advertisement


Changing NCC 220 to voyager question

Mynamemynaim

38yrs a Naim owner
So I have little to no room left in the box for my ncc220 amp
I'd like to make it a voyager but obviously no room for more tx or boards
Would it still be beneficial to put a tx / cap6 and vbe or similar in a separate case .... And run a power cable from that to the front end of my 220 boards

Or would any advantage be lost with the regulation being at the other end of an umbilical cord?
Thanks for your thoughts on this:)
 
I would effectively have to start again with two new cases and two new main transformers

The ones I have at the moment would not transfer over to duel mono's well at all
 
Doesn't a NAP300 do something similar with a separate PSU?
The NCC300 board is like a QUDOS amp board combined with an HCR200 regulator board, except better. To power it, you can provide a single supply for both output and input, in which case you join the two together with on-board jumpers. Or you can remove the jumpers and feed it with separate supplies for input and output.
 
Now I am getting confused, apologies, I thought Mynamemynaim has NCC220 not NCC300

So I have little to no room left in the box for my ncc220 amp

Not sure what consitutes a Voyager but presumably adding a regulator like a HCR200 with a NCC220?

I had assumed Mynamemynaim has currently built unregulated NCC220 and found he can't fit the regulation in the same case.

I was trying to suggest that Naim seem happy to put transformer and PSU in one NAP300 PSU box and the NAP300 regulated power amp in another so that it seems to me there is possible merit in doing the same with Avondale PCBs.
 
Thanks for the explanation of the 300 Mike

I know the 220 should perform better with the voyager conversion
I'm just looking for opinions as to the benefits of putting all the bits in a suitable box and connecting that to the 220
If anyone can see any major disadvantages (regs too far away from boards??) Then please let me know also
 
Last edited:
I suppose you could move the entire PSU section into a separate case, and just have the 220 and VBE boards in the existing case, so all transformers/cap boards are then in the same case with an umbilical to the amp board case, and the VBE boards are then still as close to the load as possible.

That may then make space for speaker protection boards if you don't have them already
 
I have all my psu's remote from my amp boards (not Avondale) and it works fine for me. It is advised to have the last of the smoothing caps in the same box as the amp boards. Not sure if that is still the case for the front end supply if the regulator is next to the amp boards.
 
Am I understanding right? I am sure I am getting confused...Someone please correct me!

There is the stock NCC220 amp with an NCC220 and minicap6 per channel.

You can then add an HCR200 per channel running both front and back end of the NCC220 to give a regulated version, but this is not a Voyager.

To be a Voyager you need a second minicap6 per channel (and TX to feed them) and have the power rails for the front end of the NCC220 fed from the HCR200 and the power rails for the back end fed by the second minicap6?

NCC300 is not the same as an NCC220 and HCR200 combined, but is both an amplifier module and regulator module on a single board and can either be configured standard with a single linier PS or in Voyager configuration with two (and requisite TX)?

:confused::confused::confused:
 
Am I understanding right? I am sure I am getting confused...Someone please correct me!

There is the stock NCC220 amp with an NCC220 and minicap6 per channel.

You can then add an HCR200 per channel running both front and back end of the NCC220 to give a regulated version, but this is not a Voyager.

To be a Voyager you need a second minicap6 per channel (and TX to feed them) and have the power rails for the front end of the NCC220 fed from the HCR200 and the power rails for the back end fed by the second minicap6?

NCC300 is not the same as an NCC220 and HCR200 combined, but is both an amplifier module and regulator module on a single board and can either be configured standard with a single linier PS or in Voyager configuration with two (and requisite TX)?

:confused::confused::confused:
That's mostly correct. Let me try to clarify:

The NCC200 and NCC220 (QUDOS) boards have two stages: input (low level pre-amplification) and output (power amplification). Both stages must be powered, and there are many ways that can be done:
  • You can use a single supply: transformer, followed by rectification and smoothing (e.g. Cap6). The problem with this approach is that the output stage sometimes wants lots of current, which affects the stability of the supply for the low level input stage. If you're building a stereo amp, where both NCC2x0 modules are powered by a single transformer and CAP6, then this effect is magnified.
  • You can split the supply rails on the NCC2x0 boards, and power the input and output stages independently. You need lots of current for the output stage, so you have a big transformer with lots of capacitance. The input stage doesn't need as much current, so a smaller transformer can be used, along with smaller capacitance. However, this will provide only a marginal benefit to the input stage. You really need regulation to provide a controlled supply, which is where the HCR200 (or the earlier VBE) comes in. The smaller transformer and cap6 feeds the regulator board, which in turn provides very clean power to the input stage. This is a Voyager.
  • Note that Voyagers are usually mono-block amps, although you could actually build two in a single large case. In that situation, you could theoretically use a single HCR200 to power the input stages of both channels' NCC2x0 boards. This is not a commonly executed design, but it would work. Preventing ground loops would likely be harder, though.
  • The NCC300 follows this same high level pattern, except that the the input regulators are included on the one board. For power supplies, you can use a single supply (which will be regulated for the input side, making this superior to a single supply NCC2x0 amp). If you use a separate supply for the regulated input side, the performance is increased.
Note that when you're providing a separate supply to the input side, it's normal to have a higher voltage for that.
  • If you're using a single supply, the transformer is typically 35v-0-35V. In contrast, I recall that Naim's transformers were usually around 28v-0-28v.
  • If you're using a dual supply, the power stage still uses 35v-0-35v, while the regulator needs something like 42v-0-42v. This give it sufficient headroom for regulating the supply for the input stage at a lower voltage. You'll see this pattern in both Voyagers and the NCC300. Given this, I'm a bit surprised that the NCC300 can run both input and and output at the same voltage, but this may be due to the different design of the NCC300.
As for building the power supplies in one case, the siting the HCR200 and QUDOS in another, that would probably work. The HCR200 would be close to the QUDOS, which means the input stage should have well regulated power. The supply for the output stages isn't as picky. Of course, figuring out the best connectors and cable to make that work would be challenging. You need 8 large wires (approximately 12-14AWG) for the output stages, and another 6 small wires (perhaps 18AWG) for the input regulator stage.

Hopefully that helps.
 
Last edited:
I suppose you could move the entire PSU section into a separate case, and just have the 220 and VBE boards in the existing case, so all transformers/cap boards are then in the same case with an umbilical to the amp board case, and the VBE boards are then still as close to the load as possible.


I hadn't thought of it that way!!
That is a possibility....and gets the noisy TXs away from the boards altogether...
Yes ...my amp has speaker protection and start delay boards...and a massive tx and full size cap6 so you can see where the space has gone
 
I hadn't thought of it that way!!
That is a possibility....and gets the noisy TXs away from the boards altogether...
Yes ...my amp has speaker protection and start delay boards...and a massive tx and full size cap6 so you can see where the space has gone
Wiring, and in particular 0v, would need some careful thought in that scenario though, as in a stereo amp there are a lot of power supply and 0v wires, which would make for one hell of an umbilical.
 
I tried putting the TX in a separate case on a NCC200 amp back in 2008 and found little difference between that and a stereo amplifier
I also screwed up on ordering the cases where the dissapanti amp case should have been the 2U and TX case 3U so it didnt stay like this long
The second picture is the stereo amp that was the one case replacement and I used and enjoyed for a few years (still have it somewhere?)

NCC200 1 by Alan Towell, on Flickr

NCC 200 in 3U MODU case by Alan Towell, on Flickr
 
That bottom picture looks vaguely like mine except mines a 4u case ...the TX is twice the size ...and there is a speaker protection board in there also...

Both your amps look to be lovely neat builds ... thanks for sharing
 
Ok
So decision made!

Start on a brand new (long term...to spread the expense) build of a two case duel mono voyager
Then sell my 220

That wasn't so hard!
Thanks everyone
 
That's mostly correct. Let me try to clarify:
.
.
The NCC300 follows this same high level pattern, except that the the input regulators are included on the one board. For power supplies, you can use a single supply (which will be regulated for the input side, making this superior to a single supply NCC2x0 amp). If you use a separate supply for the regulated input side, the performance is increased.
I think this means that a single-supply Monoblock NCC300 is a configuration that no-one ever built for NCC200 or NCC220; single traffo, rect, cap, but regulation for the front end off the same voltage as the power section.

I think everyone who wanted a regulated FE also added (at least) separate rect/cap and (usually) separate traffo, to get extra voltage.

BugBear
 
are NNC300 available as prebuilt? don't see it on the website.

just pondering if making the jump from NCC200 to Voyager is going the whole hog and stepping up to NCC300 an option? Be tight for one case time got 2n TX and minicap6 in
 
I think this means that a single-supply Monoblock NCC300 is a configuration that no-one ever built for NCC200 or NCC220; single traffo, rect, cap, but regulation for the front end off the same voltage as the power section.

I think everyone who wanted a regulated FE also added (at least) separate rect/cap and (usually) separate traffo, to get extra voltage.
This is very likely correct.
 


advertisement


Back
Top