Yes, a 300@8/600@4/900@2, high current module was what I had in mind when writing my previous post (I took the vastly improved performance of the new modules @ low impedance loads as a given - you've spoiled us already!).
In any case, I trust your hunch and I'm sure I'll be a happy Ncore owner.
Last edited:
Bruno, thanks !
Back to nCore - if best selling modules are UCD180 followed by UCD400 and lot less UCD700. it's easy to conclude that for DIY market best is to have something that is powered around Ucd400. If you want to offer only one model and if nCore1200 would cost more then UCD700 (likely) there will be number of DIY-ers who will go after it , but i think in the end (with smps1200) to spend 500+ EUR per channel is expensive (irrespective of the quality) and numbers sold would not be (very) high.
I'd suggest two models.
1. One lower powered , more like UCD400 (200/8 up to 600-700w/2Ohm) leveraging existing SMPS400 .. or maybe SMPS1200 for stereo... that might drive all those people who went after UCD180 and/or UCD400 and even some with UCD700 to upgrade for higher quality and bit less power
2. Second one basically would almost double that power - and would nCore1200
hope this helps a little
Back to nCore - if best selling modules are UCD180 followed by UCD400 and lot less UCD700. it's easy to conclude that for DIY market best is to have something that is powered around Ucd400. If you want to offer only one model and if nCore1200 would cost more then UCD700 (likely) there will be number of DIY-ers who will go after it , but i think in the end (with smps1200) to spend 500+ EUR per channel is expensive (irrespective of the quality) and numbers sold would not be (very) high.
I'd suggest two models.
1. One lower powered , more like UCD400 (200/8 up to 600-700w/2Ohm) leveraging existing SMPS400 .. or maybe SMPS1200 for stereo... that might drive all those people who went after UCD180 and/or UCD400 and even some with UCD700 to upgrade for higher quality and bit less power
2. Second one basically would almost double that power - and would nCore1200
hope this helps a little
I know I'm banging a lonely drum here so i'll say it just this one more time then shut up
It's even easier to conclude that it is best to have one like the best selling UCD180 rather the the second string. Just how much power do you need to drive normalish speakers in a normal domestic environment and without mr. average speaker owner worrying about the speakers being destroyed when some spotty oik comes round and turns the knob up all the way for a few seconds?
There is a market for a much higher powered amp. But it is a different market. And 400 & 700 watt amps are (cost variations aside) hitting the same market, not the larger lower powered market.
It's even easier to conclude that it is best to have one like the best selling UCD180 rather the the second string. Just how much power do you need to drive normalish speakers in a normal domestic environment and without mr. average speaker owner worrying about the speakers being destroyed when some spotty oik comes round and turns the knob up all the way for a few seconds?
There is a market for a much higher powered amp. But it is a different market. And 400 & 700 watt amps are (cost variations aside) hitting the same market, not the larger lower powered market.
If you want to offer only one model and if nCore1200 would cost more then UCD700 (likely) there will be number of DIY-ers who will go after it , but i think in the end (with smps1200) to spend 500+ EUR per channel is expensive (irrespective of the quality) and numbers sold would not be (very) high.
I'd suggest two models.
1. One lower powered , more like UCD400 (200/8 up to 600-700w/2Ohm) leveraging existing SMPS400 .. or maybe SMPS1200 for stereo... that might drive all those people who went after UCD180 and/or UCD400 and even some with UCD700 to upgrade for higher quality and bit less power
2. Second one basically would almost double that power - and would nCore1200
hope this helps a little
You're not on your own, goosewing - I agree with that logic. It would be nice for DIY'ers to have cutting edge technology at lower power options as well.
I am a much less informed audio enthusiast than the contributors here, but what about the option of adjustable gain to allow for a wider range of applications? Could that not help the decision of high vs higher power output?
I am a much less informed audio enthusiast than the contributors here, but what about the option of adjustable gain to allow for a wider range of applications? Could that not help the decision of high vs higher power output?
Packaging: UcD400s have a lovely form factor. One can turn them sideways and place six on a heat sink (chassis mounting doesn't dissipate enough heat at that density) for triamped speakers. I imagine the ncore circuit would need more space, so the circuit board could be as wide as 100 mm (from 75 mm) and still fit comfortably within a heatsink mounted on a 3U chassis.
If possible, mounting holes in the same pattern as a UcD400 would allow for simple upgrades.
If possible, mounting holes in the same pattern as a UcD400 would allow for simple upgrades.
I would have to agree that two different models would be the ideal solution.
It is unlikley one size will fit all.
I am sure there will be people wanting to use these in 3 way active applications, especially with new dsp's coming to market...
Having one module capable of high current / power into 2 ohm would not be the solution to the many single, large 8ohm bass driver applications. For these applications and large demanding full range ncore1200 would be ideal.
The smaller module perfect for the majority of normal domestic passive applications and mid / hf duty in active setups. Something similar to UCD400.
I have also experienced UCD400/SMPS400 running out of steam on the larger passive speakers.
These new modules and power supplies are likely to be expensive to reflect the R&D and technology advancement - more argument for allowing amps / systems be assembled that can truly replace the big Brystons and similar. If only middle of the road output was available it would be more difficult to justify.
Again just my 2pence worth and i am sure the products will be a well considered compromise to the needs of all.
It is unlikley one size will fit all.
I am sure there will be people wanting to use these in 3 way active applications, especially with new dsp's coming to market...
Having one module capable of high current / power into 2 ohm would not be the solution to the many single, large 8ohm bass driver applications. For these applications and large demanding full range ncore1200 would be ideal.
The smaller module perfect for the majority of normal domestic passive applications and mid / hf duty in active setups. Something similar to UCD400.
I have also experienced UCD400/SMPS400 running out of steam on the larger passive speakers.
These new modules and power supplies are likely to be expensive to reflect the R&D and technology advancement - more argument for allowing amps / systems be assembled that can truly replace the big Brystons and similar. If only middle of the road output was available it would be more difficult to justify.
Again just my 2pence worth and i am sure the products will be a well considered compromise to the needs of all.
Hi Bruno
Congratulations for making this amp commercially available in the meantime.
I would also opt for two models, separated by a ratio of 1:4 in terms of power. Like 300 Watts and 1200 Watts for instance. The 300 Watts could easily fulfil the needs of the UcD 180 users as well.
And yes, the capability of driving low impedance loads would definitely be fine.
Another nice feature would be on-board DC protection.
Regards
Charles
Congratulations for making this amp commercially available in the meantime.
I would also opt for two models, separated by a ratio of 1:4 in terms of power. Like 300 Watts and 1200 Watts for instance. The 300 Watts could easily fulfil the needs of the UcD 180 users as well.
And yes, the capability of driving low impedance loads would definitely be fine.
Another nice feature would be on-board DC protection.
Regards
Charles
Under the current circumstances (development capacity) it's really hard to know if and when we can do a second DIY model, so even if it happens we've got to presume it won't, for now. Much as I'd love to duplicate the 180-400-700 trio, it's best to presume we'll have only one model for the foreseeable future.
Re replacing Big-name-chunky-amps, I think I should explain the commercial situation I am juggling when specifying modules for different markets. Yes, we want to replace these big amps with Ncore. In fact that is the very point. But we want to do so by winning manufacturers of such amps over to make the final switch to class D. If previous experience marketing UcD is anything to go by, having a big ballsy DIY module out there that anyone can buy is a serious liability. It may make our prospective customers feel they can better differentiate themselves on the market by not moving to class D or worse, moving to someone else's. Believe it or not, that has happened. We have seen people designing in a competing product which they admitted was vastly inferior to UcD, only because it was relatively unknown and in the (correct) presumption that enough hi-fi reviewers are technical and sonic relativists. You get a better review if they have a new story to tell.
It gets hairier. If we liberally sell an OEM module to too many manufacturers of such gear, the same situation results: "Hypex gents, how am I going to differentiate myself from your other customers?" If you were wondering what the whole thing of "selected customers" on the announcement is about, it's this. There is going to be an optimum mix of customers in different marketplaces to give the best return in terms of turnover and (pardon my french) brand equity and flexibility to do that measured amount of customizing as is de rigueur in the high end audio trade.
And in amongst that I'm trying to create a module for direct sale to the people closest to my heart ie. DIY enthousiasts. An NC1200-like module would upset any form of marketing strategy we might wish to deploy in the OEM market so that simply isn't on the cards, much as I'd love to do otherwise
What I can do is design a module with features that -hopefully- DIY users value and VARs don't. Some of those are obvious like connectors that are easy to use for one-offs but not in a production environment (like the screw tag). Another is the discrete buffers which we've decided to use during the course of this thread.
It's that sort of thing I'm fishing for here: how can I make a module that is at once as close as possible to a DIY enthousiast's dream and useless to a VAR.
So you thought designing a class D amp was tough. Try product management for a change...
Re replacing Big-name-chunky-amps, I think I should explain the commercial situation I am juggling when specifying modules for different markets. Yes, we want to replace these big amps with Ncore. In fact that is the very point. But we want to do so by winning manufacturers of such amps over to make the final switch to class D. If previous experience marketing UcD is anything to go by, having a big ballsy DIY module out there that anyone can buy is a serious liability. It may make our prospective customers feel they can better differentiate themselves on the market by not moving to class D or worse, moving to someone else's. Believe it or not, that has happened. We have seen people designing in a competing product which they admitted was vastly inferior to UcD, only because it was relatively unknown and in the (correct) presumption that enough hi-fi reviewers are technical and sonic relativists. You get a better review if they have a new story to tell.
It gets hairier. If we liberally sell an OEM module to too many manufacturers of such gear, the same situation results: "Hypex gents, how am I going to differentiate myself from your other customers?" If you were wondering what the whole thing of "selected customers" on the announcement is about, it's this. There is going to be an optimum mix of customers in different marketplaces to give the best return in terms of turnover and (pardon my french) brand equity and flexibility to do that measured amount of customizing as is de rigueur in the high end audio trade.
