John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe what Chris is missing is the possibility the active devices (regulators output stage or reference circuits) interaction with the self noise generated by these digital ICs (DAC & clock) - passive devices handle this back emf - it's more about the stability of the power supply.

I am not familiar with the hat this was pulled from.

Certainly for the reference voltage for chips like the AK4490, you want a circuit that reacts blindingly fast to any perturbance. Interaction is of the essence. Hence the suggestion in the spec sheet to use AD797 as the basis for voltage regulators supplying this voltage.
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
Exactly. Return paths of bypass capacitors are the biggest source of residual ripple related noise in otherwise perfect analog or mixed-signal design. The last and sometimes most difficult design step is PCB and bypassing optimization.


You and Demian have of course hit the most bent nail on the thread squarely on the head. I would be willing to bet that, on most DACs there is more to be gained respinning the PCB than any amount of glomming stuff that doesn't fit on there.



What's the recommended layer count for a DAC these days, I know for precision work it was 6 layers back in the early 90s but not looked at things for a looong while?
 
I hear you. It seems that storing a lot of energy at that point in the circuit does the trick. Like a Flywheel effect. But this is so easy to try, so make up your own mind.

Completely nonsensical. There are small perturbances, which need small quantities of energy to correct them, delivered fast, that may hamper the functioning of a DAC. Where would all that energy in a supercap have to go?
 
www.hifisonix.com
Joined 2003
Paid Member
I'm not sure where to get details on the 9 digit laser supply (9 digits really? how do you verify that?) but here are some circuits from the HP3458 DVM, supposedly the most linear 8.5 digit meter.

You can download the schematics here: Service Manual - Hewlett Packard 3458A - Digital multimeter -- Download free service manuals lots to study.

The main regulators are LM317/337. The 7V reference uses an LTZ1000 which are really nice if you need stability but a real challenge to implement. The ADC references are opamp based.

This is an old design, 1987, using reasonable tech and methods. Things have not moved much since then and no magic foo, supercaps etc. to make the instrument you would use to measure Allen variance of a DC supply.

I used one of those in 1989 during the dev of a high resolution panel indicator with multiple user selectable inputs. The HP Journal did a big write up on it at the time. It used a multi-slope A-D and it’s using that meter that I had to quickly learn to get thermocouple effects under control when taking readings.

HP used a Josephson junction array to verify the performance during development - details in the journal article Josephson voltage standard - Wikipedia

As an aside, insofar as noise is concerned, the 7815 is quieter than a 317 at 15 V out - about 30 uV WB noise vs c. 450 for the 317. You can get the 317 noise down below 100 uV but you then need to decouple the adjust pin (‘heroically’ as Self says, so 100uF or something like that).
 
Last edited:
www.hifisonix.com
Joined 2003
Paid Member
I used similar idea a few years back to make layout for 200W CFA.
It is also based on Cherry paper and different from your layout is that I put output transistors in one line to keep it on similar temperature in contrast of your layout where upper transistor will be on higher temperature (only if you mount it horizontally they will be on similar temperature).
I used alternated on N and P devices, parallel +/- power supply lines on both PCB sides.
The amp made for Richard is commercial amp with employed that idea.
BR Damir

I’m using a similar layout but not with the output devices inter-digitated. I run the power ground and supply rail to the OP devices on top of each other - small loop area.
 
www.hifisonix.com
Joined 2003
Paid Member
I don’t know that stability is a critical issue in audio as long as it’s well <<< 1/f it should not be a concern. A good cap multiplier on the output of a 7815 gets you down to nV/rt Hz noise wise. The DAC will like that - any opamps will add their PSRR so RTI you are talking about << 1 uV wide band noise on a 2V FS OP so you are in -130 dB territory.

Have you considered that without the battery or supercap your a PSU may just have been sub-optimal (it happens - part of the dev process) and adding the battery or supercap simply cleaned it up? Might be an idea to redo the experiment but with additional controls.
 
Member
Joined 2016
Paid Member
I think he even does not understand the terms used, their meaning. It is difficult, then, to continue in any kind of discussion with him, as it is reverted to expressions like not understanding that "dynamic nature of the music signals" is in fact a trivial stress and that a step change covers all the behavior of the tested regulator - just an understanding of control theory is needed, which can be hardly substituted by listening experience :D

I wonder if JN tunes his motion control devices by listening... Ah, the sound of tons of steel colliding - must need a tweak! :D
 
mmerrill99 said:
Thanks Demian - it may be the wrong term from a strictly technical perspective, granted.
In other words, the wrong term. If you say "stability" to an engineer he jumps to the conclusion that you are talking about stability. I know this seems quite unreasonable to non-engineers, but that is how our brains are wired.

of course if arguing is the main hobby here then the site name is misleading
Some people come here expecting worship; they rarely stay very long. Others simply want agreement to everything they say; maybe offline they have sufficient status or have induced sufficient fear in others that this is what they usually get? Some people complain about argument, but then spend most of their time arguing. Experience tells me that those who are the most persistent in spreading FUD are the most likely to be commercially involved in audio at the supposed 'high end'; their income depends on FUD being accepted, because good engineering is cheaper.
 
Completely nonsensical. There are small perturbances, which need small quantities of energy to correct them, delivered fast, that may hamper the functioning of a DAC. Where would all that energy in a supercap have to go?

You have lost me, where is speed impeded and what function would be hampered? And please define nonsense?

Also, tell it to an increasing number of DAC designers and manufacturers. They are not doing it for nothing.

I am sure that you are quite able to simply test it yourself. But it would require hearing rather than measurement, but I don't consider listening to be nonsense, just perfect sense.

OTH, if not willing to try it, then I have at least given you some 'entertainment' and you are welcome. :D
 
Some people come here expecting worship; they rarely stay very long. Others simply want agreement to everything they say; maybe offline they have sufficient status or have induced sufficient fear in others that this is what they usually get? Some people complain about argument, but then spend most of their time arguing. Experience tells me that those who are the most persistent in spreading FUD are the most likely to be commercially involved in audio at the supposed 'high end'; their income depends on FUD being accepted, because good engineering is cheaper.

You are in good form today. ;)
 
Jakob just likes to post confounding nonsense whenever he sees an opportunity.

That comes as a surprise, as I try hard to avoid posting "nonsense" even "confounding nonsense". (not claiming infallibility, though).

Could you please quote a few recent examples? I'm interested and if true, I'll be more than happy to correct and to avoid something similar for the future.

Just two or three examples will be sufficient. Thank you very much in advance.
 
You have lost me, where is speed impeded and what function would be hampered? And please define nonsense?

Also, tell it to an increasing number of DAC designers and manufacturers. They are not doing it for nothing.

I am sure that you are quite able to simply test it yourself. But it would require hearing rather than measurement, but I don't consider listening to be nonsense, just perfect sense.

OTH, if not willing to try it, then I have at least given you some 'entertainment' and you are welcome. :D

What are some of the commercially available dacs that this is implemented?
Under <$1k .....preferably <$500

I’m in the market for standalone dac to mess around with.

I don’t have the abilities to build one.....maybe one that’s easily modified should be in the criteria. Or even loaded boards (is that the correct term?) to be assembled (with decent instructions!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.