My take on a discrete shunt voltage regulator

[Salas]

If they are correctly decoupled locally no. What the reg sees is another matter though. Why not use force/sense wiring for that second reg? If you wire it with 4 like on the schematic on 1st page, you are done.

[HiFiNutNut]

I am planning on no local decoupling. Local coupling introduces a whole lot of issues with resonance from LCR circuits. I have been there, done that, finally found it better without decoupling. But perhaps my previous result only applies to the treble? Perhaps I can use local decoupling on bass without affecting bass?

Remote sensing is out of question because I have too many ICs.

[Salas]

Its first time I hear that someone had it better without any decoupling and ICs but if that is your experience in your application, its fine by me.

As for trying local decoupling for the lower frequency section ICs only, sounds like a plan.

[HiFiNutNut]

In the active XO/EQ circuit, other than the first IC, there is no frequency higher than 2kHz fed into the IC's inputs. So I wonder why the ICs still want high frequency decoupling? RF cripping into the IC causing instability?

[syn08]

Originally Posted by HiFiNutNut

Salas,

I am planning to use very thick (60A?) cables between the reg out and the star ground of the load, and from the star ground to the psu pins of ICS I would use 10A cables.

You don't really need to do that. Instead, save yourself some trouble and use this wiring layout Best low noise regulator?

In the "POWER SUPPLY" rectangle, put whatever serial or parallel regulator you are working on. Please note how the load is connected and the use of a shielded cable.

This type of wiring is called "force/sense". It will conserve as much as possible the intrinsic regulator performance right up to the load port, by including the wiring in the regulator feedback loop.

From a certain level up, wiring is 100% controlling the overall regulator performance.

[HiFiNutNut]

Syn08,

Thanks for your tip. But as mentioned before, too many ICs (18 in total?) would require 3 (+, -, gnd) x 18 = 54 wires going to the circuit board. It is not practical in my case.

Is one IC one load? So 18 loads require 54 wires.

Regards,
Bill

[syn08]

Originally Posted by HiFiNutNut

Syn08,

Thanks for your tip. But as mentioned before, too many ICs (18 in total?) would require 3 (+, -, gnd) x 18 = 54 wires going to the circuit board. It is not practical in my case.

Regards,
Bill

Well, then you don't need to bother much about the intrinsic regulator performance. In fact, whatever regulator you are using, the performance may not exceed those of a LM317 or equivalent.

[Tham]

If you look for details, transparency, accuracy, then this v1.5 is superb. As those characteristics are what I am looking for, in my personal opinion, it is the best I have had and I am finally settled on this one.

I have not build v2 but those are my listening impression of v1.5 as well .

[tvi]

As far as I know this is the original patent
Highly stable constant-voltage power source device
US Patent 4366432 Noro, Masao Stax Ind Ltd

Regards
James

[ikoflexer]

Very nice indeed, thanks a bunch James! I've looked quite hard for the originator of the ccs->shunt regulator but didn't come across this one. Not that anyone wouldn't have done it with tubes before, but still, I can see now how we differ from the original, for instance, he uses an explicit differential amp.