Merrill Audio VERITAS Amps: Any other experiances?

Guido,

Yes, I meant your new Rowland 925 mono/4pc amps. My mistake.

Thanks,
Tim

Thank you Tim, you probably meant the Rowland M925 monoblock amp, which is my new reference amplifier... I have not written much at all about the M825 stereo yet... As I do not have that device in my system at this time, and will not be hearing it until RMAF 2013, where -- per the latest RMAF 2013 downloadable database at:

http://audiofest.net/new/americas-audio-show/export-rmaf-products-list/

it may grace the Joseph Audio suite. Until then, I will limit my comments on M825 based on what I can derive from published specs, and a very few facts that have been communicated to me by the factory... And just occasional personal flights of audiophilic fancy *grins!*

Saluti e buone cose, G.

Saluti, G.

Guido,

Just to be clear, I was mostly commenting on your review of your Rowland 825 monoblocks on a separate thread but your Veritas review was also very good.

Thanks,
Tim

Thank you Tim, if I have the opportunity of reviewing more amps, I will probably use a similar format... With the listening finding outlining the break-in progress until the device appears to have stabilized... I am concerned that more often than not, equipment is evaluated with a premature snapshot of its evolution, or within too narrow a time window, yielding an incomplete view of its real performance potential.

G.

Guido,

I would just like to chime in, as several others already have, and congatulate and thank you for your series of well written and articulate posts that formed, when taken as a whole, an excellent review of your very nice amps. I found it very interesting and informative on how your impressions of their performance changed as they broke in.
Thanks again,
Tim

Hi APDOC, my absolute reference amplifier is the new Rowland M925 4-chassi monoblock. See:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1369518273&openmine&zzGuidocorona&4&5#Guidocorona

Concerning class A/B Rowland M625 300W stereo and Veritas 400W monos.... My M625 was a very early unit that lacked the benefits of some key circuit enhancements derived from M725, which JRDG incorporated in later M625 production units.

Predictably, Veritas monos with their higher power delivery excell in authority, size of both sound stage and instrumental images. Both amps are excellent at controlling difficult to handle treble "jaggies" in complex sostenuto passages and coherence of bass, but in this arena Veritas was superior to my early M625 unit.

My friend asked me if I could bring my pair of Veritas amps over to his house so he could listen to them again. He really likes them but wanted to have a friend of his who is an award winning recording engineer hear them in his system against his current amps. Said amps are tube based and highly regarded.

To make a long story short, "Mikey likes it". No he really, really liked the sound of the system with the Veritas in it.

Now my friend plans on getting a pair of Veritas. Go figure?!

Guido, how you doin, as they say here in some parts of Jersey.

GREAT review and it was worth the long wait. I see the attacks have started. You handle them well.

Hi Guidocorona,
Please accept my congratulations on a beautifully written review. How does the Merrill sound differ from your long term favorites--the Rowland 725/625 amps?
Thanks!

Jtwrace, my apologies for any unintended humor...

Yes, I remember well what things sounded like in the past.

However, to assist my memory which is still short of perfect, I track equipment breakin in spreadsheets, where I write listening notes which get associated automatically with dates and hours of operations. Hence my reference to particular milestones in the article.

What a joke. You think you can actually remember what something sounded like 1000 hrs ago?

All, my review and findings of the Merrill Veritas monoblocks has been just posted to Positive Feedback on issue No. 68:

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue68/merrill_audio.htm

Once the amps were properly broken in with 1,000 hours of active operations, I did not detect any musical bandwidth limitations, nor any stereotypical class D artifacts with Veritas... Only sheer music.

G.

Hifial,

Thanks for all the good advice. I'll try to follow all of it. You've been a big help.

Thanks,
Tim

Ufolilerz, I agree with Guidocorona about giving them enough time to break-in. Also always leave them on not in standby. Standby will make have to wait several hours for them to sound great again.

By the way, what feet did you get. Ultra Mini Stillpoints?

I have tried the MIG by Synergistic Research and the Mini and Ultra SS by Stillpoints. All were very good but the Mini were a worthwhile improvement over the MIG. For the hell of it I tried the SS and was surprised of the improvement over the Mini. Not small at all. So now my Veritas all have the Ultra SS. I recommend the SS otherwise go with the MIni. you will not regret it.

Looking foreword to you listening impressions.

Ufokillerz, unless your new Veritas are completely broken-in, be patient with them.... Estimate approximately 800 hours of making music for them to perform optimally. G.

got a set of Veritas on saturday, will probably do some a/b testing vs my DIY NC400 soon, they are serving different purposes in my setup, planning to run my NC400 for home theater, and veritas for my 2 channel setup.

Noble100, Good luck and enjoy. Just make sure you layout the modules correctly, twist the wiring were needed, do not cross certain wire over the modules and point the contact wires/spades on the screws in the same direction on the amp modules.

I know it is long but the DIY site has photos, just make sure it was one of the correctly done ones and not one that is done "good enough" as far as wiring and layout. Also audio circle.

PS If possible look for a enclosure that gives you the best of layouts even if it means a larger chassis.

"PS Just incase you did not know and it could make a difference, Merrill Audio has a trade up program and I have heard it has helped others. Otherwise go with the above."
Hifial (Threads | Answers | This Thread)

Hifial,
If Merrill really wanted to help me out with their trade up program, they would accept my mother inlaw.

If I still had the discretionary income I had when I was working, I would probably go with the Merrill Veritas monoblocs or something similar.

But,if I go with the Hypex NC400 modules in kit form,
I'll follow your advice and do it right : Litz cabling, quality binding posts, solid chassis with Stillpoints Mini isolation.

Thanks,
Tim

Tim, No Problem. Trust me, go with the NC400 but DO IT RIGHT!

If you have any questions PM.

PS Just encase you did not know and it could make a difference, Merrill Audio has a trade up program and I have heard it has helped others. Otherwise go with the above.

Hi Al,

Thanks for the info. I would love to use the NC1200 modules in my possible amp build (but I know they're only available in finished amps that are beyond my budget) so I'll probably use the NC400 modules or some other class D modules. Or I could write a string of conspiracy novels in order to afford the better nc1200 based amps. We all know I have the aptitude to be successful at it.

I live in Indiana so I won't be able to hear the Veritas but would love to.

Thanks for being so understanding of my temporary insanity. I now know you have no affiliation with Hypex or Merrill; I mistakenly thought Jan Peter wrote one of your posts which I later found out was just a quoting of one of his emails that you included in one of your posts.

Thanks again,
Tim

Noble100 AKA Tim

I must say you should write conspiracy novels. If memory serves me I stated I have NO affiliation with Hypex or Merrill Audio.

My passion is from hearing a product that I think is ground breaking. I also mentioned not only my experience but that of others that I know from Audio Clubs I belong to in the NJ/NY area.

I have heard both the DIY Hypex NC400 and the OEM Hypex NC1200. As good as the NC400 is the NC1200 is in another league. That is not just my opinion. A well known cable designer compared his modified NC400 to the Veritas and was surprised how much better the NC1200 was.

If you try and build the NC400 and are looking to maximize the potential of the amp use a solid chassis, Litz cabling, quality binding posts, fuses and anti vibration (think Stillpoints Ultra Mini). Unless you have heard the Mods do not comment.

But if you have the system that can take advantage of the NC1200 and can afford the cost you owe yourself a listen to the Veritas amps.

PS If you live near NYC the Veritas is at the NY Audio Show http://www.newyork-audioshow.com/ in April. They are in two rooms, one with Sanders Sound Speakers and one with Raidho speakers.

Hi Guido,

Thanks for the info. I've been reading the forums on Audiocircle and that's where I got the idea to build my own monoblocs. With things happening so quickly with class D, I'm a little concerned that my monoblocs may be obsolete by the time I complete them. But I could always use them somewhere.

Thanks for being cool about my ramblings,
Tim

Hi Tim, no worries!

In case you have not discovered it yet, there is a thriving community of Ncore NC400 DIYs crossing their intellectual antlers at:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?board=197.0

You will find the original post by Mr. Jan-Peter van Amerongen quoted by Hifial at:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendors-bazaar/190434-hypex-ncore-621.html#post3344017

G.

Hi Guido,

I'm just an audiofool, myself. One who, obviously, has too much time on my hands since retiring ( former distribution operations manager).

I also am very excited about the potential of the new various class D amplifiers/technologies and have been following developments closely. I'm a Class D Audio SDS440SC owner and love this amp. I'm also thinking of trying my hand at building a pair of Hypex momoblocs with NC400 amp modules, figuring this will save me about $8-10k, with the finished monos that use the top of the line Hypex modules costing so much. I'll post my impressions if I do build these. I would also love to see a review comparing the various class D amps to each other as well as to some top class A, A/B and tube amps.

I apologize for letting my imagination run wild. I now understand that this thread was just fellow audiofools being passionate about their viewpoints, not high-end company bigwigs discussing industry happenings under cover of psuedo-usernames.

In my defense, however, you 3 are so involved and passionate in your opinions/brand biases, that I think you all may have unwittingly taken on the personas of your favorite companies' owners. Kind of like very committed actors being devoted to their roles.
I also falsely assumed Hifial was Jan-Peter of Hypex because he included a quote from Hypex in one of his posts that was signed by Jan Peter at the end.

I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. But, I sure took this thread and embellished the f*&!ck out of it. I'm so glad that my post will provide so many hours of amusement for you guys.

No charge and have fun.
Thanks,
Tim

Thank you Noble100 for adding to the Ncore lore... I was not aware that Mr. Putsey's was born in Poland at all.

Your conjectures are fascinating... Never the less, I never heard of any corporate dispute between Hypex and Philips, past, present, or impending. AudioZen, Hifial, and I are purely bonified audiofools. We are not proxies for any particular companies in this discussion, nor our monikers mask some high ranking identities in the world of High End audio. Our obvious passion derives from personal experiences, philosophical preferences, and some differing results when trying to root out extremely scattered information from the internet. On more than one occasion, we pick up the phone, and talk to some manufacturers directly, although up to now we seem to have limited ourselves to the Western side of the Atlantic. My own particular audiophilic specialty is recent Rowland lore.

I own a Rowland Criterion preamplifier and a pair of Rowland monoblocks, and am extremely fond of them. prior to M725 class A/B, the Rowland M312 ICEpower 1000ASP stereo was my amp reference.

I am intrigued by the apparently inherent musical potential of the new generation of class D modules from Pascal, Abletech, and Hypex... There exists already anecdotal reports of desirable performance in earlybird instantiations of amps based on some of these modules. I am looking forward to testing some of these amps in my own system, and to verify the soundness (or foolishness) of my hunches.

As for my origins and whereabouts... Yes, you are correct, I was born and grew up in Milano (Italy), lived in Toronto for two decades, and am currently living in Austin (TX). I now work for AT&T after almost 27 years with IBM. I am a contributing reviewer to PFO.

My scribblings on the intellectual property of Ncore are purely based on my own helter-skelter research on mostly secondary and tertiary internet sources. I claim no current inside knowledge from Philips or Hypex.

Note: Although there exist four IBM patents with my name on them in one way or another, I am neither a lawyer, nor am I an intellectual property professional.

Guido

Very intriging. I started reading this thread to learn more about the Merril Veritas class D monoblocs.

However, this thread quickly evolved(devolved?) into a discussion of ownership rights to various class D technologies, patent and trademark ownership in both Europe and the U.S. and other undisclosed matters.

It's obvious that 'Audiozen' has a different viewpoint than 'Hifial' and 'Guidocorona'. Hifial and Guidocorona, on one side, are arguing that Hypex owns "hypex"and "ncore" technologies and trademarks but not the Ucd technology and trademark, conceding that Phillips owns these since Bruno Putskeys invented this while employed by Phillips. Audiozen, on the other side, agrees that Phillips owns the UcD rights but implies that the "ncore" rights may belong to Phillips, since he claims the "ncore" name and technology may have begun developement under Bruno while he was still employed by Phillips.

It seems like each side is trying to establish timelines for either current or future legal disputes regarding 'hypex" and "ncore" ownership rights. Does anyone know if Hypex and Phillips are engaged in a legal dispute or potential future litigation? Or is this just a public spat between rival class D companies?

I find this very interesting but I have no stake in this game/dispute. In trying to understand the hidden agendas displayed in their respective thread postings above.
It appears to me that:

1. Hifial is definitely Jean-Peter van Amerongen, CEO and owner of Hypex Electronics in The Netherlands. His position in this dispute is clearly backing Hypex's interests which is completely understandable.
2. Guidocorona is an Italian named Guido ? that appears to work for, or with, Hypex. I'm not sure what his employment position is but he is clearly in support of Hypex's interests.
3. Audiozen, I currently think either works for or represents the interests of Phillips but I'm not certain. He seems intent on trying to muddy the waters in regards to when Bruno Putzkeys began work on the "ncore" technology. He also seems to have an undisclosed agenda but he may just be a rival razzing a competitor and spreading misinformation.
4. Bruno Putzkeys is a Polish born amplifier engineer and designer whom both sides refer to often in their thread posts. He worked for Phillips in The Netherlands when he invented the UcD (Universal class D) technology and modules that utilized PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) which marked the birth of class D amplification. Sometime in 2005, Bruno left Phillips and joined Hypex as their head of R&D in order to further his development of his class D technology, since Phillips had just previously discontinued funding for his amplifier research and development. Whether or not Bruno worked on 'ncore', or even referred to any part of his UcD creation with the name 'ncore, is a major point of contention between the 2 parties since this could imply ownership rights of 'ncore'.

Even though I have no skin in this game, I'm going to follow future developments closely. If anyone has aditional knowledge of this dispute, or wants to clarify or correct any of my statements or information, please post them. I may be reading too much into this, but I think I'm smelling ulterior motives and an undisclosed story here.

Audiozen, can you tell us if you have an undisclosed stake in this dispute and whether you're employed by any audio company? If so, is it Audio Research or Rowland?

Guidocorona, can you tell us if you have a stake and if you're employed by Hypex? If not, are you employed by another audio company?

Just my 2 cents and thanks,
Tim

15A IEC.

Are the Merrill Audio Veritas equipped with 20A or 15A IEC power inlets?

Thanks, Guido

Guido..thanks for mentioning Pascal. I checked out their website and Google images of their power modules. Very impressive work. It appears after looking at the photo's, that their amps look like identical twins to the amps being used by D-Sonic in Texas, even though Abletec offices in New Jersey mentioned D-Sonic is using Abletec. Could be D-Sonic is using Abletec in a certain model but their top amps are definitely Pascal judging by the photos.

Guido..regarding corrected spellings, the name Pasquale was spelt to me by a Rowland dealer in California who attended the private demo at CES of the Continuum 2 integrated. I'm sure hes not aware of the correct spelling. Also, you continue to use the word "Phylips" which is incorrect. The correct spelling is Philips. One of the two articles I'm trying to dig up refers to the "Ncore circuit" in the UcD power module that Bruno developed for Philips in 2001.

Audiozen has been messing up information about the Hypex UCD/Ncore topic, and he just reaized it but does not want to recognize it yet.

>@Audiozen,
have you actually heard the Merrill Audio Veritas and/or the ARC D450M amps?<

The answer is obviosly No, he hasn't.

Audiozen,
The Bel Canto amplifiers that are replacing the power module with a linear supply instead of a switching supply are still keeping the class d amp the same module.
This means its a class D pulse width modulated amplifier.

I wish you would stop claiming that every new class D amp is no longer a pulse width modulated amplifier - pulse width modulation is pretty much intrinisic to a class D audio amp.

Hi AudioZen, yes you are correct. As Mr. Putzeys developed the original UCD technology while he was working for Phylips, the UCD acronym itself would likely be trademarked by Phylips. Furthermore, any patents related to UCD, which Mr. Putzeys applied to during his employment at Phylips, would be automatically assigned to Phylips. (Such is the nature of standard employment contracts in the technology sector... My own patents for example, remain all assigned to IBM, in spite of the fact that I have retired from Big Blue)

At a later time, in order to be permitted to manufacture UCD modules, Hypex would have started to pay appropriate licensing fees to Phylips for the use of that specific UCD trademark, and of the specific technology which is defined by those UCD patents owned by Phylips.

Conversely, Ncore technology, was invented by Mr. Putzeys after he joined Hypex, probably during the 2007 to 2008 timeframe, with basic development being finalized in 2010. It looks like Ncore invention disclosures were filed between 2008 and 2010, and would have been assigned to Hypex by the inventor(s) -- Putzeys et al. The Ncore word, within its applicability to the target technology, would also have been trademarked by Hypex, although there appears to be instances of "Ncore" used by other companies for totally different purposes than audio.

On a different topic, the name of the manufacturer of the power conversion modules inside the upcoming Rowland Continuum Series 2 integrated amp (and the Rowland M525 bridgeable amp) is Pascal -- just like the French Philosopher, rather than Pasquale -- which of course is a perfectly nice Italian name... But seems to remain sadly not associated with High End audio.

Saluti, G.

Guido..I back tracked and found one article regarding Hypex
and Bruno paying Philips licensing fees to use the UcD technology he developed for Philips back in 2001 in which they own. Its a site that focuses on DIY readers. The site is enjoythemusic.com..the article is from October 2012 written by Jeff Poth. I'll dig up the other two articles I read and post them as well. I'm on standby regarding Hypex, anticipating the new Pasquale Class D amps used in the about to be released Rowland Continuum 2 integrated and the new Bel Canto Ice amp with the switching module removed, which will be a D.C. power supply fed directly to the Ice amp with no pulse width modulation whatsoever, a first of its kind which has been in the works for the past two years.

My apologies AudioZen. Unfortunately, you are the author of an extraordinary claim which, to be taken seriously, requires extraordinary proof, whose onus remains on you to exhibit. If you ever find the European article which asserts that Ncore was invented at Phylips prior to Mr. Putzeys joining Hypex, and if such article is authoritative, I invite you to post a citation and link to this thread. Alternatevely, you may try to dredge out trademark information from Phylips themselves. Until then, I can only point our readers to what I have found with Google: Hypex's CEO/Owner Jan-Peter Van Amerongen's clear assertion about Hypex's ownership of Ncore technology and trademarks on the DIYAudio site:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendors-bazaar/190434-hypex-ncore-621.html#post3344017

where Jan-Peter states in part:

"Bruno started to work on NCORE in 2008. We [at hypex] have filed the patent early 2009 and we have filed the NCORE
trademark in 2010.

NCORE patent and trademarkt is fully owned by Hypex, there are no other companies involved in Hypex. Both the NCORE patent and trademark are granted in
the USA. Thereby Hypex is solely owned by one owner.....

"

I respect your decision to abandon a line of argument which seems -- prima face -- to be conflicting with the verifiable public record. Yet, if you can ever provide it, I will welcome any extraordinary proof of the opposite. G.

Regards, G.

Guido.. one of the articles I read during the past month on the history of Ncore/Hypex, appears to have conflicting accuracies. One article I read states tha the UcD power module that Bruno built in 2001 while working for Philips Digital Systems, states the main circuit in the amp is referred to as the "Ncore circuit" which is where the name originally came from, which would make the term "Ncore" an intellectual property of Philips. Jean Peter mentions he holds the U.S. trademark on Ncore but never mentions in any interview that he owns the trademark in Europe which is filed in Geneva and the deal he cut with Philips back in 2004/2005 was to pay them a annual license fee to use the Ncore name and UcD power module patents that were part of Philips Digital Systems in 2001. I am moving on and spending no more time on this issue. If you explore and dig deep enough on the net, you will run into the same info whether accurate or not.

