Powersoft
If anyone will be in Orlando from March 9 to 12, I will be at the NSCA show, in the Renkus-Heinz demo room. Also at the show will the people from Powersoft, at the Martin Audio booth. Maybe a DIYer from Florida can try to find if they will release product to a dealer for the DIY market.
If anyone will be in Orlando from March 9 to 12, I will be at the NSCA show, in the Renkus-Heinz demo room. Also at the show will the people from Powersoft, at the Martin Audio booth. Maybe a DIYer from Florida can try to find if they will release product to a dealer for the DIY market.
Hi Dan,
thanks to your report, B&O has regained some of the respect back. It is nice to see that they underrate their products in the data sheet by a significant number. However I am interested if you had any problems with Zobel networks. I expect that it would be quite usual that some prior stage of amplifcation (not necessarily ICE module) would burst into high frequency oscillation when some inadvertly puts finger into the input.
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
thanks to your report, B&O has regained some of the respect back. It is nice to see that they underrate their products in the data sheet by a significant number. However I am interested if you had any problems with Zobel networks. I expect that it would be quite usual that some prior stage of amplifcation (not necessarily ICE module) would burst into high frequency oscillation when some inadvertly puts finger into the input.
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
ICE vs UcD
I have a pair each of UcD180 and UcD400 which Jan Peter kindly sent me for evaluation. I find both the UcD and ICE power units to have an excellent sound quality. However, they do NOT sound the same. Both excellent but distinct.
The UcD amps sound closer to an excellent class AB amplifier while the ICE sound slightly "tubey".
I think this is partly because the UcD is a half bridge design and does an excellent job simulating an excellent class AB transistor design. Basically a near perfect reproduction of the audio in as clean and essentially unbiased sense. Where the amplifier imparts very little of its own sound in the signal. Nominally the goal we are striving for. Not perfect but as close as the musical truth all but the most esoteric high end amplifiers of say 1990 could give. And with a lot more efficiency and in a much smaller package. And available to the DIY community at a reasonable price.
On the other hand, the ICE Power is a full bridge design and seems to come closer to simulating the sound of a very, clean tube amplifier because the bridged output stage does a great job in cancelling out harmonics like a tube amp does. As well, their soft limiting circuit makes the sound, when clipped, more like the sound of a tube amp in clipping. Imagine the sound of a tube amp would give if you had a perfect output transformer with zero loss, no hysteresis and near perfect frequency response. Again very good and the sound that many people are looking for. However, for the small quantity user, essentially unobtainable.
And for those who might ask, I do work for an OEM with access to all these unobtainable OEM products, the agreements with the module makers do not allow resales other than in manufactured products. Service spares are on an exchange basis only. SO please, don't ask to buy these from me. I only run the engineering department. I don't make policy.
As for the Zobel networks, in the ICE 500A and 1000A, in early experimenting, I did blow the cap off the TO-220 4 ohm resistor in the zobel network of a couple of these before I learned to NOT to sustained high frequency testing. These amplifiers are for audio only, not for sine waves. The problem is not the amplifier but on the physical size. To get the module under 100mm square, this means the zobel resistor must be smaller. They sized it for music. To sustain a 15KHz full power sine wave, would require a far larger part, one that is not necessary for audio work. This is called designng the product to fit the application. Do not fault the product for being able to blow up the resistor in the zobel network by driving it at full power with a sine wave over 10KHz. We don't listen to sine waves. We listen to a complex signal woth a varied spectral content, with less energy in the high end than the low, called "music".
And yes, any product will make noise if you put your finger on the input. Some may even oscillate. That's the price you pay for having good transient response. My recommendation is to not have the inputs floating in the air. When nothing is connected anyway, leave it turned off. Turn it on only when its all connected up.
I have a pair each of UcD180 and UcD400 which Jan Peter kindly sent me for evaluation. I find both the UcD and ICE power units to have an excellent sound quality. However, they do NOT sound the same. Both excellent but distinct.
The UcD amps sound closer to an excellent class AB amplifier while the ICE sound slightly "tubey".
I think this is partly because the UcD is a half bridge design and does an excellent job simulating an excellent class AB transistor design. Basically a near perfect reproduction of the audio in as clean and essentially unbiased sense. Where the amplifier imparts very little of its own sound in the signal. Nominally the goal we are striving for. Not perfect but as close as the musical truth all but the most esoteric high end amplifiers of say 1990 could give. And with a lot more efficiency and in a much smaller package. And available to the DIY community at a reasonable price.
On the other hand, the ICE Power is a full bridge design and seems to come closer to simulating the sound of a very, clean tube amplifier because the bridged output stage does a great job in cancelling out harmonics like a tube amp does. As well, their soft limiting circuit makes the sound, when clipped, more like the sound of a tube amp in clipping. Imagine the sound of a tube amp would give if you had a perfect output transformer with zero loss, no hysteresis and near perfect frequency response. Again very good and the sound that many people are looking for. However, for the small quantity user, essentially unobtainable.
And for those who might ask, I do work for an OEM with access to all these unobtainable OEM products, the agreements with the module makers do not allow resales other than in manufactured products. Service spares are on an exchange basis only. SO please, don't ask to buy these from me. I only run the engineering department. I don't make policy.
As for the Zobel networks, in the ICE 500A and 1000A, in early experimenting, I did blow the cap off the TO-220 4 ohm resistor in the zobel network of a couple of these before I learned to NOT to sustained high frequency testing. These amplifiers are for audio only, not for sine waves. The problem is not the amplifier but on the physical size. To get the module under 100mm square, this means the zobel resistor must be smaller. They sized it for music. To sustain a 15KHz full power sine wave, would require a far larger part, one that is not necessary for audio work. This is called designng the product to fit the application. Do not fault the product for being able to blow up the resistor in the zobel network by driving it at full power with a sine wave over 10KHz. We don't listen to sine waves. We listen to a complex signal woth a varied spectral content, with less energy in the high end than the low, called "music".
And yes, any product will make noise if you put your finger on the input. Some may even oscillate. That's the price you pay for having good transient response. My recommendation is to not have the inputs floating in the air. When nothing is connected anyway, leave it turned off. Turn it on only when its all connected up.
Re: ICE vs UcD
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your comments, very usefull. I would not ask you to supply me with ICE modules. One way to get them is from Acoustic realitily, of course then they are encased and of course more expensive than UcD modules. Maybe one of the differences between UcD and ICE is caused by the higher output resistance of ICE at higher frequencies, giving a smoother sound? I agree with your comment on listening to music and not to sine waves. However, I like it that the UcD does not need the zobel, it seems that class D amps with a burned out zobel can be pretty dangerous.
Basically I was interested in how these ASP amps sound with that SMPS in comparison with ICE with a conventional supply. I would like to experiment with UcD and SMPS but I can't find anything suitable and I don't know if SMPS would degrade the sound. However, if it works well on ICE, a well designed SMPS should work well on UcD as well.
Thanks for your feedback and best regards
Gertjan
dmfraser said:
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your comments, very usefull. I would not ask you to supply me with ICE modules. One way to get them is from Acoustic realitily, of course then they are encased and of course more expensive than UcD modules. Maybe one of the differences between UcD and ICE is caused by the higher output resistance of ICE at higher frequencies, giving a smoother sound? I agree with your comment on listening to music and not to sine waves. However, I like it that the UcD does not need the zobel, it seems that class D amps with a burned out zobel can be pretty dangerous.
Basically I was interested in how these ASP amps sound with that SMPS in comparison with ICE with a conventional supply. I would like to experiment with UcD and SMPS but I can't find anything suitable and I don't know if SMPS would degrade the sound. However, if it works well on ICE, a well designed SMPS should work well on UcD as well.
Thanks for your feedback and best regards
Gertjan
ICE1000ASP
The 1000ASP had a tighter bottom end with somewhaty more authority at higher power levels than the 1000A with a linear power supply. I suspect this is because the power supply on the 1000ASP is fully regulated while the linear power supply tended to droop under load.
HF performance could not be compared as the 1000A is limited to 3 KHz while the 1000ASO is a fukk range device.
However, neither had quite the overall punch of an Renkus-Heinz P3500 class AB amplifier on some overprocessed modern music. I suspect this is caused by the somewhat higher output impedance of the ICE amplifier compared to the P3500 caused by the output inductors. The network impedance is low on the ICE but it has an effect. However, unless you are playing "boom car" music I feel the amount of punch on the ICE is within the needs of any sound played on an actual instrument. It is just there is a difference on notes produced electronically.
The UcD has decent bottom end as well. However, since I was not able to test it with an SMPS and the UcD180's power was about 1/8 that of the P3500, comparisons are not really meaningful. For its power, and the unregulated power supply used, the UcD180 had good punch and again, great for any sort of natural or "real" music.
The 1000ASP had a tighter bottom end with somewhaty more authority at higher power levels than the 1000A with a linear power supply. I suspect this is because the power supply on the 1000ASP is fully regulated while the linear power supply tended to droop under load.
HF performance could not be compared as the 1000A is limited to 3 KHz while the 1000ASO is a fukk range device.
However, neither had quite the overall punch of an Renkus-Heinz P3500 class AB amplifier on some overprocessed modern music. I suspect this is caused by the somewhat higher output impedance of the ICE amplifier compared to the P3500 caused by the output inductors. The network impedance is low on the ICE but it has an effect. However, unless you are playing "boom car" music I feel the amount of punch on the ICE is within the needs of any sound played on an actual instrument. It is just there is a difference on notes produced electronically.
The UcD has decent bottom end as well. However, since I was not able to test it with an SMPS and the UcD180's power was about 1/8 that of the P3500, comparisons are not really meaningful. For its power, and the unregulated power supply used, the UcD180 had good punch and again, great for any sort of natural or "real" music.
Re: ICE1000ASP
Hi Dan,
Thanks again for the very useful comments.
Kind of have given up on using a SMPS.
I now plan to use two UcD400 bridged for the woofers. Not only to get more power. The main reason is that in a bridged situation, the power will be drawn from both rails at the same time. As a result, one rail needs to supply only half the current in comparison with a single module unbridged delivering the same power. The current consumption on each rail would be more continuous since each rails needs to deliver power during both the positive and negative part of the sinewave. There would also be no power supply pumping and the + and - rails always see the same load, so + and - power voltage would always be the same. Also the transformer may like it to always see a symmetrical load. This may also make it easier to use a capacitance multiplier like stabilizer.
Thanks again and best regards
Gertjan
dmfraser said:
Hi Dan,
Thanks again for the very useful comments.
Kind of have given up on using a SMPS.
I now plan to use two UcD400 bridged for the woofers. Not only to get more power. The main reason is that in a bridged situation, the power will be drawn from both rails at the same time. As a result, one rail needs to supply only half the current in comparison with a single module unbridged delivering the same power. The current consumption on each rail would be more continuous since each rails needs to deliver power during both the positive and negative part of the sinewave. There would also be no power supply pumping and the + and - rails always see the same load, so + and - power voltage would always be the same. Also the transformer may like it to always see a symmetrical load. This may also make it easier to use a capacitance multiplier like stabilizer.
Thanks again and best regards
Gertjan
Re: ICE1000ASP vs. UcD400
Had the chance to compare directly an ICE against an UcD (180, older version), and the verdict is clear: go for the UcD's.
The first test with the older UcD180 (driven with a single tranny) gave also better results in imaging (localisation of voices and instruments than the ICE.
I ordered some UcD 180 and 400 with the AD8620 OpAmps (fast delivery despite GLS...), hooked up already the UcD 400 and sold the ICE (ASP500)...
Tighter bottom in the ICE: to me the ICEpowers lack some bass, as well as some warmth in the lower midrange. The UcD 400 has it all, also a sweet HF.
The only thing that I could say against the UcD is that the ICE sounded faster. Also, both are similarly (and unbelievably) transparent in the mids.
Beside this, price is very reasonable, especially if you compare to finished products with similar performance, where you'd spend probably a couple Grands.
Indeed, the happiness would be perfect if some switching power supplies would be available: amateurs, if you know some...
Dan
dmfraser said:
Had the chance to compare directly an ICE against an UcD (180, older version), and the verdict is clear: go for the UcD's.
The first test with the older UcD180 (driven with a single tranny) gave also better results in imaging (localisation of voices and instruments than the ICE.
I ordered some UcD 180 and 400 with the AD8620 OpAmps (fast delivery despite GLS...), hooked up already the UcD 400 and sold the ICE (ASP500)...
Tighter bottom in the ICE: to me the ICEpowers lack some bass, as well as some warmth in the lower midrange. The UcD 400 has it all, also a sweet HF.
The only thing that I could say against the UcD is that the ICE sounded faster. Also, both are similarly (and unbelievably) transparent in the mids.
Beside this, price is very reasonable, especially if you compare to finished products with similar performance, where you'd spend probably a couple Grands.
Indeed, the happiness would be perfect if some switching power supplies would be available: amateurs, if you know some...
Dan
ghemink said:
I think so too. My buddys, after listening the UcD180, said, that this is an inertialless amp, and even too much (actually, i don't think so).. For the "tube smoothing" simulation, as easy way, we can try to add resistor or a coil to the output. Although, U-source it's a still standard requirement for audio amplifiers, but we also have a choice between true fidelity and more pleasure.
Re: Re: ICE1000ASP vs. UcD400
Hi Dan,
Good info. UcD is a real bargain. In Japan you have to pay about 10000$ to get an integrated Jeff Rowland amp that uses ICE modules. While we can probably make something that sounds better for a few hundred $. Besides that it is more fun, DIY saves you a lot of money too.
Best regards
Gertjan
Alfetta87 said:
Hi Dan,
Good info. UcD is a real bargain. In Japan you have to pay about 10000$ to get an integrated Jeff Rowland amp that uses ICE modules. While we can probably make something that sounds better for a few hundred $. Besides that it is more fun, DIY saves you a lot of money too.
Best regards
Gertjan
I don't feel there is any need to "simulate" anything with UcD's. I've tried the 400AD's with some SACD (Diana Krall Besame Mucho) and it was the sweetest sounding treble I've ever heard - not tiresome, just perfect. The "S"-sounds in Diana's voice were never harsh.
