Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Planar Speaker Asylum

Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS

96.241.133.156

Apollon Audio and Buckeye Amps are selling these Hypex NCX500 based Class-D amps. They are rated about 350 watts RMS. Wondering if anyone is using them to drive their 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS. What's your opinion?

https://www.buckeyeamp.com/shop/amplifiers/hypex/ncx500/2_channel
https://apollonaudio.com/product/hypex-ncx500-apollon-mini-stereo-amplifier/

I am using a Bryston 4BST for my 1.6s since 2001 wondering if there will be significant difference.

Follow Ups:

RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - Mike K 18:42:47 01/03/25 (1)
Good class D amps will make those Maggies sound fine. IMHO, the Bryston amp you are using is ... shall we say, an abomination.

Lack of skill dictates economy of style. - Joey Ramone
- RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - owkone 08:27:04 01/04/25 (0)
  I am looking for first hand experience/opinion with these amps.
  
  Why do you say these amps are an abomination? At one time late 1990's Magnepan used to use the Bryston 4B series to demo their speakers. Though the company never recommended any particular brand.
RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - Roger Gustavsson 02:17:50 01/03/25 (4)
Buckeye has been discussed in a Swedish audio forum after the review in Stereophile. The high IM distorsion was noted.

"It also seems that Buckeye has been tinkering with the implementation of the Purifi modules via the input stage, which show significantly lower distortion in the company's own measurements: https://purifi-audio.com/document/share ... caaa1e5c2e"
- RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - Utley1 10:56:13 01/04/25 (0)
  Why would on4buy from a co or product that gets it wrong? ! strike and you are out--when there are substitutes...Was the module tested before going into production?
- Do you have a link to the Swedish audio forum ? (NT) - emailtim 09:38:43 01/04/25 (1)
  TIA
  .
  
  2022/03/30 Historical Records CENSORED
  - RE: Do you have a link to the Swedish audio forum ? (NT) - Roger Gustavsson 10:22:30 01/04/25 (0)
    Sure, they also found that comment about faulty modules from Purifi.
    https://www.faktiskt.io/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=75207
    The threadstarter sold his Apollon Power Amp, he found the Rotel RB-1582 better. He disliked the sibilance of that Apollon (similar to the Buckeye).
    
    Edits: 01/05/25
- RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - goryu 05:25:58 01/03/25 (0)
  The IM shown in the Stereophile measurements has been traced to a faulty module. Apparently there was a preproduction batch that got through QC at Purifi. Purifi has stated this publicly and said that all of these modules have been recalled. Apparently Buckeye, the manufacturer/assembler, mistakenly used one of the defective modules that went to Stereophile. The new Purifi module, 9040, has perhaps the best measured performance of any amp on the market.
RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - ketchup 14:06:54 01/02/25 (28)
I briefly drove my 3.6Rs full range with a Nord NC500 and did not like it at all. It was sterile, glassy, and unmusical. I'm now biamping them with the Nord on the bass panels and Rogue M180 amps on the mids/tweeters. It's not bad in this situation, but I'm curious what a more serious amp can do on the bass panels.
- RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - owkone 08:15:38 01/04/25 (27)
  Early Class Ds were harsh and unmusical as was stated in various reviews. Hence my wonder if the newest modules have improved.
  - RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - Utley1 10:57:51 01/06/25 (26)
    They are cheap to make + modules save on labor....
    - RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - Roger Gustavsson 07:14:23 01/07/25 (25)
      There is longer story about the Swedish experience of the Hypex NCX500 based poer amps. The original buyer of the Apollon amps had a Bryston 14B� cubed and changed to Apollon. Did not like them and passed them on. Went back to another Bryston, 3B� cubed. The second owner of the Apollon passed them on too, stayed with the Rotel RB-1582. The third owner seems to like the Apollon.
      - RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - goryu 05:14:08 01/08/25 (24)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS posted by Roger Gustavsson on January 07, 2025 at 07:14:23
        
        Not everyone likes a wire with gain. Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with an amp that does what an amp is suppose to do: make a small signal larger. It's a proven fact that certain distortion profiles are appealing to some.
        
        While others - E-Stat 07:28:42 01/08/25 (23)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS posted by goryu on January 08, 2025 at 05:14:08
        
        prefer overly lean, amusical harmonic profiles beaten into submission with *correction*.
        
        Nothing wrong with that either. :)
        
        RE: While others - goryu 07:36:10 01/08/25 (22)
        
        In Reply to: RE: While others posted by E-Stat on January 08, 2025 at 07:28:42
        
        Only if you consider accurate to the signal "lean" and signal corrections that moderate or correct room contributions that disrupt the frequency response of the source as "amusical". But then, "lean" and "amusical" are both subjective terms that have no meaning in the context of signal fidelity.
        
        Accurate to the signal using what metrics? - E-Stat 07:55:38 01/08/25 (21)
        
        In Reply to: RE: While others posted by goryu on January 08, 2025 at 07:36:10
        
        It's been long proven that simplistic ones like SINAD using uncorrelated sine waves do not relate to what we hear.
        
        My reference is fifty years of listening to live, unamplified music. And enjoy that regularly hearing wifey play her baby grand.
        
        Choose you own *distortions* of reality. :)
        
        You have summed it up succinctly - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 10:56:49 01/08/25 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Accurate to the signal using what metrics? posted by E-Stat on January 08, 2025 at 07:55:38
        
        There is little correlation. But that does not mean the numbers are wrong. There are (*) possible reasons why more artifacts could sound better combined with how the measurements are interpretated. And I am all for people listening to what they prefer as long as they don't confuse their preference as being objectively better.
        
        I've linked to a recent YT video from Goldensound in which he shows three examples of a piece of music processed in different ways but with the same SINAD.
        
        * I don't think any of the reasons are well proven and it is not in anyone's financial interest to pursue.
        https://youtu.be/w4-euCGbYNQ?si=PVv6xtJ7oP7cY9Dx (Open in New Window)
        
        RE: You have summed it up succinctly - E-Stat 11:35:02 01/08/25 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You have summed it up succinctly posted by 13th Duke of Wymbourne on January 08, 2025 at 10:56:49
        
        Thanks for the link!
        
        But that does not mean the numbers are wrong.
        
        Just most "numbers" lack relevancy to what we hear. Notable exceptions include frequency response and linearity which is clearly audible. Given the complexity of a dynamic musical waveform, accuracy to exactly what? There's a difference between information and knowledge .
        
        Many years ago, there was a similarly surly wannabe speaker designer who liked to call what he didn't understand or perceive "voodoo". He threw down the gauntlet and challenged me to a duel using an online DBT. I recently recounted the experience here . Follow the supplied hyperlinks to the Klippel site and see what you think! I'm not a Tracy Chapman fan, but serves as a point of reference after some familiarity with the content.
        
        Everyone is entitled to their perception. Those who claim *superiority*, however, are merely deluding themselves in a specious cloak of unvalidated controls. Mr. Gory has demonstrated that he no idea why he believes what he does. Merely regurgitates what he's read. And goes all over the place completely missing the core question.
        
        I find your posts a delight to read. :)
        
        A disclaimer - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 13:36:33 01/10/25 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You have summed it up succinctly posted by E-Stat on January 08, 2025 at 11:35:02
        
        I didn't read the whole thread before I posted and I've just noticed that earlier you used the phrase 'beaten into submission with correction'. Now, I think we now each other well enough by now that I am duty bound to distance myself from any insinuation that negative feedback does anything bad. What is does is (or should be) well understood and reduces distortion/artifacts. But the listener at home might not like the results, which I see as their problem to deal with rather than negative feedback's problem. I like your use of the term relevancy, I just used the analogy on PFM that jet engine thrust will not tell how enjoyable your flight will be but it does tell a lot about how well the airplane works as an airplane (yes, you could argue that low thrust means a longer flight that might be less enjoyable, or more enjoyable if you have time for another gin & tonic).
        
        RE: A disclaimer - E-Stat 13:41:24 01/10/25 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A disclaimer posted by 13th Duke of Wymbourne on January 10, 2025 at 13:36:33
        
        What is does is (or should be) well understood and reduces distortion/artifacts.
        
        Decreases some and increases others . It's a matter of degrees.
        
        jet engine thrust will not tell how enjoyable your flight will be...
        
        Thrust is merely a measure of power (like watts) and has no qualitative aspects to it. Very much unlike what 75 db(!) of correction does to an audio signal.
        
        I prefer using inherently more linear devices that don't require such a beating to be civil.
        
        RE: A disclaimer - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 14:53:50 01/10/25 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A disclaimer posted by E-Stat on January 10, 2025 at 13:41:24
        
        Pass makes a good point relating to Fig10 in that article that you'd have to apply 40dB of feedback to get back to where you where at 0dB (with 1% second harmonic and 0.3% third harmonic). The irony is that with 75dB of feedback you'd be much, much better off than having none! If you can actually apply 75dB of feedback that is! I look at this in two ways: designing for lowest distortion without overall negative feedback is an interesting design challenge and a noble cause but easy, designing with really high loop gains is difficult and, IMHO, beyond the capabilities of many. But, perhaps, 1% 2HD & 0.3% 3HD is perfectly acceptable so it is moot. Except that audiophiles seem to be threatened by stuff that measures well because they chose something that measures less well, even though they like what they have. And audio designers seem threatened because they don't want the market to become commoditized, which can happen if someone takes the time to master feedback and uses it to produce lower priced amplifiers.
        
        Choose as you will - E-Stat 15:14:15 01/10/25 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: A disclaimer posted by 13th Duke of Wymbourne on January 10, 2025 at 14:53:50
        
        I'm not a fan of multitudes of high order harmonics that accumulate at the top. :)
        
        Edits: 01/10/25
        
        You shall not Pass - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 16:19:14 01/10/25 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Choose as you will posted by E-Stat on January 10, 2025 at 15:14:15
        
        Looks like Nelson has transcended guru-ship and is going for Wizard status.
        
        Merely one of many - E-Stat 17:15:33 01/10/25 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You shall not Pass posted by 13th Duke of Wymbourne on January 10, 2025 at 16:19:14
        
        who find having to put a massive filter on the output of an amp to remove copious amounts of ultrasonic garbage is not the best way to go.
        Do those who listen to Hypex amps do the same as John Atkinson must in order for the noise not to overload his gear?
        Dan D'Agostino never liked the "fuzz" always seen on square waves.
        
        Edits: 01/11/25
        
        Just as you feel about correction, I feel we'be beaten this topic into submission (nt) - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 17:36:49 01/10/25 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Merely one of many posted by E-Stat on January 10, 2025 at 17:15:33
        
        Nt
        
        RE: Accurate to the signal using what metrics? - goryu 08:08:44 01/08/25 (11)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Accurate to the signal using what metrics? posted by E-Stat on January 08, 2025 at 07:55:38
        
        I didn't say SINAD- no need for your straw man. I mentioned fidelity to the input signal. Clearly you are in the category of those who prefer added distortion. You aren't alone. It is just a more rationale choice to add the distortion in a controlled fashion through DSP and tailor it to one's liking rather than add it haphazardly. I imagine after 50 years of listening to live music your ears couldn't appreciate a wire with gain anyway...
        
        RE: Accurate to the signal using what metrics - E-Stat 08:14:57 01/08/25 (10)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Accurate to the signal using what metrics? posted by goryu on January 08, 2025 at 08:08:44
        
        Still didn't answer the simple question.
        
        Not surprised!
        
        RE: Accurate to the signal using what metrics - goryu 08:26:10 01/08/25 (9)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Accurate to the signal using what metrics posted by E-Stat on January 08, 2025 at 08:14:57
        
        What don't you understand about accuracy to the input signal? You have the input, you have the output, which is ideally the same as the input, only larger in magnitude. There are many metrics available to measure differences between the signals in both amplitude/phase- frequency/time domain. Do some homework.
        
