6922 -- curing the ultrasonic RIAA blues

jackinnj · 24th January 2008, 05:45 PM

For the most part this phono stage is within tight tolerance, but I was troubled that the response rises so much after 20kHz -- not that there is that much information on vinyl save for the fact that a "snap, crackel or pop" will overload the next stage. It takes way too much additional Cgk to tame the ultrasonic response -- or is it OK, or should I even worry as the nominal response is down ~ 20dB at 20kHz vs 1kHz?

PigletsDad · 24th January 2008, 05:50 PM

The question is actually which RIAA curve you want to follow. There is a recent fashion for stopping the rolloff at 50kHz, as the commonest cutting head stops the boost at 50kHz. My personal take is to say that a preamp should follow the standard, but the design that you have built has an extra component to limit rolloff in the ultrasonics.

R5 is the culprit. If you remove it, you will get the right curve, without using a compensation cap. Leave it in if you want ultrasonic boost relative to RIAA, to compensate for cutting head bandwidth limitations.

EC8010 · 24th January 2008, 05:50 PM

The input capacitance seen by the cartridge is going to be humungous! Surely your rising 20kHz response is simply an indication that 1k is too big for the resistor below the 3200pF capacitor? As for worrying, yes, you're right to worry, excess ultrasonic response could exacerbate snap crackle and pop.

Wavebourn · 24th January 2008, 06:21 PM

SIMs and real life are very different realities.

jackinnj · 24th January 2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wavebourn
SIMs and real life are very different realities.

The data in the graph are the actual results, not simulated -- I just used the Multisim schematic to illustrate the layout.

pedroskova · 24th January 2008, 06:43 PM

Edit...didn't see graph values.

jackinnj · 30th January 2008, 09:39 PM

With R5 = 625R -- (RED) -- and various other values

ArtG · 31st January 2008, 02:31 AM

I've been following your posts on this circuit for some time, and I'm rather impressed with the results you've been able to achieve! So much so, that I'm seriously considering building it for one of my PAS units.
What values did you use for the violet trace in your last post? Looks good to me! It's essentially flat to 20K, and 1db down at 50K. I tend to think, from a practical standpoint, that this would be preferable to a rising HF response. I have just two questions..... Is R10 calc'd for a certain following load (volume control), and... how does it sound to you?
Thanks!

jackinnj · 31st January 2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ArtG
What values did you use for the violet trace in your last post? Looks good to me! It's essentially flat to 20K, and 1db down at 50K.

The magenta trace is 1k//1k = 500R.

I have no idea how the circuit will perform over time -- the anode follower and its components might be very sensitive to tube aging, and all I have done so far is assemble the RIAA amplifier -- it hasn't gone live with vinyl yet.

Adjusting the value of R6 tilts the curve a bit clockwise -- which makes the deviation from RIAA even lower.

I have some cases for the preamp and its power supply -- have been busily rewinding a transformer to fit in the case -- this will use the LR8N3 as localized regulators.

jackinnj · 31st January 2008, 03:28 PM

The top trace is the RIAA preamp with LED's in both cathode positions, R5=625R, R6=201K

The two lower traces use 200R bypassed with 1,000u -- the magenta is the stock kit, the blue trace places 625R at R5 and 198K for R6. In the original R5 is 1K and R6 is 220K

24th January 2008, 05:45 PM	#1
jackinnj diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Llanddewi Brefi, NJ	6922 -- curing the ultrasonic RIAA blues For the most part this phono stage is within tight tolerance, but I was troubled that the response rises so much after 20kHz -- not that there is that much information on vinyl save for the fact that a "snap, crackel or pop" will overload the next stage. It takes way too much additional Cgk to tame the ultrasonic response -- or is it OK, or should I even worry as the nominal response is down ~ 20dB at 20kHz vs 1kHz?

24th January 2008, 05:50 PM	#3
EC8010 diyAudio Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Near London. UK	Too many rice crispies The input capacitance seen by the cartridge is going to be humungous! Surely your rising 20kHz response is simply an indication that 1k is too big for the resistor below the 3200pF capacitor? As for worrying, yes, you're right to worry, excess ultrasonic response could exacerbate snap crackle and pop. __________________ The loudspeaker: The only commercial Hi-Fi item where a disproportionate part of the budget isn't spent on the box. And the one where it would make a difference...

24th January 2008, 06:21 PM	#4
Wavebourn diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pleasant Hill, CA	SIMs and real life are very different realities. __________________ If I disappear suddenly, that means I finally created a time machine and pushed wrong button that brought me to Stalin's Russia. In any experiment any result is the result. Even if it is negative.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ultrasonic Cleaning??????	grhughes	Tubes / Valves	25	7th March 2009 01:31 PM
Higher than 22k, or ultrasonic?	jahhn	Multi-Way	34	2nd October 2007 09:43 PM
Ultrasonic heaters	DHT112A	Tubes / Valves	53	10th June 2006 11:59 AM
ultrasonic sensors	sss	Everything Else	4	16th May 2006 02:42 PM
Broadcast RIAA Blues	wrenchone	Solid State	8	21st February 2004 12:55 AM


	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

24th January 2008, 05:50 PM	#2
PigletsDad diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: South Worcestershire	The question is actually which RIAA curve you want to follow. There is a recent fashion for stopping the rolloff at 50kHz, as the commonest cutting head stops the boost at 50kHz. My personal take is to say that a preamp should follow the standard, but the design that you have built has an extra component to limit rolloff in the ultrasonics. R5 is the culprit. If you remove it, you will get the right curve, without using a compensation cap. Leave it in if you want ultrasonic boost relative to RIAA, to compensate for cutting head bandwidth limitations.

24th January 2008, 06:43 PM	#6
pedroskova RIP Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: C'ville VA, USA	Edit...didn't see graph values.

30th January 2008, 09:39 PM	#7
jackinnj diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Llanddewi Brefi, NJ	With R5 = 625R -- (RED) -- and various other values

31st January 2008, 02:31 AM	#8
ArtG diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Central PA	I've been following your posts on this circuit for some time, and I'm rather impressed with the results you've been able to achieve! So much so, that I'm seriously considering building it for one of my PAS units. What values did you use for the violet trace in your last post? Looks good to me! It's essentially flat to 20K, and 1db down at 50K. I tend to think, from a practical standpoint, that this would be preferable to a rising HF response. I have just two questions..... Is R10 calc'd for a certain following load (volume control), and... how does it sound to you? Thanks!

31st January 2008, 03:28 PM	#10
jackinnj diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Llanddewi Brefi, NJ	The top trace is the RIAA preamp with LED's in both cathode positions, R5=625R, R6=201K The two lower traces use 200R bypassed with 1,000u -- the magenta is the stock kit, the blue trace places 625R at R5 and 198K for R6. In the original R5 is 1K and R6 is 220K

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read