Strangely enough, with a good source signal, my B&W N804's, which some people look at as having an ear-piercing treble, are tamed perfectly. Mind you, if the source provides this extreme treble, they still perform - Some DVD's I've tested were very extreme on the treble, even more so than on my older class AB - but with good source, it sounds like it should. Midrange is super transparent, but never boring, bass response is now what I would expect from N804 - the bass is like I heard on Classé amps. (803 still has better bass, but the cabinets are much larger)
I really believe the Hypex UcD's are something truly special, being very very neutral.
A good set of speakers, UcD's driving them, is all you really need. If a recording sounds "harsh" or not "sweet", it's not your amp, or your cables, or your cd-player, or whatever; it's the recording that is "boring" (see comments that Bruno made) - I've tested my UcD's in a truly experimental setup (nothing was "perfect", not the cables, not the interconnects... the interconnects where 2 cables connected together in "free air"...) still sounded better than my old receiver with good cabling (mind you, nothing esoteric, just good quality interconencts, never exceeding 25€/channel, speaker cable is 2.5mm2 copper, no fancy stuff)
If you want to "sweeten up " these "bad recordings", maybe you could use that resistor or coil, but make sure you can switch it out of your system, or you'll be losing out on a truly amazing experience at a perfectly good price.
As a matter of fact, when my amp is ready, i'm going to take it to my dealer to "audition" speakers, I want to see the question marks on his face
Re: ICE vs UcD
Very interesting info. Do you think that bridging a pair of the UCD modules would accomplish some of the same cancelling out of harmonics that you note the ICE Power does. I'm tempted to buy another pair of the UCD modules, but I'd rather not spend the money unless the difference will be noticeable.
dmfraser said:
Very interesting info. Do you think that bridging a pair of the UCD modules would accomplish some of the same cancelling out of harmonics that you note the ICE Power does. I'm tempted to buy another pair of the UCD modules, but I'd rather not spend the money unless the difference will be noticeable.
Hi,
From all I've read on the topic, bridged UCD sounds no different than the half bridge, so if that's your only goal and you don't need or want the extra power, I wouldn't do it, the half bridge already senses the load differentially.
Yves Smolders, regarding the tube like effect, some people just like it dirty.
Regards,
Chris
From all I've read on the topic, bridged UCD sounds no different than the half bridge, so if that's your only goal and you don't need or want the extra power, I wouldn't do it, the half bridge already senses the load differentially.
Yves Smolders, regarding the tube like effect, some people just like it dirty.
Regards,
Chris
>Does anybody know of other vendors for switched power supplies for audio applications?
http://www.a-and-t-labs.com/K6_Sw_Amp/index.htm
http://www.a-and-t-labs.com/K6_Sw_Amp/index.htm
Re: Re: ICE1000ASP vs. UcD400
Hi Dan,
I plan to order the SMPS from
http://www.a-and-t-labs.com/K6_Sw_Amp/index.htm
This thing is pretty flexible, one can set the output voltage with a switch, or of course you could modify a few resistors to get the output voltage you want. It should also be able to deliver 1000W continuous.
I have also ordered the active power supplies on
http://www.wnaudio.com/
Plan to use those after the SMPS (if needed) to reduce ripple voltage for the amps that feed the midrange and tweeter. Probably I'll feed the amps (plan to bridge two UcD400) for the woofers directly from the SMPS.
I'll let you know how experiments proceed, need to get the stuff at home first and then build it (these are kits).
Best regards
Gertjan
Alfetta87 said:
Hi Dan,
I plan to order the SMPS from
http://www.a-and-t-labs.com/K6_Sw_Amp/index.htm
This thing is pretty flexible, one can set the output voltage with a switch, or of course you could modify a few resistors to get the output voltage you want. It should also be able to deliver 1000W continuous.
I have also ordered the active power supplies on
http://www.wnaudio.com/
Plan to use those after the SMPS (if needed) to reduce ripple voltage for the amps that feed the midrange and tweeter. Probably I'll feed the amps (plan to bridge two UcD400) for the woofers directly from the SMPS.
I'll let you know how experiments proceed, need to get the stuff at home first and then build it (these are kits).
Best regards
Gertjan
classd4sure said:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the support.
The point is that this thing is then getting expensive, so many people may see it as overkill. However, I plan to feed 3 amps (or 4 if you count the bridged one for the woofers as two) with one SMPS and one active supply, don't need a tranny and don't need very big powersupply caps and power supply voltage should be pretty stable. That would be tough with a normal tranny feeding those 4 amps. Some people use one transformer per amp, so I guess compared with such a solution, this one maybe even cheaper.
Hope I have these toys in home soon.
Gertjan
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.