Post by: Croger on February 24, 2008, 05:47:36 PM
Immediate impressions for me compared to the Bryston4b.
1) mid range a bit more forward.
2) low end more defined.
3) The high end seemed similar.
I had a bit of a problem at first because the Hypex UcD amps sounded much cleaner than my bryston. There was less stuff around my instruments and vocals in the mix. I was not used to that but i adjusted after the first mix. I really like the detail in the Hypex. In defense of the Brystons they are 8 or 9 years old. so perhaps a tuneup would have compared more favorably.
I am not sure how these amps would fare for a mastering engineer used to ultra high end amplifiers. but for me it lifted some haze from my speakers.
Post by: dcollins on February 24, 2008, 09:49:48 PM
| Croger wrote on Sun, 24 February 2008 14:47 |
I am not sure how these amps would fare for a mastering engineer used to ultra high end amplifiers. |
But the Hypex is better than 99% of what passes for "high-end!"
I wish there was a dealer in the US that would lend me one to try....
DC
Post by: Thomas W. Bethel on February 25, 2008, 06:44:07 AM
| dcollins wrote on Sun, 24 February 2008 21:49 | ||
But the Hypex is better than 99% of what passes for "high-end!" I wish there was a dealer in the US that would lend me one to try.... DC |
Here you go http://www.ciaudio.com/ and they offer a 30 day in home trial.
Post by: Sam Lord on February 28, 2008, 04:47:21 PM
http://www.diycable.com/main/default.php?cPath=140_142
The 700wpc versions are available now AFAIK.
Post by: Greg Reierson on February 28, 2008, 04:57:32 PM
My short review: Buy one!
GR
Post by: jdg on February 28, 2008, 07:21:46 PM
Post by: Darius van H on February 29, 2008, 01:26:05 AM
Post by: livingstone on February 29, 2008, 03:57:47 AM
Bruno Putzey was kind enough to bring me 2 amps based the UCD700hg modules for a listening test "in situ"
i was very curious to hear how it could compared to my bryston 4Bsst powering my pair of PMC IB2S
Bryston-PMC is supposed to be "The" perfect match ...
Hypex-PMC is the new one
at least for me
after 3 hours of critical listening, i could figured that
these 2 monoblocs had a very good balance and an overall impressive transparency.
the hypex had a better sound stage & imaging ,
the overall sound was extremly detailed,
but what impressed me the most was how the bass translated,
with a definition i never heard before with the bryston,
i haven't mesured it but i think it extended the low frequency response because of the better bass management.
i've ordered a pair ...
Post by: masterlab on February 29, 2008, 04:45:27 AM
Thanks
Post by: livingstone on February 29, 2008, 05:08:54 AM
| masterlab wrote on Fri, 29 February 2008 03:45 |
Is there a European source for these amps? Thanks |
https://www.hypexshop.com/
http://www.hexateq-av.com/hypex.html
http://www.mm-audio.nl/MMaudio.html
Post by: Croger on February 29, 2008, 07:33:02 AM
| Darius van H wrote on Fri, 29 February 2008 00:26 |
I'm having a pair of UcD700's put together in the next few days...........i'm interested to hear how they shape up to my Cello Duet 350, a very good amp! (powering B&W N800) |
please post impressions after you have a good listen. I am very interested in your comparisons.
Post by: Croger on February 29, 2008, 07:43:53 AM
| livingstone wrote on Fri, 29 February 2008 02:57 |
but what impressed me the most was how the bass translated, with a definition i never heard before with the bryston, i haven't mesured it but i think it extended the low frequency response because of the better bass management. |
In my case I think Ive figured out why my Hypex in the mid range and bass is much clearer than my Bryston 4bs. As I posted before there is just less stuff around the vocals and instruments. So that in effect gives the mid range a forward impression to me. the same applies to the bass range as well. It is just more defined.
after almost 2 weeks on my UcD400hgs mixing Ive noticed as well these amps are a tad brighter than my Bryston 4b as well. It is subtle but definitely brighter. If I translate in terms of my mixes I would say If I had an eq across my mix buss i would be about 1 to 1.5 db lower in high freq eq . my mixes are translating very well to other systems. the sound is definitely accurate and very clean. I am still getting used to hearing this way from my speakers.
Post by: Greg Reierson on February 29, 2008, 09:02:57 AM
Good to know others are hearing the same things. Bruno rocks!
GR
Post by: masterlab on February 29, 2008, 04:45:28 PM
Are the Exodus kits distributed in Europe?
Post by: jdg on March 07, 2008, 06:30:24 PM
)compaired to my 25+yr old bryston... its crystal.
ess's are really really noticable. thats was my first impression.
