Overload considerations in RIAA preamps - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Solid State
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki 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 9th March 2004, 08:09 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Munich
Default 5534 better than told

...I found the data sheets of NE5534.
The current noise is stated around 0.6pA/Hz^0.5!
Also the low frequency current noise is fine with 2.6pA/Hz^0.5!
Much better than I thought.
OK, there seems to be no need to reduce the values of the
resistors. Current noise seems uncritical.
Sorry for causing confusion.

Cheers
Markus
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2004, 02:49 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
ashok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 3RS
Default Eq config.

Hi JCX,

I wrote out a post yesterday about the eq but something happened and the post was deleted even before putting it up. Got quite mad about it and so decided to do rewrite later.

The input stage has the 75uS eq so that the HF overload capability of the second stage is good at HF. If we used the 3180/318 uS eq here it would not have as good an overload figure as compared to the 75uS at HF.

Having written that I think this should not be an issue because the first stage is the one that really determines overload ! That has been taken care of already.

Now we come to the S/N ratio. The max S/N ratio is determined only by the input stage. Subsequent stages will only degrade it (and of course improve a bit due to the eq filters !).
With a relatively high signal at the input of the second stage (75uS eq ) the S/N ratio will be better as compared to the signal with 3180/318uS which would be 20db lower in level.
With opamps like the AD829 with a noise voltage of 2nVrtHz this may not be an issue.

The second stage could possibly have the 3180/318 eq in its feedback loop. The HF will not roll of till unity gain as it will be in the case of the 'all at one go' feedback network.
This would however mean a frequency dependent feedback network which we are trying to avoid.
I am currently working on a board with active/passive eq switchable. That way I can see if there is really an audible difference (with modern opamps).
The other option that I am also working on is an 'all passive at one go' filter after the first stage . I need to work out the details and determine if it will load the first stage. Capacitors will have to be as large as possible to keep impedance down for the next stage and to overcome stray caps.

Has anyone already done this?

This has to be done. Like the difference in sound between the NE5532 and OPA2134 is really heard only by practical implementation, I guess we have to build the circuits to determine their sonic capabilities.

Another doubt. Did the NE5532 sound different from the AD826 or OPA2134 because of the large difference in the input bias current flowing through the cartridge coils ? This must be causing a dc offset in the operating point of the cartridge. The magnetic flux will have an offset operating point.
I have no coupling capacitor at the input. Where ever possible I try to tolerate dc offsets and avoid capacitor coupling.

In another phono stage with 0 volts dc at the input a film type coupling cap very audibly degraded the sound. After that I try to avoid use of such caps as far as possible - and we aren't even talking about electrolytic caps !

Cheers.
Ashok.
__________________
AM
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2004, 06:00 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
analog_sa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sofia
Quote:
Another doubt. Did the NE5532 sound different from the AD826 or OPA2134 because of the large difference in the input bias current flowing through the cartridge coils ?
No. The input bias current effect on the cart is negligible. As i don't use MM carts there is always an intermidiate stage before the first opamp and they still sound different.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2004, 07:54 AM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
ashok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 3RS
Default Some more opamps.

I tried the LM833 and the LF353 yesterday.

The LM833 sounds surprisingly good. Closer to the OPA2134 than the NE5532.
The LF353 sounded light in the bass . It took away the foot tapping quality from the OPA2134. This is more prominent in the AD826. I am waiting for my AD829's.

In order of preferance ( in the RIAA amp) I like the op amps as follows :
AD826
OPA2134
NE5532/LM833
LF353

Wonder if I should check out the TLO72 and TLO82 ??
Cheers.
__________________
AM
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2004, 08:02 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Munich
Default AD829

Hi Ashok!
...checked through the data sheet of AD829...
This fancy OP amp might become one of my best friends
when I need much gain for small signals!!!
THX for the hint!

Bye
Markus
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2004, 07:43 AM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
ashok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 3RS
Default Other configurations.

I have been trying some other configurations ( with R and C in the -ve feedback loop) and find that the small resistor in the -ve input of the opamp ( going to ground or through a capacitor to ground ) affects the accuracy of the equalisation quite a bit. Keeping the eq passive ensures that the number of components that affect the equalisation is kept to a minimum.

Any thoughts on that ?
Cheers.
__________________
AM
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2004, 10:35 AM   #17
JonPike is offline JonPike  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Irvine
Quote:
Originally posted by analog_sa
Hi Ashok

Apparently there are other opinions as well. If you look at the Hagerman Buggle you may notice the gain structure is x11,x11,x10 and the low-frequency correction comes first.

No idea if this sounds better or not but it's certainly easy to test. What worries me though is that in your curcuit the mid opamp is only there to allow a split RIAA. The question is then if splitting warrants the inclusion of a dummy stage.

regards
I have a Bugle, sounds pretty good. There was a lower end/ kit preamp shootout in AudioXpress mag some months ago, and the Bugle was the best of the bunch.. including that NAD and others that cost up to $250. Some did have some overload while testing on a test record, the Bugle didn't if I recall correctly..

Quote:
In order of preferance ( in the RIAA amp) I like the op amps as follows :
AD826
OPA2134
NE5532/LM833
LF353

Wonder if I should check out the TLO72 and TLO82 ??
Cheers.
Interesting... I was looking over op amps, and came across the AD826, got some samples and tried it.. (instead of the original OPA2134's) We decided there was a definite improvement..

I'd guess the TLO's would be a step down.. but there's one way to be sure..
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2004, 12:03 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
analog_sa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sofia
Default AD826

Never tried this one. From OPA627/637, AD8610, AD825, AD845, AD8065 my uncontested favourite is 8610. I use it with a BUF634 and NFB RIAA and there is almost zero DC at output.

Initially i didn't like the sound all that much but with a Lundahl 9206 in front it became much better than i could ever hope for op-amps.
As soon as i get some time i'll rebuild it as an all-out teflon board/bells and whistles phono wonder
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2016, 04:54 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
tiefbassuebertr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: D-55629 Schwarzerden
this interesting thread I discover by chance.
Are there any news ?
The AD829 (dual version AD826) and the AD8610 seems to be very interesting for listening test in order to get sound character like tubes - go to
OP-Amp MM RIAA-Phonostage and Sonic Character like Tube-Phonostage, e. g. EAR834
An important feature for me is the fact, that the AD826 uses only one gain stage (folded cascode). At most other op-amps there are two gain stages inside of the NFB-loop, for me a disadvantage in order for a good sonic quality.
Unfortunately I don't find a simplified schematic for the AD8610 - who can upload this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashok View Post
Hi Sam,
You are right about the musical signal levels. We are refering to signals generated when you have bad clicks and pops due to dust and surface imperfections .
You will find that people have studied this and found noise spikes to be several times higher than musical signals. I even came across a graph showing this , somewhere on the net. I will search it out again.

To quote approximately : ' loud noise pulses clip in the input stage causing audible artifacts to be generated within the audio range and degrading the sound that one hears. This is why some preamps sound fine with noisy surfaces and others make the same recordings un-listenable.'

So I am trying to find if someone has done an analysis on this and how it can be used to optimise the circuit gain.
Cheers,
Ashok.
in this case this thread is of interest:
MM Input Stage working in inverted mode - not to find; why ??

Last edited by tiefbassuebertr; 5th September 2016 at 05:06 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2016, 08:34 PM   #20
Bonsai is online now Bonsai  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Bonsai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Europe
Yes, very old thread. I wrote up my findings about active RIAA here:-

RIAA Equalizer Amplifier Design

There may some interesting info in there.

I have just built another all active RIAA recently and I think this is the way to go if you are using op-amps. A key performance metric - especially if you don't want clicks and pops to overload the equalizer - is the overload capability. I think 20 dB or more at 20 kHz is mandatory no matter what topology you use.

The 5534 in MM all active is the quietest opamp based solution available (D. Self has long stated this and practical experience supports his conclusion). If you want quieter, you need to go for a JFET front end using a good device like a BF862 and parallel them.

Inverting mode presents a problem noise wise because of the input resistor - so that is not an optimal solution for MM. Passive/split RIAA is good for discrete where you can design for high supply rails the enough swing to ensure you wont have overload at HF. If you arrange the first stage to provide most of the gain and then EQ after that, you can tame some of the first stage noise and get a reasonable result.
__________________
bonsai
Amplifier Design and Construction for MUSIC! http://hifisonix.com/
  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
Best overload performance RIAA opamp pre? leadbelly Analog Line Level 1 5th February 2008 07:05 PM
OT Overload question alexmoose Tubes / Valves 1 9th May 2006 12:56 AM
jvc amplifier overload TaylorG Solid State 19 10th January 2004 11:17 PM
Simple RIAA phono preamps Optical Solid State 81 26th November 2002 10:27 PM
Circuit toplogy considerations for RIAA............ Chris Everything Else 2 27th October 2001 07:12 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2016 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Wiki