I guess the thing you are missing is the synchronous part - the switching can occur precisely at the zero crossing.
In a buck converter the MOSFET switch drives an inductor, not a capacitor.
Hello fellow nCore Enthusiasts
Well I finally made it round to Colin's (aka Boggit) place yester eve to collect my nc500 amplifiers
Colin, thank you for inviting me into your home and offering me your Beer too (I remained sober and didn't have any for the record as it was 2-3 hour drive home)
So of course I had an opportunity to listen to the Standard and Colin's UP Buffers, with both BURSON v5 and the SPARKOS OpAmps
What I can say is that the differences are not MASSIVE, but they do alter the character of the nc500 vs. standard OpAmp
These comments below are me listening to music in Colin's system, of which I am not familiar, but this is what I could discern...
Standard LM4562 - clean and linear, treble not explicitly fatiguing in any way, but when compared to the latter, could be contrived as a little boring (I am aware another Source/Pre-amp may change this)!
BURSON v5 - Seems to emphasize more of the Midrange and Upper Bass and also glazes over the Treble in a subtle, non-ear-hurting way
SPARKOS - does similar to the BURSON v5 but just not as much, however the more noticeable difference is in the treble, which seems to glaze over the high-frequencies a bit more than BURSON (a hazy, valve-like signature)
In Colin's system the BURSON v5 delivers more punch and warmth, by contrast the SPARKOS smooths the treble over a bit more and sounds a little more laid-back in doing this
Like Colin, I preferred the SPARKOS, just slightly, because shrill treble annoys me the most and there are few recordings out there that don't exhibit this ear-piercing sibilant demeanor - honestly, often makes me want to watch a movie instead of listening to my music or need glass of wine to dull my senses.
The BURSON v5 may be more suited to a dull sounding system, or persons that like hard rock (and maybe Symphony, like Colmo claims it makes instruments stand out more)
Anyway, I got home just before midnight so have not had a good opportunity to compare the nc500 to my BiAmped TAG McLaren 60P yet
...I did quickly wire the nc500 up to my LINN KOMPONENT (£800 Rear Speakers) as a 2.0 Stereo config, in case I blew them up it wouldn't be the end of the world unlike my beloved £5000 MA PL200! With those mid-fi speakers, I can't tell any difference to the TAG McLaren amplifiers that powered them previously.
More news soon ...bring forth the WEEKEND! :-D
Well I finally made it round to Colin's (aka Boggit) place yester eve to collect my nc500 amplifiers
Colin, thank you for inviting me into your home and offering me your Beer too (I remained sober and didn't have any for the record as it was 2-3 hour drive home)
So of course I had an opportunity to listen to the Standard and Colin's UP Buffers, with both BURSON v5 and the SPARKOS OpAmps
What I can say is that the differences are not MASSIVE, but they do alter the character of the nc500 vs. standard OpAmp
These comments below are me listening to music in Colin's system, of which I am not familiar, but this is what I could discern...
Standard LM4562 - clean and linear, treble not explicitly fatiguing in any way, but when compared to the latter, could be contrived as a little boring (I am aware another Source/Pre-amp may change this)!
BURSON v5 - Seems to emphasize more of the Midrange and Upper Bass and also glazes over the Treble in a subtle, non-ear-hurting way
SPARKOS - does similar to the BURSON v5 but just not as much, however the more noticeable difference is in the treble, which seems to glaze over the high-frequencies a bit more than BURSON (a hazy, valve-like signature)
In Colin's system the BURSON v5 delivers more punch and warmth, by contrast the SPARKOS smooths the treble over a bit more and sounds a little more laid-back in doing this
Like Colin, I preferred the SPARKOS, just slightly, because shrill treble annoys me the most and there are few recordings out there that don't exhibit this ear-piercing sibilant demeanor - honestly, often makes me want to watch a movie instead of listening to my music or need glass of wine to dull my senses.
The BURSON v5 may be more suited to a dull sounding system, or persons that like hard rock (and maybe Symphony, like Colmo claims it makes instruments stand out more)
Anyway, I got home just before midnight so have not had a good opportunity to compare the nc500 to my BiAmped TAG McLaren 60P yet
...I did quickly wire the nc500 up to my LINN KOMPONENT (£800 Rear Speakers) as a 2.0 Stereo config, in case I blew them up it wouldn't be the end of the world unlike my beloved £5000 MA PL200! With those mid-fi speakers, I can't tell any difference to the TAG McLaren amplifiers that powered them previously.
More news soon ...bring forth the WEEKEND! :-D
In that case the big toroidal transformer should be critically checked.
In general toroidal transformers are famous for their efficiency, but that makes them vulnerable at the same time!
Because of their efficiency, manufacturers are tempted to squeeze out maximum power out of a given toroid. Core excitation up to 1,7 - 1,8 T is needed to do that.
This high core excitation brings the core near to saturation, which is what makes them vulnerable in case of highish line voltages.
DC like components in the line voltage are also dangerous for high excitation toroids easily forcing them into saturation.
Also the high core excitation maximizes the strayfield.
A good option to improve on the power supply transformer is to avoid the toroid and choose an oversized c-core instead.
