Hi,
Alright alright.... I see how it is.
All the same I stand by everything I said 100%, but I won't push the issue "too" far.
Yes the marketing thing seems dishonest to me but it is marketing and so typically walks that line. I'll say in interview they did a great job walking the line, in forum replies they did a horrible job laying blame.
That's why you're now seeing posts asking "how much power are they really good for" because he claimed a Hypex module + power supply will only get you 55W. I'm sorry, that doesn't sound like owning up to anything to me. However I'm not sure it was CIAudio's mistake either, other than not spotting it before review time.
I never said they didn't modify their module, I said modifying it does not constitute original design.
As per the reviewer...
Does it honestly seem to you, Mark, that I care about what's popular? lol.
First of all you just had a "golden ear" not tell the difference of having the equivalent of a few series light bulbs in a power supply, and the problem is that he in fact did compare such an amp to a well performing 3k$ one.
Maybe he cares about what' popular and was too afraid to say it didnt' sound so great.
You're actually ready to believe that??
Bring on the Shakti reviews.
You could have had the bravery yourself to add a name to that statement, but I assume you mean me so..
I wasn't replying to what was a private phone conversation, I was responding to what were public forum post replies (includes forums other than here, those which Hypex may not frequent), and public articles. I therefore fail to see why I should change the venue to a private one.
Anyway, that's all from me on this matter, I'll just go wait for the lawyers to start calling.
Regards,
Anonymous
Alright alright.... I see how it is.
All the same I stand by everything I said 100%, but I won't push the issue "too" far.
Yes the marketing thing seems dishonest to me but it is marketing and so typically walks that line. I'll say in interview they did a great job walking the line, in forum replies they did a horrible job laying blame.
That's why you're now seeing posts asking "how much power are they really good for" because he claimed a Hypex module + power supply will only get you 55W. I'm sorry, that doesn't sound like owning up to anything to me. However I'm not sure it was CIAudio's mistake either, other than not spotting it before review time.
I never said they didn't modify their module, I said modifying it does not constitute original design.
As per the reviewer...
Does it honestly seem to you, Mark, that I care about what's popular? lol.
First of all you just had a "golden ear" not tell the difference of having the equivalent of a few series light bulbs in a power supply, and the problem is that he in fact did compare such an amp to a well performing 3k$ one.
Maybe he cares about what' popular and was too afraid to say it didnt' sound so great.
You're actually ready to believe that??
Bring on the Shakti reviews. You could have had the bravery yourself to add a name to that statement, but I assume you mean me so..
I wasn't replying to what was a private phone conversation, I was responding to what were public forum post replies (includes forums other than here, those which Hypex may not frequent), and public articles. I therefore fail to see why I should change the venue to a private one.
Anyway, that's all from me on this matter, I'll just go wait for the lawyers to start calling.
Regards,
Anonymous
YES! and when Jan-Peter and Bruno become wealthy, as the quality of UCD allows to think, they will continue to create gorgeous DIY products for us, humble amateurs, from his Bahamas' Island 😀 😀 😀
Mauricio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't "wealthy" the finest sounding word in english language?😀
I'm not the kind of guy that would think "Hey, one guy's amp is acting up, all the modules must be sh*t" - 'cause I have the modules, and they're doing exactly what they should.
I wonder... current limiting, changing that would require lots of mods on the module....
The Audiocircle articles mention that the current limiting was influenced by temperature.
Could it be that there was some kind of thermistor used as soft-start and it just kept limiting current?
It could explain the "bad comments" in the stereophile article, all that was commented on was bass (high energy) content that didn't sound right. I'm sure it wouldn't sound right when clipping, lol! 😀
If that was the issue, then no apparent flaws were found in the modules at all 😱 😀
Guys, seems they put in serial with load .15ohm res??
I've tried exactly same thing few week ago, for more fatty bass, though i couldn't to say that UcD bass is too dry for me, but some listeners do.
Where did you read this? The internet review doesn't talk about this at all... is the magazine review more extended?
Someone please mail me if you have the full article....
Someone please mail me if you have the full article....
Hi Yves,
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/805cia/index4.html
In the middle of the second paragraph. Quite different result as in Bruno's AES paper. (see attached picture)
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/805cia/index4.html
In the middle of the second paragraph. Quite different result as in Bruno's AES paper. (see attached picture)
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
Attachments
This link with the right graphs.
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/805cia/index5.html
He mesured the second samples from CIA.
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/805cia/index5.html
He mesured the second samples from CIA.
Thanks for the link to Audiocircle where CIAudio takes the blame.
After reading about the UcD technology I was expecting great results and was therefore very disappointed by the first set of measurements. The second set however shows that UcD is the best class-D design out there.
As for comparing a CIAudio amp to one with a $3k pricetag, I think we all know that the price of a product is not determined by the skill of a companys engineering department but mostly by the skill of their marketing department.
And just for the record, I stopped reading the subjective part of stereophiles reviews a long time ago, only reason I still subscribe is because I might learn something from the measurement section. And the occasional audio pr0n pictures ofcourse 🙂
After reading about the UcD technology I was expecting great results and was therefore very disappointed by the first set of measurements. The second set however shows that UcD is the best class-D design out there.
As for comparing a CIAudio amp to one with a $3k pricetag, I think we all know that the price of a product is not determined by the skill of a companys engineering department but mostly by the skill of their marketing department.
And just for the record, I stopped reading the subjective part of stereophiles reviews a long time ago, only reason I still subscribe is because I might learn something from the measurement section. And the occasional audio pr0n pictures ofcourse 🙂
???????????, they even don't use an AES17 filter, as recommended by AP for measuring on Class-D amplifers.
A small part of Bruno communications with somebody else who tries to measure with the wrong filters on a Class-D amplifier.
The SOLUTION is to use the AES17 filters, what prefilter the high frequency ripple before it enters the measurements system of the AP.
Jan-Peter
Hi Ivan,
How did you like the changes the series load resistor made?
I thought of and tried this awhile back, but it was to lift the loads return line for better ground sensing, didn't find much difference.
Jan-Peter ty for pointing the inept measurements of the reviewers.
They should stick to the subjective aspect and not bother with measurements they don't know how to make.
Regards,
Chris
How did you like the changes the series load resistor made?
I thought of and tried this awhile back, but it was to lift the loads return line for better ground sensing, didn't find much difference.
Jan-Peter ty for pointing the inept measurements of the reviewers.
They should stick to the subjective aspect and not bother with measurements they don't know how to make.
Regards,
Chris
Thanks for the links to the measurement.
Seeing they are so different, the reviewer didn't even listen to the same amp; he should do the whole listening test again if he wishes to remain credible.
Seeing they are so different, the reviewer didn't even listen to the same amp; he should do the whole listening test again if he wishes to remain credible.
Jan-Peter said:
I know, I know... As I said I can learn something new, including how NOT to do things. AFAIK Atkinson has never said how his 6th order filter is made.
I see now that you have updated the UcD180 datasheet with more info, much appreciated. The EMC measurement is very impressive especially compared to some other high-profile class-T manufacturer...
classd4sure said:
Definately.
Chris,
i don't like it, i suspect lower damping of the speaker do overall Qts higher, and produce several heterogeneitys on the frequency response around bassreflex resonance region + longer bass decay. How i can like it, if it's inherently aren't fidelity?
BTW, i was similarly disappointed by the my tube buffer, which do smoothness and roundness from the everything what's gone through it.. i can assume, that such enhancering could be sweet for someone, but not for me yet..to be honest, let's make enhancer by the DSP MIPS, please note -without replacing DSP core each 6-12 month unlike tubes.
i don't like it, i suspect lower damping of the speaker do overall Qts higher, and produce several heterogeneitys on the frequency response around bassreflex resonance region + longer bass decay. How i can like it, if it's inherently aren't fidelity?
BTW, i was similarly disappointed by the my tube buffer, which do smoothness and roundness from the everything what's gone through it.. i can assume, that such enhancering could be sweet for someone, but not for me yet..to be honest, let's make enhancer by the DSP MIPS, please note -without replacing DSP core each 6-12 month unlike tubes.
Hi,
Thanks alot Ivan for that excellent reply.
I didn't like the results I saw in simulation with it there at all either that's why I quickly removed it.
In my case the diffefferential feedback was meant to sense the ground itself and I found the resistor was basically impeding it from doing its job well, excuse any semblance to a pun there. The only reason it wasn't a mistake to try it is because obviously a lesson was learned on my part, and I see on yours as well. You're saying the D-X00's use that? I wonder what they liked about it.
