Fred, DIY'ers aren't illiterates and/or fools. Most of them can read and also understand what problem or task is.Fred Dieckmann said:
There is normally no problems at all with alternative parts, or placements.I see no trouble at all with a universal pcb both for positive and negative supply. Since the opamp has flipped pins you can simple have "two" opamps on the pcb if you don't want to use jumper wires.
Fred Dieckmann said:
If you are interested I am going to tell you what I do, in private, suffice it to say I am working at 750MHz, pulsing 100's of watts and getting back microvolts, I am sure you would find it fascinating.
At that frequency a 1mm X 1mm Cu strip inductance and resistance makes a 5 MHz difference in tuning and 20 ohm difference in matching, but that doesn't matter.
In the case of the superreg I don't think things are _that_ critical.
That's all I am saying. From reading ALW manual it actually seems that Q damping is required in some instance.
"If you are interested I am going to tell you what I do"
In absolute seriousness, compared to that I am sure almost every circuit looks simple......
I can only point out that 1 ma through 1 milliohm is one microvolt. A preamp circuit driving 1V into 10K ohms results in a current of 100 microamps, and this at the higher signal levels seen by a preamp. The music signal has dynamic range exceeding 80 dB. The bottom line is that a power supply, such as the Jung type design, involves consideration of error signals in the nanovolt (10 to the-9th) region. This would seem to me to be some very rigorous engineering when pushing the state of the art for an audio power supply design like this. Plenty challenging for me and most of the others of the forum, even the serious analog engineers I'd imagine. The evolution this circuit from the original Sulzer circuit has been documented for over 20 years in The Audio Amateur and Audio Electronics. Enhancements for the circuit are still being pursued at present. I can think of at least half a dozen changes worth investigating and I am sure there are many others that I haven't thought of, but others have. I am still curious how much further this design can go in terms of improvement.
In absolute seriousness, compared to that I am sure almost every circuit looks simple......
I can only point out that 1 ma through 1 milliohm is one microvolt. A preamp circuit driving 1V into 10K ohms results in a current of 100 microamps, and this at the higher signal levels seen by a preamp. The music signal has dynamic range exceeding 80 dB. The bottom line is that a power supply, such as the Jung type design, involves consideration of error signals in the nanovolt (10 to the-9th) region. This would seem to me to be some very rigorous engineering when pushing the state of the art for an audio power supply design like this. Plenty challenging for me and most of the others of the forum, even the serious analog engineers I'd imagine. The evolution this circuit from the original Sulzer circuit has been documented for over 20 years in The Audio Amateur and Audio Electronics. Enhancements for the circuit are still being pursued at present. I can think of at least half a dozen changes worth investigating and I am sure there are many others that I haven't thought of, but others have. I am still curious how much further this design can go in terms of improvement.
go for it
"There is normally no problems at all with alternative parts, or placements.I see no trouble at all with a universal pcb both for positive and negative supply. Since the opamp has flipped pins you can simple have "two" opamps on the pcb if you don't want to use jumper wires."
Great idea! I am sure we will see this on your knock off version on the circuit. Charge enough for the PCBs to compensate yourself for the time you will spend on people who blow it up building it wrong. I think you can count on it quite often.
"I mean , AD797, gain of one, not short wires."
So do I .......
"There is normally no problems at all with alternative parts, or placements.I see no trouble at all with a universal pcb both for positive and negative supply. Since the opamp has flipped pins you can simple have "two" opamps on the pcb if you don't want to use jumper wires."
Great idea! I am sure we will see this on your knock off version on the circuit. Charge enough for the PCBs to compensate yourself for the time you will spend on people who blow it up building it wrong. I think you can count on it quite often.
"I mean , AD797, gain of one, not short wires."
So do I .......
I guess you charge to fix them too....
I am not saying DIYs are not smart enough to build a kit. For PCBs this simlar with this many stuffing changes between the versions will make it more difficult for many to assemble, most people being unfamiliar with the design. It is the intellegence and responsibility of the person offering the kit and not that of the one purchasing it that is under discussion. Why make it more difficult for the person buying the board instead of doing the work for two versions which require small changes between the layouts?
I am not saying DIYs are not smart enough to build a kit. For PCBs this simlar with this many stuffing changes between the versions will make it more difficult for many to assemble, most people being unfamiliar with the design. It is the intellegence and responsibility of the person offering the kit and not that of the one purchasing it that is under discussion. Why make it more difficult for the person buying the board instead of doing the work for two versions which require small changes between the layouts?
There seem to be reasonable arguments both for one PCB and
for two separate ones, but wouldn't perhaps the most obvious
solution be one PCB with two regulators, one pos. and one neg.?
I mean, most people will probably want both anyway and it
would seem attractive to minimize the board count in a design.
Back to an earlier issue in the thread, does anybody have a
good answer to dimitris question (post #26) on how to feed
multiple ICs from one regulator. I share the same concerns as
dimitri regarging Per-Anders answer to the question, so other
opinions would be welcome.
for two separate ones, but wouldn't perhaps the most obvious
solution be one PCB with two regulators, one pos. and one neg.?
I mean, most people will probably want both anyway and it
would seem attractive to minimize the board count in a design.
Back to an earlier issue in the thread, does anybody have a
good answer to dimitris question (post #26) on how to feed
multiple ICs from one regulator. I share the same concerns as
dimitri regarging Per-Anders answer to the question, so other
opinions would be welcome.
A One regulator for each ICdimitri said:
B One regulator for all IC and all IC's connected low-ohmish together
C One regulator for all IC but all IC's separated with
C1 R+C
C2 L+C
C3 Murata-filter plus C
C4 L+R+C
C5 ?????
What do the experts say?
If anyone suggests C, why do we need this regulator? Good point Dimitri.
How many amps have PS which delivers less then 1 uV noise?
Have many amps MUST have power with less noise than 1 uV in order produce high fidelity?
How many people think it's cool to have a super regulator?
I wish I was that smart...........
"Nothing stops Andy to make them pos, neg in the same board except for that the cooling arrangement must be different."
I think you had better ask Andy about his layout and Jan Didden about his layout for the Jung regulator. I really think you don't have any experience with the circuit and are very likely unqualified to make that judgment. I am constantly amazed that someone thinks they can look at a circuit for few hours and know more than people who have been working with the circuit for years. There a very few on the forum who are that sharp, I'm sure not one of them. My views on the circuit are based on following the design since the Sulzer original in 1980. Does anyone know what "delusions of grandeur" is in Svensk ? Is "storhetsvansinne" close?
"Nothing stops Andy to make them pos, neg in the same board except for that the cooling arrangement must be different."
I think you had better ask Andy about his layout and Jan Didden about his layout for the Jung regulator. I really think you don't have any experience with the circuit and are very likely unqualified to make that judgment. I am constantly amazed that someone thinks they can look at a circuit for few hours and know more than people who have been working with the circuit for years. There a very few on the forum who are that sharp, I'm sure not one of them. My views on the circuit are based on following the design since the Sulzer original in 1980. Does anyone know what "delusions of grandeur" is in Svensk ? Is "storhetsvansinne" close?
Hi guys.
First, want to try to clear something up.
Andy IS making a positive and negative version of the Jung regulator. He appears to have two different PWB's.
The misunderstanding came from my stupidity
, I missed it in the user's manual. It was really that I was careless, and I have no excuse for it.
Very sorry for any and all confusion I caused here.
Secondly, thanks to all for the answers/replies to my questions. I had not idea they would be a cause of controversy, but I really appreciate the time people took to answer me.
As for my project, Andy is sending me a positive and negative version of his kit, so I will build each one up, and use it to power my preamp. I might make another pair in the future, so I can go dual mono.
I will go with a split core tranny, and probably use Nichicons for the PS filter caps, and freds for the bridge diodes. Budget is of some concern, but time is a bigger issue for me. I would rather spend a little more up front, so I won't have to tweak it latter to try to make it better.
I am still not sure how much filter capacitance to put in my preamp, but I have a scope, so I can play with that, and see if I get any oscillation.
Thanks/sorry,
Randy
First, want to try to clear something up.
Andy IS making a positive and negative version of the Jung regulator. He appears to have two different PWB's.
The misunderstanding came from my stupidity
, I missed it in the user's manual. It was really that I was careless, and I have no excuse for it.Very sorry for any and all confusion I caused here.
Secondly, thanks to all for the answers/replies to my questions. I had not idea they would be a cause of controversy, but I really appreciate the time people took to answer me.
As for my project, Andy is sending me a positive and negative version of his kit, so I will build each one up, and use it to power my preamp. I might make another pair in the future, so I can go dual mono.
I will go with a split core tranny, and probably use Nichicons for the PS filter caps, and freds for the bridge diodes. Budget is of some concern, but time is a bigger issue for me. I would rather spend a little more up front, so I won't have to tweak it latter to try to make it better.
I am still not sure how much filter capacitance to put in my preamp, but I have a scope, so I can play with that, and see if I get any oscillation.
Thanks/sorry,
Randy
Dear Christer and Peranders,
This is how I test regulator dynamic behavior from the output side during last 20 years. May I recommend you to do the same with any regulator, starting from three transistors types to precision one. You will be astonished and will forget about dc uV and use Peranders C.
This is how I test regulator dynamic behavior from the output side during last 20 years. May I recommend you to do the same with any regulator, starting from three transistors types to precision one. You will be astonished and will forget about dc uV and use Peranders C.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.