But it seems to be made to go right against the bottom of an enclosure. Are their some examples of designs that heat sink this module in a way that you would call proper?Use a proper heatsink. The data sheet for the modules basically says as much.
But it seems to be made to go right against the bottom of an enclosure. Are their some examples of designs that heat sink this module in a way that you would call proper?Use a proper heatsink. The data sheet for the modules basically says as much.
Possibly me, but I was just following the datasheet requirements for the IcePower 125ASX2 module that mounting it needed to be vertical so that convection cooling would be adequate for its output rating. Here is a picture of one example I assembled:@MakeMineVinyl and @pjug we have a ASR member here that designed his own amp case and vertically mounted the PCB's to vertical heatsinks inside a case. I can't remember who it is. Perhaps he will read this and provide pics of his excellent case design and assembly.
BO 125 inside by antennaguru uda, on Flickr
BO 125 rear by antennaguru uda, on FlickrI think you mean this thread - the reasoning including links to relevant documentation, and the internals. For most hifi use it would be overkill. Vera Audio discuss their approach here, including monitoring and fans.@MakeMineVinyl and @pjug we have a ASR member here that designed his own amp case and vertically mounted the PCB's to vertical heatsinks inside a case. I can't remember who it is. Perhaps he will read this and provide pics of his excellent case design and assembly.
Close but not this one. The one I am thinking about has like 5 or 6 amp modules inside all vertically arranged.I think you mean this thread - the reasoning including links to relevant documentation, and the internals. For most hifi use it would be overkill. Vera Audio discuss their approach here, including monitoring and fans.
Only if you're looking for more reliability due to the age of your Halcro. The THD+N spec for your amp is: 0.007% which well past the point of audibility.I have an old Halcro MC70 that has been in service since 2005 in my home theater. They updated the internal amp modules back in 2007 since they said mine was an early version and should be updated. But I have had no issues with it and it works fine. It was rated at 200 watts per channel into 8 ohms with all channels driven. The amp still works fine but I'm tempted to update to an 8 channel NC502MP Buckeye just because it's been so many years. Does anyone know if the new class D designs would provide more power or sound a lot better?
Me too,tested here (NAD 2200 vintage test)I'm using vintage amps from the 80s and 90s, some of which have been recapped, not because they failed, just for prudence sake.
Pictures here of how Nad do it with the purify module. This is how I would want to do it if diy-ing.But it seems to be made to go right against the bottom of an enclosure. Are their some examples of designs that heat sink this module in a way that you would call proper?
www.audiosciencereview.com
That's what Ice Power describes:But it seems to be made to go right against the bottom of an enclosure. Are their some examples of designs that heat sink this module in a way that you would call proper?
Yes, and I'm an amateur. In this case it was in a guitar amp, but the manufacturer's implementation on their own board was close to IR's datasheet, and we've seen similar in active speaker teardowns. There was no OEM module.Has somebody already repaired a class D amp without changing the OEM module?
What needed to be fixed?Yes, and I'm an amateur. In this case it was in a guitar amp, but the manufacturer's implementation on their own board was close to IR's datasheet, and we've seen similar in active speaker teardowns. There was no OEM module.
A failed output transistor.What needed to be fixed?
That's a sorry sight. (The mechanical construction, that is.) I was about to pull the trigger on one of these NC252MP's but now I don't know... that's just sloppy! They clearly didn't have reliability as an important consideration when designing these. Makes one feel even less at ease about the capacitor brands they use as well. (And yes, I've repaired several of my own electronic thingys where electrolytic capacitors were the cause of the failure - ATX power supply, inverter etc.)Also, the board is clearly under a lot of strain (it bends) due to the screwing down of the PCB to the heat-spreader near the heat producing SMPS switchers:
That device was manufactured in 2019. They may well have improved the design since then. Probably worth contacting hypex to ask - I'd certainly be interested in the answer if you did.That's a sorry sight. (The mechanical construction, that is.) I was about to pull the trigger on one of these NC252MP's but now I don't know... that's just sloppy! They clearly didn't have reliability as an important consideration when designing these. Makes one feel even less at ease about the capacitor brands they use as well. (And yes, I've repaired several of my own electronic thingys where electrolytic capacitors were the cause of the failure - ATX power supply, inverter etc.)
Do you happen to have a picture of the entire bottom side of the PCB? I'm wondering if it's possible to DIY some better solution. Perhaps mounting the board upside-down and attaching heat spreaders or heat sinks with thermal adhesive? Or perhaps one could add some kind of clamp over the entire board to press down on the PCB to ease the strain...
Do you happen to have a picture of the entire bottom side of the PCB? I'm wondering if it's possible to DIY some better solution.