George, Mauricio,
Maybe I misunderstood a few things but there's never going to be convincing proof that any particular circuit config. works 100% of the time.
E-cap is not so much a marketing scheme if you look at it simply as a pre existing diy non polar electrolytic. However in the sense they use it I totally agree it's a scam. You're not going to get lower ESR, and you're not going to get lower ESL. You will gain the black gate sound, and possibly more of it with two caps as opposed to one, it may not be a beneficial addition to the given circuit.
Mauricio if you do some research around the forum about the sound of black gates you'll find some extremely interesting controversial opinions repeated several times over by different people and in different ways that tend to sum up to mean "it depends".
You've heard people including Bruno say "a blanket BG treatement is rarely a good thing"?
If you like the BG sound and find a certain characteristic lacking in your circuit and you feel the BG sound can help fill that certain gap, than perhaps a super E cap on the input would be OK, just to get that BG sound in there, or perhaps use them in the bulk cap stage instead. If it sounds good already the additional BG cap sound may not be welcome.. it depends!
Otherwise the odds are rather good that a good film cap on the input will almost always be better, and certainly no cap is better yet, given the conditions are such that you can get away with it.
From what I've read of the foil thing the same holds true. Personally I'd rather opt for the solution of having a cap that's properly designed and so doesnt' benefit from the additional foil.
I suppose it's good to be a romantic, but there's no place for it in audio unless you like being ripped off. There's no place for it in physics or circuit design.
Regards,
Chris
Maybe I misunderstood a few things but there's never going to be convincing proof that any particular circuit config. works 100% of the time.
E-cap is not so much a marketing scheme if you look at it simply as a pre existing diy non polar electrolytic. However in the sense they use it I totally agree it's a scam. You're not going to get lower ESR, and you're not going to get lower ESL. You will gain the black gate sound, and possibly more of it with two caps as opposed to one, it may not be a beneficial addition to the given circuit.
Mauricio if you do some research around the forum about the sound of black gates you'll find some extremely interesting controversial opinions repeated several times over by different people and in different ways that tend to sum up to mean "it depends".
You've heard people including Bruno say "a blanket BG treatement is rarely a good thing"?
If you like the BG sound and find a certain characteristic lacking in your circuit and you feel the BG sound can help fill that certain gap, than perhaps a super E cap on the input would be OK, just to get that BG sound in there, or perhaps use them in the bulk cap stage instead. If it sounds good already the additional BG cap sound may not be welcome.. it depends!
Otherwise the odds are rather good that a good film cap on the input will almost always be better, and certainly no cap is better yet, given the conditions are such that you can get away with it.
From what I've read of the foil thing the same holds true. Personally I'd rather opt for the solution of having a cap that's properly designed and so doesnt' benefit from the additional foil.
I suppose it's good to be a romantic, but there's no place for it in audio unless you like being ripped off. There's no place for it in physics or circuit design.
Regards,
Chris
Re: Rev 1.1 board parts location
Don't rule out just a passive regulator. Or a zener follower type. You don't really need voltage accuracy, you want good well damped HF performance and a follower works well.
Also I agree with Roger, if your going to do it, get a small toriod (Like an Avel from partsexpress) with two seperate secondaries. Do two seperate rectifiers and filter arangments, add your favorite regulator if you like (like a NPN follower biased by some sort of good enough reference). Do this twice, both rails, yes, no need for complementary, just make two say 12 volt rails. Tie them together in series and you've got your +/-12 V. Tie that to ground of your amp (on the new UcD400 Rev 6.1's, they have a pad for it)
I'd be modestly to seriously concerned about using a SMPS for this, in that the ripple may be out of the audio band, but not out of the UcD's modulator bandwidth, and op amps have much worse PSSR at such high frequencies. I wouldn't do it personally.
Roger may be underselling his SMPS abilities 😉
Don't take a chance, trace out board from the op amp pins. Pin 1 and 7 are outputs, follow then til they hit a cap!
Don't know all they did on the CI, but from pictures its apparent they ran a seperate supply for the op amps. The wires and caps are visible in there pictures. I suspect they also used dual bridges and split windings on the toriod, as discribed above, which reduces ground noises.
Best Regards,
Mike
t. said:
Don't rule out just a passive regulator. Or a zener follower type. You don't really need voltage accuracy, you want good well damped HF performance and a follower works well.
Also I agree with Roger, if your going to do it, get a small toriod (Like an Avel from partsexpress) with two seperate secondaries. Do two seperate rectifiers and filter arangments, add your favorite regulator if you like (like a NPN follower biased by some sort of good enough reference). Do this twice, both rails, yes, no need for complementary, just make two say 12 volt rails. Tie them together in series and you've got your +/-12 V. Tie that to ground of your amp (on the new UcD400 Rev 6.1's, they have a pad for it)
I'd be modestly to seriously concerned about using a SMPS for this, in that the ripple may be out of the audio band, but not out of the UcD's modulator bandwidth, and op amps have much worse PSSR at such high frequencies. I wouldn't do it personally.
Roger may be underselling his SMPS abilities 😉
mlihl said:
Don't take a chance, trace out board from the op amp pins. Pin 1 and 7 are outputs, follow then til they hit a cap!
Don't know all they did on the CI, but from pictures its apparent they ran a seperate supply for the op amps. The wires and caps are visible in there pictures. I suspect they also used dual bridges and split windings on the toriod, as discribed above, which reduces ground noises.
Best Regards,
Mike
Dear Joseph K:
That is the same defect I found on my wife! 😀
Wich magnificent read?...mine or Marquez'?
(off the record, I hate Marquez. I only read Shakespeare, Dostoyewzky, Grass and...Harry Potter...I don't kid)
Now seriously, I see you got this wrong impression about my humble self...I don't blame you...I would have thought the same if I didn't knew me so well 😉
What you call Magical realism is, selon moi , the desperate cry of an amateur DIYer who lacks the skills and the money to buy and use the appropriate equipment to progress in this beautifull art, and to discard by himself the unprobable magical bullets out there. I work on a scientific area (non-related to electronics obviouslly) and normally relly only on demostrable facts.
What you call "real aversion for the grey facts of reality" is:
a) misunderstanding of the profound reach of your experiments and conclusions.
b) desire of a "second opinion" 😉
c) desire to push other fellow members to try simple tweaks and compare results "by ear" (Ooops, sorry...
).
Dear Chris:
I completelly agree on the wisdom of your words 😉
Dear Mike:
Or R-core Tx?
Well, enough disgression. I promise I will never speak again about these tweaks. But, who will bring to you the unespected???
Thanks to all for your constant help.
Mauricio
PS: one day I'll get my scope and you'll seeee......
PS2: do you remember the movie sentence that I copied on my signature?
Isn't it great??
He, he, he...touché!
That is the same defect I found on my wife! 😀
Wich magnificent read?...mine or Marquez'?
(off the record, I hate Marquez. I only read Shakespeare, Dostoyewzky, Grass and...Harry Potter...I don't kid)
Now seriously, I see you got this wrong impression about my humble self...I don't blame you...I would have thought the same if I didn't knew me so well 😉
What you call Magical realism is, selon moi , the desperate cry of an amateur DIYer who lacks the skills and the money to buy and use the appropriate equipment to progress in this beautifull art, and to discard by himself the unprobable magical bullets out there. I work on a scientific area (non-related to electronics obviouslly) and normally relly only on demostrable facts.
What you call "real aversion for the grey facts of reality" is:
a) misunderstanding of the profound reach of your experiments and conclusions.
b) desire of a "second opinion" 😉
c) desire to push other fellow members to try simple tweaks and compare results "by ear" (Ooops, sorry...
).Dear Chris:
I completelly agree on the wisdom of your words 😉
Dear Mike:
Or R-core Tx?
Well, enough disgression. I promise I will never speak again about these tweaks. But, who will bring to you the unespected???
Thanks to all for your constant help.
Mauricio
PS: one day I'll get my scope and you'll seeee......
PS2: do you remember the movie sentence that I copied on my signature?
Isn't it great??
Mauricio,
A scope is a good thing, but ears are better.
Things to note that are just my opinion.
Ears are more important than equipment. This is based on the fact that the best amp I ever had the pleasure of hearing (and liking with) was built by a man w/o a scope, but only a sharp pencil, good brain, ears and the very special gift of what I call phonographic hearing.
Professional engineers often fall into one of the following traps:
If you can't measure it, it can't be heard.
If you can't explain it, it can't matter.
Although I fully agree there is a very real problem with our hearing giving repeatable results, it is ultamately, for some, very repeatable.
I won't digress into why, as a professional engineer working in audio for over 25 years I've came to these conclusions, but I have.
I've found problems that state of the art audio measurement equipment could hardly detect that were 100% offensive to anyone.
I've found things that my education and logic said can't matter, but clearly did. All this repeated over and over.
I guess I"m what some would discribe as one of the deluded!
Then again, a deluded one that the one of the largest speaker manufacture in the world pays lisensing to.
go figure! maybe there right and I'm wrong 😉
bottom line, ears, are necessary and suffecient equipment, plus say a soldering iron.
Mike
A scope is a good thing, but ears are better.
Things to note that are just my opinion.
Ears are more important than equipment. This is based on the fact that the best amp I ever had the pleasure of hearing (and liking with) was built by a man w/o a scope, but only a sharp pencil, good brain, ears and the very special gift of what I call phonographic hearing.
Professional engineers often fall into one of the following traps:
If you can't measure it, it can't be heard.
If you can't explain it, it can't matter.
Although I fully agree there is a very real problem with our hearing giving repeatable results, it is ultamately, for some, very repeatable.
I won't digress into why, as a professional engineer working in audio for over 25 years I've came to these conclusions, but I have.
I've found problems that state of the art audio measurement equipment could hardly detect that were 100% offensive to anyone.
I've found things that my education and logic said can't matter, but clearly did. All this repeated over and over.
I guess I"m what some would discribe as one of the deluded!
Then again, a deluded one that the one of the largest speaker manufacture in the world pays lisensing to.
go figure! maybe there right and I'm wrong 😉
bottom line, ears, are necessary and suffecient equipment, plus say a soldering iron.
Mike
Thanks, Mike, for the support. 🙂
I think I need a scope for troubleshooting and finetuning my several projects, and learning of course. (at least I hope)
Yes, I remember your inspirational comment.
I do have the ears, I lack the rest 😀
Wow! can I go with U, ad honorem ??😀
The war for good audio is the war against noise 😉
Unconditionally yours...
Mauricio
I think I need a scope for troubleshooting and finetuning my several projects, and learning of course. (at least I hope)
Yes, I remember your inspirational comment.
I do have the ears, I lack the rest 😀
Wow! can I go with U, ad honorem ??😀
The war for good audio is the war against noise 😉
Unconditionally yours...
Mauricio
maxlorenz said:
There is not much space, making a super E-cap (assuming it works and I'm skeptical here) and then using for example 1cm of wire to hook them up to the PCB at the bottom would probably introduce more parasitic inductance then the super-E cap configuration would reduce (assuming it does). You can also see that the signal over those caps is very spiky with lots of HF components (my previous measurements), I do not want those components to leave the board via a wire to those additional caps. So just want to keep everything on the PCB.
Gertjan
Re: Please, please
Hi Joseph,
Interesting results/measurements in that link you showed us.
Actually I tried the mirror configuration with panasonic FCs to try to silence up an SMPS, however, did not see much difference. I agree and think that indeed the wiring to those caps is far more important. That is why I want to keep the caps as close to the PCB as possible, using exotic caps a bit further away from the PCB would probably make things only worse.
Gertjan
Joseph K said:
Hi Joseph,
Interesting results/measurements in that link you showed us.
Actually I tried the mirror configuration with panasonic FCs to try to silence up an SMPS, however, did not see much difference. I agree and think that indeed the wiring to those caps is far more important. That is why I want to keep the caps as close to the PCB as possible, using exotic caps a bit further away from the PCB would probably make things only worse.
Gertjan
Chris,
I wanted, but will not tell You to go back & read the documentation - I don't want You to get sick again.. 😀
It was just fastidious enough also for me to try & extract the ~ relevant original data about the so-called super E config..
So, it's not two electrolytics face to face in series - it's two in parallel , but with pins inverted! [So it's suggested only for BG N -and above..] Do you see the trick 😉 ? So you get less ESR / ESL, ~half of a single one, like with any normal parallel config! And as such, that config just don't have any diy sense and usefulness.. you can not do that with normal caps in a normally biased environment.
And I was not saying that I don't like the BG sound - only have small experience with it. It's only that the marketing doc's referring to Super E are making me womit. Exactly the same like magic chip & likes.
The reason why it does not work was in effect becoming even more clear for me during the copper foil tests. Because the copper foil, if anything, would be a real cure for stray magnetic fields generated by a cap.
These words are going very much into the heart of the problem!
IF there were present any significant generated external field!
IF they were there, the copper foil tests would have shown a strong effect!
But there is almost nothing outside of the general type of caps. Because the manufacturers are applying tricky ways of bifilar winding, so the generated fields cancel out, exactly as it is wished by the Jelmax farse documents - but it happens naturally INSIDE of all caps! And, if it weren't enough, even the copper foil trick is factory included - the alu can, which in fact has the same effect, even if a tad less effective, than the copper foil.
And for me it's not a grey reality, it's a beautiful reality! Imagine our amps, with all it's bypass caps signing up for the race of who is the best receiver coil for all kind of RF EMI cr@p!
So, let's sum it up again: no objections from my part against BG caps; Two in parallel is obviously different from one -no wonder it sounds different; but I get a headache from such orbital lies like Super E config in the Jelmax papers. They even produced some obviously falsified network analyser results!
On the other hand, it's still possible, I have not checked it, that Jelmax screwed up somthing in their patented process, and BG-s are
NOT behaving like normal caps, they do not cancel. And so they are REALLY CR@P, with a huge factory ESL value - though even in this case the suggested super E is a much more ineffective method than the copper foil would be....
Choose the case which fits best.. 😀
I wanted, but will not tell You to go back & read the documentation - I don't want You to get sick again.. 😀
It was just fastidious enough also for me to try & extract the ~ relevant original data about the so-called super E config..
So, it's not two electrolytics face to face in series - it's two in parallel , but with pins inverted! [So it's suggested only for BG N -and above..] Do you see the trick 😉 ? So you get less ESR / ESL, ~half of a single one, like with any normal parallel config! And as such, that config just don't have any diy sense and usefulness.. you can not do that with normal caps in a normally biased environment.
And I was not saying that I don't like the BG sound - only have small experience with it. It's only that the marketing doc's referring to Super E are making me womit. Exactly the same like magic chip & likes.
The reason why it does not work was in effect becoming even more clear for me during the copper foil tests. Because the copper foil, if anything, would be a real cure for stray magnetic fields generated by a cap.
These words are going very much into the heart of the problem!
IF there were present any significant generated external field!
IF they were there, the copper foil tests would have shown a strong effect!
But there is almost nothing outside of the general type of caps. Because the manufacturers are applying tricky ways of bifilar winding, so the generated fields cancel out, exactly as it is wished by the Jelmax farse documents - but it happens naturally INSIDE of all caps! And, if it weren't enough, even the copper foil trick is factory included - the alu can, which in fact has the same effect, even if a tad less effective, than the copper foil.
And for me it's not a grey reality, it's a beautiful reality! Imagine our amps, with all it's bypass caps signing up for the race of who is the best receiver coil for all kind of RF EMI cr@p!
So, let's sum it up again: no objections from my part against BG caps; Two in parallel is obviously different from one -no wonder it sounds different; but I get a headache from such orbital lies like Super E config in the Jelmax papers. They even produced some obviously falsified network analyser results!
On the other hand, it's still possible, I have not checked it, that Jelmax screwed up somthing in their patented process, and BG-s are
NOT behaving like normal caps, they do not cancel. And so they are REALLY CR@P, with a huge factory ESL value - though even in this case the suggested super E is a much more ineffective method than the copper foil would be....
Choose the case which fits best.. 😀
Why thank you for correcting me. I'm super quick to dismiss what I judge as marketing BS, and I guess I forgot super e= //.
I would not have gone back to read it either 🙂
However.... you're not going to go so far as to say Jelmax would falsify data and lie in order to boost their sales, are you?!?
Oh, by the way, looks like they're in production again, permanently too, but only certain values, and they don't yet know which ones, so you all still need to stock up all you can right now!
🙄
I would not have gone back to read it either 🙂
However.... you're not going to go so far as to say Jelmax would falsify data and lie in order to boost their sales, are you?!?
Oh, by the way, looks like they're in production again, permanently too, but only certain values, and they don't yet know which ones, so you all still need to stock up all you can right now!
🙄
Caro Mauricio,
My above trial to explain myself better was essentially addressed to You - I hope I could show my points more clear this time.
And I totally subscribe to Your idea - don't trust me, one result is just that, one opinion - so we need control, absolutely true!
The only drawback that one scope is not really enough for such testing. But there are other newfound owners of nice test equipment around here on this forum [I'm not one of them, the analyzer is not mine]
What really relaxes me, is that also You are a fan of Harry..your initial list of literature was just a bit scary!
And I have to admit, that my anecdotal memory is just rubbish - I rather treasure on my general impression, than have a clear track of all the nice gags - so will have to go back and search for that sentence 🙂
Ciao, George
And you should read more Marquez!!
My above trial to explain myself better was essentially addressed to You - I hope I could show my points more clear this time.
And I totally subscribe to Your idea - don't trust me, one result is just that, one opinion - so we need control, absolutely true!
The only drawback that one scope is not really enough for such testing. But there are other newfound owners of nice test equipment around here on this forum [I'm not one of them, the analyzer is not mine]
What really relaxes me, is that also You are a fan of Harry..your initial list of literature was just a bit scary!
And I have to admit, that my anecdotal memory is just rubbish - I rather treasure on my general impression, than have a clear track of all the nice gags - so will have to go back and search for that sentence 🙂
Ciao, George
And you should read more Marquez!!
Mio caro Giorgio:
Sonno molto contento per la tua amabile spiegazione e per lo tuo interesse in questo umile servitore 🙂
I won't counter-argument about lead inductance because of my self-censorship
One day, when I have the time, I will run serious ABAB listening test about ***
Oh! I thought it will be totally the inverse 😱
Remember the old lady that went one cosmetic surgery after another...😉
(it's not very elegant to explain one's signature
)
Arrivederci!
Maurizio
Sonno molto contento per la tua amabile spiegazione e per lo tuo interesse in questo umile servitore 🙂
I won't counter-argument about lead inductance because of my self-censorship
One day, when I have the time, I will run serious ABAB listening test about ***
Oh! I thought it will be totally the inverse 😱
Remember the old lady that went one cosmetic surgery after another...😉
(it's not very elegant to explain one's signature
)Arrivederci!
Maurizio
I have a question on the Main PSU caps on UcD 400s:
Came across some Nichicon LQ series caps 470uF, 160 or 200V rating with a rated ripple current of 1.8A (coudln't find any info on the ESR) in the local DIY store.
Data sheet here:
http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/28159.pdf
The LQ series appears to be a general purpose capacitor range with higher voltage values in Radial format and reasonable costs.
With a dia of 22mm, it might be *just* possible to squeeze it in on the board. Has anyone tried this cap before and any views on its usage as the PSU caps of UcD?
Came across some Nichicon LQ series caps 470uF, 160 or 200V rating with a rated ripple current of 1.8A (coudln't find any info on the ESR) in the local DIY store.
Data sheet here:
http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/28159.pdf
The LQ series appears to be a general purpose capacitor range with higher voltage values in Radial format and reasonable costs.
With a dia of 22mm, it might be *just* possible to squeeze it in on the board. Has anyone tried this cap before and any views on its usage as the PSU caps of UcD?
outofthebox said:
Hi,
18mm are a tight fit, if you want them to be flush. If you wanted to use a 22mm diam, you'd likely need to run the leads longer, or maybe mount them on the bottom side. For sure they won't fit flush like the stock caps.
See if you can get 63V, 80V or 100V in smaller diameter.
Not sure if these would be better than stock though.
Good Luck
Mike
UCD 400AD Mono-Blocks
Could someone please review my connection plans and see if I am on target?
Will be using RCA single ended input:
1. I wil be running standard L, N, Gnd in via an IEC jack
2. At the IEC jack, I connect a short wire from chassis to IEC Gnd.
3. L & N are connected to a power switch for on & off, then to the transformer
4. Gnd wire run from IEC jack to ground star point (post rectification)
4. UCD input pins are as follows:
a. /On pin will be tied to J5 faston tab (PS GND)
b. In- & Signal Ground pins tied together and connected to outer pin on female RCA input jack (will use shielded cable).
c. In+ connected to center pin of female RCA jack
5. J4, J5, & J6 faston tabs will be connected to the main PS caps (post rectification) + gnd -
No other connections will be made to the chassis or ground.
Does this look right for no hum & best possible sound quality?
Thanks
Could someone please review my connection plans and see if I am on target?
Will be using RCA single ended input:
1. I wil be running standard L, N, Gnd in via an IEC jack
2. At the IEC jack, I connect a short wire from chassis to IEC Gnd.
3. L & N are connected to a power switch for on & off, then to the transformer
4. Gnd wire run from IEC jack to ground star point (post rectification)
4. UCD input pins are as follows:
a. /On pin will be tied to J5 faston tab (PS GND)
b. In- & Signal Ground pins tied together and connected to outer pin on female RCA input jack (will use shielded cable).
c. In+ connected to center pin of female RCA jack
5. J4, J5, & J6 faston tabs will be connected to the main PS caps (post rectification) + gnd -
No other connections will be made to the chassis or ground.
Does this look right for no hum & best possible sound quality?
Thanks
Stevenacnj said:
I'm passed zombie state at this point but.... I think you're in for some wicked hum.
I see no need for 4.
4a. Might be better tying to signal ground tap or true earth.
4b. They can connect to the chassis via shielded wire at the RCA jack. If doing so the amp needs to be the only component connected to true earth. If not, you either need to float the chassis from true earth, or float the input. That will provide better audio results than a bandaide ground lift resistor.
5. best not to connect power gnd to chassis, it will interfere with the signal ground. instead, float the capacitor common point, and therefore power ground output of the module, from the chassis.
Your final option will depend on the rest of your system, such as the ground scheme of your source component. Feel free to experiment and report what sounded best in your setup, and why.
Goooooodluck, and gooooooodnnnnnnnight!
Chris,
I attached a PDF drawing of what I posted above. Would you (or anyone else) please take a look at it and tell me what connections to change for no hum & best sound quality.
Thanks
I attached a PDF drawing of what I posted above. Would you (or anyone else) please take a look at it and tell me what connections to change for no hum & best sound quality.
Thanks
Portlandmike said:
Mike,
Many thanks for your comments. You are indeed correct that with 22 mm it will be a tight fit and the cap will not be a flush fit and probably a few mm up from the ground plane. I'm still looking out for alternatives to the stock Yageo on my modules. Will keep everyone posted here if I come up with any good alternatives.
From all the other comments in this thread it does seem that the Panasonics, both FC and M types are the current best good drop-in replacements.
Stevenacnj said:
Hi,
After seeing that I pretty well stand by what I said above (dont' forget your center tap though, connected to the cap common point).
To float your supply from the chassis means to disconnect the ground of the power supply from it.
Update your schematic with the recommendations I made above and repost for correction.
You can email me if you're stuck. I'll help you out.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.