Concerning supplies, we plan to make a specific SMPS to go with this module. If only to make wiring easier. Sonically the SMPS400 already leaves the HG supply biting the dust (in spite of standard quality caps) so I think we're on the right track there.
@abraxalito we agree on more than I let on. I just don't want to hijack the thread with market strategy banter.
@others, I have indeed been wondering about making our own product to avoid substandard third-party implementations.
@abraxalito we agree on more than I let on. I just don't want to hijack the thread with market strategy banter.
@others, I have indeed been wondering about making our own product to avoid substandard third-party implementations.
Last edited:
Feel free to PM me if you'd like to bounce some marketing ideas around. I still remember an early demo from before the days the amp was named UcD, but haven't heard one for many years.
beat tones
Hi Bruno,
First, congratulations with the NC1200. Specs are impressive, not to say a milestone in the quest of better and more efficient audio amps.
As for the EtremA, I'm glad you have changed your design philosophy.
Why? See: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...-interview-bjt-vs-mosfet-102.html#post1207170
(please, ignore my comment on cutting off ears; it was a silly joke)
BTW, would it be possible to operate these amps on a fixed switching frequency (or at least synchronize it in case of multiple channels) without sacrificing the performance? The reason I'm asking this is that I'm worrying about (possible) audible beat tones when the amps are switching at slightly different frequencies.
Cheers,
Edmond.
[snip]
I might take the opportunity to comment on ExtremA. It must be the clumsiest amplifier I've designed in my whole life (you do know it's my design, don't you? If you did, that was a very nasty question). The low input impedance, the overcomplicated folded cascode, the unnecessary class A operation, the even "unnecessarier" bridged design, all those things I'd do differently now.
[snip]
Hi Bruno,
First, congratulations with the NC1200. Specs are impressive, not to say a milestone in the quest of better and more efficient audio amps.
As for the EtremA, I'm glad you have changed your design philosophy.
Why? See: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...-interview-bjt-vs-mosfet-102.html#post1207170
(please, ignore my comment on cutting off ears; it was a silly joke)
BTW, would it be possible to operate these amps on a fixed switching frequency (or at least synchronize it in case of multiple channels) without sacrificing the performance? The reason I'm asking this is that I'm worrying about (possible) audible beat tones when the amps are switching at slightly different frequencies.
Cheers,
Edmond.
Hi,
is right, for you to discuss with fans to better understand what may be the trend and then make a complete module. this way you can ensure high performance.
but, if your amp has really top performances ( I think yes), I do not think that an OM, which produces in the high end can be happy with the psu smps400 integrated style. perhaps he wants to be free to choose, maybe a linear PSU. or others.
maybe you ref to integrated model and without psu of course.
N.B. i have curiosity (as others), see fft on this new amps.
Regards
Roberto P.
Hello Bruno
Why does the SMPS400 leave the HG supply biting the dust despite it using standard grade capacitors (Japanese type I assume). Are the main high power supply rails regulated on the SMPS400 as apposed to the open loop HG supply rails.
Regards
Arthur
SMPS400 is not regulated. If I'm not mistaken, only SMPS180 is regulated (and that would explain why it's actually more expensive than its 400W counterpart).
Btw my personal (subjective) experience is the opposite. When comparing two amps, both featuring the same UcD400HG+HxR modules, one with HG linear supplies the other with the SMPS400, me and a friend both found the linear supplied amp to sound much better.
This sound quality gap could be attributed to an assembly error or something (since the SMPS-powered up was built by another friend of ours) but upon a quick inspection there was nothing we could easily spot.
Allegedly, this friend of ours has had better results with UcDs powered by regulated switching supply units that some competitors sell, but I never had the chance to do a comparison myself.
In any case, I'd really like to have a matching SMPS for my NCore amp (though I'm not a fan of having it integrated on the same PCB, either).
Btw my personal (subjective) experience is the opposite. When comparing two amps, both featuring the same UcD400HG+HxR modules, one with HG linear supplies the other with the SMPS400, me and a friend both found the linear supplied amp to sound much better.
This sound quality gap could be attributed to an assembly error or something (since the SMPS-powered up was built by another friend of ours) but upon a quick inspection there was nothing we could easily spot.
Allegedly, this friend of ours has had better results with UcDs powered by regulated switching supply units that some competitors sell, but I never had the chance to do a comparison myself.
In any case, I'd really like to have a matching SMPS for my NCore amp (though I'm not a fan of having it integrated on the same PCB, either).
I don't see any point selling a $500 amplifier module to some hi-end pirate who wants to package it up in a fancy case and flog it for 20k. Surely that would not be in your interests, especially if they stuff up the implementation and you then get a bad reputation for it. You need to take the bull by the horns and establish a reference point or best practice for your own products
regards
Trevor
Just one vote for high-power DIY modules. That really should distinguish this technology by sidestepping the old thermal design and power wastage limitations to define new perfomance categories.
My home system previously utilized 30,000 watts of theoretic power amp capability, but at average load impedances which made it more like 10,000. Of course the average power used was far less. This was similar to the 2-channel Crown demonstration studio in Indiana. I recently changed from stacks of the switching-mode Crown CE4000 to stacks of more conventional "analog" amps with FET outputs, and reduced the power amp output capability by two thirds. My only point is that I like power. Efficiency in a 100 watt amp allows a nice small friendly chassis without sharp fins and new embedded applications. But even class A inefficiency is practical at 100 watts. But in a 10,000 watt amp efficiency becomes truly relevant. I have no real use for a low-power switch mode DIY toy except as a hobby curiosity, like making a small model steam engine. I'd like to see the DIY modules sized practically to match commonly-available circuit breaker buss voltages and commonly found residential and commercial circuit breaker currents, and common commercial drivers and speaker component boxes. Then I'd like to see them forget about "drop-in replacement in existing applications" and define new applications. Asking old-market people what they want is the biggest marketing mistake companies make...instead of defining and providing new capabilities and new markets.
The 1200 watt amp is well matched to two channels (2400 watts total for 2 channels) powered from a 120 volt 20 amp power outlet in the USA. I would also like to see a 3600 watt module (7200 watts for 2 channels) powered from a 240 volt 30 amp circuit.
I realize other people have other interests, and I prefer not to get into that debate. "System" engineering is an art of compromise, and right now my own DIY experiments accept the penalizing compromise in the form of a high power requirement, and that compromise eliminates compromises on other important parameters. It is one avenue to truly exceptional performance.
Looking at it another way, instead of my "speaker efficiency be damned" approach: Some may want to break switch-mode amps out of the subwoofer niche, perhaps a noble endeavor. But looking at subs in the current growth in the home theater market, even with the most efficient Danley tapped horn DTS-10 DIY kit, the power rating is 2000 watts a channel with a nominal impedance of 2.6 ohms. With 1200 watt modules I'd wire and power each of the two internal drivers in each box seperately and require 4 modules and a lot of wires just for the 2 low bass boxes. I'd prefer more powerful modules and the simplicity of one amp module per speaker box.
Now imagine if you want to use smaller long-excursion drivers in sealed bozes that are orders of magnitude lower efficiency. Look at the subs from Carver's Sunfire or JL Audio with 10,000 watt amps and IMHO mediocre output unless you use several. You're looking at 20,000 watts in a home theater application designed to not offend the spouse's decor with big black boxes.
Some of my favorite big planar dynamic speakers are not very efficient either. I'm really fed up with running so many multiple speaker wires to my subs, so many multiple speaker wires to my mid-bass units, and so many speaker wires to all my planar dynamic mids. My home system is as complicated as a mid-size PA and it will get much more compicated if I add 5.1 surround side, rear, and center channels. I lust for bigger more capable amps. I don't really like to wire drivers in series (which seems to exaggerate the impedance and response anomalies of individual drivers) just to match bridged power amp channels just to get away with fewer and lighter-guage speaker wires. I'm going to need multi-conductor Neutrik connectors and multi-conductor speaker wires.
And switch-mode amps have no additional short-time burst power capability for the few milliseconds it takes to reproduce a musical peak. Some high-quality more conventional "analog" amps can put out a several times their continuous power rating for a short time. Switching mode amps need to be specified oversized in order to handle equivalent peaks (in which case they handle them exceptionally well). I have some of the same issues with "analog" amps that use switch-mode power supplies. So for handling music with a lot of dynamics, a 1200 watt switch-mode amp might be more comparable to a 400-watt analog amp that can put out 1200 watts for a few milliseconds without clipping. And at 1205 watts that 400 watt amp might sound better despite sagging main rails and running its devices outside their linear range and a bit of compression and distortion than the switching-mode amp that can't produce that last 5 watts at all.
So as far as power rating I'd be thinking of a 1200 watt module as a cleaner Peavey Deca 1200 running in bridged mode, but the module would drive much lower impedance loads and be cheaper and fun to build with. So I'd be in. But I'd really favor a 3600 watt module and have no interest in low-power modules. Yes I'd like on-board buffered inputs...my finished amps would require balancd XLR inputs. Heck I could reduce my speaker wires by half and make a big multi-channel amp that would replace my entire stacks.
My home system previously utilized 30,000 watts of theoretic power amp capability, but at average load impedances which made it more like 10,000. Of course the average power used was far less. This was similar to the 2-channel Crown demonstration studio in Indiana. I recently changed from stacks of the switching-mode Crown CE4000 to stacks of more conventional "analog" amps with FET outputs, and reduced the power amp output capability by two thirds. My only point is that I like power. Efficiency in a 100 watt amp allows a nice small friendly chassis without sharp fins and new embedded applications. But even class A inefficiency is practical at 100 watts. But in a 10,000 watt amp efficiency becomes truly relevant. I have no real use for a low-power switch mode DIY toy except as a hobby curiosity, like making a small model steam engine. I'd like to see the DIY modules sized practically to match commonly-available circuit breaker buss voltages and commonly found residential and commercial circuit breaker currents, and common commercial drivers and speaker component boxes. Then I'd like to see them forget about "drop-in replacement in existing applications" and define new applications. Asking old-market people what they want is the biggest marketing mistake companies make...instead of defining and providing new capabilities and new markets.
The 1200 watt amp is well matched to two channels (2400 watts total for 2 channels) powered from a 120 volt 20 amp power outlet in the USA. I would also like to see a 3600 watt module (7200 watts for 2 channels) powered from a 240 volt 30 amp circuit.
I realize other people have other interests, and I prefer not to get into that debate. "System" engineering is an art of compromise, and right now my own DIY experiments accept the penalizing compromise in the form of a high power requirement, and that compromise eliminates compromises on other important parameters. It is one avenue to truly exceptional performance.
Looking at it another way, instead of my "speaker efficiency be damned" approach: Some may want to break switch-mode amps out of the subwoofer niche, perhaps a noble endeavor. But looking at subs in the current growth in the home theater market, even with the most efficient Danley tapped horn DTS-10 DIY kit, the power rating is 2000 watts a channel with a nominal impedance of 2.6 ohms. With 1200 watt modules I'd wire and power each of the two internal drivers in each box seperately and require 4 modules and a lot of wires just for the 2 low bass boxes. I'd prefer more powerful modules and the simplicity of one amp module per speaker box.
Now imagine if you want to use smaller long-excursion drivers in sealed bozes that are orders of magnitude lower efficiency. Look at the subs from Carver's Sunfire or JL Audio with 10,000 watt amps and IMHO mediocre output unless you use several. You're looking at 20,000 watts in a home theater application designed to not offend the spouse's decor with big black boxes.
Some of my favorite big planar dynamic speakers are not very efficient either. I'm really fed up with running so many multiple speaker wires to my subs, so many multiple speaker wires to my mid-bass units, and so many speaker wires to all my planar dynamic mids. My home system is as complicated as a mid-size PA and it will get much more compicated if I add 5.1 surround side, rear, and center channels. I lust for bigger more capable amps. I don't really like to wire drivers in series (which seems to exaggerate the impedance and response anomalies of individual drivers) just to match bridged power amp channels just to get away with fewer and lighter-guage speaker wires. I'm going to need multi-conductor Neutrik connectors and multi-conductor speaker wires.
And switch-mode amps have no additional short-time burst power capability for the few milliseconds it takes to reproduce a musical peak. Some high-quality more conventional "analog" amps can put out a several times their continuous power rating for a short time. Switching mode amps need to be specified oversized in order to handle equivalent peaks (in which case they handle them exceptionally well). I have some of the same issues with "analog" amps that use switch-mode power supplies. So for handling music with a lot of dynamics, a 1200 watt switch-mode amp might be more comparable to a 400-watt analog amp that can put out 1200 watts for a few milliseconds without clipping. And at 1205 watts that 400 watt amp might sound better despite sagging main rails and running its devices outside their linear range and a bit of compression and distortion than the switching-mode amp that can't produce that last 5 watts at all.
So as far as power rating I'd be thinking of a 1200 watt module as a cleaner Peavey Deca 1200 running in bridged mode, but the module would drive much lower impedance loads and be cheaper and fun to build with. So I'd be in. But I'd really favor a 3600 watt module and have no interest in low-power modules. Yes I'd like on-board buffered inputs...my finished amps would require balancd XLR inputs. Heck I could reduce my speaker wires by half and make a big multi-channel amp that would replace my entire stacks.
Last edited:
I don't see any point selling a $500 amplifier module to some hi-end pirate who wants to package it up in a fancy case and flog it for 20k. Surely that would not be in your interests, especially if they stuff up the implementation and you then get a bad reputation for it. You need to take the bull by the horns and establish a reference point or best practice for your own products
regards
Trevor
Not that I have ever tried selling anything in the audio market, but how much of a game changing design is it and how long have you got before there might be truly competitive products launched?
If I thought I had at least a 12 month true technology lead I think I would launch the product by getting into bed with at least two specialist manufacturers of high(ish) end stuff and do a deal where you provide the modules AND work with them on the design to produce a real state of the art amp that is actually properly engineered. That way you can launch a reference design or two, not need the manufacturing or sales channels for finished product, charge a royalty premium per amp on top of the module price, not **** off the whole industry by setting yourself up in competition with the world, and offer a similar deal to any other manufacturer that is interested - or just sell them the modules if they want. Once there are some high performance reference models in the market it won't matter so much if others launch so-so designs. I might even announce that for the first say 18 months the module will only be available in individual quantities for DIY/evaluation or commercially for jointly developed designs, after that period "when the revolutionary design is fully understood in the market or some such nonsense" the module will be made generally available.
The aim of the above being to get the product established into the market as true high end quality. Provide incentive and a known window for some manufacturers to come on board, make some money for both of you, and have a lot of demand waiting for the modules once fully released.
But what do I know about marketing? (very little, which is why I would want to leave that to the high end manufacturers that are *very* good at it).
Last edited:
What I wonder is how much modules sold to DIYers would cut into the market served by high end $$$ amp manufacturers in the first place? Look at how many companies are selling amps with UCD modules- if there wasn't a profit there, I don't think we would see so many....Despite the relative simplicity of assembling an amp from a module, in absolute terms, in comparison with the number of people who buy amps, I would think the numbers are quite small...
There are already tons of DIY options out there and the high end amp manufacturers continue on; it is hard to imagine that any successful high end company would find the small DIY crowd competition.....
Surely including value added features for the DIY crowd as already mentioned would serve to provide some differentiation but in truth acceptance and positive reviews from early DIY adopters could be the best advertising a high end company could hope for....
There are already tons of DIY options out there and the high end amp manufacturers continue on; it is hard to imagine that any successful high end company would find the small DIY crowd competition.....
Surely including value added features for the DIY crowd as already mentioned would serve to provide some differentiation but in truth acceptance and positive reviews from early DIY adopters could be the best advertising a high end company could hope for....
it's good to get input from all different angles. With all due respect, I'd have to say you're in an extra high power minority
That is an impressive sounding setup though.
that seems like a good idea. The main issue I see with Bruno & team creating a "productized" amp on their own is the distribution and marketing. Marketing may not be a big deal (Hypex has a certain amount of brand recognition already), but distribution can be troublesome. If they have some plans to overcome that then by all means make a nice statement amp.
I don't think it would cut into the market much. I think the issue is simply one of perception that their product is different from "off the shelf" (DIY is a niche, so I doubt their very worried about it cutting into their sales, just of how it affects their marketing spiel)
oops, here we are again conjecturing about Bruno's mareting plans. I guess we were supposed to get back to the DIY ncore wishlist.
oh! Bruno, if hypex make an adapter plate available, how about a right angle bracket/plate for higher density vertical mounting off of a heatsink or chassis?
I don't think it would cut into the market much. I think the issue is simply one of perception that their product is different from "off the shelf" (DIY is a niche, so I doubt their very worried about it cutting into their sales, just of how it affects their marketing spiel)
Look at how amp manufactures already differentiate their products-I have no doubt they would continue in the same fashion- proprietary inputs, wiring, noise suppression, dampening, shielding, "secret circuits", proprietary "improvements"...take a look at what the ice power users have done....I am sure it would be more of the same.
Congratulations to Bruno and the Hypex crew on the NCore amps! The data sheet is extremely impressive. I have UcD700AD, UcD400AD, and UcD180HG monoblocks already. It is hard to imagine an amplifier with ten times better specs than those.
It seems that the vote on power level for a DIY NCore already is converging, but I'd like to add a vote for the "small" side. I'm building a pair of speakers with fairly high sensitivities, so I reckon I just need 5 W for the tweeters, 50 W for the midranges, and some 200 W for the basses (8 ohm wattages). I'd like to build a compact chassis with six channels of amplification at suitable power levels and one or two SMPSs, and the thought of using something like the NCore for the mid and tweeter channels seems very attractive.
The distortion levels are already so low that it perhaps makes no difference, but I also look for where in the power range the distortion is the lowest. It seems to make sense for that point to be at or below the average power level in normal use. The UcD400HG has its lowest distortion around 0.4 - 0.5 W. That seems very reasonable to me, but I wouldn't mind it being at even lower power levels.
It seems that the vote on power level for a DIY NCore already is converging, but I'd like to add a vote for the "small" side. I'm building a pair of speakers with fairly high sensitivities, so I reckon I just need 5 W for the tweeters, 50 W for the midranges, and some 200 W for the basses (8 ohm wattages). I'd like to build a compact chassis with six channels of amplification at suitable power levels and one or two SMPSs, and the thought of using something like the NCore for the mid and tweeter channels seems very attractive.
The distortion levels are already so low that it perhaps makes no difference, but I also look for where in the power range the distortion is the lowest. It seems to make sense for that point to be at or below the average power level in normal use. The UcD400HG has its lowest distortion around 0.4 - 0.5 W. That seems very reasonable to me, but I wouldn't mind it being at even lower power levels.
You might be looking at noise addition to the signal below 0.5 W instead of actual distortion. 0.02% THD+N at 10 milliwatts is -74 dB, or about -120 dB from full power, so that could easily be noise.
if the ΟΕΜ nc1200 will have jumpers for the input buffer like ucd OEM a good idea
would be the offering of a standalone discrete buffer so we power hungry diyers
could buy an OEM module and add the buffer.
i use a pair a ucd2k`s with 1kva per channel for my speakers and receive better total
results from my ucd700hg + hxr because of my speakers high power demand.
with easier to drive speakers ucd700 sound cleaner.
would be the offering of a standalone discrete buffer so we power hungry diyers
could buy an OEM module and add the buffer.
i use a pair a ucd2k`s with 1kva per channel for my speakers and receive better total
results from my ucd700hg + hxr because of my speakers high power demand.
with easier to drive speakers ucd700 sound cleaner.
Last edited:
A quick random smattering of replies:
*It took me some time to get the SMPS400 where it is now. Low conducted EMI is really important for sound. Caps are Korean.
*ExtremA does one thing well: demonstrate that people who have been designing class A amplifiers with highish distortion figures for the past 30 years really have got something to explain... It went straight from inspiration to hardware without spending much quality time inside a cranium. Even before it was finished I caught myself thinking "I really should've done a class (A)B with a high order global loop".
*Mind the word "selected" in the Ncore announcement. We will not agree to sell Ncore to any clown who then goes and applies "philosophy" to it and mucks up the design. If the end product isn't one we'd be proud of, no modules will change hands. Of course we have to compensate for this rigidity and show flexibility elsewhere. Reasonable requests for customisation will be honoured, for instance. They'll get exactly what they want, with the exact parts they want (provided it's technically sensible), and they can even have their name on it. It's not only we who want to think of the product as "ours, and proudly so", the same has to go for the customer. This may exclude a lot of potential buyers but so much the better for those who are serious about their stuff.
*R/A mounting bracket, note taken. I'm off to the UK for a few days, when I'm back I'll list what features we've discussed so far.
*It took me some time to get the SMPS400 where it is now. Low conducted EMI is really important for sound. Caps are Korean.
*ExtremA does one thing well: demonstrate that people who have been designing class A amplifiers with highish distortion figures for the past 30 years really have got something to explain... It went straight from inspiration to hardware without spending much quality time inside a cranium. Even before it was finished I caught myself thinking "I really should've done a class (A)B with a high order global loop".
*Mind the word "selected" in the Ncore announcement. We will not agree to sell Ncore to any clown who then goes and applies "philosophy" to it and mucks up the design. If the end product isn't one we'd be proud of, no modules will change hands. Of course we have to compensate for this rigidity and show flexibility elsewhere. Reasonable requests for customisation will be honoured, for instance. They'll get exactly what they want, with the exact parts they want (provided it's technically sensible), and they can even have their name on it. It's not only we who want to think of the product as "ours, and proudly so", the same has to go for the customer. This may exclude a lot of potential buyers but so much the better for those who are serious about their stuff.
*R/A mounting bracket, note taken. I'm off to the UK for a few days, when I'm back I'll list what features we've discussed so far.
Last edited:
Bruno -
I realize that the high-end world provides you with some cash. My Quad rebuilds do the same thing. But for many of us in the DIY community and for lots of potential people off the street, the world of "high end audio" as perceived by $1000 power cords and simple gain stages costing as much as an Mercedes, is a joke. High-End audio manufacturers and the audio magazines (The Aboslute Sound, I'm looking at you here) have no-one to blame by themselves. The reviewers never call the manufacturers to task for outrageously priced designs. IE "If you had better engineers could you have gotten the same performance for a fraction of the cost?"
At the end of the day, you have to do what makes your company profitable and what makes you happy. (For me it was keeping an enjoyable day job and do the audio thing as a hobby) I hope you continue to offer your modules to individuals and hobbyists like myself, but I'd understand if you sacrificed the hobby market a bit to make sure you have a solid manufacturer base.
Good luck, and thanks for sharing your good designs with us.
Sheldon
I realize that the high-end world provides you with some cash. My Quad rebuilds do the same thing. But for many of us in the DIY community and for lots of potential people off the street, the world of "high end audio" as perceived by $1000 power cords and simple gain stages costing as much as an Mercedes, is a joke. High-End audio manufacturers and the audio magazines (The Aboslute Sound, I'm looking at you here) have no-one to blame by themselves. The reviewers never call the manufacturers to task for outrageously priced designs. IE "If you had better engineers could you have gotten the same performance for a fraction of the cost?"
At the end of the day, you have to do what makes your company profitable and what makes you happy. (For me it was keeping an enjoyable day job and do the audio thing as a hobby) I hope you continue to offer your modules to individuals and hobbyists like myself, but I'd understand if you sacrificed the hobby market a bit to make sure you have a solid manufacturer base.
Good luck, and thanks for sharing your good designs with us.
Sheldon
Could be, but the UcD400 datasheet graph I was looking at is labeled "THD", not "THD+N". I don't know the technology well enough to be sure, but it might be related to output transistor switching. It is just second and third harmonic at 120 - 130 dB below a 1 W signal in the NC1200 measurements, and nowhere near audibility, but I'd be even more interested in a Ncore version that is optimized for average power levels in the 10 - 50 milliwatt range and peaks at 50 W into 8 ohms.
A minority view, I'm sure.
@asbjbo, All our graphs are THD+N, so when the graph goes up towards the low end that really means you're looking at noise. It's just because THD+N is expressed relative to the signal level that you get a graph that slopes down. If you graphed absolute THD+N in volts instead of percents you'd just see it level out into the noise floor. Actual distortion keeps going down as signal levels drop, there's no optimum. Other than noise, THD at 50mW is completely off the scale. Actually, the higher the rated output power, the lower the THD at 50mW.
@stokessd, Other than not putting out a wide range of modules I don't think we're sacrificing DIY. I think with the current plans for the DIY module you won't call it sacrifice either once it's done
Since you ask, what would make me happy? To be able to walk round something like the AES fair and see my amps hidden in products everywhere. A kind of "touching everybody's life" thing. Well, what would REALLY make me happy at the moment is if my wife finally got her residence permit so she could come and join me here. But apart from that I mean
Really off now, gotta catch a plane.
@stokessd, Other than not putting out a wide range of modules I don't think we're sacrificing DIY. I think with the current plans for the DIY module you won't call it sacrifice either once it's done
Since you ask, what would make me happy? To be able to walk round something like the AES fair and see my amps hidden in products everywhere. A kind of "touching everybody's life" thing. Well, what would REALLY make me happy at the moment is if my wife finally got her residence permit so she could come and join me here. But apart from that I mean
Really off now, gotta catch a plane.
This looks like my next amplifier. 
I had a Ucd400HG with SMPS 67V. In my new setup I will need a neutral amp.
I would get as much power as possible at a reasonable cost. From where I`m standing a high-end version of Ucd400HG seems like the best option.
I had the 400HG mounted sideways to be able to expand to more modules for active filtering or surround.
One of the things that I would love to see is all connections at the edge of the board (so that angled pcb connectors like Neutrik NC3MD-H can be used).
I had a Ucd400HG with SMPS 67V. In my new setup I will need a neutral amp.
I would get as much power as possible at a reasonable cost. From where I`m standing a high-end version of Ucd400HG seems like the best option.
I had the 400HG mounted sideways to be able to expand to more modules for active filtering or surround.
One of the things that I would love to see is all connections at the edge of the board (so that angled pcb connectors like Neutrik NC3MD-H can be used).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.