Mouser order is on the way, boards are on the way, transformers are on the way...
...now to just sit and wait. 🙂
Thanks RJM!
...now to just sit and wait. 🙂
Thanks RJM!
Could anyone supply me with Rhys' BOM since I'm doing kits and I'll suspect some parts are missing such as opamps.
rhys never posted the BOM afaik, despite repeated promises.
Although fran put together the original BOM that rhys based his on in post 99, (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1706522#post1706522) there have been quite a few changes made in the parts values since then.
It also doesn't help that the part numbers are not printed on rhys boards.
The best bet is to work from the attached image, and if you could please print that image and send it with the kits so people are reminded of the error on the board layout with the C10-13 and Q1,Q2 shown reversed I'd be very grateful. (the image shows the correct orientation)
Although fran put together the original BOM that rhys based his on in post 99, (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1706522#post1706522) there have been quite a few changes made in the parts values since then.
It also doesn't help that the part numbers are not printed on rhys boards.
The best bet is to work from the attached image, and if you could please print that image and send it with the kits so people are reminded of the error on the board layout with the C10-13 and Q1,Q2 shown reversed I'd be very grateful. (the image shows the correct orientation)
Attachments
C3
Got my boards RJM, tanks.
I am dwelling on what to use for a C3.
Since BG NX 4.7 dont exist around here,
I am looking for some reasonable cost suggestions...
2.2uf is fine, I am thinking soniccraft, or even series connecting two 4.7uf Silimic II's together to get half the capacitance.
Mundorf MKP's are a possibility as well. I am looking for best bang for the buck, but an honest cap...
Got my boards RJM, tanks.
I am dwelling on what to use for a C3.
Since BG NX 4.7 dont exist around here,
I am looking for some reasonable cost suggestions...
2.2uf is fine, I am thinking soniccraft, or even series connecting two 4.7uf Silimic II's together to get half the capacitance.
Mundorf MKP's are a possibility as well. I am looking for best bang for the buck, but an honest cap...
I've got several C3 options in the mail:
1. Ones suggested in the Mouser BOM published by RJM earlier.
2. Mundorf MCap 2.2uF.
3. Mundorf MCap ZN 2.2uF.
The ZN is almost 5 times the original MCap, so I should hope it brings at least some improvement over the MCap.
Will report my findings.
1. Ones suggested in the Mouser BOM published by RJM earlier.
2. Mundorf MCap 2.2uF.
3. Mundorf MCap ZN 2.2uF.
The ZN is almost 5 times the original MCap, so I should hope it brings at least some improvement over the MCap.
Will report my findings.
I went with solens, because I've liked them in other circuits... including my Pass Pearl. Also, they're reasonably priced and stocked at partsconnex. I went with takman resistors for the carbons and a combo of prp's and holcos for the metal films.
Got my boards three days ago, thanks RJM. Now to wait for the Mouser shipment.
On another note, I have ordered Solen's as well... thinking of rigging some method of quickly changing output caps [maybe a switch?] before I settle down on a pair.
On another note, I have ordered Solen's as well... thinking of rigging some method of quickly changing output caps [maybe a switch?] before I settle down on a pair.
phonoclone
Hi , with regard to R2- what type of resistor is required?- metal film or carbon?
if using R2=1K what is the gain?
i intend to use with D103-, R1 set at 47R.
thanks in advance.
Hi , with regard to R2- what type of resistor is required?- metal film or carbon?
if using R2=1K what is the gain?
i intend to use with D103-, R1 set at 47R.
thanks in advance.
InSides said:
I ordered some mill-max pins so I could swap out R1 and R2, but the parts they sent me don't fit the pcb. I'm going to retry, but that's a route that you could go for swapping the output caps.
@quan
See the phonoclone webpage for the calculation of the circuit gain.
For everyone, the type of resistor does not matter enough for any one to be required over any other. Please use whatever you like.
See the phonoclone webpage for the calculation of the circuit gain.
For everyone, the type of resistor does not matter enough for any one to be required over any other. Please use whatever you like.
Good Day Gents,
I have got my boards up, and appear to be running and generating AC with some signal going through them. I have not hooked up TT yet, as MC cart is still on it's way.
My question is, I am putting these in a single chassis, which I think is large enough to not be an issue with noise. The GND holes dont appear on this PCB (like in construction guide, so I am wondering how to ground the whole thing. Binding post to chassis, and IEC GND to chassis? Or can I run the GND binding post to COM between both diodes, and run another wire there to ground. (This would appear to me to have less loop potential.)
I have got my boards up, and appear to be running and generating AC with some signal going through them. I have not hooked up TT yet, as MC cart is still on it's way.
My question is, I am putting these in a single chassis, which I think is large enough to not be an issue with noise. The GND holes dont appear on this PCB (like in construction guide, so I am wondering how to ground the whole thing. Binding post to chassis, and IEC GND to chassis? Or can I run the GND binding post to COM between both diodes, and run another wire there to ground. (This would appear to me to have less loop potential.)
Last edited:
The current shipping phonclone boards don't have the GND "feature" implemented yet. So the connection can be made to any point on the COM wire. In a single chassis build, the COM between both diodes would seem the most sensible. The IEC earth also connects to the chassis, but there are some workarounds with that if you find it causes hum.
Is it worth putting some capacitors in the PSU or that's not really worth the effort? I was thinking of using something like a gainclone PSU.
The capacitors are already on the board. Adding more is not a good idea, and the gainclone power supply doesn't have them anyway (or at least mine - and the original - doesn't)
A quasi-review
So I'm back now after a few weeks summer vacation with my parents.
I brought some 16/44 recordings of my analog setup including the phonoclone 3 with me, which I burnt to CD-ROM and played on my Dad's system which consists of a Meridian G08 CD player, Classe preamp and amplifier, and Thiel 2 0 speakers.
Dad is more of a resolution/impact/imaging person, where I am a tonality guy... our respective systems reflect this - and the difference in disposable income! Anyhow although I couldn't bring my phonoclone to listen to, the digital recordings still provide some useful insight into how good the phonoclone is in absolute terms. Comparing the digitized LP and the original CD on a reference quality CD player, the game is the phonoclone's to lose since any fault will be obvious, while any benefit of the original analog is negated by the A-D and D-A conversion steps.
The main reference is Dave Brubeck / Time Out as I happen to have that on LP at home and on CD at Dad's place. The CD is a 1997 reissue, but I don't think it was remastered so I assume it's the same mix.
The first point to make is that there is no obvious fault with the phonoclone. I could probably substitute the CDR for the original CD and you'd not notice unless you were intimately familiar with the disc. However in direct A/B comparison there are some striking differences. On Kathy's Waltz it's the drum and bass which have hold the main focus on the original CD, while the biano and sax are in the background and, to be honest, a bit dull. On the phonoclone recording, the focus is switched completely, with really nice, lively reproduction of the sax and piano, but the bass notes and cymbal work are clearly softer and with less impact.
Listening to a few other recordings I had brought with me more-or-less comfirmed that the bass response was overall softer than the CD, the soundsatge narrower, and the treble a bit less insistant. While I felt that the instrumental tone was generally better on the LP recordings, it was undeniable that the original CDs had a wider, more solid stereo sound stage and considerably more controlled bass impact.
In hindsight I should have brought the 24/96 recordings and played them back through my netbook as the analog out of the computer (Realtek HDaudio chip) was even at 16/44 keeping up with the G08 to a surprising extent and the phonoclone at 24/96 might have convincingly beat out the Meridian on redbook CDs even on a generic audio codec. That would have been an interesting result... but was not to be this time.
Another aside: the phono stage in the Classe 47.5 preamp is a OP27 affair, two per channel, just like the phonoclone. Looks like LM7x15 regs are used, and it's surprisingly noisy, much more than the phonoclone. Doesn't sound that great either, gritty and closeted.
Overall I'm pretty pleased with the result, though it seeded in my head the idea that bass response of my analog rig could be improved. Whether that's related to the smallish filter caps in the phonoclone, the size or type of output coupling caps used, or the arm/turntable/cartridge I can't say at this point.
So I'm back now after a few weeks summer vacation with my parents.
I brought some 16/44 recordings of my analog setup including the phonoclone 3 with me, which I burnt to CD-ROM and played on my Dad's system which consists of a Meridian G08 CD player, Classe preamp and amplifier, and Thiel 2 0 speakers.
Dad is more of a resolution/impact/imaging person, where I am a tonality guy... our respective systems reflect this - and the difference in disposable income! Anyhow although I couldn't bring my phonoclone to listen to, the digital recordings still provide some useful insight into how good the phonoclone is in absolute terms. Comparing the digitized LP and the original CD on a reference quality CD player, the game is the phonoclone's to lose since any fault will be obvious, while any benefit of the original analog is negated by the A-D and D-A conversion steps.
The main reference is Dave Brubeck / Time Out as I happen to have that on LP at home and on CD at Dad's place. The CD is a 1997 reissue, but I don't think it was remastered so I assume it's the same mix.
The first point to make is that there is no obvious fault with the phonoclone. I could probably substitute the CDR for the original CD and you'd not notice unless you were intimately familiar with the disc. However in direct A/B comparison there are some striking differences. On Kathy's Waltz it's the drum and bass which have hold the main focus on the original CD, while the biano and sax are in the background and, to be honest, a bit dull. On the phonoclone recording, the focus is switched completely, with really nice, lively reproduction of the sax and piano, but the bass notes and cymbal work are clearly softer and with less impact.
Listening to a few other recordings I had brought with me more-or-less comfirmed that the bass response was overall softer than the CD, the soundsatge narrower, and the treble a bit less insistant. While I felt that the instrumental tone was generally better on the LP recordings, it was undeniable that the original CDs had a wider, more solid stereo sound stage and considerably more controlled bass impact.
In hindsight I should have brought the 24/96 recordings and played them back through my netbook as the analog out of the computer (Realtek HDaudio chip) was even at 16/44 keeping up with the G08 to a surprising extent and the phonoclone at 24/96 might have convincingly beat out the Meridian on redbook CDs even on a generic audio codec. That would have been an interesting result... but was not to be this time.
Another aside: the phono stage in the Classe 47.5 preamp is a OP27 affair, two per channel, just like the phonoclone. Looks like LM7x15 regs are used, and it's surprisingly noisy, much more than the phonoclone. Doesn't sound that great either, gritty and closeted.
Overall I'm pretty pleased with the result, though it seeded in my head the idea that bass response of my analog rig could be improved. Whether that's related to the smallish filter caps in the phonoclone, the size or type of output coupling caps used, or the arm/turntable/cartridge I can't say at this point.
Just to add a coda to the above, after listening again to the LP at home through both speakers and headphones...
I've often said the phonoclone is silent at normal listening levels, i.e. there is no audible hiss. This is not quite true. If you listen at relatively high levels, and stick your ear very close to the speakers, you might make out some soft hiss.
The 16/44 recordings are surprisingly faithful to the source. The CDRs played through the G08 are essentially what I hear back at home, i.e. the limitations of the analog reproduction chain (LP-cartridge-TT-phonoclone) are indeed the things I pointed out above. Things I could never pick up before I did this comparison over multiple systems, though they become relatively easy to hear afterward.
To be honest I have doubts the phonoclone is the problem. My gut feeling is my tonearm is in need of an upgrade...
I've often said the phonoclone is silent at normal listening levels, i.e. there is no audible hiss. This is not quite true. If you listen at relatively high levels, and stick your ear very close to the speakers, you might make out some soft hiss.
The 16/44 recordings are surprisingly faithful to the source. The CDRs played through the G08 are essentially what I hear back at home, i.e. the limitations of the analog reproduction chain (LP-cartridge-TT-phonoclone) are indeed the things I pointed out above. Things I could never pick up before I did this comparison over multiple systems, though they become relatively easy to hear afterward.
To be honest I have doubts the phonoclone is the problem. My gut feeling is my tonearm is in need of an upgrade...
RJM,
Again a beautifull insight in the capabilities of the phoneclone. Thank you for that.
"...that the bass response was overall softer than the CD, the soundsatge narrower, and the treble a bit less insistant..." would make me think that you used the denon dl-103 to record this? More of your sound comments on your AD discs reflect my notion of the 103
If I' am right on that, it is the "limitations" of the cartridge making the difference. It is the nature of the Denon beast that you are describing.
Regards,
Michiel
Again a beautifull insight in the capabilities of the phoneclone. Thank you for that.
"...that the bass response was overall softer than the CD, the soundsatge narrower, and the treble a bit less insistant..." would make me think that you used the denon dl-103 to record this? More of your sound comments on your AD discs reflect my notion of the 103
If I' am right on that, it is the "limitations" of the cartridge making the difference. It is the nature of the Denon beast that you are describing.
Regards,
Michiel