But should they... at least [/I]for hi-end audio[/I]??
Maybe somewhere in PS area? But then maybe COG type. Or good old electrolytic would be better.
Other wise, i'll still use film in my Hi-End circuits, mods and upgrades, thank you.
-RNM
Last edited:
Yes, power supply. Can't beat the low inductance even in the standard packages. COG are too small for power supply use mostly, and are physically huge in the large sizes.
Well, I am sure if 2.2 (BFC) of ceramic gets it done for you, a smaller value of electro would do the same. Or, a 2.2 electro would do better as the C with DCV applied is higher ... it doesnt drop as much in C.
Try a dc servo or direct-couple circuit ... exchanging a big coupling C1 (220mfd) part for a surface mount opamp.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
In Mark's case the x7r is a nice inexpensive part with low lead inductance. Which is also really really nice to have for bypass with wide bandwidth IC's. None of the solutions past swapping to an electrolytic make sense in this application.
One of the great things you can do nowadays is get a >= 10 uF X7R with low inductance right up against your high FT output transistors (or something like a LM3886/the like). It's a case where a 100nF C0G ($$) isn't going to buy you any further improvement, and likely detriment.
One of the great things you can do nowadays is get a >= 10 uF X7R with low inductance right up against your high FT output transistors (or something like a LM3886/the like). It's a case where a 100nF C0G ($$) isn't going to buy you any further improvement, and likely detriment.
I invite you to calculate the applied DCV ... it's not difficult ... just look up the Vfwd of the LED and Bob's your uncle. How much does the capacitance fall between DCV=0 and DCV=Vfwd?
Here's the exact capacitor I used: Murata RDE series, X7R, 2.2uF, 50V, purchase page at Mouser, which of course includes the manufacturer's datasheet: (link)
Conventional electrolytics have high ESR and ESL, don't work that well at high frequencies, age poorly, and take up a lot of board real-estate. For high speed stuff I am not sure a single electrolytic will cut it in a lot of cases. Maybe if it's a surface mount solid polymer or hybrid.
Up to you to decide if the drawbacks of the ceramic are of concern in a particular power supply application.
My experience was opposite. I use amp that have low distortion at entire audio frequency, from low level to high level. F5 clone only better at low frequency, more punch on bass.
In the app shown... there is no HF involved. Just keep them where they will do no harm. Like many places in PS.
But then there is that large electrolytic output coupling cap. Now there is a critical placement for a cap. Get rid of it. Or at least bypass it with film (not a ceramic).
I am not sure the size matters if in one place you use a 2.2 ceramic because of small size and then go and use a large 220 mfd electro in same circuit on the output.
What's up with that?
Anyway...
Last edited:
Exactly. Your comment shows the typical lack of understanding regarding total system distortion that clearly illustrate a point I made a few pages back about major misconception by both user and amplifier designer.
Hi mmerrill99,
The system we listen to the TV on is a modest one. It's job is to make the sounds realistic while allowing for the fun factor. We have noticed that when dogs bark, our dogs react. Even better is when a show uses the same doorbell we do. It goes and the dogs are off running. Their hearing is excellent, and if they are convinced our doorbell just rang, I would say that the system is more than adequate. The main audio system has the dogs always confused. They can't seem to suspend their normal reactions to doorbells and animal noises.
-Chris
It certainly is an art. I've heard musicians you wouldn't want to hear raw or live in concert.
But I disagree with your defining what the recording process should be. What you are reproducing accurately is what the engineer and producer intended you to hear. They create the musical experience. Accuracy in reproduction means that you get what they intended you to hear. As long as they haven't messed with a piano (for example), you should be able to hear that piano and maybe even identify the brand and type of piano. You might even be able to identify the player. The accepted definition for reproducing recorded material is that you hear what was intended by the engineer and producer. You can't change the definition and run off into a field gleefully prancing as you think you have won. Stay with industry accepted definitions and we can communicate. Before you ask, yes. I have spent time in recording studios. Enough to know what goes on in general.
Absolutely not! What the mic picks up is exactly what the studio professionals intended it to pick up. They will use any and all practices to get the sound they want. Some microphones out there will pick up more than you might normally hear. The capacitive mics especially with their very low mass diaphragms. Some even use a tube. Think Neumann.
Hardly true at all. Once we are comfortable with how our reproduction system sounds and renders familiar sounds / instruments, by extension we can tell if we are getting what was intended, or not. If we can record something in that room and play it back and we hear the same sound(s), we are justified in saying that the system is accurate. We don't have perfect reproduction yet, but some systems are darned good. With those systems we can readily identify almost any instrument or voice they reproduce. I have heard systems that were hopeless in that department too.
You're entitled to your own beliefs of course. Doesn't mean that the rest of the world agrees with you though. Any number of sounds heard live can be compared to a recorded version to establish realism.
The system we listen to the TV on is a modest one. It's job is to make the sounds realistic while allowing for the fun factor. We have noticed that when dogs bark, our dogs react. Even better is when a show uses the same doorbell we do. It goes and the dogs are off running. Their hearing is excellent, and if they are convinced our doorbell just rang, I would say that the system is more than adequate. The main audio system has the dogs always confused. They can't seem to suspend their normal reactions to doorbells and animal noises.
-Chris
But in mid and high frequency, F5 clone is worse. Specially in high frequency. The owner of F5 clone then sell his amplifier and buy the amplifier that have much lower distortion.
Kindly explain relevance of your post to distortion reduction of total reproduction sytem indicated in Eduardo's paper.
Bravo Mr. Marsh, I wholeheartedly agree with your description.
I suspect common definition of amplifier accuracy based solely on its electrical THD tends to block efforts on progress a few steps short of achievable accuracy conforming to your description. It is not surprising if we do not have any system with fidelity anywhere close to 0.01% distortion (or whatever value experts find appropriate).
Perhaps measurement of complete reproduction chain (representing what we perceive through our own ears) needs to be encouraged if progress is desired. 🙂
That's normally being done, at least serious design engineers do analyze the reproduction chain as a whole. You'll get nothing new or unknown. Go for lowest noise, highest S/N, lowest distortions of all kinds, EMI immunity, flat frequency response, suppressed resonances, nice directivity pattern - nothing but nice engineering.
These debates try to suggest that there is something mystical or unknown that makes the "good sound", but it is not. In case you do not mean individual brains, but then there is no universal cure.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.