Hypex UCD vs. New Class-D
Hi Chris
This is getting a very long thres, so maybe it has already been answered by you in a previous post, or maybe it's just a no-no question, but how does the New Class-D amp compare to your UCD??
Hi Chris
This is getting a very long thres, so maybe it has already been answered by you in a previous post, or maybe it's just a no-no question, but how does the New Class-D amp compare to your UCD??
Re: The After Series
And yet you wrote to me by e-mail (on Aug. 14th):
But all in all, the sound is obviously superior to a stock UCD. Resolution.... detail.... clarity... musicality... just kicks ***. I really like it, you've done a fine job. I'm going to say as much on the forum as well. BTW I haven't powered up the UCD since I started messing with this, so A/B wise... I honestly haven't bothered.
Anzgar: We just got the 15.000uF 80V caps in this friday, that's why we didn't advertise that option before. But if you want, i think i can still swap your PSU for the bigger one. (Until UPS will pick up your shipment tomorrow). The bigger PSU cost some dkk 300 (USD 50) more than the standard PSU. The height is 110mm, so it will certainly not fit inside the ATI-738AU enclosure, at least not in the upright position.
classd4sure said:
And yet you wrote to me by e-mail (on Aug. 14th):
But all in all, the sound is obviously superior to a stock UCD. Resolution.... detail.... clarity... musicality... just kicks ***. I really like it, you've done a fine job. I'm going to say as much on the forum as well. BTW I haven't powered up the UCD since I started messing with this, so A/B wise... I honestly haven't bothered.
Anzgar: We just got the 15.000uF 80V caps in this friday, that's why we didn't advertise that option before. But if you want, i think i can still swap your PSU for the bigger one. (Until UPS will pick up your shipment tomorrow). The bigger PSU cost some dkk 300 (USD 50) more than the standard PSU. The height is 110mm, so it will certainly not fit inside the ATI-738AU enclosure, at least not in the upright position.
Listening and comparing is really a complicated process. In the beginning, we get a first impression, then one might get too analytical and lose the whole picture. Once we get into enjoying music and try to feel it, it is more easy to notice different things in detail.
That says it all, you can't really compare unless you compare them directly AB, especially if the differences are small.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
hah. I fully agree with you both there. Please be patient, I'm working on a fairly political reply 🙂
Re: Re: The After Series
Well Lars it's nice to know you actually do read my emails after all, but you dun just opened a can o' worms my friend.
The fact is I did say that, which I credit fully to "new toy syndrom". I wanted to give you a little encouragement too, despite the DOA, **** poor implementation, the components which differed in value, etc.
You ought to get your mind off the chicks man... put some blinders on maybe, focus a little 🙂 Still it was interesting to hear something new and different, which again contributes to new toy syndrom!
I was also wise enough to realize it at that time, and so included a disclaimer, which is the last sentence you were also kind enough to paste (as Sander points out). I found, mostly thanks to this thread, people have a real talent for selective reading, seeing and hearing what they want to. So here's that last sentence again:
"BTW I haven't powered up the UCD since I started messing with this, so A/B wise... I honestly haven't bothered."
That in fact means I hadn't yet bothered to compare them at all, and all you should have taken from that is that I saw some real potential in it, but that potential had to be better realized before I'd bother to compare them. I think, really, you had a bit too much faith in it sending it to me like that.
I stuck with NCD for a grand total of three days before I grew very weary of the far too smoothed fingerprint, sloppyness, high noise floor, one speaker hissing twice as loud as the other.... I said I'd evaluate it on its own merit, not Vs UcD, but I am used to a UcD, and a fairly well implemented one at that. So I reserved comparison for a later time after I'd fixed what wasn't right with it, and after I'd gotten them on a more level playing field. Why I did that I'll get to in just a little bit, something called hand washing.
"Stock UCD" in that statement also happens to slyly include the AC coupling electrolytics. I'd jump those suckers before even starting to worry about a power supply for them.
I can also say, what's said in a private email should remain so unless you obtain permission otherwise, ethics my man, and I know you would not appreciate Jan-Peter or Bruno pasting what I said to them about the differences between the two, believe me. I trust, that they have more class than that.
So Lars, when I say this:
"but this to me is the bare bones basic stuff I feel required in order for it to stand next to my UCD amp at all. "
..as I believe I also said to you in email very recently, or something very similar, it isn't with the intention of demeaning your product, just your lazy implementation in what you sent me. I was never very shy with my thoughts on that, but to be real clear, you should have viewed that as an investment in your product and company, and treated it accordingly. I think we can both agree, you didn't do that. You left me to surmise that you must have wanted me to get my hands dirty with it (hell it was DOA, if that's not obvious enough, then what is?), and I gladly did so, only for you to step in later and wash your hands of it, stating "too many changes"... but then I look at the condition they came to me in... and I can only say "wwwwhat the ****!?"
Want them compared to a UcD? I've done all I can to put them on a level playing field... so it gets harder to wash your hands of the results, you see? How evil is that!
They're fairly equally implemented now, both have balanced inputs, all bridges are snubbed, they all have T-networks, 15 000uF per rail per channel Vs 10 000uF per rail per channel as opposed to the stock 5 000uF. They're both wired with one channel in opposing phase, and noise floor is now equal on each channel. Aside from the transformer which is twice the voltage and half the current capability (nerf) with no additional shielding, they are fairly equal, and I believe can be compared, somewhat honestly, allowing me to retain some level of credibility I hope, but I'll get to that later, I'm typed out for now.
Cheers,
Chris
PS:
-I still say that "LED" is at the heart of the "seismic" sensor, but it's hard to follow what's going on there, not that I've put much effort into it either.
-Holding the supply pin (3) of the driver low is about the only obvious way of implementing an enable feature that I can see.
PPS: Kindly avoid the temptation to try and put words in my mouth.
Lars Clausen said:
Well Lars it's nice to know you actually do read my emails after all, but you dun just opened a can o' worms my friend.
The fact is I did say that, which I credit fully to "new toy syndrom". I wanted to give you a little encouragement too, despite the DOA, **** poor implementation, the components which differed in value, etc.
You ought to get your mind off the chicks man... put some blinders on maybe, focus a little 🙂 Still it was interesting to hear something new and different, which again contributes to new toy syndrom!
I was also wise enough to realize it at that time, and so included a disclaimer, which is the last sentence you were also kind enough to paste (as Sander points out). I found, mostly thanks to this thread, people have a real talent for selective reading, seeing and hearing what they want to. So here's that last sentence again:
"BTW I haven't powered up the UCD since I started messing with this, so A/B wise... I honestly haven't bothered."
That in fact means I hadn't yet bothered to compare them at all, and all you should have taken from that is that I saw some real potential in it, but that potential had to be better realized before I'd bother to compare them. I think, really, you had a bit too much faith in it sending it to me like that.
I stuck with NCD for a grand total of three days before I grew very weary of the far too smoothed fingerprint, sloppyness, high noise floor, one speaker hissing twice as loud as the other.... I said I'd evaluate it on its own merit, not Vs UcD, but I am used to a UcD, and a fairly well implemented one at that. So I reserved comparison for a later time after I'd fixed what wasn't right with it, and after I'd gotten them on a more level playing field. Why I did that I'll get to in just a little bit, something called hand washing.
"Stock UCD" in that statement also happens to slyly include the AC coupling electrolytics. I'd jump those suckers before even starting to worry about a power supply for them.
I can also say, what's said in a private email should remain so unless you obtain permission otherwise, ethics my man, and I know you would not appreciate Jan-Peter or Bruno pasting what I said to them about the differences between the two, believe me. I trust, that they have more class than that.
So Lars, when I say this:
"but this to me is the bare bones basic stuff I feel required in order for it to stand next to my UCD amp at all. "
..as I believe I also said to you in email very recently, or something very similar, it isn't with the intention of demeaning your product, just your lazy implementation in what you sent me. I was never very shy with my thoughts on that, but to be real clear, you should have viewed that as an investment in your product and company, and treated it accordingly. I think we can both agree, you didn't do that. You left me to surmise that you must have wanted me to get my hands dirty with it (hell it was DOA, if that's not obvious enough, then what is?), and I gladly did so, only for you to step in later and wash your hands of it, stating "too many changes"... but then I look at the condition they came to me in... and I can only say "wwwwhat the ****!?"
Want them compared to a UcD? I've done all I can to put them on a level playing field... so it gets harder to wash your hands of the results, you see? How evil is that!
They're fairly equally implemented now, both have balanced inputs, all bridges are snubbed, they all have T-networks, 15 000uF per rail per channel Vs 10 000uF per rail per channel as opposed to the stock 5 000uF. They're both wired with one channel in opposing phase, and noise floor is now equal on each channel. Aside from the transformer which is twice the voltage and half the current capability (nerf) with no additional shielding, they are fairly equal, and I believe can be compared, somewhat honestly, allowing me to retain some level of credibility I hope, but I'll get to that later, I'm typed out for now.
Cheers,
Chris
PS:
-I still say that "LED" is at the heart of the "seismic" sensor, but it's hard to follow what's going on there, not that I've put much effort into it either.
-Holding the supply pin (3) of the driver low is about the only obvious way of implementing an enable feature that I can see.
PPS: Kindly avoid the temptation to try and put words in my mouth.
Lars Clausen said:Chris: didn't expect nice-ness.
Ooooooh I bet you didn't! None the less, I'm simply trying to be fair to you.
Don't worry about it Chris, in a few months there will be many independent reviews posted here, and then the readers of the forum will get the true picture. Not the 'political' one 😀
Cheers 😉
Cheers 😉
guys, if you want to make out, go somewhere else.
if you have some technical points to discuss, lay it out.
if you want to do your marketing, there is a right forum for it as well.
