Hypex Nilai500DIY Amplifier Review

[Rob Fens]

It is subjective and limited, since i will write down only my conclusions so far and not mention the cd (un-compressed copies played from hs-ssd) which were being used.
There is a summary of the things which were very clear at a first listen and i kept these during the listening session, if my feeling changed, they are not in this summary.
Some words about the UCD i have been using for about 12 years, until switching to the Nilai: It has a linear psu with a 12 kilo toroid and 4*60.000 uF industrial grade Rifa caps.
The Nilai vs the UCD-HG-HXR, i did not do an AB comparison, but compared the Nilai with my UCD experience of thousands of hours listening to it:
1 It sounds good right after switching on, where the UCD needs at least 3/4 of an hour to reach a good sound.
2 I feel the soundstage is a little smaller, but more precise and still impressive, with the UCD it is way bigger than the wall behind the speakers, but more impressive.
3 Loudspeakers totally disappear. I listen with eyes closed, but when i open them i am surprised to see there are loudspeakers.
4 There is no any disturbing noise, immediately i got the feeling that "everything is in balance/ sounds right", i will come back on that, regarding loudness.
5 Details are very clear, from bass to treble and there is no need to play loud, it can be done and is a matter of self-discipline.
6 Since details are clear, it is also easier to hear a mixing fault in the studio, or overdone editing. Even can hear that a singer changed microphone (different color sound).
7 Since it sounds so clean, it is easy to play loud, if it stays clean within the limitations of the software/ cd.
8 When playing loud, because of the dynamic range, the loud passages can become irritating especially with pop music, it can overload the ears. Pay attention to this. (see 4).
i guess it is always a danger with audiophile powerful amplifiers, therefore the need for self-discipline.
9 If paying attention to the dynamic range, it will sound civilised yet spectacular (played loud, Rudy on Crime of the century on the Supertramp CD sounds horrible, but from a demo CD it sounds impressive and clean- probably they applied some compression on that disc).
10 Bass goes deeper than with UCD, i don't understand since the FR of all modern amps look like a ruler, but the Bass of Nilai is super controlled, deep and awsome.
It is civilised, but can also growl like a tiger. Even the standing waves in the room seem controlled, which i guess is impossible.
11 Finish of the supplied parts is very good, with a perfect fit. I do not understand why some people complain about the looks of face plate, you really have to study it to find a hint about DIY. What i like to remark, is that the power switch at the front is very tiny and you have to "search/ feel" to find the location, since i expected it in the center, it takes a second only to find it and it looks civilised.

I hope it is of any help,
Rob.

 

[Hasse B]

It is subjective and limited, since i will write down only my conclusions so far and not mention the cd (un-compressed copies played from hs-ssd) which were being used.
There is a summary of the things which were very clear at a first listen and i kept these during the listening session, if my feeling changed, they are not in this summary.
Some words about the UCD i have been using for about 12 years, until switching to the Nilai: It has a linear psu with a 12 kilo toroid and 4*60.000 uF industrial grade Rifa caps.
The Nilai vs the UCD-HG-HXR, i did not do an AB comparison, but compared the Nilai with my UCD experience of thousands of hours listening to it:
1 It sounds good right after switching on, where the UCD needs at least 3/4 of an hour to reach a good sound.
2 I feel the soundstage is a little smaller, but more precise and still impressive, with the UCD it is way bigger than the wall behind the speakers, but more impressive.
3 Loudspeakers totally disappear. I listen with eyes closed, but when i open them i am surprised to see there are loudspeakers.
4 There is no any disturbing noise, immediately i got the feeling that "everything is in balance/ sounds right", i will come back on that, regarding loudness.
5 Details are very clear, from bass to treble and there is no need to play loud, it can be done and is a matter of self-discipline.
6 Since details are clear, it is also easier to hear a mixing fault in the studio, or overdone editing. Even can hear that a singer changed microphone (different color sound).
7 Since it sounds so clean, it is easy to play loud, if it stays clean within the limitations of the software/ cd.
8 When playing loud, because of the dynamic range, the loud passages can become irritating especially with pop music, it can overload the ears. Pay attention to this. (see 4).
i guess it is always a danger with audiophile powerful amplifiers, therefore the need for self-discipline.
9 If paying attention to the dynamic range, it will sound civilised yet spectacular (played loud, Rudy on Crime of the century on the Supertramp CD sounds horrible, but from a demo CD it sounds impressive and clean- probably they applied some compression on that disc).
10 Bass goes deeper than with UCD, i don't understand since the FR of all modern amps look like a ruler, but the Bass of Nilai is super controlled, deep and awsome.
It is civilised, but can also growl like a tiger. Even the standing waves in the room seem controlled, which i guess is impossible.
11 Finish of the supplied parts is very good, with a perfect fit. I do not understand why some people complain about the looks of face plate, you really have to study it to find a hint about DIY. What i like to remark, is that the power switch at the front is very tiny and you have to "search/ feel" to find the location, since i expected it in the center, it takes a second only to find it and it looks civilised.

I hope it is of any help,
Rob.

Thanks Rob!
It was such experiences that I wanted to read about where you also compared with your previous amplifier

 

[Julf]

How long have you had your Hypex Nilai?

I only had the modules for a couple of days for evaluation.

 

[Julf]

It does seem ASR (where the S stands for Science) is drifting towards becoming yet another typical subjective/perception/taste/belief-based audio forum. A shame.

 

[fpitas]

It does seem ASR (where the S stands for Science) is drifting towards becoming yet another typical subjective/perception/taste/belief-based audio forum. A shame.

For every one of us who demand measurements, there are 1000s that just want someone to tell them what to hear.

 

[Hasse B]

For every one of us who demand measurements, there are 1000s that just want someone to tell them what to hear.

That's exactly what I think too! Some fixate on measurement curves and others listen with their ears.

 

[fpitas]

That's exactly what I think too! Some fixate on measurement curves and others listen with their ears.

Since I only listen to test tones into a dummy load though, I'm fine!

 

[Julf]

For every one of us who demand measurements, there are 1000s that just want someone to tell them what to hear.

That's why there are 1000s of non-science based audiophile forums for them.

 

[fpitas]

That's why there are 1000s of non-science based audiophile forums for them.

Sometimes they want to slum though, and come hang with the deaf boffins

 

[Julf]

That's exactly what I think too! Some fixate on measurement curves and others listen with their ears.

Very few listen with just their ears (as that requires proper double blind tests). Most listen with their eyes, prejudices and beliefs.

 

[Julf]

Since I only listen to test tones into a dummy load though, I'm fine!

That is the only way I listen to test tones too. For music, I tend to use my ears.

 

[Matias]

That's exactly what I think too! Some fixate on measurement curves and others listen with their ears.

Sorry, I think you are in the wrong forum for that. Plenty of others out there for that.

 

[Killingbeans]

That's exactly what I think too! Some fixate on measurement curves and others listen with their ears.

Why are those two the only options?

IMO, the real fun begins when you look at the correlations between the two. When there are some present, you can try to establish actual causality. Or if there are none to be found, you can investigate the probability of cognitive bias being at play. In the end it lets you make effective and informed decisions.

Or you can simply enjoy the emotional rollercoaster ride you get from letting every part of you physiology contribute to the impression of an auditory experience without questioning any of it. Lump it all together under the headline "ears". That seems to be the default in this hobby...

Ears can be very good measuring instruments when subjected to vigorous controls, but the audiophile definition of "critical listening" is usually the complete opposite of that, making the results extremely unreliable.

There's no need to fixate on anything.

In the end it's just a question of whether you want to know what's really going on, or whether you don't care as long as the effect is enjoyable.

 

[tmtomh]

That's exactly what I think too! Some fixate on measurement curves and others listen with their ears.

