H20 Amplifier

DeanSheen · « **on:** 11 Feb 2005, 08:31 pm »

Anyone here own or listen to the H20 yet?

http://www.iceh2oaudio.com/

mac · « **Reply #1 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 08:57 pm »

No, but I've read good things about it; this being the only exception: http://www.classd.org/oem_products/products/b_o.htm

Comments
Performance figures are very respectable (among the best on the market), though the sound performance is found to be less than high fidelity. Apparently the problem is the chief engineer’s belief that THD and IMD measurements are fully sufficient to quantify sound appreciation (a "we already know everything knowable on this" stand). The use of LM324 (!!!) op amps is symptomatic of this. Curiously, this attitude is 100% as unscientific as are the quack theories posed by some audiophiles on sonic issues. Anyhow, OPA4134 are available as a stuffing option.
EMI on the module is within legal limits but only just, potentially resulting in problems on the product level. Another minor caveat is the undersized capacitor "bank", which is not designed to hold up in continuous operation. Neither is the heat-sink, but a version is available on which the user can bolt any heat-sink he likes. The supplier is willing to make custom modifications for specific requirements.

Good reasons to use these modules
• The only high power OEM product around
• Excellent measured performance.

Good reasons not to use these chips
Sound quality of the standard version is below standard. While stereo imaging was fine and the presentation dry and up-front, the modules are plagued by a total lack of spaciousness and timbral detail, exactly those things that most class D's do well.

Rating
• Idea: 8/10
• Execution: 8/10
• Sound: 4/10 (6/10 for BB op amp version)
• Performance: 8/10

Personally, I'd like to compare the Hypex Class-D modules against it. I'm using an amp now that's built around the Hypex UcD modules and it sounds exceptional. Both the Hypex and Ice modules use PWM class-d technology.

ted_b · « **Reply #2 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 09:14 pm »

Lots of info and good feedback on the Apogee forum cuz they drive them so well. Henry Ho makes this ICE-based amp, both in a stereo and a mono version (as well as a Signature mono version; low esr caps, shotttky diodes, etc.$5500). Muralman1 is a good resource, although he's considered too sales-y on the Apogee forum for some reason. Henry has emailed me a couple of times and offered a kind of trial capability. I may take him up on it. They are fascinating amps for the price ($2500 stereo, $4k monos). The only downside I have read about in numerous posts is the incredibly long break-in time. Most claim their bass and midrange to be incredible; and their treble to be very good, just not paradigm changing like the lower registers.

Ted

DeanSheen · « **Reply #3 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 09:29 pm »

Where was that negative review from?

Ted, I too have recently contacted H20. If you get them in for a audition, let me know as I live in Cleveland.

Muralman1 is rather pushy in some of the posts I have read.

~DS

mac · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 09:38 pm »

Quote from: DeanSheen

Where was that negative review from?

Ted, I too have recently contacted H20. If you get them in for a audition, let me know as I live in Cleveland.

Muralman1 is rather pushy in some of the posts I have read.

~DS

Follow the link that I provided.

Hypex UcD modules can be found in CIAudio's new amps or if you're like me and want to save $$$, you can DIY your own set for about $600.

DeanSheen · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 09:54 pm »

DOH! Sorry about not seeing that link.

Ok, so that excerpt is of the chip, not the amp. How does one test a chip sound outside of an amp? Isnt it possible that modifiactions are made during implementation to adress the reviewers "sound" negatives.

& arent there 2 of these B&O ICE chips?

In any event, I liked the EAR that I heard and supposedly these are better. I'd just like to hear that for myself.

mac · « **Reply #6 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 10:07 pm »

Quote from: DeanSheen

DOH! Sorry about not seeing that link.

Ok, so that excerpt is of the chip, not the amp. How does one test a chip sound outside of an amp? Isnt it possible that modifiactions are made during implementation to adress the reviewers "sound" negatives.

& arent there 2 of these B&O ICE chips?

In any event, I liked the EAR that I heard and supposedly these are better. I'd just like to hear that for myself.

