Hi Gertjan:
It is just a fact that I am a bit of monomaniac with demonstrating the falseness of super-E cap arrangement.
(if one can't demostrate it, one has to accept it)
You fear of added inductance with paralleling, they claim cancelation of it! (safe lead inductance) 😱
Another, very cheap, tweak that worked for me, by ear, is putting a copper foil around Ecaps. Again, no chance to discard effect due to lack of intruments. Some say it could work by buffering vibrational energy or RF shielding, some say it's effect could be related to:
(jneutron's post on "copper foil around electrolityc capacitors" thread)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #17
The copper foil creates eddy currents as a result of magnetic fields produced by the capacitor foils. The resultant solenoidal field is mirrored by the copper foil. As any magnet physicist knows, if you create a mirror over a magnetic construct, you reduce it's inductance.
To test if this is what they are doing, the capacitance of the lytic has to be tested out to 20 Khz. If the foil makes a difference, it will reduce the dielectric starving which is caused by the eddy current induced skinning which occurs axially along the capacitor.
If they connected to both foils at the inner end of the foils, the copper will make no difference, there will be no skinning or solenoidal field..if they spaced the connections to match the lytic external connection spacing, that will cause non cancellation of magnetic field.
Check out the dc to 20Khz capacitance curve for large lytics..some of them drop down to half the capacitance...ever wonder why??
Cheers, John
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I couldn't have said it better!
Hey, I'm trying to have a scientific approach to these esotheric (BG's super-E cap and copper foil) fenomena, but noone is willing to try them or denie their presence beforehand. 😡
I want to know if I'm getting mad already or what 😀
(I put teflon foil under Ecaps sometimes :eek)
Gratefuly yours...🙂
Mauricio
Sorry, did you notice the conditional use of IF ?
It is just a fact that I am a bit of monomaniac with demonstrating the falseness of super-E cap arrangement.
(if one can't demostrate it, one has to accept it)
You fear of added inductance with paralleling, they claim cancelation of it! (safe lead inductance) 😱
Another, very cheap, tweak that worked for me, by ear, is putting a copper foil around Ecaps. Again, no chance to discard effect due to lack of intruments. Some say it could work by buffering vibrational energy or RF shielding, some say it's effect could be related to:
(jneutron's post on "copper foil around electrolityc capacitors" thread)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #17
The copper foil creates eddy currents as a result of magnetic fields produced by the capacitor foils. The resultant solenoidal field is mirrored by the copper foil. As any magnet physicist knows, if you create a mirror over a magnetic construct, you reduce it's inductance.
To test if this is what they are doing, the capacitance of the lytic has to be tested out to 20 Khz. If the foil makes a difference, it will reduce the dielectric starving which is caused by the eddy current induced skinning which occurs axially along the capacitor.
If they connected to both foils at the inner end of the foils, the copper will make no difference, there will be no skinning or solenoidal field..if they spaced the connections to match the lytic external connection spacing, that will cause non cancellation of magnetic field.
Check out the dc to 20Khz capacitance curve for large lytics..some of them drop down to half the capacitance...ever wonder why??
Cheers, John
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I couldn't have said it better!
Hey, I'm trying to have a scientific approach to these esotheric (BG's super-E cap and copper foil) fenomena, but noone is willing to try them or denie their presence beforehand. 😡
I want to know if I'm getting mad already or what 😀
(I put teflon foil under Ecaps sometimes :eek)
Gratefuly yours...🙂
Mauricio
Re: Cap question
Roger,
I agree adding a smaller cap across the main bypass may be bad, but my scope tells me that the UcD's do an excellent job of keeping the HF hash on the board. Note the 6 ferrites on the board decoupling the V+/- inputs from the on board bypass caps.
Mike
sx881663 said:
Roger,
I agree adding a smaller cap across the main bypass may be bad, but my scope tells me that the UcD's do an excellent job of keeping the HF hash on the board. Note the 6 ferrites on the board decoupling the V+/- inputs from the on board bypass caps.
Mike
I'd like to build a main psu board which also has onboard low voltage regulation for the AD8620's, any idea's what would work well with the UCD's?
