Good heavens, Janneman,
I had no intention of making fun or taking a cheap shot.
I certainly apologise for being sloppy in my language and giving that impression.
I made the mistake of posting quickly without taking the time to use super-polite language to make my intent clear. My bad.
Email, which is what this essentially is, is a very unforgiving communication medium, and it's equally easy to mis-post intentions and misinterpret what one reads.
Really, I was just stating an observation, an observation that was perfectly correct. If darkfenriz wants to take offense I'll happily apologize to him....when I put :laugh: there I meant it as friendly "we're all human and sometimes misunderstand", I've never knowingly taken a cheap shot at anyone in my life,
and sheez you seem a bit touchy, frankly.
If you want me to leave I'll do so. Luckily, this is not the only forum on the planet, and you are not the only expert on regulators.
best, probably about to say goodbye to this forum forever, charles
I had no intention of making fun or taking a cheap shot.
I certainly apologise for being sloppy in my language and giving that impression.
I made the mistake of posting quickly without taking the time to use super-polite language to make my intent clear. My bad.
Email, which is what this essentially is, is a very unforgiving communication medium, and it's equally easy to mis-post intentions and misinterpret what one reads.
Really, I was just stating an observation, an observation that was perfectly correct. If darkfenriz wants to take offense I'll happily apologize to him....when I put :laugh: there I meant it as friendly "we're all human and sometimes misunderstand", I've never knowingly taken a cheap shot at anyone in my life,
and sheez you seem a bit touchy, frankly.
If you want me to leave I'll do so. Luckily, this is not the only forum on the planet, and you are not the only expert on regulators.
best, probably about to say goodbye to this forum forever, charles
I think it was pointed out...
With a good power supply, (and I think it was made clear that an LM317 can make a good supply), the Low Frequency oscillations seen at the amp output are rarely due to power supply issues.
Randomly tossing in "two pinners" is also likely to have marginal success unless there is good reason to do so. The Data Sheet makes it clear that lower value, not higher value capacitance should be used right at the output pins of the regulator.
My opinion is that the amps stability (and grounding) needs to be examined before the power source if the power source is of a standard design.
With a good power supply, (and I think it was made clear that an LM317 can make a good supply), the Low Frequency oscillations seen at the amp output are rarely due to power supply issues.
Randomly tossing in "two pinners" is also likely to have marginal success unless there is good reason to do so. The Data Sheet makes it clear that lower value, not higher value capacitance should be used right at the output pins of the regulator.
My opinion is that the amps stability (and grounding) needs to be examined before the power source if the power source is of a standard design.
darkfenriz said:
It depends on the cap. The output impedance of a 317/337 looks like an inductor of a few uH. With an undamped cap at the output, a high Q resonance can be formed. That's why it's sometimes useful to add a little ESR to the cap or use a big, sloppy, high ESR cap at the output.
radianceaudio said:
OK, so I was a bit touchy. But as you yourself state, quick posting for essentially the whole world make the message very easy to misunderstand. I have seen too many personal ridicules at this place, so maybe I was a bit too primed to see it in your post. If anything it makes it clear that we all must engage brain before operating keyboard. Apologies for misjudging you.
And hey, reading your last sentence, who's the touchy one now
??Jan Didden
More from the datasheet:
Adding a capacitor to the ADJ pin will improve ripple rejection.
Adding a capacitor to the OUT pin improves transient response. 10uf to 25uF are ideal.
Quote from data sheet:
BUT... any value higher than 25uF will allow excessive current flow in the case of a short to INP pin and would likely damage the regulator unless protection diodes are used. I noticed from the design, sweet as it is... that they are not used.
Adding a capacitor to the ADJ pin will improve ripple rejection.
Adding a capacitor to the OUT pin improves transient response. 10uf to 25uF are ideal.
Quote from data sheet:
BUT... any value higher than 25uF will allow excessive current flow in the case of a short to INP pin and would likely damage the regulator unless protection diodes are used. I noticed from the design, sweet as it is... that they are not used.
