HI,
I have a question a bit off topic: makes it sense to drive a dual voice coil woofer with two UcD180 instead one UcD400? Reason is, in a active threeway I would like to go with the UCD180 instead of UcD400. On the other hand would it be an improvement to run the UcD400 with the voltage as for UcD180?
Thanks
Stephan
I have a question a bit off topic: makes it sense to drive a dual voice coil woofer with two UcD180 instead one UcD400? Reason is, in a active threeway I would like to go with the UCD180 instead of UcD400. On the other hand would it be an improvement to run the UcD400 with the voltage as for UcD180?
Thanks
Stephan
reins said:
Sounds like a very interesting option, however, what is the impedance of your voice coils 2x8 Ohm? Then you could also use one UcD180 to power both voice coils in parallel and get the same (almost the same) power as with two amps powering each one voice coil. If you have the amps already, then it would be interesting to drive each coil with an amp.Then I would connect them out of phase and feed the inputs also out of phase so that when one amp has a positive output signal, the other is negative. This will reduce or completely eliminate power supply pumping as you always draw the same current from each supply rail. So supply voltage should stay more constant.
Actually I'm considering something similar for a case with two 8 Ohm woofers each powering from one UcD400 or putting them in bridge and power them from two UcDs.
If you do the above you may want to synchronize the two modules by putting a small c (something like 47nF) between the speaker (+) outputs of both modules.
Maybe Bruno has some more intelligent comments
Best regards
Gertjan
reins said:
Using a single UcD400 will be cheaper and will perform better. Running the amplifiers at a lower than rated voltage does not improve performance.
Bruno Putzeys said:
As I want to go dual mono, I would have to build 4 powersupplies if I mix UcD180 and UcD400 on each side.
reins said:
Sounds like a good excuse then. OK. You may wish to experiment with two alternative methods. 1) 2 modules each driving their own voice coils. 2) 2 modules bridged and the 2 voice coils in series.
I have no idea which would work best (they should basically be interchangable), but I thought I'd just point out that you have these two possibilities.
Bruno Putzeys said:
If these two voice coils are both 8 Ohm, then using them parallel and one UcD180 should be enough?
Or if you have not bought the modules yet, instead of getting 4 UcD180 modules per channel. Why not 3 UcD400 modules per channel. 1 standard version for the woofers and 2 AD8620 versions for the mid and tweeters. Would be about the same price as 4 UcD180 modules. I know, you don`t need the power for mid and tweeters, but it never hurts to have an amp with more margin? Actually I`m going to switch from UcD180 to UcD400 AD8620 version for my 3-way active once I have the time (I have the modules already at home for a few months).
Best regards
Gertjan
This may seem off-topic slightly, but what is the resolution or dynamic range of the UCD amps?
I know TI's equibit system used a carrier frequency of 384khz with open-loop, with the TAS5012 having a dynamic range of 102db and the tas5015 with an external PLL having a dynamic range of 115db. Thanks for any help.
🙂
I know TI's equibit system used a carrier frequency of 384khz with open-loop, with the TAS5012 having a dynamic range of 102db and the tas5015 with an external PLL having a dynamic range of 115db. Thanks for any help.
🙂
tschanrm said:
The UcD's have a noise voltage of around 30uV (unweighted), corresponding to 120dB dynamic range. A-weighted this is 122dB.
Earlier models were 5dB better noise-wise but the input transistors were changed to a higher voltage type since to make the modulator plug-in universally suitable for higher voltages.
The TI modulators are specified without power stage. Switching jitter caused by output current noise (which in turn is caused by shaped noise) degrades system noise to around 100uV. By standards of open loop amplifiers, this is *very* good.
Is UCD 180 or UCD 400 good for capacitive load?
Jan/Bruno,
My apologies if this has been answered in earlier post. The thread is simply too long. I have a pair of Final 0.3 hybrid ESL and am thinking of making a Class D amp to drive them. Are your modules good for driving capacitive load? The Final 0.3 has sentivity of 84 @ 4 ohm, is the UCD 180 good enough?
Thanks.
Sunny130Y
Jan/Bruno,
My apologies if this has been answered in earlier post. The thread is simply too long. I have a pair of Final 0.3 hybrid ESL and am thinking of making a Class D amp to drive them. Are your modules good for driving capacitive load? The Final 0.3 has sentivity of 84 @ 4 ohm, is the UCD 180 good enough?
Thanks.
Sunny130Y
Re: Is UCD 180 or UCD 400 good for capacitive load?
Yup, we're going to distill the 180/400 threads into a FAQ and publish that on the Hypex web site.sunny130y said:
Capacitive loads are no problem for the UcD modules. Besides, electrostatics are only capacitive up to around 20kHz. From then on, the leakage inductance of the step-up transformer becomes dominant.sunny130y said:
quote:
Originally posted by sunny130y
My apologies if this has been answered in earlier post. The thread is simply too long.
Yup, we're going to distill the 180/400 threads into a FAQ and publish that on the Hypex web site.
quote:
Originally posted by sunny130y
Are your modules good for driving capacitive load? The Final 0.3 has sentivity of 84 @ 4 ohm, is the UCD 180 good enough?
Capacitive loads are no problem for the UcD modules. Besides, electrostatics are only capacitive up to around 20kHz. From then on, the leakage inductance of the step-up transformer becomes dominant.
Thanks Bruno🙂
Originally posted by sunny130y
My apologies if this has been answered in earlier post. The thread is simply too long.
Yup, we're going to distill the 180/400 threads into a FAQ and publish that on the Hypex web site.
quote:
Originally posted by sunny130y
Are your modules good for driving capacitive load? The Final 0.3 has sentivity of 84 @ 4 ohm, is the UCD 180 good enough?
Capacitive loads are no problem for the UcD modules. Besides, electrostatics are only capacitive up to around 20kHz. From then on, the leakage inductance of the step-up transformer becomes dominant.
Thanks Bruno🙂
Bruno or Jan-Peter,
Can I download specs/connection diagram of the HQ power supply mentioned on the Hypex site?
Thanks
Can I download specs/connection diagram of the HQ power supply mentioned on the Hypex site?
Thanks
Any advantage in adding bypass caps parallel to the slitfoils? Also, is the slitfoils snubberised?
Yves,
Please see our new links on the website!
Arthur,
The Slitfoils are not snubberised, and there is no advantage by adding extra caps parallel with the Slitfoils.
Jan-Peter
Please see our new links on the website!
Arthur,
The Slitfoils are not snubberised, and there is no advantage by adding extra caps parallel with the Slitfoils.
Jan-Peter
Actually, adding extra caps generally makes the sound worse. On the other hand, adding 47nF caps across the rectifier diodes is a good idea!Jan-Peter said:
Bruno Putzeys said:
I personally tested the BHC with and without. I tested with 1UF MKT or 2.2UF MKP.
I prefer without the films caps. Better and more linear sound.
Does this principal is correct when apply specifically to BHC or in general?
As I know, the small film cap will help reducing high frequency noise from the supply in which the big electrolytic could not get rid of it.