Exactly because if you are not an OEM, you don't have access to that information. But you keep spreading it partly on internet which I doubt the vendor appreciates and you have probably signed an agreement not to do so. Capiche?
//
bavmike is in read only mode so IMO it is fair not to address him now.
Then, datasheets of the Hypex OEM modules are available; check their hypexpro website.
Then, datasheets of the Hypex OEM modules are available; check their hypexpro website.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've not found the NC500 listed on their website (although I do have a link for it) let alone the 'evaluation modules'.
Right, someone came up here with a link to the NC500 datasheet.
NC1200 datasheet is on the hypexpro website; I guess there is no special reason why the NC500 datasheet is not on their site yet.
When googling "hypex NC500 datasheet" it immediately pops up with a direct link to hypexpro, so I don't think Hypex has a policy to keep things secret wrt NC500.
NC1200 datasheet is on the hypexpro website; I guess there is no special reason why the NC500 datasheet is not on their site yet.
When googling "hypex NC500 datasheet" it immediately pops up with a direct link to hypexpro, so I don't think Hypex has a policy to keep things secret wrt NC500.
Last edited by a moderator:
I assume you are talking about this:
As has been pointed out several times, it specifies current draw *by buffer from regulator*, not nc500 from buffer.
We seem to be going around in circles here.
The 60mA and -50mA figures are just max figures. Basically the "Instantaneous Short Circuit Current" of the LM4562 plus some losses in the rest op the circuit. Do not worry about that figure, it is mainly theoretical. The typical figures are always the most important and applicable under normal operation.
As a software person, i am in a situation almost daily, that i think everything should be good and i assume that it should work as advertised. But then comes the customer who tells that there is this and this kind of problem. I can have all kinds of feelings against the situation since i think failure is not a possibility, and everything was thought beforehand. Sometimes i even think the customer is an idiot which sometimes is the case too. But many times the customer is right, there really is a problem, and i just need to re-test and re-produce the problem and then fix it.
Does this kind of thinking apply to hardware at all? I mean there is a lot of arguing about the theories or if the facts apply or not, but no hands on. Just egos talking about things they don't know about, but just some general stuff that may or may not apply. It seems like hardware side has a lot of room for ideologies and bs like that. Kind of good ground of fake specialists, who talk much, but do not actually produce anything. But want to have opinion on everything.
Seem like if you max the co*k you're as good HW guy as anyone 🙂. Not working in the software side. I am not impressed.
Does this kind of thinking apply to hardware at all? I mean there is a lot of arguing about the theories or if the facts apply or not, but no hands on. Just egos talking about things they don't know about, but just some general stuff that may or may not apply. It seems like hardware side has a lot of room for ideologies and bs like that. Kind of good ground of fake specialists, who talk much, but do not actually produce anything. But want to have opinion on everything.
Seem like if you max the co*k you're as good HW guy as anyone 🙂. Not working in the software side. I am not impressed.
Last edited:
Why are we still talking about this? Seriously, the datasheet is clear, it's not an issue. The NC500 won't take the kind of currents that are being argued as the point of concern.
Let it go. You like the discrete opamps, great, I might prefer them too, but stop digging in on a point where you're obviously wrong.
Let it go. You like the discrete opamps, great, I might prefer them too, but stop digging in on a point where you're obviously wrong.
I thought we were going to try to avoid off-topic discussions about people?
I guess your background is software, but not hard-core computer science. To stretch some analogies, what we have here is someone who makes scrips in Visual Basic claiming, to a bunch of experiences software engineers, that the reason his program works the way it does is because the CPU works better when first "warmed up" by a few thousand empty loops. When the experienced engineers tell him that is not how it works, they are told "ah, but you haven't tried *my* computer". Oh, and the person refuses to run any tests that would actually measure the effect.
I guess your background is software, but not hard-core computer science. To stretch some analogies, what we have here is someone who makes scrips in Visual Basic claiming, to a bunch of experiences software engineers, that the reason his program works the way it does is because the CPU works better when first "warmed up" by a few thousand empty loops. When the experienced engineers tell him that is not how it works, they are told "ah, but you haven't tried *my* computer". Oh, and the person refuses to run any tests that would actually measure the effect.
Yes that's what I said - my reference to NC500 was in the context of data sheets (see previous post)
So Colin's Rev C is now the Hypex recommended design - with the EMI/RFI countermeasures referenced in the NC500 data sheet - with a socketable op amp to allow rolling, a reduction in the value of two resistors (which makes no difference to the circuit's noise and were there DC blocking caps one would want these larger and not smaller) and caps to roll off the feedback loop (which isn't necessary with the op amp in the 'recommended design').
Jajelos, did your 'some improvements' change a lot?
Jajelos, did your 'some improvements' change a lot?
Last edited:
For those running the high current capable discrete op amps have you tried dramatically reducing the feedback resistors? Now that will lower circuit noise. Just make sure your regs can handle it.
Last edited:
Who do you mean "for those....."?
Isn't this a commercial thread by Boggit?
As far as I know he is the only one here commercially involved with NC500.
This thread has been hijacked enough IMO, and I doubt if we do Boggit a pleasure by continuously proposing socalled better options for an NC500 input stage.
SGK: if you want to try discrete op amps with Ncore amps, why don't you take an NC400; that one is for amateur DIY and we have a dedicated NC400 thread.
I know NC400 is an integrated amp with little options to change the circuit, but nevertheless.
Just my opinion.
Isn't this a commercial thread by Boggit?
As far as I know he is the only one here commercially involved with NC500.
This thread has been hijacked enough IMO, and I doubt if we do Boggit a pleasure by continuously proposing socalled better options for an NC500 input stage.
SGK: if you want to try discrete op amps with Ncore amps, why don't you take an NC400; that one is for amateur DIY and we have a dedicated NC400 thread.
I know NC400 is an integrated amp with little options to change the circuit, but nevertheless.
Just my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would have thought "for those" was obvious - for those using Colin's buffer with a discrete op amp e.g. SIL 994. It is Colin who has provided this platform. It is very much central to his commercial offering.
I don't, but I'm interested in the experiences of those that have and what might cause the sonic differences they experience.
I don't, but I'm interested in the experiences of those that have and what might cause the sonic differences they experience.
Good plan. I would still by-pass the supplies to the op amp with 0.1uF to ground on each supply pin (as close as possible). Just good practice. If the feedback resistors are easily accessible it would also be easy for people to swap them out or jumper them (for unity gain, for example).