Audiozen, all by itself, the page at

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/ncore/1.html

does not appear to support an assertion of Ncore being in existance since 2001, nor of Phylips owning any Ncore trademarks and patents. The only way to support such assertion is to equate UCD with Ncore, which is a conclusion that cannot be directly inferred from the page in question. The work done by Putzeys whilst at Phylips appears to be clearly associated with the UCD module, rather than Ncore:

"Meanwhile Bruno was working at Philips where he also did some work for OLS, the mother company of Charles van Oosterum’s Kharma. In that position Bruno came in contact with Jan-Peter by 2001. Bruno by then was working on a new class D design for Philips and told Jan-Peter how this was becoming a very interesting development. The moment the UcD-baptized design was presentable, Jan-Peter drove down to Bruno's Belgian hometown of Leuven to hear and see what this new technology was all about at the local Philips research facility. According to Jan-Peter it took all of 30 seconds to become convinced of UcD’s potential."

[...]

""with UcD, Jan-Peter made a deal with Philips to use their technology in Hypex products. With the acquired 150-watt UcD reference in his pocket, Jan-Peter started designing and building the first Hypex UcD180ST module."

Per the passage below, Putzeys appears to have moved to Hypex in 2005:

"In 2004 these were marketed and used in Hypex-built subwoofers. In the same year the 180ST gained company from the more powerful 400ST. Unfortunately a year later Philips decided to freeze funding for Bruno’s R&D department. This signaled Jan-Peter that it was time to ask Bruno if he would join him in Hypex. Not only did Bruno make the move, Nand Eeckhout also left Philips to join the Groningen company."

The development of Ncore appears to have commenced in 2008 at Hypex, and completed in 2010:

""The development of the next generation of amplifiers now known as Ncore® began in 2008 but got delayed a bit because what had to happen first was setting up a volume production infrastructure for the UcD modules."

[...]

"With the UcD production facilities in place, the work on the Ncore® development could proceed. This culminated in the first prototype by the end of 2008. The fully developed NC1200 module finished around the summer of 2010."

A different source, the February 2008 Putzey bio on IEEE Spectrum at

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/bruno-putzeys-the-sound-of-music-extended-play

also supports the assertion that Putzey work at Phylips was associated with UCD, but cannot be used to corroborate Phylips's association with Ncore:

"In 2001, while working at Philips Applied Technologies in Leuven, Belgium, Putzeys designed a compact, versatile class-D amplifier module that he called
UcD, for ”Universal class-D.” Over the past few years, dozens of amplifier models, with prices ranging from US $500 to $8500, have been built around Putzeys’s
modules, which are now manufactured under license by Hypex Electronics of Groningen, Netherlands."

[...]

"In May 2005, he followed
his modules to Hypex, where he is now the chief tech guru."

There is no explicit mention of Ncore,but there is a hint at new technology that remains unnamed:

"Not long after, Putzeys left Philips for Hypex, where he has pretty much free rein to explore the boundaries of class-D. Just ”for fun,” he recently designed
an audio amplifier with 0.0003 percent total harmonic distortion, at full power, amplifying a 20-kilohertz signal. That figure is more than 1000 times
better than some very good solid-state amps. In fact, it’s an improvement that no human ear can detect, as Putzeys acknowledges."

Back to the 6moons article, the following passage clearly implies that the Ncore trademark is owned by Hypex. The passage would also support an assertion that Putzeys's US patents on Ncore follow in the footsteps of equivalent non US patents on the same technology owned by the same parties.

"To protect his ideas as well as possible, a patent on Ncore® technology has been filed also in the US. Before the Ncore® name got stamped on the circuit boards and business stationary, many other names came to mind. Finally the name was derived from the most important part of the circuit, the modulator heart. Bruno came up with the name and also drew the accompanying logo. As he put it, "to keep things simple, do it yourself but do it good".

That mantra of simple but good runs through the Hypex company. Even though they know that with their Ncore® technology they have gold in their hand, they don’t just want to sell it to anyone."

Bottomline for the moment is that, if there exists direct evidence that the Ncore trademark and patents are owned by Phylips, I have not found it yet.

G.

You are wrong Guido..Quote from the 6Moons article.." Bruno
came in contact with Jean Peter in 2001. "Bruno by then was working on a new Class D design," (The Ncore for Phillips). Ncore as I mentioned earlier, was and still is a Philips trademark in Europe, while Bruno was working for Philips Digital Systems in 2001. Jean Peter, who started Hypex in his attic in 1996 building a 750 watt mono amp for active subwoofers, was so impressed with Bruno Putzeys prototype in 2001, that he struck a deal with Philips to use the Ncore technology with the Hypex name and by 2004 the Hypex UcD 180ST power module was marketed and used in Hypex subwoofers...regardless which newer Class D power modules were designed beyond 2005 at Hypex, their very first Class D power module, the UcD 180ST, was developed and built during 2003/2004 for the Hypex subwoofer...

Audiozon,

His patent application lists him as Patrik Brostrom of Abletec, I will take your word for it that is a typo and he is Patrik Bostrom of Abletec.

But one thing that is absolutely clear from the diagrams in the patent is that his design uses pulse width modulation. In fact, google it and read the patent yourself - he actually says himself he is presenting a new way of doing pulse width modulation.

I think perhaps the confusion is that for the feedback and input structures that feed the Class D switch, he uses a phase shift modulation.
This is actually not novel - this is described in papers 7 years old by Bruno - and I doubt he invented this either - its probably been around for a long time.

But at the end of the day all Class D amps are a switch to a positive voltage rail and a switch to a negative voltage rail followed by a LC filter, switching around 400-500kHz speed. The only way to create the desired audio signal is to pulse width modulate the switches.
The art is in how you space out the switches to create the best quality audio signals - what kind of feedback scheme you use, how you modulate the input, etc

You peaked my engineering curiosity though that this may be something radically new - even though it was not it was fun to look into! :)

AudioZen, per the detailed 6moons article at:

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/ncore/1.html

the development of the Ncore module started in 2008 at Hypex, rather than during 2001 at Phylips. In 2001, Putzey was working on the development of UCD at Phylips instead. Putzey commenced development of Ncore technology only in 2008, well after leaving Phylips. This is a good thing for Mr. Putzey and Hypex, because otherwise any of the Ncore-related patents that have been granted since then, would be owned by Philips, and not by Hypex.

G.

Regarding bio info I mentioned earlier on the history of Hypex/Ncore which I extracted from sites such as HiFi+ and Test Seek, which turned out to be inaccurate. The best source for this info is the in depth interview with Bruno Putzeys and Jean Peter in the February 2012 issue of 6Moons. Just Goolge Hypex/6moons and it will give the link to the article. Jean Peter started Hypex in his attic in 1996 and first met Bruno in 2001 while he was working for Philips Digital Systems, at which time he developed the Ncore power module. Read the article. Very informative.

Dan92075...you are incorrect and did not read cleary regarding the topology with the Abletec amps. His name is Patrik Bostrom, not Brostrom. On the Abletec website it decribes the ALC1000 amplifier using phase shift modulation, not pulse width modulation. Even though it still is a class D switching amp, pulse width modulation is not used at all in the amp or the other newly designed Abletec amps that have been out since 2010.

Hi Dan, you just pointed out the crux of the matter... Listening tests are in order. Furthermore, a module to module comparison may be meaningful only for very basic amplifier implementations, where little is done around the Abletech or NCore NP1200 modules.... More complex amps are likely to have a sonic signature of their own, which may depart to a lesser or greater extent from the bare performance of their underlying processors.

