ref: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/power-supplies/67365-huge-rail-caps-needed-w-reg-smps.html
I keep running into advice that when you use a switching mode power supply for a power amp, the electolytics shouldn't be very big. Which makes sense if you only think about filtering out the RF switching frequency square wave, as opposed to old-school amps and suppplies filtering out the lower-frequency 60 HZ output of an unregulated transformer. And when I built bench supplies that's what I did.
On the other hand...when I made power supplies for audio amplifiers using unregulated power supplies, I always put in WAY WAY bigger capacitors (or capacitor banks) than were needed just for filtering. That was because of the nature of music signals I was amplifying. Adding a lot of capacitance at some point got almost like batteries instead of just filters, it allowed the power supply to handle the much larger occasional short-duration demands common in music. Of course they also helped correct for the poor "regulation" of the unregulated transformers in those primitive systems, and correcting that sag might be seen as fitlering from another perspective. Hirsch-Houck labs used to specify "dynamic power" and/or "dynamic headroom" for a specified pulse duration.
My amps with switching-mode regulators have very good continuous output rating, but no additional output capability for short-duration pulses. I'm not trying to handle an entire orchestral crescendo, but I would like to handle note attack and percussion impact with some recovery time. For some kinds of material I also sometimes use a dynamic range enhancer, EQ, and a digital sub-harmonic synthesizer. Combined, these increase this peak demand. I call it slam. My friends call it punchy.
To get the same punchy sound from a class "D" amp (or, unfortunately, conventional amp with a SMPS) it seems I have to use an amp with a much higer continuous rating. Which is not surprising to me. I've had 200 watt continuous / channel amps that handle short-duratoin 810 watt peak demands on both channels with only a little compression and distortion. But...My 800 watt / chan amplifer with switching mode power supply won't handle a short-duration 810 watt peak demand any better than my class-D 800 watt / chan amp.
The switching-mode component (whether amp or power supply) regulates nicely, but has NO additional headroom available for peaks. This doesn't seem to me to be a necessary restriction for a SMPS for a conventional amp if you add caps and don't mind violating the purist desire for the good regulation of the the SMPS. I'd like to add many large caps after the SMPS. They're not small or cheap, but they are cheap compared to a larger amp. It's not any more objectionable to my ethics or aesthetics than using class A/B. Good regulation within a power range, but when a demand exceeds that range what do I want the amp to do? Limit the peak? Attempt to handle the peak with a short subsequent recovery compression time? Attempt to handle the peak with inaudible recovery? It seems to me that a lot of capacitance should make it possible to avoid any audible "breathing" compression during recovery. Right now 2 channels share the same supply limitations, or each can enjoy any available excess power when the signal is very different between channels. I imagine any 'breathing" compression or reduction in volume due to supply sag during the recovery phase as the caps refill could also be a problem.
With the right soft-start circuitry and competent subsequent amplifier sections, is there any reason I can't add a LOT more capacitors after the SMPS? Some have said it might become unstable. Indeed under some circumstances it will occasionally increase the duration of full load on the power supply and push the amp output section harder for short durations with recovery time. I'd bet the power supply and the output sections would both live, especially since the specific amp I'm using is fan-cooled with a LOT of MOSFETs in old-school 2-screw TO-3 cases instead of today's TO-220 cases.
It seems to me I could have the best of all worlds. The "dynamic transient headroom" punchy impact slam of a huge old-school amp, nearly the compactness and power of a SMPS, nearly the continuous power of a class-d but less efficient.
I originally posed a similar question in the wrong forum:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...-amps-switching-power-supply.html#post2588172
I'm a genuine modder, hopping-up and experimenting is in my genes. I'm really inclined to build outboard capacitor banks in seperate cabinets which I can plug into these amps.
When I used to do semi-pro PA I used to add cap banks to a lot of my amps. The dynamic range of live material can be incredible. But I've never added caps to an amp with a SMPS. Yet.
I keep running into advice that when you use a switching mode power supply for a power amp, the electolytics shouldn't be very big. Which makes sense if you only think about filtering out the RF switching frequency square wave, as opposed to old-school amps and suppplies filtering out the lower-frequency 60 HZ output of an unregulated transformer. And when I built bench supplies that's what I did.
On the other hand...when I made power supplies for audio amplifiers using unregulated power supplies, I always put in WAY WAY bigger capacitors (or capacitor banks) than were needed just for filtering. That was because of the nature of music signals I was amplifying. Adding a lot of capacitance at some point got almost like batteries instead of just filters, it allowed the power supply to handle the much larger occasional short-duration demands common in music. Of course they also helped correct for the poor "regulation" of the unregulated transformers in those primitive systems, and correcting that sag might be seen as fitlering from another perspective. Hirsch-Houck labs used to specify "dynamic power" and/or "dynamic headroom" for a specified pulse duration.
My amps with switching-mode regulators have very good continuous output rating, but no additional output capability for short-duration pulses. I'm not trying to handle an entire orchestral crescendo, but I would like to handle note attack and percussion impact with some recovery time. For some kinds of material I also sometimes use a dynamic range enhancer, EQ, and a digital sub-harmonic synthesizer. Combined, these increase this peak demand. I call it slam. My friends call it punchy.
To get the same punchy sound from a class "D" amp (or, unfortunately, conventional amp with a SMPS) it seems I have to use an amp with a much higer continuous rating. Which is not surprising to me. I've had 200 watt continuous / channel amps that handle short-duratoin 810 watt peak demands on both channels with only a little compression and distortion. But...My 800 watt / chan amplifer with switching mode power supply won't handle a short-duration 810 watt peak demand any better than my class-D 800 watt / chan amp.
The switching-mode component (whether amp or power supply) regulates nicely, but has NO additional headroom available for peaks. This doesn't seem to me to be a necessary restriction for a SMPS for a conventional amp if you add caps and don't mind violating the purist desire for the good regulation of the the SMPS. I'd like to add many large caps after the SMPS. They're not small or cheap, but they are cheap compared to a larger amp. It's not any more objectionable to my ethics or aesthetics than using class A/B. Good regulation within a power range, but when a demand exceeds that range what do I want the amp to do? Limit the peak? Attempt to handle the peak with a short subsequent recovery compression time? Attempt to handle the peak with inaudible recovery? It seems to me that a lot of capacitance should make it possible to avoid any audible "breathing" compression during recovery. Right now 2 channels share the same supply limitations, or each can enjoy any available excess power when the signal is very different between channels. I imagine any 'breathing" compression or reduction in volume due to supply sag during the recovery phase as the caps refill could also be a problem.
With the right soft-start circuitry and competent subsequent amplifier sections, is there any reason I can't add a LOT more capacitors after the SMPS? Some have said it might become unstable. Indeed under some circumstances it will occasionally increase the duration of full load on the power supply and push the amp output section harder for short durations with recovery time. I'd bet the power supply and the output sections would both live, especially since the specific amp I'm using is fan-cooled with a LOT of MOSFETs in old-school 2-screw TO-3 cases instead of today's TO-220 cases.
It seems to me I could have the best of all worlds. The "dynamic transient headroom" punchy impact slam of a huge old-school amp, nearly the compactness and power of a SMPS, nearly the continuous power of a class-d but less efficient.
I originally posed a similar question in the wrong forum:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...-amps-switching-power-supply.html#post2588172
I'm a genuine modder, hopping-up and experimenting is in my genes. I'm really inclined to build outboard capacitor banks in seperate cabinets which I can plug into these amps.
When I used to do semi-pro PA I used to add cap banks to a lot of my amps. The dynamic range of live material can be incredible. But I've never added caps to an amp with a SMPS. Yet.
Then there's the subject of the psycho-acoustic aspects of dynamic headroom and what that reserve "should" sound like. We are so used to the sound of some compression and non-linearity distortion in musical peaks that we associate it with a "loud" sound. Having some guitar amp background I am very aware of such things, but that's not really what I usually want in a high-fidelity reproduction system.
Once you pick a power supply and know its rating for ripple, that is only a rating of the output at the connector for it. The rest of your (amp) powered device, the design, trace impedance, or even a need or desire for less ripple than the PSU is spec'd for, determines how much capacitance you need.
The goal is NOT to pick a lot of capacitance or a little, it is to have both! Bulk storage capacitors would be not too far away from the output transistors (or amp IC if the output transistors are integrated into it) but your low capacitance, decoupling capacitors with very low ESR would go as close to the chip (or transistor) pins as possible.
This assures the best electrical function and reduction of noise. It does not mean you will or won't like the way an amp sounds, lots of people do technically (electronically) incorrect or sub-optimal designs but find they like the harmonic effect it causes so for them it was the right choice.
Every now and then you'll find someone mentioning a resonant effect with more than one capacitor. Yes it is possible, but uncommon. If it happens just change one of the two caps that's in parallel.
There is the issue of inrush current if the capacitance is quite high, but personally I always suggest using a PSU with inrush current limiting. Yes if you turn up the amp to the point that there is more and more power output you come closer and closer to blowing a transistor. Will you blow one? It is possible, depends on how loud you try to go.
It is better to have a lesser drop in rail voltage and longer recovery time, the main thing to avoid is high frequency noise, that coming from the PSU and that created by the switching of the mosfets and driver subcircuits themselves. Of course, if these things matter a LOT then you are a candidate for a class A amp, since it will draw the same power regardless of what sounds are playing, and a candidate for a linear power supply since all switchers produce high frequency noise... though as mentioned above, some people like the sound of certain things so for them it is the right choice.
The goal is NOT to pick a lot of capacitance or a little, it is to have both! Bulk storage capacitors would be not too far away from the output transistors (or amp IC if the output transistors are integrated into it) but your low capacitance, decoupling capacitors with very low ESR would go as close to the chip (or transistor) pins as possible.
This assures the best electrical function and reduction of noise. It does not mean you will or won't like the way an amp sounds, lots of people do technically (electronically) incorrect or sub-optimal designs but find they like the harmonic effect it causes so for them it was the right choice.
Every now and then you'll find someone mentioning a resonant effect with more than one capacitor. Yes it is possible, but uncommon. If it happens just change one of the two caps that's in parallel.
There is the issue of inrush current if the capacitance is quite high, but personally I always suggest using a PSU with inrush current limiting. Yes if you turn up the amp to the point that there is more and more power output you come closer and closer to blowing a transistor. Will you blow one? It is possible, depends on how loud you try to go.
It is better to have a lesser drop in rail voltage and longer recovery time, the main thing to avoid is high frequency noise, that coming from the PSU and that created by the switching of the mosfets and driver subcircuits themselves. Of course, if these things matter a LOT then you are a candidate for a class A amp, since it will draw the same power regardless of what sounds are playing, and a candidate for a linear power supply since all switchers produce high frequency noise... though as mentioned above, some people like the sound of certain things so for them it is the right choice.
Last edited:
Nobody else has any comments on using a SMPS followed by lots of energy storage caps followed by a conventional amp? The folklore (fostered by Bob Carver selling powerful amps) is that reproducing a scissors snip thru efficient speakers still clips with 4800 watts, and that it is impossible to accurately reporoduce the top of that instantaneous transient with any amp. That may be a 1-millisecond burst that is 100,000 times the average. Of course it's irrlevant if your source is CDs.
We use large cap banks to improve conventional power supplies and endow them with dynamic headroom for short transients, not just to remove 60 hz hum. Class D amps are not able to deliver dynamic headroom beyond when the pulse width is 100% but we revel in the less important continuous ratings.
But it seems to me we undersize the caps after a SMPS (when followed by a conventional amp) for economical and compactness reasons. We again revel in the less important continuous rating. Yes, it's great to always operate within the fully-regulated capabilitiy of a SMPS, but is it such a heresy to give it some additional headroom via a bank of caps, even acknowledging that the bank of caps is less than ideal and may sag for some recovery time after drained beyond what the SMPS can refresh in a few cycles (and the amp may operatoe outside of its most linear region?
We use large cap banks to improve conventional power supplies and endow them with dynamic headroom for short transients, not just to remove 60 hz hum. Class D amps are not able to deliver dynamic headroom beyond when the pulse width is 100% but we revel in the less important continuous ratings.
But it seems to me we undersize the caps after a SMPS (when followed by a conventional amp) for economical and compactness reasons. We again revel in the less important continuous rating. Yes, it's great to always operate within the fully-regulated capabilitiy of a SMPS, but is it such a heresy to give it some additional headroom via a bank of caps, even acknowledging that the bank of caps is less than ideal and may sag for some recovery time after drained beyond what the SMPS can refresh in a few cycles (and the amp may operatoe outside of its most linear region?
Last edited:
I'm sure it's my guitar amp background that makes me think so much about the nature of how the amp behaves outside its ideal operating limits. Most engineers rarely address that, they just don't intend theri equipemnt to be operated outside its specified limits. Yet they often are.
What I'm proposing is to leave the decoupling caps on the output board, and the big filter caps mounted by the transformer, but adding another entire enclosure filled with capacitors, with the intent of adding significant dynamic headroom for handling very short transient demands. That's the spec where these amps fail to deliver now.
I've done this to many amps with conventional power supplies, with very good results. But I've never done it to any amp with a SMPS so I'm a bit leery, especially since these are unsuppored. But now I have an extra amp to experiment with, and not put everything at risk.
What I'm proposing is to leave the decoupling caps on the output board, and the big filter caps mounted by the transformer, but adding another entire enclosure filled with capacitors, with the intent of adding significant dynamic headroom for handling very short transient demands. That's the spec where these amps fail to deliver now.
I've done this to many amps with conventional power supplies, with very good results. But I've never done it to any amp with a SMPS so I'm a bit leery, especially since these are unsuppored. But now I have an extra amp to experiment with, and not put everything at risk.
Last edited:
Put the decoupling caps as close to the (chip or transistor) pins as possible. This is one of the most important factors (when talking last detail/tweaking) that remains except for keeping the signal path as short and ground plane shielded as possible.
We are talking about random things though, idealizing only goes so far and then it is a matter of splitting hairs if your design is good otherwise. Specifics like seeing the schematic and a good pic of the PCB trace side and component specs would be a better set of info going forward...
but in the end, it is always about budget and conscience, if not we would all have 5000W class-A linear amps and kill baby seals to power it.
We are talking about random things though, idealizing only goes so far and then it is a matter of splitting hairs if your design is good otherwise. Specifics like seeing the schematic and a good pic of the PCB trace side and component specs would be a better set of info going forward...
but in the end, it is always about budget and conscience, if not we would all have 5000W class-A linear amps and kill baby seals to power it.
I'm not looking for a discusson of decoupling or filtering, I'm really asking about additional energy storage caps for power to handle longer transients, practically batteries LOL.
To some people that means additional filtering to handle power supply dips that occur during longer transient peak demands, so it's really a matter of perspective and preferred terminology.
Some have suggested I put a scope with memory on the supply during some loud transient peaks and the period between such peaks, and that would give me a good way to change my own perspective and have something concrete and quantitative to address.
To some people that means additional filtering to handle power supply dips that occur during longer transient peak demands, so it's really a matter of perspective and preferred terminology.
Some have suggested I put a scope with memory on the supply during some loud transient peaks and the period between such peaks, and that would give me a good way to change my own perspective and have something concrete and quantitative to address.
Last edited:
I stumbled into some agreement with my premise:
http://passlabs.com/pdfs/articles/powersupply.pdf
"This can be a deep subject, but suffice it to say that I believe that some
of the same caveats apply to switching supplies as linear regulators.
Again, they should be rated far beyond the nominal current
requirements of the amplifier circuit, particularly as the switchers I have
seen usually degrade badly beyond their ratings. Also, it helps if the
power supply capacitors before and after the switcher are very
substantial. This is typically not the case, since one of the primarymotivations to use switchers is to save money."
He's talking about 100.000 mfd parallel with a small film bypass for a 1000 watt amp. For my 1800 watt amp, 200,000 mfd does not sound unreasonable for a hobbyist enthusiast.
http://passlabs.com/pdfs/articles/powersupply.pdf
"This can be a deep subject, but suffice it to say that I believe that some
of the same caveats apply to switching supplies as linear regulators.
Again, they should be rated far beyond the nominal current
requirements of the amplifier circuit, particularly as the switchers I have
seen usually degrade badly beyond their ratings. Also, it helps if the
power supply capacitors before and after the switcher are very
substantial. This is typically not the case, since one of the primary
He's talking about 100.000 mfd parallel with a small film bypass for a 1000 watt amp. For my 1800 watt amp, 200,000 mfd does not sound unreasonable for a hobbyist enthusiast.
^ Filtering is what they are doing, it is the same thing, you are simply filtering less frequent high magnitude ripple on the power line caused by the powered device rather than the PSU.
The point that you made about overspec'd power supply capability is true but the expense limits it happening in many cases. A properly paired PSU will itself be able to handle the momentary peaks, but your circuit impedance makes it important to have the energy stored adjacent the output chip pins for least impedance.
There is no need to measure with a scope at the supply, you should be most interested at the power (input) at the amp output component, transistors. If your supply lines are not staying where you want them, only at this point in the circuit will it matter. You could keep the PSU at an ideal voltage but it won't remove the issue of what the power rail is doing downstream at this critical point in the circuit.
If you use an off-board capacitor bank like 200,000 mfd, keep something in mind. Not only is there the inrush current which you can easily enough limit, there is another factor and one I don't feel you have focused on. Decent switching PSU will shut off from under-voltage conditions. This means that not only would it turn off during the longer transient power demand if the power rail dropped much, it also means that if you put lots of capacitance after the switching PSU, when first turned on it may not be able to get the voltage up to the set range before it shuts off because it took too long charging up the capacitor.
One way around this latter issue is to put current limiting on the input to the capacitor bank, run a parallel supply line to the power rails in the amp board so your voltage recovery is faster, and isolation diodes on the output of the capacitor bank to the amp so they remain current limited on their input instead of just charging up through the parallel circuit path... but then you suffer the loss of the forward voltage drop across the isolation diodes so it is far from ideal, probably not practical. Some people avoid anything in parallel thinking it's a matter of ground loops, but this shouldn't matter since it is isolated to the supply line, assuming they both connect on the amp PCB at the same location.
The point that you made about overspec'd power supply capability is true but the expense limits it happening in many cases. A properly paired PSU will itself be able to handle the momentary peaks, but your circuit impedance makes it important to have the energy stored adjacent the output chip pins for least impedance.
There is no need to measure with a scope at the supply, you should be most interested at the power (input) at the amp output component, transistors. If your supply lines are not staying where you want them, only at this point in the circuit will it matter. You could keep the PSU at an ideal voltage but it won't remove the issue of what the power rail is doing downstream at this critical point in the circuit.
If you use an off-board capacitor bank like 200,000 mfd, keep something in mind. Not only is there the inrush current which you can easily enough limit, there is another factor and one I don't feel you have focused on. Decent switching PSU will shut off from under-voltage conditions. This means that not only would it turn off during the longer transient power demand if the power rail dropped much, it also means that if you put lots of capacitance after the switching PSU, when first turned on it may not be able to get the voltage up to the set range before it shuts off because it took too long charging up the capacitor.
One way around this latter issue is to put current limiting on the input to the capacitor bank, run a parallel supply line to the power rails in the amp board so your voltage recovery is faster, and isolation diodes on the output of the capacitor bank to the amp so they remain current limited on their input instead of just charging up through the parallel circuit path... but then you suffer the loss of the forward voltage drop across the isolation diodes so it is far from ideal, probably not practical. Some people avoid anything in parallel thinking it's a matter of ground loops, but this shouldn't matter since it is isolated to the supply line, assuming they both connect on the amp PCB at the same location.
Last edited:
If your SMPS output is regulated , then adding significant > 50% additional output capacitance is problematic and will not add anything except a potential for creating feedback loop instability ( very bad). Peak transient power within the audio BW and tone bursts is mostly controlled by the feedback loop time constants and current limit. Short term transient behavoir (the rise and fall times of squarewaves) is mostly controlled by output caps (decoupling) and reducing stray inductance to the audio amp and/or load. The design tradeoffs of a SMPS is usually between the output filter bandwidth to attenuate ripple freq at the switching freq. and loop BW controlling line and load regulation. The problem with SMPS is the load current limit must be set for steady state maximums depending on the thermal design limits.
so, like anything it depends on the details of the power supply design, the amp design targets and exactly what you are trying to achieve. It maybe as simple as moving the SMPS current limit set points above the threshold determined by the thermal envelope knowing/ hoping the transients for music will exceed or approach steady state designed in thermal limits.
so, like anything it depends on the details of the power supply design, the amp design targets and exactly what you are trying to achieve. It maybe as simple as moving the SMPS current limit set points above the threshold determined by the thermal envelope knowing/ hoping the transients for music will exceed or approach steady state designed in thermal limits.
infinia, while I agree with much of what you wrote, a few instances (within limits) contradict points made. Take the typical computer switching power supply in the intended use - powering a computer. On a typical PC the power supply has about 3000uF per rail and often less. That power supply is plugged into a motherboard and video card in particular which almost always triples the capacitance if not more.
Adding "some" capacitance can work ok on most switching PSU but there is a limit and I suspect the proposed 200,000uF would exceed it - but only testing would prove it.
While a more accurate method of regulating where it counts, at the load, would use a remote sense wire connected at the highest current portion, in practical uses (modularization of components such as the whole PSU capable of being plug and play used with various equipment) there is at most a remote sense wire going only to the connector on the powered equipment, and sometimes not even that, the sense loop goes no further than the PSU PCB.
For this reason if the capacitors are remotely mounted there is reduction in chances it would cause instability, "IF" the PSU can charge up the capacitors in time without deciding it has fallen out of regulation and shutting down. Perhaps the control circuit could be modified so it takes a longer period before it shuts down from undervoltage, but it seems a lengthy process to embark upon without knowing if adding a large amount of additional capacitance is an audible improvement over adding smaller amount, or just a costly way to make a larger amp.
Adding "some" capacitance can work ok on most switching PSU but there is a limit and I suspect the proposed 200,000uF would exceed it - but only testing would prove it.
While a more accurate method of regulating where it counts, at the load, would use a remote sense wire connected at the highest current portion, in practical uses (modularization of components such as the whole PSU capable of being plug and play used with various equipment) there is at most a remote sense wire going only to the connector on the powered equipment, and sometimes not even that, the sense loop goes no further than the PSU PCB.
For this reason if the capacitors are remotely mounted there is reduction in chances it would cause instability, "IF" the PSU can charge up the capacitors in time without deciding it has fallen out of regulation and shutting down. Perhaps the control circuit could be modified so it takes a longer period before it shuts down from undervoltage, but it seems a lengthy process to embark upon without knowing if adding a large amount of additional capacitance is an audible improvement over adding smaller amount, or just a costly way to make a larger amp.
well, Re ATX designs I'm prett sure they are designed NOT at the limits of loop bandwidth for they have no specs on dynamic load regulation , my caveate is under that assumption ie worst case. But that's just one limit, the point is, that regulation/current limits is determined by other means. BTW Most modern PC ATX PS are feed to additional local (multi phase) switching circuits in the case of motherbd CPU and GPU ie heaviest loads I doubt your 3X estimate.
IMO all this discussion is hypothetical anyway.
IMO all this discussion is hypothetical anyway.
Last edited:
!
(that's an odd handle...)
Thanks for your response. I've got to find a schematic for this thing, so I don't have to trace it out myself. I was planning to look into exactly what kind of soft-start they were using. I could always turn it on, then throw a high-current switch to add the extra caps. If nothing else, it would be an interesting opportunity to do some convenient A/B switching for listening comparisons.
As far as monitoring the voltage at the transistors or adding caps there, again...I'm not talking about decoupling filtering. I'm talking about when the main rails mett their current limit. So of course the main rails are an applopriate place to add more energy storage.
(that's an odd handle...)
Thanks for your response. I've got to find a schematic for this thing, so I don't have to trace it out myself. I was planning to look into exactly what kind of soft-start they were using. I could always turn it on, then throw a high-current switch to add the extra caps. If nothing else, it would be an interesting opportunity to do some convenient A/B switching for listening comparisons.
As far as monitoring the voltage at the transistors or adding caps there, again...I'm not talking about decoupling filtering. I'm talking about when the main rails mett their current limit. So of course the main rails are an applopriate place to add more energy storage.
Last edited:
Valid problem? Well, it's a limitation of the existing amp...that it has effecivley NO additional dynamic headroom for handling the short-duration peaks that most music consists of. As it is, its performance is barely better than a class-D amp of the same continuous rating, which is disappointing.
Yes, of course the subsequent amp may show its own limitations if I go down the path of any hopping-up of the power supply; but similar designs with other power supplies do handle short bursts better. It is risky to just try it, the amp could blow or get hotter in not handling it. But if the change is moderate and I test I'm not too worried about the mosfets, since they would not be handling any more power than they would in the continuous state, they would just be handling it in bursts. After all, the power supply is not putting out any more power. I'd expect the heat from such a short burst to sink to sufficient thermal mass to average the temp.
I've got to get a schematic...
Yes, of course the subsequent amp may show its own limitations if I go down the path of any hopping-up of the power supply; but similar designs with other power supplies do handle short bursts better. It is risky to just try it, the amp could blow or get hotter in not handling it. But if the change is moderate and I test I'm not too worried about the mosfets, since they would not be handling any more power than they would in the continuous state, they would just be handling it in bursts. After all, the power supply is not putting out any more power. I'd expect the heat from such a short burst to sink to sufficient thermal mass to average the temp.
I've got to get a schematic...
Heh, I wanted the handle mono because I have it on some other audio forums but it had already been taken by someone who joined before me, made only a very small # of posts then abandoned the account years ago. Then the forum code changed so I don't think you can even create handles with so few letters anymore.
If you were to try implementing the switch to add extra caps, I recommend a parallel circuit around the switch that brings the caps up to voltage through a current limiting resistor before switching on the resistorless parallel circuit from the PSU to caps, because even if the amp is on when you suddenly complete a circuit trying to charge 200,000uF, it is likely to trip the undervoltage or overcurrent protection circuit and turn the PSU off.
My point is, if you have such a moment where the main rails can't support the large current, if you don't have the capacitors closer to the chip you suffer trace or wire impedance that might be the bigger problem than PSU current capability already. If you want to call that decoupling so be it, but you want lowest ESR possible between your stored energy and your active output stage (transistors in this case) for the best effect.
Of course, there are space limitations, I'm not suggesting it necessarily would not help to have the caps remotely located, but I am suggesting it may be as much a matter of the impedance as the PSU current capability because if it were not, if the PSU were dropping voltage much within its feedback loop it would shut off, arguably before voltage dropped enough to make an audible difference, but if you are getting enough voltage drop to hear it and the PSU stays on, you're having considerable voltage drop somewhere in the supply circuit after the feedback look which in most amp designs means between the PSU output pins or wiring harness and the other end where the output transistor pairs are.
Last edited:
Indeed if the change is only moderate, it's not an issue if the 'fets are overspec'd enough to handle it, but it is not just average power vs peak averaged out over time that blows transistors from overheating, momentary peaks can too, it takes a more robust transistor to handle 100A peaks for 10% duty cycle than a transistor driven to 10A continuous (all else being equal).
On the other hand, if this amp powered by a different PSU doesn't have the momentary peak problem, I feel we can move past my suggestion and look at other things like rail capacitors, larger transformer for PSU, or replacing the whole PSU.
Certainly replacing the existing capacitors is one option.
! Good idea to let any outboard caps trickle-charge before I'd switch them in.
I see what you are saying. But I think if I run heavy wire (I used to use copper bars) the resistance from the caps to the output board will be low and the wire inductance isn't going to be a problem. After all, if I add more outboard caps, the original existing caps will still be there whether on the output board or elsewhere.
There's scehmatics for other Soundcraftsmen amps on the 'net, but nothing I can find for these.
I see what you are saying. But I think if I run heavy wire (I used to use copper bars) the resistance from the caps to the output board will be low and the wire inductance isn't going to be a problem. After all, if I add more outboard caps, the original existing caps will still be there whether on the output board or elsewhere.
There's scehmatics for other Soundcraftsmen amps on the 'net, but nothing I can find for these.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.