Re: Easy peasy lemon-squeezy
[QUOTE.
When you go to a live performance, particularly non-classical, the sound quality, in hi-fi terms is rarely great, but it often makes you dance, tap your feet, sing, cry etc...
There are assessment methods that home in on the primary aspects of music, and they work and provide long-term musical satisfaction if you're prepared to let them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is no basis in acoustics for what you said. Sounds like Ivor of Linn. Linn and Naim who subscribe to this had organised some of the worst demos I had ever attended. To me they were no fi s but noisy onslaughts.
[QUOTE.
When you go to a live performance, particularly non-classical, the sound quality, in hi-fi terms is rarely great, but it often makes you dance, tap your feet, sing, cry etc...
There are assessment methods that home in on the primary aspects of music, and they work and provide long-term musical satisfaction if you're prepared to let them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is no basis in acoustics for what you said. Sounds like Ivor of Linn. Linn and Naim who subscribe to this had organised some of the worst demos I had ever attended. To me they were no fi s but noisy onslaughts.
-----------------------------------------------ALW said:
First, the assumption is that foot tapping to a certain type of music makes a good system - perpetuated by some in UK. Many, like me, listen to Classical more often and show their responses in different ways. One can have identical responses to music being played thru a 1930s record player and my parents-in-law do. Doesn't mean that is hi-fi. There is no connection between the statements you made and physical electro-acoustics that I know, although some may claim otherwise.
Doesn't mean that you it is not real to you; it's just not generalisable as inferred.
Andy,
The version of Walt Jung circuit which started this thread came by way of your web page (?)
I think you wrote there in part,
"The above circuit offers excellent performance in all of the major areas relevant to a regulators operating parameters, it has very low output impedance, very low noise both static and under load, and good line rejection. All of these parameters are maintained over a far wider bandwidth than any readily-available monolithic IC regulator."
What does "very low" noise, and "good" line rejection mean, relative to the specifications of a modern 3-pin, or 5-pin (there, I said a bad word, I know) regulator? Not to mention "far wider". Not trying to be confrontational here, but if I am going to throw out those 3-pin regulators I just dusted of in favor of an op-amp circuit with many more parts, or even buy a kit to replace them in existing power supplies...
Didn't someone suggest earlier that all the world needs now is more sweet capacitance, and now we find out what it really needs is a good error amplifier!?
The version of Walt Jung circuit which started this thread came by way of your web page (?)
I think you wrote there in part,
"The above circuit offers excellent performance in all of the major areas relevant to a regulators operating parameters, it has very low output impedance, very low noise both static and under load, and good line rejection. All of these parameters are maintained over a far wider bandwidth than any readily-available monolithic IC regulator."
What does "very low" noise, and "good" line rejection mean, relative to the specifications of a modern 3-pin, or 5-pin (there, I said a bad word, I know) regulator? Not to mention "far wider". Not trying to be confrontational here, but if I am going to throw out those 3-pin regulators I just dusted of in favor of an op-amp circuit with many more parts, or even buy a kit to replace them in existing power supplies...
Didn't someone suggest earlier that all the world needs now is more sweet capacitance, and now we find out what it really needs is a good error amplifier!?
CATCH 23
Hi,
Unfortunately I neither like either Linn nor Naim stuff...
What I do agree on is that no system that isn't inviting to either "play conductor" (on classical music). or "tapping the foot to the rythm of a tune" is doing the music any good...no matter how revealing of inner detail etc., etc....
After all we're there to listen to the music and enjoy it, not to analyse it to shreds.
Cheers,
Hi,
Unfortunately I neither like either Linn nor Naim stuff...
What I do agree on is that no system that isn't inviting to either "play conductor" (on classical music). or "tapping the foot to the rythm of a tune" is doing the music any good...no matter how revealing of inner detail etc., etc....
After all we're there to listen to the music and enjoy it, not to analyse it to shreds.
Cheers,
Re: Easy peasy lemon-squeezy
Koinichiwa,
Note - I NEVER use 3-pin Jobs for analogue. I prefer film capacitors and chokes. But then, by choice, all my analogue circuits use good sounding Valves.
But more to the point, it seems my main point was misunderstood. Other than remarking upon the inability of the Jung/Sulzer (and mny others) regulator, I do not claim they are "bad".
On the contrary, in absolute measurable terms (wich exclude of course transient tests with current "pushed" back into the rail) the Jung/Sulzer reg is a major achievement of engineering at the margins of the achievable.
However, to conclude the measured superiority translates reliably into subjectively percieved superiority is arrogant. Further, considering the usual limitations posed by the use and implementation of "normal" 3-pin 78XX/79XX/317/337 et alstyle reg chips, replacing them with a 3-Pin Jung/Sulzer reg is unlikely to give much of an improvement.
Now IF the Jung/Sulzer reg where implemented with remote sensing and suitable ground layout there may be more of a point. But to make a 3-pin (78XX/79XX compatible PCB for the Jung/Sulzer reg is to throw away most of the technical benefits (or not) of that design.
So, I do not question that the Jung/Sulzer Circuit is a "good thing" (in the way Winnie the lovable Pooh sees a "good thing").
My question is:
"leaving out hype and concentrating on real applications, will the 3-Pin Jung/Sulzer circuit deliver a reliable improvemnt in subjectivly percieved sonics, comensureate with it's cost, especially when compared to other approaches?"
If the answer is not an absolute resounding "Yes", one may consider less expenive and complex alternatives that may be as goo or even better.
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
ALW said:
Note - I NEVER use 3-pin Jobs for analogue. I prefer film capacitors and chokes. But then, by choice, all my analogue circuits use good sounding Valves.
But more to the point, it seems my main point was misunderstood. Other than remarking upon the inability of the Jung/Sulzer (and mny others) regulator, I do not claim they are "bad".
On the contrary, in absolute measurable terms (wich exclude of course transient tests with current "pushed" back into the rail) the Jung/Sulzer reg is a major achievement of engineering at the margins of the achievable.
However, to conclude the measured superiority translates reliably into subjectively percieved superiority is arrogant. Further, considering the usual limitations posed by the use and implementation of "normal" 3-pin 78XX/79XX/317/337 et alstyle reg chips, replacing them with a 3-Pin Jung/Sulzer reg is unlikely to give much of an improvement.
Now IF the Jung/Sulzer reg where implemented with remote sensing and suitable ground layout there may be more of a point. But to make a 3-pin (78XX/79XX compatible PCB for the Jung/Sulzer reg is to throw away most of the technical benefits (or not) of that design.
So, I do not question that the Jung/Sulzer Circuit is a "good thing" (in the way Winnie the lovable Pooh sees a "good thing").
My question is:
"leaving out hype and concentrating on real applications, will the 3-Pin Jung/Sulzer circuit deliver a reliable improvemnt in subjectivly percieved sonics, comensureate with it's cost, especially when compared to other approaches?"
If the answer is not an absolute resounding "Yes", one may consider less expenive and complex alternatives that may be as goo or even better.
Sayonara
Reality
And when did you first start noticing this about engineers? (LOL)
... I was only asking for a couple (real) numbers, or maybe hoping for a link to a simple graph.
Entertaining Fred and Andy in the process was a completely un-intentional side effect, if not unexpected.
(maybe if I sort these regulators by size and color...)
And when did you first start noticing this about engineers? (LOL)
... I was only asking for a couple (real) numbers, or maybe hoping for a link to a simple graph.
Entertaining Fred and Andy in the process was a completely un-intentional side effect, if not unexpected.
(maybe if I sort these regulators by size and color...)
Several years ago I communicated with Walt Jung by email regarding the conversion of his Super Regulator to 24v operation, which I needed for my Borbely lineamp and Leach phono amp. He was unsure of doing so, since he never tried it, but offerred suggestions. Unfortunately, I didn't act on them at the time, because I thought complete boards with the preregulator and 825 amp layout might appear. Then, I lost my emails from Walt after a hardrive crash. Last week I decided to look into resurecting the project, and lo and behold, came upon this site and timely thread.
Andy, I noticed on your site that you mentioned a use for 24v supplies. Wondering if you did this with the Super Regulator topology.
Anyhow, my searching led me to several boards other than the Old Colony ones for the original Jung regulators from '95 (can't believe they don't have updates with preregulators yet!)
Borbely offers 24v regulators (EB 802/243), but not with the floating preregulators and other tweaks that the Super Regulators have. He also uses an FET for the pass transistor, which I fail to understand. All in all, not what I want to pay such a high price for, and then have to pay $20 in addition for the parts list! For anyone interested, here are some links to those regulators:
See figure 6 on this page:
http://www.borbelyaudio.com/index8.htm
Click through the download links to see data sheet for the Borbely regulators from this US distributor:
http://www.audiokits.com/products.asp?action=details&prodid=393
I also found a board with a 15v Sulzer/Borbely topology with preregulators (not floating) at this site, but today I couldn't get through to the links to the schematic and board pictures:
http://hitechnetworks.net/bwaldron/audioelectronics/sb1_regulator.htm
Andy, I noticed on your site that you mentioned a use for 24v supplies. Wondering if you did this with the Super Regulator topology.
Anyhow, my searching led me to several boards other than the Old Colony ones for the original Jung regulators from '95 (can't believe they don't have updates with preregulators yet!)
Borbely offers 24v regulators (EB 802/243), but not with the floating preregulators and other tweaks that the Super Regulators have. He also uses an FET for the pass transistor, which I fail to understand. All in all, not what I want to pay such a high price for, and then have to pay $20 in addition for the parts list! For anyone interested, here are some links to those regulators:
See figure 6 on this page:
http://www.borbelyaudio.com/index8.htm
Click through the download links to see data sheet for the Borbely regulators from this US distributor:
http://www.audiokits.com/products.asp?action=details&prodid=393
I also found a board with a 15v Sulzer/Borbely topology with preregulators (not floating) at this site, but today I couldn't get through to the links to the schematic and board pictures:
http://hitechnetworks.net/bwaldron/audioelectronics/sb1_regulator.htm
I didn't actually claim that, my point was simply that unless the regulator is working impeccably, the benefits will not be realised.
That's untrue, you are now making the assumption that the more obvious regulator parameters (impedance etc) are the major issue - they're not.
Very low = the noise of the error ampa s being dominant (10's nV / rt Hz) 3 terminals are 100's nv/rt Hz
Good = >130dB at LF, about 90dB at HF (3 terminals are 80dB max at LF)
Bandwidth - depends what you want to define as your limits, but impedance = 60uOhm at LF, rising to 1mOhm circa 100k.
Other parameters defined above.
Output Impedance vs Frequency
Thanks to Jan Didden for the above.
Andy.
P.S.
You will have noted I mentioned other criteria too - the point being that emotional involvement in music, however it comes is fundamental - the other stuff is icing on the cake (imaging etc). Let's face it, we don't judge a guitarist by where he stands on the stage
Re: Re: Easy peasy lemon-squeezy
Why don't you do like I: I use earplugs which I trim for best frequency response. Rolling Stones and David Bowie sounded excellent! Pink Floyd sounded excellent without earplugs. The concert a couple a years ago at Ullevi Göteborg (>50 k people), was my best consert experience everElso Kwak said:
JFET's and MOSFET's. That's the simple explaination. 
Pooge,
24V is easy - 680R / 1k8 for feedback divider (gives 25V nom).
Just choose suitably rated caps!
The output voltage is calculated from the following formula: -
Vout = Vref * (1+R8/R9).
Additionally R8 // R9 (the impedance of the two resistors in parallel) should equal 500 Ohms.
To make this easier the following formula has been derived: -
R9 = (500 * Vout) / (Vout – Vref)
Once the above is calculated, apply the value obtained above to the following formula: -
R8 = R9 * ((Vout – Vref) / Vref)
The two values then can be selected from the closest standard value, or made up from parallel / series combinations.
Andy.
P.S. A FET has an order of magnitude disadvantage in these reg's as the pass device.
24V is easy - 680R / 1k8 for feedback divider (gives 25V nom).
Just choose suitably rated caps!
The output voltage is calculated from the following formula: -
Vout = Vref * (1+R8/R9).
Additionally R8 // R9 (the impedance of the two resistors in parallel) should equal 500 Ohms.
To make this easier the following formula has been derived: -
R9 = (500 * Vout) / (Vout – Vref)
Once the above is calculated, apply the value obtained above to the following formula: -
R8 = R9 * ((Vout – Vref) / Vref)
The two values then can be selected from the closest standard value, or made up from parallel / series combinations.
Andy.
P.S. A FET has an order of magnitude disadvantage in these reg's as the pass device.
A couple of things
before the knives get draw
The graph above has an impedance rise at LF, this is due to the inadequate value of coupling cap used to couple the error signal into the reg. and not the reg. itself.
I actually agree with you on this. All I ever do is present my experiences, sometimes, as with power supplies, I cannot disclose all of the facts I'm aware of due to various political / commercial arrangements and the fact that so far the knowledge I have would not seem to be public domain.
But I do give plenty of clues for those that care to look, and really try to encourage people to both approach things in a detailed rigorous engineering fashion, but then to use their ears.
In audio the latter is critical and fundamental and also easy to get wrong, on first impressions. I also strongly encourage you all to think outside of conventional wisdom.
The Jung reg's are old, but I've only heard one alternative that outperforms them at present. In all likelihood there's lots of alternatives, supported by my view that topology is often the least critical element, just correct implementation of that topology.
