diyAudio (
-   Class D (
-   -   “King” of the DIY amps? (

rick57 16th February 2005 10:27 AM

“King” of the DIY amps?
(This thread is of equal interest to this and the Chip Amp forum: not sure which to post to, so it’s in both)

Yes they produce significantly different wattages, by very different methods;
but if either produces enough watts for your purpose (sometimes more watts giving more headroom and or better bass control),
with as far as possible same quality power supplies and needed intimal components

Which sounds better, the gainclone or the UcD180 (

Who's heard both?


rick57 16th February 2005 11:15 AM

The specific question that triggered the broader question, was the need to drive two Peerless XLS 12s per channel in the (nearly complete) SL Phoenix woofers.

The effective driver load impedances (being active, each driver is only used over part of its frequency range) are 6.5 ohms.
SL says ( that each woofer channel is easily served by a 50 W amplifier.
A number use an amp per driver.

* So, one 50 W gainclone (3886) per driver, or one UcD per channel ?

* I think the general question is even more important.


subwo1 18th February 2005 02:31 PM

I'd say that the UcD can pump out full power more effortlessly than the 3886. So my vote is for UcD.

I am working on a UcD type circuit which is simpler than the circuits we've been looking at. If I am happy with it, I foresee just one main compromise compared to the conventional topology. Almost everything else is advantageous. I am keeping my fingers crossed, if you pardon the expression. Now, it will be a simulation, which is the one cautionary thing about it.

mac 18th February 2005 02:47 PM

FWIW, I'm using a single UcD400 to drive my Phoenix-inspired W-frame dipole woofers (two SCC300's in parallel). I could not imagine using a "gainclone" type amp for this application given the alternative.

rick57 20th February 2005 07:04 AM

Keep us posted!


If you’re driving the drivers in parallel, yes. If you were to use the gainclone, you’d connect in series and do one amp/ driver. Parallel will go (depending on Hz), louder.

OA51 1st March 2005 10:19 PM

I have built the UcD180, the UcD400 and a BGT GainClone...

the hypex sounds better!


rick57 2nd March 2005 07:53 AM

Hi Stefan

Could you elaborate - in bass/ mids/ treble? Dynamics? Detail? Smoothness?

Driving what speakers . .

By much??


chris ma 2nd March 2005 02:43 PM


Originally posted by OA51
I have built the UcD180, the UcD400 and a BGT GainClone...

the hypex sounds better!


What are the differences in price?


OA51 2nd March 2005 03:38 PM


imho better in all of them: bass/ mids/ treble Dynamics Detail Smoothness...

I have compared them on my speakers, Carlsson OA51.3 (Scanspeak 18W8545 and a special OEM Vifa tweeter)...

My hypex, I have tested on B&W Nautilus 802 and they did a very nice job... even compared with the owners 10000$ Chord amp.

I'm not saying that the Gainclone is bad in any way... just that the hypex amps are better...

they are also more expensive, the hypex modules are > 3 times the price of BGT gainclone-kit. With the total price for building an amp the differance is even higher...


rick57 2nd March 2005 09:12 PM

I’m still waiting on a price when the local (Australian) supplier receives his first shipment. I recall someone saying the UcD180 was about $US60? dearer than BGT GainClone.
When you factor in time, and extra power (if that’s useful with whatever speakers you have), that seems almost trivial. Though the PS will be extra.

How did the 180 compared to the 400?


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:14 AM.

Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 17.65%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio