Opinions on Hypex Plate (FusionAMP) Amplifiers?

[MKW]

Hello, No this is not possible unfortunately. But if I understand correctly you need just a 2 way system for each speaker right? with 200W in 4 ohm + 60W in 8 ohm, right? then you just need the FA252 and your done. one in each speaker of course.

I think @peawolf is asking if FA-series can be mildly 'hacked' to split the DAC output to an additional amp (think adding wires to the DAC output plug that feed an additional Ncore module). I imagine this could theoretically be possible if the individual DAC outputs are capable of supporting the load of multiple parallel amps. While a pair of speakers powered in this fashion would share the same DSP filter settings, they won't be a 'stereo' pair. However, this could potentially be a solution for adding additional amplification - say you had a venue (bar, bowling alley, office, etc.) where same DSP filters throughout are appropriate. Another use case I can think of is, say your making a 3-way speaker using FA-123, but the speaker arrangement is WMTMW design (thinking Pure Audio Project) and you need additional 125w for second mid, and another 125w for second woofer - it would be very convenient (and cost-effective) to split the DAC output of channel 1&2 in the FA to another Ncore 2-channel for those additional drivers.

 

[Peafowl]

I think @peawolf is asking if FA-series can be mildly 'hacked' to split the DAC output to an additional amp (think adding wires to the DAC output plug that feed an additional Ncore module). I imagine this could theoretically be possible if the individual DAC outputs are capable of supporting the load of multiple parallel amps. While a pair of speakers powered in this fashion would share the same DSP filter settings, they won't be a 'stereo' pair. However, this could potentially be a solution for adding additional amplification - say you had a venue (bar, bowling alley, office, etc.) where same DSP filters throughout are appropriate. Another use case I can think of is, say your making a 3-way speaker using FA-123, but the speaker arrangement is WMTMW design (thinking Pure Audio Project) and you need additional 125w for second mid, and another 125w for second woofer - it would be very convenient (and cost-effective) to split the DAC output of channel 1&2 in the FA to another Ncore 2-channel for those additional drivers.

Yes that was my theorie. I don´t know if the DSP care if it is feeding the 100W HT board on the FA-123 or an MP252 next to bridged mono.
At the end there are 3 channels, but it doesn't matter for the 2 HT or 4 TMT its all mono.

I can try because this Parts are next to me on my work bench and i dont have to order 2x new FA-252 for the Projekt.

 

[McFly]

No plans for these kind of implementations. sorry.

#nomoreAVRs

 

[MKW]

Yes that was my theorie. I don´t know if the DSP care if it is feeding the 100W HT board on the FA-123 or an MP252 next to bridged mono.
At the end there are 3 channels, but it doesn't matter for the 2 HT or 4 TMT its all mono.

I can try because this Parts are next to me on my work bench and i dont have to order 2x new FA-252 for the Projekt.

What needs to be tapped is the DAC output. The DAC in Hypex FA-123 is AKM AK4454.
Side note, this DAC is actually 4-channels capable, and FA-123 only uses 3 of those outputs. HFD also only supports 3 channels (near as I can tell).
AK4454 specs say each of those (4 output channels) deliver 2.8-volts, min AC load resistance = 2k-Ohm, min DC load resistance = 3.5k-Ohm, 30pF max capacitance and "capacitive load must be minimized because it affects analog characteristics".
So you'll need to find the capacitive load of Hypex amp module to see if the AK4454 can support two of them in parallel on each channel.
Interested to know if this is possible... for my next open-baffle WMTMW dyi project. A pair of FA-253 rest idle, dreaming of their first home.

 

[Hypexsales]

OK, now I understand your intention. Of course you could hook up any other amp instead of the NC100HF or even in parallel. In theory this should not be a big issue. Gain settings could be off a bit. I am not sure. Basic fact is that we cannot support such setups and therefor cannot give warranty.

The DAC outputs 3 and 4 are set in parallel for the tweeter channel to get better performance. So we do use all 4 outputs but only for a 3 way setup indeed.

 

[MKW]

Using dual DAC outputs (3 and 4) for the tweeter is brilliant - so it has higher output (2.8v + 2.8v), -or- for sound quality (averaging modulator & noise filtering)? I recall that the tweeter amp output was increased by firmware update some time ago, so suspecting this was achieved by the double DAC chip hardware connection that already existed.
Good information, thank you!

 

[MisterOZ]

Hi,

maybe someone can help me: I have two FA253 for the main speakers and one FA501 for the sub. Are there any disadvantages to use the analog XLR through-output of each 253 with a xlr-to-rca cable to connect to the 501 rca stereo input? At the moment I use a DAC with both rca and xlr outputs active to feed 501 and 253, but I want to use a different dac which only has xlr output.

Any help is appreciated…

 

[YSDR]

Are there any disadvantages to use the analog XLR through-output of each 253 with a xlr-to-rca cable to connect to the 501 rca stereo input?

I think it would be better to use a regular XLR-to-XLR cable.

Correct way to connect an nCore XLR amp to an RCA source

Hello, I am wondering if there is a safe way to do this, since most solutions I have found on the internet are about the connection of the xlr terminals to the internals of the amp, or something. I want to connect the nc400 to an old unbalanced tube pre amp. Will something like this be ok...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[voodooless]

but I want to use a different dac which only has xlr output.

Why have a DAC at all? The things already contain DACs.. why not use the AES through?

 

[YSDR]

Why have a DAC at all? The things already contain DACs.. why not use the AES through?

Because single channel FAs (like the questioner's FA501) don't have digital inputs?

 

[voodooless]

Because single channel FAs (like the questioner's FA501) don't have digital inputs?

Ah, the connect the fa253s via AES, and the 501 via XLR. You should be able to use all the same cables if you select the right one. I’d still ditch the external DAC.

 

[YSDR]

Ah, the connect the fa253s via AES, and the 501 via XLR. You should be able to use all the same cables if you select the right one. I’d still ditch the external DAC.

Then a source device with both AES and analogue XLR output and volume control for both outputs at the same time is required because FAs don't have analogue through from digital input (and vice versa) and remote control via analogue connections. I don't think there are many devices like this, only the miniDSP SHD comes to my mind (but SPDIF output only).
I agree, a full digital connection would be better, but then a multi-channel FA (like FA252, FA502) is required for the FA253 as companion.

 

[voodooless]

Then a source device with both AES and analogue XLR output and volume control for both outputs at the same time is required because FAs don't have analogue through from digital input (and vice versa) and remote control via analogue connections. I don't think there are many devices like this, only the miniDSP SHD comes to my mind (but SPDIF output only).
I agree, a full digital connection would be better, but then a multi-channel FA (like FA252, FA502) is required for the FA253 as companion.

Ah, I forgot about that. The FA252 would be a better choice then instead of the 501. It’s more expensive, but you don’t need a DAC.

 

[MisterOZ]

Thank you very much for your answers!

First: At the moment I use the DAC (topping d70s) for all 3 FAs (xlr and rca analog simultaneously). I experimented a lot to feed the 253s with digital AES or SPDIF directly from my streamer, but to my ears and in my current setup it sounds better when connected analog via DAC - and I want to be open to tryout other gear. When connected digital, I use the DAC between the second 253 (aes through) and the mono 501 (rca analog), which works perfect.

But back to my initial question: I understand, converting from xlr to rca with just a cable could lead to problems with the levels and can cause hum, right? Are there any magic boxes on the market, which will avoid that?

Just a xlr cable from the second 253 to the 501 works, but it is only the right (or left) channel then, not the mono sum. Any ideas here? Something like a passive preamp with mono sub out?

 

[MisterOZ]

What do you think of this? Would that avoid hum and ground issues or is it just „a wire in the box“?

Swissonic M-Control

Passive Monitor Controller Robust, metal housing, 2 Combination inputs jack / XLR, 1 Input 3.5 mm stereo jack, 2 Outputs XLR male, 1 Output 3.5 mm stereo jack, Switchable mute, Switchable mono sum, Dimensions (W x D x H): 162 x 98 x 54 mm, Weight:...

www.thomann.de

Or this?

Behringer Monitor1

Passive Monitor Controller 2x Jack / XLR combination input, 1x 3.5 mm stereo mini-left input, 2x XLR male output, 1x 3.5 mm stereo mini-left output, Switchable mute, Switchable mono-summing, Metal housing

www.thomann.de

the t.mix Volume 1

Passive volume controller for monitors Desktop format, Enables precise volume control of analog signals, Inputs: 2 x Jack / XLR combo, 1 x 3.5 mm stereo jack, Outputs: 2 x 6.3 mm Balanced jack, 1 x 3.5 mm stereo jack, Switchable mute, Switchable...

www.thomann.de

All seem to be nearly the same?
I would only need a 3,5mm jack to rca cable.
Or even better: use the mono switch and just one xlr cable to the 501. should work, right?

 

[YSDR]

Ohh, so you have only one piece of FA501. The linked mono-summing devices would probably works. But how much easier would be with dgital connections, when you just need to select Left, Right, or Left+Right in the software?!
I know it's not appropriate to argue about taste, but the sound is probably more colored, distorted and noisier (so objectively less fidelity) through an external DAC, compared to if you send the digital signal directly to the FAs.

 

[MisterOZ]

Yes it would be easier, but connected digital it sounds a bit raw and rough to me. With the DAC it is fine and neat, with a better resolution and seems more organized.

I‘m not sure this means less fidelity or not - the AD-DA process in the hypex was often described as fully transparent, so, as far as I understand, it also makes sense to feed the system with a perfect analog signal from a highes DAC to gain best quality and let the internal sound processing work at its sweet spot without resampling. In digital, everything is converted to odd 93,75 kHz in the hypex, even highres files, which seems also not perfect to me.

I listened to a lot devices with or without DAC (BS Node, NAD C658, ifi zen stream, minidsp shd and flex, RME ADI2-DAC, raspberry Pi) in my home and I always stick with a DAC before the fusion amps. But this is a different discussion.

Thanks for your help, I will try the xlr mono device.

 

[Hypexsales]

Yes it would be easier, but connected digital it sounds a bit raw and rough to me. With the DAC it is fine and neat, with a better resolution and seems more organized.

I‘m not sure this means less fidelity or not - the AD-DA process in the hypex was often described as fully transparent, so, as far as I understand, it also makes sense to feed the system with a perfect analog signal from a highes DAC to gain best quality and let the internal sound processing work at its sweet spot without resampling. In digital, everything is converted to odd 93,75 kHz in the hypex, even highres files, which seems also not perfect to me.

I listened to a lot devices with or without DAC (BS Node, NAD C658, ifi zen stream, minidsp shd and flex, RME ADI2-DAC, raspberry Pi) in my home and I always stick with a DAC before the fusion amps. But this is a different discussion.

Thanks for your help, I will try the xlr mono device.

Please be reminded that the signals all go thru the DAC onboard of the FusionAmps. so analogue signals coming in go thru the ADC and into the DSP. digital signals go directly into the DSP (with just the samplerate conversion in between). the output of the DSP go thru the DAC before going to the amps.

So using an additional seperate DAC in front will result in additional conversions. You will not replace the DA conversion in the FusionAmps.

 

[MisterOZ]

I’m aware of that, but thank you to chime in.

What would you as the manufacturer say: Is the odd samplerate conversion less lossless than feed your amps with a perfect DACed 192/24 hires song analog?

And by the way: I found another device for the mono sum, with switchable ground lift and 180 phase shift. Do you think it will work the same with the cheaper solutions above or should I try this one:

Radial Engineering MIX2:1

Radial Engineering MIX2:1, Passiver Mixer, symmetrisch, 2 In, 1 Out, Frequenzgang 20 Hz - 20 kHz, 133 dB, Eingangsimpedanz 8 kOhm, Ausgangsimpedanz 1 kOhm, 180° Polarity Reverse, Ground Lift, Level Control, Eingänge 6,35 Klinke, XLR, Ausgänge XLR,...

www.thomann.de

 

[YSDR]

Is the odd samplerate conversion less lossless than feed your amps with a perfect DACed 192/24 hires song analog?

Interesting question, that came to my head too. Some acquaintance of mine who heard my system are divided into two sections, who liked the digital and who liked the analogue input (feeded from an external DAC) signal path, the digital connection is liked by more (including me). The odd (re)sampling are unavoidable, because the ADC works at that 93.75kHz too. I still think the digital connection is objectively better (and I assume Hypex thinks that too, just check the FA specs in the manual).
Anyway, I am curious what the manufacturer's standpoint about that, but I doubt they will provide a subjective ranking about analogue vs digital input.