|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, 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 |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#11 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: illinois
|
for good background on designing riaa stages using opamps, you would be hard pressed to do a lot better than studying pages 6.11-6.27 of this handbook from Analog Devices: http://www.analog.com/static/importe...0Ch6_final.pdf and the errata: http://www.analog.com/library/analog...Web_Errata.pdf
mlloyd1 Last edited by mlloyd1; 18th November 2009 at 05:09 PM. |
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Hi CH,
1. In the LME4910 application note (AN-1651), there are two types of designs specified - Passive EQ and Active/Passive EQ (Hybrid EQ). The overall DC gain for the fully passive EQ design is 74dB and 70dB for the active/passive EQ design. Which one will be better ? 2. In the cartridge loading portion of the schematics, the capacitance used is 10pF. Will that be enough ? (In the cartridge loading theory it is stated as 100pF for MC and 300pF for MM) Best regards, Bins. |
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canandaigua, NY USA
|
I've always used active, but a good argument can be made for passive as well. Frankly, I probably couldn't tell the difference if the curves matched. Active probably has a noise advantage, and I might be able to hear that. Or not.
You should adjust the loading to suit your particular cartridge. Remember, the turntable cables are part of the load, so the preamp load can often be quite low and still have the total correct. Some cartridges are load sensitive, others are not. My moving magnet Ortofon OM series is almost completely immune to load changes. CH
__________________
I used to be an audiophool like you but then I took an arrow to the knee. |
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Hi CH,
Thanks for your reply. I am going for the Active/Passive model (Hybrid). All the resistors will be metal film with 0.1 % tolerance and all the capacitors will be of polypropylene with a maximum tolerance limit of 5%. 1. What should be the required DC voltage rating for the resistors & caps ? 2. What should be the required power rating for the resistors & caps ? Best regards, Bins. |
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canandaigua, NY USA
|
There isn't too much to think about when choosing ratings for solid state preamps. A good rule is that caps should be rated for the maximum supply differential, plus a safety factor. Say you use +/-15VDC. Use 35V caps as a minimum. 1/4W MF resistors are what I use. If it were surface mount you'd worry more about power ratings, but for the values in a preamp it's rarely a problem. I like polypropylenes unless I can get polystyrenes- they both sound good. I do, however, select my caps for value and match them to 1% or better from channel to channel. Resistors too, but I start with 1%. I want my RIAA perfect and I want the channels to match as closely as possible. Depending on what you have to test with, you might also want to build a little test box containing a reverse RIAA network. That will give you flat response, making testing easier. Various plans if you search- I use the one with the extra time constant.
(BTW, proper engineering requires one to calculate the worst case power dissipation for every part, and the worst case voltage drop. Print out a schematic, figure out how much and how little voltage could possibly be on each end of each resistor, subtract the two and apply ohms law. As I said, it's almost never an issue in a preamp, but the exercise is an important habit to get into. Include situations like the output being short circuited and the input getting a 15VDC connection from some other failed piece of equipment.) Best, CH
__________________
I used to be an audiophool like you but then I took an arrow to the knee. Last edited by Conrad Hoffman; 19th November 2009 at 01:55 PM. |
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Hello CH,
I am going for the LME4910 hybrid model. All the resistors will be 250mW 200V DC 0.1% Metal Film and all the capacitors will be 200V DC polypropylene 5%. Do you have any suggestions for the 15V DC supply ? Best regards, Bins. |
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Bump for CH...
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canandaigua, NY USA
|
Well, you're getting your information from some joker on the internet, but FWIW...
I suspect the LT1028 could be better at DAC buffer duty, but I tried it in my preamp and didn't think it was as good as the LME chips. We're talking really subtle stuff here, maybe only stuff of the mind, so I think the jury is out and will remain out forever. Remember, I'm the guy who doesn't think the OPA-627 is as good as the LME parts either. Or, any other popular "audiophile" IC. Note that the Nat app note circuit goes to great lengths with buffered power. I didn't do that. IMO, if you can hear differences between power supplies, there is something wrong with your physical layout, or something insufficient about your bypass scheme. Trace and wire routing in a preamp is critical to getting the lowest hum/noise and since the LME amps are very fast, they also need proper bypassing. I get my best results with small film caps located near the chips. Something like 0.1 to 0.47 uF works well. Film caps (Mylar or Panasonic mystery film) have good performance up into the MHz if you keep the leads and traces very short. Somewhere on the board should be 100 to 1000 uF as well. Nothing exotic, just decent low esr electrolytics. I installed a switch to insert resistors in the supply lines (up to 100 ohms) and found that with a properly laid out and bypassed pre board, the extra resistance made no detectable difference. Thus, I can't put much credence in claims about the supply being critical- it's several inches away at best, so HF performance is provided by the bypass caps, not the supply. It should be well regulated, but LM317 and its negative cousin are fine. Transformer hum induced in the chassis can be an issue, so the chassis ground point is critical. There should be a single tie point to the chassis, and that should be right at the lowest level input. The inputs, however, should be isolated from the chassis and the ground wired to the pre board, which is then wired back to the tie point. You want no power currents flowing in signal grounds- ever! A (pc based) spectrum analyzer is really handy to figure this stuff out.
__________________
I used to be an audiophool like you but then I took an arrow to the knee. |
|
|
|
|
#20 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
I've built an RIAA amp "Dead bug" style -- with the chips flat on their backs. The citing of Walt Jung's article on RIAA amplifiers in his "Operational Amplifier Handbook" is a must read. |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Phono stage stepup with opamps? | tommytube | Chip Amps | 18 | 14th December 2008 10:04 AM |
| Phono preamp modding (opamps and capacitors) | JWFokker | Analogue Source | 4 | 19th March 2007 11:20 PM |
| Phono preamplifier | Pasul | Analogue Source | 4 | 4th October 2006 12:03 PM |
| Help with phono preamplifier selection | Panelhead | Solid State | 7 | 25th November 2003 12:24 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.14272 seconds (85.02% PHP - 14.98% MySQL) with 11 queries |