Completelly OT:
Sorry to cut the flow of the discussion
I can't help to share the reason why you were enjoying a long silence from my part, before...
Building my new Tannoy autograph enclosures for system nº2, activelly biamped with UCD180, using perhaps les than 1% of its power 😀 because of more than 100db/w/m sensitivity.😎
The transducers are not Tannoy, I'm affraid, but the very good Beyma 15KX coaxial, that I bought used at eBay.
More than one month of work for the first one
Hey Mighty Mike, are the UCD's dinamic-less??? 😉
I hope you like it.
M
PS: cell-phone photo (my daughter's)
Sorry to cut the flow of the discussion
I can't help to share the reason why you were enjoying a long silence from my part, before...
Building my new Tannoy autograph enclosures for system nº2, activelly biamped with UCD180, using perhaps les than 1% of its power 😀 because of more than 100db/w/m sensitivity.😎
The transducers are not Tannoy, I'm affraid, but the very good Beyma 15KX coaxial, that I bought used at eBay.
More than one month of work for the first one
Hey Mighty Mike, are the UCD's dinamic-less??? 😉
I hope you like it.
M
PS: cell-phone photo (my daughter's)
Max,
WHAT A HUGE SPEAKER😱 Looks impressive.
Here my redone amp.
Made a new pcb for the inrush current limiter/psu for the prot. unit. Its the tiny pcb at the rear in the middle.
WHAT A HUGE SPEAKER😱 Looks impressive.
Here my redone amp.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Made a new pcb for the inrush current limiter/psu for the prot. unit. Its the tiny pcb at the rear in the middle.
Bgt said:
It looks better but can be further improved.
What is that clump of wiring between the xformers? It looks scary. Good source of fire and noise coupling. Cut all those so they're short straight runs, no loops or coils. Keep the wires of each transformer as seperated as possible from each other, like you'd do with true monoblocks, consider seperate runs to the mains, each shielded and twisted (I know they still join at the outlet.. so do real monoblocks though).
If that's your mains comming in between your RCA's it's very close to the low level single ended inputs, it is an area for improvement. The mains wires should be shielded and even twisted.
You can twist the wires for the secondaries as well.
This is looking much better already.
How is it sounding?
Hi Chris,
The 2 toroids are not my final solution so I'll keep the wires as long as possible.
The input RCA's are on a position so they are off of the UCD pcb and mains. The picture does not do it justice.
The sound, well this is something I've to try for some time. It sounds really nice, very spacious/wide. Maybe I am too spoiled. It's also an emotional thing. If your mood is sad/happy so is the sound. I am not really impressed and have to use it with different material. Mixed feelings really.
I am happy I did it so the doubt is gone.
Will redo my 1 transformer amp. now.
Thanx for all your wisdom😉
The 2 toroids are not my final solution so I'll keep the wires as long as possible.
The input RCA's are on a position so they are off of the UCD pcb and mains. The picture does not do it justice.
The sound, well this is something I've to try for some time. It sounds really nice, very spacious/wide. Maybe I am too spoiled. It's also an emotional thing. If your mood is sad/happy so is the sound. I am not really impressed and have to use it with different material. Mixed feelings really.
I am happy I did it so the doubt is gone.
Will redo my 1 transformer amp. now.
Thanx for all your wisdom😉
redone 1 transf. amp.
crosstalk went down another 20db. Just amazing.
switching between the dual mono and the 1 transf. amp. shows no difference at all. Also playing deafeningly loud.😀
This is fun.
crosstalk went down another 20db. Just amazing.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
switching between the dual mono and the 1 transf. amp. shows no difference at all. Also playing deafeningly loud.😀
This is fun.
but I have to keep using the modded input wire for the 1 transf. one. Otherwise complete instability, crosstalk is awfull.
Remember my gain is over 60x, >35db.
Remember my gain is over 60x, >35db.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
differences between the 2 different amps
Hey Bert,
So you say, ... no differences between the 2 amps in sound? Are both amps using the BHC tnetwork caps? What size are your transformers in both amps? Any idea why you didn't have to modify the input wiring on the monos in 1 case amp?
Ray
Hey Bert,
So you say, ... no differences between the 2 amps in sound? Are both amps using the BHC tnetwork caps? What size are your transformers in both amps? Any idea why you didn't have to modify the input wiring on the monos in 1 case amp?
Ray
Re: differences between the 2 different amps
Hi Ray,
Cannot hear the difference really, neither in soundstage or firmness/clarity. Have listened for many hours now and switching them up and down showed nothing.
1 is 2x250VA and the other is 1x 500VA.
The dual mono's have BHC AL20S T-Net caps and the 1 transf. 1 has Vishay 102 caps. Both 10.000uF/63V.
Stability problems do not allow me of grounding the 1 transf. amp. like the dual mono amp.
So I do need the groundlift resistors or I have serious problems. The sound is dead without the groundlift res.