        Edits: 01/08/25
        
        Homework unnecessary - E-Stat 09:32:12 01/08/25 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Accurate to the signal using what metrics posted by goryu on January 08, 2025 at 08:26:10
        
        to understand your empty claims.
        
        Not surprised!
        
        I, unlike you, have made no claims, only statements of fact. - goryu 09:33:37 01/08/25 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Homework unnecessary posted by E-Stat on January 08, 2025 at 09:32:12
        
        Maybe time for a cognitive test along with a hearing aid upgrade.
        
        Too funny! - E-Stat 09:34:17 01/08/25 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I, unlike you, have made no claims, only statements of fact. posted by goryu on January 08, 2025 at 09:33:37
        
        Love your high horse fact-free posture. ;)
        
        Too sad... - goryu 09:43:29 01/08/25 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Too funny! posted by E-Stat on January 08, 2025 at 09:34:17
        
        Schedule that appointment as you clearly can't tell the difference between fact and subjective opinion..."overly lean", "amusical harmonic profiles", lol...some real metrics there!
        
        You have presented - E-Stat 09:44:23 01/08/25 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Too sad... posted by goryu on January 08, 2025 at 09:43:29
        
        zero *facts* in our discussion. Are you a bot?
        
        Not surprised!
        
        I have done nothing but make statements of fact versus your subjective drival... - goryu 09:48:55 01/08/25 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You have presented posted by E-Stat on January 08, 2025 at 09:44:23
        
        I can't help it if you aren't cognitively capable of understanding the difference between fact and opinion. Try again.
        
        "Statements of fact"? - E-Stat 09:54:13 01/08/25 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I have done nothing but make statements of fact versus your subjective drival... posted by goryu on January 08, 2025 at 09:48:55
        
        Like exactly what?
        
        Too funny!
        
        Only empty posturing is found. Must be a bot. ;)
        
        Here are the facts...again... - goryu 09:57:00 01/08/25 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "Statements of fact"? posted by E-Stat on January 08, 2025 at 09:54:13
        
        "Not everyone likes a wire with gain." Fact.
        "Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with an amp that does what an amp is suppose to do: make a small signal larger." Fact.
        "It's a proven fact that certain distortion profiles are appealing to some." Fact.
        "I didn't say SINAD- no need for your straw man." Fact.
        "I mentioned fidelity to the input signal." Fact.
        "Clearly you are in the category of those who prefer added distortion. You aren't alone." Facts.
        "It is just a more rationale choice to add the distortion in a controlled fashion through DSP and tailor it to one's liking rather than add it haphazardly." Fact.
        "I imagine after 50 years of listening to live music your ears couldn't appreciate a wire with gain anyway...-" Ok, there is an opinion but your answers seem to prove it is a fact.
        "Maybe time for a cognitive test along with a hearing aid upgrade." Fact based on your lack of reading comprehension.
        I'm off the crazy train. Better things to do than to fix stupid.
        
        Edits: 01/08/25
        
        Thanks for all the laughs! - E-Stat 10:01:18 01/08/25 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Here are the facts...again... posted by goryu on January 08, 2025 at 09:57:00
        
        After half a dozen post, you remain unable to articulate why you *believe* that person's choice is less "accurate" than the Hypex.
        
        Not surprised!
RE: Hypex NCX500 based power amps for 1.6 or 1.7 or LRS - MarcL 13:39:30 01/02/25 (0)
Not exactly ... but I'm using the Nord Hypex NC500DM for my 3.7s, and an 8-channel VTV Hypex NC502MP for LRS surrounds, 4 MC1 tops and two DWMs ... and a Nord Purifi 7040 for CCR center. So I think these Class D amps do a great job!

Agilist, Musician, Photographer, Audiophile
Magneplanar: 3.7, CCR, MC1,LRS, MMGW, DWM; Outlaw: UltraX12, LFM-1C; Emotiva: XMC-2; Nord: Nord One NC500DM, Nord Three 1ET7040SA; Outlaw: Model 7500; OPPO 205

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable