0.010. So you will have a dampingsfactor of 800.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
www.hypex.nl
Hi everybody:
I'm a beginer to DIY. I dream about a "all DIY" system (well, perhaps not with a DIY source).
I recently finished a transformer based passive volume control (AKA TVC) wich is wonderful, at least to me.
I have a couple of questions. Sorry if there are already answered. I fatigued around page #14
1) Are balanced and unbalanced input impedances different?
2) Are there versions with higher input impedance to mate better with passive pre's? Or, how can I increase input impedance, without compromising sound?
3) Will balanced input sound better than unbal?
4) Is it wise to separate the PSU box from the power amp box?
5) Is it comparable if I use one 220VAc to 2x32VAC transformer with separate rectifiers/caps instead of two completely separated PSU's, in terms of noise and channel crosstalk, etc..?
Ups, sorry
Thanks in advance.
Mauricio
:angel
I'm a beginer to DIY. I dream about a "all DIY" system (well, perhaps not with a DIY source).
I recently finished a transformer based passive volume control (AKA TVC) wich is wonderful, at least to me.
I have a couple of questions. Sorry if there are already answered. I fatigued around page #14
1) Are balanced and unbalanced input impedances different?
2) Are there versions with higher input impedance to mate better with passive pre's? Or, how can I increase input impedance, without compromising sound?
3) Will balanced input sound better than unbal?
4) Is it wise to separate the PSU box from the power amp box?
5) Is it comparable if I use one 220VAc to 2x32VAC transformer with separate rectifiers/caps instead of two completely separated PSU's, in terms of noise and channel crosstalk, etc..?
Ups, sorry
Thanks in advance.
Mauricio
:angel
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.