I remember when I had the gain on the default value when I bought them I did not have the stability problems and could do the grounding as the dual mono amp.
In a way it shows that the original grounding scheme is not ok for a higher gain amp. 1 with a 1 transf. design. For a dual mono config it seems to be ok. But I have my doubts(grounding at the inputs) here and think this can be improved, maybe.
I'll try, with my next 1, to ground the dual mono's at the cap. boards 0V also to see if the sound improves. I wont use the groundlift resistors but will connect the - in of the UCD module directly to the 0V at the UCD pcb.The RCA's are floating than from the chassis.
ray bronk said:
Hi Ray,
Cannot hear the difference really, neither in soundstage or firmness/clarity. Have listened for many hours now and switching them up and down showed nothing.
1 is 2x250VA and the other is 1x 500VA.
The dual mono's have BHC AL20S T-Net caps and the 1 transf. 1 has Vishay 102 caps. Both 10.000uF/63V.
Stability problems do not allow me of grounding the 1 transf. amp. like the dual mono amp.
So I do need the groundlift resistors or I have serious problems. The sound is dead without the groundlift res.
I remember when I had the gain on the default value when I bought them I did not have the stability problems and could do the grounding as the dual mono amp.
In a way it shows that the original grounding scheme is not ok for a higher gain amp. 1 with a 1 transf. design. For a dual mono config it seems to be ok. But I have my doubts(grounding at the inputs) here and think this can be improved, maybe.
I'll try, with my next 1, to ground the dual mono's at the cap. boards 0V also to see if the sound improves. I wont use the groundlift resistors but will connect the - in of the UCD module directly to the 0V at the UCD pcb.The RCA's are floating than from the chassis.
bert: looks way better!
Yesterday a friend of mine invited me to do some testng on our diy-ed amps. We took them to a hifi shop where he works and we compared some of the amps we built with some other high-end amps.
We compared it with a 47labs gaincard and an audionote integrated amp (don't remember which one, we went out to get some beers after). we used a 47labs cd-player and dac.
On a set of audionote AN-J speakers, one thing that struck me with the ucd400's was that voices in all kinds of music seemed to 'stick' to the speakers. Same thing on a pair of avantgarde meta primo's. The audionote & gaincard didn't show this behaviour.
SO...
They're good, the ucd400's, no doubt, but there's definitely room for improvement! Or at least, with my setup. A new psu and separate opamp psu are needed! That, and I'll have to look into my ground-wiring.
Just my experience. If anyone has other experiences, please tell & tell us which mods you have done.
Greetz
Matt
Yesterday a friend of mine invited me to do some testng on our diy-ed amps. We took them to a hifi shop where he works and we compared some of the amps we built with some other high-end amps.
We compared it with a 47labs gaincard and an audionote integrated amp (don't remember which one, we went out to get some beers after). we used a 47labs cd-player and dac.
On a set of audionote AN-J speakers, one thing that struck me with the ucd400's was that voices in all kinds of music seemed to 'stick' to the speakers. Same thing on a pair of avantgarde meta primo's. The audionote & gaincard didn't show this behaviour.
SO...
They're good, the ucd400's, no doubt, but there's definitely room for improvement! Or at least, with my setup. A new psu and separate opamp psu are needed! That, and I'll have to look into my ground-wiring.
Just my experience. If anyone has other experiences, please tell & tell us which mods you have done.
Greetz
Matt
Matjans thanx,
If you experience the voice coming out of the speaker instead of being in the room you're in than have some way to go. It should be totally out of the box. Like if you're standing in front of a podium. It depends on the recording ofcourse but even listening to my radio can give me a very spacious/deep/wide experience with some well recorded music.
I compared my amp. to some NAD's and Rotels, separates, and than you hear the difference. They, the NADs and Rotels, just lack involvement, a kind of presency/directness.
I intend to test them on some hefty/huge speakers later to see how they drive.
But soundstage/out of the box will give you the thrill.
If you experience the voice coming out of the speaker instead of being in the room you're in than have some way to go. It should be totally out of the box. Like if you're standing in front of a podium. It depends on the recording ofcourse but even listening to my radio can give me a very spacious/deep/wide experience with some well recorded music.
I compared my amp. to some NAD's and Rotels, separates, and than you hear the difference. They, the NADs and Rotels, just lack involvement, a kind of presency/directness.
I intend to test them on some hefty/huge speakers later to see how they drive.
But soundstage/out of the box will give you the thrill.
that's the strange thing, to my ears only the voices, violins and some cello's stick to the speakers, rest of the soundstage is pretty wide, deep, stable, detailed etc.
o well, mod heaven, eh?
o well, mod heaven, eh?
matjans said:
I think you nailed it dead on, and I don't think you even need to go all that far to achieve your goal, but it won't do any harm other than $.
Definately look into your grounding! Try a few variations of the same if you have to, it ought to come to life. Of course, I do use T-networks, it's crazy what they do, properly used, like with dual bridges.
I'm sure it can be done without them too, just by paying more attention to the suppl(ies)y and snubbing/bypassing.
No voodoo required, you know?
I've had the UCD's be far more holographic in stereo than any surround sound system I ever heard, completely enveloping I thought. The level of modding required to make that happen was next to nothing, and it just got better after that, but I found my part selection did nothing for the neutrality of it, which was rather excellent from the start... I call that mod hell 😉 The holography was the easy part (GND).
classd4sure said:
Part selection does indeed do very little for the holgraphy part. It is indeed the grounding thats brings your amp. to real hights.
Here you have to try and try the utmost to get it right.
Bgt said:
Woaah, I didn't say that. Such highly selective quotations can take things out of context so easily, you know?
First off the word used was neutrality, and I said the UCD had that rather nailed down from the start, mostly all (save for one or two) mods made that worse, example, the FC caps, mainly, made it heavily colored, it also did alot to dampen the holography of it, but they're different.
Now in terms of holography, my point there was to address the basics first... buuut.. some parts matter a good deal.
"Of course, I do use T-networks, it's crazy what they do, properly used, like with dual bridges."
So have ya tried them with a dual bridge setup yet?
Regards,
Chris
classd4sure said:
Chris,
some posts back I showed you the dual mono setup with the T-Nets and the bridge per winding config. I thought that was obvious?
My 4 bridges consist each of 4 off MBR20100 diodes.
BTW the T-Nets add nothing positive to the sound in comparison with the Vishays 102 caps. A pity really
So they are the only 4 I'll ever bought.
Will try the BHC T-Foils next time.
Bert
PS and about all the parts/cap. mods, well they added nothing positive really(my view/listening experience). The UCD's by itself are just fine.
http://www.grotel.nl/photo/dualmono.jpg
May I jump in very briefly and ask what's the power rating of the UCD400 for 2, 1 and 0.5 Ohm, before having to go through a zillion postings?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
New Layout
Hi Bert,
Good for you for re-building your amps- the new layouts look much better. I know you didn't hear differences between one type of filter cap and the other, but did you hear a difference between old and new layout?
I must admit that I am puzzled by the lack of sonic difference between the caps. In the amps I have built just about any change has proved audible (whether it is an improvement is a different matter). I have built a UCD 180 amp but since it was not for me, I did not experiment with parts substition, I just used parts I have liked in the past. So I am wondering if the lack of difference you experienced is due to the UCD design or other factors...?
Finally is there a difference between T-Nets and T foils?
Rob
Hi Bert,
Good for you for re-building your amps- the new layouts look much better. I know you didn't hear differences between one type of filter cap and the other, but did you hear a difference between old and new layout?
I must admit that I am puzzled by the lack of sonic difference between the caps. In the amps I have built just about any change has proved audible (whether it is an improvement is a different matter). I have built a UCD 180 amp but since it was not for me, I did not experiment with parts substition, I just used parts I have liked in the past. So I am wondering if the lack of difference you experienced is due to the UCD design or other factors...?
Finally is there a difference between T-Nets and T foils?
Rob
Hi Rob,
I agree with ya there, feel the same way. It seems rather strange not hear a difference, especially with 4 pole caps.
As you saying just about every little thing leads to a difference, same is true with modifying the modules. I personally don't find it very difficult to tell.
As per the T-nets or T-foils. I've tried BHC with do include the slit foil and the Jensen which do not, and I'd say there's a definite difference, but they're both good.
They're extremely revealing and very dynamic, the slit foils have an edge when it comes to neutrality though.
I'm wondering if Bert is using "snubbing" caps all over which may be swapping the sound of the components somewhat?
Regards,
Chris
I agree with ya there, feel the same way. It seems rather strange not hear a difference, especially with 4 pole caps.
As you saying just about every little thing leads to a difference, same is true with modifying the modules. I personally don't find it very difficult to tell.
As per the T-nets or T-foils. I've tried BHC with do include the slit foil and the Jensen which do not, and I'd say there's a definite difference, but they're both good.
They're extremely revealing and very dynamic, the slit foils have an edge when it comes to neutrality though.
I'm wondering if Bert is using "snubbing" caps all over which may be swapping the sound of the components somewhat?
Regards,
Chris
I think BHC T-Nets are 4 pole caps (2 connectors for input and two separate connectors for output) while T foils are regular two connectors caps. BHC T-nets also use foils while the 4-pole Jensen do not.
Regarding "snubbing caps" I read somewhere that bypassing 4 poles with a smaller cap might defeat the whole purpose behind the 4-pole (network) idea. We all want to know the answer to the current mystery.
guyv said:
Anything "T" is a 4 pole cap. You can't even get the BHC T networks without slit foil technology. You can get slit foil without the T-net though. Your snubber over each diode is equally counter productive, it only takes 1 cap to snub them properly, no mystery there at all, and it's all here on the forum so, no point starting into that again right.
Cheers,
Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.