Oh so you're first accusing me of manipulating the results to your expectations, then you say I used a rectal extraction method for my measurements, yet you accuse me of insulting someone who doesn't understand measurement graphs? Is that how that goes?
Listen, at least I took all the measures I was able to vet my designs. Even if it's through a rectal extraction method as you say.
So far VRDN users got a broken denoiser board, and the creator's friends are jumping at insulting someone pointing out the issues, while in the end the end users are getting shafted.
These friendships benefit you, while people are spending money on 4 layer boards with no measurements, and after that they're having issues with the product.
At least my rectal extraction method offers some insight into what is happening with the board.
You have only made it look worse.
Listen, at least I took all the measures I was able to vet my designs. Even if it's through a rectal extraction method as you say.
So far VRDN users got a broken denoiser board, and the creator's friends are jumping at insulting someone pointing out the issues, while in the end the end users are getting shafted.
These friendships benefit you, while people are spending money on 4 layer boards with no measurements, and after that they're having issues with the product.
At least my rectal extraction method offers some insight into what is happening with the board.
You have only made it look worse.
Here you go again. It must be in your blood. Looking at your measurements I have a feeling that my understanding of measurements and proper measuring procedures is well above yours.
You've got to be kidding me.
Also this discussion is exactly on-topic, it's about the performance of the VRDN.
The creator of the board should have owned up to this way earlier before people spent money on 4 layers expecting a supply that would perform better than your normal LM3x7 supply. Either adjusted the design, either issue a warning that the denoiser circuit is not properly implemented so it should not be used.
This would have been the mature thing to do, which would have benefited the end users. That is what I though matters in the end no? Members of this website getting good info and access to circuits and boards that perform good.
But we get what instead? Smearing for pointing out issues with boards done by established members of the forum? This looks so bad, and doesn't benefit anyone but some egos.
So is the VRDN not up to spec... Sorry to Mark Johnson if I ask out of turn but these comments for the last couple of pages has given me doubt.
I am quite the novice and have just made my first JLPCB order of 10 VRDN boards. Should I proceed with building the 2 I wanted and ordering parts to populate?
Thanks
I am quite the novice and have just made my first JLPCB order of 10 VRDN boards. Should I proceed with building the 2 I wanted and ordering parts to populate?
Thanks
There is only one person claiming that denoiser circuits in the VRDN are not working optimal or not at all, without any proof.
He has not built or measured VRDN regulator, though he has built some regulators with denoiser of his own design. Pointing out that more substantial backup for his claims would be proper, results only in the inappropriate response and misinterpretation of what is said.
Yes, you should proceed and build those regulators.
He has not built or measured VRDN regulator, though he has built some regulators with denoiser of his own design. Pointing out that more substantial backup for his claims would be proper, results only in the inappropriate response and misinterpretation of what is said.
Yes, you should proceed and build those regulators.
I want to be clear that I consider the VRDN to be a fine and solid supply. Just that for LM3x7 + Cadj specs.
My issue is with the denoiser thing. That I don't consider properly implemented and is the reason why users had issues with it.
But for just the LM3x7 + Cadj part I like it, looks solid, looks nice, and should perform as good as any LM3x7+Cadj supply. The VRDN should perform good from that point of view.
My issue is with the denoiser thing. That I don't consider properly implemented and is the reason why users had issues with it.
But for just the LM3x7 + Cadj part I like it, looks solid, looks nice, and should perform as good as any LM3x7+Cadj supply. The VRDN should perform good from that point of view.
This is not true. I have posted my reasoning with proof of unproper design in this post:
VRDN: bipolar regulator PCB for line level ckts: ±11V to ±20V @ 1.5A with "De-Noiser"
It's from the gerbers that are used for the VRDN board. Based on my experience with designing denoiser supplies and based on the issues others here had with the VRDN board when using the denoiser, also based on the single measurement we have on this, I can surely say the denoiser part of this supply is not properly designed and gives bad results.
Physics does not care about friendships or image.
Something does not add up. Can you explain why measured results in #262 shows much better noise reduction for positive supply compared to negative?
You misunderstand. The question is not about same level of noise floor, but about comparably similar noise reduction on both positive and negative implementation as others have observed in Elvee's thread.
Last edited: