Tks, I am pretty sure the original caps are just SMD electrloytics on the digital board ? I have read about Wet Tants but most options are too big the digital board is small and the SMD's coming off are only 5mm or so and the board to lid height is only 15mm so not a lot of room.
This was the mod from Authentic cinema.de on the digital board and drove my desire to experiment
I'm enjoying experimenting and whilst I could send it to anyone including Coris to do some work I am keen to learn and integrate in my system. I am so fed up of spending thousands and realising its not better in my cinema set up. As you probably appreciate with a multichannel set up EQ and time alignment and set up takes time before you can fully assess. I run manual PEQ's and spend time to measure across and 2m seating position.
This was the mod from Authentic cinema.de on the digital board and drove my desire to experiment
I'm enjoying experimenting and whilst I could send it to anyone including Coris to do some work I am keen to learn and integrate in my system. I am so fed up of spending thousands and realising its not better in my cinema set up. As you probably appreciate with a multichannel set up EQ and time alignment and set up takes time before you can fully assess. I run manual PEQ's and spend time to measure across and 2m seating position.
The most of the SMD electrolytic caps used in this player model it do a filtering/decoupling function and it are placed on analogic power lines paths. These are replaceable, and another caps with a better parameters it can do a very good job, improving indeed the circuits performances. The filtering caps used in the UB9000 device, for filtering functions, are not optimal in my opinion (confirmed by experiments/results also). It were used that components as a compromise for technological production process, availability, etc. Here is place for improvements. The only problem when replacing such caps, is the available physical space for such modifications.
I am quite sceptic when about replacing the small caps around opamps as in local SMPS circuits, as these are enough critical components, which it are chosen by the designer accordingly to the active components used, and the targeted circuit functionality.
Indeed, the placement of big dimensions filtering caps all over an circuit is not a good approach. An carefully appreciation may be necessary regarding the placement of such big components. It can impact over the main circuits parameters, creating parasitic coupling for signals, degrade the noise levels, and so on. So, even replacing the original filtering caps with better ones, but bigger dimensions, in some cases it can do more bad than good. In an analogic circuit, the negative impact of such big caps placed over active components, it may not be very important, as such sections it works in relative low frequencies ranges. However, as a rule, is better doing such modifications with components heaving closer dimensions to the original ones, in the limits of the available space. In some cases, this it could be a challenge indeed...
I am quite sceptic when about replacing the small caps around opamps as in local SMPS circuits, as these are enough critical components, which it are chosen by the designer accordingly to the active components used, and the targeted circuit functionality.
Indeed, the placement of big dimensions filtering caps all over an circuit is not a good approach. An carefully appreciation may be necessary regarding the placement of such big components. It can impact over the main circuits parameters, creating parasitic coupling for signals, degrade the noise levels, and so on. So, even replacing the original filtering caps with better ones, but bigger dimensions, in some cases it can do more bad than good. In an analogic circuit, the negative impact of such big caps placed over active components, it may not be very important, as such sections it works in relative low frequencies ranges. However, as a rule, is better doing such modifications with components heaving closer dimensions to the original ones, in the limits of the available space. In some cases, this it could be a challenge indeed...
It doesnt say they are low impedance; it says they are lower impedance than the last silmic model. If they were actually low Z, they would specify the impedance in ohms at a range of frequencies. In my experience when a company makes high performance industrial capacitor parts their 'audio grade' typically means lower spec than industrial grade, but for more money 
.
@Coris Ah, I thought given the good layout and presence of what looks like (hard to tell the colour, but does look right) panasonic pps film SMD decoupling caps they may be nichicon polymer; as they look similar.
.@Coris Ah, I thought given the good layout and presence of what looks like (hard to tell the colour, but does look right) panasonic pps film SMD decoupling caps they may be nichicon polymer; as they look similar.
Coris, thanks
I am very pleased with silmics on the digital board. Much greater dynamics, more natural, more 'in the room' the voices are more real and better resolution without any additional brightness. More tonal density and body to the instruments and better separation. Very happy even if this was 'by chance' I have considered trying alternative high performance OScoms here highlighted in Blue to see if that is better or worse
Value any other inputs. I get I'm experimental but what are my options ?
Casea, audio com, Fidelity Audio, Authentic cinema.de and Coris all do upgrades and they are all different. I cant justify buying 5 players and have them upgraded then compare ! (Actually this would be cheaper than the Acurus ACT4 I tried for 6m as everyone I spoke to understandably said the best upgrade for me was to buy a HDMI processor. I COULD try a Trinnov,Storm,Lyngdorf at home. I was going to when lockdown bit. The trouble is I will need to pay £500 for a set up with the Trinnov, make 13 new cables for the set ur or assess with converters on cables then get to know the software etc)
Getting better multichannel is hard and expensive, this in many parts is why I want to pursue evolution and experimentation. Looking inside my Acurus ACT4, no 'cheap' multichannel DAC, 8 stereo burr Brown high performance DACs, plenty of WIMA caps and Nichicons, nicely put together much neater solution HDMI>Processor>power amps. It should have sounded better than Panasonic digital out> Old naim AV2>power amps sub via miniDSP. But it didnt I really wanted it to I had bought I tried for 6m, with different settings, EQ tweaks, cables and so on. But alas no the naim came back from the loft all my newly made cables boxed up and I sold the Acurus (with a large financial hit)
If anyone did a decent sounding processor I'd have it. I have been to all the demos of Lyngdorf,Storm,Dataset,Trinnov and the cinema is good for the block busters but put on music or a heavily backed music film and its pretty good but not better than a really good 2 channel set up. I dont think any of them use linear power supplies and they sound pretty good, but not I must send £15k good and no reason to suggest notably better than the Acurus. Whilst I am familiar with my set up and biased Im sure. I am getting a better result out of my set up than I believe I could by trying another £10k+ processor
I hope I am making some sense 😳
Appreciate all the help I'm getting, as I say Im here to learn and improve my cinema system
I am very pleased with silmics on the digital board. Much greater dynamics, more natural, more 'in the room' the voices are more real and better resolution without any additional brightness. More tonal density and body to the instruments and better separation. Very happy even if this was 'by chance' I have considered trying alternative high performance OScoms here highlighted in Blue to see if that is better or worse
Value any other inputs. I get I'm experimental but what are my options ?
Casea, audio com, Fidelity Audio, Authentic cinema.de and Coris all do upgrades and they are all different. I cant justify buying 5 players and have them upgraded then compare ! (Actually this would be cheaper than the Acurus ACT4 I tried for 6m as everyone I spoke to understandably said the best upgrade for me was to buy a HDMI processor. I COULD try a Trinnov,Storm,Lyngdorf at home. I was going to when lockdown bit. The trouble is I will need to pay £500 for a set up with the Trinnov, make 13 new cables for the set ur or assess with converters on cables then get to know the software etc)
Getting better multichannel is hard and expensive, this in many parts is why I want to pursue evolution and experimentation. Looking inside my Acurus ACT4, no 'cheap' multichannel DAC, 8 stereo burr Brown high performance DACs, plenty of WIMA caps and Nichicons, nicely put together much neater solution HDMI>Processor>power amps. It should have sounded better than Panasonic digital out> Old naim AV2>power amps sub via miniDSP. But it didnt I really wanted it to I had bought I tried for 6m, with different settings, EQ tweaks, cables and so on. But alas no the naim came back from the loft all my newly made cables boxed up and I sold the Acurus (with a large financial hit)
If anyone did a decent sounding processor I'd have it. I have been to all the demos of Lyngdorf,Storm,Dataset,Trinnov and the cinema is good for the block busters but put on music or a heavily backed music film and its pretty good but not better than a really good 2 channel set up. I dont think any of them use linear power supplies and they sound pretty good, but not I must send £15k good and no reason to suggest notably better than the Acurus. Whilst I am familiar with my set up and biased Im sure. I am getting a better result out of my set up than I believe I could by trying another £10k+ processor
I hope I am making some sense 😳
Appreciate all the help I'm getting, as I say Im here to learn and improve my cinema system
Well, an good PCB layout is important for modern chips and in today technology. I am not trusting so much that legendary (old fashion) terminology: "audio grade caps". Some vendors it use this denomination mostly of advertising reasons, to increase their sales. Many other usual or industrial "grade" caps are, or could be, better in this field of audio applications. I have read about someone who plant/replace the caps in the main SMPS of this device, with "audio grade" caps... I may say that in that an SMPS it should be used caps with parameters which it have quite less in common with the "audio grade" notion...
In case of UB9000 upgrades, there is actually the increased capacity which it mainly do the improvement job. The DAC circuit areas it are placed in this device, on digital board, but actually there it is about analogue power lines...
In case of UB9000 upgrades, there is actually the increased capacity which it mainly do the improvement job. The DAC circuit areas it are placed in this device, on digital board, but actually there it is about analogue power lines...
Does the Panasonic UB9000 do Multichannel FLAC or WAV over WIFI?
Has anyone tried using the UB9000 as an eight channel source?
Id like to get eight channel FLAC or WAV 192/24 over WIFI. The manual says it does WIFI and FLAC /WAV but neglects to say if it does eight channels:
FLAC: Maximum sampling rate: 192 kHz/24 bit
WAV: Maximum sampling rate: 384 kHz/32 bit
Can it do these in eight channels over WIFI? Thanks.
Hi Coris,
-have you done any experimenting with the clock-system on the ub9000( only interested in the video side) ?
(I see in the beginning of this thread that you talk about maybe doing something with the clock-system, and that you maybe have reserved power from your LPS to do this ?)
-I see that one can change the LPS at home/diy. Is there a list of things that can be done if sending in the UB9000, I mean mods that you normally can't do home/diy ?(again only interested in video/audio via HDMI)
-have you done any experimenting with the clock-system on the ub9000( only interested in the video side) ?
(I see in the beginning of this thread that you talk about maybe doing something with the clock-system, and that you maybe have reserved power from your LPS to do this ?)
-I see that one can change the LPS at home/diy. Is there a list of things that can be done if sending in the UB9000, I mean mods that you normally can't do home/diy ?(again only interested in video/audio via HDMI)
Hi Ludvik,
Well, I have examined closely the clock section in UB9000, and I concluded that it is very well designed. It is used also and oscillator to generate the clock signal. The only improvement this section it need is in my opinion, an improved power approach. So, I did this actually, using a linear power line delivered by my LPS (advanced version, which is not possible being DIY mounted). Any other interventions (except power system improvement) on clock circuit, it do more harm than good.
There is not like this (at least in my opinion), that any multimedia consumer device it may need automatically replaced, or upgraded the clock section, beside another improvements. Oppo devices it had different clock design approach, and there it was justified an fully replacement/improvement. Panasonic is different in this respect.
The main issue of all consumer media products is the extended use of SMPS circuits in power system. This is so because SMPS or DC to DC converters are more energy efficient, cheaper to implement, and have reduced footprint on boards. The important downside of such approach is the high level of large spectre noises induced in the whole system. applying eventual complex hardware filtering measures it will increase the device production costs and therefore in most cases such is dropped (the "good enough" concept). An linear power system it improve dramatically any device performances, as it reduce in first instance the system overall noise level.
For the other of your questions, you have my answer in an PM...
Well, I have examined closely the clock section in UB9000, and I concluded that it is very well designed. It is used also and oscillator to generate the clock signal. The only improvement this section it need is in my opinion, an improved power approach. So, I did this actually, using a linear power line delivered by my LPS (advanced version, which is not possible being DIY mounted). Any other interventions (except power system improvement) on clock circuit, it do more harm than good.
There is not like this (at least in my opinion), that any multimedia consumer device it may need automatically replaced, or upgraded the clock section, beside another improvements. Oppo devices it had different clock design approach, and there it was justified an fully replacement/improvement. Panasonic is different in this respect.
The main issue of all consumer media products is the extended use of SMPS circuits in power system. This is so because SMPS or DC to DC converters are more energy efficient, cheaper to implement, and have reduced footprint on boards. The important downside of such approach is the high level of large spectre noises induced in the whole system. applying eventual complex hardware filtering measures it will increase the device production costs and therefore in most cases such is dropped (the "good enough" concept). An linear power system it improve dramatically any device performances, as it reduce in first instance the system overall noise level.
For the other of your questions, you have my answer in an PM...
Last edited:
Yes indeed, the LPS simple version it improve both picture and digital sound. My LPS advanced version (added supplementary linear power line) it improve even more (full scale) both picture and digital sound, as implementing this LPS is done together with other extended improvements on main board.
LM7812/7912 for filtering SMPS output? What a peculiar choice. A look at the datasheet, specifically Figure 5 on page 9, shows ripple rejection decreasing by about 6 dB/octave above 100 Hz, going to less than 40 dB at 100 kHz. At a first glance the SMPS seems to be running around 100 kHz so its output could have ripple at that frequency. Note opamp power supply rejection ratio (PSRR) tends to decrease with frequency as well, as Figure 14 on the OPA1612 datasheet shows.
Both these factors could explain the poor reputation of SMPS in audio contexts since in my experience, "glassy" sound tends to be associated with ultrasonic noise interfering with audible signals. For the Panasonic player, I wonder whether a 1 ohm (value not critical) resistor in series with the regulator input to form a low pass filter with its input stability capacitor (assuming it's above 10 uF or so) might help alleviate the analog line grunge. It's a really simple change, obviously not as refined as Coris's LPS, but the result could be amusing.
Well, in fact the placement of linear regulators devices at the output of an SMPS based circuit, it improve the overall performances of that power supply. An linear regulator it act actually as a filter, but in a relatively low frequency ranges, as the ripple and so. An SMPS outputting into a linear regulator is a good compromise in improving the noise performances of that SMPS. However, the high frequencies (large spectre), generating by the switching mechanism in an SMPS it goes through the linear regulator, and the low cost filters, further into the system.
There is another aspect in this approach: there is not possible using too large capacities for DC filtering, before and after the linear regulator, placed at the SMPS output, for improving even more the noise level over the DC voltage delivered. This is because the tight current control of the switching device/chip which it run the SMPS. An too large filtering capacity placed on the SMPS (with/without) an linear regulator, on its output, it cause an high inrush current at power on. The current control loup of SMPS circuit it then act and the SMPS it not start up at all, or in a safe maner...
So, as an overall appreciation, the SMPS (good energy efficiency, low thermal generating, low footprint), with an linear regulator on its output is a good compromise or combination. As in any compromise, the final result is not as optimal, as without compromise... So, a such SMPS approach is in between an pure SMPS and a linear PSU, when about output HF noise levels. Best option is in the end the linear PSU. A such LPS with large filtering capacities it handle very well the inrush current at power on, as the linear regulator which it have too inbuild an current limiter/protection, it act in first instance, but after the inrush current decrease, it allow the LPS (in a very safe maner) to deliver the power is designed for. The SMPS protection mechanism it just stop the switching circuit (the oscillations), and a reset is necessary to restart the whole system.
Another main advantage of an LPS is the absences of any high frequencies generating, and this it make much more easy to filter out any of the possible low frequency noises on its output. Well, we are talking here about important level of high frequency noises, as even an linear regulator it can generate extremely low level high frequencies as well. Such HF noises of an LPS it are important when powering a RF circuit, or a very special analogue audio circuit. In such cases very special linear regulators are used (ultra low noise regulators). Here we are talking about powering a whole system/device by an LPS, but not special analogue or RF circuits. In such case the extremely low level HF spectre generating by a linear regulator device, it are absolutely not important.
To conclude, an LPS is the best choice when about powering a whole digital system/device. This it lower dramatically the overall noise level into the whole system, as an LPS it not generate any HF noises by its basic functional principe. Well, there is of course about reasonable or relatively low demanding power systems. LPS powering high demanding power systems it become unusable, and SMPS have to be used instead. An SMPS with linear regulators outputs is a good compromise between the advantages of an SMPS circuit, and the targetet low noise level into the powered system.
Also another aspect just in the end: any consumer product is made (produced) based not on what is the best solution, but on which is the best compromise performances - production costs. The further upgrades, tweaking's, or custom improvements approaches, applied on that consumer product is in principe meant to correct the device production costs compromises, targeting the best performances...
There is another aspect in this approach: there is not possible using too large capacities for DC filtering, before and after the linear regulator, placed at the SMPS output, for improving even more the noise level over the DC voltage delivered. This is because the tight current control of the switching device/chip which it run the SMPS. An too large filtering capacity placed on the SMPS (with/without) an linear regulator, on its output, it cause an high inrush current at power on. The current control loup of SMPS circuit it then act and the SMPS it not start up at all, or in a safe maner...
So, as an overall appreciation, the SMPS (good energy efficiency, low thermal generating, low footprint), with an linear regulator on its output is a good compromise or combination. As in any compromise, the final result is not as optimal, as without compromise... So, a such SMPS approach is in between an pure SMPS and a linear PSU, when about output HF noise levels. Best option is in the end the linear PSU. A such LPS with large filtering capacities it handle very well the inrush current at power on, as the linear regulator which it have too inbuild an current limiter/protection, it act in first instance, but after the inrush current decrease, it allow the LPS (in a very safe maner) to deliver the power is designed for. The SMPS protection mechanism it just stop the switching circuit (the oscillations), and a reset is necessary to restart the whole system.
