well, .25dB/Div scale makes it pretty clear just how small these deviations are-That variance could come from a lot of places.
I think you're reading between the lines and extrapolating what I said.
People who lack technical knowledge or aren't willing to get into that side of things etc etc will then judge by ear (as that's all they otherwise have time for).
It is not logical to conclude from that statement, the inverse! - that therefore people who judge by ear are doing so because they lack technical knowledge. That's what I'm understanding you find disrespectful? But I neither said nor intended to express that.
I have to disagree there - and it's probably down to the ill defined language of sound we use, nothing more..
Dynamics and timing and "colour" (I guess by that you mean a tonal richness?) are there in the sound naturally (whether it's music or not - hence musicality is something different) and transparency in gear allows that to come through.
What people do when they are creating art is they tweak those unnatturally in order to emphasise parts of the sound which sound nice, they make them more prominent than is natural. In other ways they will reduce aspects of sound which are not so easy to listen to (in some instances - this is generalised). e.g. real trumpet played loud is hard to listen to for long as it involves such dynamics and metalic harmonics that grate. Therefore engineers use outboard equipment (mic choice, pre-amps, mixers, compressors etc) to lessen those aspects, make the sound rounded off, emphasise certain mid-range frequencies - a process which could be described as making it sound more "musical". Or it could be described as "colouring" the sound (i.e. making it more pleasing but less real).
What people consider to be "real" though is a mostly a figure of their imagination IMO. Get Wynton Marsalis to REALLY play in your living room and I bet many "fans" would secretly wish he'd shut the fut up! But play a recording which has been artistically produced for enjoyment and they will celebrate how real it sounds and how they could listen for hours on end to his beautiful playing, musicality etc..
But when we come to monitoring amplification, you need - and audio engineers look for - transparency.
As I see it, music is a humanised subset of sound and one only other humans can define (my cat doesn't relate to music as far as I can tell, indeed some humans with irregular or damaged brains also cannot differentiate between music and any other noise). Musicality, as I understand the word is down to the listener - it's a description applied afterwards and implies human interaction. It is not really a description of sound per se else musicality would be found in natural sounds too, yet it wouldn't be music (because it's not related to human culture - when natural sound IS described as music, it's a poetic twist on the real meaning of the word).
Anyway... blah blah blah off topic as has been pointed out ( personally I see going off topic as giving character to a forum! It's up to those who run it as they wish though..).
Last edited:
I think the difference in technical terms has been pretty much discussed to death. At reasonable power levels, with reasonable loudspeaker loads, they should sound identical. The nc500 can supply slightly more power, the nc400 can drive a lower load impedance.
More like in 95% of applications the NC500 can supply almost double the power, (8 ohm output 200w vs 400w, 4 ohm output 400w vs 700w. And the 2 ohm output is 580w vs 550w) Both are 2 ohm stable.
The NC400 has a very good extremely transparent discrete input stage built onto the main board, which isn't bypassable. The NC500 has no buffer stage so the OEM is free to develop their own buffer stage to obtain any "house sound" signature they wish.
The output stages on both amps if driven within the range that they can both operate with top performance, should sound almost identical. But in order to get the identical sound out of them, the identical input buffer that the NC400 uses would need to be built for the NC500's.
Last edited:
To put that in perspective, that would be a difference of 3 dB, 2.4 dB and 0.2 dB respectively.
And the nc400 is 1 ohm stable.
Just because the NC500 doesn't have a 1 ohm rating doesn't mean it will self destruct if it dips down to 1 ohm. The Mola Mola Kaluga doesn't have a 1 ohm rating either and this is what Bruno said about it:
"The 2 ohm spec only means it'll go full blast into that impedance while at lower impedances maximum power will reduce. It'll happily drive 1 ohm or even half an ohm but at that point you risk the amp cutting out (muting for one second) occasionally when you play very loud. Anyhow, just try it, you won't damage anything"
My experience with them driving Martin Logan's that dip down to 1 ohm was, even after 30 mins of continuous extremely high output, they were barely even warm.
Last edited:
Per Hypex:
Single SMPS1200 (or two SMPS600) > two NC400: 200/400/600W @ 8/4/2 Ohm, 1 Ohm minimum
Single SMPS600 > one NC400 same as above
Single SMPS600 > two NC400: 200/400W @ 8/4 Ohm, 2 Ohm minimum
Single SMPS1200 > two NC500: 400/600/550W @ 8/4/2 Ohm, 1 Ohm minimum
Single SMPS1200 > one NC500: 400/700/550W @ 8/4/2 Ohm, 1 Ohm minimum
So the second PS and required larger chassis (estimate $300) nets .5 dB only @ 4 Ohm. That's an insanely high ratio of total cost for .5 dB only @ one narrow impedance.
NC500's 50W deficit only @ 2 Ohm seems virtually irrelevant.
I presume Hypex frown on any authorized OEM marketing NC500 modules to DIY market, if not outright disallow same. If true, there is no such thing as DIY NC500, only the retail market for fully built amps.
Single SMPS1200 (or two SMPS600) > two NC400: 200/400/600W @ 8/4/2 Ohm, 1 Ohm minimum
Single SMPS600 > one NC400 same as above
Single SMPS600 > two NC400: 200/400W @ 8/4 Ohm, 2 Ohm minimum
Single SMPS1200 > two NC500: 400/600/550W @ 8/4/2 Ohm, 1 Ohm minimum
Single SMPS1200 > one NC500: 400/700/550W @ 8/4/2 Ohm, 1 Ohm minimum
So the second PS and required larger chassis (estimate $300) nets .5 dB only @ 4 Ohm. That's an insanely high ratio of total cost for .5 dB only @ one narrow impedance.
NC500's 50W deficit only @ 2 Ohm seems virtually irrelevant.
I presume Hypex frown on any authorized OEM marketing NC500 modules to DIY market, if not outright disallow same. If true, there is no such thing as DIY NC500, only the retail market for fully built amps.
Last edited:
Just curios, as a happy nc400 owner, why is Hypex and/or Bruno so generous to the DIY community? Did they get help from the DIY community at one point?
Or is it just a cunning business strategy?
Bruno is really nice guy, and fearsomely intelligent. There could be any number of reasons for the DIY NC400, from handy source of turnover for Hypex, to a very cheap way of getting the message out, to even the possibility that they designed it for OEM use but OEMs wanted to 'tweak' hence the NC500.
It is entirely possibly that the 400 is technically better than the 500 and the tweak input stages can only make it worse. In which case it's not only a bargain but a great joke.
But all the above is conjecture and the truth is bound to be different. So why care. If you want a 200W amp that runs cool and is transparent you have found it
Just curios, as a happy nc400 owner, why is Hypex and/or Bruno so generous to the DIY community? Did they get help from the DIY community at one point?
Or is it just a cunning business strategy?
Because Bruno has a weak spot for DIY (read #89 of this thread).
When you take the effort to read through the first 100 posts or so of this thread you will find the company's policy w.r.t. OEM and DIY. It is perfectly up to date almost 5 years later.
DIY is about 8% of turnover I was told, so....
Bruno perfectly explained Hypex' policy when he joined this thread; it's all in the first pages.
Bruno is really nice guy, and fearsomely intelligent. There could be any number of reasons for the DIY NC400, from handy source of turnover for Hypex, to a very cheap way of getting the message out, to even the possibility that they designed it for OEM use but OEMs wanted to 'tweak' hence the NC500.
It is entirely possibly that the 400 is technically better than the 500 and the tweak input stages can only make it worse. In which case it's not only a bargain but a great joke.
But all the above is conjecture and the truth is bound to be different. So why care. If you want a 200W amp that runs cool and is transparent you have found it
Well said !
And if the NC400 is too tighty or too much damped just buy a bad cheap normal inexpensive speaker wire (aka : a capacitive one !) instead a bad Noisy buffer more expensive than the Hypex module itself (80 euros for the NC500 in OEM !) and how much to add 2 stages more in a buffer ????
!There is business and business btw, all is not about corruption ! Although the diy has much more to offer than to be a gogo Customer ! DIY is a viral marketing and can help to make better choices as well ! To make a long story shorter : be aware of what you purchase !
I was reading the early posts and there was a discussion with Bruno on how to have a DIY version of the modules without offending the commercial buyers. One suggestion was making the modules quite big, requiring a large chassis, which most DIYers could build around, but making it less appealing for commercial use. So that might explain the large circular heatsinks/ base.
In any case it is a plus as it does probably keep things cooler. And looks cool too!
In any case it is a plus as it does probably keep things cooler. And looks cool too!
You seen the size of the commercial offerings? They are vast in girth!
For the power output you can make a stereo UcD400 based amplifier that is tiny compared to the high class A room heaters we got used to. Not checked but suspect a 1U chassis would be just a tiny bit too small.
Like you I find the hockey puck kinda cool.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.