3 terminal Jung Super Regulator Kit

[pooge]

Andy, the 24v mod seemed to be not so simple, as I recall. Whether it was power supply to the op amp or current through the reference due to higher voltage, the issue was more than than voltage divider. Damn if I can recall! I do believe the issue was in overstressing something, though, getting too close to the edge.

[PMiczek]

Andy, fmak,

Finally some numbers to go along with the discussion. Thank You.



Peter

[ALW]

Peter,

Finally some numbers to go along with the discussion. Thank You.

You're welcome!

They tell you nothing about the sound though

They just prove it's a competent design, well implemented; it's really frustrating

Andy.

[Fred Dieckmann]

"Yes. I generally pre-load 3-pin's wherever I use them. I tend to use LM317/337 as pre-regulators and I prefer to use very low value resistors in the voltage divider setting the output voltage. This serves to "pre-load" these."


If you bypass the adjustment terminal with a capacitor to ground as the app notes advise for lower noise and much improved PSRR you will need a much bigger bypass cap. Biasing shunt voltage voltage references from the adjustment current works better with currents around a milliamp. The idea is to have a much lower impedance from the adjustment terminal to ground than from Vout to the adjustment terminal. Jung went from 120 ohms to 1K ohms in one of the articles on power supplies for the reasons above. I seem to remember some discussions on using a current source in this location. You really want to prebias you regulator at least 50 to 100 ma and that much current trough the reference to ground is not practical.

"In some experiments I found driving the PSU Pin's of Op-Amp's from the same type Op-Amp (which is a "Push-Pull Reg") with NO capacitance in the PSU line (this does take very TIGHT, three-dimensional layouting to work) sounded probably as good as Batteries with Filmcap only bypassing (Siemens naked chip stacked film MKT's)"

The rising output impedance of the regulator op amp with frequency ,combined with the decreasing PSRR of the op amp whose supply is being regulated make this real tricky. Throw a little lead inductance in and you have a real chance of instability at high frequencies and easily build an oscillator if using fast op amps. As Cuck Yeager said, " It can be done, but I don't recommend doing it."


"As an engineer, though not electronics, I sometimes find these threads overbearing. The original questions are often not addressed, and the arguments go on and on."

Don't read them then.......... If your requirement not that demanding, read the regulator data sheets and app notes and you will get enough knowledge for your application. If you can't swim stay out of the deep end of the pool. You would think people were paying 50 bucks an hour for a consultant after reading the bitching and whining. I don't know if you have heard but, they have these neat new things on WEB called search engines.........


http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/...8865AN-202.pdf

http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles/...tion_V-Ref.pdf

http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/SR003AN-D.PDF

http://www.eetkorea.com/ARTICLES/200...30_AMD_AN2.PDF

[fmak]

As an engineer, though not electronics, I sometimes find these threads overbearing. The original questions are often not addressed, and the arguments go on and on."

Don't read them then.......... If your requirement not that demanding, read the regulator data sheets and app notes and you will get enough knowledge for your application. If you can't swim stay out of the deep end of the pool. You would think people were paying 50 bucks an hour for a consultant after reading the bitching and whining.
-------------------------------------------------
Actually I charge a lot more than $400 for consultancy and made the point of not reading the rest of your post.

One of the forum rules is to be curtious, and your remarks fall far short of it.

Don't read my posts if you don't want to. Other stay polite.

[PMiczek]

Andy, Fred,

Thanks again. Andy, nice web site btw, and not too "overbearing" to read, either.

The numbers give me at least, a general reference for what it is people are trying to accomplish at the circuit level. I can judge the sound for myself (or not, as the case may be). The human ear has amazing powers of discrimination, unfortunately it is connected to a very unreliable receiver which suffers from an inherent lack of stability especially over time and temperature...

Peter

[fmak]

In audio the latter is critical and fundamental and also easy to get wrong, on first impressions. I also strongly encourage you all to think outside of conventional wisdom.
----------------------------------------------------
I agree; I have learnt not to trust oft repeated wisdom in this which is a hobby. I have personally always listened and measured myself to confirm.

-----------------------------------------------------

The Jung reg's are old, but I've only heard one alternative that outperforms them at present. In all likelihood there's lots of alternatives, supported by my view that topology is often the least critical element, just correct implementation of that topology.
----------------------------------------------------

Have you heard some of the Japanese designs? Even in the 80s they had very purist designs accompanied by all the design equations and ocnsiderations published in amateur audio magazines?

I built some of these circuits and they still sound excellent - but you need to match semiconductors dynamically for dc stability, and you can only do that by having access to relatively large numbers of units.

[ALW]

The human ear has amazing powers of discrimination, unfortunately it is connected to a very unreliable receiver which suffers from an inherent lack of stability especially over time and temperature...

You're right there - ears are great, brain gets in the way.

Part of the trick is to try and turn it off - over analysis always, in my experience, leads to flawed results.

This is where the 'tune' test and others really do work (ignoring the dogma of those promoting them). It's usually a method that is criticised by those whose systems don't do it

It gives a first-line fundamental analysis of whether the music is easy to follow. The rules of all styles of music seem to be hard wired into our brains, the ability to predict and follow the music is something that's easier when the clues are all there, in the right places, at the right time.

The other details come later.

Cue flames....

Andy.

P.S. the website was intended to be readable, yet informative, I hope I've succeeded. The only downside is the M$ -specific HTML that frontpage spews out. I'll dust off dreamweaver when I get a mo...

[Kuei Yang Wang]

Koinichiwa,

Originally posted by ALW


You're right there - ears are great, brain gets in the way.

Sadly, the reverse is true. In many ways, when considered in the context of transducers ears are horrible things. The actual mechnicas give rise to > 30% THD at around 94db SPL, within each individual octave only a very limited number of frequencies are actually percieved and relayed electrically to the brain and the "resolution" (the ear itself operates digital, not analogue) for each of these frequencies is surprisingly coarse.

So the ear as transducer is HORRIBLE BEYOND BELIEVE. If the Ear where a Microphone it would be utterly unusable even in a telephone.

Only the attachement to the Brain and it's prodigous real time analogue "DSP" capabilities make it possible to actually "hear" anything at all. This then of course also explains much of the differences in perception, as the ear/brain system has many learned responses, probably more of these than natural ones (my theory anyway).

So cultural differences influence what we hear as much as the actual training of the ear/brain system, there are some indications for genetic differences too.

Anyway, the brain as much "gets in the way" as it is "absolutely essential". It is the resolving of such dichotomies that makes audio so interesting, both from a technical and philosophical viewpoint.

Sayonara

[ALW]

The actual mechnicas give rise to > 30% THD at around 94db SPL, within each individual octave only a very limited number of frequencies are actually percieved and relayed electrically to the brain and the "resolution" (the ear itself operates digital, not analogue) for each of these frequencies is surprisingly coarse.

Which is why a listening method that bypasses the technical issues and focusses on the emotional response is a more consistent assessment method. Especially as this is the sole reason I listen to music.

I get the feeling some people over-analyse things - if our ears were so flawed, we may as well not bother - fortunately this is not the case.

I've yet to see a definition and explanation of the science behind a humans emotional response to music.

It's something that does seem universal across cultures and ages. You can try to teach the details of quantum theory to a small child until you're blue in the face, but sit them in front of a piano and teach them 'Oranges and Lemons*' and it comes far more naturally.

Andy.

*Insert favourite childrens nursery rhyme / tune here.