I'd suggest you re-read @fpitas ' comment that you were responding to here. Fpitas wrote:

"For every one of us who demand measurements, there are 1000s that just want someone to tell them what to hear."

That doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

 

[SIY]

That's exactly what I think too! Some fixate on measurement curves and others listen with their ears.

Listening with your ears requires basic controls. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a transparent amplifier will have any "sound" or sound any different than any other transparent amplifier.

If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please fill us in.

 

[Rob Fens]

Of course i respect the philosophy behind this forum, i hope the goal here is to get an understanding about matters which is based on knowledge and reason.
But that is hard with such a big subjective component, where experience is the most important. Whereas in science it is not experience, but registration and analyses.
My guess; based on what opponents of the subjective preach, this base is very narrow and illusive (and that's not scientific). There should be any space for the subjective.
So, based on the Scientific group's comments the following is true, which i can not believe;
If a person with the scientific approach purchases an amplifier, it will purely be based on scientific measurements, no matter if he likes or dislikes what he hears or even sees, because that's also subjective.

Do not forget the one does not work without the other, see the Deming circle, where there are the phases for pure reason, but also a phase for checking and possible correction.
This last phase is closest to the subjective part, which in this case is auditioning.

Example: my post in this thread #561: "Even the standing waves in the room seem controlled, which i guess is impossible", i agree it is very subjective, it does not say "this amp solves your room problems", it says "i hear something i cannot believe", is there anybody with a reasonable explanation?, and there comes the science....
The objective and subjective should support each other. I think Killingbeans is getting it right.

 

[Julf]

If a person with the scientific approach purchases an amplifier, it will purely be based on scientific measurements, no matter if he likes or dislikes what he hears or even sees, because that's also subjective.

Of course many of us buy stuff based on likes, preferences, feelings and subjective perceptions - but knowingly. We wouldn't claim they are based on any verifiable, factual reasons beyond subjective preference. Out of two same-sounding, sonically neutral amplifiers I might prefer one based on brand, looks and expectations - but I would not claim it is "better" or that there is catually a difference, unless I can verify it. And I might buy an amp with horrible specs and lots of distortion and coloration purely because of subjectivbe preference - but again, I would not claim it "better" in any general, objective sense.

 

[SIY]

Of course i respect the philosophy behind this forum, i hope the goal here is to get an understanding about matters which is based on knowledge and reason.
But that is hard with such a big subjective component, where experience is the most important. Whereas in science it is not experience, but registration and analyses.
My guess; based on what opponents of the subjective preach, this base is very narrow and illusive (and that's not scientific). There should be any space for the subjective.
So, based on the Scientific group's comments the following is true, which i can not believe;
If a person with the scientific approach purchases an amplifier, it will purely be based on scientific measurements, no matter if he likes or dislikes what he hears or even sees, because that's also subjective.

Do not forget the one does not work without the other, see the Deming circle, where there are the phases for pure reason, but also a phase for checking and possible correction.
This last phase is closest to the subjective part, which in this case is auditioning.

Example: my post in this thread #561: "Even the standing waves in the room seem controlled, which i guess is impossible", i agree it is very subjective, it does not say "this amp solves your room problems", it says "i hear something i cannot believe", is there anybody with a reasonable explanation?, and there comes the science....
The objective and subjective should support each other. I think Killingbeans is getting it right.

Don't conflate "subjective" with "uncontrolled." If one puts controls in and hears a difference without peeking, that's a valid data point, arrived at through subjective judgement.

I can't speak for all scientists, but this scientist realizes that competent electronics sound identical unless you peek, so makes purchase decisions based on features, appearance, manufacturer reputation for reliability, power, and price without pretending that there's some ineffable sonic qualities involved. All subjective, of course, but without playing make-believe about the sonics.

 

[tmtomh]

Of course i respect the philosophy behind this forum, i hope the goal here is to get an understanding about matters which is based on knowledge and reason.
But that is hard with such a big subjective component, where experience is the most important. Whereas in science it is not experience, but registration and analyses.
My guess; based on what opponents of the subjective preach, this base is very narrow and illusive (and that's not scientific). There should be any space for the subjective.
So, based on the Scientific group's comments the following is true, which i can not believe;
If a person with the scientific approach purchases an amplifier, it will purely be based on scientific measurements, no matter if he likes or dislikes what he hears or even sees, because that's also subjective.

Do not forget the one does not work without the other, see the Deming circle, where there are the phases for pure reason, but also a phase for checking and possible correction.
This last phase is closest to the subjective part, which in this case is auditioning.

Example: my post in this thread #561: "Even the standing waves in the room seem controlled, which i guess is impossible", i agree it is very subjective, it does not say "this amp solves your room problems", it says "i hear something i cannot believe", is there anybody with a reasonable explanation?, and there comes the science....
The objective and subjective should support each other. I think Killingbeans is getting it right.

I understand what you are saying, and I think there's some real validity to your perspective here, but I would also express caution based on the important point @SIY makes in the comment just above mine. Subjective, blind listening can be very instructive. And I would say even sighted listening can potentially be instructive, as per your example: if you hear a difference between two amps in your room, then it's reasonable to ask if there could be a scientific explanation for why one amp seems to sound different.

Where the trouble comes in is here: what are the plausible scientific explanations, to what extent can we test them, what beliefs do we have about which of those explanations is more likely - and what is the basis of those beliefs?

To put it more simply, and more bluntly, here are three plausible explanations that come to mind if the sound from the same speakers in the same room seems to have fewer standing-wave/resonance issues with one amp than with another:

1. One amp has a higher damping factor or some other similar performance difference that impacts the amp's ability to control the speakers' woofers;
2. The two amps have different power levels (or, a separate but crucial issue, different levels of gain), and you are not listening to them at the same volume level (even if it seems just by ear that they're at about the same volume);
3. You have a mental/auditory impression that one amp produces more "controlled" output than the other and you have not done a proper blind test, and if you did a proper blind test you would find that you did not in fact have the ability to consistently identify which amp was playing.

One way of describing the more subtle reality behind the so-called "objectivist-subjectivist" disagreement is to say that some folks ("subjectivists") tend to assume that if they hear a difference in sighted listening, there must be a basis in the equipment for what they hear - and if that basis cannot be found through measurements, then there must be some quality of the equipment that measurements cannot capture - either the measurements we have/use as of today, or else any measurements we could ever possibly think of and run.

In this view, option 3 - you have a mental/perceptual impression based on humans' poor short-term auditory memory - is ruled out from the beginning. And option 2 is often discounted as well because the person insists that they can match volumes close enough by ear that volume difference can't be the issue (or that they tinkered with the volume levels and still couldn't get the amps to sound the same).

By contrast, other folks ('objectivists") do not rule out the possibility of option 3, and they generally will consider option 2 to also be more possible than "subjectivists" will.

These "objectivist" folks are in principle open to something like option 1 (in this example) - but if they have sufficient knowledge they will rule out option 1 if the amps have different damping factors but even the lower one is still plenty to control a speaker.

Finally, I should probably also note that some subjectivists - and certainly many high-end manufacturers - often propose other kinds of options: "the better amp uses oxygen-free wire"; "the better amp has a linear power supply"; "the better amp uses specially sourced silk capacitors, discrete components instead of op amps, and is hand-wired in [European country]." These kinds of options are generally rejected by so-called objectivists because plentiful existing measurements plus the laws of physics show that these options are improbable explanations, to put it politely.

 

[Matias]

To me sometimes subjetive observations can be thought out by the reverse of what we hear.

Example: "I switched to amp B and the bass was stronger". Assuming the same volume, could very well be "when playing amp A it generates so much more distortion, which are harmonics of the main tones, higher in frequency and when all added up, generate more power in higher frequencies, so that original bass tone was less perceived by me, relatively".

But this is waaay off topic from the actual Nilai500 review thread.