Transformer I/V stage, pros&cons. - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, 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 22nd September 2003, 07:11 AM   #21
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Transformer I/V stage, pros&cons.

Quote:
Originally posted by Terry Demol
The traditional current to voltage conversion when applied to
a DAC referres to the fact that the DAC feeds an ideal virtual
ground and there is NO voltage swing at the DAC OP.
Yes, for DACs whose outputs are by way of current sources and when you use an opamp whose feedback changes its output voltage in order to keep the voltage across its inputs zero.

Quote:
This was how traditional R2R ladder DACs were designed and attained best linearity, with NO voltage swing. In it's ideal form, the I-V converts ONLY current with NO voltage swing (at the - opa IP) to a voltage at it's OP.
Huh? An R2R is a resistive divider network that uses a voltage reference and outputs a voltage. Current output DACs use binary-weighted current sources and outputs current.

Quote:
With a transformer I-V, the conversion to voltage from the DAC's OP current HAS ALREADY HAPPENED before, with or without the transformer. The transformer IS NOT responsible for the conversion to a voltage, the low value R at DAC OP is.
I wasn't looking at it in terms of a low value resistor at the DAC output. As you say, if you're using a resistor on the output, you've already converted the current to a voltage.

I was thinking in terms of driving the transformer with the current source. Though I realize that ultimately won't work. Since an ideal current source has an infinite output impedance, the secondary would also have to be driving an infinite impedace, but this infinite impedance would be reflected back to the primary in which case no current could flow in the primary.

So a transformer is V-V with an intermediate I, ultimately making it a V-I/I-V converter. And given what I said above, I now don't see it as being capable of I-I.

Quote:
The transformer does NOT reflect a load back to the DAC OP which is solely responsible for conversion to voltage, it merely amplifies that existing voltage that is already at the IP.
The only load reflected in a so called "transformer I-V" will be
that of a possible snubber network and the following stage.
These are relatively light loads compared to the I-V resistor at
the DAC OP.
Yes, but I wasn't looking at it in terms of simply using a step-up transformer to kick up the voltage across a small resistor across the the DAC's output but rather driving the transformer straight from the DAC's current source output.

Quote:
I hope this clarifies things.
Not entirely. But I find it more nourishing than "Go read a book."

Thanks.

se
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2003, 02:31 PM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Terry Demol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: *
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Transformer I/V stage, pros&cons.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eddy


Huh? An R2R is a resistive divider network that uses a voltage reference and outputs a voltage. Current output DACs use binary-weighted current sources and outputs current.

Early (traditional) current OP DACs such as PCM63, PCM1702, PCM1704, AD1862 etc had R2R architecture. You can download
PCM1704 data sheet for a good explanation here:
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder...t/pcm1704.html

DAC manufacturars have since moved away from this
architecture to get better THD/DR and lower manufacturing costs
as the R2R requires very accurate laser trimming of R's,
although some DACs still have unity weigted R based OP
topologies (NPC SM5865/66). Most other newer DACs are open
drain type.

Quote:


I wasn't looking at it in terms of a low value resistor at the DAC output. As you say, if you're using a resistor on the output, you've already converted the current to a voltage.

I was thinking in terms of driving the transformer with the current source. Though I realize that ultimately won't work. Since an ideal current source has an infinite output impedance, the secondary would also have to be driving an infinite impedace, but this infinite impedance would be reflected back to the primary in which case no current could flow in the primary.



Actually, this WOULD work with a finite secondary load reflected
back to primary. However it wouldn't work so well, as all high
performance trannies (like Jensen etc) are optimised to work
from a certain source Z. Exceptions are very high Z types
(10k : 10K) but these would be totally unsuitable for lo Z DAC
applications.

There is 1 transformer type which could present a true
virtual gnd to DAC, wich is called a zero field transformer.
However, a zero field tranny actually works into a virtual
gnd (short) and so needs an I-V following it. These transformers
have the lowest distortion of any audio transformer as there
is theoretically no voltage swing. As a matter of ineterest I have
tried these for DAC applicatins.
See Lundahls website for more details.

Quote:


So a transformer is V-V with an intermediate I, ultimately making it a V-I/I-V converter. And given what I said above, I now don't see it as being capable of I-I.



For interests sake, I recommend reading the literature on
Lundahls website WRT zero field trannies. They have an OPA
based circuit which generates negative resistance equal to
transformers winding R and so creates a true I-I scenario.
These transformers virtually eliminate core related distortions
completely, because there is virtually no magnetisation of the
core (almost no voltage).
I believe Rupert Neve designed some products for Amek with
ZFT IP stages, but I am not aware of any other usage in audio.

Cheers,

Terry
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2003, 02:48 PM   #23
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: As far from the NOSsers as possible
Default Say what, Steve????

Quote:
Huh? An R2R is a resistive divider network that uses a voltage reference and outputs a voltage. Current output DACs use binary-weighted current sources and outputs current.
Terry beat me to it. You need to know what you are talking about before shooting form the hip. There are countless examples of DACs, and not just ones for audio, that use this architecture. AD use to have a good explanation of how this worked.....somewhere......in one of their data books. Don't remember which one though.

Jocko
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2003, 03:04 PM   #24
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Transformer I/V stage, pros&cons.

Quote:
Originally posted by Terry Demol


Because it is a current to current AND voltage to voltage
converter.

The traditional current to voltage conversion when applied to
a DAC referres to the fact that the DAC feeds an ideal virtual
ground and there is NO voltage swing at the DAC OP. This was
how traditional R2R ladder DACs were designed and attained
best linearity, with NO voltage swing. In it's ideal form, the I-V
converts ONLY current with NO voltage swing (at the - opa IP) to
a voltage at it's OP.

With a transformer I-V, the conversion to voltage from the DAC's
OP current HAS ALREADY HAPPENED before, with or without the
transformer. The transformer IS NOT responsible for the
conversion to a voltage, the low value R at DAC OP is.

The transformer does NOT reflect a load back to the DAC OP
which is solely responsible for conversion to voltage, it merely
amplifies that existing voltage that is already at the IP.
The only load reflected in a so called "transformer I-V" will be
that of a possible snubber network and the following stage.
These are relatively light loads compared to the I-V resistor at
the DAC OP.

I hope this clarifies things.

Cheers,

Terry
As much as I hate to admit (just joking!), I'm with Steve Eddy here. The formula for induction is B*i*L. That's what causes the transformer to work. Unless I missed something big time, "i" in my book still stands for current.
The fact that ultimately the current may be *caused* by an impressed voltage *in this case* doesn't make a difference.

Jan Didden

/There's nothing so practical as a good bit of theory.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2003, 03:47 PM   #25
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Unhappy Deja Vu all over again......

"I was thinking in terms of driving the transformer with the current source. Though I realize that ultimately won't work. Since an ideal current source has an infinite output impedance, the secondary would also have to be driving an infinite impedace, but this infinite impedance would be reflected back to the primary in which case no current could flow in the primary.

So a transformer is V-V with an intermediate I, ultimately making it a V-I/I-V converter. And given what I said above, I now don't see it as being capable of I-I."



The impedance seen at the primary is the impedance at the secondary divided by the square of the turns ratio. When you step up the voltage by a factor of 2 the impedance seen at the primary will be 1/4 of that loading the secondary.

The intermediate coupling between the primary and secondary is the magnetic flux in the transformer. Transformers do current, voltage, and impedance transformation.

Yes there are current transformers.

http://www.crmagnetics.com/newprod/ctransformersg.asp
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2003, 03:51 PM   #26
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Unhappy There's nothing so practical as a good bit of theory.... yes...

"Unless I missed something big time"

I am afraid you did.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2003, 04:07 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
OK Fred, I know, I asked for it.

Thought experiment # 1: wind a transformer with a primary with infinitely thin wire, giving infinitely high resistance. Connect it to a voltage source. Does it work? No, there is no current to exite a flux, although there is voltage.

Thought experiment # 2: wind a transformer with an infinitely large wire cross-section, giving zero resistance. Connect to a current source. Will it work? Yes, there is current to exite a flux, although there is no voltage.

What's wrong here?

Jan Didden
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2003, 04:36 PM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Plano , TX
Send a message via AIM to jewilson
Default Point what the point

I believe the point Fred was making is we don't get something for nothing. If we have a pluse, power transformer kind of step-up devices say 1:4 we cannot expect to have the more power at the secondary than at the primaries. If I am wrong, there would be supplies with greater than 100% efficiency. Now that would be cool.
__________________
Jim W.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2003, 04:47 PM   #29
Pedja is offline Pedja  Serbia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Belgrade
Default The point

We got nice discussion on “how do the transformers work” topic.

The point here is can you put certain current into transformers primary and get certain voltage across its secondary? My guess is you can’t…

Pedja
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2003, 05:51 PM   #30
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Exclamation We got nice discussion on “how do the transformers work” topic.

No what we have here is a train wreck of misinformation and confusion.

I would recommend a good introductory electronics text for an introduction to what the relationship between the turns ratio and the current, voltage, and impedance transformation between the primary and secondary as a function of the turns ratio.

For impedance:
http://www.edcorusa.com/gadgeteer/tech_notes/tn12.htm

"The point here is can you put certain current into transformers primary and get certain voltage across its secondary? My guess is you can’t…"

Then don't guess, learn the basic relationships. Of course you can figure out the current by knowing the turns ratio and the load impedance on the secondary. It is very simple algebra.

"OK Fred, I know, I asked for it.

Thought experiment # 1: wind a transformer with a primary with infinitely thin wire, giving infinitely high resistance. Connect it toa voltage source. Does it work? No, there is no current to exite a flux, although there is voltage.

Thought experiment # 2: wind a transformer with an infinitely large wire cross-section, giving zero resistance. Connect to a current source. Will it work? Yes, there is current to exite a flux, although there is no voltage.

What's wrong here?"

Number one, these describe the loss terms and have nothing to do with the impedance transformation for an ideal transformer.
You have to understand that before moving on to study the losses. Do thought experiments with real numbers. An infinite series resistance is neither an ideal or real example and will confuse you. Pick a turns ratio, a secondary load impedance, and a primary source impedance. The primary side is where the energy is applied.

It is unfortunate when people start a discussion with no reference to basic equations that describe the circuit, expound their
theories as facts with little to back it up, and make generalizations about things like DACs without looking at a few data sheets to see how the DACs being used for audio today work. It seems to be the same few people over and over again who must thrive on humiliation. I would think most of the regular members would know who they are and stop being sucked into this totally confusing discussions that end up ****ing everyone off including the originator of the thread.

I don't want to hear the personalities card played. I have gone out of my way not to mention names and there are several. The personalities subterfuge comes along after you disagree with there proposed idea and try to present reasons based on technical data they didn't grasp. One has two choices sit back and ignore stuff that is obviously wrong while it confuse many, or try to explain why it is wrong and get called names for it. I would usually prefer to take a few lumps in the interest of education of people who really want to know about a subject.
  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
pros/cons of a 845 VS 211 jarthel Tubes / Valves 2 18th June 2007 12:57 PM
TL vs MLTL, pros and cons Tomac Multi-Way 5 29th December 2004 12:55 PM
Filterless DAC - pros and cons? mr_push_pull Digital Source 1 11th August 2004 02:56 PM
Pros and Cons of this technique? G Tubes / Valves 35 23rd October 2003 05:37 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:36 PM.


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