Not really. In my view, the notion that fully passive EQ is better is obsolete.
Cheers,
Bob
thanks Bob,the key item is not the passive EQ,my concern is that remove the OP IC,replace with JFET and Bipolar Transistors. this should be crazy.
My board finally soldered and tested...
Compare with #82
Hi Black Jack,
May I ask you where to find these very nice RCA sockets and possibly the name of the manufacturer.
The only comparable ones I can find are hideously expensive from WBT and Furutech.
Hans
Hi Hans,
I was looking around for higher quality RCA jacks too, found the same as you did, the jacks would cost more that everything else in the design same cost as the transformer/PS
I went looking at this supplier, which are local to me
RCA Connectors
ridiculous imo
If I do up this vinyltrak design, I'll use these ones,
Switchcraft pjras2x1s__x_series OR
CUI RCJ-21XX OR
Mouser has these ones, which I got one for a sample, they are not too bad imo for what they cost
161-4220-E Kobiconn | Mouser Canada
They say they are gold plated, but that is only the shell, not the center pin, still a good solid connection.
Cheers Rick
I was looking around for higher quality RCA jacks too, found the same as you did, the jacks would cost more that everything else in the design
same cost as the transformer/PS I went looking at this supplier, which are local to me
RCA Connectors
ridiculous imo
If I do up this vinyltrak design, I'll use these ones,
Switchcraft pjras2x1s__x_series OR
CUI RCJ-21XX OR
Mouser has these ones, which I got one for a sample, they are not too bad imo for what they cost
161-4220-E Kobiconn | Mouser Canada
They say they are gold plated, but that is only the shell, not the center pin, still a good solid connection.
Cheers Rick
Hi Rick,Hi Hans,
I was looking around for higher quality RCA jacks too, found the same as you did, the jacks would cost more that everything else in the design
I went looking at this supplier, which are local to me
RCA Connectors
ridiculous imo
If I do up this vinyltrak design, I'll use these ones,
Switchcraft pjras2x1s__x_series OR
CUI RCJ-21XX OR
Mouser has these ones, which I got one for a sample, they are not too bad imo for what they cost
161-4220-E Kobiconn | Mouser Canada
They say they are gold plated, but that is only the shell, not the center pin, still a good solid connection.
Cheers Rick
Thanks for your feedback,
Hans
Hello everybody,
I'm repairing my Technics SU-A900 MK2 amplifier. I am searching for information about Toshiba 2SK389-GK dual JFET. On Internet I only find datasheets which contain codes -GR , -BL , -V , but nothing about -GK. They have different IDSS values and different ID-VDS curves.
Most of all I am searching for one piece of 2SK389-GK or something which fits.
Thanks in advance!
I'm repairing my Technics SU-A900 MK2 amplifier. I am searching for information about Toshiba 2SK389-GK dual JFET. On Internet I only find datasheets which contain codes -GR , -BL , -V , but nothing about -GK. They have different IDSS values and different ID-VDS curves.
Most of all I am searching for one piece of 2SK389-GK or something which fits.
Thanks in advance!
Yes, I have. The guys who answered were kind and I do thank them, but the topic is not easy and weren't helpful. Later I noticed this thread and wrote here as well. Couldn't I?
Hi Bob,
With great interest have I been reading the VinylTrak article in Linear Audio and what you added on your home page.
I know it is already a reasonable old article (8 years) but in the time of vinyl playback it is still fresh.
If it is alright I would like to ask you a few questions?
1 Why not use a single LSK389 for the MM stage instead of the LS844? (I don't see the advantage of the 844 in this circuit)
2 would paralleling multiple LSK389 not work for MM, the cascode input stage should minimize input capacity.
3 Why use a current mirror as a constant current source for the input stage instead of a reference based current source? (is that to control startup behavior?
Thanks for a great article.
Peter
With great interest have I been reading the VinylTrak article in Linear Audio and what you added on your home page.
I know it is already a reasonable old article (8 years) but in the time of vinyl playback it is still fresh.
If it is alright I would like to ask you a few questions?
1 Why not use a single LSK389 for the MM stage instead of the LS844? (I don't see the advantage of the 844 in this circuit)
2 would paralleling multiple LSK389 not work for MM, the cascode input stage should minimize input capacity.
3 Why use a current mirror as a constant current source for the input stage instead of a reference based current source? (is that to control startup behavior?
Thanks for a great article.
Peter
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your kind words. These are good questions.
The MM stage does not really need the extremely low noise of the LSK389, and I opted for the lower capacitance of the 844 in this appication. It was strictly a judgement call, and a 389's capacitance can be mitigated by a cascode, especially with a driven cascode where a copy of the signal is effectively applied to the bases of the cascode transistors. Also, my choice these days would be the LSK489, which is similar in characteristics to the 844, but benefits from better processing to reduce noise. The LSK489 provides a very good combination of low noise and low capacitance. Its transconductance is similar to that of the older 844.
Paralleling multiple LSK389 for the MM stage would lower the input voltage noise, but still increase the effects of capacitance, even with cascode mitigation. I have not done the analysis, but with that many LSK389s in parallel, combined leakage current shot noise might begin to come into play. Shooting for extremely low input voltage noise in the MM preamp in the real world where the source is an MM cartridge is not necessarily that effective. This is because the cartridge resistance contributes thermal noise anyway. Also, the typical 47k cartridge load resistor contributes thermal noise. The latter can be mitigated by synthetic cartridge loading techniques in some designs.
I think a reference-based current source would do just fine in that application. I think my choice there was fairly arbitrary. Precision and drift of the current value is not an important factor.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the fast reply.
1. makes sense thanks for your explanation.
2. ok, yes indeed the higher MM impedance is more dominant, but I would have hoped that it is less than 47k. an average MM cartridge is 500 -1500 Ohm? Still a lot higher than MC
3. Ok thanks
About 17 years ago I designed a phono amplifier for Classe Audio (that never went into production) with also 2 individual input stages.
The MM had a 2SK389 (I would think a close equivalent to the LSK389) input stage with a gain of 10 (differential stage with no feedback) and an MC stage identical to the MM but with a MAT02 and a gain of 100.
The following stages were full differential opamps circuits with a passive RIAA stage in the middle.
I like your approach better with a passive 75µS stage followed by an active 318/3180µS stage. The opamps don't need to work as hard and this is better for headroom.
As I am designing a new one I wonder if the quad LSK389 would be better than a MAT12 topology.
choices choices.
Thanks again,
Peter
Thanks for the fast reply.
1. makes sense thanks for your explanation.
2. ok, yes indeed the higher MM impedance is more dominant, but I would have hoped that it is less than 47k. an average MM cartridge is 500 -1500 Ohm? Still a lot higher than MC
3. Ok thanks
About 17 years ago I designed a phono amplifier for Classe Audio (that never went into production) with also 2 individual input stages.
The MM had a 2SK389 (I would think a close equivalent to the LSK389) input stage with a gain of 10 (differential stage with no feedback) and an MC stage identical to the MM but with a MAT02 and a gain of 100.
The following stages were full differential opamps circuits with a passive RIAA stage in the middle.
I like your approach better with a passive 75µS stage followed by an active 318/3180µS stage. The opamps don't need to work as hard and this is better for headroom.
As I am designing a new one I wonder if the quad LSK389 would be better than a MAT12 topology.
choices choices.
Thanks again,
Peter
Keep in mind that, say, a 1000 ohm MM cartridge resistance will introduce a full 4.1 nV/rt Hz. A 47k cartridge load will introduce the amount of the 47k's open-circuit thermal noise divided by the voltage divider formed by 47k against the cartridge impedance.
I used the quad JFET LSK389 approach to demonstrate that a JFET-input MC preamp could provide low-enough noise for the MC application. I did this partly because JFETs are more forgiving of EMI ingress that might impair the sound. Overall, I just like JFET input stages
.The quad of LSK389s is, of course, a rather expensive approach.
Cheers,
Bob
Keep in mind that, say, a 1000 ohm MM cartridge resistance will introduce a full 4.1 nV/rt Hz. A 47k cartridge load will introduce the amount of the 47k's open-circuit thermal noise divided by the voltage divider formed by 47k against the cartridge impedance.
I used the quad JFET LSK389 approach to demonstrate that a JFET-input MC preamp could provide low-enough noise for the MC application. I did this partly because JFETs are more forgiving of EMI ingress that might impair the sound. Overall, I just like JFET input stages
The quad of LSK389s is, of course, a rather expensive approach.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob,
I thought I need to simulate this so after 15 years I entered spice again. I used to use MicroSim PSpice but that doesn't run anymore and found on your website the link to LTspice.
Installed, got it running, a bit of get used to, I still don't like the FFT as it shows -330dB of S/N on a generator.
But I got a diff pair up and running and I am now comparing MAT02 to LSK389C. Also the effect of cascode in this stage looks realy reliable.
The funny part is that they both the MAT2 and LSK389 are part of the fresh install (dated only a week ago) but the LSK389C is broken, the LSK389A and B work.
And yes I get a nice -82 dB of S/N with 3 pieces parallel.
Do you have an idea what could be wrong with the "C" version?
Thanks, and great tip LTspice......
Cheers,
Peter
It's probably a formatting issue. The LSK389C model should look very much like the A and B versions, with just a few numbers different to account for the higher Idss of the C version.
Cheers,
Bob
Reason for diamond buffer?
Hello DIYers,
First, thank you M.Cordell for this design. I like the approach and will give it a go.
I must be forgetting something very obvious but...
what is the point of the diamond buffer stage when the goal is to drive a very high impedance opamp input?
(LTspice shows that the bipolar transistors are actually drawing more current than what the LM4562 would do, in a direct connection).
Many thanks,
jb
Hello DIYers,
First, thank you M.Cordell for this design. I like the approach and will give it a go.
I must be forgetting something very obvious but...
what is the point of the diamond buffer stage when the goal is to drive a very high impedance opamp input?
(LTspice shows that the bipolar transistors are actually drawing more current than what the LM4562 would do, in a direct connection).
Many thanks,
jb
Hey!
I built it into a nice box.
I'd be happy to share gerbers and bom with you.
You can send the gerbers to JLCPCB that will be very cheap.
I'm not using it in 'Vinyltrak' mode, just regular RIAA but using the pseudo, open loop, JFET input.
Runs every day on my system.
Let me know.
jb
Will post some pictures.