Super Regulator, collecting the facts - Page 4 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Power Supplies

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 1st October 2003, 05:44 PM   #31
jcarr is offline jcarr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Jan:

>There used to be a big price advantage in production if you could stay with SS boards, even if you had to use tens of jumpers.<

Depends strongly on the local labor costs. In the 1970s and 1980s, the yen was cheap relative to the dollar, and wages were increasing but were not that high. In a situation like this, where labor costs are low, components that are cheap to make (like SS pcbs) will likely reduce the total cost of manufacture, even if the human labor content is comparatively high.

From around the middle 1980s, the value of the yen rose steeply, and so did Japanese wages. But the majority of Japanese audio products still relied on jumpered single-sided PCBs and complex wiring harnesses that looked like a ball of yarn after a cat had played with it. Even though the pcbs were themselves cheap, once the labor costs were added to the equation, the total cost of manufacture (and service and repair) was undoubtedly higher than if the designers would have opted for multi-layer pcbs.

It took some years for Japanese designers and management to get accustomed to new ways of doing things. Today, multilayer pcbs are quite common in Japanese audio equipment.

>There are things you can do in an IC that would be impossible in discrete form. And probably vice versa.<

Agreed, but I also think that there is a middle ground. By combining advanced transistors (like multi-gate FETs), multilayer pcbs, smd, three-dimensional construction techniques, it is possible to build circuits that, although may not quite match an IC for thermal tracking and complexity, do allow a lot of IC-style topologies and techniques (i.e., base-current compensation) to be used. Something along the lines of hybrid circuits.

regards, jonathan carr
__________________
http://www.lyraconnoisseur.com/, http://www.lyraaudio.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2003, 07:31 PM   #32
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally posted by peranders
Jan, if you don't pay attention to the coolness factor of remote sensing in this application, how important do you think it is really?

Note Fred, I still think Jan's and Andy's work is great.

Sorry, couldn't find "coolness factor" in my Oxford Dictionary. Other than that, the question really is, do you want to go to great length to make a very quiet and stable supply and then throw it overboard with too long, uncompensated wiring. The improvement with remote sensing is unquestionably, repeatably demonstrable, and not subtle in technical terms. Can you hear it? Depends on a lot of other things.

Or is your question: how important is superquiet and stable supply? I can't answer that question for you. I can't hear the difference between a BG or a Siemens cap, except in my wallet.

I have pleasure in trying to wring the last drop of performance from a circuit, knowing that it will make the resulting piece of equipment come closer to a straight-wire-with-gain. I may not be able to hear that last drop, but everyone has a turn-on. This is (one of) mine.

Jan Didden
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd October 2003, 02:27 AM   #33
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: LA
Hi Andy,
I was going to email some questions to you, but since this thread is going, decided to post them here, might help someone else.

I am planning to use your Jung regulator, with the tracking pre regulator (LM317) to generate +/- 15VDC for my FET preamp.

I was planning on feeding it 21 VDC unregulated (15 VAC rectified).

First question is how much does it care about the unregulated VDC going in? I was thinking about getting a split core, over rated transformer (maybe 100 VA), and using Jensen 4 pole electrolytics in the rectifier circuit. Since the Jung is so good, can I use cheaper caps in the rectifier, and not notice a difference? Does the transformer make a difference?

How much decoupling can the target circuit have? I saw references to not exceed 100 uf decoupling caps, and not to exceed 1000 uf total capacitance.

I also need to know how to build a -15 VDC regulator, all the info in the manual seems to be for a +15 regulator (I think this question started the thread).

I was thinking about building separate regulators for left and right channels, but is that overkill? I would need 4 regulators then, seems like a lot, but I might do it if it improves the sound. Any comments? I will probably build it with two at first, and think about adding two more.

Also wondered how the regulators perform powering digital and clock circuits, generating 3.3 or 5 VDC. Would that be a good application for a Jung? I understand I would need a 2.5 V reference for this.

Thanks for any information you can provide. Hope this was not too many questions.

Randy
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2003, 07:58 AM   #34
Electrons are yellow and more is better!
diyAudio Member
 
peranders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally posted by randytsuch
First question is how much does it care about the unregulated VDC going in? I was thinking about getting a split core, over rated transformer (maybe 100 VA), and using Jensen 4 pole electrolytics in the rectifier circuit. Since the Jung is so good, can I use cheaper caps in the rectifier, and not notice a difference? Does the transformer make a difference?

How much decoupling can the target circuit have? I saw references to not exceed 100 uf decoupling caps, and not to exceed 1000 uf total capacitance.

I leave the first question to the experts.. but a normal transformer will do and also normal caps but also allways you can do it more well done if you know what I mean? If it's a question of budget, you can start with simplier parts and then "upgrade".

About the capacitance at the output, some regulators can't take huge capacitance because the go into oscillations. It depends have the regulator is designed but if you can't measure it you can allways insert 1-100 ohms in series. With this you isolate the regulator from difficult load. The regulation gets a little bit worse but it's strongly dependent of the situation.

Quote:
Originally posted by randytsuch
I also need to know how to build a -15 VDC regulator, all the info in the manual seems to be for a +15 regulator (I think this question started the thread).
Just change all polarized parts, transisitors (NPN->PNP), diods, caps and reference. Note also thatthe opamp allways gets negative voltage at pin 4 and positive at pin 7.

IMPORTANT: The opamp must be able to work (or at least start) at common mode voltage near positive rail. Far from everyone can do this. Just test or choose an rail-to-rail opamp.

Quote:
Originally posted by randytsuch
I was thinking about building separate regulators for left and right channels, but is that overkill? I would need 4 regulators then, seems like a lot, but I might do it if it improves the sound. Any comments? I will probably build it with two at first, and think about adding two more.
Overkill, maybe but this is my trademark.... It's not bad to have a "serious" power but you can have more serious to chosen circuits.

Quote:
Originally posted by randytsuch
Also wondered how the regulators perform powering digital and clock circuits, generating 3.3 or 5 VDC. Would that be a good application for a Jung? I understand I would need a 2.5 V reference for this.
For digital circuits you need low impedance at 1-500 MHz or so. The absolute value isn't very important. Serious decoupling is VERY impoprtant. Also proper grounding.
__________________
/Per-Anders (my first name) or P-A as my friends call me
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2003, 08:07 AM   #35
Electrons are yellow and more is better!
diyAudio Member
 
peranders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally posted by randytsuch


I was planning on feeding it 21 VDC unregulated (15 VAC rectified).

First question is how much does it care about the unregulated VDC going in? I was thinking about getting a split core, over rated transformer (maybe 100 VA), and using Jensen 4 pole electrolytics in the rectifier circuit. Since the Jung is so good, can I use cheaper caps in the rectifier, and not notice a difference? Does the transformer make a difference?
Instead of a pre regulator you can also do as I have done. Put small resistors after the recifier and to get even more filtering use an another RC- filter. I have a R-C-R-C filter in order to get smooth voltage. This is a passive solution so you must have control over the max load. An active pre regulator is more flexible if you have varying (spelling?) loads.
__________________
/Per-Anders (my first name) or P-A as my friends call me
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2003, 11:53 AM   #36
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Wink I leave the first question to the experts..

If only the rest of the questions as well....

'you can allways insert 1-100 ohms in series. With this you isolate the regulator from difficult load. The regulation gets a little bit worse but it's strongly dependent of the situation."

At low frequencies, several orders of magnitude. That is the first time that I have seen differences of thousands of times higher described as "a little bit worse"

"Just change all polarized parts, transisitors (NPN->PNP), diods, caps and reference. Note also thatthe opamp allways gets negative voltage at pin 4 and positive at pin 7."


NO! Besides too being vague for useful advice for anyone who doesn't understand to a degree that would make it unnecessary to ask the question, it is wrong. The circuits are different enough to require different PCBs for the negative and positive regulators. The circuits are similar and require PNP-NPN and capacitor polarity differences, but the circuit topologies are different as well and require a different schematic and PCB layout for positive and negative versions.


"IMPORTANT: The opamp must be able to work (or at least start) at common mode voltage near positive rail. Far from everyone can do this. Just test or choose an rail-to-rail opamp."

Please explain this one. After reading about the development of this circuit for several years I have never seen this claim made. The bootstrap circuit for startup forces the voltage within the common mode range while the circuit is powering up. the circuit has been used with a variety of op amps. One of the most popular has a common mode input range 1.5 V below the supply voltage at the op amps power pins which is hardly a rail to rail op amp.

I hope my fellow forum member Pan'andlers (I let you call me Phred...) will address these concerns regarding his advice.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2003, 02:05 PM   #37
Electrons are yellow and more is better!
diyAudio Member
 
peranders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Blog Entries: 4
Default Re: I leave the first question to the experts..

Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
If only the rest of the questions as well....

'you can allways insert 1-100 ohms in series. With this you isolate the regulator from difficult load. The regulation gets a little bit worse but it's strongly dependent of the situation."

At low frequencies, several orders of magnitude. That is the first time that I have seen differences of thousands of times higher described as "a little bit worse"
Fred, you know perfectly well that it is the high frequencies that are important and also more difficult for the regulators. A couple of millivolts in ripple, hum isn't especially harmful in front of a Jung regulator or any for that matter. We talk about raw voltage fed to a regulator so thousand times better than what.... at the output? Fred, I don't say it's wrong to use a pre regulator, just that there might be other solutions not that bad.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
"Just change all polarized parts, transisitors (NPN->PNP), diods, caps and reference. Note also thatthe opamp allways gets negative voltage at pin 4 and positive at pin 7."


NO! Besides too being vague for useful advice for anyone who doesn't understand to a degree that would make it unnecessary to ask the question, it is wrong. The circuits are different enough to require different PCBs for the negative and positive regulators. The circuits are similar and require PNP-NPN and capacitor polarity differences, but the circuit topologies are different as well and require a different schematic and PCB layout for positive and negative versions.
I don't know about Andy's pcb (haven't checked close enough) but As I see only the opamp must have it's pin 7 and 4 swapped (requires a litlle bit patching) otherwise I don't know what mean.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
"IMPORTANT: The opamp must be able to work (or at least start) at common mode voltage near positive rail. Far from everyone can do this. Just test or choose an rail-to-rail opamp."

Please explain this one. After reading about the development of this circuit for several years I have never seen this claim made. The bootstrap circuit for startup forces the voltage within the common mode range while the circuit is powering up. the circuit has been used with a variety of op amps. One of the most popular has a common mode input range 1.5 V below the supply voltage at the op amps power pins which is hardly a rail to rail op amp.
Fred, some opamps have "properties" if they are used outside the common mode limits. If it's good or bad you can't tell until you have tested the type. One thing to remember also is that different brands of the same type can behave differently.

I don't say this is a big problem but you should be aware of it.
__________________
/Per-Anders (my first name) or P-A as my friends call me
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2003, 02:44 PM   #38
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally posted by peranders

I leave the first question to the experts.. but a normal transformer will do and also normal caps but also allways you can do it more well done if you know what I mean? If it's a question of budget, you can start with simplier parts and then "upgrade".


JANNEMAN: A split core transformer has the HUGE advantage that it attenuates mains noise, spit, pople and crach much, much better then toroids. Using toroids for preamps is unneccesarily compromising on quality.


About the capacitance at the output, some regulators can't take huge capacitance because the go into oscillations. It depends have the regulator is designed but if you can't measure it you can allways insert 1-100 ohms in series. With this you isolate the regulator from difficult load. The regulation gets a little bit worse but it's strongly dependent of the situation.

JANNEMAN: This is utter BS. It's actually the intermediate (10-100uF) that may give oscillations. Increasing the cap normally turns it off again.

JANNEMAN: 100 Ohms in series? A little worse? You really have no clue where you talk about, do you? You read somewhere that opamps with cap load need an output resistor to be stable and you port that to regulators without the slightest thinking. I will not insult the others on this forum by explaining why this is a no-no.[snip]
Jan Didden
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2003, 03:16 PM   #39
grataku is offline grataku  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: -
Default Re: I leave the first question to the experts..

Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann

"Just change all polarized parts, transisitors (NPN->PNP), diods, caps and reference. Note also thatthe opamp allways gets negative voltage at pin 4 and positive at pin 7."


NO! Besides too being vague for useful advice for anyone who doesn't understand to a degree that would make it unnecessary to ask the question, it is wrong. The circuits are different enough to require different PCBs for the negative and positive regulators. The circuits are similar and require PNP-NPN and capacitor polarity differences, but the circuit topologies are different as well and require a different schematic and PCB layout for positive and negative versions.

I have Jan article in front of me and the PCBs for the + and - look close enough.
I would be very interested in knowing how many iterations the ALW pcb required.
IMO, the the bandwidth is low enough to be pretty forgiving.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2003, 08:47 PM   #40
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
"I have Jan article in front of me and the PCBs for the + and - look close enough.
I would be very interested in knowing how many iterations the ALW pcb required. IMO, the the bandwidth is low enough to be pretty forgiving."

Then why go though the time consuming task of laying out two different PCBs for the negative and positive regulator? Would someone actually look at a schematics and stop shooting from the hip. They are similar
but not identical. I think a board could be designed for both options but compromise for the op amp PS terminals would very likely compromise the design. I am sorry that this circuit looks so easy to a lot of you, but the PCB layout is critical to a state of the art power supply design like this. The bandwidth of the op amp is pretty high and the understanding of all the voltage drops in the layout for the correct location of the sense points is very demanding. There are any number of ways that the performance can be compromised by even small layout changes from the optimum. I just don't know why this is unclear. We're talking about signals and trace resistences SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW the microvolt, milliamp, and milliohm level.

Another real factor is that offering a kit with complicated stuffing options is a disaster waiting to happen with people unfamiliar the design, even with excellent documentation. A board with a silkscreen useful for both? I can't even imagine, and I have designed PCBs with stuffing options much simpler that have still confused people despite my best efforts.
  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 08:50 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