Revisiting some "old" ideas from 1970's - IPS, OPS

What is with the rca plugs? Are those meant to mount in the rear panel somehow?

Terry, yes - see the pictures. This is an earlier integrated IPS-OPS version, but overall idea is the same - the board is placed in a way that the plug appears on the rear panel.

Advantage - no input wires - less noise/hum.

Disadvantage - we have to design the separate layouts for left and right channels. However, we believe it makes sense, bearing in mind the advantage 🙂

Now, with the new modular design, we can change the front-end section without touching the bulky OPS board - very convenient!

Front-ends are inexpensive, so the amp owner can try different voltage amplification topologies and choose the one he likes better 😎
 

Attachments

  • 2016-03-26 18.52.01.jpg
    2016-03-26 18.52.01.jpg
    307.9 KB · Views: 468
  • 2016-04-03 11.27.59.jpg
    2016-04-03 11.27.59.jpg
    351.7 KB · Views: 432
The connector is designed to mount flat to the rear cover. If you look close, there is a small ring of plastic sticking out on the mounting surface. This centers it in the hole and adds insulation. There is also a mounting screw hole there. The flat metal surface is chassis grounded, and is not connected to the RCA ground.
 
Another set of heatsinks are on their way to Thimios. Heatsink USA said that when they typed the zip code the address label must have auto-filled to France. Without me asking they were already getting another set together to send to Greece. They most likely will be out the cost of the initial product and shipping. I was happy they admitted the mistake and took steps to remedy the situation without any pressure. Well done.
Evan
 
Another set of heatsinks are on their way to Thimios. Heatsink USA said that when they typed the zip code the address label must have auto-filled to France. Without me asking they were already getting another set together to send to Greece. They most likely will be out the cost of the initial product and shipping. I was happy they admitted the mistake and took steps to remedy the situation without any pressure. Well done.
Evan
I will be happy with this mistake
 
Sorry, I got side tracked today. I'm planning to finish the Parallel-LT tomorrow. What is the planned Rail voltage for this single pair version. Seems maybe I can get by with less than 100V caps. I'm running low on the 100UF 100V caps. If I can go with 63V it would help.

Thanks, Terry
 
Sorry, I got side tracked today. I'm planning to finish the Parallel-LT tomorrow. What is the planned Rail voltage for this single pair version. Seems maybe I can get by with less than 100V caps. I'm running low on the 100UF 100V caps. If I can go with 63V it would help.

Thanks, Terry

Hi Terry,

What PSU options have you got available?
Initially, it was designed for +/-50V with 2 pairs.
If you'd like to go lower - let me know exact voltage, I will chech if some R values need to be adjusted.

Cheers,
Valery
 
I have a few options and a variac. That is why I am asking you what voltage you had intended. I'm using your layout with one pair. I guess my point is that even with 50v rails, 100v caps aren't needed are they? Just looking at my options. I am trying to build it out of my parts bins. So, what rail voltage would you suggest for this single pair circuit?

Thanks, Terry
 
Ok I have been two days trying to find an error in my work but can't. I checked every part for correctness and as far as I can tell I have everything as per layout drawing. I'm assuming that the TO-126 and TO-220 parts all have the base pin marked with a square pad. I have done my best to check out the layout but I must be missing something. I'm attaching a schematic with voltages. Any help will be appreciated.

Blessings, Terry
 

Attachments

  • Parallel AT voltages.jpg
    Parallel AT voltages.jpg
    157.3 KB · Views: 333