Terry Demol said:
And I still think it's funny to see people talking about something they didn't try.
On my board the ground plane is a piece of 14 ga wire, 1" long, directly at the chip. All connections are done there. You think you can get better with your fancy ground plane?
Receiver chip has a similar "ground plane" and both planes are connected with wide PCB track.
It may be funny, but I don't think you can teach me much about ground planes. This is what I call optimum decoupling. Can you do better?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22733&highlight=
Peter Daniel said:
Settle down Peter, you are being a little defensive here. 😉
I HAVE tried many grounding schemes, built and modded many
DAC's with less than optimum grounding schemes.
Just changing the grounding can often make as much or more
difference than changing the components (caps) themselves.
What I am saying is get the grounding scheme right and
THEN make careful judgement of the various bypass caps and
arrangements. Otherwise the results can be skewed, especially
when dealing with very low impedance caps. An improper
ground can easily nullify any advantage that a ceramic cap might
have had.
FWIW, I pretty much agree with Guido T's approach, 1 GP,
uninterrupted as much as possible and keep HF current loops
short.
Cheers,
Terry
As far as I understood, I was the only one in this thread talking about different bypass caps and doing p2p wiring😉
I'm not a grounding expert, but my impression is that doing it in a simple way is one way to avoid possible complications.
I also had a board from another member, and actually cutting and separating one plain into two subplanes brought some improvement.
Also, comparing the caps in the same setup (without regards if ground plane is optimal or not) should be considered as valuable information regardless The difference was there and this difference will be in a different circuit as well. We don't even know if the ground plane wasn't optimal, in many cases it's hit and miss anyway.
Going back to ceramic caps, do you find them beneficial when paralleled with electrolytics? I never did my own testing as I rather trusted the comments of Pete Goudreau (talking about the triplets).
I'm not a grounding expert, but my impression is that doing it in a simple way is one way to avoid possible complications.
I also had a board from another member, and actually cutting and separating one plain into two subplanes brought some improvement.
Also, comparing the caps in the same setup (without regards if ground plane is optimal or not) should be considered as valuable information regardless The difference was there and this difference will be in a different circuit as well. We don't even know if the ground plane wasn't optimal, in many cases it's hit and miss anyway.
Going back to ceramic caps, do you find them beneficial when paralleled with electrolytics? I never did my own testing as I rather trusted the comments of Pete Goudreau (talking about the triplets).
Terry, i don´t understand - how do you make a proto board with a groundplane? do you have a picture?
Groundplane supports all the parts that need ground (they are soldered to copper side), all the other connections are wired in a free space.
Till,
I suppose both Terry and Peter are referring to a board with a
groundplane but with predrilled holes. Terry seems to refer to
a board with copper only on the ground plane side, if I understand
him correctly. Otherwise there are boards to buy which have a
ground plane on one side an soldering islands on the other.
Roth Elektronik manufactures such boards, for instance, and
sell them as boards for HF design.
I suppose both Terry and Peter are referring to a board with a
groundplane but with predrilled holes. Terry seems to refer to
a board with copper only on the ground plane side, if I understand
him correctly. Otherwise there are boards to buy which have a
ground plane on one side an soldering islands on the other.
Roth Elektronik manufactures such boards, for instance, and
sell them as boards for HF design.
Since you mentionned Roth electronic, do you need to register in order to be able to see theyr product catalog?
That s*x...
That s*x...
Bricolo said:
I have no idea. I didn't find it at their website but in a component
catalogue from a local retailer (Elfa). There are probably more
models and also other manufacturers.
Here's the datasheet for the Roth board, beware though, it is
very expensive.
http://www.elfa.se/pdf/48/04832333.pdf
Reichelt:
guess why the number starts with RE ? (Roth Elek.)
3,902 to 15,20 isn´t really cheap.
guess why the number starts with RE ? (Roth Elek.)
3,902 to 15,20 isn´t really cheap.
The one Till showed is the RE-201, double or single sided. If double, the component side is a ground plane
There are also 2 variants, epoxy and "hartpapier", epoxy is twice the price... Is it really better?
Roth also has another interesting board, the RE-200. It seems to be the same bubt without the part on the left to place a connector.
It's cheaper, too
There are also 2 variants, epoxy and "hartpapier", epoxy is twice the price... Is it really better?
Roth also has another interesting board, the RE-200. It seems to be the same bubt without the part on the left to place a connector.
It's cheaper, too
Been doing some reading on the 'parts connection' website.
Been doing some reading from the 'parts connection' website.
I have also been reading a lot of threads from diyAudio.
My overall understanding of the decoupling capacitor situation has shifted:
1) Everyone who has actually tried Black Gate N capacitors for supply decoupling agrees they are a good thing- better than OsCon. (Does anyone disagree?)
2) The parts connection data sheets contain poor English, with weak explanations. This has given many individuals the impression that Black Gates are 'snake oil'.
I do wish to give them a try, since so many people have had positive experiences. I have read a little about super 'E' configuation. I have read the other threads on this site, but I would appreciate clarification. My understanding is...
1) Buy 2 x BG-N capacitors
2) Connect them in parallel or series, but with opposite leads connected.
3) Keep them physically close together.
I believe Peter Daniel suggested 100uF, so I might use 2 x 50uF in parallel.
Has anyone had recent experience with the super 'E' connection.
Does it not ditract from the ideal of the single bypass capacitor already advocated in this thread.
i.e. will 2 parallel capacitors resonate?
Been doing some reading from the 'parts connection' website.
I have also been reading a lot of threads from diyAudio.
My overall understanding of the decoupling capacitor situation has shifted:
1) Everyone who has actually tried Black Gate N capacitors for supply decoupling agrees they are a good thing- better than OsCon. (Does anyone disagree?)
2) The parts connection data sheets contain poor English, with weak explanations. This has given many individuals the impression that Black Gates are 'snake oil'.
I do wish to give them a try, since so many people have had positive experiences. I have read a little about super 'E' configuation. I have read the other threads on this site, but I would appreciate clarification. My understanding is...
1) Buy 2 x BG-N capacitors
2) Connect them in parallel or series, but with opposite leads connected.
3) Keep them physically close together.
I believe Peter Daniel suggested 100uF, so I might use 2 x 50uF in parallel.
Has anyone had recent experience with the super 'E' connection.
Does it not ditract from the ideal of the single bypass capacitor already advocated in this thread.
i.e. will 2 parallel capacitors resonate?
I tried super-e configuration and didn't like it, single capacitor sounded better to me in coupling application. Paralleling causes loss of resolution and veiling. People with bright speakers like it though😉
You might try OsCons, as it seems that the better grades are quite good, just don't buy the cheapest ones available from China.
In my opinion 33u/16V BG N should be large enough value for most decoupling applications. I use 100u directly at the DAC, it works better than smaller values.
You might try OsCons, as it seems that the better grades are quite good, just don't buy the cheapest ones available from China.
In my opinion 33u/16V BG N should be large enough value for most decoupling applications. I use 100u directly at the DAC, it works better than smaller values.
Bricolo said:
Hi
Epoxy is more robust, hardpaper sounds better. If you build once - never changes I'd go for hardpaper
regards
Thanks Peter
I am using AD1865N-K and OPA627 opamps- I prefer this combination.
I am using 74VHC74 in my reclocker.
The whole unit uses loads of NiMhd cells!
Perhaps I should use 22uF for digital decoupling, but save 100uF for the DAC and the I-V converters. does sound reasonable?
Interesting to note that you prefered a single capacitor. My 'decoupling' application is different.
A single bypass would save me money😉
I am using AD1865N-K and OPA627 opamps- I prefer this combination.
I am using 74VHC74 in my reclocker.
The whole unit uses loads of NiMhd cells!
Perhaps I should use 22uF for digital decoupling, but save 100uF for the DAC and the I-V converters. does sound reasonable?
