Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Solid State
Home Forums Rules Articles Store Gallery Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Solid State Talk all about solid state amplification.

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 12th November 2007, 03:37 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Question parallel feedback caps

Yamaha CRX-E150, pre-amp section w/ tone controls. What is puzzling me here is, why TWO parallel caps in the feedback loop (C763/C768)?

Wouldn't just one around 50pF (47pF) do as well, or is there some deeper reason I'm not seeing here? And while we're at it, why not even something lower, like 10pF?

I mean, with the given values, 1/2*phi*R*C gets kinda odd results for what I thought it should have in this part of the ckt. Then on the other hand, I probably just can't calculate this the right way.
Attached Images
File Type: gif crx vol_tone schematic.gif (9.0 KB, 254 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2007, 03:45 PM   #2
Donk is offline Donk  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Donk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Hi,

Your calculation is OK: 470k//50pF gives 6.8kHz (-3dB). Strange!
Maybe the schematic's value isn't correct about 100pF-100pF.


Regards,

Donk
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2007, 03:47 PM   #3
Zen Mod is offline Zen Mod  Serbia
Official Court Jester
diyAudio Member
 
Zen Mod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ancient Batsch , behind Iron Curtain
Default Re: parallel feedback caps

Quote:
Originally posted by subterfuge
Yamaha CRX-E150, pre-amp section w/ tone controls. What is puzzling me here is, why TWO parallel caps in the feedback loop (C763/C768)?

Wouldn't just one around 50pF (47pF) do as well, or is there some deeper reason I'm not seeing here? And while we're at it, why not even something lower, like 10pF?

I mean, with the given values, 1/2*phi*R*C gets kinda odd results for what I thought it should have in this part of the ckt. Then on the other hand, I probably just can't calculate this the right way.

they have drekload of 100p caps

two in series can have tighter tolerance than just one

they teasing us


........ as you see - plenty of solutions ; do not underestimate first one .
__________________
my Papa is smarter than your Nelson !
tnx to clean thread ; Cook Book ; PSM LS Cook Book ; Baby Diyaudio FORUM ; BAF Forum & Gallery
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2007, 04:15 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default Re: Re: parallel feedback caps

Quote:
Originally posted by Donk
Your calculation is OK: 470k//50pF gives 6.8kHz (-3dB). Strange!
Maybe the schematic's value isn't correct about 100pF-100pF.
Yes, that's what I calculated also. Ah, and the values have been confirmed, I've taken the thing apart and measured them.


Quote:
Originally posted by Zen Mod

they have drekload of 100p caps

two in series can have tighter tolerance than just one

they teasing us

........ as you see - plenty of solutions ; do not underestimate first one .
The first one is what I thought at first. Tolerance I didn't think about ...teasing, don't they always.

How about phase, nothing to do with that on this part?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2007, 05:38 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
myhrrhleine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Avalon Island
Are they really parallel?
Or both used for a 2nd order response?
Is there a resistor lurking near by?
__________________
Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean no one can.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2007, 08:03 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by myhrrhleine
Are they really parallel?
Or both used for a 2nd order response?
Is there a resistor lurking near by?
The caps C763 and C768 are in series to each other and parallel with R757, placed in the feedback loop of the op-amp shown in the schematic. The one I drew myself btw, checked and verified to be true to the actual circuit, but missing the PSU connections for the sake of clarity.

Filtering they sure are, like the whole section there, being part of the tone controls. But how much should they filter out? I would've placed the cutoff point somewhere above 20kHz, which would mean way smaller values for those caps. But those C756 and R755 throw me off on my calc. I see a band pass here also, but should I?

Suggestions for calculations and all gladly taken, thanks for the replies so far people.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2007, 08:37 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Cruz, California
Look at the whole circuit: the 470K resistor is also in parallel with the network of VR701, R704, R705, and VR702, which off the top of my head (too much work to calculate this properly) looks like about a few K in series with R759, so the effective resistance at signal is not far from 10K because the impedance of C760 is negligeable at signal frequencies.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2007, 06:02 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
myhrrhleine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Avalon Island
Sorry,

The viewing mode I use doesn't show attached schematics.
I was going by the post text.

But, as to your question, yes one 50PF would work.
Also, The network is in parallel with the EQ
__________________
Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean no one can.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2007, 06:36 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by DSP_Geek
Look at the whole circuit: the 470K resistor is also in parallel with the network of VR701, R704, R705, and VR702...
Ah, yes. I have calculated few pages worth of cutoff points for every separate part in this section, with different tone pot settings also (both max/both min/both in the middle). It's just that done like that, I got confused about the workings of the whole.

It seemed simplest just to bypass the whole tone ckt, rather than try to figure out something "neutral" or such. Then again, can't really carve the front panel of this box for any kind of extra control, there's a big PCB right against it (like there are all over this tiny box).

So now I'm back to thinking how at least to try and make the best out of what is already there.

Quote:
Originally posted by myhrrhleine
Sorry,
The viewing mode I use doesn't show attached schematics.
I was going by the post text.
It's OK...don't know if my explanation was that good though.

Looking back...I didn't mean my remark about the schematics to be snotty, but just to clarify that it's been checked to be right. I've read way too many schematics myself which proved not to be that accurate when checked against the real things.

Apart from possible copyright issues(?), drawing these myself, I can also at least try to make them as simple and clear as possible.

Thanks for the replies. Any insights welcome, as always.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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
Any disadvantage to multiple parallel caps for PS? theAnonymous1 Power Supplies 14 31st May 2009 05:09 PM
Active Feedback on Parallel Chips Stocker Chip Amps 8 4th May 2004 10:40 PM
lots of parallel caps, why? JojoD818 Solid State 25 14th January 2004 07:39 AM
Are Parallel smaller caps better/worse than big? Arx Parts 4 9th November 2003 11:54 PM
PS caps in parallel Bill Fitzpatrick Solid State 6 14th October 2002 10:56 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:06 AM.

Page generated in 0.12485 seconds (76.89% PHP - 23.11% MySQL) with 11 queries

Copyright ©1999-2012 diyAudio