| Stefanoo |
Hope somebody will be interested to make this Nelson Pass 's preamplifier.
The opinion on the sound'quality, in comparison with the model L, are in disagreement.
I read that sombody preferes the P version sombody else the L version.
Accordingly to Nelson, the P version, would offer a better performances in noise terms and in dynicamc.
Anyways i finally decided to start to build this version but without the remote control, the only preamplifier.
I have to thank first Nelson Pass that allows us to use his projects to have fun and build something that actually sounds good.
Second i have to thank the guys here on the forum that were willing to share the service manual of the preamp and alwais willing to be supportive.
Anyways....i hope that somebody will like the idea of building this pre "with me" and work this out with me.
Anyways......
Here the first results that i got from the simulations ... i have some doubts..
Best,
Stefano |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
the power supply simulation.
In green the output and in red the output from the 2 capacitors.
This result shows that the rising time is about 12seconds, as it can be seen.
Is it not too much...is there anything wrong with this result?
is this fact an issue? |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
Now the simulations on the main board.
I have big problem to figure this out and i'll explain why.
On the service manual, in the main schematic, the connection are not marked with a point, as it should be, and so it's not so easy to understand if, when a net crosses another net, if actually it connects with it or not.
So, for instance, the input (i'm now referring to the inverting input, but everything is mirroarably to the not inverting input) would seem to go solely to the 10k input resistor R6.
But in this configuration i obtained, by visualizing on pspice, wrong output...at least what it looked to me.
So i had to connect that net that crosses the input and connects R61 and R69 to the input.
With this configuration i obtained results that i will post and that at least make sense to me.
Please, tell me if i'm doing wrong by connecting the input to R69 and R61. |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
This first simulation involves the output potentiometer on the main board.
I made a parametric simulation in order to check the value of the output for the following values of the potentiometer:
61.9, 249 and 8.6K.
The input, as it can be seen, is a 4V pk-pk sinusoid.
The output is around 4mV for 8.6k.
Is it normal that have a so small output swing compared with the input?
shouldn't be the output signal bigger than the input?
(output almoust 1000times smaller than the input)
Moreover, on te original schematic there is the 2K trimmer with the "rightgain" label.
When i try to vary its value, i don't obtain any variation on the output swing signal.
Is it normal? |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
I simulate the circuit for different values of the input.
I obtained distortion for the inpunt signal over this range:
up 7volt Pk-Pk and down to 800mV pk-to-pk
(as it can be seen on theattached pictures).
Is it normal that the preamplifier already distorces for an input of 800mV?
How much is suppose to be the input signal range and the output swing? |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
| this is the output for input of 8V pkpk |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
| and this is the output for 1Vpk-pk (so actually the lower extent is higher than 800mV) |
|
|
| Peppe |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
On the service manual, in the main schematic, the connection are not marked with a point, as it should be, and so it's not so easy to understand if, when a net crosses another net, if actually it connects with it or not.
|
Hi, look at point number 5 at the link:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...122#post1143122
Maybe can help you ;) |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
Thanks for the link, but it referes to the Aleph3 's schematic , but it's good to know that i wasn't the only one have a problem with the connections on the schematic, since they are not marked off.
Anyways, I hope somebodyelse, also, will take part at prject and maybe will help me out with this issues.
Best,
Stefano. |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| You really need help with this?! Easy with the simulators, you may hurt yourself :) |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
| yes, i do need help!! :smash: |
|
|
| analog_sa |
May i recommend a basic electronics course like "The Art of Electronics"? Mosfets, differential amps, CCSs - it's all there.
Once you understand the basics you'll be able to get excellent value out of simulations.
Do you understand how the "potentiometer" in P works? |
|
|
| GRollins |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
Thanks for the link, but it referes to the Aleph3 's schematic...
|
Nelson is consistent in his style. All his schematics are drawn the same. There's no law that says that schematics must be drawn one way or another. It used to be common to draw little arcs where a wire would jump over another without connecting. These days, that's out of fashion. In ten years it may come back. Who knows? Sit down, look at the schematic, and ask yourself,"Is it reasonable that there might--or might not--be a connection here?"
This seems to me to be an instance of trying too hard. There's making a valid attempt to understand the circuit, and there's obsessing. My suggestion is to build the circuit, then study the real thing in action while listening to music. The circuit isn't that complicated. Just build it.
Charlie Papazian has an expression for beer makers: "Relax, have a homebrew." You could do worse than to adopt a similarly relaxed approach to electronics. Shaky, fearful hands are apt to get shocked. Relaxed, steady hands don't bump into things that go zap.
Oh, and I second analog_sa's recommendation to get a good electronics book.
Grey |
|
|
| flg |
Stefanoo, the link regarding point#5, as grey said is really all you need to remember. However, if you are simulating in Pspice, are you using Orcad? Capture or scheamtics?
If your using Capture you can copy and paste into MSPaint and save as a .png file and post what you have here. Then we could easily comment on any necessary corrections.
If your using schematics, I have no idea how to get your file into a format you can post here. It has been done though, I just don't know how???
Taking a look at the original schematic however, I see only 1 possible mistake. The line from R46 and R61 does not connect to the output or the input on it's way to Q12 and Q13, Hope that helped :D :D :D
Another thing I noticed, your sim results window seems to have poor resolution. Is that due to your setup? Like "print step" and "step ceiling" settings??? |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
i use capture, so thanks for the advice on how to post it here.
I'm going to post the schematic now.
You told me that the line from R46 and R61 does not connect to the output or the input on it's way to Q12 and Q13, but if i don't connect that line to the output i receve error on the bias point calculation.
I don't know if anybody can help me to find the mistake on the schematic that i have drawn.
And, moreover, where can i set the resolution on pspice?
Thanks a lot. |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
| here the shematic... |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
as i said, if i don't connect the input with that line that crosses the input and output, i get errors on the pspice analysis.
If i connect it, instead, on the analysis results, i get a normal output wave form but i have the issue of a big attenuation and distortion for a 1v pk-pk input signal, which i think it's not correct to have distiortion at that high value of the input signal.
How much is the output of the aleph p preamp suppose to be?
Since it's an active pre, i guess it should have a gain, but from the simulation it has an attenuation of about 1000!!! |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| No connection between R6, R22 |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
Ok, i understood.
The problem is that if i don't connect in that way, the simulator gives me erros and it's no any longer possible to simulate the project.
Here i 've attached the schematich (with capture) and the simulation profiles.
I had to change the extention because i don't have winzip.
I used winrar to compress the files.
So, in case you download it, you have to remember to rename it as .rar and uncompress it with winrar.
If you have capture and pspice, please try to open it.
I don't really know the reason of why i get that error not connecting R6 and R22 (the way that is supposed to be)
Thank in advance |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
I complete the set of my simulations by attaching the frequency response.
The behaviour looks very strange to me.
Now i've stopped my monologue....hope that somebody will be willing to help me with this and comment this post.
I take this project as something fun and something where i can improve and build my kwnoldge on simulators cicuit design, layout..and so on.
It's very important for me that the most experienced guys here on the forum help me with this....so i hope you guys will be willing to hlp a noobies as me.
i would appreciate it very much.
Thanks iin advance for your support.
Best,
Stefano. |
|
|
| Babowana |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
so i hope you guys will be willing to hlp a noobies as me.
i would appreciate it very much.
Thanks iin advance for your support.
|
Aleph P1.7 schematic keeps the rule.
The four lines meeting at one point means not connected.
Only the three lines meeting at one point is connected.
If you don't mind my comment . . . stop bla bla bla, and build one.
There would be hundred lessons in one failure.
:darkside: |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
no, don't worry...i don't miind your comment.
It's that i would like to build this project from the beginning till the end and so starting from the correct simulation, passing through the layout and the simulation of the lay board...optimization of the layout board...and finally building the project.
But until i won't get the correct result on the simulated behaviour, i might won't build the board.
I would just love that somebody of the experted guy here on the forum would help me to understand why my simulation is failing.
That's all. |
|
|
| Babowana |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
...optimization of the layout board...
|
Plz don't try to optimise at potential cost of buzzz and hummm.
And, don't forget doing failure mode analysis for total safety.
:darkside: |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
yes, i will...as soon i will have figured out the reason of why passing the schematic to the simulator i have that error that forbiddens me to see the results.
Need helppppp :whazzat: :bawling: :hot: |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| I don't have much experience with simulators but when they start crashing i would simplify the circuit as much as possible until something works. In this particular case i'd replace the CCSs with resistors and see how it goes. |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
I don't know what's wrong!!
Is there any experted guy there that is navigated with Orcad Capture and PSpice and can help me out with this simulation?
My Circuit is attached on the previous page.
It would be great, because i' ve gotten totallyy stucked and i don't know what else to do!
heeeeellllppppppp pleeaseeee.... :bawling: :bawling: :cannotbe: |
|
|
| Mr Dijon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
[B]I don't know what's wrong!!
|
R6 & R9 (on your schematic) should not be connected to the signal inputs. These resistors are for allowing a few mA of current to flow so that the top and bottom current sources turn on.
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
But until i won't get the correct result on the simulated behaviour, i might won't build the board.
|
I would bet good money that Nelson's circuit works just fine without simulating ;)
|
|
|
| flg |
Stefanoo, I am by no means an expert and I typically use schematics for pspice instead of capture. It's easier:D I typically check the "Bias Point detail" box and the "Transient" option. In the Transient option I check the "Detailed Bias Point" box and the "Enable Fourier" box. I typically start out with a 1kHz sine (from the Vsin component) so I will use a 10ns "Print Step" and a 100ns "Step Ceiling". In the Fourier option I naturally put "1000"Hz, "10" Harmonics and my output variable...
I have a circuit that is based on Nelson's BZLS and the 1.7. It sims just fine...
:D |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
That's what i do.
With capture i select first the bias point calculation (eather way it does this calculation anyway), and i check the "detailed bias point information" checkbox and then run the analysis.
The problem is, that it doesn't allow me to go forward because it says:
ERROR -- Convergence problem in bias point calculation
These voltages failed to converge:
(ist of the not convergent voltages)
i don't know if anybody may analyze my files with schematic or not.
Pleaseeee...helpppp :whazzat: :bawling: |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
i finally was able to simulate the circuit.
I had to check a checkbox on the pspice option.
I will post here the results...
the transient response at the differential output for a 400uV pk-pk differential input. |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
| this is the differential output varying the output potentiometer |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
this is the analysis by varying the trimmer for a 1K output potentiometer..
I don't understand one thing.....
This design already has the input regulation by mean the input divider resisor, setting propertly the switches.
why is there a trimmer?
Is it not pointless? may somebody clear this up? |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
finally the frequency response..
is it ok to have that that peaks at around 10MHz? COuld it be a problem for the autooscillations?
Is the simulated behaviour ok for you guys? |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
this is the analysis by varying the trimmer for a 1K output potentiometer..
I don't understand one thing.....
This design already has the input regulation by mean the input divider resisor, setting propertly the switches.
why is there a trimmer?
Is it not pointless? may somebody clear this up? |
The trimmer sets the gain for both channels to be equal. Remember, it's a zero overall feedback circuit and the gain is dependent upon the mosfets parameters.
NP mentions that one can control the volume using a variable resistor in this position. It sounds like a really attractive proposition as a single pot effectively replaces two highly matched ones.
Only it doesn't seem to work that well in practice. You can't get the volume down to zero, you get a weird control characteristic and volume dependent distortion. |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
finally the frequency response..
is it ok to have that that peaks at around 10MHz? COuld it be a problem for the autooscillations?
Is the simulated behaviour ok for you guys? |
Could you please explain what is your vertical axis? One seems to be degrees; how many db per division for the other?
Interesting results. In another thread i mentioned my 1.7 oscillating around 10MHz until i increased the grid stoppers. |
|
|
| flg |
Stefanoo, glad to see you got your sim running all the way through :D A convergence problem is a typical type of error. Ussually they are due to high gain or oscilation or something a little bit wrong somewhere. When you get the window that allows you to change some parameters, I ussually lower the current resolution a couple decades(I think thats right, go down to E-9 or 6) and the sim will go all the way through...
I believe my pre has a little bump starting at 750kHz or so (in reality) but those are the sorts of things that a real circuit may differ from a simmed circuit on.
You may sense a little anomosity towards the simulation philosophy:whazzat: But many of the people here are either of the objective or subjective camps and it is an endless debate of measurement or listening performance :smash: :smash: :smash:
Everything that comes from Nelson Pass is worth listening too! THD and sim results are not the eqiuivalent of listening. They are just a tool to help evaluate with equipment and computors. Listening is the ultimate performance measurement :D
I have included a pic of my Pass "variation" pre for you and everyone to comment on, or build, if you like :D :D :D |
|
|
| GRollins |
I used to simulate once in a blue moon until I tried to simulate a circuit that I already had working. It said it wouldn't work. My skepticism was cemented later on when I started the Aleph-X thread and was told by those who treat simulations as Revealed Truth that the circuit would not, could not, under any circumstances, ever, work. I knew differently because I had a functioning prototype at my elbow.
I regard simulations as a waste of time that--at least for me--would be far better spent trying real circuits on the bench. And...for those who live in fear...I popped a MOSFET and a resistor a couple weeks ago. Total cost of the two was about a buck. First time I've blown anything in ages. Incidentally, it was my fault for letting two wires touch. The circuit design was just peachy, albeit somewhat lower bandwidth that I'd been hoping for. And I know the results I obtained are good, because they were based on real parts in the real world, not incomplete models of "perfect" parts.
Or, in the vernacular: Reality beats theory, seven days a week.
The sad thing is that for all the time and angst wasted on this simulation thing, the preamp could already have been built. I have yet to hear music reproduced by a simulation...
Although I have no doubt that someone, somewhere is writing the code for such a program.
Grey |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| Yup, I agree. It may be mostly due to lack of interest in learning yet another type of software, but I can knock out a board design in Eagle, burn the PCBs with toner transfer, and have something up and running pretty quickly, so why even bother with sims? |
|
|
| Blues |
| I bother with it...first it helps me understand how a circuit works and not how it sounds...that's second. |
|
|
| apassgear |
flg,
Nice iteration.
At least for me there are some undefine areas on the schematic, like were you connect the attenuator, Gain pot? Bias?
Could we have some details on these?
and the most important Q, how does it sound? Compared to P 1.7?
P.D. This could well be a new thread. |
|
|
| MikeBettinger |
| quote: | Originally posted by GRollins
I used to simulate once in a blue moon until I tried to simulate a circuit that I already had working. It said it wouldn't work. My skepticism was cemented later on when I started the Aleph-X thread and was told by those who treat simulations as Revealed Truth that the circuit would not, could not, under any circumstances, ever, work. I knew differently because I had a functioning prototype at my elbow.
I regard simulations as a waste of time that--at least for me--would be far better spent trying real circuits on the bench. And...for those who live in fear...I popped a MOSFET and a resistor a couple weeks ago. Total cost of the two was about a buck. First time I've blown anything in ages. Incidentally, it was my fault for letting two wires touch. The circuit design was just peachy, albeit somewhat lower bandwidth that I'd been hoping for. And I know the results I obtained are good, because they were based on real parts in the real world, not incomplete models of "perfect" parts.
Or, in the vernacular: Reality beats theory, seven days a week.
The sad thing is that for all the time and angst wasted on this simulation thing, the preamp could already have been built. I have yet to hear music reproduced by a simulation...
Although I have no doubt that someone, somewhere is writing the code for such a program.
Grey |
Simulations are great for dialing in a place to start, but nothing beats a manual simulation (building and listening). Half the fun is in building, smoking it and understanding what went wrong.
More emphasis should be placed on getting a stable reference point, ie music you love and a system that doesn't change as you mess with one part of it. This will tell you more, sometimes in a brutally honest way, about your theories than a thousand simulations.
Enjoy, Mike. |
|
|
| flg |
Well, as you have just read, there is some disregard for computor simulation in our hobby. I hate to put it down as worthless and wrong, that is not the case. However, truth is, this is the Pass Labs Forum. Anything propagated here has been built, tested, measured with equipment, but most importantly listened to :D
That is the Pass Philosophy!
As I said, the sim software is a tool. As some have said, it operates with software generally derived from quasi perfect models of components that do not necessarily represent the actuall ones we use. For instance, what is an IRF610? Probably a switching FET for a 10 watt SMP or something. Well, I'm sure the model is optimized for that. Not for a linear amplifier like we are interested in :confused:
To point out a few other defects in the sim philosophy, several times I have found that the Fourier plot in my "High Dollar Software" does not even match the data file info :confused: This is $6000 software!!! :confused:
I have to admit, I do not generally find it totally wrong when working with existing or new ideas. And I do find it very enlightening quite often.
But, lets be totally honest. It's only one of our tools, it has no ears and no brain and it does not have a clue about anything representing music. It only knows how to deal with pre programed model data, electrical theory and waveforms :scratch1:
Also, being totally honest, I like to sim first too :D it's a good place to start :D
BTW, all of Nelson's stuff sims plenty good enough for me :cool: |
|
|
| GRollins |
| quote: | Originally posted by MikeBettinger
Half the fun is in building, smoking it and understanding what went wrong.
|
Surely there are better things to smoke than electronic parts...
Grey |
|
|
| flg |
apassgear, Sorry :cannotbe: Yea, the gain pot goes from the 10 ohm to the other 10 ohm. If your going to ask why I have 2 10 ohms in there, I don't remember why! You need 20 or 40 or so or it will go bananas at the low end of the pot. I think with only about 25 or 30 ohms you can get pretty rediculous preamp gain if you need it...
The Bias pot goes to the - Supply :D :D :D I guess that is one of the differences from an N.P. circuit.
I have one with only about 55mA per side and 1K load Rs too. I could not really say which works better but the one with 1K load Rs is much lower temp. and I think a little quieter... BTW I used Caddock 500 and 1K TO-220 Rs for the gain stage load Rs and they are on heatsinks too...
I've never built an Aleph 1.7 but I like mine better than the BOSOZ. I went this far mostly based on the resistance to "current source" loads and the desire to have an S.E. to Balanced Pre. There are those who say a resistive load in the gain stage sounds better :confused: I drive a FET Circlotron amp that I am trying to finish up and put in a final chasisn now, after a year or so. I was going to put the pre in with it since Circlotron is a follower. However, N.P. recently said he might come up with a High Voltage Pre project for his new followers :bigeyes: I'm waiting to see what that stuff is...
BTW, my somewhat extreme diff thing is good for at least 25V or more of clean output for those head room freaks :D |
|
|
| flg |
Grey :whazzat: :whazzat: :whazzat:
:D :D :D |
|
|
| Babowana |
| quote: | Originally posted by flg
I like to sim first too :D it's a good place to start :D
|
As I don't understand how the program is written, I don't use it.
I feel better in trying to understand the circuits with collection of
the small things written down in the books.
Have quit smoking cigarettes; instead smoke few numbers of
cigarillos . . . I think I'm terrible.
:darkside: |
|
|
| GRollins |
I was born lazy and had a relapse. I tossed a few calculations I was tired of doing by hand into a spreadsheet. The rest I do on an ordinary calculator. Not even a graphing one.
You don't need anything more than some pretty basic algebra to do this stuff. I took calculus in school. I've never needed it--which is good, because at this point all those memories have pretty much turned to dust, anyway.
I was really excited back when I first heard about simulation programs. Ohm's Law writ large! Cool! Man, all the capacitors, resistors, inductors...and active devices analyzed within an inch of their lives. Then reality set in. Sure the calculations are within reach, but the models are poor and frequently difficult to find (note the number of posts asking what model someone is using and where they got it), and the results are not exactly what you'd call dependable predictions of what you'll actually see when you build the circuit.
There's a thread here wherein someone got really, really excited because his circuit had 0% distortion. Somehow, the fellow's BS detector didn't trip. Clearly, there's no such thing in the real world. That is (or should be) a Duh! Yet his simulation, with its perfect components, claimed near perfection and he got his tail feathers all a-fluff. If someone can show me where to buy perfect transistors, I will be very grateful, indeed. So will Nelson, John Curl, Charles Hansen, et. al.
Time is my most precious commodity. If I've only got an hour to spend on electronics, it's a no-brainer. I'll hit the bench and try a real circuit rather than diddle an unpredictable, undependable computer model. Once you've done the simulation, you still don't know if the circuit will work or not (witness the number of people who insisted that the Aleph-X couldn't work--if I'd wasted my time on simulations, I'd never have built the circuit...because the simulations said it couldn't be done!), so you really don't know any more than you did when you started. You only think you do.
If only I had back all the hours I wasted in front of a tube simulating...
Grey
P.S.: I don't know what to do about the people who put Nelson's circuits into a simulator "to see if they work." Strangle 'em, I guess. Put 'em out of their misery. |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
sorry, but i don't agree with you.
I don't have much experience with simulators but in this case, for example, was enough a propertly change on the setting, to get it goin'!
Who knows if a propertly set up for the Aleph X model would have helped it to work (on the simulation)...who knows! (i will probabilily try next)
I personally think that the simulator it's just a start and no more of that!
Don't get wrong: i'm a real audiophile and so ...for me.... the listening is VERY important and can't be replaced by anything.
Last thing: i don't put Nelson Pass circuit into simulation because i have doubts that they work.
It's, in the case, the opposite concept.
Since i'm convinced that they work perfectly..i use them to get a better handle of all the simulators (Capture, VHDL, PSpice -Advanced SIM) and to get more expierence on building projects.
As i outlined above, this is for me just a way of improving my knowledge.
The fun will come then when i will build the preamp and then find out that it sounds really refined!
But then i will have the "paranoia" to be able to build something as nelson does...and it's when i will hit the reality and have to work very hard....but this is another story :rolleyes:
Anyway.....now i'm going to take the cicuit on PCB Editor and PCB Router and try to buid the board.
I will certainly need your help......
i would like to understand how a ground plan works....and if there are rules for the layout (i know there are!).
I will search on the forum.
as far as i know the hum is correlated with the layout...so.....mmm let's see..... :cool: !
Thanks for the comments.
Stefano. |
|
|
| GRollins |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
It's, in the case, the opposite concept.
Since i'm convinced that they work perfectly..i use them to get a better handle of all the simulators (Capture, VHDL, PSpice -Advanced SIM) and to get more expierence on building projects.
|
Something's wrong here...you're using circuits to learn a software program? From my (admittedly) music-centric viewpoint, that's kinda-sorta...well...backwards. But if playing with software is more important to you than building circuits and listening to them, then have at it.
I confess that I'm not clear as to how you feel that simulation programs give you experience building circuits. They don't. All they do is give you experience at simulating things--experience which doesn't translate very well (if at all) into the real world. Only building circuits can give you experience building circuits.
Grey |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
don't get wrong!
I really like to get more practice on BUILDING projects!!!
My viewpoint is that the simulator, if properly used, can help you-- but not replace the actual practice.
That's all i meant! |
|
|
| cviller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
Anyway.....now i'm going to take the cicuit on PCB Editor and PCB Router and try to buid the board.
I will certainly need your help......
|
Is the "PCB Router" an auto-router? If so, please don't waste too much time playing with that. Place the components wisely connect them and if you get trapped, swap some of the components. The auto-router doesn't have the slightest idea of what kind of circuit you are making, so it will most likely do a lousy job. Furthermore you'll not learn much about routing.
| quote: | Originally posted by Stefanoo
i would like to understand how a ground plan works....and if there are rules for the layout (i know there are!).
I will search on the forum.
as far as i know the hum is correlated with the layout...so.....mmm let's see..... :cool: !
|
I doubt you'll gain much from making a ground-plane, but if you are determined to do so, I don't think it'll hurt...
Hum on the layout is mostly related to how you lay your gnd traces, but I think a general rule is to keep noisy traces away from delicate signal traces. It is however easier to get hum from bad wiring schemes...
The supply voltage is quite high, so you should make sure to place those traces sensible too! |
|
|
| Stefanoo |
thanks for the advice.
about the ground plan and layout rules, i wonder if there is some intresting material that can be usefull for the purpose..
i'm searching on google and on the forum...if anybody have some good suggestion...is of course...welcome! |
|
|
|
