Hypex NCore NC500 build

bavmike · 2016-06-03 11:02 am

SGK said:
Rev C = Rev B plus the basic EMI/RFU filter that should have been there in the first place. Rev C = the Hypex recommended circuit with a socket for op amp rolling (and feedback compensation for the SIL op amp). Some have preferred IC op amps.

I haven't heard any feedback about anyone preferring the LM4562 in the rev c buffer. All I've heard is people agreeing with me about the plasticky sound.

SGK · 2016-06-03 11:06 am

"Rev C" doesn't define the op amp choice. You said "Rev C". At least one person has said they prefer the LME49990.

bavmike · 2016-06-03 11:09 am

SGK said:
"Rev C" doesn't define the op amp choice. You said "Rev C". At least one person has said they prefer the LME49990.

Yeah that the beauty of having the option to change the opamps. The whole reason I came up with the concept. Like 3lviz says, who cares if it's a ball of snot in the socket as long as it sounds good.

SGK · 2016-06-03 11:11 am

All hail bavmike's creation! I don't think anyone has ever really criticised the idea. Just the Hypex recommended circuit and LM4562 bashing.

3lviz · 2016-06-03 12:18 pm

I think Burson V5 is working much better with the Rev C board compared to Rev B. I least i am having different kind of experience.

I read my notes on the Burson with Rev B and i no more hear the same issues. The sound staging is much better now as i remember it and this was my major complaint too. It does not feel like the bass is limited to upper bass either.

I think even LME49990 sounds a bit more bassy with Rev C board.

Julf · 2016-06-03 12:20 pm

bavmike said:
Some claim press fit connections are superior to solder.

"Some claim"? I don't think that qualifies as evidence either.

Should we be paranoid of using RCA, XLR's, banana posts etc as well? Is your speaker wire soldered direct to the NC-400 terminals, and the speaker drivers on the other end? Are your interconnects direct soldered?

You do have a tendency to jump to (incorrect) conclusions, don't you?

How about re-reading what I wrote:

Julf said:
But as a concept it is something like 70 years old - albeit used less and less, as it becomes a major source of reliability issues.

Sockets are used less and less in modern circuits (back in the 70's a computer circuit board would be full of sockets, while you won't see any, apart from the CPU, in a modern computer) as wave soldered smd component connections are 10-100 times more reliable than socketed connections. Those numbers are from standard industry textbooks...

No, we should not be paranoid about stuff like input and output connectors, but avoiding them in places where they are not needed is a good idea - unless you think they improve the sound quality, of course.

Ah, I see you edited your posting and added this:

bavmike said:
How about tube guys? Should they start soldering their tubes in?

Are you serious? Do you really have no clue about the reliability of electronic components? The reason tubes are almost always on sockets is that tubes have a rather short lifetime even compared to sockets, and need frequent replacing. The only case where sockets are not used even for tubes is on military and portable radios, as sockets are extremely unreliable when subjected to vibration, mechanical shock and extreme temperature/humidity changes.

Julf · 2016-06-03 12:28 pm

3lviz said:
I think Burson V5 is working much better with the Rev C board compared to Rev B.

Could it be because of this:

SGK said:
Rev C = Rev B plus the basic EMI/RFU filter that should have been there in the first place.

SGK · 2016-06-03 12:30 pm

Or the Burson needs the extra compensation which I believe was added.

kukynas · 2016-06-03 12:40 pm

colmo said:
Using Rev C boards, but so far only with the SI which as I say sounds fine so no need for me to keep changing at the moment.
All my music sounds fine at the moment although obviously some tracks brighter than others but no longer get listening fatigue or think I better not play that as it sounds awful.
Only thing changed in recent months was the amplifier had a number of differents amps before and was never 100% happy.
I would have been happy with the standard Hypex buffers but had some spare cash so purchased the Sparkos and Burson with the Rev B boards and preferred the Bursons. But now prefer the SI as instruments are more natural sounding. Rev B and Sparkos sounded a bit dull to me but maybe one day I will change something and prefer them in the Rev C.

Rev C has been optimized to sound better so I'm pretty sure you like it more over Rev B...if you are happy with SI there's no reason to change it

colmo · 2016-06-03 1:43 pm

kukynas said:
Rev C has been optimized to sound better so I'm pretty sure you like it more over Rev B...if you are happy with SI there's no reason to change it

Listening to Tchaikovsky Violin concerto played by Kyung Wha Chung at the moment not heard with the Rev C and SI until just now and have to say its the best I have ever heard it sound.

Sebollo001 · 2016-06-04 3:26 pm

sebbyp said:
No I was hoping to do it last weekend, but had to travel last minute.

I have this weekend clear to do the switch among some other modifications to my hi-fi, quite excited to see what it sounds like. One of the chaps that came over bought his Benchmark ABH2 and it was clear the PD2 output stage was prominent through both amplifiers. We both were really enjoying what we were hearing through both amps and helped me validate the PD2 is a significant reason to why I'm so happy with the sound at the moment.

Hi Sebbyp,

Can you tell us what differences you found between the NC500 and the Benchmark AHB2, using your PD2 Preamp?

Also, during that comparisson, did you connect the PD2 directly to the NC500, or you used their input buffers?

Thanks,
Sebastian

3lviz · 2016-06-04 4:10 pm

I used to own Benchmark AHB2 for a while. It was ok or even great with my previous speakers (SA Explorer Master) but it didn't scale up well when i upgraded to Marten Bird 2.

Once i upgraded the speakers, i was waiting for the Bird 2 to burn in. But still after 100+ hours, they just didn't sound that good especially when played at night volume levels. Reproducing spatial information was lacking too.

But then a realized i had tested the Bird 2 with a pair of NC400. Back then i was still somewhat trusting too much this THD stuff, and i was kinda expecting the AHB2 to perform the same level, if not better than my trusty NC400 (built by a software guy

). Once i changed back to NC400, the Bird 2 started sounding enjoyable just like i remembered them when testing a few months earlier, and which experience closed the deal.

So for me NC400 > AHB2 and therefore a good NC500 implementation also > AHB2.

Sebollo001 · 2016-06-04 4:43 pm

HelmutHolz said:
Hello,
Nice thread, I follow this with great interest. I own the Nord NC500 as well as the Hypex NC400, the last using for more than two years in my chain. My speakers are Dynaudio Confidence 5, these are quite power hungry and so I tried the NC500. This speakers are on the clear side with rather high resolution, very natural ( as far as this way of listening to music can be natural) and a low sensitivity (82 dB/Wm). The sound is very close giving me a deeper and more powerful bass presentation with the NC500. Actually I use the buffer rev B, C is on the way to my home. Every OP amp I tried sounded different, the best results so far I have with the Audio GD EARTH (discontinued) and the brown-dogged LME 49990 being quite close in presentation, only different is presentation of room (or better imagination of the virtual room) and slightly sharper sibilants with the LME. I am a little bit tired of rolling OP amps for best sound.
In one German Audio forum there was a discussion concerning the sound of power amplifiers, someone pushing his opinion, that every amp sounds the same despite the price or may be principles (class A, class D). In my ears that may be true for short time listening, but not with intense listening over several hours or may be days and weeks. But I am not in the mood to discuss this, just my 10 cents.
I am looking forward to try the buffer board C which Colin offers for a quite fair price.

Pleasant listening for everyone

Hello Helmut,

Have you tried other class D amplifiers, like the Anaviews AMS series, with your Confidence 5 speakers?

I'm currently using a pair of Anaview AMS1000-2600 to power my Confidence C1 speakers. DAC/Pre is a Benchmark DAC2. I don't use any buffer between the Benchmark and the amplifiers.

I'm extremely happy with my system resolution and tonal balance.

However, having Ncore class D modules better specs, I have been curious to see if I could get an improvement with them replacing the Anaviews.

Some months ago I visited a dealer who sells Dynaudio as well as NAD, and tested my Benchmark DAC with the NAD M22 (NC500) and a pair of confidence C1.

I listened to my usual music for three hours at the dealer, and although the room acoustics were different from what I have at home, my conclusion was that the M22 provided a less dynamic (slower?), darker presentation and with slightly less resolution than what I'm used to with my Anaview monoblocks.

I think that the NAD M22 input buffer stage played a very important role in what I was hearing in that system. The overall presentation was not bad by any means, but it was clear that a decision had been made to provide a "house sound", or in other words there was a sacrifice in certain areas in order to get a wider user base acceptance, an easier or friendlier integration approach.

I´m getting closer to the point of convincing myself that I need to try the Nord NC500.

What is stopping me at the moment, is that I would necessary have to order two input buffers to get the complete experience: A - The Hypex OEM buffer to be able to drive the modules directly, as I currently do with the Anaviews, and B - The Rev C buffer to determine if there´s actually any benefit by using them, or as in the case of the NAD M22 they colour the sound not to my liking.

The best option would be to have Colin make a Rev C "PRO" input buffer, where I can bypass the OP Amp stage, and also with lower gain, for better gain structure optimization and S/N ratio.

Sebastian

3lviz · 2016-06-04 4:58 pm

^ I had similar experiences with Nad M22, when i was testing it for a couple weeks. Lots of punch, but nice sound stage, air and resolution - not so much. It clearly has the NAD's "soft" house sound, in the mids and highs.

Mooly · 2016-06-05 3:30 pm

Attaching your pictures directly to the forum is the preferred method. The reason for that is that they then become permanent. As for non-members not being able to view them... well its an incentive for them to join up and join in

And enough of the arguing. Posts degrading the thread SNR will be deleted.

Also , if you are the following poster and replying to someone's post immediately above, then normally there is no need to quote the post you are replying to. The exception is when doing so adds clarity and meaning to whatever you are trying to say. A partial quote of the bit in question can then sometimes be helpful.

3lviz · 2016-06-05 11:35 pm

bavmike said:
So who's gonna be the first to try the 994FC's with Vishay foil and TaN resistors? I heard it's an extra $48 but some audiophiles love them. Richard even says the improvement is measurable. 3lviz I see your name on this one

I haven't found any experiences on the 994FCs with google. I asked how much it would be for a pair of 994FCs, and the answer is ~$400 with shipping. And in my case, most probably +VAT by the Finnish customs too.

And I already got an extra pair of 994s. Tbh, does not sound that tempting to buy more 994s.

jalejos · 2016-06-05 11:35 pm

Include some measurements of the design made by us.
Version 1 is discarded as being too noisy. Version 2 corresponds to our original design modified by Richard. Version 3 is smd and included some improvements.
The op amps are: LM4562, LME49720, MUSES01, Burson Audio V5, Sparkoslabs SS3602 and Silicon Imagery Labs 994 Enh Ticha.

Version 2. Original design, modified by Richard