I think there is a confusion.
In your schematic of the center, instead of disconnecting the 10 nF capacitor, you have replaced it with a wire jumper.
That is why you verify similar o near performance to that of the basic scheme given by the manufacturer (with Cadj.).
Last edited:
I've tried it now with LM317 and it is not stable. I checked with the multimeter and wonders between set voltage and lower voltage.
Hi folks, I would just like to remind you of a little fact which you probably already know.
SOME "product lines" of electrolytic capacitors, do include ESR (occasionally called "impedance") right on the datasheet. The ones which I am most interested in, might or might not be the ones which YOU are most interested in. I myself am very happy that the electrolytic capacitors listed below, *do* include ESR specifications on the datasheet. Hope it helps!
1. Panasonic "FR" series of electrolytic capacitors: datasheet
2. Nichicon "UHD" series of electrolytic capacitors: datasheet
3. Panasonic "FM" series of electrolytic capacitors: datasheet
SOME "product lines" of electrolytic capacitors, do include ESR (occasionally called "impedance") right on the datasheet. The ones which I am most interested in, might or might not be the ones which YOU are most interested in. I myself am very happy that the electrolytic capacitors listed below, *do* include ESR specifications on the datasheet. Hope it helps!
1. Panasonic "FR" series of electrolytic capacitors: datasheet
2. Nichicon "UHD" series of electrolytic capacitors: datasheet
3. Panasonic "FM" series of electrolytic capacitors: datasheet
A kindly request could threadstarter or someone else make an index for all the versions and measurents it is not easy to hang on anymore sorry to say.
Short story is that both denoiser and dienoiser work with LM3x7/LM78xx/LM79xx/LT1084/5/LM338/1117 regulators with the mention that dienoiser needs an application particular compensation network.
I also encourage anyone else to try and measure any of the circuits to get some confirmations on my measurements.
I also encourage anyone else to try and measure any of the circuits to get some confirmations on my measurements.
I totally agree
I'm lost with each version .. and I think most people also are
What are we speaking about ? A big melting pot, working ? not working ? any conclusion ?
Pictures size larger than the screen add the trouble 😀
Ah I take screenshots and I should maybe resize them in the future.
As I said the short of it is that denoiser and dienoiser works with most lm3x7 compatible regulators and common fixed voltage ones. For the measurements we should get at least some confirmations from someone else before taking them as truth. Maybe I did something wrong etc.
If you are into building new LM3x7 based power supplies why don't you try Keantoken's K-multiplier (The K Multiplier). You can add it to either side of the LM3x7 and it sure beats the hell out of regular denoiser in simulations. I have not tried it with LM3x7 but I'm using the HV-version with couple of my tube amps. AFAIK K-multiplier requires a minimum load of 25mA.
Attachments
K-multiplier is not a voltage regulator so the output impedance is not ultra low. If you put K-multiplier after the LM3x7 the output impedance is around 40mOhm. If the K-multiplier is before the LM3x7 then output impedance is similar to that of LM3x7. See Keantoken's site or the thread on this site (https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/power-supplies/177516-keantokens-cfp-cap-multiplier.html) for more info.
And if you really want to go overboard you can put a K-multiplier in front of your LM3x7 with denoiser. K-multiplier can be built and used as an add-on in the same way as denoiser. In this way the output impedance is that of denoiser's. However I have strong doubts about the stability of this setup.
Last edited:
Could the K multiplier be used after LM317 to improve the sound quality sometimes called dull and not optimal high end sounding device?
Hard to say since dull can be mean many things. However LM317 does not do well above 20kHz which may be one of the causes. Adding K-multiplier would probably improve the performance in this respect.
A few things to keep in mind with a cap-multiplier:
-It will always improve the PSRR, certainly compared to denoiser, and probably compared to a die- or nonoiser.
The nonoiser has a measured PSRR of 125dB, and a simulated one of 140dB.
To know how a cap-mult + 317 would fare in reality, you would need to measure it in reality.
-If the Cmult is placed upstream of the 317, it will leave the output impedance intact (but won't improve it), and it will do nothing to reduce the (relatively substantial) inherent noise of the 317, which will make the 160dB performance irrelevant, since the wideband noise will be enormously larger.
-If the Cmult is placed downstream of the 317, it will reduce its noise, but not as much as a no- or die-noiser. It will also make the output impedance much larger and heavily load-dependent.
The static load-regulation and temperature stability will also be degraded.
In all cases, the Cmult will eat up a few additional volts.
A Cmult requires two additional transistors, of which one is a power type.
The denoiser only requires a single signal transistor, and the die/nonoisers two.
All the Xnoiser versions always improve all the parameters at the same time: PSRR, output impedance and wideband noise: no tradeoffs.
To summarize, you should only opt for a Cmult if you are obsessed by PSRR, and in this case it has to be placed downstream
-It will always improve the PSRR, certainly compared to denoiser, and probably compared to a die- or nonoiser.
The nonoiser has a measured PSRR of 125dB, and a simulated one of 140dB.
To know how a cap-mult + 317 would fare in reality, you would need to measure it in reality.
-If the Cmult is placed upstream of the 317, it will leave the output impedance intact (but won't improve it), and it will do nothing to reduce the (relatively substantial) inherent noise of the 317, which will make the 160dB performance irrelevant, since the wideband noise will be enormously larger.
-If the Cmult is placed downstream of the 317, it will reduce its noise, but not as much as a no- or die-noiser. It will also make the output impedance much larger and heavily load-dependent.
The static load-regulation and temperature stability will also be degraded.
In all cases, the Cmult will eat up a few additional volts.
A Cmult requires two additional transistors, of which one is a power type.
The denoiser only requires a single signal transistor, and the die/nonoisers two.
All the Xnoiser versions always improve all the parameters at the same time: PSRR, output impedance and wideband noise: no tradeoffs.
To summarize, you should only opt for a Cmult if you are obsessed by PSRR, and in this case it has to be placed downstream