Hypex UcD 400 & 180 separate opamp supply

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
L

Leeuwarden

Member
Joined 2002
#1
After looking through all the UcD threads i came to the conclusion that nobody tried to use a separate PS for the opamps. I'm very curious what the effect would be on the already very good sound. Since I'm not that brave to try this myself I thought it would be a nice idea to also post the PDF files from Hypex and let you guys give it a try first. 😀

Hope to hear your results soon!

Jan
 

Attachments

#6
Hi,

I guess the pdf is for all versions because it doesn't mention any version at all. I'm not shure though...

UcD180 looks more difficult. I agree. But the SMD transistors that have to be removed are quite big. (My building skills are also quite limited, but I think I could do this mod without damage...)

As far as I know those pdf-files were never published before. (I asked Jan-Peter if I was allowed to publish).

Jan
 
#7
Leeuwarden said:
Hi,

I guess the pdf is for all versions because it doesn't mention any version at all. I'm not shure though...

UcD180 looks more difficult. I agree. But the SMD transistors that have to be removed are quite big. (My building skills are also quite limited, but I think I could do this mod without damage...)

As far as I know those pdf-files were never published before. (I asked Jan-Peter if I was allowed to publish).

Jan
Click to expand...


Was this really worth starting a new thread for just so you could ask for someone else to try it and let you know if its' worth it? C'mon.... DIY
 
#8
Thank you for your contribution Classd4sure. I guess you did not read my first post, else you would have understood. We're not all as skilled as you (probably) are. I for one would like to read some more experiences from others before I spend the money on a separate PS and give it a try. Anyway, did you try it already?

Jan
 
#9
Yeah I read it, I'm one of the few who do read posts. Maybe that's my problem with it. I think I'm a fan of the days where there were but a few "product" related threads, whereby everyone could follow it easily and quickly find a good reference later on.

This topic in particular already has a dedicated thread, and it got no further, like you say no one has reported having tried it yet, so what's the use in another? No big deal anyway.

I would imagine the effect would be a cleaner, deeper, wider soundstage. I wouldn't expect a huge difference though, but a slight and worthwhile improvement. How worthwhile? No where near enough to spend 500$ on a regulator!

I have always intented on doing this but it was kept for last. Now I've done everything else to satisfaction and that's the next step. However, I'm in no hurry to get it done. I already have a dedicated 50VA transformer for the job, I "could" use a pair of BHC T-networks but it seems like such a waste just to regulate them after. Anyway, I won't be enough of a sucker to buy someone elses far too expensive regulator, and am not up to building my own at this time. I'll likely opt for the same type of solution that exists on the ucd700 psu, but with a shunt regulator as well... maaaaybe a cap multiplier before it too, see how adventurous I feel at the time. I don't think the slight difference in performance/sonics I'm expecting from it actually warrants spending very much on it, but yeah, worthwhile if you keep it on the cheap.
 
#10
classd4sure said:
I would imagine the effect would be a cleaner, deeper, wider soundstage. I wouldn't expect a huge difference though, but a slight and worthwhile improvement. How worthwhile? No where near enough to spend 500$ on a regulator!

I have always intented on doing this but it was kept for last. Now I've done everything else to satisfaction and that's the next step. However, I'm in no hurry to get it done. I already have a dedicated 50VA transformer for the job, I "could" use a pair of BHC T-networks but it seems like such a waste just to regulate them after. Anyway, I won't be enough of a sucker to buy someone elses far too expensive regulator, and am not up to building my own at this time. I'll likely opt for the same type of solution that exists on the ucd700 psu, but with a shunt regulator as well... maaaaybe a cap multiplier before it too, see how adventurous I feel at the time. I don't think the slight difference in performance/sonics I'm expecting from it actually warrants spending very much on it, but yeah, worthwhile if you keep it on the cheap.
Click to expand...

Could you explain to me what you mean by a $500 regulator? I am still under the impression that a symmetric PS with something like a 79xx, 78xx or 317, 337 would do the trick to power the opamp...
 
#12
My take on this is that you will be better off with a good "passive" supply here rather than an LM 317/337 based regulated supply. I have never liked the sound of these regulators, but concede they can be useful for reducing 120/100hz mains hum components in some circumstances.

This application calls for a supply for a dual op-amp which already has good PSR at low frequencies. I suspect a simple RC filtered power supply will do very well here in practice.

Regards,
Rob.
 
#14
I've recently built an AD815AY based pre-amp which used LM317/337 regs good quality caps etc, when these regs was disconnected and ALW super regs was fitted the difference in sound performance was well worth the effort, even the missus commented on it:bigeyes: only thing that now puts me off with using these SR's with my UCD's is that I've read a few posts that claimed the super regs did not go well with dacs output stages or pre-amp linestages which use the AD8620 :bawling: no idea why this is but apparently it made the bass sound thin and highs too bright😕
 
#16
UCD 400AD

UCD 400AD

I am interested to know if anyone has the id info for the two regulators marked as T16 & T17.

They are located at the lower right side while looking at the module from the top. T

here are a pair of caps directly in front of them blocking my view.

Thanks in advance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom