The recommended values seem to be 470R/220nF. I'm having good results with 75R/10uF, which seems to give a fuller and more impactful sound on my clone of Peter Daniels 3D dac.
I've tried caps on pin 20 from 10nf to 4.7uf. THey all make the sound lusher, but there doesn't seem to be anything between them.
I'm using a 1206 SMD resistor, assuming that shorter is better, and 10uf 35v Rubycon ZA. Is this an ideal cap to use, in terms of properties rather than capacitance, and do you think the dac would still work if the filter moved it up to 50R/20uF?
TIA
I've tried caps on pin 20 from 10nf to 4.7uf. THey all make the sound lusher, but there doesn't seem to be anything between them.
I'm using a 1206 SMD resistor, assuming that shorter is better, and 10uf 35v Rubycon ZA. Is this an ideal cap to use, in terms of properties rather than capacitance, and do you think the dac would still work if the filter moved it up to 50R/20uF?
TIA
Kittaylor
Have you a schematic for CS8412 ? Crystal may have a
application sheet download. You also need to define
from a schematic what you are doing
Resistors and Capacitors have many functions
when combining together such as frequency rolloff
frequency emphasis. You need to understand
the manufacturers intent. Indeed 50r and 20uf might
be better but why, how are you influencing the circuit.
Electronics is benefitted by experimentation but
only when the terms or boundarys are known.
Is this making sense ?
Cheers / Chris
Have you a schematic for CS8412 ? Crystal may have a
application sheet download. You also need to define
from a schematic what you are doing
Resistors and Capacitors have many functions
when combining together such as frequency rolloff
frequency emphasis. You need to understand
the manufacturers intent. Indeed 50r and 20uf might
be better but why, how are you influencing the circuit.
Electronics is benefitted by experimentation but
only when the terms or boundarys are known.
Is this making sense ?
Cheers / Chris
Hi
When using 75 ohm, I'd suspect you need about 8 uF, so 10 uF will do
I prefer a film cap like the Wima over any lityc. The 10uF Wima MKS2 is available in 5mm pitch, 16V working voltage
http://www.reichelt.de/inhalt.html?...START=0;END=16;STATIC=0;FC=6;PROVID=0;TITEL=0
I hope the link will still work
Even better is a cacscade of a second PLL containing a low jitter VCXO, following the Crystal
succes
When using 75 ohm, I'd suspect you need about 8 uF, so 10 uF will do
I prefer a film cap like the Wima over any lityc. The 10uF Wima MKS2 is available in 5mm pitch, 16V working voltage
http://www.reichelt.de/inhalt.html?...START=0;END=16;STATIC=0;FC=6;PROVID=0;TITEL=0
I hope the link will still work
Even better is a cacscade of a second PLL containing a low jitter VCXO, following the Crystal
succes
Chris Daly said:
Chris
Its seems kit knows what he is doing, given the way he scales the parts, he only asked for parts reccomendation
Ofcourse lowering the PLL corner is a good thing, since the jitter attenuation increases.
The manufacturers intent is to sell as much as possible silicon, they do not care for good sound - ever considered why they put the filt pin (20) next to the MCK output (20) pin ?
I guess they don't know how the crosstalk affects the PLL jitter, would they ?
That is dealt with in a great eal by adding some 10nF directly to ground. Ofcourse this advise is not in the datasheet.................
Some findings that might be of interest.
I've built a new dac with 10nF NPO 1206 on across pin 19 & 20.
The first loopfilter was 100R 1206 and 4.7uf Ruby ZA. Swapping the cap for a 22uF Oscon SP gave more of the same, more forward, bigger and tonally thicker and more rounded. I think it takes a split second longer to lock on, I'm not sure.
Swapping the resistor for 43R* made quite a difference. Fatter, cleaner, more liquid and greater clarity in terms of timing and separation.
Downsides? It sounds a bit too well organised, I tend to go for more of a thunderous wall of sound effect, and bit harder in the upper mid.
*46.2R would be the ideal value, according to my back of the envelope calculation that
Capacitor value C = (1000/R)^2 x 47
hence
Resistor = 1000 / square root of (C/47)
Cap values in nF, BTW.
I've built a new dac with 10nF NPO 1206 on across pin 19 & 20.
The first loopfilter was 100R 1206 and 4.7uf Ruby ZA. Swapping the cap for a 22uF Oscon SP gave more of the same, more forward, bigger and tonally thicker and more rounded. I think it takes a split second longer to lock on, I'm not sure.
Swapping the resistor for 43R* made quite a difference. Fatter, cleaner, more liquid and greater clarity in terms of timing and separation.
Downsides? It sounds a bit too well organised, I tend to go for more of a thunderous wall of sound effect, and bit harder in the upper mid.
*46.2R would be the ideal value, according to my back of the envelope calculation that
Capacitor value C = (1000/R)^2 x 47
hence
Resistor = 1000 / square root of (C/47)
Cap values in nF, BTW.
Guido:
Can you elaborate on the use of the 10 nF capacitor as
to where and how it is used with the CS8412 chip?
Also, what is the current thinking about the filter
component values and configuration for best
performance with the CS8412 reciever? I also
seem to remember that you once said that
seperating out the analog and digital grounds
for this chip was an improvement, right?
Fastcat
Can you elaborate on the use of the 10 nF capacitor as
to where and how it is used with the CS8412 chip?
Also, what is the current thinking about the filter
component values and configuration for best
performance with the CS8412 reciever? I also
seem to remember that you once said that
seperating out the analog and digital grounds
for this chip was an improvement, right?
Fastcat
fastcat95 said:
Hi
The cap reduces crosstalk from pin 19 to pin 20. It should be from pin 20 to pin 21 (Agnd)
See also
http://www.tentlabs.com/Products/DIYDAC/DIYDAC.html
and
http://www.tentlabs.com/Info/Articles/Supply_decoupling.pdf
on layout issues
NEVER sperate groundplanes (regardless of what others or industry say)
What happens when you seperate them and why would it improve ?
Pay attention to quality of analog supply (LOW noise)
cheers
Surprisingly the dac still works with 43R followed by a 220uF Rubycon ZA, it just takes a second to lock on after the transport engages.
An improvement I feel, maaaaking sure that the rest of the system is setup and tweaked to match. Quite a subtle change, there's not really any more of anything but the presentation feels more relaxed.
An improvement I feel, maaaaking sure that the rest of the system is setup and tweaked to match. Quite a subtle change, there's not really any more of anything but the presentation feels more relaxed.
That's what I'd hoped to do Guido. Does there come a point where the cap value is too high for the CS8412 to function at all, or point where it causes more jitter than it cures?
As for the CS8412 analog supply I'm getting good results with an LM317AT with 4.7uF X7R 1206 on the ADJ pin, two 56uH Epcos mini chokes in series and another 4.7uF across pins 22 & 21.
Any improvement suggestions that aren't too radical?
TIA
As for the CS8412 analog supply I'm getting good results with an LM317AT with 4.7uF X7R 1206 on the ADJ pin, two 56uH Epcos mini chokes in series and another 4.7uF across pins 22 & 21.
Any improvement suggestions that aren't too radical?
TIA
Lm317/337
Hi All,
The LM317 and LM337 with bypassed adjustment pin are used in the upgrade powersupply for the Mark Levinson JC-2 preamplifier by John Curl and me. See the Positive Feedback article from the magazine that declines all my emails. Such a supply does sound WAY better than the elaborate PLS-150 supply designed by Tom Colangelo costing some US$ 750..........!
I also found the LM317 in the powersupply of the highly regarded Cello Encore preamplifier. Tom C. must be fallen off his belief......
A Jung like regulator can sound better but is more difficult and complicated to build.
Hi All,
The LM317 and LM337 with bypassed adjustment pin are used in the upgrade powersupply for the Mark Levinson JC-2 preamplifier by John Curl and me. See the Positive Feedback article from the magazine that declines all my emails. Such a supply does sound WAY better than the elaborate PLS-150 supply designed by Tom Colangelo costing some US$ 750..........!
I also found the LM317 in the powersupply of the highly regarded Cello Encore preamplifier. Tom C. must be fallen off his belief......
A Jung like regulator can sound better but is more difficult and complicated to build.
Re: Lm317/337
and still a 317 based thing is noisy compared to a decent discrete reg
Elso Kwak said:Hi All,
The LM317 and LM337 with bypassed adjustment pin are used in the upgrade powersupply for the Mark Levinson JC-2 preamplifier by John Curl and me. See the Positive Feedback article from the magazine that declines all my emails. Such a supply does sound WAY better than the elaborate PLS-150 supply designed by Tom Colangelo costing some US$ 750..........!
I also found the LM317 in the powersupply of the highly regarded Cello Encore preamplifier. Tom C. must be fallen off his belief......
A Jung like regulator can sound better but is more difficult and complicated to build.
and still a 317 based thing is noisy compared to a decent discrete reg
Hello to all!
I have seen that the spec sheets for the JRC (NJR) 3
terminal regulators (+5VDC, TO220, 1A) indicate lower
noise levels than other three terminal regulators
from National and LT. Does anyone have any ideas
or info about this? According to their specs, it might
seem better to substitute a JRC regulator into a
circuit for the CS8412 reciever.
Fastcat
I have seen that the spec sheets for the JRC (NJR) 3
terminal regulators (+5VDC, TO220, 1A) indicate lower
noise levels than other three terminal regulators
from National and LT. Does anyone have any ideas
or info about this? According to their specs, it might
seem better to substitute a JRC regulator into a
circuit for the CS8412 reciever.
Fastcat
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.