Janneman:
From the post argument between you and the other members, I think you are too protective and old minded, especially on the design of the Jung reg. When anybody said or gave idea on the Jung reg. design, you always come out and give some sort of argue or defence. As one member said: you are not the only reg. designer in this world. Technology is day by day going up. make your eyes wider and look things further. and also this is forum, everybody has his or her right to criticize or praise any design or ideas, but you always stay on the defence side, you should point out the reason what mistake the member has been made. in this manner, other people will agree your point more than to against. I think you are an engineer grade person, must accept challenge concept from others. Even yourself, should criticize your old design and work out a new improved version. Today there are lots of new improved parts that may replace the old designed parts.
I know, the Jung reg. is an excellent design, but I still think there must be room for improvement. only time can show us proof and evidence. I think even Walter J will agree my point.
If any impression caused by the above message, Have beg for your forgiving manner.
NO CHALLENGE, PEOPLE TODAY MAY NOT LANDED ON THE MOON
From the post argument between you and the other members, I think you are too protective and old minded, especially on the design of the Jung reg. When anybody said or gave idea on the Jung reg. design, you always come out and give some sort of argue or defence. As one member said: you are not the only reg. designer in this world. Technology is day by day going up. make your eyes wider and look things further. and also this is forum, everybody has his or her right to criticize or praise any design or ideas, but you always stay on the defence side, you should point out the reason what mistake the member has been made. in this manner, other people will agree your point more than to against. I think you are an engineer grade person, must accept challenge concept from others. Even yourself, should criticize your old design and work out a new improved version. Today there are lots of new improved parts that may replace the old designed parts.
I know, the Jung reg. is an excellent design, but I still think there must be room for improvement. only time can show us proof and evidence. I think even Walter J will agree my point.
If any impression caused by the above message, Have beg for your forgiving manner.
NO CHALLENGE, PEOPLE TODAY MAY NOT LANDED ON THE MOON
mitwrong said:
Hi Mitwrong,
Thanks for your frank opinion. I don't want to be too defensive for these kind of things, and I have no obligation to WJ or anybody else. But you see, if someone proposes some change to the super reg, and I KNOW it will totally destroy the fantastic performance (because I tried it and learned the hard way), what do I do? Just shut up and let the other guy waste his time and money and fall on his face? Some of these guys don't even know how the thing works. Should I just shut up, LOL, and forget it?
Maybe I should, maybe that is the only way to learn, as we all did.
I hope (at least I try) to be open to genuine improvements to super regs, whatever. But if someone proposes to use an expensive supercap at the reg output, should I not point out that that is a) making it probably an oscillator instead of a reg, and b) money much better spend by putting the cap at the circuit to be powered? We all know that a person putting a 20 $ cap at the reg most probably will report an improvement, even when it oscillates, so maybe there's no point in trying to get something across.
I know, I'm too serious sometimes. It's only audio.
Happy Holidays,
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Hi Mitwrong,
Thanks for your frank opinion. I don't want to be too defensive for these kind of things, and I have no obligation to WJ or anybody else. But you see, if someone proposes some change to the super reg, and I KNOW it will totally destroy the fantastic performance (because I tried it and learned the hard way), what do I do? Just shut up and let the other guy waste his time and money and fall on his face? Some of these guys don't even know how the thing works. Should I just shut up, LOL, and forget it?
Maybe I should, maybe that is the only way to learn, as we all did.
I hope (at least I try) to be open to genuine improvements to super regs, whatever. But if someone proposes to use an expensive supercap at the reg output, should I not point out that that is a) making it probably an oscillator instead of a reg, and b) money much better spend by putting the cap at the circuit to be powered? We all know that a person putting a 20 $ cap at the reg most probably will report an improvement, even when it oscillates, so maybe there's no point in trying to get something across.
I know, I'm too serious sometimes. It's only audio.
Happy Holidays,
Jan Didden
Hi, Mx Janneman:
First, can you tell us whether you are a gentleman or a lady, so that we can put the heading Mr. or Ms. before your name. And also what do you want the name we people call you, Janneman or Jan Diden, we don't want to cause any embarrassing.
As you are an expert in regs. we must respect whatever you said on the designed issue. But another important factor to destroy the performance is the GROUNDING, expensive caps, I know is not an essential factor. But somebody may like to use expensive parts. ( Like ladies want to buy famous brand products. Or audiophile want to use Mullard or Telefunken tubes.)
I have tried many experiment, Grounding loop is an important factor which can turned out good or bad results. Another component is the power transformer, it also takes an important place. The whole circuit wiring also plays an important route. A stand alone psu is differ from a psu that installed inside an equipment. Therefore you may instruct us how to precaution about the ground loop. ( is our request, not an obligation. )
Last, we want to thank you for guiding us on the straight road to the excellent design, and we don't want you to keep your mouth shut. We still need your help.
Merry Xmas, and happy new year
Mitwrong
Mitwrong, Jan is a very well-known expert in regulator design and has done extensive collaboration with Walt Jung in the past. He is most definitely male. I'd probably listen carefully to what he has to say- you might disagree, and it's OK to do so within the context of forum rules (e.g., no personal attacks- criticize circuits, not people).
mitwrong said:
Mitwrong,
It would help if you would take the trouble to read the actual articles on WJ's website.
For instance, this article: http://waltjung.org/PDFs/Regs_for_High_Perf_Audio_3.pdf ... but there's a wealth more.
Grounding, why expensive caps are BAD, it's all there. Then, if you have more questions, I'll be happy to entertain them.
Happy Holidays,
Jan Didden
SY said:
Gentlemen:
I want to declare I am not personnel attack to anybody, I don't know any body, I only know them by their names.
From the name Janneman, or Jan Didden, I mistaken he was a lady, that's why I asked for clarify. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
Anyway, from the post between Jan and the other members, I have learned a lot of technical issues, I will continue to Keep track on this forum to learn more, as I said before, my language problem, so forgive if any contradiction occurs.
Merry Xmas and happy new year
SY said:
Yep.
See here
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/regulators_noise2_e.html
and here
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/regulators2_impedance1_e.html
I think you pronounce "Jan" like we here in the states would say "Yawn", so it's not really like Janet (and not to imply that the name is tired). Anyway, that's not the reason for my post.
I have a question about the reference. Is it possible to use LT1021 as the reference? The data sheet says the 7- and 10-V versions can be used as a shunt reference. I was thinking the 7V might work here. If not, could a similar regulator to the Jung topology be designed around it? I'm sure the answer is yes, so I guess the question is whether this could theoretically given even lower noise performance. Thanks.
I have a question about the reference. Is it possible to use LT1021 as the reference? The data sheet says the 7- and 10-V versions can be used as a shunt reference. I was thinking the 7V might work here. If not, could a similar regulator to the Jung topology be designed around it? I'm sure the answer is yes, so I guess the question is whether this could theoretically given even lower noise performance. Thanks.
ezkcdude said:
You're right, the reference voltage determines the output voltage, obviously. As to the noise, dynamic impedance or temp drift and other things important for a ref, you probably would need to compare datasheets. It may be that different references need different bias currents for optimal performance.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Maybe the confusion comes from my avatar. That's a pic of my girlfriend. She definitely is female. Yessir!
Jan Didden
You've answered a long standing question for me, and I suspect many others. Also, thanks for your answer about the reference. I am going to read your AA article from '95 and WJ's from 2000 over the break. I think I will understand it better now after this thread.
BTW, I just want to wish everyone Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Channukah, Kwanzaa, New Year, and whatever else you are celebrating this season. As an American, I am hoping 2007 turns out to be a better year for us.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.