You haven't really specified if what you tried or they use is placed on the high or low side of the load though, either is still in series but would make a big difference. I'll assume it's all on the low side.
I also agree with the tube thing, seems to me it's an accepted fact that tubes color the sound, if you like it OK great, if not well you're stuck because it's an effect that you can't disable, limiting your "audience" to the few, which yes does indeed lead us to a DSP. I played around with mine and don't like it at all really, it always sounds best when disabled. I'm sure for some people they have their uses. The noise and test signal generators are fun though... all _three_ of them.
I think the fact you went at the tube project and pulled it off is excellent work and a great DIY example. It was very interesting to read about too.
Just think, if you weren't so honest, marketed it as the only UcD that is worth listening to ...... sold them for 50K USD each... well you'd be rich, probably have some good reviews too.
Why not wait for the UcD700 and we'll do a hot swap discrete input stage for a 100K/ each group buy, featuring a discrete class A, Jfet, and tube input stage.
We can jack our profit margin sky high because now we know we only need a fifth of the rated power before clipping out of it and still get wicked reviews
That should even allow us to use an all monoblock design based on a series lithium cells, just imagine the write up!
Hm, I need a hobby.
Thanks alot Ivan for that excellent reply.
I didn't like the results I saw in simulation with it there at all either that's why I quickly removed it.
In my case the diffefferential feedback was meant to sense the ground itself and I found the resistor was basically impeding it from doing its job well, excuse any semblance to a pun there. The only reason it wasn't a mistake to try it is because obviously a lesson was learned on my part, and I see on yours as well. You're saying the D-X00's use that? I wonder what they liked about it.
You haven't really specified if what you tried or they use is placed on the high or low side of the load though, either is still in series but would make a big difference. I'll assume it's all on the low side.
I also agree with the tube thing, seems to me it's an accepted fact that tubes color the sound, if you like it OK great, if not well you're stuck because it's an effect that you can't disable, limiting your "audience" to the few, which yes does indeed lead us to a DSP. I played around with mine and don't like it at all really, it always sounds best when disabled. I'm sure for some people they have their uses. The noise and test signal generators are fun though... all _three_ of them.
I think the fact you went at the tube project and pulled it off is excellent work and a great DIY example. It was very interesting to read about too.
Just think, if you weren't so honest, marketed it as the only UcD that is worth listening to ...... sold them for 50K USD each... well you'd be rich, probably have some good reviews too.
Why not wait for the UcD700 and we'll do a hot swap discrete input stage for a 100K/ each group buy, featuring a discrete class A, Jfet, and tube input stage.
We can jack our profit margin sky high because now we know we only need a fifth of the rated power before clipping out of it and still get wicked reviews
That should even allow us to use an all monoblock design based on a series lithium cells, just imagine the write up!Hm, I need a hobby.
ojg said:
Hi there,
While I'm not offended or anything, that's Yves you're quoting there not me.
Unless, you're messing with me? ...knowing full well I'd respond with "what do you mean by "regain" credibility, that implies...heh....naaaaaaaaah".
Cheers
Gentlemen,
Do we need external reviewers to confirm that the modules are very good sounding in stock form and maybe be great sounding tweaked?
To me this is a matter of personal musical satisfaction. I'm my only judge.
Lets return to the thread's topic. I can't cope with the posts' speed.
🙁
I hope I don't offend anyone
Do we need external reviewers to confirm that the modules are very good sounding in stock form and maybe be great sounding tweaked?
To me this is a matter of personal musical satisfaction. I'm my only judge.
Lets return to the thread's topic. I can't cope with the posts' speed.
🙁
I hope I don't offend anyone
Max,
Shiny books with raving reviews *DO* help when you want to push some "friends" to... donate, so I can build them fine-sounding amps - donate enough so I can make the amp and have a nice dinner or maybe even a city trip with my gf 😀
Shiny books with raving reviews *DO* help when you want to push some "friends" to... donate, so I can build them fine-sounding amps - donate enough so I can make the amp and have a nice dinner or maybe even a city trip with my gf 😀
He, he 😀
I know what you mean 😉 I finished a nonos DAC yesterday!
I was refering to avoid creating a big wave about a review, maybe written while on the WC 😀
I know what you mean 😉 I finished a nonos DAC yesterday!
I was refering to avoid creating a big wave about a review, maybe written while on the WC 😀