Another main advantage of an LPS is the absences of any high frequencies generating, and this it make much more easy to filter out any of the possible low frequency noises on its output. Well, we are talking here about important level of high frequency noises, as even an linear regulator it can generate extremely low level high frequencies as well. Such HF noises of an LPS it are important when powering a RF circuit, or a very special analogue audio circuit. In such cases very special linear regulators are used (ultra low noise regulators). Here we are talking about powering a whole system/device by an LPS, but not special analogue or RF circuits. In such case the extremely low level HF spectre generating by a linear regulator device, it are absolutely not important.
To conclude, an LPS is the best choice when about powering a whole digital system/device. This it lower dramatically the overall noise level into the whole system, as an LPS it not generate any HF noises by its basic functional principe. Well, there is of course about reasonable or relatively low demanding power systems. LPS powering high demanding power systems it become unusable, and SMPS have to be used instead. An SMPS with linear regulators outputs is a good compromise between the advantages of an SMPS circuit, and the targetet low noise level into the powered system.
Also another aspect just in the end: any consumer product is made (produced) based not on what is the best solution, but on which is the best compromise performances - production costs. The further upgrades, tweaking's, or custom improvements approaches, applied on that consumer product is in principe meant to correct the device production costs compromises, targeting the best performances...
Last edited:
Wow, that touched a nerve ... Pretty sure we are all aware of the issues of loading many switching regulator designs with too much filtering. I dont think @DSP_Geek was suggesting using a linear post regulation stage was necessarily a bad thing, quite the opposite; just that perhaps selecting a regulator with better PSRR in the frequency range it is expected to reject, would be prudent. Choosing one from the RF catalogue in this century would be a good start.
Coris is not wrong, and if I get a UB9000 his supply will get serious consideration, not because I can't do one myself but because he's done a nice well-packaged piece of work. There's also the question of SMPSes spraying radio frequency interference (RFI) all over the inside of players using them, and possibly the image improvements reported with LPSes could be attributed to less of that stuff getting into the video circuitry. RFI really is a hidden problem reaching into every stage of the reproduction process: sources, preamps, and even power amplifiers.
I proposed putting a small resistor (as mentioned above, about 1 ohm or so) before the pre-regulator capacitor and regulator input so the RC network will act as a low-pass filter before the supply hits the regulator. SMPS outputs are filtered by at least 1000 uF so another 10-100 uF won't change loading much, especially since it'll isolated by a smallish resistor.
A 1 ohm / 10 uF filter has a corner frequency of about 16 kHz so switching noise of 100 kHz would be attenuated by about 15 dB, and 1 ohm / 100 uF would attenuate 100 kHz noise by 35 dB. Electrolytic capacitors of course have series resistance & inductance, so a ceramic cap of about one-tenth to one-hundredth of the electro's value could be useful in parallel with it.
Come to think of it, I think series pre-regulator resistors will make their way into my preamp linear supply to prevent any line-borne grunge from getting to the rails.
Yes indeed, the RF radiation of an SMPS is an important issue as well. I forgot to mention about this aspect in my previous post. However, in UB9000 there is realised by design a very good shielding of the boards against RF radiation from main SMPS. Oppo 103/203 it was quite bad in this respect (no shielding at all).
Yes, any filtering cell added to an SMPS output it improve somehow the noise level. The 1 ohm resistor proposed it may be a little bit too high value in this particularly case (maybe something between 0,4 ohm and 0,6 ohm), but the cap value after it may be all right. However, the noise spectre is much wider around the central switching frequency of the SMPS, so a satisfactory filtering with an added RC cell it may not be quite important. A good filtering of the noise on an SMPS output is indeed a very big challenge. So big challenge that instead of working on that is better and easier redirecting all the efforts in replacing the whole SMPS with an LPS...
Yes, any filtering cell added to an SMPS output it improve somehow the noise level. The 1 ohm resistor proposed it may be a little bit too high value in this particularly case (maybe something between 0,4 ohm and 0,6 ohm), but the cap value after it may be all right. However, the noise spectre is much wider around the central switching frequency of the SMPS, so a satisfactory filtering with an added RC cell it may not be quite important. A good filtering of the noise on an SMPS output is indeed a very big challenge. So big challenge that instead of working on that is better and easier redirecting all the efforts in replacing the whole SMPS with an LPS...