[waver]

The NC 1200's sounded quite a bit  better than Jason's NC400  tour amps ...

please expand "a bit better".

[OzarkTom]

please expand "a bit better".

Smoother, more open, and more holographic. And by quite a bit.

[waver]

and you are sure that was like that on the recording and intended by the artist / recording engineers?
How can you be sure that it's not something "exagerated" by the amp you liked more (and therefor call it "better") as oposed to the other beeing "truer to the source"?

[Julf]

So how many companies were using NC400's at RMAF rhis year? Zero? Why, if they are the best?

The NC400 is intended for the hobbyist market, the 1200 for the OEM market, so the fact that OEM companies use the 1200 and not the 400 proves that the Hypex positioning strategy works, but nothing else.

[Julf]

Smoother, more open, and more holographic. And by quite a bit.

At least 17.5

[cab]

I have changed these parts many times on amps with the better parts giving the better sound.

Better or different? Please share your measurements on the ncore "improvements" that lead you to believe it is "better".

Otherwise, you are just selling an opinion, not fact.

[cab]

The NC400 is intended for the hobbyist market, the 1200 for the OEM market, so the fact that OEM companies use the 1200 and not the 400 proves that the Hypex positioning strategy works, but nothing else.

In other words, it is impossible to market amps with the nc400. I thought the fact that they were only sold to hobbyists was well known, at least to all of those who post in every hypex thread. Guess that shows that there is still a lot of ignorance out there about ncore.

[cab]

WRONG: the NC-400 modules are mass produced parts, not finely honed, totally custom, F1 engines.  NC-400 modules incorporate many compromises in parts quality, design, and manufacture in order to make them cost effective in the marketplace for consumers.
If one wants to make an accurate analogy between an F1 engine and an audio component, one is going to be considering cost no object designs produced in very limited quantities, without regard to costs: the Light Harmonic Da Vinci Dac comes to mind, but even that is produced in numbers far beyond those of F1 engines, and is for sale to consumers, unlike F1 engines.

You have missed the point. The ncore is a state of the art class d amp designed by perhaps the leading class d designer in the world. It's measured performance is second to none. It is well known among people in the know that class d amp design is different than class a or b amp design- much more difficult, demanding, and exacting, with layout requirements down to the millimeter, completely different than other amp classes. Hypex says it is a no-compromise amp. The specs confirm this.

Now along comes someone who has never designed a class d amp, who probably couldn't design a class d. He makes his living doing his self-professed "improvements" on other people's work. He doesn't produce any proof that his mods have improved the amp, only his opinion. I have no doubt it sounds different, maybe to some it will sound better. But to insist, without any evidence other than his subjective opinion, that he has somehow improved the ncore, I say prove it or it's just self-servicing marketing bs.

If he took your F1 engine and told you he increased its performance, would you take his word for it or want to take it to the dyno?

Could the ncore be improved on an objective basis? Sure, Would such improvements be audible? Unknown. Secondly, I would place my trust in any changes to someone who has a demonstrated expertise in class d design and the issues involved, not someone ignorant of class d design.

[Toaster]

Gentlemen, you are wasting your time. If you're enjoying yourselves, fair play, but you are simply talking past each other, since the paradigms you are using as your starting premises for discussion are not the same. The 'subjectivists' are trying to convince the 'objectivists' that their claims about sound quality are valid based on observation, without protocols or controls. 'Objectivists' will not accept this- it does not meet their criteria as valid evidence. On the other hand the 'objectivists' are trying to tell the 'subjectivists' that they are not hearing what they claim to- or at least that it is not necessarily repeatable or universally true. Obviously if a 'subjectivist' hears one amp as sounding better than another, or finds that one glass of wine tastes better than another they will accept this as evidence. If enough people hear or taste the same thing a concensus may emerge. 'Subjectivists' will not accept being told that their sense perceptions are faulty by 'objectivists'- for them the subjective listening experience is the point of the exercise. This mirrors different perspectives in social science, particularly between functionalism and interactionism in sociology. The real debate centres around what is considered acceptable and appropriate as evidence of phenomena and also what kind of questions are being asked about external (objective?) and internal (experiential?) reality, and (on that basis) what kind of phenomena are being studied. To have an actual discussion, rather than a shouting match, you would need to agree on fundementals first, and that isn't very likely. Just saying...

[Julf]

The real debate centres around what is considered acceptable and appropriate as evidence of phenomena and also what kind of questions are being asked about external (objective?) and internal (experiential?) reality, and (on that basis) what kind of phenomena are being studied.

Indeed. So for the engineer designing the equipment, the question is "What is the goal here - to produce a system that reproduces the original signal as faithfully as possible, or to produce a system that sounds as pleasant as possible to the majority of people?". Two very different goals.

[barrows]

sure, the NC400 incorporates many compromises in parts quality, but Bruno has the outrageousness to call the NC400 a "no-compromise power amp module for audiophile DIY projects"???
Sorry, but i'll take Bruno's word anytime over yours!

Please tell me somthing: you made changes many times and you got "better" sound. "Better" compared to what? To some "objective reference" or to your personal liking?

Hahaha, you funny Waver!  Answer this question if you please:  If you really believe that the Ncore modules are no compromise designs, and that Mr Putzeys truly believes that, how do you account for the 3x cost of the Mola Mola amplifiers made by Mr Putzey's own brand?  I am saying 3x cost, becasue if NC-400s were produced in a finished product the resulting pair of mono blocks would run around $4K or so...
Are you really suggesting that Mola Mola (Bruno Putzeys) is trying to rip off customers by offering amplifiers with no performance benefit (besides 6 dB headroom) for 3x the price?

While making changes to my own NC-400 based stereo amp, I make direct comparisons to my Pass Labs X-150.5, the 150.5 stays constant, hence I have a static reference for comparisons.  Without the static reference, it would be more difficult to make accurate conclusions regarding any changes.  Note, that the poster of this thread, compared stock NC-400 modules directly with his modded versions, rather than trying to compare by memory.

It seems therer are quite a few folks on this thread who want very badly to believe that NC-400 based amplifiers are perfect in all regards-this is delusional.  They are very good, and especially very good for the price of admission, but they are far from perfect.  If one wants to continue to believe that the NC-400 is perfect, I would suggest not visiting audiophile forums.

[barrows]

"Indeed. So for the engineer designing the equipment, the question is "What is the goal here - to produce a system that reproduces the original signal as faithfully as possible, or to produce a system that sounds as pleasant as possible to the majority of people?". Two very different goals."

Julf, I respect your POV, but there is more at work here than the above.  Standard sets of measurements such as those published at Hypex site do not completeley describe the (objective) performance of any amplifier.  Noise and/or distortion under steady state signals are not enough to understand what may happen in circuit with complex and widely varying signals.  Intermodulation tests with many different frequencies, and square wave tests at many different frequencies might be more illuminating as to what makes for differences in amplifier sound.
Personally, I am not talking about making an amplifier which sounds "prettier" (adding its own color).  I am talking about making an amplifier which produces sounds out of a loudspeaker which are closer to real music.
While I find the NC-400 sounds very good, it does have its shortcomings as well.  Images are somewhat hollow, they are well defined in a single plane, but lack in body.  In real music, the image does not lack in body.  Consider just a cello, in a moderate size room...
What I also wonder about, is why would any self declared objectivist think that THD measurements define amplifier performance?  My understanding is that DBT testing has confirmed that humans cannot distinguish between levels of THD <1%!  By that standard all contemporary solid state amplifiers would be perfect, and all sound the same.  If we accpet that any of these amps sound different, we also need to accept that distortion measurements do not account for the differences in amplifier sound.

[barrows]

If the NC-400 modules are no comproise in build quality, I guess all the resistors on there are matched to .01% tolerances, right???  And furthermore, they must be metal foil types for the highest level of precision, right?

[Julf]

Noise and/or distortion under steady state signals are not enough to understand what may happen in circuit with complex and widely varying signals.  Intermodulation tests with many different frequencies, and square wave tests at many different frequencies might be more illuminating as to what makes for differences in amplifier sound.

Agree. But then we are just debating the best way to measure, not the issue of "is the final arbiter some silly number, or my absolutely perfect ears".

While I find the NC-400 sounds very good, it does have its shortcomings as well.  Images are somewhat hollow, they are well defined in a single plane, but lack in body.

And what measurable parameter corresponds to "body"?

What I also wonder about, is why would any self declared objectivist think that THD measurements define amplifier performance?

Do they?

[waver]

Hahaha, you funny Waver!  Answer this question if you please:  If you really believe that the Ncore modules are no compromise designs, and that Mr Putzeys truly believes that, how do you account for the 3x cost of the Mola Mola amplifiers made by Mr Putzey's own brand?

so, in other words, you say Mr Putzeys is a liar when he calles the NC400 a "no-compromise power amp module for audiophile DIY projects"?

Btw, i have not made any comment at all about the ncores! I'm just trying to quantify/qualify statements like 'sounds better' or 'improved quality' ...

[barrows]

so, in other words, you say Mr Putzeys is a liar when he calles the NC400 a "no-compromise power amp module for audiophile DIY projects"?

Btw, i have not made any comment at all about the ncores! I'm just trying to quantify/qualify statements like 'sounds better' or 'improved quality' ...

I see, it appears that you have no answer to my question.  And please, do not put words in my mouth which I did not utter.  Only Mr Putzeys can answer that question.  I would like to hear his response re the performance of the Mola Mola mono blocks vs the NC-400...

[waver]

your question is not for me to answer. Besides you're comparing a DIY module with a comercial product ...
But it's clear to me that you don't believe it, so i didn't put anything in you mouth ...

[barrows]

Julf: Exactly, the standard set of measurements are inadequate.  Given that few people have the gear to do even a good job at the standard measurement sets (and for Ncore that means an AP-2, nothing else is going to have nearly the resolution on standard tests as the Ncore itself), it is unlikely that the many posters here are going to have a way to make these measurements.
Nordost tried to come up with a new measurement paradigm a couple of years back, using actual music signals, and comparing the input to the output-but they were met with such resistance from people who said they were "wrong" when the measurements actually showed differences between cables and vibration control devices, that they appear to have given up the pursuit, or perhaps they have decided to only use these measurements internally.

As to what measurement might be associated with "body" (and to be clear I was referring to body of a single image in space), I do not have the faintest idea what that might be, and neither do I need to measure it as listening is entirely adequate for me to note these differences.  For those who do need measurements, it is up to them to figure out what they will need to measure: my hint would be to look for problems in the time domain.

[jtwrace]

What's wrong with these?  Done by a member here on AC.

Julf: Exactly, the standard set of measurements are inadequate.  Given that few people have the gear to do even a good job at the standard measurement sets (and for Ncore that means an AP-2, nothing else is going to have nearly the resolution on standard tests as the Ncore itself), it is unlikely that the many posters here are going to have a way to make these measurements.

[jtwrace]

And these.