hmmmmmm nnnope, sorry, it's no contest, Bruno simply doesn't measure up to Brenda at LCaudio (sorry Bruno). Keep trying though. 😀
On a more serious level, what should we expect to see come of this? One possibility is all your products triple in price, another are 1000 watt modules with built in SMPS and PFC .. basically, what can we expect in the futur from Hypex now?
I didn't know Bruno was no longer with Philips, hope the transition went well.
In a former post Bruno had stated he could have designed an even better amplifier than UCD, but Philips wouldn't have been willing to pay for it, what's the present take on that?
Anyway, congrats to all at Hypex.
Cheers,
Chris
On a more serious level, what should we expect to see come of this? One possibility is all your products triple in price, another are 1000 watt modules with built in SMPS and PFC .. basically, what can we expect in the futur from Hypex now?
I didn't know Bruno was no longer with Philips, hope the transition went well.
In a former post Bruno had stated he could have designed an even better amplifier than UCD, but Philips wouldn't have been willing to pay for it, what's the present take on that?
Anyway, congrats to all at Hypex.
Cheers,
Chris
I think not. At least the way it is labelled on the board.
However, that's another interesting question as I start my next build. Do most people here put one of their modules totally inverted, ie invert speaker outputs and line inputs? (Assuming a stereo build)
However, that's another interesting question as I start my next build. Do most people here put one of their modules totally inverted, ie invert speaker outputs and line inputs? (Assuming a stereo build)
Because the UcD has a balanced input you can use either inverting or non-inverting, depending on which input you choose and which you ground.
richie00boy said:
I'm using the positive input for hot signal since I'm coming unbalanced from my crossover, so can I assume is not inverting in mine configuration?
Giorgio
Jan-Peter said:
Some amp manufacturers DO supply their finished products with absolute polarity inversion though... I have never quite understood why...
Curious.
Now, back to the question I asked: Does anyone totally invert one amp in a stereo pair to ease the load on the powersupply?
ewildgoose said:
Because they are lame. They choose an inverting topology for some supposed sonic reason, and fail to invert the signal somewhere else because of retaining sonic purity.
ewildgoose said:
I do this. It allows you to effectively double your supply capacitance as far as reduction of ripple is concerned, as half the current is being drawn from each upper/lower half compared to a conventional supply. It also has half the current flow in the wires, so again less losses. These are pretty negligible things but it's free, so why not do it. It also means that if you feed the same signal to both inputs (i.e. via a Y-lead) then you have an instant bridged amp.
The downside is that you must be mindful of the fact that the red speaker terminal on the inverted amp will be ground and the black one signal, which can present problems if you want to feed a subwoofer from the speaker outputs, or some active DC protection modules.
Lame??
I think not...
One example could be:A poweramplifier having only one single ended voltage amplifying stage (such as a typical hybrid tube /MOSFet amp)
would be phase inverting.
The only consequence for the customer would be to reverse his loudspeaker connection.
So what - big deal.
I, for one , would rather do that than to have a completely (in this case) unnessesary inverter stage.
Koldby
I think not...
One example could be:A poweramplifier having only one single ended voltage amplifying stage (such as a typical hybrid tube /MOSFet amp)
would be phase inverting.
The only consequence for the customer would be to reverse his loudspeaker connection.
So what - big deal.
I, for one , would rather do that than to have a completely (in this case) unnessesary inverter stage.
Koldby
For certain amplifier configurations there are good reasons for making an amp inverting. (To ensure a continuous roll-off of the dominant pole compensation for example).
The problem of course is where people want to use two or more amps to bi or tri-amp a loudspeaker, and you don't know if a particular amp is inverting or not. I suggest that the amp manufacturers need to state if an amp is inverting or non-inverting in big friendly letters on the back of it!
The problem of course is where people want to use two or more amps to bi or tri-amp a loudspeaker, and you don't know if a particular amp is inverting or not. I suggest that the amp manufacturers need to state if an amp is inverting or non-inverting in big friendly letters on the back of it!
richie00boy said:
I'm missing something obvious here... Why don't you invert the speaker connection inside the case as well, and then both red's are positive...?
Same question to the people who agree that inverting amplifiers make sense. No problems there, but why don't they change the labels on the speaker connections around so that red speaker output equals positive input to the amplifier?
That would be dangerous. People could in some aplications connect the black connector to chassis/ground and thereby shortcircuit the output.
But a clear indication on the back of inverting amplifiers is mandatory IMHO.
Koldby
Aha, I see what you mean. Are the UCD400 modules considered to be short circuit safe? Can I expect any ill effects from shorting the output to ground, or back into the other module accidently?
(Not that I plan to habitually abuse my amps like this...)
I have a stereo UCD400 which has 20,000uF per rail. It sounds really good, but I guess its slightly short on capacitance even for an 8ohm load. I need to pull the amp apart to try some things that Jan-Peter has suggested to remove my RFI problem, so I might try swapping the polarity on one module and see what effect it has... I have a zappulse stereo amp with 30,000uF per rail and that does have a little more authority in the bass region for sure, could be just the extra capacitance talking...
Thanks
(Not that I plan to habitually abuse my amps like this...)
I have a stereo UCD400 which has 20,000uF per rail. It sounds really good, but I guess its slightly short on capacitance even for an 8ohm load. I need to pull the amp apart to try some things that Jan-Peter has suggested to remove my RFI problem, so I might try swapping the polarity on one module and see what effect it has... I have a zappulse stereo amp with 30,000uF per rail and that does have a little more authority in the bass region for sure, could be just the extra capacitance talking...
Thanks
ewildgoose said:
I tried a Zappulse and UCD400 with the exact same power supply and the Zap had a little more authority in the bass region for me as well. But since everything else sounded more natural with the UCD400, I'm inclined to think that perhaps the Zap unnaturally emphasizes the bass; either that, or the extra 100 watts or so of the Zap is showing its colors. It'll be interesting to see how a UCD700/1000 sounds when it comes out.
All UcD modules has a constant loopgain, so the THD is a straight line from 20Hz-20kHz.
We are at all not used to listen to an amplifier with a flat THD curve. According to our 'audiophile' designer (Bruno) this seems to be the big difference at first listening between an UcD and any other amplifier with a fast rising THD curve.
What you actually hear in the beginning some slightly weak bass region. But actually this is not true, it is more detailed and more in harmonic with the higher part because of the constant loopgain.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
We are at all not used to listen to an amplifier with a flat THD curve. According to our 'audiophile' designer (Bruno) this seems to be the big difference at first listening between an UcD and any other amplifier with a fast rising THD curve.
What you actually hear in the beginning some slightly weak bass region. But actually this is not true, it is more detailed and more in harmonic with the higher part because of the constant loopgain.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
Jan-Peter said:
This is my experience too, It's only two days that my ucd are running but I'm really impressed with sound . Actually I'm using them only in the bass and I'm going on putting together the ucd 180 for the others ways. I have horn bass cabinet and I put only 10.000mf per rail in each mono amp. Transient are much faster than my previous amp (Bel 1001) and overall all seem much cleaner, the upper ways too. Sometime I felt like the lowest hz are missing but them I noticed my dinner table vibrate which it never did before. I think Ucd bass are very neutral and natural.
Giorgio
@Jan-peter,
Now that you have the famous Bruno in-house, you can start building UcD's with double the power, let Bruno sign the PCB and name it a UcD400 Signature Edition 😀
Ahm, no that's too... Carver like
I do have a real question though, instead of ever more powerful modules (higher wattage), will there ever be UcD's with a higher current capacity? Not that I am complaining, it drives my speakers with ease, but I believe the UcD concept is close to the really heavy Class AB amps out there.
So maybe it wouldn't be bad to make a "statement" or "signature" edition, cost no object (relatively speaking), just to show the world what Hypex is capable of.
Maybe Bruno will better his UcD concept now that he is free from the restraints of a mass-producer. Quality first now! 😀
Now that you have the famous Bruno in-house, you can start building UcD's with double the power, let Bruno sign the PCB and name it a UcD400 Signature Edition 😀
Ahm, no that's too... Carver like
I do have a real question though, instead of ever more powerful modules (higher wattage), will there ever be UcD's with a higher current capacity? Not that I am complaining, it drives my speakers with ease, but I believe the UcD concept is close to the really heavy Class AB amps out there.
So maybe it wouldn't be bad to make a "statement" or "signature" edition, cost no object (relatively speaking), just to show the world what Hypex is capable of.
Maybe Bruno will better his UcD concept now that he is free from the restraints of a mass-producer. Quality first now! 😀
Bruno really has nothing to prove. I'm sure everyone would like to see modules of the highest possible caliber, but what one might consider useless excess, another may consider necessity, where all things cost more.
I do believe Bruno is rather skilled at knowing where to draw that line, and that he's already done so for the UCD.
I'd expect his R&D to be for something new, thought it would be nice to hear what Hypex's future plans actually are.
I really hope they don't plan on taking the route of the signature series, where a small mod or two and some screen print triples the price.
I do believe Bruno is rather skilled at knowing where to draw that line, and that he's already done so for the UCD.
I'd expect his R&D to be for something new, thought it would be nice to hear what Hypex's future plans actually are.
I really hope they don't plan on taking the route of the signature series, where a small mod or two and some screen print triples the price.
It is quite feasible to modify the UcD400 design to support reduced supply voltage combined with increased output current. That would for example produce 400W into 2 ohms but only 200W into 4. If there is à real demand for such a UcD400LZ it could be considered. I doubt that 2 ohms is really common though.Yves Smolders said:
Hidden among plans of UcD700, SMPS, full-bridge amps etc is also a control loop version with 20dB more loop gain. We'll keep you posted.Yves Smolders said: