| pooge |
| Andy, the 24v mod seemed to be not so simple, as I recall. Whether it was power supply to the op amp or current through the reference due to higher voltage, the issue was more than than voltage divider. Damn if I can recall! I do believe the issue was in overstressing something, though, getting too close to the edge. |
|
|
| PMiczek |
Andy, fmak,
Finally some numbers to go along with the discussion. Thank You.
:)
Peter |
|
|
| ALW |
Peter,
| quote: | | Finally some numbers to go along with the discussion. Thank You. |
You're welcome!
They tell you nothing about the sound though :idea:
They just prove it's a competent design, well implemented; it's really frustrating :bawling:
Andy. |
|
|
| Fred Dieckmann |
"Yes. I generally pre-load 3-pin's wherever I use them. I tend to use LM317/337 as pre-regulators and I prefer to use very low value resistors in the voltage divider setting the output voltage. This serves to "pre-load" these."
If you bypass the adjustment terminal with a capacitor to ground as the app notes advise for lower noise and much improved PSRR you will need a much bigger bypass cap. Biasing shunt voltage voltage references from the adjustment current works better with currents around a milliamp. The idea is to have a much lower impedance from the adjustment terminal to ground than from Vout to the adjustment terminal. Jung went from 120 ohms to 1K ohms in one of the articles on power supplies for the reasons above. I seem to remember some discussions on using a current source in this location. You really want to prebias you regulator at least 50 to 100 ma and that much current trough the reference to ground is not practical.
"In some experiments I found driving the PSU Pin's of Op-Amp's from the same type Op-Amp (which is a "Push-Pull Reg") with NO capacitance in the PSU line (this does take very TIGHT, three-dimensional layouting to work) sounded probably as good as Batteries with Filmcap only bypassing (Siemens naked chip stacked film MKT's)"
The rising output impedance of the regulator op amp with frequency ,combined with the decreasing PSRR of the op amp whose supply is being regulated make this real tricky. Throw a little lead inductance in and you have a real chance of instability at high frequencies and easily build an oscillator if using fast op amps. As Cuck Yeager said, " It can be done, but I don't recommend doing it."
"As an engineer, though not electronics, I sometimes find these threads overbearing. The original questions are often not addressed, and the arguments go on and on."
Don't read them then.......... If your requirement not that demanding, read the regulator data sheets and app notes and you will get enough knowledge for your application. If you can't swim stay out of the deep end of the pool. You would think people were paying 50 bucks an hour for a consultant after reading the *****ing and whining. I don't know if you have heard but, they have these neat new things on WEB called search engines.........
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles...08865AN-202.pdf
http://www.analog.com/UploadedFiles...ation_V-Ref.pdf
http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/SR003AN-D.PDF
http://www.eetkorea.com/ARTICLES/20...V30_AMD_AN2.PDF |
|
|
| fmak |
As an engineer, though not electronics, I sometimes find these threads overbearing. The original questions are often not addressed, and the arguments go on and on."
Don't read them then.......... If your requirement not that demanding, read the regulator data sheets and app notes and you will get enough knowledge for your application. If you can't swim stay out of the deep end of the pool. You would think people were paying 50 bucks an hour for a consultant after reading the *****ing and whining.
-------------------------------------------------
Actually I charge a lot more than $400 for consultancy and made the point of not reading the rest of your post.
One of the forum rules is to be curtious, and your remarks fall far short of it.
Don't read my posts if you don't want to. Other stay polite. |
|
|
| PMiczek |
Andy, Fred,
Thanks again. Andy, nice web site btw, and not too "overbearing" to read, either.
The numbers give me at least, a general reference for what it is people are trying to accomplish at the circuit level. I can judge the sound for myself (or not, as the case may be). The human ear has amazing powers of discrimination, unfortunately it is connected to a very unreliable receiver which suffers from an inherent lack of stability especially over time and temperature...
Peter |
|
|
| fmak |
In audio the latter is critical and fundamental and also easy to get wrong, on first impressions. I also strongly encourage you all to think outside of conventional wisdom.
----------------------------------------------------
I agree; I have learnt not to trust oft repeated wisdom in this which is a hobby. I have personally always listened and measured myself to confirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Jung reg's are old, but I've only heard one alternative that outperforms them at present. In all likelihood there's lots of alternatives, supported by my view that topology is often the least critical element, just correct implementation of that topology.
----------------------------------------------------
Have you heard some of the Japanese designs? Even in the 80s they had very purist designs accompanied by all the design equations and ocnsiderations published in amateur audio magazines?
I built some of these circuits and they still sound excellent - but you need to match semiconductors dynamically for dc stability, and you can only do that by having access to relatively large numbers of units. |
|
|
| ALW |
| quote: | | The human ear has amazing powers of discrimination, unfortunately it is connected to a very unreliable receiver which suffers from an inherent lack of stability especially over time and temperature... |
You're right there - ears are great, brain gets in the way.
Part of the trick is to try and turn it off - over analysis always, in my experience, leads to flawed results.
This is where the 'tune' test and others really do work (ignoring the dogma of those promoting them). It's usually a method that is criticised by those whose systems don't do it ;)
It gives a first-line fundamental analysis of whether the music is easy to follow. The rules of all styles of music seem to be hard wired into our brains, the ability to predict and follow the music is something that's easier when the clues are all there, in the right places, at the right time.
The other details come later.
Cue flames.... ;)
Andy.
P.S. the website was intended to be readable, yet informative, I hope I've succeeded. The only downside is the M$ -specific HTML that frontpage spews out. I'll dust off dreamweaver when I get a mo... |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Koinichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by ALW
You're right there - ears are great, brain gets in the way.
|
Sadly, the reverse is true. In many ways, when considered in the context of transducers ears are horrible things. The actual mechnicas give rise to > 30% THD at around 94db SPL, within each individual octave only a very limited number of frequencies are actually percieved and relayed electrically to the brain and the "resolution" (the ear itself operates digital, not analogue) for each of these frequencies is surprisingly coarse.
So the ear as transducer is HORRIBLE BEYOND BELIEVE. If the Ear where a Microphone it would be utterly unusable even in a telephone.
Only the attachement to the Brain and it's prodigous real time analogue "DSP" capabilities make it possible to actually "hear" anything at all. This then of course also explains much of the differences in perception, as the ear/brain system has many learned responses, probably more of these than natural ones (my theory anyway).
So cultural differences influence what we hear as much as the actual training of the ear/brain system, there are some indications for genetic differences too.
Anyway, the brain as much "gets in the way" as it is "absolutely essential". It is the resolving of such dichotomies that makes audio so interesting, both from a technical and philosophical viewpoint.
Sayonara |
|
|
| ALW |
| quote: | | The actual mechnicas give rise to > 30% THD at around 94db SPL, within each individual octave only a very limited number of frequencies are actually percieved and relayed electrically to the brain and the "resolution" (the ear itself operates digital, not analogue) for each of these frequencies is surprisingly coarse. |
Which is why a listening method that bypasses the technical issues and focusses on the emotional response is a more consistent assessment method. Especially as this is the sole reason I listen to music.
I get the feeling some people over-analyse things - if our ears were so flawed, we may as well not bother - fortunately this is not the case.
I've yet to see a definition and explanation of the science behind a humans emotional response to music.
It's something that does seem universal across cultures and ages. You can try to teach the details of quantum theory to a small child until you're blue in the face, but sit them in front of a piano and teach them 'Oranges and Lemons*' and it comes far more naturally.
Andy.
*Insert favourite childrens nursery rhyme / tune here. |
|
|
| Fred Dieckmann |
"So the ear as transducer is HORRIBLE BEYOND BELIEVE. If the Ear where a Microphone it would be utterly unusable even in a telephone."
Yet it can detect sound pressure levels that move the ear drum the diameter of a hydrogen atom. The ear obviously can't be examined without considering the role of the brain in signal processing. We can usually recognize someone's voice over an extremely bandwidth and dynamically compressed telephone signal and pick out one conversation in the presence of several at a crowded party. Try that with DSP on a computer...... I don't think so.
I really think most people would agree that we can hear things we can measure as often we can measure things we can't hear.
Careful listening as a learned skill just as good engineering is. I will never understand why people seem to believe it has to be one or the other. Aren't there any engineers that can also hear? I feel perfectly comfortable using both skills but maybe that is because I am an engineer and my wife is a classical musician. I worked on a redesign conference bridge circuit a couple of years ago with a young lady who was a new engineer. She was very surpassed when the technicians reported to her how much better it sounded than the old circuit. No audiophile parts or design techniques were involved, just good solid engineering design. I never even listened to it during the design phase. Engineers that can't listen critically won't design the best audio equipment. Those who rely on listening only won't know how to get beyond a certain point without the technical skills. That's why people ask technical questions on the forum. If they could do it all by ear the wouldn't need to read any of this stuff.
Why is such a hard proposition for people to except? Keith Johnson is one of the sharpest engineers I've met but he also hears like a bat. I was there for part of a session recording the Dallas Wind Symphony. It was a very educational experience. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Koinichiwa Weekes San,
| quote: | Originally posted by ALW
Which is why a listening method that bypasses the technical issues and focusses on the emotional response is a more consistent assessment method. Especially as this is the sole reason I listen to music.
I get the feeling some people over-analyse things - if our ears were so flawed, we may as well not bother - fortunately this is not the case.
I've yet to see a definition and explanation of the science behind a humans emotional response to music.
|
I agree completely with your remarks. I generally reject "Numbers of Merit" figures (bandwidth, noise levels, output impedance etc.) as having a direct and repeatable link to percieved sound quality. And my observation with the older Jung Regs (pre AD797) where as I previously described them.
As to "if our ears are so flawed", if you look ONLY at the ears, yes, they ARE so flawed. As part of the Ear/Brain/Perception system they operate to give in the system with the other compents exceptional powers of discrimination and perception (some of which we still have problems repeating with mechanical/electronical/informational means), yet a large part of this is LEARNED response to stimuli.
Sayonara |
|
|
| fmak |
Part of the trick is to try and turn it off - over analysis always, in my experience, leads to flawed results.
This is where the 'tune' test and others really do work (ignoring the dogma of those promoting them). It's usually a method that is criticised by those whose systems don't do it ;)
------------------------------------------------------------
How is the first point consistent with your remarks about testing large no of circuits with power supplies. You can't just use the tune test and analysis, 'over' analysis must come in.
The tune test is a test of acceptability of music, not excellence. I have 3 systems that pass the test and have had many others that did but they differ in degree of goodness (analysis, timbre, accurracy, enjoyment, extention etc.).
The tune test is often used as an excuse to sell systems with some defects; it's a physcological technique to hide weaknesses and get the masses to agree on a tangential view of performance. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | The tune test is often used as an excuse to sell systems with some defects; it's a physcological technique to hide weaknesses and get the masses to agree on a tangential view of performance. |
Well...the Linn TT was definetely flawed, at least it could play a tune and could beat most contenders when set up correctly...
Something not even 9/10 Linn dealers could...
Nonetheless I'd rather have some gear playing a tune and be flawed tonally than having it the other way around.
Catch 33 I tell you...better brace yourself,;) |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Koinichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,
Well...the Linn TT was definetely flawed, at least it could play a tune and could beat most contenders when set up correctly...
|
Or sumphing like that.
At the "greater linn times" the place I come from had turntables whose "service" instrucions included a medical sthetoscope as "tool".
BWTFDIK.
Sayonara |
|
|
| fmak |
Nonetheless I'd rather have some gear playing a tune and be flawed tonally than having it the other way around.
Catch 33 I tell you...better brace yourself,;) [/B][/QUOTE]-----------------------------------------------------
Shouldn't this be regarded as a starting, and not end point? At last someone who says openely that the Linn is flawed. I have had two and they don't sound as good as the Lux PD300 and even a Garrard 301 which is one of the most tuneful I have. Needs to be sprung, not screwed to 20 kg of wood and lead which makes it more microphonic.
Whay is Catch 33? |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Shouldn't this be regarded as a starting, and not end point? |
It should, I agree...but this area is where a lot of so called high-end companies fall short.
Catch 22 + another raft of 11 pitfalls.:rolleyes:
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| ALW |
| quote: | | The tune test is often used as an excuse to sell systems with some defects; it's a physcological technique to hide weaknesses and get the masses to agree on a tangential view of performance. |
I have to disagree here - many people focus on the wrong elements when listening to music at first - you only have to hear the tuneless bass that comes from many systems to realise many confuse quantity with quality.
The tune test reveals levels of difference readily - there's no sudden transition between tune / no tune, just degrees.
I know, I've made mistakes recently with some work I'm doing that measured better and initially sounded more impressive in HiFi terms (deeper bass, tighter control, better treble etc.). The measurements were all better too, but after time I found myself watching the TV.
The fundamental elements of music have to come first, but if you can add the hifi elements without degrading the music (and I know you can) then that's fine.
But none are essential to emotional involvement with music. Imaging ,soundstage, air, space etc etc are nothing on their own. It's easy to focus on these elements to the expense of music though.
Every genuine improvement (the ones that keep me up until the early hours in record-playing orgies) have fundamentally improved the tune, the pitch accuracy / and rythmic elements fundamental to music.
Some people do listen to different things, I have no problem with that, but if the system doesn't engage me in a way that encourages me to listen to music, at the expense of almost everything else, it won't do it for me. My music dominates my life, and I spend as much time listening as life will allow. So many people have systems that sit in the corner and are onyl used at parties etc. They listen to the same few recordings, because they're systems haven't opened up the world of music to them. My musical tastes have expanded exponentially with the imprvements to my system.
You may feel the tune test is flawed, but that seems partly based on your opinions of certain brands (I'm not keen on Linn electronics either) but it does work in a way that always leads me to the correct solutions.
But these sort of discussions never go anywhere here, so here's the challenge: -
Describe to me an unambigous system for the assessment of my system and I'll try it out. You need to be able to explain to me how to listen in the way you do.
I look forward to trying it.
Andy. |
|
|
| fmak |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ALW
Some people do listen to different things, I have no problem with You may feel the tune test is flawed, but that seems partly based on your opinions of certain brands (I'm not keen on Linn electronics either) but it does work in a way that always leads me to the correct solutions.
But these sort of discussions never go anywhere here, so here's the challenge: -
Describe to me an unambigous system for the assessment of my system and I'll try it out. You need to be able to explain to me how to listen in the way you do.
----------------------------------------------------------
My conclusions have come from thirty years of trying to follow the tune brigade. They set up systems that don't sound even tuneful to me, and then use group pyschology to get people to agree that foot tapping and undefined emotional responses are the key, not other things as well.
That's the problem - your undefinable method of gauging the performance of a system. I regard wide acceptance of musical content in a system to be key and difficult to achieve and tunefullness the starting element - never mind that many people can't get the bass right. Actually there probably isn't such a thing as the right bass as it is so room boundary dependent.
I can't describe an unambiguous system, but I can vouch for good
objective performance giving better and better music enjoment as the yardstick.
But then this also depends on the condition of one's 'tubes' and varies from day to day........... |
|
|
| ALW |
| quote: | | That's the problem - your undefinable method of gauging the performance of a system. |
The tune method has nothing to do with foot tapping.
The idea is to hum along to the tune (out loud or in your head). The system that makes it easier to follow (and this works really well with unfamiliar music where you have no pre-defined responses) is the best. It reveals MUCH more than many will give credit for, but at the end of the day, if you feel otherwise, that is your perogative - there's too many dogmatic discussions here.
You see it's clearly defined and obvious when the system is working correctly - the body movement often extends from it, simply because the ability to follow the music's twists and turns becomes so easy - you can be driven to join in, foot tapping, conducting, whatever - it's hard to stop.
So again over to you, tell me how to assess a system, and I'll try it. I am open minded, teach me!
Andy. |
|
|
| fmak |
The tune method has nothing to do with foot tapping.
The idea is to hum along to the tune (out loud or in your head). The system that makes it easier to follow (and this works really well with unfamiliar music where you have no pre-defined responses) is the best.
----------------------------------------------------------------
How do you hum to the tune of Mahler 5? Tune method I first heard from the Linn people. I have to say that it failed to convince, except with certain types of music. The SACD people are quite crafty in that they had chosen to promote Jazz and pop first; the classics are only so so. Again I go back to pyscology.
My point all the way is that the first post ought to be musicality, followed by whatever method an individual or group uses to assess merit. There is no general theory that can govern individual repsonses.
May be we should leave it there and move back to regulators.
Have you treid the LT1963 and 1964? |
|
|
| ALW |
| quote: | | May be we should leave it there and move back to regulators. |
That might be wise :)
| quote: | | Have you treid the LT1963 and 1964? |
I haven't, but I will - any tips?
Regards,
Andy. |
|
|
| fmak |
I haven't, but I will - any tips?
Andy
----------------------------------------------
I first treid the 1762 in SMT 8. Decided to use SMT to DIL adaptor. Failed probably due to sense track resistance or contact resistance. 600uv of 50 Hz instead of 20 uV noise.
LT1763 was easy, TO220 and worked to spec, 40uV noise as per spec dropping to 15 with 2200uF. Seems good for replacing 78xx. Ultra low drop out seems advantageous. |
|
|
| dipchip |
Andy,
Have you ever measured the performace of a pre-regulator (like on your current board) feeding a normal 78xx fixed output linear regulator.
I'm wondering how large the performance difference is between the above, and your current implementation?
Thanks,
Craig Beiferman |
|
|
| Fred Dieckmann |
"I'm wondering how large the performance difference is between the above, and your current implementation?"
A few orders of magnitude, like between a hundred and a thousand times better measured PSRR and output impedance for the op amp based regulator circuit.
I don't understand this fondness for 7800 type regulators. They are pretty bad and even a LM317 with bypassed adjustment is much better and not that complicated to build. Give it up folks. The only 7800 virture is they are cheap and simple. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
"I'm wondering how large the performance difference is between the above, and your current implementation?"
A few orders of magnitude, like between a hundred and a thousand times better measured PSRR and output impedance for the op amp based regulator circuit.
I don't understand this fondness for 7800 type regulators. They are pretty bad and even a LM317 with bypassed adjustment is much better and not that complicated to build. Give it up folks. The only 7800 virture is they are cheap and simple. |
So, Fred, what is in your opinion the best IC regulator design?
I mean a regulator+some passive parts around it, or even a prereg+regulator+parts.
The best thing we can build easilly, not a design with a regulator+opamp+2 bjt+36 ccs+passive parts |
|
|
| Fred Dieckmann |
I believe I have already posted a suggested circuit or two.......
He who snoozes loses. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
I believe I have already posted a suggested circuit or two.......
He who snoozes loses. |
on this thread?
my 56K modem isn't in a mood to search all the forum this evening :D |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Putting a large cap behind the reg may be fine if the reg won't go into oscilation...
I agree that in that case the dominant factor will be the cap as seen by the circuit hanging off it it and I often find my self prefering that situation.
Then again, you may want to "perfect" that cap by using film bypasses, it will be fast and the regulator will only function as a buffer and keep the crud out of the supply.
Obviously, for high current demands it's not all that simple...
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| peranders |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
Has anybody asked Walt Jung about using his design (and it sure looks like his design to me) for commercial purposes? A magazine is selling the boards for his regulator with his permission if i am not mistaken.
I know you have the mounting foot print but, do you really think that thing is going to fit in someone equipment as an after market mod? ITS HUGE
You might want to see what the competition is doing.......... |
Fred, Audiocom's regulator is pure Sulzer regulator, LM336 2.5 volts, OPA27 and the opamp is feed from the unstablized side.
Nice piece of engineering altough the cap at the top isn't soldered!
The pcb has groundplane which is connected to "in". |
|
|
| peranders |
| quote: | Originally posted by dipchip
Hi everyone,
I have completed the layout for a 3-terminal Super Audio Regulator. (I Hope!)
The design was very generously given to me by ALW.
from ALW Audio
I modified his design slightly to make it fit into a 3 terminal
78xx and 79xx footprint. (But I still have the original option of
the sense pins, if you hardwire them)
This voltage regulator has a normal linear pre-regulator that could be removed if needed, followed by a Walt Jung super low noise voltage regulator.
Dale (harvardian) and I, are going to try to offer this board (and a negative version) as a kit.
I named it the APOX-JR+ and APOX-JR-
I posted pictures of the layouts, so I would really like some feedback before I finalize the board layouts.
You can see the designhere
Is anyone interested in a board like this?
Thanks,
Craig Beiferman |
What happened to your regulator. Not alive yet? Coming soon... 2003 |
|
|
| Fred Dieckmann |
It's hiding....... trying to keep from becoming your (and others) regulator.:whazzat:
I have a design but am thinking of writing an article for one of the audio hobbyist magazine or websites. I don't know if it would be suitable for this forum since it is a shunt regulator and assumes knowledge of the load AC and bias current as well as proper heat sinking.
Maybe a little more useful here would be a modification of the "three terminal IC type" with a power IC and an external voltage reference. I have a device picked out and may have the prototype under test this week or early next week. The adventure with the nose set me back about 6 weeks and home and car repair has pretty well shot most of this week. I sound like Grey..... maybe I will cut him a lot more slack next time the issue of delay due to more pressing commitments to more pressing issues surfaces. Good picture of the Audiocom regulator. I missed it. They have another one that is supposed to be much better. |
|
|
| fmak |
| quote: | Originally posted by peranders
Fred, Audiocom's regulator is pure Sulzer regulator, LM336 2.5 volts, OPA27 and the opamp is feed from the unstablized side.
Nice piece of engineering altough the cap at the top isn't soldered!
The pcb has groundplane which is connected to "in". |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used one to power an XO. Totally useless, spews out harmonics like a sick man. With a resistive load, all is sweetness.
:smash: |
|
|
| Fred Dieckmann |
| Sounds like instability to me. Does this thing have any Elko (electrolytic) bypass caps on the board. Ones on the main PCB are going to be too far away. Anyone who plans on building a three terminal regulator replacement board had better try stay close to the foot print of a TO220 device. These things seen to be stuck pretty close to their filter caps and even each other. A big PCB (relative to the size of TO220 package is not going to fit in many if not most products. I would go SMT for everything but the elko filter caps. These I would mount on the other side of the board, using radial caps but laying them down flat against the PCB and securing them with a small dab of RTV (Silicone sealer) This circuit could be done if the preregulator circuit is not used, but is still a daunting task for a good layout with a small footprint and component height. Just because the Audiocom is not a good design, I wouldn't rule out a drop in board for TO220 device replacement. It can be done. In absolute seriousness, I think this would be a good project and be extremely useful for updating equipment with tight real estate requirements around the Three terminal regulators. If anyone is interested (yes you too P-A) I will be happy to offer further advice. |
|
|
| Fred Dieckmann |
"The pcb has groundplane which is connected to "in" - P-A/:no:
I am pretty certain that is not a groundplane ( its not connected to ground for one thing) The pass transistor is SMT and the surface area of the "plane" is connected to the collector: It is a heat sink using the
PCB "plane" area. :hot:
Go read some ap notes for SMT power transistors and this trick is explained in more detail. The Zetex website has some good info on this I believe, since I saw some stuff on this in one of their data books. Maybe it doesn't get warm enough in Sweden to worry about this, but it sure does in Texas!:nod:
Later,
Tatoo |
|
|
| peranders |
Fred, the IN-pin is connected to the backside (plane) which is connected to the collector which is connected through 15 vias. The power plane has only one trace. It's the power to the reference from the real output. Otherwise it's a whole power plane which, Fred I know, serves as a heatsink. Fred, I won't have to read books for seeing this.... I'm using my eyes only, because I'm holding the regultor in my hand.
About decoupling caps: How many do you see? Correct not too much. It's the one which unsoldered at the picture. The GND trace is a thin (15 mil!) trace along the sides of the pcb.
I can imagine that this regulator is not very well suited for difficult loads. |
|
|
| peranders |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
I have a design but am thinking of writing an article for one of the audio hobbyist magazine or websites. I don't know if it would be suitable for this forum since it is a shunt regulator and assumes knowledge of the load AC and bias current as well as proper heat sinking. |
He, he, you are joking again but why don't you do something. It might be interesting. |
|
|
| grataku |
| Yeah Fred, audioxpress would be good (if you like a low impact journal ;)). It would have to be a complete working thing though. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elso Kwak
But you are wrong, Jan (and Lars too). Just tried it!:angel: |
Hi Elso,
Saying you tried it doesn't say anything really. What was the result, did you compare the two methods, how did you decide that one was to be preferred over the other??
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Elso Kwak |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Hi Elso,
Saying you tried it doesn't say anything really. What was the result, did you compare the two methods, how did you decide that one was to be preferred over the other??
Jan Didden |
Jan,
I have no comment, deleted my post.
:sly: |
|
|
| peranders |
| A nice, small and rather cheap(!) 3-pin regulator can be found here |
|
|
| Joseph0 |
Audiocom Super-Regulator 2:
 |
|
|
| Joseph0 |
Tent Labs +5V regulator beside Audiocom super regulator 2:
 |
|
|
| deuginthesky |
Would somebody have the shcematics of such regulators ?
thanks. |
|
|
| cuibono |
| Andy L Weekes has published a schematic, and sells boards (or someone sells boards for him). He has a website, it should be easy to find. The circuit is sometimes called 'ALWSR' . The boards are not as small as the ones shown above though. |
|
|
|
