from my research and readings, there have been numerous reviews comparing the tripath products (charlize, 41hz stuff, etc... ) with itself and the sonic impact stuff, but very little (if any?) reviews comparing the UcD to its class d cousins. the UcD just seems to be compared to other solid state stuff, where the tripath-based amps are compared to other tripath AND solid state stuff.
oh, and by solid state, i mean class a and class ab. i just mean "more traditional".
oh, and by solid state, i mean class a and class ab. i just mean "more traditional".
cowanrg said:
I have UcD amps and a Tripath based 4-channel Marantz amp based on the Tripath TA3020 chip. The UcDs easily blow away the Marantz. The UcDs have far less noise (important for active speakers) and sound better as well. The Marantz does not sound bad but they clearly loose in comparison with UcD. This does of course not mean that other Tripath based amps would sound better or worse than UcD. The Marantz was quite cheap, about $1000 for 4 channels. Other amps with Tripath may sound better than that Marantz.
Best regards
Gertjan
Has anyone done any side by side comparisons yet?
I havent even recieved my Charlize amps yet, so maybe I'm jumping the gun, but the UCD400 looks very interesting...
I havent even recieved my Charlize amps yet, so maybe I'm jumping the gun, but the UCD400 looks very interesting...
I've spent only a little time with a UcD amp, so haven't a basis for comparison (yet ... UcDs are in the works). I'm currently experimenting with getting the best from Charlize Tripath modules and can say if UcDs better these little modules by any appreciable degree, they must be quite some amplifier. My Tripath set-up currently uses two modules each with its own supply. Changing from one to two supplies seriously improved sonics, especially low-level information, suggesting a main weakness in these amps is their typical stereo application. I personally doubt the UcDs can do much better on any count except power, but will be happy if they do.
serengetiplains said:
Both output stages are connected to the same supply in these 2ch Tripath amps out now - part of the reason for poor channel separation (although they still seem to image quite well!). The UCDs are of course single channel modules so you need two for a stereo amp, and there you're already up to $160+ depending on what you buy and that isn't including the power supply. You also get loads more power and load independent frequency response with the UCDs. If you have the money I would go for it, but these low cost chip amps are a great way to get your feet wet and get great sound for your money.
Hi,
In my view IC based class D like tripath will always have worse performance than a well implemented module such as the UCD.
Apart from that as already stated they can be a cheap and practical way of sampling what might be an all new technology for you, useful if you're curious but have some reservations.
With a product like the Hypex modules though, highly refined/robust and excellent performers, I recommend jumping in with both feet if you can because in the long run I don't think something like Tripath would be entirely satisfying and it can be cheaper to get the best first than building several different amps.
Tom, I think you'll be blown away.
Regards,
Chris
In my view IC based class D like tripath will always have worse performance than a well implemented module such as the UCD.
Apart from that as already stated they can be a cheap and practical way of sampling what might be an all new technology for you, useful if you're curious but have some reservations.
With a product like the Hypex modules though, highly refined/robust and excellent performers, I recommend jumping in with both feet if you can because in the long run I don't think something like Tripath would be entirely satisfying and it can be cheaper to get the best first than building several different amps.
Tom, I think you'll be blown away.
Regards,
Chris
Interesting to see the no one has really done a head to head comparison of the amps. That would interest me very much.
Perhaps Brian will be the 1st to do so.
Comparing the small Tripath 12V chips to Hypex modules would be a little unfair, as the Hypex modules are so much more powerful. You would almost need to run an AMP1 in bridge mode to compete.
Why? Shouldn't chip amps have certain advantages such as lower parasitic inductances and better thermal tracking? There may be some disadvantages, too, but would they outweigh the advantages?
I anxiously await a good thorough listening test between the 2 technologies. That's the only way to know how they truly compare. Certainly both sound good, but is one clearly superior to the other?
Perhaps Brian will be the 1st to do so.
Comparing the small Tripath 12V chips to Hypex modules would be a little unfair, as the Hypex modules are so much more powerful. You would almost need to run an AMP1 in bridge mode to compete.
Why? Shouldn't chip amps have certain advantages such as lower parasitic inductances and better thermal tracking? There may be some disadvantages, too, but would they outweigh the advantages?
I anxiously await a good thorough listening test between the 2 technologies. That's the only way to know how they truly compare. Certainly both sound good, but is one clearly superior to the other?
I have here singing Charlize with a pair of Hedlund horns. Performance and sound are amazing, but I'd like to go to the two monoblocks setup and just curious got two UcD 180 to try.
The question arises: can a 180w beast be good companion for very efficient speakers?
anybody has running the UcD modules with speakers > 96db? pasive pre? active..in this case how much gain in the pre?.
I'd like to be sure before implementing the UcD180, after that I could make an A/B test, although I suspect they are very different creatures.
Too much (newbie) questions... sorry.
JL
The question arises: can a 180w beast be good companion for very efficient speakers?
anybody has running the UcD modules with speakers > 96db? pasive pre? active..in this case how much gain in the pre?.
I'd like to be sure before implementing the UcD180, after that I could make an A/B test, although I suspect they are very different creatures.
Too much (newbie) questions... sorry.
JL
One difference between the Tripath and UcD modules, again relating to power output, is that one can more easily regulate the power supply for Tripath chips because of their lower DCV+I requirements. I consider this an advantage for the Tripath because I prefer psu regulation---even more, I prefer to regulate the AC on which a regulated psu draws, the combination of which, in my system, and to my ears, gives maximum resolution and maximum reduced glare and edge. The reduced power output of the Tripaths can be compensated, in part, by careful speaker selection, and by doubling and tripling the number of modules used to drive a pair of speakers. I, for instance, am currently building a pair of MTM speakers which I will tri-amp with the Charlize modules. This set-up will give me 95dB efficiency with three regulated psus. Should be quite something, I think.
Then I will get building a UcD 700.
Then I will get building a UcD 700.
Hi,
I'm running a stereo pair of UCD180 with Cerwin Vega VS-150 4ohm speakers, rated efficiency is 102dB. The modules have a death grip in control over the speakers and sounds the same in that manner when connected to a 12ohm speaker of 86dB efficiency, only much more power. That is the character of the sound does not change.
My preamp /source is the EMU 1820m soundcard. The gain is a good match for it, but if you go with a passive preamp you can adjust the gain of the modules as others have done.
I believe you're correct in that they're very different creatures, and dont' really think they can be compared to one another on a fair basis. In my view it's like racing a ferrari with a town bus to see which one handles the corners best.
Regards,
Chris
I'm running a stereo pair of UCD180 with Cerwin Vega VS-150 4ohm speakers, rated efficiency is 102dB. The modules have a death grip in control over the speakers and sounds the same in that manner when connected to a 12ohm speaker of 86dB efficiency, only much more power. That is the character of the sound does not change.
My preamp /source is the EMU 1820m soundcard. The gain is a good match for it, but if you go with a passive preamp you can adjust the gain of the modules as others have done.
I believe you're correct in that they're very different creatures, and dont' really think they can be compared to one another on a fair basis. In my view it's like racing a ferrari with a town bus to see which one handles the corners best.
Regards,
Chris
panomaniac said:
Hi,
Mainly EMI susceptibility at higher power levels. Even the lower power chips are having issues with it. Notice how Mueta's new published measurements of their IC are worse than those of their module as well... I think the disadvanges of going IC based do outweigh the benefits, with respect to "as good as it can get" high-end performance, that's not to say it still can't make a half decent /very impressive sounding amp.
Regards,
Chris
classd4sure said:
Chris: 😱 No kidding death grip! I do look forward to hearing these UcD modules under controlled circumstances (I've only auditioned an amp built by someone else). From everything I've read, they are very well engineered and should form quite a cornerstone to my main system.
serengetiplains said:
No kidding at all. They sound great even poorly implemented, beat anything commercial anyway. When you do it right it becomes a phenomenal experience, and I'm confident you'll be very impressed. Looking forward to hearing about your results too.
Regards,
Chris
I've had Amp3,Amp6 and UCD180's in my system.
The Tripath kits do sound rather good even excellent especially for the price
The UCD (to my ears) has a similar sound but far superior IMHO and not just because its higher powered
I found that the Tripath kits loose out in the highs,tone etc compared to the UCD's, the UCD's just sounded more real
I tried various coupling caps for the Amp3 and settled on Multicap RTX, the volume control was a Stepped Attenuator (the same used for the UCD's) I've tried various PSU's including Battery,discrete and non discrete regs but settled on Nuuks SMPS with a 10,000uf Siemans Sikoral cap on the output and 680uf BG N types for the chips decoupling which gave the best results to my ears
I did no mods to the Amp6 because it was not mine but I'm currently trying a few things out on the UCD's
I brought the UCD180ST and even as standard I'd say its better than what my modified Amp3 was but since changing the op-amp,adding the CRD and some other things (cheers to Chris and others for the advice) it quite comfortably beats the Amp3
The thing to remember though is that just one of the transformers I use for the UCD amp cost more than the Amp3😉 for the price the little Tripath kits are hard to beat and with a few added nice components can sound very good🙂
The Tripath kits do sound rather good even excellent especially for the price
The UCD (to my ears) has a similar sound but far superior IMHO and not just because its higher powered
I found that the Tripath kits loose out in the highs,tone etc compared to the UCD's, the UCD's just sounded more real
I tried various coupling caps for the Amp3 and settled on Multicap RTX, the volume control was a Stepped Attenuator (the same used for the UCD's) I've tried various PSU's including Battery,discrete and non discrete regs but settled on Nuuks SMPS with a 10,000uf Siemans Sikoral cap on the output and 680uf BG N types for the chips decoupling which gave the best results to my ears
I did no mods to the Amp6 because it was not mine but I'm currently trying a few things out on the UCD's
I brought the UCD180ST and even as standard I'd say its better than what my modified Amp3 was but since changing the op-amp,adding the CRD and some other things (cheers to Chris and others for the advice) it quite comfortably beats the Amp3
The thing to remember though is that just one of the transformers I use for the UCD amp cost more than the Amp3😉 for the price the little Tripath kits are hard to beat and with a few added nice components can sound very good🙂
I know the comparison is between tripath amps but I just came accross these posts on the audiocircle forum which compare AKSA & UCD700 - initially prefering the UCD over the AKSA
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/...ostdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=ucd&start=0
and here from the same poster with a change of mind prefering the AKSA
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?p=221511&highlight=ucd#221511
Hope I'm not too off topic to be of interest - these posts do seem to give a balanced view of the different sounds of SS compared to class D (AKSA is designed with 2nd order harmonics dialled in by the designer, Hugh Dean)
Does class T have more 2 ord harmonics than other class D?
John
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/...ostdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=ucd&start=0
and here from the same poster with a change of mind prefering the AKSA
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?p=221511&highlight=ucd#221511
Hope I'm not too off topic to be of interest - these posts do seem to give a balanced view of the different sounds of SS compared to class D (AKSA is designed with 2nd order harmonics dialled in by the designer, Hugh Dean)
Does class T have more 2 ord harmonics than other class D?
John
jkeny said:
An interesting comparison. Personally I'm not a believer in intentionally coloring an amplifier to make up for low quality recordings. That sort of thing is best done with an EQ or DSP which can then tediously be adjusted for each specific recording.
What a waste of time.
The truth is alot of recordings just aren't worth listening to, so let's stop listening to them and maybe they'll learn how to do it right.
Our amplifiers should remain as pure and true to the source as possible..... neutral.
Some recordings really do outdo themselves and are great to listen to. What a shame it would be to have those colored for the sake of all those who did a poor job of it.
Of course it seems the trend in audio are lesser quality recordings... hm.
Regards,
Chris
Hi,
I built 2 monoblocks with UcD180's and they are well and truly the best I've heard, better than Krells at a fraction of the cost.
Plus, there is so much fun in building them yourself....
My speakers are Klipsch La Scala's, and they are VERY efficient, like any horn loaded system.
There is no discernable noise, and I am feeding the mono's via a UPS, to stabilise the mains. It gave me a better soundstage than without, so I forked out 60 quid on ebay for a 1400 VA UPS.
I built 2 monoblocks with UcD180's and they are well and truly the best I've heard, better than Krells at a fraction of the cost.
Plus, there is so much fun in building them yourself....
My speakers are Klipsch La Scala's, and they are VERY efficient, like any horn loaded system.
There is no discernable noise, and I am feeding the mono's via a UPS, to stabilise the mains. It gave me a better soundstage than without, so I forked out 60 quid on ebay for a 1400 VA UPS.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.