Modern 317/337 alternatives? - Page 3 - 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 17th February 2013, 01:08 AM   #21
diyAudio Member
 
jackinnj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Llanddewi Brefi, NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFiNutNut View Post
Thanks for your valuable subjective evaluation report and I take it seriesly. From your measured data, it is unbelivable that the Burson reg could sound good, as it measured 10 times worse than the humble LM317/337. I built the LM317/337 no less than 6-7 times in the past 10 years and I did not like the sound for the first 5-6 times, but the last build did give quite good sound.

Is the Sjostrom' a derivation from the Jung reg? I have not found any information on that one.
WRT the Burson, I couldn't believe it myself!!! I purchased all the regulators from their distributors so there weren't any ex ante bias likelihood (i.e. reviewer samples that are especially tricked out.)

The Sjostrom boards are available from Per Anders, the design is pretty similar to the Jung.

I did state in the article that I chose a line amp circuit with "only fair" PSRR at the suggestion of one of DIYAUDIO's moderators. The Borbely "All JFET" is a fantastic sounding line amplifier but PSRR is only about 40dB. If one used one of the high end TI opamps like the OPA2604 or 637 instead of the all-discrete JFET design, perhaps the differences wouldn't be as noticeable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 01:56 AM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney
Jackinnj,

I checked that site and only got the graphs. I have not seen the article. Perhaps I will need to registor before I can see the article.

According to Belleson's site, their regulators have at maximum 7mR at 40kHz. Your measurement deviated much from that.

I guess I will need to read your article to see how the graphs were derived. Since it is public information and no longer confidential, could you post the article here if you own the copyright?

Regards,
Bill

Last edited by HiFiNutNut; 17th February 2013 at 02:03 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 12:02 PM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
jackinnj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Llanddewi Brefi, NJ
Belleson's measurements are wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 06:49 PM   #24
CZ101 is offline CZ101  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackinnj View Post
The regulators which just stood out above all else were the Jung, Sjostrom, Burson, NCD and Linear Tech LT1963A/LT3015. They were in a class all by themselves.
Interesting that you don't include the Salas in this list as on the graphs it seems to perform consistently among the best of the best.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 07:01 PM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney
I think it heavily depends on implementation. Circuit layout, input stage, the type of load, how much current you run, how long the piece of wire connecting to the input and load, use of remote sensing, etc, all can have a big impact on sound. If all are taken care of properly, in terms of sound I would take the regulator with the best measured spec any time any day. I guess among that list, the Salas reg and the Jung reg stand ahead of others.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 07:12 PM   #26
canvas is offline canvas  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Taiwan
Guys, what would be the most important criteria for digital circuit? (e.g., clock, receiver, DAC) Low z-out, low noise or high PSRR? BTW, does low z-out also imply fast transient response? Thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 08:42 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
jackinnj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Llanddewi Brefi, NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by CZ101 View Post
Interesting that you don't include the Salas in this list as on the graphs it seems to perform consistently among the best of the best.
We had the Salas in the group tested since it seems to be a highly popular design. I used the boards burned by one of the group members. They never made it into the top cohort of the listening tests.

One of the issues one might have with the Salas is that it seems to be a continually evolving work. One of the problems of the web, unlike a journal, is that a definitive design isn't published as a benchmark. If someone comes up with the reference design, I will be happy to retest but I count over 20 versions in the several threads related to the device. In fact, I would like to compare it with the design Jung described in the AX interview.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 09:07 PM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
dirkwright's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by canvas View Post
Guys, what would be the most important criteria for digital circuit? (e.g., clock, receiver, DAC) Low z-out, low noise or high PSRR? BTW, does low z-out also imply fast transient response? Thanks.
I would assume it would be high current capacity and low source impedance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 09:51 PM   #29
CZ101 is offline CZ101  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackinnj View Post
We had the Salas in the group tested since it seems to be a highly popular design. I used the boards burned by one of the group members. They never made it into the top cohort of the listening tests.

One of the issues one might have with the Salas is that it seems to be a continually evolving work. One of the problems of the web, unlike a journal, is that a definitive design isn't published as a benchmark. If someone comes up with the reference design, I will be happy to retest but I count over 20 versions in the several threads related to the device. In fact, I would like to compare it with the design Jung described in the AX interview.
hmm.. well it makes me wonder what metric would correlate with the comparative sonics.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th February 2013, 10:02 PM   #30
agdr is offline agdr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
agdr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by transistormarkj View Post
Indeed why not place a similar attenuator into the other, negative, leg of the supply as well?
Good thoughts!

In my original layout I did have one on the negative rail, just for symmetry. I used a 1N4148 diode there instead of a LED since I didn't need any voltage drop. I've been thinking about adding that circuit back. From past experience it seems like every time I design something asymmetric like that thinking it won't matter, it does. Plus opens the door for a drop on the negative rail if a higher voltage input was used and really did need to knock it down to -30Vdc.

I also simulated adding in a cap multiplier, R5 and C5. I wound up with 22R and 100uF. I'm thinking of adding that in, too. That one is sort of a "why not?" The circuit is already 50% of the way to a cap multiplier, might as well add the two parts. A 100uF solid polymer electrolytic is small and cheap these days, with just 25mR ESR, Mouser 647-RL81V101MDN1KX. The error amps in regulators seem to be more than fast enough to cope with the sharp corners on the incoming 60Hz or 120Hz sawtooth, the diode cut-off. But something in my head keeps thinking about the Fourier decomposition of those corners and isn't liking it. I would prefer to have them rounded going into the regulator chip. Plus, as you say, even though the regulator ripple out of the regulator is already too small to believe sim results, small/atten is likely to be better than big/atten.

R3 and Q3 are new. Is that to spread the power dissipation over two transistors? I see the top one starts turning on at 21mA.

Last edited by agdr; 17th February 2013 at 10:14 PM.
  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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is a better alternative for 317 337? Sunsun22 Power Supplies 14 18th March 2011 09:38 PM
Mathematically challenged help for lm 317-337 semi932 Power Supplies 18 5th January 2011 10:16 AM
317/337 with current boost jaudio Power Supplies 2 19th January 2007 06:42 PM
Troubleshooting 317/337 Regulator Circuits TerryC Parts 5 12th August 2006 04:42 PM
needed 317/337 double regulation jaudio Power Supplies 17 19th June 2006 07:24 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:00 PM.


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