Interesting to note that you prefered a single capacitor. My 'decoupling' application is different.
A single bypass would save me money😉
Dear Christer:
>Was that tech. explanation on burn in after soldering specific to the audio grade OS-CONs or all models?<
The way that the message was conveyed suggested that the gaseous vaporation and gradual reabsorption process applied to Sanyo's OS electrolytes as a family, and would not be affected by minor alterations in chemistry (as may exist between the audio and non-audio versions). Note that Marcon also developed a competing line of OS caps which was subsequently acquired by Nippon Chemicon (United Chemicon). I don't know how the gaseous vaporation and gradual reabsorption process applies to Nippon Chemicon's OS caps, but I have observed that these caps also need a fairly substantial operating period after installation before the sound stabilizes.
>Is your experience that it matters to use the audio grade versions also for digital decoupling, for analogue decoupling or just for coupling and similar?<
I find that the SC and SA grades do not sound as nice as the SP grade, for either digital or analog PS decoupling. But due to a rather highish leakage factor, I wouldn't suggest using any OS cap for signal coupling, nor would I use them for high-impedance applications like S/H circuits, DC servos or whatnot.
>Another reflection, probably not very relevant in practice but nevertheless interesting.<
On the contrary, I think that your reflection is _very_ relevant in practice, as it dictates the development philosophy itself, which in turn sets the tone for the development environment and list/hierarchy of technical priorities to attend to. When the philosophy or mental approach underlying product development is different, it would be quite surprising if the resulting designs turned out to be similar.
>The design philosophy of making an overall more complex design to get "modules" with more well-defined behaviour/environment for components, has some similarities with good software engineering where we tend to break things down into well-defined modules that make it easier both to design, debug and understand the program, even if the overall complexity becomes much greater.<
I now try to spend a lot of time before a design project, listing up the (perceived) problems, setting the goals, and defining the project boundaries/limits. Next I will write out an overall circuit flowchart which usually does not contain any circuits or circuit fragments at all, but rather consists of boxes with the desired functions noted in the form of formulae, labels and comments. Once I am satisfied with the general electrical flowchart, I will then design individual circuit blocks to correspond to the labelled boxes in the flowchart. By this stage, the circuitry more or less designs itself. Or to put it more practically, by this stage I have a very good idea what the schematic needs to look like and be. During the flowchart and circuitry design stages, I also will envision what sort of physical structures will best suit the schematic choices, decide whether the physical structures under consideration are feasible, and if so, what the best way of building them will be. In fact, I usually keep re-drawing the schematic to most accurately reflect the current state of physical construction (pcb layout et al), and if I don't like what I see, I will redo the schematic, the physical structures, or both.
Once the prototypes have been built and production commences, I will conduct regular post-mortems regarding the ease of production and QC, and devise revisions if so required. Those post-mortems are also put to good use when I am designing the next project.
I nearly always find that the more time that I spend thinking about and planning a project before doing the actual design work, the less time I need to spend trouble-shooting and debugging it later. Mind you, I am not deliberately searching for greater complexity per se, but I do find that inserting an extra layer of mental abstraction subsequently makes it much easier to comprehend what I should be trying to accomplish, and also to keep the project under control so that it doesn't unwittingly metamorph into something that I wasn't originally looking for. The downside of my preferred approach is that you may not have much concrete to show or play until fairly late in the development cycle, and so if you are designing a commercial product, it helps to have an understanding CEO! And I know other designers - perhaps more hands-on in approach - who prefer to get a prototype functioning as quickly as possible, and wil revise and debug this until they are happy. So whatever works for you is the right approach, I'd say.
