4 channel UcD180 "ProAudio-style" amp
Hi,
I like the PS of Stef very much. It looks much more professional than mine, although having a very similar schematic, i believe at least. And his setup is much nicer too.
As another example you might be interested to have look at my setup:
More pictures, especially showing the "modular" supplies, are here:.
And yes, I "forgot" the caps across the MBR10100 in this version too. The supply is completely quiet. The simplest way is the best in this case.
Jan-Peter and Bruno,
is this not an idea for the next supply module generation? I would buy them, if they would include a full bridge per cap/rail and use Schottkies instead of a normal SIP module. I need 8 modules for my active speaker setup (in progress) including dipole subwoofer. The type of mounting directly to the UcDs is "sexy". 😉
The reason for using one full bridge per rail is to be seen here:
Best regards, Timo
Hi,
I like the PS of Stef very much. It looks much more professional than mine, although having a very similar schematic, i believe at least. And his setup is much nicer too.
As another example you might be interested to have look at my setup:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
More pictures, especially showing the "modular" supplies, are here:.
And yes, I "forgot" the caps across the MBR10100 in this version too. The supply is completely quiet. The simplest way is the best in this case.
Jan-Peter and Bruno,
is this not an idea for the next supply module generation? I would buy them, if they would include a full bridge per cap/rail and use Schottkies instead of a normal SIP module. I need 8 modules for my active speaker setup (in progress) including dipole subwoofer. The type of mounting directly to the UcDs is "sexy". 😉
The reason for using one full bridge per rail is to be seen here:
Best regards, Timo
Koldby,
Thanks for the info. I just might accept your invitation, but I don't think it would be until late summer / fall, as there's a holiday coming up, and a few other projects that need attention. (household, cutting trees, and... speakers, NOT to forget the DIYing *he he* )
Jennice
Thanks for the info. I just might accept your invitation, but I don't think it would be until late summer / fall, as there's a holiday coming up, and a few other projects that need attention. (household, cutting trees, and... speakers, NOT to forget the DIYing *he he* )
Jennice
And yet another Hypex victory:
The Mindcraft Media One
This is a nicely done Windows XP media center PC, with as an option...
5 channel UcD180 amplification!
The Mindcraft Media One
This is a nicely done Windows XP media center PC, with as an option...
5 channel UcD180 amplification!
Bruno or JP
UCD 180AD
I have five of the above modules.
Purchase 4 previously, they are marked UCD 180 Rev 2.0, serial # 0466 (just one as example). All four are identical.
I just received one additional module and it looks a bit different from the above 4 modules. Serial # 0517/0155B398
I havent used any of the modules yet. I want to make five monoblock amps for my HT system.
When looking from the top of the new module, there are now two pairs of full size resistors. C 35 & 36 are BC rather than Yageo. The two 470uf caps are different shorter, brown color. On the green vertical card, on the left of the module, there also is like a larger cap protruding out. Output cap .68uf is now turned 90 degrees. Bottom side, naturally, also has differences.
My questions are:
1. What are the changes made to the newest module?
2. Does this new module sound better?
3. Am I going to have a problem getting 5 monoblock amps to sound alike?
4. Any chance to exchange 4 older modules for 4 new modules?
Thanks
UCD 180AD
I have five of the above modules.
Purchase 4 previously, they are marked UCD 180 Rev 2.0, serial # 0466 (just one as example). All four are identical.
I just received one additional module and it looks a bit different from the above 4 modules. Serial # 0517/0155B398
I havent used any of the modules yet. I want to make five monoblock amps for my HT system.
When looking from the top of the new module, there are now two pairs of full size resistors. C 35 & 36 are BC rather than Yageo. The two 470uf caps are different shorter, brown color. On the green vertical card, on the left of the module, there also is like a larger cap protruding out. Output cap .68uf is now turned 90 degrees. Bottom side, naturally, also has differences.
My questions are:
1. What are the changes made to the newest module?
2. Does this new module sound better?
3. Am I going to have a problem getting 5 monoblock amps to sound alike?
4. Any chance to exchange 4 older modules for 4 new modules?
Thanks
Minimum ohms ?
I’ve 90% built a speaker (SL's Phoenix) with two woofers in parallel, which means the amplifier has to drive an impedance that drops as low as 2.5 ohm at 90-100 Hz, and increases to a peak of 25 ohm at the 17 Hz resonance in the cabinet.
What is the minimum ohms of the UcD 180 (or 400)?
Can either of the UcDs handle that?
Thanks
Richard
I’ve 90% built a speaker (SL's Phoenix) with two woofers in parallel, which means the amplifier has to drive an impedance that drops as low as 2.5 ohm at 90-100 Hz, and increases to a peak of 25 ohm at the 17 Hz resonance in the cabinet.
What is the minimum ohms of the UcD 180 (or 400)?
Can either of the UcDs handle that?
Thanks
Richard
Re: Minimum ohms ?
Hi Richard,
Probably the UcD180 can handle it but I would spent a few more bucks and use the UcD400 standard version to power the woofers. In fact I'm doing almost the same thing, I have two 8 Ohm woofers (Visaton TIW 200XLS) in parallel in a dipole woofer powered by an UcD400, they can handle that very nicely. Very tight very well controlled bass, the bass as I like it, I do not like booming bass as you can easily get with closed or basreflex speakers, especially in a small room. I would prefer the UcD400 for this kind of high power low impedance application as it would have more reserves than the UcD180 (at least, that is my reasoning), such as a bigger filter coil, a few dB more power etc. In fact I want to go one step further and power each woofer with its own amp or use two amps in bridge, I have the amps at home but have not yet build up a bridged or single amp per woofer configuration. In mid and high I now use UcD180 and the all UcD system sounds great, very clean, very fast, very well controlled. Going to use UcD400 for all amps (also mid and high).
Best regards
Gertjan
rick57 said:
Hi Richard,
Probably the UcD180 can handle it but I would spent a few more bucks and use the UcD400 standard version to power the woofers. In fact I'm doing almost the same thing, I have two 8 Ohm woofers (Visaton TIW 200XLS) in parallel in a dipole woofer powered by an UcD400, they can handle that very nicely. Very tight very well controlled bass, the bass as I like it, I do not like booming bass as you can easily get with closed or basreflex speakers, especially in a small room. I would prefer the UcD400 for this kind of high power low impedance application as it would have more reserves than the UcD180 (at least, that is my reasoning), such as a bigger filter coil, a few dB more power etc. In fact I want to go one step further and power each woofer with its own amp or use two amps in bridge, I have the amps at home but have not yet build up a bridged or single amp per woofer configuration. In mid and high I now use UcD180 and the all UcD system sounds great, very clean, very fast, very well controlled. Going to use UcD400 for all amps (also mid and high).
Best regards
Gertjan
Hi Gertjan
Thanks, makes sense.
Min ohms are not on the Hypex web site.
I wonder what the official Hypex line is?
Cheers
Thanks, makes sense.
Min ohms are not on the Hypex web site.
I wonder what the official Hypex line is?
Cheers
There are no sonically difference between all versions of the UcD modules.
All modules doesn´t have a real minimum impedance. During test we always test the modules with a 1 ohm dummy load. The THD must be below 0.05%.
You can save use the modules with a very low load, when the load is very low you have to check the temperature of the UcD amplifier. This will be the real limitation.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
All modules doesn´t have a real minimum impedance. During test we always test the modules with a 1 ohm dummy load. The THD must be below 0.05%.
You can save use the modules with a very low load, when the load is very low you have to check the temperature of the UcD amplifier. This will be the real limitation.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
Of course there is difference between the standard module and the module with the AD8620 upgrade.......😉
Jan-Peter
Jennice said:
He was posting to correct himself. Previously he stated there was no _sonic_ difference between modules, he meant from say the ucd180 to ucd400, though personally I'm sceptical of that, there must be _some_ small difference, c'mon, admit it 🙂
Anyway Jennice, the reason for the difference in cost for the upgraded version is obvious, go look up what an AD8620 would cost you from digikey as compared to an opa134. He's obviously not just stamping an upgraded mark so he can raise the price of the module. You're just getting what you're paying for.
So your question now should be, what am I paying for in the AD8620 that I _don't_ get with an OPA134, and the answer of course lies within their respective data sheets, specifically, on the THD Vs Frequency curves, one is a little more in tune with the nature of the amplifier, so you can now decide if that's worth it to you. It would be for me.
Regards,
Chris
Jan-Peter said:
I have a stack of 24V transformers at home doing nothing (for the time being). somehow I think they're trying to whisper in my ear that they want to be mated with UcD180's.
This brings me to my question: If I should find need for it, can two UcD180 modules be used in bridge, provided that the heat sink is sufficient?
Jennice
Stevenacnj said:
JP
What kind of crap answer was this:
"There are no sonically difference between all versions of the UcD modules"
How about addressing the questions I posted? What reason to change the modules, if it doesnt make them sound better?