ClassD4sure: I think you 'parts count' test is a bit silly, but then it never hurt anybody to be a bit silly from time to time.
So me and my teenage son did counting and check counting on both UcD400 and ZAPpulse 2.3SE (which are the currently available modules).
Here are the results:
UcD400
SMD: 131 parts
Leaded: 18 parts
+ one molded pcb with unknown number of parts. (At least 26)
ZAPpulse 2.3SE
SMD: 119 parts
Leaded: 17 parts
So there you have it
So me and my teenage son did counting and check counting on both UcD400 and ZAPpulse 2.3SE (which are the currently available modules).
Here are the results:
UcD400
SMD: 131 parts
Leaded: 18 parts
+ one molded pcb with unknown number of parts. (At least 26)
ZAPpulse 2.3SE
SMD: 119 parts
Leaded: 17 parts
So there you have it
There is something to be said for having a dependable product with proven components. I'd not try and change the UCD modules based upon every possible improvement. What you have now works wonderfully. It's fun to speculate about improvement but there is a balancing act between price, reliability and sound quality. If you put too much emphisis on any one area you can get bitten.
Lars,
With all due respect to you, as I don't know you personally, I'd like to point my feelings when I read the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. The following is not an attack...
This thread is called "Any news on UCD700" - an informative thread about the new Hypex product. If I see you post "the THD is higher than the old one" and calling for comparative listening test then I know you are here to "pick a fight". I know you are a commercial person, and so is Jan-Peter, and I don't blame you both for trying to sell stuff. Just do it in a "building" way instead of comparing specs.
Lars, we've all seen the threads about the tweaks you did on the new Zaps to lower the THD, perfect, no problem, talk about it all you want in the ZAP threads. Jan-Peter is also claiming "bigger" and "better" - it's his right to claim. With respect to JP I also read his "it sounds better" arguments with a grain of salt, but this the way any audio manufacturer works, hype(x?) the product, it sells!
What I don't like is fights like "my stuff is better than yours" or "your stuff's THD is too high" arguments.
So my feelings?
1) Keep UcD talk in UcD threads.
2) Keep Zap talk in Zap threads.
3) Start a thread, if you like, for ZAP vs UcD and let people bash each other. I won't bother to read the thread, I'll spend the time listening to my fine class-d powered system instead.
and...
4) The comparison thing: If this should ever happen, it should be without knowledge of either Hypex or LCaudio - a mystery buyer should buy zaps & UcD's and build an overkill PS (or 2 identical PS) to feed them, and an ABX switch around them. Have a few people come over for ABX listening tests that preferrably don't know s*** about class D.
End of rant
With all due respect to you, as I don't know you personally, I'd like to point my feelings when I read the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. The following is not an attack...
This thread is called "Any news on UCD700" - an informative thread about the new Hypex product. If I see you post "the THD is higher than the old one" and calling for comparative listening test then I know you are here to "pick a fight". I know you are a commercial person, and so is Jan-Peter, and I don't blame you both for trying to sell stuff. Just do it in a "building" way instead of comparing specs.
Lars, we've all seen the threads about the tweaks you did on the new Zaps to lower the THD, perfect, no problem, talk about it all you want in the ZAP threads. Jan-Peter is also claiming "bigger" and "better" - it's his right to claim. With respect to JP I also read his "it sounds better" arguments with a grain of salt, but this the way any audio manufacturer works, hype(x?) the product, it sells!
What I don't like is fights like "my stuff is better than yours" or "your stuff's THD is too high" arguments.
So my feelings?
1) Keep UcD talk in UcD threads.
2) Keep Zap talk in Zap threads.
3) Start a thread, if you like, for ZAP vs UcD and let people bash each other. I won't bother to read the thread, I'll spend the time listening to my fine class-d powered system instead.
and...
4) The comparison thing: If this should ever happen, it should be without knowledge of either Hypex or LCaudio - a mystery buyer should buy zaps & UcD's and build an overkill PS (or 2 identical PS) to feed them, and an ABX switch around them. Have a few people come over for ABX listening tests that preferrably don't know s*** about class D.
End of rant
Yves Smolders: Thanks for trying to calm the waters. I think it is very appreciable of you. The basic problem here is some people think of diyaudio.com as a discussion forum, while others think of diyaudio.com as their free marketing forum.
Since i agree with the moderators of diyaudio.com that it is actually a discussion forum, i think a good discussion is not completely out of place here. And that's what's going on.
And may i quote from the moderator page:
If you remember in the start of these 3 pages, i did not start talking about the ZAP, someone else brought it up.
I was talking about why everybody thinks the UcD700 is so much better than UcD400, when actually the datasheets from Hypex indicates the opposite.
(See: no ZAP's mentioned....)
So i am already meeting your request to keep UdC talk in here, and ZAP talk elsewhere. And i never said UcD700 have too much THD, i only posted the actual figures of THD as found on hypex datasheets. Whether it's too much THD or not should be up to the reader to decide.
Lastly i am not embarrassed to start a good discussion here on the forum after all, even the moderators say:
But of course i am sorry if sometimes it is grabble in somebody's marketing machine.
Since i agree with the moderators of diyaudio.com that it is actually a discussion forum, i think a good discussion is not completely out of place here. And that's what's going on.
And may i quote from the moderator page:
If you remember in the start of these 3 pages, i did not start talking about the ZAP, someone else brought it up.
I was talking about why everybody thinks the UcD700 is so much better than UcD400, when actually the datasheets from Hypex indicates the opposite.
(See: no ZAP's mentioned....)
So i am already meeting your request to keep UdC talk in here, and ZAP talk elsewhere. And i never said UcD700 have too much THD, i only posted the actual figures of THD as found on hypex datasheets. Whether it's too much THD or not should be up to the reader to decide.
Lastly i am not embarrassed to start a good discussion here on the forum after all, even the moderators say:
But of course i am sorry if sometimes it is grabble in somebody's marketing machine.
Hi Lars,
Like Yves and I guess yourself, and any half sane person, I take that with a grain of salt as well.
Hypex never made such claims with the 400 over the 180, even with the addition of a foil inductor and better drivers, I believe that's truly their impression of it.
Jan-Peter was asked and said he didn't know why it might sound better, and wished he did know, thought it would be interesting to list a few possibilities as to why that is.
I'd like to know your thoughts on new ways of solving old problems, on a hobbiest's level. if you covered things of that nature more it would boost confidence, and you've seen how everyone likes to pitch in with ideas.
I think it would be interesting to have an "extra" spec given with the UCD700, or a few. I'd like to see the difference in heatsinking required for a sealed case, no fans, just so people know what they can get away with.
Regards,
Chris
Obviously not.
This place is really wearing on my nerves.
Lars, there are enough other places to yak about your thingie vs Bruno & J-P's thingie. Give it a rest, will ya? It is getting old. More so in this thread.
I'm outta here.........someone mail me in a week to see if it has settled down.
Time to change my avatar back to Cartman:
"Screw you guys........I'm going home."
Jocko
hpsrx,
I have a Hypex softstart, and imho it's possible. There's a connection for a soft switch, or a connection for a normal on/off switch.
If you connect the switch in parallel with the different SS it should work I think...
But why 3 to 6 softstarts? Thinking of an all mono design? Even then you could easily connect 2 500VA's to a single softstart, it can handle 1000VA and JP even claimed it can handle the 1200VA for the UcD700.
I have a Hypex softstart, and imho it's possible. There's a connection for a soft switch, or a connection for a normal on/off switch.
If you connect the switch in parallel with the different SS it should work I think...
But why 3 to 6 softstarts? Thinking of an all mono design? Even then you could easily connect 2 500VA's to a single softstart, it can handle 1000VA and JP even claimed it can handle the 1200VA for the UcD700.
Yves,
Yes, I thinking in mono active system. 3 amplifiers per speaker.
One PSU700 with one UcD700 and a transformer of something like 1000KVA/1200KVA and a softstart per channel.
One switch and ... everything is on, or two switch in two chassis (3 monoamplifiers per chassi).
Perhaps this crazy ideia , the cases came with 1 softs switch:
http://www.coolermaster-europe.com/...ial=RC-730&other_title=+RC-730+Praetorian 730
Thanks
Hugo
Yes, I thinking in mono active system. 3 amplifiers per speaker.
One PSU700 with one UcD700 and a transformer of something like 1000KVA/1200KVA and a softstart per channel.
One switch and ... everything is on, or two switch in two chassis (3 monoamplifiers per chassi).
Perhaps this crazy ideia , the cases came with 1 softs switch:
http://www.coolermaster-europe.com/...ial=RC-730&other_title=+RC-730+Praetorian 730
Thanks
Hugo
Yves,
First plan is "only" 2 mono channels . . .
About the "all the openings in computer tower's" you don't see in your PC openings. Is possible with aluminium close some openings (computer PSU, connections of mainboard, etc.) and the caution is the same with the transformers, caps. etc. with a audio chassi.
You only see audio chassis in some shops but you see computer towers everywere !
Hugo
First plan is "only" 2 mono channels . . .
About the "all the openings in computer tower's" you don't see in your PC openings. Is possible with aluminium close some openings (computer PSU, connections of mainboard, etc.) and the caution is the same with the transformers, caps. etc. with a audio chassi.
You only see audio chassis in some shops but you see computer towers everywere !
Hugo
Yes that's right, and for much better prices than commercial audio chassis.
If you go that way personally I would look into "media center" casings, as they are closer to 43cm hifi.
examples:
Coolermaster
Monoblocks in this:
Monoblock case
If you go that way personally I would look into "media center" casings, as they are closer to 43cm hifi.
examples:
Coolermaster
Monoblocks in this:
Monoblock case
On a side note and slighty off topic...
I visit avsforum.com regulary, and there's always a "war" going on to explain what exactly is a "digital amp" or not.
Over there, all class-d is called "digital" even when this is entirely wrong.
I've coined the following terminology to more easily explain class-d (analog or digital...)
How about "Pulsing Amplifier" for any amplifier that "pulses" its transistors instead of using them in a linear fashion?
Furthermore you can call a UcD an "analog pulsing amplifier", and designs that convert PCM or DSD to PWM directly a "digital pulsing amplifier"
Much better sounding (no pun intented) than "class-d" and avoiding the old 80's/90's buzzword "digital" !
I visit avsforum.com regulary, and there's always a "war" going on to explain what exactly is a "digital amp" or not.
Over there, all class-d is called "digital" even when this is entirely wrong.
I've coined the following terminology to more easily explain class-d (analog or digital...)
How about "Pulsing Amplifier" for any amplifier that "pulses" its transistors instead of using them in a linear fashion?
Furthermore you can call a UcD an "analog pulsing amplifier", and designs that convert PCM or DSD to PWM directly a "digital pulsing amplifier"
Much better sounding (no pun intented) than "class-d" and avoiding the old 80's/90's buzzword "digital" !
Good point Yves!
I suggest the term: Switched Mode Power Amplifier SMPA. Which would precisely indicate the correct mode of operation for all this kind of amplifiers. Like Class D, T, H what ever they call themselves.
Of course there can be both analog and digital Switched Mode Amplifiers.
All the best from
Lars Clausen
I suggest the term: Switched Mode Power Amplifier SMPA. Which would precisely indicate the correct mode of operation for all this kind of amplifiers. Like Class D, T, H what ever they call themselves.
Of course there can be both analog and digital Switched Mode Amplifiers.
All the best from
Lars Clausen
Yeah, the point is of course to find words that sound "good" to non technical people.
That's why I thought of "pulsing"
By the way, have there ever been class-D designs using a single output transistor instead of two? I'm not sure but it might drop the cost even further (single power rail in the supply instead of 2?)
That's why I thought of "pulsing"
By the way, have there ever been class-D designs using a single output transistor instead of two? I'm not sure but it might drop the cost even further (single power rail in the supply instead of 2?)
Hi.
term switched mode amplifier or switching amplifier was used in literature since the advent of switch mode power supplies. Even first comercially available high power class d amplifier was called SWAMP I (SWitching AMPlifier). It was made by Infinity in the mid seventies.
I think there is no need to establish new names for technology that exists from the sixties or maybe even before.
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
term switched mode amplifier or switching amplifier was used in literature since the advent of switch mode power supplies. Even first comercially available high power class d amplifier was called SWAMP I (SWitching AMPlifier). It was made by Infinity in the mid seventies.
I think there is no need to establish new names for technology that exists from the sixties or maybe even before.
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
Yves Smolders said:
most of the half-bridge based switching mode amplifiers use a synchronous mode where the lower mosfet can be replaced by either a diode or entirely yanked out, with just a small (usually 1%) efficiency penalty.
Given the low low prices of mosfets, I would opt to use two of them for that 1% efficiency gain.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.