TPA3116D2 Amp

Jump to Latest
I

impuls60

Member
Joined 2011
Blackbird84, I too got ripped off with the el' cheapo inductors. Besides that the routings looks good so I don't expect too much hiss. Let me know how if you encounter any problems with it. I am considering cutting the ground plane on it so the earth current doesn't go underneath pin 17( which might induce hiss).
 
L

Lo_Tse

Member
Joined 2006
blackbird84 said:
I got my tiny DC 12V 24V TPA3116 Digital Power Amplifier Board Mono 100W for Car Motorcycle | eBay today.

It is so small!
I didnt have time to test it properly, I just test if it works, and it does.
I can confirm that this board has a big pop when powered on and off, so I might need to use the mute/stand by function, if I figure it out.
The thing that I realy dont like about it is the minuscule power and speaker connections.
They are small and close toghether. I dont know how they let full specified current go through.
The inductors are not those pictured, they are much smaller.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to your comments on this board.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
C

cdsgames

Member
Joined 2015
our TPA3116 boards

Finally after so much work , we have finished the PCBs

Those amps will be used with a DAC (plug on top of DAC) and DAC itself its compatible/plugs on SBC (raspberry pi etc)

On the AMP itself , we have implemented everything...bootstrap snubber mod , anti -pop mod.

All components were carefully chosen..bootstrap capacitors are at 4mm from IC and we chose film instead of ceramics. It did make a diffrence

Everything in the audio path is thin film resistor 1% and film capacitors. Inductor is wurth . Gain was set at 20db. AM avoidance was set for EU


Testing... I took a 21v/5a (150mV ripple , some HF noise observed) and feed the AMP an analog source ( DAC Shiit Gunguir 2Vrms) . Speakers are Focal Chorus 5 (8Ohm)




Honestly , I was blown. Crystal clear . I had an old Technics V 670 and the result is at least as good..maybe better

Next stop..designing a PSU for the amp, based on LLC resonant
 

Attachments

  • Volt Top3.JPG
    Volt Top3.JPG
    720.7 KB · Views: 609
  • Volt Bot2.jpg
    Volt Bot2.jpg
    434.3 KB · Views: 589
marsupialx

marsupialx

Member
Joined 2004
Since we are talking about these trinket amps, what is the best (cheap, robust) 4" to 6" subwoofer drivers, do you think? A full-ranger and a sub in a little eva foam cabinet with little cross-overs consisting of (two dual opamps (or one quad opamp), a smattering of .1uF cog/npo caps and a sprinkling of 20K resistors.) Presto, an 80hz Sallen-Key, in da' box...60watts sub, 60watts full-range, paaaaaaarty!!!!
 
xrk971

xrk971

Founder of XSA-Labs
Joined 2012
etsy.com/shop/XRKAudio
Paid Member
marsupialx said:
Since we are talking about these trinket amps, what is the best (cheap, robust) 4" to 6" subwoofer drivers, do you think? A full-ranger and a sub in a little eva foam cabinet with little cross-overs consisting of (two dual opamps (or one quad opamp), a smattering of .1uF cog/npo caps and a sprinkling of 20K resistors.) Presto, an 80hz Sallen-Key, in da' box...60watts sub, 60watts full-range, paaaaaaarty!!!!
Click to expand...

Dr Mord actually has a PCB that does just this. :)

This flat sub driver looks real interesting - it's a 10in but that is what you need to balance a pair of 3in full range on top. 94dB sensitivity for $41.

With -6dB baffle step loss, you are at 88dB which matches many moderate sensitivity full range drivers.

https://www.parts-express.com/boss-d10f-phantom-10-flat-subwoofer--265-376

If you use a DVC sub, put 60w per coil for 120w - now that's a party!
 
Last edited:
xrk971

xrk971

Founder of XSA-Labs
Joined 2012
etsy.com/shop/XRKAudio
Paid Member
Although I am a little reluctant to believe a claim of a 94dB driver for $41. It might be marketing hyperbole. It is nice to have access to great prices for a lot of stuff in the US, despite most of it coming from China.

But on the other hand, the pdf spec sheet shows real TS numbers and recommends a 0.5 cu ft sealed box for f3 of 56Hz which is quite nice for a boom box application or as a sub for a FAST.
 
Last edited:
M

matt_garman

Member
Joined 2008
Paid Member
I'm sure the answer is buried somewhere in here (or one of the other numerous tpa311x threads), but hopefully somebody has this handy: what are the suggested LC (and R?) values for the output filter depending on speaker impedance?

GMARSH, what values were/are you using for the 4/8/16 ohm kits on your board?

Thanks!
 
B

Buehgemeiste

Member
Joined 2013
matt_garman said:
I'm sure the answer is buried somewhere in here (or one of the other numerous tpa311x threads), but hopefully somebody has this handy: what are the suggested LC (and R?) values for the output filter depending on speaker impedance?

GMARSH, what values were/are you using for the 4/8/16 ohm kits on your board?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

matt_garman said:
Yup, that's it. Using the calculator for the wrong circuit. I knew I was doing something silly. :)

Now that I think I know what I'm doing (you be the judge), I hacked up a little script to generate the following table. I spot-checked some of the entries against the (appropriate) Okawa calculator. Except for some small rounding error, I think this is correct. For every speaker value, I did four calculations:[list="1]
[*] The theoretical ideal LC filter, with target cutoff frequency (fc) of 44.1kHz and Q=0.707
[*] The "closest" approximation of the theoretical using commonly available L/C values
[*] Cutoff frequency and Q values for fixed C=680nF and L=10uF (stock YJBlue board, other PCBs as well)
[*] Fixed C=680nF and L=22uF (stock Ybdz Wiener board, common mod mentioned here)
[/list]

Note: at least my version of TapaTalk doesn't render the table at all... just comes out as a jumble of numbers. Boo.

border="1"
|-
| class="tcat" | SpkrImp
| class="tcat" | R_L
| class="tcat" | fc
| class="tcat" | C
| class="tcat" | L
| class="tcat" | Q
| class="tcat" | Damping
| class="tcat" | Notes
|-
| class="tcat" | Ohms
| class="tcat" | Ohms
| class="tcat" | Hz
| class="tcat" | F
| class="tcat" | H
|-
| 16
| 8.0
| 44.1k
| 319.0n
| 40.8u
| 0.707
| 0.707
| theoretical
|-
| 16
| 8.0
| 48.2k
| 330.0n
| 33.0u
| 0.800
| 0.625
| closest
|-
| 16
| 8.0
| 61.0k
| 680.0n
| 10.0u
| 2.086
| 0.240
| c=0.68uF/l=10uF
|-
| 16
| 8.0
| 41.1k
| 680.0n
| 22.0u
| 1.406
| 0.355
| c=0.68uF/l=22uF
|-
| 12
| 6.0
| 44.1k
| 425.3n
| 30.6u
| 0.707
| 0.707
| theoretical
|-
| 12
| 6.0
| 42.3k
| 430.0n
| 33.0u
| 0.685
| 0.730
| closest
|-
| 12
| 6.0
| 61.0k
| 680.0n
| 10.0u
| 1.565
| 0.320
| c=0.68uF/l=10uF
|-
| 12
| 6.0
| 41.1k
| 680.0n
| 22.0u
| 1.055
| 0.474
| c=0.68uF/l=22uF
|-
| 10
| 5.0
| 44.1k
| 510.4n
| 25.5u
| 0.707
| 0.707
| theoretical
|-
| 10
| 5.0
| 47.5k
| 510.0n
| 22.0u
| 0.761
| 0.657
| closest
|-
| 10
| 5.0
| 61.0k
| 680.0n
| 10.0u
| 1.304
| 0.383
| c=0.68uF/l=10uF
|-
| 10
| 5.0
| 41.1k
| 680.0n
| 22.0u
| 0.879
| 0.569
| c=0.68uF/l=22uF
|-
| 8
| 4.0
| 44.1k
| 638.0n
| 20.4u
| 0.707
| 0.707
| theoretical
|-
| 8
| 4.0
| 43.1k
| 620.0n
| 22.0u
| 0.671
| 0.745
| closest
|-
| 8
| 4.0
| 61.0k
| 680.0n
| 10.0u
| 1.043
| 0.479
| c=0.68uF/l=10uF
|-
| 8
| 4.0
| 41.1k
| 680.0n
| 22.0u
| 0.703
| 0.711
| c=0.68uF/l=22uF
|-
| 7
| 3.5
| 44.1k
| 729.1n
| 17.9u
| 0.707
| 0.707
| theoretical
|-
| 7
| 3.5
| 47.5k
| 750.0n
| 15.0u
| 0.783
| 0.639
| closest
|-
| 7
| 3.5
| 61.0k
| 680.0n
| 10.0u
| 0.913
| 0.548
| c=0.68uF/l=10uF
|-
| 7
| 3.5
| 41.1k
| 680.0n
| 22.0u
| 0.615
| 0.813
| c=0.68uF/l=22uF
|-
| 6
| 3.0
| 44.1k
| 850.6n
| 15.3u
| 0.707
| 0.707
| theoretical
|-
| 6
| 3.0
| 45.4k
| 820.0n
| 15.0u
| 0.701
| 0.713
| closest
|-
| 6
| 3.0
| 61.0k
| 680.0n
| 10.0u
| 0.782
| 0.639
| c=0.68uF/l=10uF
|-
| 6
| 3.0
| 41.1k
| 680.0n
| 22.0u
| 0.527
| 0.948
| c=0.68uF/l=22uF
|-
| 5
| 2.5
| 44.1k
| 1.0u
| 12.8u
| 0.707
| 0.707
| theoretical
|-
| 5
| 2.5
| 41.1k
| 1.0u
| 15.0u
| 0.645
| 0.775
| closest
|-
| 5
| 2.5
| 61.0k
| 680.0n
| 10.0u
| 0.652
| 0.767
| c=0.68uF/l=10uF
|-
| 5
| 2.5
| 41.1k
| 680.0n
| 22.0u
| 0.440
| 1.138
| c=0.68uF/l=22uF
|-
| 4
| 2.0
| 44.1k
| 1.3u
| 10.2u
| 0.707
| 0.707
| theoretical
|-
| 4
| 2.0
| 44.1k
| 1.3u
| 10.0u
| 0.721
| 0.693
| closest
|-
| 4
| 2.0
| 61.0k
| 680.0n
| 10.0u
| 0.522
| 0.959
| c=0.68uF/l=10uF
|-
| 4
| 2.0
| 41.1k
| 680.0n
| 22.0u
| 0.352
| 1.422
| c=0.68uF/l=22uF
|-
| 3
| 1.5
| 44.1k
| 1.7u
| 7.7u
| 0.707
| 0.707
| theoretical
|-
| 3
| 1.5
| 45.5k
| 1.8u
| 6.8u
| 0.772
| 0.648
| closest
|-
| 3
| 1.5
| 61.0k
| 680.0n
| 10.0u
| 0.391
| 1.278
| c=0.68uF/l=10uF
|-
| 3
| 1.5
| 41.1k
| 680.0n
| 22.0u
| 0.264
| 1.896
| c=0.68uF/l=22uF
|-
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
xrk971

xrk971

Founder of XSA-Labs
Joined 2012
etsy.com/shop/XRKAudio
Paid Member
xrk971 said:
Although I am a little reluctant to believe a claim of a 94dB driver for $41. It might be marketing hyperbole. It is nice to have access to great prices for a lot of stuff in the US, despite most of it coming from China.

But on the other hand, the pdf spec sheet shows real TS numbers and recommends a 0.5 cu ft sealed box for f3 of 56Hz which is quite nice for a boom box application or as a sub for a FAST.
Click to expand...

In case anyone is interested, I am following up on this driver.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/285614-boss-d10f-phantom-good-fast.html
 
xrk971

xrk971

Founder of XSA-Labs
Joined 2012
etsy.com/shop/XRKAudio
Paid Member
cdsgames said:
Finally after so much work , we have finished the PCBs

Those amps will be used with a DAC (plug on top of DAC) and DAC itself its compatible/plugs on SBC (raspberry pi etc)

On the AMP itself , we have implemented everything...bootstrap snubber mod , anti -pop mod.

All components were carefully chosen..bootstrap capacitors are at 4mm from IC and we chose film instead of ceramics. It did make a diffrence

Everything in the audio path is thin film resistor 1% and film capacitors. Inductor is wurth . Gain was set at 20db. AM avoidance was set for EU


Testing... I took a 21v/5a (150mV ripple , some HF noise observed) and feed the AMP an analog source ( DAC Shiit Gunguir 2Vrms) . Speakers are Focal Chorus 5 (8Ohm)




Honestly , I was blown. Crystal clear . I had an old Technics V 670 and the result is at least as good..maybe better

Next stop..designing a PSU for the amp, based on LLC resonant
Click to expand...

Very nice work.
Congratulations!
:cheers:
 
M

matt_garman

Member
Joined 2008
Paid Member
@Buehgemeiste,

Yes, that was indeed me that generated that table. But after it was originally posted, I never really got the sense that it was "accepted", for lack of better word... meaning, I took some formulas I found on the Internet and plugged them into a program to generate that table. But I lack the real experience to sanity check the numbers and confirm I applied the formulas correctly.

I also recall, in subsequent discussions throughout this and other tpa311x threads, different "ideal" values were proposed than the ones given in that table.

In short, I've seen a lot of information (some of it came from me in fact), but admittedly lack the knowledge/experience to make an informed decision about what's right.
 
J

Jerms

Member
Joined 2015
C

cdsgames

Member
Joined 2015
doctormord said:
Aha! What exactly? :confused:

Nice to see it got FCC approval, was it expensive?
Click to expand...

Hehe..funny.

Mmm...no I chose it by ear...to my ears they sound better. Nothing scientific about it.

Anyway we are thinking to release them with RCA inputs. Seems like lots of people are interested in a very good , not too expensive TPA3116.

Yeah we will go for FCC approval. We are making 1000 units run.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom