Another Jung (ALW) Supereg built – It sounds excellent

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
H

HiFiNutNut

Member
Joined 2004
#1
After two years since I was first interested in building a Jung Supereg, I have now finally built one.

Comparing to other regulators I tried, such as the LM317/337, a shunt regulator, a series emitter follower, etc, the Supereg is most obviously in the next class.

I spent quite some time looking for the “best” regulator for my line level XO/EQ (yet to be completed) circuit that uses up to 22 opamps in total for a pair of 4 way active loudspeakers (under the final stage of development). In the past a few months I started realising that the limiting factor of my system was the line level regulator.

Now on getting the satisfactory result from the Supereg, I could not help letting you guys know of this.

If you are looking for a good sounding regulator and don’t know which one to build, build this one – The Jung Supereg. I regret I did not build it earlier and wasted too much time on trying others.

Regards,
Bill
 
#2
I would be happy to purchase the ALW kits but I don’t have Paypal and I am in OZ so I got the schematic from this site: http://www.at-view.co.uk/alwsr.htm and referenced ALW’s PCB design, then used a veroboard to build one. I read the entire 3 part series (only 3 parts are available) articles from Jung’s site. The ALW’s schematic is basically identical to the 2000 version of the Jung’s Supereg, except perhaps only one component difference. So I would still call this the Jung’s Supereg.

I initially built it exactly as specified. I used AD825. I wired up a simple passive XO for the MTM part of my MTMWW-Sub speakers. The frequency response was not ideal but the speakers sounded quite reasonable with those reference grade drivers.

I built a single OPA627 buffer / preamp and used the Jung Supereg to supply the dual OPA627. No local bypass capacitors were used, as they were not necessary with the Jung Supereg. The source was an upgraded Marantz SA11 Super Audio CD player. The power amps were Randy Slone’s Optimos mono-blocks, which are truly remarkable in performance and accuracy.

Since there are electrolytic capacitors used (in the signal path) in the Supereg, some run-in is necessary. However, I believe they usually require a couple of hours to get at least 90% sound out of them.

Initial impression was that I could hear a lot more details comparing to other regs. However, it did not sound 100% right to me in my subjective experience. I can not describe the sound easily so I would give it a miss here.
 
Last edited:
#3
I would not dare to “modify” the Supereg, as it is really a perfected design. But I thought, without altering the design aspect of it, I could “implement” it better and hopefully got the sound that I liked.

First I was trying to see if a different Opamp would make any difference. I did not expect much difference if there were any, but the result was otherwise. I took the AD825 out and inserted the OPA627AP. To my ears the OPA627 sounded a lot better. I did this swap a couple of times and confirmed that I would choose the OPA627. This was confirmed again after other improvements were made, described below.

After listening to it for a few more days I still found something not quite right with the regulator. I started my suspicion on the electrolytic capacitors. From my previous experience of designing and playing with line level circuits and power amps, I found electrolytic capacitors, no matter how good they are, veiled the sound, comparing to good film capacitors.

I studied the schematic carefully. I believed that I could scale R7, C4, R8, R9, C7 so that I could use film capacitors.

In the schematic, R7 is 499R. Obviously low input impedance was considered in the design to minimize noise. Given that if there is no radio frequency interference, I felt comfortable to scale it up because the extremely low bias currents of the OPA627 would permit using larger values with little noise problem. I had some high quality 1.1uF MKP, so C4=C7=1.1uF, replacing the Rubycon ZA 100uF/25V, for +/-15 VDC, I made R7=22k, R8=47.47k and R9=41k.

This made a large difference. Not only details and resolutions were enhanced, the sound started sounding right to me.
 
Last edited:
#4
I gave it a listen for a few more days. I sounded quite good but I thought it was still not 100%. I was then thinking about how to replace the last remaining electrolytic capacitor in the signal path – C2 Rubycon ZA 100uF/25V. I re-read Jung’s article and noticed that this capacitor was a late add-on in the 2000 version and Jung said that it was not really necessary. Above 1kHz the capacitor had a lower impedance than the zener. But I thought without this capacitor the impedance of the Supereg was already very low! I guessed the use of the capacitor there is to reduce the noise of the zener, but I should see if I preferred the lowered noise with the colouration of an electrolytic capacitor or higher noise without the colouration.

So I removed C2. There were no longer any electrolytic capacitors used after the Supereg except the output capacitor. I could not hear more noise. I was very sure that I am not going back with C2.

The regulator now sounds excellent!!!
 
#5
I have also played with different output capacitors, from 10uF to 100uF, from ESR as low as 0.13 to as high as 1R, and sometimes padded with 0.5-1R resistance to increase the "ESR", with different brands - Elna garden variety, Nichicon Gold, Panasonic FC and Rubycon ZL. I could hear the different signatures of the caps, but no so dramatic as the changes described in above. They make only a small difference. I will further play with this when my line level XO/EQ is done.
 
#6
Now the question:

With the removal of C2, how much higher is the impedance of the regulator output?

The reg is driving a dual opamp at the moment so the impedance is slightly less important. When it starts to drive my real circuit with 22 opamps, the low impedance will become very important.
 
#7
I think I will ditch the cramping diodes and I guess it will sound better still! The OPA627 has a differential common mode input of +/-11VDC, same as the original AD797, so I guess the diodes can go.

I guess the diodes must degrade the sound. The leakage current they created is a theorectical 1000 times larger than the input bias current of the opa627!
 
#9
ikoflexer,

A no-name shunt reg that possibly copied from some older Mark Levinson circuit. I once showed it to J. R who is the agent for Allen Wright's Supereg (shunt) and built hundreds of them. He told me the circuit is simular to his.

I am happy to build another shunt reg. I have been spending my time doing my active 4 way open baffle loudspeakers and have not checked the PSU forum. I have just learnt that you and Salas have a good shunt regulator.

Please point to me which shunt reg I should consider building. It will be used to drive about 22 opamps (opa627 + lm4562) with +/-15VDC rails.

Regards,
Bill
 
#12
HiFiNutNut said:
I think I will ditch the cramping diodes and I guess it will sound better still! The OPA627 has a differential common mode input of +/-11VDC, same as the original AD797, so I guess the diodes can go
Click to expand...
This is not the case. What happens if the opamp suddenly have zero supply voltage (if the output is shorted) and you have -6 to -12 volts at the output? The parameter you should look for here is how the opamp handles to have the inputs above or below the supply voltage.
 
#13
HiFiNutNut said:
Now the question:

With the removal of C2, how much higher is the impedance of the regulator output?

The reg is driving a dual opamp at the moment so the impedance is slightly less important. When it starts to drive my real circuit with 22 opamps, the low impedance will become very important.
Click to expand...
Notice though that you must have very short wires in order to achieve low output impedance at high frequences since the wire has 1 nH per mm times 2. The regulator can have microohms out but at 1 MHz and 200 mm wire you will suddenly have 1.2 ohms from the wires!
 
#15
Sound wise most people seem to prefer a shunt reg, hence my surprise. But when it comes to subjective experience, there is no point in arguing, what's important is that you got results that you like.

BTW, I didn't mean to suggest you build yet another shunt reg, but if you are open to a suggestion, then I'd say follow this link

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143693

The salas v1 regulator has been built by many people and they liked it, myself included (I prefer it to the Jung super reg). The thread is quite long, and some of it deals with efforts to improve on the basic v1. If you indeed are interested in trying it out, all you'd need is to post the specs that you want (expected load current, target voltage, etc.) There are a number of people readily available to help anyone who wants to build it.

HiFiNutNut said:
ikoflexer,
I am happy to build another shunt reg. I have been spending my time doing my active 4 way open baffle loudspeakers and have not checked the PSU forum. I have just learnt that you and Salas have a good shunt regulator.

Please point to me which shunt reg I should consider building. It will be used to drive about 22 opamps (opa627 + lm4562) with +/-15VDC rails.

Regards,
Bill
Click to expand...
 
#16
Peranders,

I have not removed the diodes yet but I am planning to do so. The following is from the OPA627 datasheet:

The inputs of the OPA627/637 are protected for voltages between +VS + 2V and –VS – 2V. If the input voltage can exceed these limits, the amplifier should be protected. The diode clamps shown in Figure 7a will prevent the input voltage from exceeding one forward diode voltage drop beyond the power supplies—well within the safe limits.
......
Leakage current in the protection diodes can increase the total input bias current of the circuit. The specified maximum leakage current for commonly used diodes such as the 1N4148 is approximately 25nA—more than a thousand times larger than the input bias current of the OPA627/637. Leakage current of these diodes is typically much lower and
may be adequate in many applications. Light falling on the junction of the protection diodes can dramatically increase leakage current, so common glass-packaged diodes should be shielded from ambient light.
Click to expand...

So I take it as there is no need to have protection diodes, as in the SR the input is unlikely to exceed the rail voltage. Since we have the pre-regulator, there should be no problem even when the circuit is powered on or off.

Removing the diodes may reduce the leakage currents substantially. But in my case I use dot-matrix veroboard so the leakage current may still much higher than the input bias current of the OPA627.

From your boards it looks like you bypass all of your electrolytic capacitors with film capacitors. It is a good idea in this case. I have gone further replacing them, as the larger resistance does not affect noise much in the case of OPA627.

Regards,
Bill
 
#19
peranders said:
This is not the case. What happens if the opamp suddenly have zero supply voltage (if the output is shorted) and you have -6 to -12 volts at the output? The parameter you should look for here is how the opamp handles to have the inputs above or below the supply voltage.
Click to expand...

Good point. Let me think of it. If the output at 0 volt, how can the input has -8 to -12 volts? Normally it would not unless the output is shorted. The capacitors at the inputs may be charged to those voltages. For a 100uF/25V electrolytic capacitor, the storage may be large. For my 1.1uF MKP, it would discharge quickly. Not sure if it would cause damage though.

Yes, I can see that without the diodes, it could cause damage if the output is shorted. But shorting the output can be avoided, when I install the SR into the final circuit. I will see if removing the diodes will provide any sonic benefits. If not, they will stay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom