You have certain properties in an inverting amp and likewise in a non-inverting one too. Unfortunately you can't have all good properties from both configurations at the same time. You must disregard some and this is by nature so if you are a designer you'll have to make the choices and my hints are only hints, Lars.
So now it has happened!The LC Audio 700XE has been outperformed even before it's available to the customers!As a customer I don't know if I'd laugh or cry 😀 
The question is how to get money to purchase Lars' new amazing
creation when the money for it is locked up in the 700XE.
Interesting to see which one will reach the custumers first..
The question is how to get money to purchase Lars' new amazing
creation when the money for it is locked up in the 700XE.
Interesting to see which one will reach the custumers first..
Lars, congratulations on what looks to be one of the best class D designs available and not just in DIY circles.
I particularly like the idea of the processor monitoring the operating conditions of the amp and adjusting parameters to keep things safe and optimal. And if the distortion measurements are anything to go by then this should be one clean performer.
May I ask how long until these are available to purchase. Are we talking short term and the design is stable and finalised or are there bugs still to be ironed out?
I particularly like the idea of the processor monitoring the operating conditions of the amp and adjusting parameters to keep things safe and optimal. And if the distortion measurements are anything to go by then this should be one clean performer.
May I ask how long until these are available to purchase. Are we talking short term and the design is stable and finalised or are there bugs still to be ironed out?
ShinOBIWAN: Thanks for your comments, and question.
The current status is that the module is technically ready, and i am going into EMC and safety testing with some prototypes. This is for CE approval. After that the production starts in about one month from now, and so the modules will be available by mid or late August. There is also a summer holiday to enjoy very soon 😎
All the best from
Lars
The current status is that the module is technically ready, and i am going into EMC and safety testing with some prototypes. This is for CE approval. After that the production starts in about one month from now, and so the modules will be available by mid or late August. There is also a summer holiday to enjoy very soon 😎
All the best from
Lars
Lars Clausen said:
Sounds like an excellent strategy Lars.
I really would rather the modules were 100% ready rather than what I have seen with 700XE and its unfortunate setbacks.
Are you talking orders and payment for modules? I rather like the sound of the discount kit you've got going.
Exactly, that's why i'm not rushing into sending any modules out, before everything is tested and tested again.....
And i want the documentation to be complete before shipping anything out, so taking the modules into operation will be trouble free, and give the DIY'er a really good experience. And also give the user a sense that quality is also built into the documentation.
Also things like customer support, quality control, Warranty system, Shipping handling and this kind of things, all should be in place before the first modules ship out. Many of these items are already installed, but will be fully ready by the date above.
Until then i am not shipping anything, but of course if you are interested in pre ordering some modules, we can find a good solution for that too. Just send me an e-mail.
All the best from
Lars
And i want the documentation to be complete before shipping anything out, so taking the modules into operation will be trouble free, and give the DIY'er a really good experience. And also give the user a sense that quality is also built into the documentation.
Also things like customer support, quality control, Warranty system, Shipping handling and this kind of things, all should be in place before the first modules ship out. Many of these items are already installed, but will be fully ready by the date above.
Until then i am not shipping anything, but of course if you are interested in pre ordering some modules, we can find a good solution for that too. Just send me an e-mail.
All the best from
Lars
Re: Re: Patents
Just gradually reading though the thread and responding as I read. There had been many direct coupled power amp designs around for a very long time, and the topology takes the feedback right from the speaker lead. Many general descrptions also take the feedback from the speaker. So I find it quite funny that someone would even want to patent it nowadays by just showing more detail in the implementation. Feedback using the last state had always been used to show a basic design concept. It was only that some cases output inductors/coils are necessary to create better performance that the coils were added.
Bruno Putzeys said:
Just gradually reading though the thread and responding as I read. There had been many direct coupled power amp designs around for a very long time, and the topology takes the feedback right from the speaker lead. Many general descrptions also take the feedback from the speaker. So I find it quite funny that someone would even want to patent it nowadays by just showing more detail in the implementation. Feedback using the last state had always been used to show a basic design concept. It was only that some cases output inductors/coils are necessary to create better performance that the coils were added.
Re: Re: Re: Patents
I tend to agree. In order for the patent to stand, it needs to be specific to switching mode amplifiers. I don't remember the dates of these patents here, but we've been using PWM type amplfiers in other technical sectors since the 80's.
Genomerics said:
I tend to agree. In order for the patent to stand, it needs to be specific to switching mode amplifiers. I don't remember the dates of these patents here, but we've been using PWM type amplfiers in other technical sectors since the 80's.
Snickers-is said:
I think it's possible to hook single end output to a differential input. Results are better than full single end.
Re: Re: Re: Patents
I think we can all agree it was a stretch to put such emphasis on that method of feedback, when in fact it's as Charles states, the worthyness of the UCD patent is more in the circuit as a whole, and alot of the "magic" of it doesn't even appear in the patent.
I was a little bit shocked to see that from Philips, Bruno, sorry to see they fail to recognize the worth of such genius, and are so quick pimping it to market their components. At least it appears they aren't handing out copies of whatever version of the circuit they happen to have.
I guess it say's alot for the UCD and at the same time very little of their ethic or their components which they can't seem to market on the merit of them alone.
Good to see you doing well and keeping at your "hobby" without them. Personally I think the UCD is at such a level that it's near silly to worry about someone using the same method of feedback alone, but in this case there's a bit of history that may have gotten in the way.
Given that, it isn't going to sway me one way or the other when I listen to it in either mode. I'm not going to be thinking "OK this is UCD mode compared to Lars' preference of pre filter feedback", nor will I do so when I inevitably compare it to the actual UCD. I will try to stay open minded and unbiased.
In fact the UCD I'll have to compare it to will be a stock AD version aside from removed coupling caps. "NewclassD" is said to be fully tweaked.. I think people should keep that in mind when they compare cost as well, as the UCD is still basically the "industrial" version, though it takes very little to get alot out of it.... maybe they're more equal in terms of cost then you'd originally think. Let's wait and see how the performance is. I'm pretty anxious for it.
Cheers
soongsc said:
I think we can all agree it was a stretch to put such emphasis on that method of feedback, when in fact it's as Charles states, the worthyness of the UCD patent is more in the circuit as a whole, and alot of the "magic" of it doesn't even appear in the patent.
I was a little bit shocked to see that from Philips, Bruno, sorry to see they fail to recognize the worth of such genius, and are so quick pimping it to market their components. At least it appears they aren't handing out copies of whatever version of the circuit they happen to have.
I guess it say's alot for the UCD and at the same time very little of their ethic or their components which they can't seem to market on the merit of them alone.
Good to see you doing well and keeping at your "hobby" without them. Personally I think the UCD is at such a level that it's near silly to worry about someone using the same method of feedback alone, but in this case there's a bit of history that may have gotten in the way.
Given that, it isn't going to sway me one way or the other when I listen to it in either mode. I'm not going to be thinking "OK this is UCD mode compared to Lars' preference of pre filter feedback", nor will I do so when I inevitably compare it to the actual UCD. I will try to stay open minded and unbiased.
In fact the UCD I'll have to compare it to will be a stock AD version aside from removed coupling caps. "NewclassD" is said to be fully tweaked.. I think people should keep that in mind when they compare cost as well, as the UCD is still basically the "industrial" version, though it takes very little to get alot out of it.... maybe they're more equal in terms of cost then you'd originally think. Let's wait and see how the performance is. I'm pretty anxious for it.
Cheers
soongsc said:
Well, looking at the schematic that Lars posted, additional circuits are necessary. I guess I was thinking along the semi-differential input configuration. I wonder why the semi-differential is not used in audio? It seems like a compromise to accept both differential and single ended outputs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents
I don't think anyone could be dissappointed with the Hypex stuff from what I've heard with a UcD700AD. The NCD1 comes from a good background, uses sensible design choices and also appears to be a strong performer.
classd4sure said:
I don't think anyone could be dissappointed with the Hypex stuff from what I've heard with a UcD700AD. The NCD1 comes from a good background, uses sensible design choices and also appears to be a strong performer.
BTW, Lars, does the MCU actually change variables in the modulation/timing etc.... or does it simply monitor for protection purposes. The frequency shift could be done naturally.... and I'm under the impression this is so, with the MCU simply working as a watchdog. Maybe I missed something?
Hi Chris
Yes, pulse / timing intervening functions were closely considered in the design phase, but being a microprocessor, and not a DSP, the chip wasn't fast enough to generate any useful pulse functions.
So it's functions are more watchdog type.
It's inputs are the 'seismic' sensors, voltages, and thermal, but it only has two outputs, one is 'on/off', and the other is the LED. So it does flash differently depending on type of error condition.
6200 watches on the thread in just around one week, that's an incredible interest, Thank You all. 🙂
Yes, pulse / timing intervening functions were closely considered in the design phase, but being a microprocessor, and not a DSP, the chip wasn't fast enough to generate any useful pulse functions.
So it's functions are more watchdog type.
It's inputs are the 'seismic' sensors, voltages, and thermal, but it only has two outputs, one is 'on/off', and the other is the LED. So it does flash differently depending on type of error condition.
6200 watches on the thread in just around one week, that's an incredible interest, Thank You all. 🙂
Thanks for clearing that up. So the frequency variation is done naturally 🙂 Self oscillating, possible downside, is the Risc MCU clocked to a multiple of the oscilating frequency?... can it be a variable clock... I doubt it. Hopefully the layout renders this a non issue... I''llllll be listening..... Lars 
😉
FPGA I trust would have been capable of controlling switching but maybe not the "watchdog" as well? Design = compromise eh?
Anyway I think all the protection simplified the PCB obviously. That could turn out to be a bonus or not. Can't wait to hear it, abuse it, insult it.... just kidding.
How's it comming along?
😉 FPGA I trust would have been capable of controlling switching but maybe not the "watchdog" as well? Design = compromise eh?
Anyway I think all the protection simplified the PCB obviously. That could turn out to be a bonus or not. Can't wait to hear it, abuse it, insult it.... just kidding.
How's it comming along?
ATMEL actually make a combined MCU and FPGA chip, called FPSLIC (http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/product_card.asp?part_id=2537).
Future implementations of it would depend on whether it can operate stably under conditions found in a Class D amplifier.
I am guessing that it's a FPGA chip, where the RISC microprocessor is implemented as VHDL code.
The downside is that these chips are huge compared to the 8 pin AVRtiny13. The smallest one seems to be 100 pin TQFP.
The upside is, the amp can readjust itself, simplifying the production. But obviously it is future stuff. 😉
Future implementations of it would depend on whether it can operate stably under conditions found in a Class D amplifier.
I am guessing that it's a FPGA chip, where the RISC microprocessor is implemented as VHDL code.
The downside is that these chips are huge compared to the 8 pin AVRtiny13. The smallest one seems to be 100 pin TQFP.
The upside is, the amp can readjust itself, simplifying the production. But obviously it is future stuff. 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.