I was curious so I looked up Brostrom (Abletec) patent applications

Earlier these were touted as a new revolutionary class D design

Here are some of my observations:

1). the design clearly still relies on feedback, contrary to earlier assertions
(as a side note, is it even possible to do something as nonlinear as Class D without any feedback?)

2). it appears the design still relies on pulse width modulation

3). it does seem that he is using some similar principles to ncore in not allowing his feedback filters to saturate - he is doing it a slightly different way - limiting the gain - cant say which technique is best but they both are addressing the same key issues it appears

At the end of the day, this seems like an improvement over the existing art but certainly not as revolutionary as was claimed earlier - and also would not jump to the conclusion these are better than ncore - definitely a listening test would be in order

+1

01-28-13: Guidocorona
Hi Audiozen, could you post the URL of the biography of Bruno Putzeys that is the source of your assertion:

Just to clarity some of the confusion.
Audiozen - In your post your data is consistent with the UcD not the Ncore. Bruno developed the UcD while at Phillips and is licenced to Hypex.

The Ncore patent is fully owned by Hypex, develop by Bruno at Hypex for Hypex only.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8049557?pg=PA1&dq=bruno+putzeys&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t6YGUYe5PKXl0QGc8oHQDw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=bruno%20putzeys&f=false

Bruno's history
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/bruno-putzeys-the-sound-of-music-extended-play

Hypex has 8 Engineers doing pure R&D, so a lot is going on there, more then just Bruno.

Hi Audiozen, could you post the URL of the biography of Bruno Putzeys that is the source of your assertion:

"I'm referring to the original Ncore designs that Bruno developed..I was referring to Ncore only in my correction..not Hypex. Philips
does own the patents on the original Ncore power modules and the Ncore trademark. Bruno can update and vary his designs under Hypex and can use the original
Ncore platforms as long as he pays the licensing fees every year which also applies to the Ncore trade name. I read this info on a bio background on Bruno/Ncore."

Saluti, G.

@Audiozen,

have you actually heard the Merrill Audio Veritas and/or the ARC D450M amps?

Take it easy Cisco...I'm referring to the original Ncore designs that Bruno developed..I was referring to Ncore only in my correction..not Hypex. Philips does own the patents on the original Ncore power modules and the Ncore trademark. Bruno can update and vary his designs under Hypex and can use the original Ncore platforms as long as he pays the licensing fees every year which also applies to the Ncore trade name. I read this info on a bio background on Bruno/Ncore. None of this is made up. Move on Dude...

Audiozen, Please stop your character assassinations.

"Upon further investigation, heres the accurate truth" from your above post. But you always take half truths and make up your own history for your agenda.

Also you still have not said you have or have not heard the Veritas or any Ncore NC1200 or the ARC D450M amp or for that matter any Class D design that you praise above over the Ncore.

NOW HERE IS THE ACCURATE TRUTH FROM THE SOURCE:

"What a bul.s.it

Bruno worked for Philips until 2005, in April or May 2005 Bruno start to work for Hypex, fully employed (not as a consultant or freelancer!). Somewhere in 2002 Bruno started to developed the UcD design. Bruno started to work on NCORE in 2008. We have filed the patent early 2009 and we have filed the NCORE trademark in 2010.

NCORE patent and trademarkt is fully owned by Hypex, there are no other companies involved in Hypex. Both the NCORE patent and trademark are granted in the USA. Thereby Hypex is solely owned by one owner.....

Furthermore, we have more engineers as only Bruno. In total we're with 16 people, half of them is R&D with two DSP specialist.

Jan-Peter van Amerongen
CEO/Owner
Hypex Electronics bv "

ALSO FROM HYPEX:

"In 2005, Hypex took the strategic decision to move from a being a technology user to being a technology source and hired UcD's inventor, Bruno Putzeys, to be its chief of R&D."

Do you see the part that BRUNO invented UcD?

For more on Bruno: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/bruno-putzeys-the-sound-of-music-extended-play

Now lets see if you can be gracious. Or are you just here for making trouble.

Can we now stay on topic of the OP.