Oversize means more space for the windings to lower the core excitation to around 1 T.
Small airgap between the c-core halves.
Now we have a transformer with is virtually insensitive to highish line voltage and is also capable to cope with low frequency rubbish.
Also a low T transformer will have considerably less strayfield.
Not mentioned yet the electrostatic shield between primary and secondary windings which effictively capacitively shunts high frequency rubbish to ground.
An LPS based on a really high quality power supply transformer will possibly be tried at my home connected to an NC500 to compare with the SMPS.
Might be interesting.
That's a fairly big assumption - that there is a clean enough ground to dump the rubbish to, without dirtying it
Mains cables do tend to have a significant inductance, as does the mains earth wiring in the installation.That's a fairly big assumption - that there is a clean enough ground to dump the rubbish to, without dirtying it
Without diving into the subject of cable inductance, mains earth wiring and ground cleaness, IME power supply transformers with shields are effective; it is the most simple (and cheapest!) way to clean up a power supply.
Did you get any op amps to try or are you using the LM4562Hello fellow nCore Enthusiasts
Well I finally made it round to Colin's (aka Boggit) place yester eve to collect my nc500 amplifiers
Colin, thank you for inviting me into your home and offering me your Beer too (I remained sober and didn't have any for the record as it was 2-3 hour drive home)
So of course I had an opportunity to listen to the Standard and Colin's UP Buffers, with both BURSON v5 and the SPARKOS OpAmps
What I can say is that the differences are not MASSIVE, but they do alter the character of the nc500 vs. standard OpAmp
These comments below are me listening to music in Colin's system, of which I am not familiar, but this is what I could discern...
Standard LM4562 - clean and linear, treble not explicitly fatiguing in any way, but when compared to the latter, could be contrived as a little boring (I am aware another Source/Pre-amp may change this)!
BURSON v5 - Seems to emphasize more of the Midrange and Upper Bass and also glazes over the Treble in a subtle, non-ear-hurting way
SPARKOS - does similar to the BURSON v5 but just not as much, however the more noticeable difference is in the treble, which seems to glaze over the high-frequencies a bit more than BURSON (a hazy, valve-like signature)
In Colin's system the BURSON v5 delivers more punch and warmth, by contrast the SPARKOS smooths the treble over a bit more and sounds a little more laid-back in doing this
Like Colin, I preferred the SPARKOS, just slightly, because shrill treble annoys me the most and there are few recordings out there that don't exhibit this ear-piercing sibilant demeanor - honestly, often makes me want to watch a movie instead of listening to my music or need glass of wine to dull my senses.
The BURSON v5 may be more suited to a dull sounding system, or persons that like hard rock (and maybe Symphony, like Colmo claims it makes instruments stand out more)
Anyway, I got home just before midnight so have not had a good opportunity to compare the nc500 to my BiAmped TAG McLaren 60P yet
...I did quickly wire the nc500 up to my LINN KOMPONENT (£800 Rear Speakers) as a 2.0 Stereo config, in case I blew them up it wouldn't be the end of the world unlike my beloved £5000 MA PL200! With those mid-fi speakers, I can't tell any difference to the TAG McLaren amplifiers that powered them previously.
More news soon ...bring forth the WEEKEND! :-D
Hello Colin
I'm using the standard Buffer for now. My plan is to expand my nc500 empire to 4 or 5 channels, because I watch (probably) more movies than I listen to music
It's all work in progress and buying as I can afford
The default sound I heard at Colin's place was not bad in any respect
I'm using the standard Buffer for now. My plan is to expand my nc500 empire to 4 or 5 channels, because I watch (probably) more movies than I listen to music
It's all work in progress and buying as I can afford
The default sound I heard at Colin's place was not bad in any respect
Hello Colin
I'm using the standard Buffer for now. My plan is to expand my nc500 empire to 4 or 5 channels, because I watch (probably) more movies than I listen to music
It's all work in progress and buying as I can afford
The default sound I heard at Colin's place was not bad in any respect
Indeed, the glazing over of the treble you mentioned made it sound like the standard was the best sounding whilst the other two made it less defined, hazier.
Was that what you meant by those words (well, I just repeated the very same words..
so that doesn't help! )The comments on the Dutch board were along "was that the one done by the summer intern?"
Hi NATDBERG
I think it would really depend on your system and taste
I liked the treble from the Sparkos...in Colin's system at least
In my case, think I need to evaluate these things on my (long awaited) John Westlake FDAC before making up my mind, once 'we' get them ...sometimes you can't change your Source easily, just like I would have just stuck with an OPPO BDP-105D beforehand, which I find on the bright side. These may need some Valve amp to sound right to my ears (I was looking at Valve alternatives because I like that hazy tube signature...a lot of people do)
I think it would really depend on your system and taste
I liked the treble from the Sparkos...in Colin's system at least
In my case, think I need to evaluate these things on my (long awaited) John Westlake FDAC before making up my mind, once 'we' get them ...sometimes you can't change your Source easily, just like I would have just stuck with an OPPO BDP-105D beforehand, which I find on the bright side. These may need some Valve amp to sound right to my ears (I was looking at Valve alternatives because I like that hazy tube signature...a lot of people do)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.