Post by: jdg on March 07, 2008, 07:35:15 PM
the mids are so much more present.
im scared, as i've been working so long with the bryston...
Post by: Croger on March 07, 2008, 08:39:47 PM
| jdg wrote on Fri, 07 March 2008 18:35 |
keeps getting better. the mids are so much more present. im scared, as i've been working so long with the bryston... |
I had the same problem... "Oh my god I hear everything more!"
I am used to them now. My mixes sound better.
Post by: zmix on March 13, 2008, 11:18:25 AM
Would you guys mind swapping your old amps back into the system after spending a few weeks in Hypex-land?
I'd like to hear some comments about what your old amps sound like to you now.
Is anything particularly noticible about them now that wasn't so obvious before?
Do you miss anything about them?
Post by: Ross Hogarth on March 13, 2008, 11:50:46 AM
where in the us do we check these out ?
Post by: Greg Reierson on March 13, 2008, 12:12:18 PM
Any time you've back in the neighborhood you can give them a listen.
GR
Post by: jdg on March 13, 2008, 01:07:13 PM
the bryston is MELLOW compared.
"Too much information running through my brain
Too much information driving me insane"
Post by: Greg Reierson on March 13, 2008, 01:47:40 PM
GR
Post by: jdg on March 13, 2008, 02:27:51 PM
lots of clean midrange i was not getting b4
Post by: Darius van H on March 13, 2008, 08:33:08 PM
Post by: Ross Hogarth on March 13, 2008, 10:27:18 PM
this is a very cool amp design
Post by: Darius van H on March 14, 2008, 12:55:11 AM
Post by: zmix on March 14, 2008, 01:35:30 AM
Thanks for the additional input.
I spent the early part of last year mixing through a 'lesser' class-d amp, and I noticed that when I swapped my high current linear amp back in, I felt that I was hearing music for the first time...
I realize that the Hypex is light years ahead of the competition, but wonder if anybody has had any sort of empirical observations about what the differences they are hearing might be, in going from Linear to Hypex and also Hypex to Linear....
Post by: Greg Reierson on March 14, 2008, 10:52:46 AM
I really think the difference, at least in my situation, boils down to a lot less distortion than I had previously been hearing. I may learn these 'new' artifacts some day and decide I've made a rash judgment, but I don't think that will happen this time.
We'll see.
GR
Post by: jdg on March 14, 2008, 11:49:16 AM
stereo is WIDER, mono is more centered...etc...
i have very phase sensitive ears (i cannot wear headphones without getting dizzy), so, i think thats what's causing my "fatigue"
but, im very happy. (except about the part where i blew up one module)
Post by: bblackwood on March 14, 2008, 11:51:44 AM
Post by: jdg on March 14, 2008, 12:02:34 PM
we do have plans to try both amps at his place and mine.
should be fun!
Post by: zmix on March 14, 2008, 12:21:28 PM
| jdg wrote on Fri, 14 March 2008 12:02 |
a local guy here just picked up a pass x.250. (mike bruce) we do have plans to try both amps at his place and mine. should be fun! |
John,
When you do, please start a new thread about it... m'kay?
Can't wait!
Post by: Darius van H on March 14, 2008, 04:37:12 PM
My Cello Duet 350 is a very good amp, so i wasn't expecting a big difference.
Sooo, i think that the Hypex has lower distortion, better control, more definition. At first i thought it seemed a bit dull compared to the Cello, but i think that could be lack of high frequency distortion. Anyway, as soon as i can get some cases made the Cello is gone.
Post by: mbruce333 on March 14, 2008, 07:34:53 PM
| jdg wrote on Fri, 14 March 2008 09:02 |
a local guy here just picked up a pass x.250. (mike bruce) we do have plans to try both amps at his place and mine. should be fun! |
Just checked the tracking on my new (to me) X250, should be here next Thursday. We'll have to get together soon and compare.
Comparing amps by yourself is tough, so it'll be nice to have another set of hands to swap the speaker cables. Comparing a borrowed Pass X3 (thanks again, Bruce Brown) to my Rotel RB-1080 was not too tough. The difference was pretty clear! To be sure, I had a friend come over and do the cable swapping trick out of my view and there was never a doubt which one was the Pass. I'm guessing the differences will be smaller between the Hypex and the X250.
Should be fun!
Mike Bruce
www.AuricleAudioMagic.com
www.myspace.com/auricleaudiomastering
Post by: Ross Hogarth on March 17, 2008, 12:42:04 PM
Post by: crna59 on March 17, 2008, 03:56:28 PM
| jdg wrote on Fri, 14 March 2008 11:02 |
a local guy here just picked up a pass x.250. (mike bruce) we do have plans to try both amps at his place and mine. should be fun! |
You and Mike should come over to my place and compare it to my big boys, the XA series!
Regards,
Bruce
Post by: mbruce333 on March 17, 2008, 05:16:23 PM
| crna59 wrote on Mon, 17 March 2008 12:56 | ||
You and Mike should come over to my place and compare it to my big boys, the XA series! Regards, Bruce |
What, you don't want to lug those over to mine and John's place? C'mon man, they are so easy to move and light...right?
Just moving the x250 will be tough enough...my back hurts just thinking about moving your XA's!
We should have an "Amp Summit" at your place after we get to hear them in our own rooms...could be interesting!
Thanks again for the use of the X3, by the way. I'll give you a ring to figure out when we can get together...
Mike Bruce
Post by: Patrik T on March 17, 2008, 06:57:59 PM
| Ross Hogarth wrote on Mon, 17 March 2008 17:42 |
i am really looking forward to the comparisons ... |
I'm more interested in if the new great powers affects the translation to the (ever so distorting) outside world in a radical manner or not.
Would be interesting to actually hear something that was cut by someone who changed from a pass (or something similar) to hypex.
Like one day one specific tune is mastered, no notes are taken of any settings in order to easily forget about it - next day same tune, same chain but with "the new" amp.
Could end up as two downloadable versions for anyone here to grab and check out. Or is it an impossible task?
Best Regards
Patrik
Post by: Croger on March 17, 2008, 09:32:54 PM
Post by: jdg on March 17, 2008, 11:49:11 PM
my exact feeling vs my bryston.
Post by: mbruce333 on March 18, 2008, 11:34:13 AM
| Patrik T wrote on Mon, 17 March 2008 15:57 |
I'm more interested in if the new great powers affects the translation to the (ever so distorting) outside world in a radical manner or not. Would be interesting to actually hear something that was cut by someone who changed from a pass (or something similar) to hypex. Like one day one specific tune is mastered, no notes are taken of any settings in order to easily forget about it - next day same tune, same chain but with "the new" amp. Could end up as two downloadable versions for anyone here to grab and check out. Or is it an impossible task? Best Regards Patrik |
While I love this idea in concept, I think it would very difficult to pull off in practice. Too many variables from day to day besides the amp. It would be tough to know if the differences were due to the amp or some other factor.
For me, the decision to change or stay with pretty much any piece of gear is this: Would this gear change the way I would work? If the difference in a new piece of gear is very small, but not enough to change the outcome of the final product, then I pass. I just don't have the budget (yet...hehe) to do otherwise.
I still don't know about Pass/Hypex comparison, but I can say that the difference between the Rotel and the Pass was big enough that it absolutely changes the way I work. I'm also pretty curious to hear the difference between the Pass X3 that I'm using at the moment, and the X250 that's on the way. I don't think the difference will be huge, but you never know...
Post by: Ross Hogarth on March 18, 2008, 02:31:56 PM
have you ever compared this to the Hypex ?
Post by: Hallams on March 19, 2008, 11:39:22 PM
Post by: MDM, on March 20, 2008, 08:24:46 AM
I'm interested in these amps.
has anyone played back a good analog source on them to see how it translates?
I read in a tnt review online that he heard the digital grain coming through on the hypex amps, when switching from an analog source.
Post by: bblackwood on March 20, 2008, 09:28:07 AM
| Hallams wrote on Wed, 19 March 2008 22:39 |
Sorry if this has been covered before, but are these digital amps or is the design fundamentally different and new going on with these amps. |
There's really no such thing as a 'digital' amp, they are class D.
Post by: Patrik T on March 20, 2008, 10:43:36 AM
| MDM, wrote on Thu, 20 March 2008 13:24 |
has anyone played back a good analog source on them to see how it translates? |
Can you feed them with something else than analog?
BR
Patrik
Post by: zmix on March 20, 2008, 10:56:34 AM
Post by: Ross Hogarth on March 20, 2008, 12:31:21 PM
next week i am gonna p/u a pair of the ci audio 200's
Post by: MDM, on March 20, 2008, 12:38:28 PM
| Patrik T wrote on Thu, 20 March 2008 09:43 | ||
Can you feed them with something else than analog? BR Patrik |
do I really need to spell it out??
playing back a master tape which has been recorded, mixed, edited in Analog, as opposed to a digital master..
Post by: bblackwood on March 20, 2008, 04:00:41 PM
| MDM, wrote on Thu, 20 March 2008 11:38 | ||||
do I really need to spell it out?? playing back a master tape which has been recorded, mixed, edited in Analog, as opposed to a digital master.. |
Can it have run through any opamps or does it have to be discrete only?
I assume you are suggesting that digital can't be used for reference material now, right Max?
Post by: Peter Beckmann on March 21, 2008, 01:47:01 PM
| MDM, wrote on Thu, 20 March 2008 16:38 | ||||
do I really need to spell it out?? playing back a master tape which has been recorded, mixed, edited in Analog, as opposed to a digital master.. |
MDM.
This is a mastering forum.
Most of our clients want a CD master. This is digital. So by definition, we will be listening to digital at some point in order to hear what we are doing.
Now, I am interested in the discussion of these amps, and I don't care for another thread to be hijacked into analogue vs digital blah blah blah.
Thankyou.
PB
Post by: Patrik T on March 21, 2008, 09:48:48 PM
So, if the Hypex is extremely "clean", both the digital and the analogue mixers or masterers might find new perspectives regarding unwanted distortion and stuff originating from the very processing.
This is one of many interesting possible aspects of this amplification. To hear ugly "better".
BR
Patrik
Post by: Greg Reierson on March 21, 2008, 10:06:32 PM
GR
Post by: MDM, on March 22, 2008, 08:13:29 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 20 March 2008 15:00 | ||||||
Can it have run through any opamps or does it have to be discrete only? I assume you are suggesting that digital can't be used for reference material now, right Max? |
nope.. only that a good amplifier can make the difference between analog and digital recordings MORE EVIDENT...
touchy...
Post by: MDM, on March 22, 2008, 08:19:32 PM
| Peter Beckmann wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 12:47 | ||||||
MDM. This is a mastering forum. Most of our clients want a CD master. This is digital. So by definition, we will be listening to digital at some point in order to hear what we are doing. Now, I am interested in the discussion of these amps, and I don't care for another thread to be hijacked into analogue vs digital blah blah blah. Thankyou. PB |
Neither do I.. I asked a straightforeward question..
I will not use an amp which makes analog sound the same as digital..
there are amps which highlight the difference between different recording SYSTEMS, and others which reproduce basic stuff like tonal balance, power spectrum etc.. but most sources sound the same..
every recording SYSTEM (analog, digital, tape, acetate, wire etc.) has it's own qualities, which can be heard on a good amp..
Post by: zmix on March 22, 2008, 08:33:39 PM
| MDM, wrote on Sat, 22 March 2008 20:13 | ||||||||
nope.. only that a good amplifier can make the difference between analog and digital recordings MORE EVIDENT... touchy... |
MDM,
Wouldn't this imply that the recording would have to exist in both formats to make the comparisom meaningful?
Besides, the Hypex has only a 50khz bandwidth...
Post by: MDM, on March 22, 2008, 09:39:39 PM
I'm curious to hear it. 50 KHz is quite good and this is class D we're talking about.. a different set of parameters.
as a current-amplifier in theory it could beat traditional systems.
Post by: crna59 on March 22, 2008, 11:39:22 PM
Regards,
Bruce
Post by: johnR on March 23, 2008, 05:15:57 AM
| MDM, wrote on Sun, 23 March 2008 01:39 |
as a current-amplifier in theory it could beat traditional systems. |
What makes you think a class D amp is a current amplifier?
You put a signal voltage in and it puts out a bigger signal voltage that is directly proportional to that input (regardless of load impedance). That says voltage amplifier to me.
Post by: Ross Hogarth on March 25, 2008, 04:06:35 PM
i am going tomorrow to get my CI audio amps to try with my pro acs
Post by: Mike Peake on March 25, 2008, 07:51:06 PM
Class D seems to have come a long way in the last few years...
Post by: Ross Hogarth on March 27, 2008, 11:57:55 PM
my first reaction having the amp now for a day is
very clear
detailed
revealing
not cloudy
a cloud is gone
this on my hothouse speakers
tomorrow i will put it on the pro acs
instantly happier tho
and this is on material i really know
straight off the multi track
Post by: Ross Hogarth on March 29, 2008, 02:22:46 AM
i am sold
these CI audio amps are great
as if a veil was lifted off of the pro acs
Post by: zmix on March 29, 2008, 05:26:10 PM
Thanks for the update.>! What was (is) your previous amp? I'd love to hear more in depth commentary abut the differences in how you work when using the Hypex based amp.
I recently resurected some of my single ended triode power amps. These have had a tremendous effect on my overall mixing experience.. like a more seductive lighting design on a scene in a movie or still life.
Post by: Greg Reierson on March 29, 2008, 10:56:22 PM
| zmix wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 16:26 |
I recently resurected some of my single ended triode power amps. These have had a tremendous effect on my overall mixing experience.. like a more seductive lighting design on a scene in a movie or still life. |
Do you think it's a euphonic thing? A more flattering sound which makes the mixing process more fun?
