John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2384 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

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 9th June 2012, 03:10 AM   #23831
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
Very probably! Like our cat still can't figure out that she brings us wrong food!
Or our dog who thinks the cats' litter box is an hors d'oeuvres tray.

se
__________________
The Audio Guild
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2012, 02:36 PM   #23832
diyAudio Member
 
jacco vermeulen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: At the sea front, Rotterdam or Curaçao
Send a message via Yahoo to jacco vermeulen
Rubbing some snake oil on usually helps.
__________________
No More Mr Nice Guy
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2012, 03:45 PM   #23833
Bonsai is online now Bonsai  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Bonsai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
Or our dog who thinks the cats' litter box is an hors d'oeuvres tray.

se

Ha ha we have the same problem.
__________________
bonsai
Amplifier Design and Construction for MUSIC! http://hifisonix.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2012, 04:38 PM   #23834
brianco is offline brianco  Ireland
diyAudio Member
 
brianco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scottish Borders - Kelso; on the famous Tweed River!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
AH HA! So all these years the aliens have only been trying to FEED US! You'd think by now they'd have figured out that food goes at the OTHER end.

se

Not from what one hears national representatives say.....irrespective of country!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2012, 10:10 PM   #23835
gpapag is offline gpapag  Greece
diyAudio Member
 
gpapag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
I googled for IEEE Std.1050 and I found the 1989 edition in pdf.
Well written and carefully worded document. Thanks jneutron for pointing to it.

In there, I read something (one of the things at least that) I didn’t know. That low – impedance circuits are less susceptible to capacitive coupled noise and crosstalk . This may answer my own question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpapag View Post
As I read it, you target the problem at the bonding wires and pads. That’s in agreement with Scott words.
This I find strange. I mean how all the routing within each layer and the stacked layers between them end up less troublesome than the bonding wires.
The circuits inside audio ICs are relative low impedance (Vac/Iac). Furthermore, the“de” part of the capacitive coupling equation I=C de/dt is fairly low (*).

On the other hand these low impedance circuits are more susceptible to inductive coupling and the “di” part of the inductive coupling equation E=M di/dt becomes significant, thus your emphasis specifically on inductive coupling

Quote:
Originally Posted by jneutron View Post
For old style chips with aluminum bonding pads on the top surface, the pads are connected to the leadframe terminals via a wirebond, either aluminum or gold. This wirebond is looped a bit so as to not touch the edge of the substrate in it's travel to the lead. Back in the 80's (IIRC) it was determined that the parasitic inductance of the wires (14 nH for some reason, comes to memory) significantly affected the speed that could be attained for all I/O lines of the chip. Also, two parallel wires can also crosstalk.

The basic issue was the slew rate of the current, how it coupled to neighbors, how it affected the speed of the signal, and for hot and ground runs, it can introduce unwanted ground or rail bounce.

At lower frequencies, the slews are not as bad, so the parasitic inductance doesn't have as great an effect.

Nowadays, the problems I see in things like the one chip amps, is the proximity the rail currents are to the input nodes. Any proximity coupling from either rail to that node can introduce error signals at the input pair, where gain is full.

j
makes sense to me now.


But for this question I haven’t been honored an answer yet
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpapag View Post

Scott, I hadn’t noticed your response, sorry.

Now, to exercise your patience, one more step on the ladder:
Why these “conventional methods” brake up above say 100MHz?
Is it that the conception of L/R/C can not model the reality anymore, and if so, why?
(I guess the next floor is a few more steps higher, so prepare yourself )

George

(*) May be this is the reason that high package density modern CPUs are designed for lower voltage supply than the previous generation CPUs which were less densely packaged.
__________________
["Second Law is a bitch." - SY] ["The Road To Heaven:Specify the performance & accept the design. The Road To Hell:Specify the design & accept the performance"-Bruno Putzeys]

Last edited by gpapag; 9th June 2012 at 10:13 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2012, 10:27 PM   #23836
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
The methods don't "break", but I've found it instructive to consider resonances and note just how rapidly the L's and C's of significance get very small indeed. And this is before abandoning lumped circuit elements.

We tend (or used to tend) to think of a picofarad as a small capacitance, and maybe a tenth of a microhenry a fairly small inductance. But as a resonator those two values have a frequency of resonance of about 500MHz, and if constituting the distributed L and C of a lossless transmission line, a characteristic impedance of about 316 ohms.

I recall an experimental "opamp" described some years ago that was reasonably well-behaved out to about 10GHz. The developers remarked that, despite their fears, it behaved in accordance with an analysis that didn't change in character from ones appropriate to far lower frequencies. But of course the dimensions were very small.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2012, 10:52 PM   #23837
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
"Conventional methods" break above the frequency when the size of the circuit begins to be a non-negligible fraction of the wavelength. The lumped LC circuit model is always an approximation of reality, but a very good approximation for sufficiently low frequencies. The wave model is always true, but unnecessarily complicated when the lumped model is good enough.

For pulse circuits substitute (approximately) 1/(rise time) for frequency - maybe there should be a 2 pi in there somewhere too.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2012, 12:31 AM   #23838
gpapag is offline gpapag  Greece
diyAudio Member
 
gpapag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcarso View Post
The methods don't "break", but I've found it instructive to consider resonances and note just how rapidly the L's and C's of significance get very small indeed.
And this is before abandoning lumped circuit elements.
Ouch!



Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
"Conventional methods" break above the frequency when the size of the circuit begins to be a non-negligible fraction of the wavelength.
Largest dimension ~0.15 of wavelength (IEEE Std.1050)


Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
The lumped LC circuit model is always an approximation of reality…
The wave model is always true….
I’ll keep these two. They match my understanding too.

Thank you both for answering (*)

George

(*) In lew of Scott. Most probably he is messing around with SY, excusing themselves they are doing some live recordings again.
Hedonists
__________________
["Second Law is a bitch." - SY] ["The Road To Heaven:Specify the performance & accept the design. The Road To Hell:Specify the design & accept the performance"-Bruno Putzeys]
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2012, 12:54 AM   #23839
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
>>where there appears to be diode action at very
>>low levels on a mechanical contact.

If it's ' diode ' , I would suggest it's like 2 diodes
opposent polarity in parrallel ....
It may not be diodic, but arc-over @ nano-gaps
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2012, 12:55 AM   #23840
Bonsai is online now Bonsai  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Bonsai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
". . . inductance of the wires (14 nH for some reason . . . "

That seems incredibly high. Bonds even on the old DIP packages are a fraction of this.
__________________
bonsai
Amplifier Design and Construction for MUSIC! http://hifisonix.com/
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:02 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