LDR attenuators - Better balance with DC bias - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analog Line Level

Analog Line Level Preamplifiers , Passive Pre-amps, Crossovers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28th March 2012, 03:29 AM   #11
BFNY is offline BFNY  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Saratoga NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by gootee View Post
It could be done with a micro, and memory for the measured LDR curves. But this way it could be done with no memory, or processor, which could also be accomplished by using pilot tones that were outside of the audio range.
Yep, but on the other hand, is it really a real time problem? It would be also possible to set volume, hit a "cal" button, and have the out of band tone do it's thing for 1-2 secs, then turn off. No one could really complain about that, because it's normally off.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2012, 04:23 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
We could ask for Nelson Pass' comments, he had used DC to match the LDR resistances in some commercial guitar pre-amp set up some time ago
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2012, 01:44 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
The devil is in the details. Have you played with LDRs? Some points to consider:

1. At higher resistances, it takes quite a while for resistance to completely stabilize. At high resistances, it can take a minute to completely stabilize and then it wanders around a central value +/- a few hundred ohms.

2. Whatever control mechanism you use, it must be capable of accurate control over a range of maybe 15ma at 40 ohms to .005ma at 10K. There is a wide range of sensitivities, I'll attach a list I compiled using my present current control arrangement. At the high end, a change of .001ma can change the resistance by 1K ohms down, or 10K ohms up (a range of 9K~20K). With some of these devices at 10K ohms, a slight change in current will make the unit act like it fell off the edge of the world, resistance-wise.

I believe that I've read that udailey has limited the upper end of his Lighter Note to 8k ohms to avoid the drop-off at 10K.

3. What measurable DC voltage will you use in a device whose resistance will vary across a range of 40 ohms to 10K ohms, always keeping in mind that power is limited to 50mW?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ScreenShot006.jpg (137.3 KB, 218 views)
File Type: jpg ScreenShot009.jpg (77.0 KB, 214 views)

Last edited by wapo54001; 28th March 2012 at 01:46 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2012, 04:43 PM   #14
AndrewT is online now AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
I would expect that the monitoring circuit would compare the DC output voltage from the two sides. Make an adjustment and then compare again. Alternatively, a VERY SLOW time constant could be used to compare the two DC outputs.
One could put "cal" on a timer, 2seconds or 2minutes or whatever. Then it holds and disconnects itself.
__________________
regards Andrew T.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2012, 06:51 PM   #15
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
This all sounds like a lot of work to avoid a simple pot. The LDR resistance wandering mentioned above could generate more LF/subsonic noise than a track-wiper contact.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2012, 05:19 AM   #16
gootee is offline gootee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Indiana
Blog Entries: 1
It's not just to avoid a pot, is it?

1. The LDRs wouldn't need to be matched.
2. LDRs can't really be matched, anyway. They don't just differ by an offset. Their R vs LED Current curves all have different shapes.

Some of the possibilities:

1. Use digital memory and auto-calibrate once, or at every startup, or whenever the Cal button is pressed. Auto-cal would result in some type of lookup table for each LDR/LED device, so that the two channels could be controlled to give accurate resistances for each of the four devices, for every setting of the attenuation control.

2. Don't use digital memory and use an out-of-band signal (DC or HF) and a automatic feedback control system to continuously either a) set all four resistances for correct and matching attenuation, or, b) cause the slave channel's two LDR/LED devices to track the resistances of the master channel's devices, for whatever resistances happened to result in the master channel's devices, from the attenuator pot setting.

3. Similar to 2, above, except that the out-of-band signal would only be engaged when the attenuation control was changed. Then the resulting settings would need to be remembered, somehow, maybe with digital memory or digital pots, or sample-and-holds.

It might have been nice if the music signals could have been used, to constantly auto-cal, by using current- and voltage-sensing instrumentation amplifiers, RMS-to-DC convertors, and analog dividers, to calculate a voltage corresponding to each resistance, continuously, which would have been fed to differential integrators that would have also used setpoint voltages derived from a Lightspeed-style pot's output voltages and would have then provided control voltages to voltage-controlled current sources for the LEDs.

That might have worked, somewhat, if the time-constant was extremely large/slow (except when there wasn't any music!). But it seems like it would be far better, anyway, to hold the resistances completely constant, except when the attenuation is being changed by the user, which probably rules-out 2a, above. But, the same sort of system might work as part of the auto-calibrator implementation for number 3, above. Maybe only one such measurement-and-control system would actually be needed, with switching to let it look at each of the four LDR/LED devices sequentially during auto-cal.

But I have to say that it's looking like wapo54001's approach (see his thread), which is basically like number 1, above, I think, is looking better and better, although 3b, above (like 2b) might be simple-enough to make it reasonable to attempt.

Last edited by gootee; 29th March 2012 at 05:28 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2012, 08:00 AM   #17
godfrey is offline godfrey  South Africa
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cape Town
Quote:
Originally Posted by wapo54001 View Post
The devil is in the details.
No kidding. The more I look at these things, the more I don't like them.

This chart sums it up nicely; you've basically got a choice of slow or unpredictable.
Attached Images
File Type: gif opto.GIF (12.7 KB, 166 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2012, 08:10 AM   #18
nezbleu is offline nezbleu  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
nezbleu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Doesn't all this just raise the same old question: "What problem are LDR volume controls supposed to solve?" (followed by "And do they?")
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2012, 09:20 AM   #19
godfrey is offline godfrey  South Africa
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cape Town
They seem to just replace one set of problems with another (worse) set.

I wonder if one couldn't get better results using JFETS instead of LDRs as the variable resistance elements. Here's links to a couple of relevant documents:
http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~kphang/...martin_AGC.pdf
http://www.edn.com/contents/images/120601di.pdf

It should be easy to get just as much distortion as with the LDRs, for those that like that sort of thing. Ahem, let me rephrase that.... Those that like the sound of LDRs despite their distortion may also like the JFET version despite it's distortion.

Sample circuits below.
Attached Images
File Type: gif jfet.GIF (6.7 KB, 138 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2012, 01:23 PM   #20
godfrey is offline godfrey  South Africa
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cape Town
Oboy! I just realized you can make the distortion cancellation variable and have a dial-a-distortion knob on the front panel next to the volume control, for recordings that could use a little extra warmth.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dynaco Bias Balance kit Sal Brisindi Tubes / Valves 1 10th June 2012 05:57 AM
FS: DACT Stepped Attenuators & Balance Control enjoythemusic1 Swap Meet 9 29th September 2011 01:44 PM
Paul Haynes LDR Volume and Balance with Remote Control (lightspeed, Lighter Note) ua100k Swap Meet 2 26th April 2011 04:00 PM
More about LDR attenuators jotape Analog Line Level 0 6th September 2010 01:02 PM
PP bias balance pot fred76 Tubes / Valves 1 29th November 2007 07:34 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:28 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2