Arguing mine's better than yours is probably specious, but I'm happy for people to copy my design (that includes, by necessity, the PCB) and compare to alternative topologies.
The Jung reg's, to this day, do things that many of the alternative topologies do not - I've tried loads, and barring one circuit I'm working with now, and in all likelihood some of Jonathan Carr's excellent posts, there's little to better it.
I've never used a circuit insensitive to power supplies, but would be happy to have one shown to me.
I am, despite what may seem to be the case, about the most open-minded person I know and always willing to learn - so teach me stuff
I'm sure this is true, but have you tried the same by effectively pre-loading the regulator output, in low current circuits this is a more elegant, lower cost approach, with a small penalty in dissipation?
Push-pull output stages can bring about effects that I know would be sonically detrimental unless ideally implemented. I'm sure a shunt / supershunt would work well, but am less convinced that many could build a push-pull series reg that would work as well.
Andy.
before the knives get draw
The graph above has an impedance rise at LF, this is due to the inadequate value of coupling cap used to couple the error signal into the reg. and not the reg. itself.
I actually agree with you on this. All I ever do is present my experiences, sometimes, as with power supplies, I cannot disclose all of the facts I'm aware of due to various political / commercial arrangements and the fact that so far the knowledge I have would not seem to be public domain.
But I do give plenty of clues for those that care to look, and really try to encourage people to both approach things in a detailed rigorous engineering fashion, but then to use their ears.
In audio the latter is critical and fundamental and also easy to get wrong, on first impressions. I also strongly encourage you all to think outside of conventional wisdom.
The Jung reg's are old, but I've only heard one alternative that outperforms them at present. In all likelihood there's lots of alternatives, supported by my view that topology is often the least critical element, just correct implementation of that topology.
Arguing mine's better than yours is probably specious, but I'm happy for people to copy my design (that includes, by necessity, the PCB) and compare to alternative topologies.
The Jung reg's, to this day, do things that many of the alternative topologies do not - I've tried loads, and barring one circuit I'm working with now, and in all likelihood some of Jonathan Carr's excellent posts, there's little to better it.
I've never used a circuit insensitive to power supplies, but would be happy to have one shown to me.
I am, despite what may seem to be the case, about the most open-minded person I know and always willing to learn - so teach me stuff
I'm sure this is true, but have you tried the same by effectively pre-loading the regulator output, in low current circuits this is a more elegant, lower cost approach, with a small penalty in dissipation?
Push-pull output stages can bring about effects that I know would be sonically detrimental unless ideally implemented. I'm sure a shunt / supershunt would work well, but am less convinced that many could build a push-pull series reg that would work as well.
Andy.
Re: A couple of things
Koinichiwa,
Yes. I generally pre-load 3-pin's wherever I use them. I tend to use LM317/337 as pre-regulators and I prefer to use very low value resistors in the voltage divider setting the output voltage. This serves to "pre-load" these. For all other position I prefer to use the LM/TL431 as simple shunt, with optimised bypassing, giving a wideband, non-reactive PSU line with low but not excessively low impedance.
Unless of course I use Valve Circuits (which I mostly do) and where I do not use any regulation, just loads of chokes and Film Cap's... (or 'lytics if it is the LT)
In some experiments I found driving the PSU Pin's of Op-Amp's from the same type Op-Amp (which is a "Push-Pull Reg") with NO capacitance in the PSU line (this does take very TIGHT, three-dimensional layouting to work) sounded probably as good as Batteries with Filmcap only bypassing (Siemens naked chip stacked film MKT's).
I don't know if that qualifies as "ideally implemented", but it sure works well.
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
ALW said:
Yes. I generally pre-load 3-pin's wherever I use them. I tend to use LM317/337 as pre-regulators and I prefer to use very low value resistors in the voltage divider setting the output voltage. This serves to "pre-load" these. For all other position I prefer to use the LM/TL431 as simple shunt, with optimised bypassing, giving a wideband, non-reactive PSU line with low but not excessively low impedance.
Unless of course I use Valve Circuits (which I mostly do) and where I do not use any regulation, just loads of chokes and Film Cap's... (or 'lytics if it is the LT)
ALW said:
In some experiments I found driving the PSU Pin's of Op-Amp's from the same type Op-Amp (which is a "Push-Pull Reg") with NO capacitance in the PSU line (this does take very TIGHT, three-dimensional layouting to work) sounded probably as good as Batteries with Filmcap only bypassing (Siemens naked chip stacked film MKT's).
I don't know if that qualifies as "ideally implemented", but it sure works well.
Sayonara
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.