And in amongst that I'm trying to create a module for direct sale to the people closest to my heart ie. DIY enthousiasts. An NC1200-like module would upset any form of marketing strategy we might wish to deploy in the OEM market so that simply isn't on the cards, much as I'd love to do otherwise
What I can do is design a module with features that -hopefully- DIY users value and VARs don't. Some of those are obvious like connectors that are easy to use for one-offs but not in a production environment (like the screw tag). Another is the discrete buffers which we've decided to use during the course of this thread. It's that sort of thing I'm fishing for here: how can I make a module that is at once as close as possible to a DIY enthousiast's dream and useless to a VAR.
So you thought designing a class D amp was tough. Try product management for a change...
Last edited:
I don't know about this statement amplifier thing. It's a DIY module. If Bruno & team make it too good it eats into their OEM high end customers. I think this should not become too expensive...
300@8/600@4 is a good size I agree. To me that's already a "big" amp. UcD400 size would also be OK though by me.
2x UcD700's cost almost $1000 USD. So I'm just hoping the cost does not get out of control for the ncore DIY version...
Indeed, but with a twist. I think I can make it as good as I want but not as powerful as I want because power is as big a thing in the high end component market as sonics. OEMs will want to control their own sonics anyway so going completely overboard on the perfect discrete input for the DIY module is probably not going to hurt anyone.
Last edited:
I am all for lower cost.
It seems that due to the component count and board real estate, there is a lower limit to the power where lowering power further will translate into no cost savings. Seems 400W is that point.
That seems to imply that the ncore module will be positioned at the ucd400 power point but with different price for differentiation.
Or, may I propose (as it always happens with consumer tech), introduce ncore at the current ucd400 price point and lower the price of the current UCD offerings?
It seems that due to the component count and board real estate, there is a lower limit to the power where lowering power further will translate into no cost savings. Seems 400W is that point.
That seems to imply that the ncore module will be positioned at the ucd400 power point but with different price for differentiation.
Or, may I propose (as it always happens with consumer tech), introduce ncore at the current ucd400 price point and lower the price of the current UCD offerings?
I also have UcD180HG with HxR and SMPS180. It's simply the best amp I've ever heard. Its just clean, clean, clean. No smearing or artificial "warmth", just pure hifi. At least thats what I hear. But it doesnt forgive errors other places in the audio chain.
If the new Ncore stuff is even more pure sounding, then I just GOT TO have it when it arrives!!!
If the new Ncore stuff is even more pure sounding, then I just GOT TO have it when it arrives!!!
I like both these options. Have the amp come from the factory with two sides a little larger than the module maybe. OR even better, something like your second idea:
in addition to the press fit nuts in the base plate like the current OEM UcD's make the screw/standoff that mounts the PCB a little larger, such that if desired, they could be removed and a new screw inserted fully through from the top of the PCB, through the base plate, and screw into the heatsink? (thereby clamping the baseplate between PCB and heatsink?
I sort of agree with this. The current heatsink is fairly nice. But I've run into problems with it as well (for what I wanted, it was mostly not so good). There are always trade off's. My biggest wish, as others point out, was to be able to start the screw from the module side. I briefly toyed with removing the heatsink from the module, instead I just changed plans...
I'm willing to re-layout my amp chassis if I get the new modules ;-)
Fascinating discussion. Maybe a way to distinguish the DIY from the OEM version could be the size: while the OEM version must fit in as many diffent casing as possible and therefore should be small, the DIY comminity will most likely be ready to build cases around the module, which can therfore be larger. This also would allow more place for special connectors (uninteresting for OEM as stated by Bruno), or jumpers or adaptable parts which the OEM version is not interested in.
@Phase_accurate: Rather amazing. I still need to find a suitable way of reciprocating
Re size, I have been doing a bit of homework. If I build a discrete input stage, discrete loop amp, integrated discrete regulators and then I use a 4-layer board with SMD on both sides I should be able to cram a 400W version on precisely the same board area (if not shape) as the UcD400. So indeed this would seem to be the right size.
Mounting... still trying to see where I can add flexibility. The plate construction is really a big step forward both thermally and EMC-wise, but it permits only 1 way of mounting. Perhaps we can devise some mounting accessories?
@JMBulg the surface area of the plate is so large that adding another one would hardly affect thermal performance, even without any heatsink compound. We could have sub-base plates premade.
Re size, I have been doing a bit of homework. If I build a discrete input stage, discrete loop amp, integrated discrete regulators and then I use a 4-layer board with SMD on both sides I should be able to cram a 400W version on precisely the same board area (if not shape) as the UcD400. So indeed this would seem to be the right size.
Mounting... still trying to see where I can add flexibility. The plate construction is really a big step forward both thermally and EMC-wise, but it permits only 1 way of mounting. Perhaps we can devise some mounting accessories?
@JMBulg the surface area of the plate is so large that adding another one would hardly affect thermal performance, even without any heatsink compound. We could have sub-base plates premade.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.