I hope nobody takes this the wrong way because I am genuinely curious.
I first heard a T-amp in the Griffin Power-Mate - a 10 w/ch amp. I was amazed. It was so different than what I was used to - wide - crisp - and precise. I loved it. Even at 10 watts. Cost me all of $USD80 (probably cheaper - I don't remember). I put it through my 1970 EPI 100's. It was amazing.
Then I built a UcD and the love affair was all over - the Hypex module slapped the T-amp down so hard it wasn't funny.
Now, I am flat and green when it comes to amp design - I'm simply a kit builder - nothing more. I don't know much at all.
But why do people still rave about the T-amps when they are nowhere close to Bruno's amps?
Is it simply price? I mean I understand the T's are cheap - really cheap. But once you build up a whole device the UcD bang-for-the-buck is priceless.
Like I said up-front - I have no agenda here - just curious. Why spend the money and time when you can absolutely deck (read : totally destroy) the Tripath scene for so little money and effort?
Why mess around with an amp that can be powered by flashlight batteries when the real thing is so easy to get and build?
Can you really stack a T-Amp up against a UcD and get a fair fight?
Is there something I've missed? I hope you all understand my question as it is meant. If there is something to learn here I'm open to it...
Regards,
Tom
I first heard a T-amp in the Griffin Power-Mate - a 10 w/ch amp. I was amazed. It was so different than what I was used to - wide - crisp - and precise. I loved it. Even at 10 watts. Cost me all of $USD80 (probably cheaper - I don't remember). I put it through my 1970 EPI 100's. It was amazing.
Then I built a UcD and the love affair was all over - the Hypex module slapped the T-amp down so hard it wasn't funny.
Now, I am flat and green when it comes to amp design - I'm simply a kit builder - nothing more. I don't know much at all.
But why do people still rave about the T-amps when they are nowhere close to Bruno's amps?
Is it simply price? I mean I understand the T's are cheap - really cheap. But once you build up a whole device the UcD bang-for-the-buck is priceless.
Like I said up-front - I have no agenda here - just curious. Why spend the money and time when you can absolutely deck (read : totally destroy) the Tripath scene for so little money and effort?
Why mess around with an amp that can be powered by flashlight batteries when the real thing is so easy to get and build?
Can you really stack a T-Amp up against a UcD and get a fair fight?
Is there something I've missed? I hope you all understand my question as it is meant. If there is something to learn here I'm open to it...
Regards,
Tom
observations..
It is unlikely that anyone will take your comments in a poor light. I just finished a 41 Hz amp 6 Basic last night...haven't let it break in. ..so my observations are very limited..
I suspect though , that the UCD modules may infact be an overall better "all-round" design-- not that I'm an expert.
But they use a non-Tripath chip and so the comparisons are not really head to head anyways. And the price differential is about 6X's when you consider the price of the recommended power supply. Obviously the power output is not nearly the same (and hence my "better allround design" comment).
My initial thoughts in the 41 Hz amp are beyond what I expected. With a couple of minor tweaks (parts upgrades) I think the little Amp6 will be something wuite remarkable. It already is, but say put a nice little enclosure around it, use a swich with a delay on it,to turn it on, make/buy a/reuse a nice little case, and add some decent RCA jacks, a good quality volume control and a 3 way stereo selector...and..... a very nice little intergrated.
I'm using a 2.7 amp 3 volt power supply I paid USD $7 for to run. ..
check out : www.affordableaudio.org if you get a chance and am looking for some easy reading..
It is unlikely that anyone will take your comments in a poor light. I just finished a 41 Hz amp 6 Basic last night...haven't let it break in. ..so my observations are very limited..
I suspect though , that the UCD modules may infact be an overall better "all-round" design-- not that I'm an expert.
But they use a non-Tripath chip and so the comparisons are not really head to head anyways. And the price differential is about 6X's when you consider the price of the recommended power supply. Obviously the power output is not nearly the same (and hence my "better allround design" comment).
My initial thoughts in the 41 Hz amp are beyond what I expected. With a couple of minor tweaks (parts upgrades) I think the little Amp6 will be something wuite remarkable. It already is, but say put a nice little enclosure around it, use a swich with a delay on it,to turn it on, make/buy a/reuse a nice little case, and add some decent RCA jacks, a good quality volume control and a 3 way stereo selector...and..... a very nice little intergrated.
I'm using a 2.7 amp 3 volt power supply I paid USD $7 for to run. ..
check out : www.affordableaudio.org if you get a chance and am looking for some easy reading..
I would love to build tube gear...
I would love to build tube gear, hardly cheap, but amazingly seductive!
If I had my 'druthers I'd rather be building big SET's. But, I don't have the expertise. Next best thing (my father built tube amps when I was a kid that I have never forgotten) is the UcD's.
Maybe this winter I will diligently try to electrocute myself building tube amps - but there is so much more to learn than assembling genius devices like the UcD's.
There is a threshold in DIY that one has to cross - one that I have miles to go befiore I even approach. I am currently reading the Navy Tube Manual (posted here somewhere) so that when I die I'll know what killed me.
I'm told willingness is everything...
Regards,
Tom
I would love to build tube gear, hardly cheap, but amazingly seductive!
If I had my 'druthers I'd rather be building big SET's. But, I don't have the expertise. Next best thing (my father built tube amps when I was a kid that I have never forgotten) is the UcD's.
Maybe this winter I will diligently try to electrocute myself building tube amps - but there is so much more to learn than assembling genius devices like the UcD's.
There is a threshold in DIY that one has to cross - one that I have miles to go befiore I even approach. I am currently reading the Navy Tube Manual (posted here somewhere) so that when I die I'll know what killed me.
I'm told willingness is everything...
Regards,
Tom
That's hardly fair, now is it? 
Would you go out and buy a 5 watt $80 tube amp, with all the compromises that entails, then compare it to a much more powerful solid state amp module - and declare "I don't know why people rave about tube amps, these solid state amps are so much better!" Seems kinda silly, doesn't it?
The love affair with T-amps does have a lot to do with price, of course.
Have not heard the Griffin, but if it's like the "little plastic wonder" the Sonic Impact, then it doesn't show you what the Tripath chips can really do. I started with the Sonic Impact and quickly went beyond. It's all in the implementation. Even 2 different amps based on the same Tripath chip can sound different, if the power supply, input caps or output filters are different. They will sound similar, but not the same.
I've built a lot of T-Amps and they seem to respond well to good implementation. There is a lot of magic there to be uncovered. I'm sure the same is true of the UCD modules.
If you don't need the power, and many of us don't - the T-Amps are a very good solution. And of course there are higher power T-Amps. There have been threads on this forum comparing the 2 technologies. Given equal power and care in building, there doesn't seem to be a clear winner. They're both good.
Would you go out and buy a 5 watt $80 tube amp, with all the compromises that entails, then compare it to a much more powerful solid state amp module - and declare "I don't know why people rave about tube amps, these solid state amps are so much better!" Seems kinda silly, doesn't it?
The love affair with T-amps does have a lot to do with price, of course.
Have not heard the Griffin, but if it's like the "little plastic wonder" the Sonic Impact, then it doesn't show you what the Tripath chips can really do. I started with the Sonic Impact and quickly went beyond. It's all in the implementation. Even 2 different amps based on the same Tripath chip can sound different, if the power supply, input caps or output filters are different. They will sound similar, but not the same.
I've built a lot of T-Amps and they seem to respond well to good implementation. There is a lot of magic there to be uncovered. I'm sure the same is true of the UCD modules.
If you don't need the power, and many of us don't - the T-Amps are a very good solution. And of course there are higher power T-Amps. There have been threads on this forum comparing the 2 technologies. Given equal power and care in building, there doesn't seem to be a clear winner. They're both good.
panomaniac said:That's hardly fair, now is it?
Would you go out and buy a 5 watt $80 tube amp, with all the compromises that entails, then compare it to a much more powerful solid state amp module - and declare "I don't know why people rave about tube amps, these solid state amps are so much better!" Seems kinda silly, doesn't it?
To an extent, that's what a Tripath module is - an inexpensive amp with compromises.
The Tripath modules, from what I have read, are not quite in the same category as the UCDs in terms of quality. However, they're very, very good, and much less expensive - an Amp2 kit from 41hz is only 82$, and is capable of 300 watts per channel, but can do a whopping 600 watts per channel with a few modifications. Hypex UCD180's start at 90$/channel.
I agree with Pano, you can't really compare a low power "T-Amp" with a UcD. The power level available with the UcD is going to make it the winner every time; no matter how unbiased you try to be.
I think if you really want to compare the two you will have to try an amp based on chips like the TK2350 or TA2022.
I think if you really want to compare the two you will have to try an amp based on chips like the TK2350 or TA2022.
Spasticteapot said:
ALL amps have compromises. And just because the Tripath chips are cheap doesn't make them bad. I don't know what compromises were made on the Tripath chips, but they seem to be pretty good ones. Or maybe just lucky.
What I meant by implementation is that it may be easy to slap a chip amp on a PCB and add a few parts, but it's a lot harder to get it sounding great. Board layout, filter design, and most important - power supply , all make a difference. A lot of those things are hard to do really well in a $80 retail price amp. Know what I mean?
In this UCD vs Tripath race there has been no clear SQ winner. Both are good.
Interesting thread, I have built both the Amp3 and Amp6, the Amp3 died a while ago but the Amp6 is still going strong.
Both of these amps was plenty loud enough in my system, with the Amp6 I use 2.2uf Auricap coupling caps, 1000uf Blackgate NX for decoupling on the pcb, MBR10100 schottky diodes and 10,000uf Siemans Sikoral cap in the psu.
The sound is not bad but I feel my UCD180 easily beats it, power isn't an issue in my system.
The UCD uses MBR10100 schottkys, DNM T-network psu capacitors, LM4562 input op-amp and no coupling caps, theres a few other mods added to the pcbs.
Only higher powered Tripath based amps I've heard are commercial ones, unless theres any other mods worth trying with the Amp6 I'll stick with the UCD
Both of these amps was plenty loud enough in my system, with the Amp6 I use 2.2uf Auricap coupling caps, 1000uf Blackgate NX for decoupling on the pcb, MBR10100 schottky diodes and 10,000uf Siemans Sikoral cap in the psu.
The sound is not bad but I feel my UCD180 easily beats it, power isn't an issue in my system.
The UCD uses MBR10100 schottkys, DNM T-network psu capacitors, LM4562 input op-amp and no coupling caps, theres a few other mods added to the pcbs.
Only higher powered Tripath based amps I've heard are commercial ones, unless theres any other mods worth trying with the Amp6 I'll stick with the UCD
Re: I would love to build tube gear...
Tell you, Tube amps are easier to build - component count is typically lower, and components are bigger.
Just as long as you mind the HT - those of us that started in the '60s were used to building units with dangerous voltages, and to me it is an un-natural act to touch a component when power is on. Guess that for those brought up on low voltage devices the converse may be true.
For myself, over the last 14 years I have moved from EL34 pp, to solid state class A, to class D, and now I have started playing with tubes again (just ordered an el cheapo Aria 12w 6P1, and a Zen Taboo sep).
ptwining said:
Tell you, Tube amps are easier to build - component count is typically lower, and components are bigger.
Just as long as you mind the HT - those of us that started in the '60s were used to building units with dangerous voltages, and to me it is an un-natural act to touch a component when power is on. Guess that for those brought up on low voltage devices the converse may be true.
For myself, over the last 14 years I have moved from EL34 pp, to solid state class A, to class D, and now I have started playing with tubes again (just ordered an el cheapo Aria 12w 6P1, and a Zen Taboo sep).
For me, at least, it's the accessibility of the t-amps. I'm an art guy, not an engineer, but I do enjoy noodling around soldering in different components, on that elusive quest for more bass. Every session results in a little better sound. Very rewarding as hobbies go.
The UcD modules are already at a pretty high state of tweaking, although I know there is more that can be done. But it is intimidating. The cheap little Tripath amps just shout "tweak me."
Plus if you blow one up, what's the big deal?
In my own case, I'm on a quest for the ultimate boombox, and that stipulates long battery life. Even the smallest UcD module is way overkill for this app.
--Buckapound
The UcD modules are already at a pretty high state of tweaking, although I know there is more that can be done. But it is intimidating. The cheap little Tripath amps just shout "tweak me."
Plus if you blow one up, what's the big deal?
In my own case, I'm on a quest for the ultimate boombox, and that stipulates long battery life. Even the smallest UcD module is way overkill for this app.
--Buckapound
The output inductor is CRITICAL for any switched amp. Particularly ones that only takes the feedback from before the filter or fully open-loop ones, but they're pretty much restricted to bitstream types (I'm not calling it digital since there's no such thing as a digital amp; the conversion process is just done differently).
Fancy inductors, especially foil types, will do more harm than good since their parasitic capacitance is very high. Not an issue at audio frequencies but when it comes to attennuating the carrier it's a whole different matter. Bruno has a good paper on it. Gapped toroids can work well if implemented properly, although a good alternative are the small SMD coils from CoilCraft - they've some very small ones that can pass as much as 8A linearly. Unfortunately they're hard to fit in a commercial amp that's not designed for them.
Same goes for capacitors - and I've measured it. Plain Rifa "box" MKP caps sounds and measures much better than audiophile film caps due to the smaller size and hence lower ESL.
My day job is dedicated to class-D amps, and although I don't agree with all Bruno's statements, I'm 100% behind him when he says that for the filter one shouldn't believe audiophile hype, and rather stick to lowest possible ESL for the cap and capacitance for the coil. As a bonus it saves space too.
Fancy inductors, especially foil types, will do more harm than good since their parasitic capacitance is very high. Not an issue at audio frequencies but when it comes to attennuating the carrier it's a whole different matter. Bruno has a good paper on it. Gapped toroids can work well if implemented properly, although a good alternative are the small SMD coils from CoilCraft - they've some very small ones that can pass as much as 8A linearly. Unfortunately they're hard to fit in a commercial amp that's not designed for them.
Same goes for capacitors - and I've measured it. Plain Rifa "box" MKP caps sounds and measures much better than audiophile film caps due to the smaller size and hence lower ESL.
My day job is dedicated to class-D amps, and although I don't agree with all Bruno's statements, I'm 100% behind him when he says that for the filter one shouldn't believe audiophile hype, and rather stick to lowest possible ESL for the cap and capacitance for the coil. As a bonus it saves space too.
t. said:
It seems like they did. Different cores and windings were tried, and it seem he was quite satisfied with a molypermalloy core with only 13 winds to get the right inductance. Seems that it made lot of difference in revealing detail slightly better than the Ucd he had.
PWatts said:
I quite agree for small signal caps. do manufacturers publish ESL data? How would you measure capacitance of a coil?
I own both Ucd180ad and Tripath Ta2022 2x50W 8ohm. I've too a couple of t-amps and a Tripath TA0102a 2x100W 8ohm amp.
Low power Tripath chips can't compete with higher power ones: I have Fostex FE206E 96dB sensitivity and t-amps sound loud enough to shake windows, but with high power tripath chips higher and lower dynamic extension are dramatically improved, while sound quality and detail is similar to t-amps, but with more solid sound.
Please, don't ask who's the winner between Tripath and UCD. More useful to discussion is to tell what are good experiences with both.
UCD is unbeatable for clean sound and timber fidelity of instruments (I listen to classic music only): it is like a good valve amp but quieter. I identify this amp with solo violin sonatas and Bach.
Tripath high power amps are unbeatable for dynamic extension, transients and detail: they go lower and higher than UCD and in between it looks like there are more sounds. When the bass section of an orchestra is sounding loud with thick basses, you can still hear distinctly a violins pizzicato at right volume, and the sudden hit of a timbals or drums still detaches from this loud background with great force.
I use UCD when I want fidelity, Tripath when I want live emotions.
P.S.
I'm the guy with 106 MPP cores, 60 perm, 13 turns I calculated with a software that they don't saturate.
Low power Tripath chips can't compete with higher power ones: I have Fostex FE206E 96dB sensitivity and t-amps sound loud enough to shake windows, but with high power tripath chips higher and lower dynamic extension are dramatically improved, while sound quality and detail is similar to t-amps, but with more solid sound.
Please, don't ask who's the winner between Tripath and UCD. More useful to discussion is to tell what are good experiences with both.
UCD is unbeatable for clean sound and timber fidelity of instruments (I listen to classic music only): it is like a good valve amp but quieter. I identify this amp with solo violin sonatas and Bach.
Tripath high power amps are unbeatable for dynamic extension, transients and detail: they go lower and higher than UCD and in between it looks like there are more sounds. When the bass section of an orchestra is sounding loud with thick basses, you can still hear distinctly a violins pizzicato at right volume, and the sudden hit of a timbals or drums still detaches from this loud background with great force.
I use UCD when I want fidelity, Tripath when I want live emotions.
P.S.
I'm the guy with 106 MPP cores, 60 perm, 13 turns
I calculated with a software that they don't saturate.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.