I say it is serving your medicine right back to you.
if you have some technical points to discuss, lay it out.
if you want to do your marketing, there is a right forum for it as well.
I say it is serving your medicine right back to you.
Classd4sure and fokker: We want you guys to contribute, but clearly emotions are getting in the way. Take two days away from this thread to cool down. That will avoid SinBin time.
Lars Clausen said:
I'm glad for that, it really should.
Don't worry though Lars, it's not going to be all bad. They are different animals after all, and I intend for my comments to reflect that. So here goes:
Fact is I find your amp is alot better now, although more so on less efficient speakers, otherwise the hiss still gets to me after awhile (tiring). Call it a side effect of such high gain maybe? Call it higher EMI too. So what happens is, I turn it up enough to bury the noise, and then play something dynamic...... it gets a little crazy! I'm able to listen to UcD at far lower volumes far more comfortably, because it has no such noise.
The changes I've made to the supply really helped with the sloppyness, as did going with fully balanced inputs (big difference, do it!) and inverting the phase of one channel, along with the extra caps, it now acts like a fairly stiff supply even on my cerwins at louder volumes than I enjoy for casual listening.
In terms of soundstage and holography, you come up markedly short Vs UcD, but it does perform enjoyably none the less, and I'm willing to bet your Nerf xformers plays a big roll here. I do intend to swap xformers later on to rule that out, but I'm just in no hurry for that. I also think a better supply in general would go a long way here.
I hear the switching noise on my speakers over the hiss now (reduced hiss) so there's still a heterodyne problem with it, absent on the UcD (entirely) but the heterodyn noise doesn't follow along with transients anymore, not audibly for mostly all my recordings (ty spaghetti) which I have to say, it was kind of bad at first. So I now find that acceptable. This can possibly be improved further with some added filtering (ferrites etc), but alas, I've made no extra effort in that respect for the UcD either (equally implemented, equally treated).
On the Sound Dynamic speakers (lower efficiency) none of that bothers me much at all as it's far less audible, as is turn on/off noise, which the UcD does not have at all. So I actually find it really very enjoyable on the sound dynamics, extended listening is a real kick on them, I can also better enjoy the dynamics without it being too crazy for the neighbours.
On the Cerwins, UcD is deathly quiet, but it has lower gain, also enjoys a better transformer, far better supply (fully floating.. I couldnt' help you there Lars). EMI performance is also alot better for it though.
So yeah, they're just different, really different. I've listened to your amp for a week straight without tiring, it's still smooth, but not overly so, as I found it before, and "very" musical, there's nothing cold about it. UcD is also musical, put is pushing more analytical. Don't forget though, that's stock (and wont' be for very much longer).
You enjoy the result of some slightly more expensive components at first, UcD has that stock thinness, yours doesn't, but that's too easily fixed for it to really be an issue.
Yours is now imaging half decent, with weird holography at times, certain sounds just fly right out, some surround you, others not. UcD is fully enveloping at all times across the entire frequency range, with a dark black depth, just amazing. Truth is, there's no real comparison here at all. Not yet, but I do still see further potential.... then again, UcD also has alot more potential.
I'm afraid there's really no small difference in the character between the two, to be bluntly honest, they're very different.
I imagine all aspects of soundstage /imaging/etc of NCD would further improve with a better transformer and even more so with a better supply altogether. There's still untapped potential here. So there's no newfarce amp o the year award, but it's not in the trash bin yet either, not by a long shot.
If it should in fact eventually prove to have lower THD, well, this will be the proof that low THD on its own isn't all encompassing.
Maybe a production model will be different too... care to chance that Lars?
Anyway, I know what I prefer, but I'm not here to tell anyone what they ought to prefer. I find it's a good sounding amp when implemented half decently. My view is, Lars, you ought to market it on its own merit, which I feel it has, and not try to get into any comparative wars. 'nuff said.
BTW, now that I've thought about it, it doesn't seem to really have a true post filter feedback option, more of a mixed mod really? (Charles?). In light of that, I think it can use the non-Zobel network you've employed, and I will therefor leave it on.
Also keep in mind, I have been lazy, and not yet actually tried the post/mixed mode feedback.
So that's my impression of the two with NCD before ever attempting it, and I'm sure it will be interesting for us all to see how my opinion changes when I do, if at all.
Regards,
Chris
Lars Clausen said:
I guess Lars my non political view would be to get UcD, priced lower and easily outclasses.
I too am looking forward to more opinions.
Best Regards,
Chris
Chris, tell me something about your setup please detailed (CD-transport, DAC, Speakers, cables).
If it's done already, i'm sorry -thread is too large.
If it's done already, i'm sorry -thread is too large.
Chris, maybe you could also take a picture of the setup + a description on the room and dimensions.
To my mind the room acoustics is far more importan than anything else!
To my mind the room acoustics is far more importan than anything else!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.