Hello Bert.
Its www.Mundorf.com. If you call them up - you can ask for custom made 11uH. (8,5€ a piece)
If you have a look at the german web part at the coil descriptions, you'll also find a review about the coils.
(I posted that earlier.)
They already produced a couple of pieces for the same purpose as they told me. Seems that a few people are interested.
I guess Thomas will soon get back with a review on the Mundorfs.
Perhaps you should wait with an order.
The only benchmark I have are the original Charlize aircoils.
As I expected - due to mechanical stability, low capacitance and resistance, the Mundorfs introduce less distortions.
I am not saying that the original coils were bad - not at all.
Within my rig, the Mundorfs are just playing a bit better.
Lets see if this thread leads to the best solution availble.
Its www.Mundorf.com. If you call them up - you can ask for custom made 11uH. (8,5€ a piece)
If you have a look at the german web part at the coil descriptions, you'll also find a review about the coils.
(I posted that earlier.)
They already produced a couple of pieces for the same purpose as they told me. Seems that a few people are interested.
I guess Thomas will soon get back with a review on the Mundorfs.
Perhaps you should wait with an order.
The only benchmark I have are the original Charlize aircoils.
As I expected - due to mechanical stability, low capacitance and resistance, the Mundorfs introduce less distortions.
I am not saying that the original coils were bad - not at all.
Within my rig, the Mundorfs are just playing a bit better.
Lets see if this thread leads to the best solution availble.
Klaus, do you have a part no for the coil. Cannot find it on the german site.(german language is no problem).
Saw a test about coils but not yours.
Saw a test about coils but not yours.
Hi Bert.
Try this.
http://www.mundorf.com/english/bauteile/frspule.htm "Cupper foil coils"
or
http://www.mundorf.com/deutsch/bauteile/frspule.htm
"Testberichte"
The coil is a custom made CFC16 model.
They are just leaving a couple of windings off.
It'll give you 0,03R resistance.
There is no PartNumber.
Contact is Ralf Schreiber +49 221 9777050
He'll know what you are talking about, if you contact him.
It'll take them a week to prepare.
\Klaus
Try this.
http://www.mundorf.com/english/bauteile/frspule.htm "Cupper foil coils"
or
http://www.mundorf.com/deutsch/bauteile/frspule.htm
"Testberichte"
The coil is a custom made CFC16 model.
They are just leaving a couple of windings off.
It'll give you 0,03R resistance.
There is no PartNumber.
Contact is Ralf Schreiber +49 221 9777050
He'll know what you are talking about, if you contact him.
It'll take them a week to prepare.
\Klaus
Thomas, on the UCD amp. what PSU caps. are in there and where is it grounded? Find it hard to believe the Tripath sounded better
.
Have been comparing them but the Tripath looses out on depth and clean sound. Compared a cap. coupled UCD to a DC coupled UCD and there is an absolute difference espec. in the controlled bass section and the highs of the UCD's. But because of the PSU/grounding it may be that it cannot reveal this though.
Is there a difference in grounding between the 2? Do you use mains ground....loops?
.Have been comparing them but the Tripath looses out on depth and clean sound. Compared a cap. coupled UCD to a DC coupled UCD and there is an absolute difference espec. in the controlled bass section and the highs of the UCD's. But because of the PSU/grounding it may be that it cannot reveal this though.
Is there a difference in grounding between the 2? Do you use mains ground....loops?
Bgt said:Thomas, on the UCD amp. what PSU caps. are in there and where is it grounded? Find it hard to believe the Tripath sounded better
Have been comparing them but the Tripath looses out on depth and clean sound. Compared a cap. coupled UCD to a DC coupled UCD and there is an absolute difference espec. in the controlled bass section and the highs of the UCD's. But because of the PSU/grounding it may be that it cannot reveal this though.
Is there a difference in grounding between the 2? Do you use mains ground....loops?
Hi Bert,
back from a week vacation.
Sorry I can't understand the comparison you made: mundorf coils?. About UCD, you made some upgrades?
My UCD is DC coupled (removed input camps) and has the ground scheme recommended by Hypex: balanced input and no star ground. You can see a picture in the first post of this thread. In that picture you will see also the AMP5 star grounding.
So what was the object of comparison?
ciao
Thomas
Thomas, nice to have a week off😀 for me next week, a trip to UK to my broyther in law, he moved from good old London(how I love that place) to Swanage to start a bed&breakfast.
Anyway, the thing is how can the Amp1B be better sounding than an UCD without input caps? You say, output filter. Got a phone from Mundorf they will send me some foils coils to test for the amp1B. So again...do the output coils upgrade the Tripath to a better amp. than the UCD? So my question was.. caps. and grounding. You use the Hypex scheme of grounding them at the inputs instead of using a star grounding and have groundlift resistors. Did you ever measure a 1 transf. design(with a scope) with the inputs grounded? The depth/crosstalk is distorted/too low. What caps. does Hypex use on this PSU board?Do U use mains ground?
Anyway, the thing is how can the Amp1B be better sounding than an UCD without input caps? You say, output filter. Got a phone from Mundorf they will send me some foils coils to test for the amp1B. So again...do the output coils upgrade the Tripath to a better amp. than the UCD? So my question was.. caps. and grounding. You use the Hypex scheme of grounding them at the inputs instead of using a star grounding and have groundlift resistors. Did you ever measure a 1 transf. design(with a scope) with the inputs grounded? The depth/crosstalk is distorted/too low. What caps. does Hypex use on this PSU board?Do U use mains ground?
Bgt said:
Well, now understand, it is the UCD input caps removed. I made this experience
here
UCD is clearer without input caps. You said, before, that AMP1 were clearer, in the high range, than UCD, while mine (in my system) were not: that's why I was so interested to your power supply.
So we know that is not your AMP1 PS to make it special, just UCD had 2 caps in eccess. (My UCD has the Hypex High Grade PS with 4 slit foils caps and Hypex custom transformer. It is very quiet).
In my report you'll read that UCD has some features better than Tripath, but ..... but. Tripath is unbeatable in dynamics and detail, and has a much better lower range than UCD.
Of course, dynamics, detail and lower range have to be transferred to speakers. Mine have 96db spl and go down to 40hz. Is there the difference?
Tripath has more space for improvements. One is the output filters. I tried the 2 from bertus, and Tripath almost paired UCD in clarity and sound precision. Air coils are another experiment i'd like to hear from you.
Another improvement for Tripath is the dual mono configuration like UCD. A better channel separation is important for stage depth and clarity.
Ciao and good trip
Thomas
Thanx,
What I've found is the low end is faster on the UCD's as is the high end. The Amp1B looks to be more present/brighter but this does not mean its better. It is a bit off balance compared to the UCD's. And yes, the solution of a dual amp. on 1 pcb has its limits on crosstalk/soundstage. Whats also most apparent is the layed back mid section of the Amp1B, maybe because of increased treble? Did you ever measure the UCD amp. on a scope? To see what crosstalk you have?Sq. wave shapes?
What I've found is the low end is faster on the UCD's as is the high end. The Amp1B looks to be more present/brighter but this does not mean its better. It is a bit off balance compared to the UCD's. And yes, the solution of a dual amp. on 1 pcb has its limits on crosstalk/soundstage. Whats also most apparent is the layed back mid section of the Amp1B, maybe because of increased treble? Did you ever measure the UCD amp. on a scope? To see what crosstalk you have?Sq. wave shapes?
Hi folks.
I installed BG non polars in SuperE (2*470uF) config as powerCaps close to the chip.
I think that's great.
I even tried to put them, the high grade non polars in super E (2*0,1uf for an 8R load), in the ouput filter.
What should I say. It sounds good.
I am about to setup my 2nd PC as analyser. Lets see what I' am gonna measure at the output!
Bert how did you manage to get samples from Mundorf?
\Klaus
I installed BG non polars in SuperE (2*470uF) config as powerCaps close to the chip.
I think that's great.
I even tried to put them, the high grade non polars in super E (2*0,1uf for an 8R load), in the ouput filter.
What should I say. It sounds good.
I am about to setup my 2nd PC as analyser. Lets see what I' am gonna measure at the output!
Bert how did you manage to get samples from Mundorf?
\Klaus
Copper foil coils
Hi,
finally I got the L-C meter (sorry Piotr, my sound card has something wrong in the input). I unwinded two Mundorf 0,1mH copper foil coils to get 11uH.
Now I have to mount them some way. I remember that Roger had some ideas:
So I mount them perpendicularly, one with respect to the other, and the outher ends go to output? It is doable mounting them on the bottom of the board.
Other hints?
Ciao
Thomas
Hi,
finally I got the L-C meter (sorry Piotr, my sound card has something wrong in the input). I unwinded two Mundorf 0,1mH copper foil coils to get 11uH.
Now I have to mount them some way. I remember that Roger had some ideas:
sx881663 said:
So I mount them perpendicularly, one with respect to the other, and the outher ends go to output? It is doable mounting them on the bottom of the board.
Other hints?
Ciao
Thomas
Hi Thomas.
I mounted them underneath the board! Otherwise the leads would have been too long.
That way you can also mount them on the ground.
I fixed them with some hot-melt adhesive on the bottom
You just have to lift up the whole board.
If you have enough space that should work.
\Klaus
I mounted them underneath the board! Otherwise the leads would have been too long.
That way you can also mount them on the ground.
I fixed them with some hot-melt adhesive on the bottom
You just have to lift up the whole board.
If you have enough space that should work.
\Klaus
Hi Klaus,
I have space on the bottom, as I mounted two big Poly Audyn cap as input caps there. Did you mount the copper foil coils like mine? Is there a difference you can notice in the first few minutes in listening? (The comparison, I suppose, is with air core coils the comes with Charlize).
If a difference, it is a general feeling of a better sound, or there are specific improvements, for istance Hi range clarity, string or voices timber ecc.
Can you say something more about SuperE config?
Ciao
Thomas
I have space on the bottom, as I mounted two big Poly Audyn cap as input caps there. Did you mount the copper foil coils like mine? Is there a difference you can notice in the first few minutes in listening? (The comparison, I suppose, is with air core coils the comes with Charlize).
If a difference, it is a general feeling of a better sound, or there are specific improvements, for istance Hi range clarity, string or voices timber ecc.
Can you say something more about SuperE config?
Ciao
Thomas
Don't know about this electrostatic shield business.. might be a good idea for your typical film bypass cap returned to ground, but in the case of a filter coil... it's in series with the load.
classd4sure said:
Ciao Chris,
what can you expect from this? Just increased noise or something dangerous?
Thomas
Hi Thomas.
Super-E. I guess there are couple ot threads here touching upon the issue. Super-E config gets mainly the inductivity down.
But read this first:
http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/blackgate/techEcap.htm
It'll tell you most of the story behind it. Soundwise the BG NON polars are IMHO great. Smooth, clear, fast, neutral, natural gives you a nice feeling.
Elimimates the harshness. (100h break-in)
If you stay with the small values. Its affordable.
I did not do listening tests at every corner I applied them.
But what you can read. Once you start with it, you gotta do it throughout your whole system. What I've done.
Some words to the coil:
Immedialtly apparent was the improvement of the low level details.
To me a clear indicator, that distortion were lowered.
You win more "pinpointing", depth, air between instruments.
Just the typical things. I do not think that they have degraded much on the transient response. Dynamics are pretty much the same as before.
That was what i was a bit afraid of looking at the huge foil surface. But as you also read the capacity and the resistance are pretty low of that coil. Everything else sounded just right.
Enough reason to let them stay.
Since I am a lazy guy. I did not even switched back to the old ones. Perhaps I should. I guess you'll tell us.
At that time I was tired of more listening sessions.
Because I finished that time (4weeks ago) my full integrated USB-NONOSDAC/passivePRE/AMP with all tweaks and extreme parts I could think off.
(I tried to insert a picture - did'nt work)
\Klaus
Super-E. I guess there are couple ot threads here touching upon the issue. Super-E config gets mainly the inductivity down.
But read this first:
http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/blackgate/techEcap.htm
It'll tell you most of the story behind it. Soundwise the BG NON polars are IMHO great. Smooth, clear, fast, neutral, natural gives you a nice feeling.
Elimimates the harshness. (100h break-in)
If you stay with the small values. Its affordable.
I did not do listening tests at every corner I applied them.
But what you can read. Once you start with it, you gotta do it throughout your whole system. What I've done.
Some words to the coil:
Immedialtly apparent was the improvement of the low level details.
To me a clear indicator, that distortion were lowered.
You win more "pinpointing", depth, air between instruments.
Just the typical things. I do not think that they have degraded much on the transient response. Dynamics are pretty much the same as before.
That was what i was a bit afraid of looking at the huge foil surface. But as you also read the capacity and the resistance are pretty low of that coil. Everything else sounded just right.
Enough reason to let them stay.
Since I am a lazy guy. I did not even switched back to the old ones. Perhaps I should. I guess you'll tell us.
At that time I was tired of more listening sessions.
Because I finished that time (4weeks ago) my full integrated USB-NONOSDAC/passivePRE/AMP with all tweaks and extreme parts I could think off.
(I tried to insert a picture - did'nt work)
\Klaus
Shield?
"Don't know about this electrostatic shield business.. might be a good idea for your typical film bypass cap returned to ground, but in the case of a filter coil... it's in series with the load."
Chris,
Think about what it is doing and the difference in signal on each end. The input side has the full rail to rail switching while the output has the audio and only a little bit of residual. So putting the output side on the outside will form a pretty effective shield from the HF switching. This only applies for foil wound inductors or multilayer air cores, obviously.
Roger
"Don't know about this electrostatic shield business.. might be a good idea for your typical film bypass cap returned to ground, but in the case of a filter coil... it's in series with the load."
Chris,
Think about what it is doing and the difference in signal on each end. The input side has the full rail to rail switching while the output has the audio and only a little bit of residual. So putting the output side on the outside will form a pretty effective shield from the HF switching. This only applies for foil wound inductors or multilayer air cores, obviously.
Roger
Don't know about that argument either. It's the inductor action that's giving the output the "shield" from HF switching, regardless of which end is connected to I/O.
If you connect the inner coil to the switching node, to form some shield as you state, it may reduce emissions from the coil, however your audio signal will be much more susceptible to the rest of the EMI from the circuit/radio frequencies, everything, will get passed right along to the output.
If shielding is such an important factor, wrap another turn soldered together around it and shield the sucker, no?
Otherwise skin effect will propagate any EMI to the output directly. I'd rather rely on the inductive action to attenuate it ... but then there's the parasitic capacitance at HF as well.
If you connect the inner coil to the switching node, to form some shield as you state, it may reduce emissions from the coil, however your audio signal will be much more susceptible to the rest of the EMI from the circuit/radio frequencies, everything, will get passed right along to the output.
If shielding is such an important factor, wrap another turn soldered together around it and shield the sucker, no?
Otherwise skin effect will propagate any EMI to the output directly. I'd rather rely on the inductive action to attenuate it ... but then there's the parasitic capacitance at HF as well.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.