Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Chip Amps
Home Forums Rules Articles Store Gallery Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Chip Amps Amplifiers based on integrated circuits

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 8th January 2010, 03:57 AM   #21
jaycee is offline jaycee  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by peranders View Post
Not many pcb's are made with a native pcb software. I used a 15000 USD software the german RUN Electronic Design System. The software was a bit special, the only software in the world with "real"-annotation. The project was in a single file with 100% synchronisation between schematics and the layout and it happened in real-time. If I inserted a resistor in the schematics, boom you have a resistor in the pcb.
I am curious if you ever tried CadSoft EAGLE. It has synchronization between schematic and PCB's, and it also runs on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. It also costs a lot less than $15000 as far as I know!
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2010, 05:42 AM   #22
Electrons are yellow and more is better!
diyAudio Member
 
peranders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Blog Entries: 4
I have played with Eagle but I haven't done anything serious with it.
__________________
/Per-Anders (my first name) or P-A as my friends call me
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2010, 06:15 AM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
analog_sa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sofia
Quote:
Originally Posted by zener_diode View Post
Although not as good as the LME49600, it is still excellent for no feedback!
Having listened to the 634 open loop i think it really sucks. Not that i love it under a nfb loop but it's at least acceptable. Another illustration that these type of measurements are a complete waste of time?
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2010, 11:18 AM   #24
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by analog_sa View Post
Having listened to the 634 open loop i think it really sucks. Not that i love it under a nfb loop but it's at least acceptable. Another illustration that these type of measurements are a complete waste of time?
I don't know...have you measured the BUF634 while working open-loop, too? This would be nice as we could put apples against apples
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2010, 11:21 AM   #25
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by zener_diode View Post
At first, I didn't think I had any BUF634 chips laying around... but yes, I have a
couple.

All circuit connections are the same as with the LME49600 measurement.

At full scale, the THD+N is .0007%. Only slightly worse than the LME49600. It is
mainly 2nd harmonic as you can see in the plot (Spectrum3.pdf). With a 220
resistor, the THD+N gets slightly worse at .00085%. Again, an increase in 2nd
harmonic (Spectrum4.pdf). IMD was the same for both BW pin settings at
.0005%.

Although not as good as the LME49600, it is still excellent for no feedback!

Also, my baseline IMD is .0004%, not .0005% as I previously stated.
Ouch, I'd missed your reply! Alright, so the BUF634 holds its own. Good...because I recently got some free samples...


BTW, I think the only real advantage of the LME49600 probably is its package..
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2010, 05:14 PM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
zener_diode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by analog_sa View Post
Having listened to the 634 open loop i think it really sucks. Not that i love it under a nfb loop but it's at least acceptable. Another illustration that these type of measurements are a complete waste of time?
Thanks for pooping out your opinion without any supporting information.

Real measurements are never a waste of time as they provide hard evidence of
some performance criteria.
__________________
1N4733
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2010, 09:00 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
zener_diode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Michigan
I did another measurement using a 10kHz sine. Only the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
harmonics can be viewed though (96kHz sampling).

Baseline = .00055% THD+N
LME49600 = .0015% THD+N
BUF634 = .0008% THD+N

Plots are attached.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Spectrum5.pdf (85.9 KB, 11 views)
File Type: pdf Spectrum6.pdf (85.5 KB, 6 views)
File Type: pdf Spectrum7.pdf (85.8 KB, 7 views)
__________________
1N4733
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th January 2010, 12:49 PM   #28
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
Sometimes a square peg fits a round hole just fine
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
I have read of problems with DC offset with the national chip (is there anything to this?), so I have stuck with using stacked BUF634 (HiC and 100R) when i'm not using peranders excellent discrete buffer SSR01 that is
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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
WTB: BUF-634 buffers in TO-220 package KT Swap Meet 1 24th July 2007 05:15 AM
Diamond buffers Nordic Parts 7 13th March 2007 02:13 PM
FS : OPAMPS & Buffers dtm1962 Swap Meet 2 6th October 2006 06:43 PM
WTB el2009c buffers mekanoplastik Swap Meet 0 21st February 2003 10:47 PM
RAM buffers for DAC? dorkus Digital Source 7 21st June 2002 03:14 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36 AM.

Page generated in 0.09352 seconds (81.15% PHP - 18.85% MySQL) with 11 queries

Copyright ©1999-2012 diyAudio