Nonetheless, it is a great feeling when a complex circuit that you have never prototyped nor built before works perfectly the first time out, and surpasses your best previous efforts into the bargain!
regards. jonathan carr
>Was that tech. explanation on burn in after soldering specific to the audio grade OS-CONs or all models?<
The way that the message was conveyed suggested that the gaseous vaporation and gradual reabsorption process applied to Sanyo's OS electrolytes as a family, and would not be affected by minor alterations in chemistry (as may exist between the audio and non-audio versions). Note that Marcon also developed a competing line of OS caps which was subsequently acquired by Nippon Chemicon (United Chemicon). I don't know how the gaseous vaporation and gradual reabsorption process applies to Nippon Chemicon's OS caps, but I have observed that these caps also need a fairly substantial operating period after installation before the sound stabilizes.
>Is your experience that it matters to use the audio grade versions also for digital decoupling, for analogue decoupling or just for coupling and similar?<
I find that the SC and SA grades do not sound as nice as the SP grade, for either digital or analog PS decoupling. But due to a rather highish leakage factor, I wouldn't suggest using any OS cap for signal coupling, nor would I use them for high-impedance applications like S/H circuits, DC servos or whatnot.
>Another reflection, probably not very relevant in practice but nevertheless interesting.<
On the contrary, I think that your reflection is _very_ relevant in practice, as it dictates the development philosophy itself, which in turn sets the tone for the development environment and list/hierarchy of technical priorities to attend to. When the philosophy or mental approach underlying product development is different, it would be quite surprising if the resulting designs turned out to be similar.
>The design philosophy of making an overall more complex design to get "modules" with more well-defined behaviour/environment for components, has some similarities with good software engineering where we tend to break things down into well-defined modules that make it easier both to design, debug and understand the program, even if the overall complexity becomes much greater.<
I now try to spend a lot of time before a design project, listing up the (perceived) problems, setting the goals, and defining the project boundaries/limits. Next I will write out an overall circuit flowchart which usually does not contain any circuits or circuit fragments at all, but rather consists of boxes with the desired functions noted in the form of formulae, labels and comments. Once I am satisfied with the general electrical flowchart, I will then design individual circuit blocks to correspond to the labelled boxes in the flowchart. By this stage, the circuitry more or less designs itself. Or to put it more practically, by this stage I have a very good idea what the schematic needs to look like and be. During the flowchart and circuitry design stages, I also will envision what sort of physical structures will best suit the schematic choices, decide whether the physical structures under consideration are feasible, and if so, what the best way of building them will be. In fact, I usually keep re-drawing the schematic to most accurately reflect the current state of physical construction (pcb layout et al), and if I don't like what I see, I will redo the schematic, the physical structures, or both.
Once the prototypes have been built and production commences, I will conduct regular post-mortems regarding the ease of production and QC, and devise revisions if so required. Those post-mortems are also put to good use when I am designing the next project.
I nearly always find that the more time that I spend thinking about and planning a project before doing the actual design work, the less time I need to spend trouble-shooting and debugging it later. Mind you, I am not deliberately searching for greater complexity per se, but I do find that inserting an extra layer of mental abstraction subsequently makes it much easier to comprehend what I should be trying to accomplish, and also to keep the project under control so that it doesn't unwittingly metamorph into something that I wasn't originally looking for. The downside of my preferred approach is that you may not have much concrete to show or play until fairly late in the development cycle, and so if you are designing a commercial product, it helps to have an understanding CEO! And I know other designers - perhaps more hands-on in approach - who prefer to get a prototype functioning as quickly as possible, and wil revise and debug this until they are happy. So whatever works for you is the right approach, I'd say.
Nonetheless, it is a great feeling when a complex circuit that you have never prototyped nor built before works perfectly the first time out, and surpasses your best previous efforts into the bargain!
regards. jonathan carr
That's what people say.
Does that mean that super-E config takes longer (than a single cap0 to break in and sound better? What change for better it actually makes ?
Does that mean that super-E config takes longer (than a single cap0 to break in and sound better? What change for better it actually makes ?
Peter Daniel said:
Exactly.
I have also used strip board and glued copper foil (from an
alphacore inductor) to the back. This was much less successful.
I'd really love one of those prototype PCB drill/router
machines but just haven't got funds for it.
Cheers,
Terry
- Status
- Not open for further replies.