Something like dual rectifiers,single or dual caps on each rail for the HT.
7812/7912 or LM317/337 for reg supply
I've got Sprint layout on the pc, If we could come up with a nice board we could always post it on the thread so anybody can etch it
Each of my Holden and Fisher torroidals have 2 x 0-30 HT secondarys and 1 x 15-0-15 LT secondarys, would the centre tapped secondary be good enough to supply a +/- regulation stage for the AD8620 or would 2 x 0-15 be better?
Something like dual rectifiers,single or dual caps on each rail for the HT.
7812/7912 or LM317/337 for reg supply
I've got Sprint layout on the pc, If we could come up with a nice board we could always post it on the thread so anybody can etch it
Each of my Holden and Fisher torroidals have 2 x 0-30 HT secondarys and 1 x 15-0-15 LT secondarys, would the centre tapped secondary be good enough to supply a +/- regulation stage for the AD8620 or would 2 x 0-15 be better?
Front end power question
T,
Your Idea sounds workable on the surface as using the lesser voltage windings would reduce the wasted power and lower the temperature of the regulators a lot. The problem is that you have to use the same grounds as the rails supplies use with all the switching noise on them. That means this noise will be on top of the lower raw voltage and will require a lot more work on the regulators to get rid of it. You will have to run a separate ground reference from the main amp board back to the regulators for their ground reference so this ground will be free from the high current noise. I see many problems trying to get this to work really well.
The best solution would be an entirely separate supply so there is no grounding problem to begin with. One of the little potted toroid transformers available from Digikey would be a good place to start. Myself I would use a SMPS so that noise due to any transformer coupling from primary to secondary is eliminated and most all line noise is gone. The HF noise from the power supply is most all above the audio band and can be dealt with fairly easily.
Roger
T,
Your Idea sounds workable on the surface as using the lesser voltage windings would reduce the wasted power and lower the temperature of the regulators a lot. The problem is that you have to use the same grounds as the rails supplies use with all the switching noise on them. That means this noise will be on top of the lower raw voltage and will require a lot more work on the regulators to get rid of it. You will have to run a separate ground reference from the main amp board back to the regulators for their ground reference so this ground will be free from the high current noise. I see many problems trying to get this to work really well.
The best solution would be an entirely separate supply so there is no grounding problem to begin with. One of the little potted toroid transformers available from Digikey would be a good place to start. Myself I would use a SMPS so that noise due to any transformer coupling from primary to secondary is eliminated and most all line noise is gone. The HF noise from the power supply is most all above the audio band and can be dealt with fairly easily.
Roger
Re: Front end power question
Thank you Roger🙂
I do have a pair of Skynet 8080 smps I got from here http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/nuukspot/decdun/gainclonesmps.html they worked really well powering the little Amp3
It would have been nice to get everything on a pcb to save space but if the smps would be the better solution I'll give it a try.
Do you still use your UCD's Roger or have you moved to something else?
ATB!
Leo
sx881663 said:
Thank you Roger🙂
I do have a pair of Skynet 8080 smps I got from here http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/nuukspot/decdun/gainclonesmps.html they worked really well powering the little Amp3
It would have been nice to get everything on a pcb to save space but if the smps would be the better solution I'll give it a try.
Do you still use your UCD's Roger or have you moved to something else?
ATB!
Leo
UcD usage
T,
The upgraded UcD's are the heart of our system. Used them at CES and received many complements along with a lot of praise on the natural sound we were getting. I will continue to work on improving them as time permits.
I have another pair of amps almost completed. These will have the new Auricaps on them so I will be able to do a direct comparison on them with the standard type auricap.
Roger
T,
The upgraded UcD's are the heart of our system. Used them at CES and received many complements along with a lot of praise on the natural sound we were getting. I will continue to work on improving them as time permits.
I have another pair of amps almost completed. These will have the new Auricaps on them so I will be able to do a direct comparison on them with the standard type auricap.
Roger
Rev 1.1 board parts location
I replaced the main PSU caps on my UCD400s with Panasonic FC 680uF and noticed a sonic change. Less top end with more bass.
Next is a shootout between an Evox 0.68uF filter cap and ghemink's
"double-WIMA" installation. Are these WIMA's the FKP series?
My problem is that I still own Rev 1.1 UCD400 boards.
Anyone knows the exact location of the AC coupling caps?
Are these the 22uF/50V ones near the regulators?
By the way, has anyone found out what mods were done
on Channel Island's D100/200? Did Dusty actually DC-couple
the thing?
Regards,
Mike
I replaced the main PSU caps on my UCD400s with Panasonic FC 680uF and noticed a sonic change. Less top end with more bass.
Next is a shootout between an Evox 0.68uF filter cap and ghemink's
"double-WIMA" installation. Are these WIMA's the FKP series?
My problem is that I still own Rev 1.1 UCD400 boards.
Anyone knows the exact location of the AC coupling caps?
Are these the 22uF/50V ones near the regulators?
By the way, has anyone found out what mods were done
on Channel Island's D100/200? Did Dusty actually DC-couple
the thing?
Regards,
Mike
Re: Rev 1.1 board parts location
Hi there. Yep, Pana FC sounds like that with the stock filter cap 🙂 ghemink used WIMA 0.33uf MKP2 series, FKP is no good for audio IMO; the AC coupling caps are situated near the vertical board. The ones near the 2 reg trannies are filtering the +-12V supplies for the opamp. Stock OPA2134 should be safe to DC couple, AD8620 is for sure.
What EVOX 0.68uf are we talking about? 🙂
mlihl said:
Hi there. Yep, Pana FC sounds like that with the stock filter cap 🙂 ghemink used WIMA 0.33uf MKP2 series, FKP is no good for audio IMO; the AC coupling caps are situated near the vertical board. The ones near the 2 reg trannies are filtering the +-12V supplies for the opamp. Stock OPA2134 should be safe to DC couple, AD8620 is for sure.
What EVOX 0.68uf are we talking about? 🙂
Re: Rev 1.1 board parts location
I have tried 4 different caps so far and the MKP WIMAs are hands down my favorite. Try bypassing them with a .01 WIMA. Seems to smooth things out a little more. Currently I am useing a .22 with a .33ufd which I think I prefer to the two .33's. But I am still tweaking. I aslo found that I like the 470 ufd Panasonic FC better then the 680 ufd with the WIMA caps.
mlihl said:
I have tried 4 different caps so far and the MKP WIMAs are hands down my favorite. Try bypassing them with a .01 WIMA. Seems to smooth things out a little more. Currently I am useing a .22 with a .33ufd which I think I prefer to the two .33's. But I am still tweaking. I aslo found that I like the 470 ufd Panasonic FC better then the 680 ufd with the WIMA caps.
Re: Re: Rev 1.1 board parts location
Hi,
It'd really be best if you took the trouble to say why you liked a certain change better, for instance how did the 470uF FC differ from the 680uF FC? Otherwise it is of no help.
I'm just guessing, (and hoping), a bit more peaked in the highs and possibly faster overall?
That would be desirable, but I'm just guessing, you have to tell me these things.
Secondly please follow that up with how it affected the bass as opposed to the 680uF. It dropped yes? But how much??
Also bypassing the output with a second higher valued cap may not be the best idea, you'll be peaking the response at some high self resonant frequency. Likely doing more harm than good.
Thanks,
Chris
Mike2 said:
Hi,
It'd really be best if you took the trouble to say why you liked a certain change better, for instance how did the 470uF FC differ from the 680uF FC? Otherwise it is of no help.
I'm just guessing, (and hoping), a bit more peaked in the highs and possibly faster overall?
That would be desirable, but I'm just guessing, you have to tell me these things.
Secondly please follow that up with how it affected the bass as opposed to the 680uF. It dropped yes? But how much??
Also bypassing the output with a second higher valued cap may not be the best idea, you'll be peaking the response at some high self resonant frequency. Likely doing more harm than good.
Thanks,
Chris
I agree with the above, it does help if we can explain the sort of changes we get, personally I don't like the smoothing out effect, I feel it makes things sound artificial, to me me anyway🙂
Its really hard to get the right balance
Glad to hear the UCD's are still your reference Roger, I've tried the 0.68uf Auricaps but couldn't get on with them to be honest, maybe theres other things on my UCD's that need to be improved to get better results with the Auricaps, hopefully those newer smaller ones are going to be worth that extra cost
My UCD180 is sounding quite good but currently its not my favourite amp yet, hopefully after some more tweaking it will be🙂
Its really hard to get the right balance
Glad to hear the UCD's are still your reference Roger, I've tried the 0.68uf Auricaps but couldn't get on with them to be honest, maybe theres other things on my UCD's that need to be improved to get better results with the Auricaps, hopefully those newer smaller ones are going to be worth that extra cost
My UCD180 is sounding quite good but currently its not my favourite amp yet, hopefully after some more tweaking it will be🙂
t. said:
You mean to say hopefully they sound nice... there's no way in hell they're worth that price.
Cap question
Chris,
I agree unless they are a great deal better why bother. I haven't listened to them yet but will be soon. Audience has always tried to give good value in its products and that isn't about to change.
Roger
Chris,
I agree unless they are a great deal better why bother. I haven't listened to them yet but will be soon. Audience has always tried to give good value in its products and that isn't about to change.
Roger
Re: Re: Rev 1.1 board parts location
Nice to hear that what measures better also sounds better (the MKP2 caps measure really nice).
Gertjan
Mike2 said:
Nice to hear that what measures better also sounds better (the MKP2 caps measure really nice).
Gertjan
maxlorenz said:Hi Gertjan:
Sorry, did you notice the conditional use of IF ?
It is just a fact that I am a bit of monomaniac with demonstrating the falseness of super-E cap arrangement.
(if one can't demostrate it, one has to accept it)
You fear of added inductance with paralleling, they claim cancelation of it! (safe lead inductance) 😱
Another, very cheap, tweak that worked for me, by ear, is putting a copper foil around Ecaps. Again, no chance to discard effect due to lack of intruments. Some say it could work by buffering vibrational energy or RF shielding, some say it's effect could be related to:
(jneutron's post on "copper foil around electrolityc capacitors" thread)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #17
The copper foil creates eddy currents as a result of magnetic fields produced by the capacitor foils. The resultant solenoidal field is mirrored by the copper foil. As any magnet physicist knows, if you create a mirror over a magnetic construct, you reduce it's inductance.
To test if this is what they are doing, the capacitance of the lytic has to be tested out to 20 Khz. If the foil makes a difference, it will reduce the dielectric starving which is caused by the eddy current induced skinning which occurs axially along the capacitor.
If they connected to both foils at the inner end of the foils, the copper will make no difference, there will be no skinning or solenoidal field..if they spaced the connections to match the lytic external connection spacing, that will cause non cancellation of magnetic field.
Check out the dc to 20Khz capacitance curve for large lytics..some of them drop down to half the capacitance...ever wonder why??
Cheers, John
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I couldn't have said it better!
Hey, I'm trying to have a scientific approach to these esotheric (BG's super-E cap and copper foil) fenomena, but noone is willing to try them or denie their presence beforehand. 😡
I want to know if I'm getting mad already or what 😀
(I put teflon foil under Ecaps sometimes :eek)
Gratefuly yours...🙂
Mauricio
I want to place those caps as close to the PCB as possible to reduce wiring inductance. These caps really see current/voltage spikes (see my scope pictures a couple of posts earlier) so making an E-cap type of setup does not fit on the board. That's why I want to mount one on the top and one on the bottom of the PCB. In this way they are mounted in the opposite direction, this should reduce the parasitic inductance and series resistance. Could try it with the FCs as well.
About the copper foil trick, are there any measurements results somewhere that indicate it works?
Gertjan
Dear Gertjan:
AFAIK, only on axial caps, not in radial ones, that's why I ask the "technically able" crowd.
Common, this will cost 30cents...
I developped a self technique for an auto-locking copper foil 😎
Couldn't they be placed at the bottom?
This for UCD400, wright?
Could you tell me wich value is good for the UCD180?
I don't reach to see the filter cap's value.
I'm beginnig to find the guts to start the mods 😉
Thanks
Mauricio
AFAIK, only on axial caps, not in radial ones, that's why I ask the "technically able" crowd.
Common, this will cost 30cents...
I developped a self technique for an auto-locking copper foil 😎
Couldn't they be placed at the bottom?
This for UCD400, wright?
Could you tell me wich value is good for the UCD180?
I don't reach to see the filter cap's value.
I'm beginnig to find the guts to start the mods 😉
Thanks
Mauricio
UcD 180 filter cap - 680nf, same as on the UcD 400.
On a related note, just tried adding another pair of Pana FC 680uf under the PCB on my 400's. Could be just my brain playing playing tricks or the bass seems improved 🙂
On a related note, just tried adding another pair of Pana FC 680uf under the PCB on my 400's. Could be just my brain playing playing tricks or the bass seems improved 🙂
Please, please
Mauricio, Gertjan,
I tried my best to stay silent up to now, but I just can't stand any more..
First of all, I have to press on it: I find Mauricio a very good person, amusing, a real romantic mind of the south.. with a strong sense for the Magical Realism which is dripping from the pages of Garcia Marquez, and which makes it to be such a magnific read..
But seemingly he has a real aversion for the grey facts of reality. 🙂
I would strongly suggest to everybody getting interested in these last posts, to go and read carefully that thread quoted by Mauricio earlier on here, that thread IS full of measurements and reality.
[And brilliant ideas from Jneutron]
In an other thread I also gave him this link to the "E-cap" tests conducted earlier on:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=556515#post556515
To illustrate what I mean under "magical realism", let's have a look at when Mauricio says:
That means that I tried my best to show why it's a good idea; why the theory is valid behind it; and why it does not work for radial caps in the practice. (But works beautifully in case of axial caps)
Now, these results were obviously not satisfying for the Magical Realism of Mauricio, that is why he pushes until somebody FINALLY will demonstrate that it works always ...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=736516#post736516
Similar, and the same time different with BG-s and Super E config:
With a lot of work I had shown why is it a total fake, false, marketing BS with the clear intention of duplicating sales - but I did not do those tests with BG caps, so for him these tests are non existent, and so continues on to push until FINALLY somebody verifies the fartse claims of BG... which are obviously subject to physics especially written for them.
So, I don't want to convince here Mauricio to give up his magical realistic sense, because we need that to add colour to our grey everydays. But would like to ask everybody else to give a quick look also at the facts..
Ciao, George
Ps.: And "Brasil" is the greatest movie ever done..
Mauricio, Gertjan,
I tried my best to stay silent up to now, but I just can't stand any more..
First of all, I have to press on it: I find Mauricio a very good person, amusing, a real romantic mind of the south.. with a strong sense for the Magical Realism which is dripping from the pages of Garcia Marquez, and which makes it to be such a magnific read..
But seemingly he has a real aversion for the grey facts of reality. 🙂
I would strongly suggest to everybody getting interested in these last posts, to go and read carefully that thread quoted by Mauricio earlier on here, that thread IS full of measurements and reality.
[And brilliant ideas from Jneutron]
In an other thread I also gave him this link to the "E-cap" tests conducted earlier on:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=556515#post556515
To illustrate what I mean under "magical realism", let's have a look at when Mauricio says:
That means that I tried my best to show why it's a good idea; why the theory is valid behind it; and why it does not work for radial caps in the practice. (But works beautifully in case of axial caps)
Now, these results were obviously not satisfying for the Magical Realism of Mauricio, that is why he pushes until somebody FINALLY will demonstrate that it works always ...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=736516#post736516
Similar, and the same time different with BG-s and Super E config:
With a lot of work I had shown why is it a total fake, false, marketing BS with the clear intention of duplicating sales - but I did not do those tests with BG caps, so for him these tests are non existent, and so continues on to push until FINALLY somebody verifies the fartse claims of BG... which are obviously subject to physics especially written for them.
So, I don't want to convince here Mauricio to give up his magical realistic sense, because we need that to add colour to our grey everydays. But would like to ask everybody else to give a quick look also at the facts..
Ciao, George
Ps.: And "Brasil" is the greatest movie ever done..
I've enjoyed reading a lot of your test results George for various things and the graphs are great, thank you for sharing them🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.