All amps that use the Ice modules are *basically* the same (ditto for the UcD). There's an input buffer that can be substituted and then there's the external power supply (transformer, bridge and caps). Actually, it's pretty simple stuff to assemble yourself. The Ice modules aren't available to end users (yet) but the Hypex UcD modules are.

ted_b · « **Reply #7 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 10:32 pm »

"All amps that use the Ice modules are *basically* the same"

Julian Hirsch would be proud!

Mac, I am a big fan of yours, and you helped me with my DEQX experience....but, I have to disagree with your statement quite strongly. As with anything in the audio and electronics industry, it's all in the execution. Quite a few folks whose opinions I trust have heard these amps and LOVE them at $2500.

Ted

mac · « **Reply #8 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 11:31 pm »

Quote from: ted_b

"All amps that use the Ice modules are *basically* the same"

Julian Hirsch would be proud!

Mac, I am a big fan of yours, and you helped me with my DEQX experience....but, I have to disagree with your statement quite strongly. As with anything in the audio and electronics industry, it's all in the execution. Quite a few folks whose opinions I trust have heard these amps and LOVE them at $2500.

Ted

Ted, Perhaps you misinterpreted my statement? There are exactly two types of IcePower modules available ('ASP' and 'A' series). Aside from ones' choice/implementation of filtering, transformers and bridges (all off-the-shelf power supply parts), all Ice-based amps are the same. You can open a Rowland, H2O or AR amp and see what I mean. Disagree if you like, but you'll just be pulling your own leg.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=15979.msg139586#139586&highlight=ice#139586

$2,500 may be a fair price to pay for an H2O amp, but I'm speculating you can do as well with the UcD's for about 600 bones assuming you can put one together yourself. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to compare the two at some point. I know other folks who already have and that's why I'm making the assertion.

Cheers,
mac.

Bob Wilcox · « **Reply #9 on:** 11 Feb 2005, 11:50 pm »

I own both an H20 and eAR Two based on the same Icepower module. They have different personalities. The H20 has a fairly massive power supply. Henry Ho was building class A amps before the H20 models. Check over at Audio Asylum and Audiogon for additional discussion threads on the H20.

I believe the break-in time is a characteristic of the Icepower modules. There is a 6-Moons review of one of the eAR amps that discusses break in. Neither amp sounded terrible or inconsistent when new (no Blackgate cap syndrome). My experience was that of the amps just getting better over time.

Bob

jjljerry · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 12:01 am »

I'm new to this forum, but I saw the H2O question from Dean.
I have Apogees and have been using VTL 225 tube mono blocks (or an EAD Powermaster 2000 for amps. Both are very strong amps. I tried an H2O and ordered a second to bi amp. I recently brought up the VTLs again on the top ribbons and used the H2O for the bass panels. (I wanted my tubes back) But, I have to say I'm going with the H2Os. They seem so accurate, powerful and smooth. I listen to a lot of Celtic, female voice, violins etc and the H2O really seem to do the job. I understand there probably some drawbacks but for Apogees they work great. I have not tried them on mt Martin Logans yet. Next. Henry is a real gentleman, professional and extremely knowledgeable about amps.
If you get a chance try an H2O. It does need a break in period, but its worth it. This is new technology in a way, and I'm sure there will be improvements, but Henry will do upgrades if he feels they are significant.
I hope this helps. I'm not trying to sell the H2O but I was really surprised and pleased with my results. All systems are different as well as our own personal (ears) and subjective taste. Jerry

muralman1 · « **Reply #11 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 12:29 am »

The altercation between me an a few others at the Apogee forum boils down to a boring turf war. Do you know the life history of the Cowbird?

Be that as it may, I haven't written a review of my H2O Mono Signatures. Let's say I agree totally with audiofankj's review at Audiogon. The review here:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ramps&1103085768&read&keyw&zzh2o

The source Mac has been spreading about is a defunct DIY journal. As has been mentioned, the writer doesn't explain how he tested the various modules. Open up an Evo, then any ICE amp. They won't look anything similar. Both modules require different design parameters.

As for it being easy to build an ICE amp, I only have to point to the fact of all the DIY ICE amps I have heard being built, every one has failed. There are very few ICE amps in production, and they all have been designed by experienced, and successful electronics engineer amp designers.

mac · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 12:37 am »

Quote from: muralman1

Open up an Evo, then any ICE amp. They won't look anything similar.

That's because the Evo uses a Tripath board.

All I'm saying that all Ice amps use the same modules and that "designing" a good power supply isn't rocket science.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/ssps1_e.html

Cheers,
mac.

muralman1 · « **Reply #13 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 12:47 am »

And all I am saying there are several bold DIYers who found making ICE amps a disaster. It isn't the power supply that makes the difference.

I have owned two ICE amps, and have heard a third. Bob Wilcox has mentioned the eAR and the H2O sound different. I agree with Bob. I owned an eAR when I first tried the H2O. Differences are easily heard between the S-250, and M-250. The M-250 Signature is even different still.

Vince

JoshK · « **Reply #14 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 12:59 am »

Quote from: muralman1

And all I am saying there are several bold DIYers who found making ICE amps a disaster. It isn't the power supply that makes the difference.

I have owned two ICE amps, and have heard a third. Bob Wilcox has mentioned the eAR and the H2O sound different. I agree with Bob. I owned an eAR when I first tried the H2O. Differences are easily heard between the S-250, and M-250. The M-250 Signature is even different still.

Vince

Vince, care to share with us links or stories of these DIYers? I would be interested in what they tried and why they think it didn't work.

muralman1 · « **Reply #15 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 01:07 am »

Some can be found at the Apogee Forum. I don't think it would be right to name names here.

mac · « **Reply #16 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 01:12 am »

Quote from: JoshK

Vince, care to share with us links or stories of ...

I'd also like to know how these DIY'ers got their hands on Ice modules since they are available only to OEM's.

The success stories of DIY UcD are huge. Thankfully, only a small amount of science is required to produce good results from these excellent sounding modules.

muralman1 · « **Reply #17 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 01:58 am »

You got me... I suppose they know someone who knew someone. I'm happy for the DIYers who can make great amps using the UCD. There is no saying they are better, though.

CIAudio · « **Reply #18 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 06:20 am »

Quote

Hypex UcD modules can be found in CIAudio's new amps or if you're like me and want to save $$$, you can DIY your own set for about $600.

Modules from ICE and Hypex can sound very different, due not only various modules and power supply designs. DIY'ers can experiment with power supplies, change parts, input buffers etc. and achieve good results.
I'm "all for" DIY projects, I was doing it back in the 70's.

However, there are many differences between a DIY amp and a professionally built product. First, a professionally built product meets all UL, CE, and other international safety standards, and comes with a warranty.

A manufacturer also knows alot more than most DIY'ers, spends alot more time and $$$ on research, development, and has the proper equipment to measure, test, and improve upon the "basic" module, and simple power supply design provided by the maker.

We also have the ability to work closely with Hypex, and have helped them develop their modules for DIY'ers...they have also helped us to achieve what we wanted in our product. We have our modules custom made, and are completely different from the DIY version UcD180. In addition to many standard part upgrades and minor circuit changes, we also use proprietary circuitry in key areas that isn't available to the public.

Not all Class D's are the same, not all B&O based amps are the same, and DIY projects are not the same as professionally built products.

mac · « **Reply #19 on:** 12 Feb 2005, 07:34 am »

Quote from: CIAudio

First, a professionally built product meets all UL, CE, and other international safety standards, and comes with a warranty.

Have your AC powered units actually been submitted to UL for approval? I only ask because I see no mention of it on your web site, nor do I see a decal on the back of your AC powered products to indicate such.

Quote from: CIAudio

We have our modules custom made, and are completely different from the DIY version UcD180.

By “completely different” I assume you’re talking about more than just a different input buffer? This is good to know and something that I was not aware of. Nearly every component on the board is surface mount.

Part of what one pays for with a commercial product (as you mentioned) is R&D, marketing, overhead/markup and support. There's no denying that one also buys piece of mind and resale value with a commercial product. To some, this value-add is more important than saving some bucks.