GR
Post by: zmix on March 30, 2008, 07:06:49 PM
| Greg Reierson wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 22:56 | ||
Do you think it's a euphonic thing? A more flattering sound which makes the mixing process more fun? GR |
I know that there is a lot of press about euphony and tube amps... I think that there are factors which are not easily explained by this argument:
Here are some things that I have observed repeatedly :
Dynamics:
Compression artifacts (particularly on individual instruments) are more obvious. Things which seemed fine with my solid state amp suddenly seem to be obviously compressed, and not in any subtle 'I think I hear a difference" way...my theory is that this is similar to the NS-10 SSL phenomenon... when working on that combination I find that I have a desire to make things more exciting than you might when listening to a more flattering system (neve / gynolick for example). There are certainly advantages to either system when mixing, and the hyperprocessed music of the 1980s wouldn't have existed without the former.
Another advantage when using a low powered tube amp: the amp WILL clip. The clipping artifacts are not obnoxious nor jarring to the nervous system. You suffer less from fatigue.
Imaging:
Although the mono phantom center image is rock solid, the placement depth in stereo field is more discernible. This is not to say 'wide' since that description has become meaningless thanks to gearslutz and other sources of hypothetical certitude. "wide" usually means that there is some disparity between the two channels. This usually comes at the expense of solid imaging.
Musical balances are more obviously right or wrong...
More details later, I've got to run at the moment...
Post by: Greg Reierson on March 31, 2008, 11:16:48 AM
We've been talking too long. You should have a listen.
GR
Post by: zmix on March 31, 2008, 11:33:23 AM
Post by: Matt_G on April 03, 2008, 08:27:40 AM
Post by: mbruce333 on April 05, 2008, 03:36:44 PM
It might be a little while until amp stuff gets to the top of the list.
Of course is Jon wants to come over and meet the little dude and he happen to have his amp with him.........
Post by: Greg Reierson on April 05, 2008, 03:52:07 PM
GR
Post by: crna59 on April 05, 2008, 05:36:13 PM
I'll solve the whole issue... <$5k Hypex wins.. >$5k Pass Labs wins!!
Now everyone get back to work!
Regards,
Bruce
Post by: jdg on April 05, 2008, 05:37:16 PM
im not coming over till u put the H back in my name!
re: hypex.
my work is translating better then before.
done 17 CDs since i got it.. have had ZERO corrections since.
i know, small sample set, but previously, i would get about 1 in 5 projects with at least one track for a revision. zero this last month...
i dunno, if it has to do the the amp, or what, who knows...
Post by: mbruce333 on April 05, 2008, 11:03:14 PM
| jdg wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 14:37 |
congrats mike! im not coming over till u put the H back in my name! |
Shit! sorry joHn, my brain is slightly mushy lately...in a good way, of course!
Thanks for the good vibes everyone!
Post by: Jerry Tubb on April 06, 2008, 06:04:59 PM
Anyone tried Hypex from these guys(?):
http://www.diycable.com/main/default.php?cPath=140
Even my pal Jack The Bear was raving about Hypex.
Best JT
Post by: Greg Reierson on April 06, 2008, 06:51:25 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 17:04 |
Anyone tried Hypex from these guys(?): http://www.diycable.com/main/default.php?cPath=140 |
Yes, that's the kit I built a while back. You may remember such PSW theads as http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/294186/6829/?sr ch=hypex#msg_294186
Highly recommended!
GR
Post by: jdg on April 06, 2008, 07:07:44 PM
Post by: Jerry Tubb on April 06, 2008, 09:55:05 PM
| Greg Reierson wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 17:51 | ||
Yes, that's the kit I built a while back. You may remember such PSW theads as http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/294186/6829/?sr ch=hypex#msg_294186 Highly recommended! |
Yes of course, thanks Greg. I'll go back and read.
Might be interesting to build four monoblocks to biamp the Dunlavy's!
Cheers - JT
Post by: Greg Reierson on April 07, 2008, 11:45:00 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 20:55 |
Might be interesting to build four monoblocks to biamp the Dunlavy's. Cheers - JT |
I considered the same for my PMCs. Somewhere in that thread Bruno suggested that biamping might be redundant when using an amp with sufficiently low output impedance.
Bruno said - "speakers draw nonlinearly distorted currents. Low output impedance prevents distortion components in the current drawn by the midrange speaker from spilling over into the highs via common-impedance coupling at the amplifier terminals."
I asked: "Does the above quote have anything to say about why bi/tri amping is often preferred?"
Bruno replied: "Yes. I think it's the only explanation that would make sense."
So you may be able to get by with just two monoblocks. At least you can build two at a time.
GR
Post by: MDM, on April 08, 2008, 09:55:32 AM
distortion aside they are more telling of what's going on musically and sound-wise..
the down-side is the limited power and the fact that they have a high output impedance compared to ss amps..
zmix, have you had the chance to compare the triodes with a hypex then?
Post by: dcollins on April 08, 2008, 07:29:35 PM
| crna59 wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 14:36 |
I'll solve the whole issue... <$5k Hypex wins.. >$5k Pass Labs wins!! |
The Hypex should run with any amp, regardless of price.....
DC
Post by: Ross Hogarth on April 09, 2008, 11:59:37 AM
I am very happy with my results
my speakers have never been sounded better or seemed to translate better
making eq decisions seems easier
Post by: tom eaton on April 09, 2008, 04:47:17 PM
Are you using the 100 or the 200?
Thanks!
tom
Post by: crna59 on April 09, 2008, 06:39:42 PM
| dcollins wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 18:29 |
The Hypex should run with any amp, regardless of price..... DC |
Yeah... "should". Guess everyone should just buy the Hypex because there's none better!
Regards,
Bruce
Post by: dcollins on April 09, 2008, 08:06:24 PM
| crna59 wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 15:39 |
Yeah... "should". Guess everyone should just buy the Hypex because there's none better! |
More expensive is always better!
DC
Post by: jimmyjazz on April 10, 2008, 09:58:48 AM
Post by: Ross Hogarth on April 11, 2008, 12:32:55 AM
| tom eaton wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 13:47 |
Hi Ross- Are you using the 100 or the 200? Thanks! tom |
i am using the 200
i could not have gotten by with the 100
sounds great
i am very happpy
Post by: livingstone on May 18, 2008, 07:34:59 AM
i have finaly a pair of amp based on the UCD700HG,
i won't coment just on the Hypex because, many point have changed in my monitoring chain since this first test,
as i got now a prism ada8 i use its monitoring dac instead of my benchmark dac1.
the overall impression is a very good balance,
everthing seems in place naturaly,
bass extend more, mid range is more present and defined, highs are less bright than in my first listen, (this brightness came from the dac1 )
the sound stage is impressing, the wideness and the depth between front and backstage is jawdroping,
nothing more to say ... i'm just happy with this now
thanks Bruno !
Post by: Terry Demol on May 20, 2008, 10:45:55 PM
| dcollins wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 00:29 | ||
The Hypex should run with any amp, regardless of price..... DC |
Hi DC,
Not sure whether u are being sarcastic here, anyhow a few
comments wrt class D amps and one discussed (CI) in particular:
I dug up some measurements on the CI amp here:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/805cia/index4.html
WRT distortion, there's plenty happening as you can see from the
spectrum plots. A good linear amp will still have quite a bit
less distortion than this and a very good one will have at least
10x less.
I have a nice linear power amp running which has somewhere around
100x less at close to full power (around -120dB / 20kHz / 200W /
4R).
Unfortunately I think if you compared a good -120dB/20kHz/FP
amp to the class D, you may still prefer the class D. The
'more extended top end' may be distortion? Clearly most good
linear amps are more extended and go to 100kHz or more.
Same goes for soundstage width and depth, guess why SET's have
unrivalled stage depth, width and dimension - a whole lot of
added harmonics in the right dose and area?
Maybe class D just distorts in a completely different way than
linear amps, (including xover distortion which is very audible),
so the end result -sounds- cleaner and more extended, which after
all is the most important thing.
It would be nice if these FFT plots would give some damn
indication of what these things actually sound like - very
frustrating field audio.
OK - Just some food for thought.
cheers
Terry
Post by: zmix on May 21, 2008, 08:42:55 AM
| Terry Demol wrote on Tue, 20 May 2008 22:45 |
I dug up some measurements on the CI amp here: http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/805cia/index4.html |
They actually brought up some compelling points in that review. Since the Channel Islands amplifier is based on the Hypex modules, I'd like to know what Bruno thinks about their assertions.
Post by: Terry Demol on May 21, 2008, 09:31:56 AM
| zmix wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 13:42 | ||
They actually brought up some compelling points in that review. Since the Channel Islands amplifier is based on the Hypex modules, I'd like to know what Bruno thinks about their assertions. |
I didn't even read the review, was just checking the
measurements.
Post by: zmix on May 21, 2008, 09:58:15 AM
| Terry Demol wrote on Wed, 21 May 2008 09:31 | ||||
I didn't even read the review, was just checking the measurements. |
I guess I should have been more specific...
I was referring to the text in the measurement results.
It's slightly damning, but very compelling, nonetheless.
I'd like to hear Bruno's rebuttal.
Post by: bruno putzeys on May 22, 2008, 04:14:31 AM
Anyhow, Stereophile has tried designing their own measurement filter to get round the problem and I am sorry to report that the distortion shown on their plots is entirely due to that filter. I have re-measured the amplifier and got the exact same results as those we publish on our web site.
They were correct in identifying an issue with long-term power output though. This has led to us using slightly larger output inductors in the UcD180 modules for the last two years or so.
As a result of these 2 items, the stereophile review is the only one showing substandard measurements. Subsequent reviews by other magazines have been fully in line with our published specs (bar one where a manufacturer bypassed our input buffer and put in one that distorted more than the amp, not naming names).
Post by: Terry Demol on May 22, 2008, 05:52:10 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 09:14 |
Stereophile always seems to be grappling with measuring class D amps. I've also had problems getting an AP system 1 to return reliable results when measuring audio devices with out-of-band content (noise shaping DACs, class D etc). This is a result of the AP1 having its band-limiting filter downstream of the notch filter. This causes the autorange circuitry to range the detector output based on the carrier residual instead of the audio signal. At low signal levels you don't get any meaningful distortion or noise reading. Starting from the system 2, the AP test sets no longer have this problem, especially the ones fitted with an AES17 filter. Audio Precision's passive external filter is not necessary here (I've never gotten different results with or without) but this filter does allow correct measurements with the AP1. Anyhow, Stereophile has tried designing their own measurement filter to get round the problem and I am sorry to report that the distortion shown on their plots is entirely due to that filter. I have re-measured the amplifier and got the exact same results as those we publish on our web site. They were correct in identifying an issue with long-term power output though. This has led to us using slightly larger output inductors in the UcD180 modules for the last two years or so. As a result of these 2 items, the stereophile review is the only one showing substandard measurements. Subsequent reviews by other magazines have been fully in line with our published specs (bar one where a manufacturer bypassed our input buffer and put in one that distorted more than the amp, not naming names). |
Bruno.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Stereophile really have to get their act together WRT
measurements, they are not doing any favours for manufacturers.
In the absence of AP2, would not something like a Prism Dscope
be at least a major improvement over the AP1.
I checked the graphs from Hypex site of UCD700 and 400 HG series.
They certainly are better than the magazines results. Having said
this, they are still a way off a really good linear amp.
Can you comment on sonic differences between something like the
ExtremeA and UCD modules? I know you built extremeA as a
yardstick, and I am thinking it is something along the lines of a
low powered Halcro.
T
Post by: bruno putzeys on May 22, 2008, 06:37:11 AM
Apart from that, one of the tricks I've used to get UcD to punch above its measured weight is to minimise the frequency-dependence of THD. I hope to find the actual psychoacoustical background of this, but so far I've always found that an amp that does 0.02% consistently over frequency sounds better than one that hits 0.02% at the end of the audio range and performs better at lower frequencies. I have units that do well below 0.001% at mid-range frequencies but I simply can't stand to listen to them.
This is why I'm looking at new control techniques that will get me to <0.001% at all frequencies (without sacrificing output impedance). Until that's finished, UcD remains the best sounding amp I can do in class D.
I've actually not yet had the time to build a pair of Extrema amps to listen to. Sander built a second unit after the measurement session but he managed to sell the pair before I could hear it and since then I've simply not had the time to construct a new pair. That said, I'll eat my hat if it doesn't sonically beat the UcD amps by at least a small margin. After all, the converse would invalidate the scientific approach I take for all my design work. I'm having a set built now so I'll keep you posted.
I was surprised when I was told by a French customer of ours (a rather well known manufacturer of high-end and studio speakers) that they picked the UcD400HG over their Halcro DM58. I haven't heard the Halcros myself, but purely from a logical perspective this result was not expected. Apparently the distortion level on the UcD400 is low enough for other things to matter more. I mean, all other things equal, linear *must* be the better choice if audio performance is the only requirement. If in spite of that my class D amps do unexpectedly well in shoot-outs it must be because all other things simply aren't equal. There are a lot of design shortcuts you can get away with in class A that simply have to be taken fully care of in class D (mostly related to EMC).
Post by: dcollins on May 22, 2008, 09:04:53 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 01:14 |
Anyhow, Stereophile has tried designing their own measurement filter to get round the problem and I am sorry to report that the distortion shown on their plots is entirely due to that filter |
How could Atkinson not have characterized his filter before making all these false measurements?!
I bet Julian Hirsch would have known better.........
DC
Post by: jimmyjazz on May 22, 2008, 10:53:13 PM
(I'm not an idiot. I'm not an idiot. I'm not an idiot . . .)
Post by: Rivendell61 on May 23, 2008, 12:14:27 PM
| Terry Demol wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 05:52 |
Stereophile really have to get their act together WRT measurements, they are not doing any favours for manufacturers. In the absence of AP2, would not something like a Prism Dscope be at least a major improvement over the AP1. |
Stereophile reported in January '08 that Audio Precision had 'loaned' (!) them a SYS 2722.
It appears they are using it for at least some of the current test reports.
Previously John Siau of Benchmark had also urged Stereophile to upgrade--noting they were publishing gear test specs which reflected their testing gear limitations, not the performance of the gear tested.
Mark
Post by: Sam Lord on May 24, 2008, 01:35:21 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Thu, 22 May 2008 06:37 |
...I have units that do well below 0.001% at mid-range frequencies but I simply can't stand to listen to them. |
Right on, I hate the sound of clean midrange in the morning.
But seriously, it is just silly that Atkinson didn't follow up that HF reading with a phone call to somebody. I mean, he's been using AP units a long time and measured a boatload of amps. Julian Hirsch deserves his own thread.
I"m really thrilled about modern Class D, using 4ch of ICE power now. It's so green and sounds wonderful--a true revolution. I wonder what modules ATC uses. And I wish I had an excuse to build a Hypex unit.
Post by: bruno putzeys on May 26, 2008, 04:44:16 AM
| Sam Lord wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 19:35 | ||
Right on, I hate the sound of clean midrange in the morning. |
If the same amp produced just as little distortion at 20kHz it'd been marvellous. Somehow distortion becomes more noticeable if it rises with frequency, even if it is quite low in absolute terms. Which led me to the somewhat counterintuitive practice of shifting the dominant pole(s) out of DC to 20kHz. This must be the only really "unscientific" thing I do.
| Sam Lord wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008 19:35 |
I wonder what modules ATC uses. |
IIRC, all of their speakers use homegrown linear amplifiers.
Post by: Sam Lord on May 26, 2008, 08:45:22 PM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Mon, 26 May 2008 04:44 |
If the same amp produced just as little distortion at 20kHz it'd been marvellous. Somehow distortion becomes more noticeable if it rises with frequency, even if it is quite low in absolute terms. Which led me to the somewhat counterintuitive practice of shifting the dominant pole(s) out of DC to 20kHz. This must be the only really "unscientific" thing I do. |
I'm sorry Bruno, your meaning was clear. I was trying to be silly while admiring your midrange THD figure in Class D. (I assumed you were speaking of your own testbeds.)
I think your f vs THD approach is quite reasonable, given your own listening impressions and those of many others like myself and yikes, Stereophile. I too believe (unscientifically) there is usually a sound penalty when high-harmonic THD numbers are far worse than the 2nd and 3rd harmonics, even when averaged passband THD numbers are much lower. Actually I look at speaker drivers this way too, examining out-of-band junk.
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Mon, 26 May 2008 04:44 |
IIRC, all of their [ATC] speakers use homegrown linear amplifiers. |
Thanks. I expect they'll use Class D once they get religion. And congratulations on the technical achievements and success of your Hypex designs.
Post by: Bogic Petrovic on July 23, 2008, 06:35:52 AM
| Bruno Putzeys wrote on Mon, 26 May 2008 10:44 |
.... Somehow distortion becomes more noticeable if it rises with frequency, even if it is quite low in absolute terms. Which led me to the somewhat counterintuitive practice of shifting the dominant pole(s) out of DC to 20kHz. This must be the only really "unscientific" thing I do. .... |
Hi Bruno,
Your "unscientific" method of frequency independent THD, can be find in some other professional audio devices (not power amplifiers, but... never mind)
You can see what I measured on my PCI audio interface (in analog loopback) today
setup:
Measurement software: STEPS (prof. Ivo Mateljan), -3dBFS output level, sweep method is used, 12pts. per oct., measuring range 20Hz - 20kHz,
Card setup: +4dBu IN and OUT range, -7dB attenuation on Lynx built-in digital mixer, left channel only, all other muted, no dither, 24bit, 192kHz (only way to view a start of "rise" of THD, is using higher S/R)
Regards,
Post by: jdg on July 02, 2009, 03:45:47 PM
had a fuse pop in my hypex yesterday 10min before a session and had to hook my dunlavys to the pass x.250 thats in here.
man, what a total difference. and i didn't like it.
im not saying it was better or worse, its just not what i was used to, and it freaked me out.
the difference was with the pass, my speakers became sooo much more relaxed and smooth. like i just got a shot of ativan.
the low end was firm, and the top end was free.
hypex is back up this afternoon, and everything is back to normal.
the lows are a bit more obvious, but the highs are much more focused.
Post by: T. Mueller on August 03, 2009, 11:01:59 AM
Thanks in advance. Great discussion on here.
EDIT: I found this: http://www.gweep.net/~rocko/UcD400/
Can anyone attest to the accuracy of the BOM and the correctness/completeness of the discussion?
EDIT #2: (sorry for this, but here's the link, finally: http://www.diycable.com/main/pdf/exodus_docs.pdf)