Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 2/16/2017 7:23 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:43:15 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/16/2017 12:21 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:07:31 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/15/2017 10:13 PM, PStamler wrote: At the risk of incurring a personal attack, I wish to report that I have tested common commercially-available capacitors, looking for the resonant frequency (frequency at which the device's impedance bottoms out; the cap stops behaving like a capacitor above this frequency and starts behaving like an inductor). The lowest resonant frequency I found was 5.3kHz, well within the audio range. What was the capacitor value for that measurement? It was a 3,300µF/50V Panasonic Series NHG electrolytic. http://www.murata.com/~/media/webren...ow/12to14.ashx So resonant freq f=1/(2*Pi*(L*C)**0.5) So L=273nH. So you had 273nH of parasitic/lead inductance? BULL****. Also, where in the **** would you need such a large cap in a speaker crossover? I never said you would. A 3,300µF cap would more likely be found in a power supply, or perhaps in series with Rin in a noninverting opamp circuit. IF DON'T WANT PERSONAL ATTACKS, DON'T MAKE STUPID **** UP!!! I am making nothing up; I'm simply reporting the result of aome tests I ran, no counter the assertion that inductance isn't an issue with electrolytic capacitors. But you still haven't addressed why you had such a high parasitic/lead inductance. Typical values are around 15nH for a leaded component.... ???? |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:39:44 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
On 2/16/2017 7:23 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:43:15 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/16/2017 12:21 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:07:31 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/15/2017 10:13 PM, PStamler wrote: At the risk of incurring a personal attack, I wish to report that I have tested common commercially-available capacitors, looking for the resonant frequency (frequency at which the device's impedance bottoms out; the cap stops behaving like a capacitor above this frequency and starts behaving like an inductor). The lowest resonant frequency I found was 5.3kHz, well within the audio range. What was the capacitor value for that measurement? It was a 3,300µF/50V Panasonic Series NHG electrolytic. http://www.murata.com/~/media/webren...ow/12to14.ashx So resonant freq f=1/(2*Pi*(L*C)**0.5) So L=273nH. So you had 273nH of parasitic/lead inductance? BULL****. Also, where in the **** would you need such a large cap in a speaker crossover? I never said you would. A 3,300µF cap would more likely be found in a power supply, or perhaps in series with Rin in a noninverting opamp circuit. IF DON'T WANT PERSONAL ATTACKS, DON'T MAKE STUPID **** UP!!! I am making nothing up; I'm simply reporting the result of aome tests I ran, no counter the assertion that inductance isn't an issue with electrolytic capacitors. But you still haven't addressed why you had such a high parasitic/lead inductance. Typical values are around 15nH for a leaded component.... ???? I can only report what I measured; I don't know why the caps measured that way. Incidentally, I also found, when I measured other values of cap: 100µF - 27.9kHz - 34kHz resonance 330µF - 16.2kHz - 17.8kHz " 1,000µF - 9.3kHz - 12.8kHz " 3,300µF - 5.3kHz - 8.6kHz " So there's a clear correlation -- resonance frequency goes down as capacitance value goes up, broadly speaking. Within a given capacitance value, however, there seemed to be no correlation between physical size and resonance frequency (I confess that I expected to find one, but didn't). This experiment was done as part of a power supply design project, so most of the capacitors I tested were ones you'd expect to find in power supplies.. Peace, The Other Paul |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 2/16/2017 8:12 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:39:44 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/16/2017 7:23 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:43:15 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/16/2017 12:21 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:07:31 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/15/2017 10:13 PM, PStamler wrote: At the risk of incurring a personal attack, I wish to report that I have tested common commercially-available capacitors, looking for the resonant frequency (frequency at which the device's impedance bottoms out; the cap stops behaving like a capacitor above this frequency and starts behaving like an inductor). The lowest resonant frequency I found was 5.3kHz, well within the audio range. What was the capacitor value for that measurement? It was a 3,300µF/50V Panasonic Series NHG electrolytic. http://www.murata.com/~/media/webren...ow/12to14.ashx So resonant freq f=1/(2*Pi*(L*C)**0.5) So L=273nH. So you had 273nH of parasitic/lead inductance? BULL****. Also, where in the **** would you need such a large cap in a speaker crossover? I never said you would. A 3,300µF cap would more likely be found in a power supply, or perhaps in series with Rin in a noninverting opamp circuit. IF DON'T WANT PERSONAL ATTACKS, DON'T MAKE STUPID **** UP!!! I am making nothing up; I'm simply reporting the result of aome tests I ran, no counter the assertion that inductance isn't an issue with electrolytic capacitors. But you still haven't addressed why you had such a high parasitic/lead inductance. Typical values are around 15nH for a leaded component.... ???? I can only report what I measured; I don't know why the caps measured that way. Incidentally, I also found, when I measured other values of cap: 100µF - 27.9kHz - 34kHz resonance 330µF - 16.2kHz - 17.8kHz " 1,000µF - 9.3kHz - 12.8kHz " 3,300µF - 5.3kHz - 8.6kHz " So there's a clear correlation -- resonance frequency goes down as capacitance value goes up, broadly speaking. Within a given capacitance value, however, there seemed to be no correlation between physical size and resonance frequency (I confess that I expected to find one, but didn't). This experiment was done as part of a power supply design project, so most of the capacitors I tested were ones you'd expect to find in power supplies. Maybe you used long leads with alligator clips to do this test? That would explain the abnormally high parasitic inductance. And it would make your measurements useless, if you ended up mounting the caps properly for the power supply. But again, you don't use these kind of values in the actual audio chain, or a crossover, so it doesn't matter anyways! |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
PStamler wrote:
I can only report what I measured; ** But how no idea of how to measure. 100µF - 27.9kHz - 34kHz resonance 330µF - 16.2kHz - 17.8kHz " 1,000µF - 9.3kHz - 12.8kHz " 3,300µF - 5.3kHz - 8.6kHz " ** All the resonance values are wrong because you included connection lead inductance in the tests. There is a good reason most electro cap ESR meters work at 100kHz - it is the frequency where electro impedance is at its very lowest over a wide range of values. The true readings for your 3,300Uf cap are Fo at 19kHz with impedance rising above the ESR value only beyond 250kHz. The inductance is the same as* 1 inch of wire * and you did not take that fact into account. The ESR is higher in value until the frequency is in the long wave RF range.. ....... Phil |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 2/16/2017 8:12 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:39:44 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/16/2017 7:23 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:43:15 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/16/2017 12:21 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:07:31 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/15/2017 10:13 PM, PStamler wrote: At the risk of incurring a personal attack, I wish to report that I have tested common commercially-available capacitors, looking for the resonant frequency (frequency at which the device's impedance bottoms out; the cap stops behaving like a capacitor above this frequency and starts behaving like an inductor). The lowest resonant frequency I found was 5.3kHz, well within the audio range. What was the capacitor value for that measurement? It was a 3,300µF/50V Panasonic Series NHG electrolytic. http://www.murata.com/~/media/webren...ow/12to14.ashx So resonant freq f=1/(2*Pi*(L*C)**0.5) So L=273nH. So you had 273nH of parasitic/lead inductance? BULL****. Also, where in the **** would you need such a large cap in a speaker crossover? I never said you would. A 3,300µF cap would more likely be found in a power supply, or perhaps in series with Rin in a noninverting opamp circuit. IF DON'T WANT PERSONAL ATTACKS, DON'T MAKE STUPID **** UP!!! I am making nothing up; I'm simply reporting the result of aome tests I ran, no counter the assertion that inductance isn't an issue with electrolytic capacitors. But you still haven't addressed why you had such a high parasitic/lead inductance. Typical values are around 15nH for a leaded component.... ???? I can only report what I measured; I don't know why the caps measured that way. Incidentally, I also found, when I measured other values of cap: 100µF - 27.9kHz - 34kHz resonance 330µF - 16.2kHz - 17.8kHz " 1,000µF - 9.3kHz - 12.8kHz " 3,300µF - 5.3kHz - 8.6kHz " So there's a clear correlation -- resonance frequency goes down as capacitance value goes up, broadly speaking. Within a given capacitance value, however, there seemed to be no correlation between physical size and resonance frequency (I confess that I expected to find one, but didn't). This experiment was done as part of a power supply design project, so most of the capacitors I tested were ones you'd expect to find in power supplies. Actually, you have to watch your ESR and ESL on switching power supplies even MORE! They will typically use a switching frequency of 100kHz to several MHz: http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/applic...te/AN140fa.pdf And from he http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slta055/slta055.pdf For input caps: "Ceramic capacitors placed right at the input of the regulator reduce ripple voltage amplitude. Only ceramics have the extremely low ESR that is needed to reduce the ripple voltage amplitude. These capacitors must be placed close to the regulator input pins to be effective. Even a few nanohenries of stray inductance in the capacitor current path raises the impedance at the switching frequency to levels that negate their effectiveness. Large bulk capacitors do not reduce ripple voltage. The ESR of aluminum electrolytics and most tantalums are too high to allow for effective ripple reduction. Large input ripple voltage can cause large amounts of ripple current to flow in the bulk capacitors, causing excessive power dissipation in the ESR parasitic." For output caps: "The self resonant frequency is considered to be the maximum usable frequency for a capacitor. Above this frequency the impedance of the capacitor begins to rise as the ESL of the capacitor begins to dominate. Note that each capacitor type has a specific frequency band over which it is most effective. Therefore, a capacitor network of multiple capacitor types is more effective in reducing impedance than just one type." Figure 5 and 7 and VERY interesting, and show how you have to design around the resonant frequency of the caps. COOL ****! |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:31:35 PM UTC-6, Phil Allison wrote:
** All the resonance values are wrong because you included connection lead inductance in the tests. The inductance is the same as* 1 inch of wire * and you did not take that fact into account. I offer the following results in rebuttal. All were obtained with the same test setup, including the samw test leads. From the resonaance figures I calculated the inductaance. These figures are for 3,300µF capacitors. Incidentally, the inductance of 1" of wire, if it's 22 AWG, is 0.022µH; if it's 12AWG the inductance is 0.0162µH. Capacitor Inductance 1 0.273µH 2 0.213µH 3 0.213µH 4 0.206µH 5 0.200µH 6 0.161µH 7 0.157µH 8 0.148µH 9 0.148µH 10 0.133µH 11 0.133µH 12 0.104µH I submit that a ratio of 2.05:1 in inductances suggests that I'm measuring something besides the test leads' inductances. Peace, The Other Paul |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 17/02/2017 12:41 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote: On 16/02/2017 3:57 PM, PStamler wrote: At the risk of attracting one of Mr. Allison's personal attacks,I have measured the rise in capacitors' impedance at high frequencies -- in some cases they switch from being capacitative to inductive well within the audio band. If you often use power supply filter caps etc. for audio coupling purposes, that's definitely something you'd would want to take into account I guess. :-) There is a reason why one selects components for purpose of course. Sadly, that was the technology of the 1970s. People were designing with transistors but they were still thinking about tubes in their heads, so everything was capacitively coupled and electrolytics were needed in order to deal with the high values required due to the low impedances. Name ONE item that used a 3,300uF cap (as mentioned elsewhere) for coupling? I never saw one. I was at a mastering facility a few years back with some audiophile label guys who were looking at having some LPs cut. They asked the mastering engineer if there were any electrolytic capacitors in the signal path of the Neumann lathe amplifier and he about spit himself. "Millions of them!" he said. "Millions!" Well hundreds anyway, and perfectly adequate for the purpose. Least of your worries with vinyl! And so, because we live with a lot of older equipment designed in this regime, we have to deal with it and we have to find capacitors appropriate for the application. Exactly. Not 3,300uF filter caps for coupling purposes. Trevor. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 17/02/2017 2:12 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:39:44 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/16/2017 7:23 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:43:15 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/16/2017 12:21 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:07:31 AM UTC-6, Paul wrote: On 2/15/2017 10:13 PM, PStamler wrote: At the risk of incurring a personal attack, I wish to report that I have tested common commercially-available capacitors, looking for the resonant frequency (frequency at which the device's impedance bottoms out; the cap stops behaving like a capacitor above this frequency and starts behaving like an inductor). The lowest resonant frequency I found was 5.3kHz, well within the audio range. What was the capacitor value for that measurement? It was a 3,300µF/50V Panasonic Series NHG electrolytic. http://www.murata.com/~/media/webren...ow/12to14.ashx So resonant freq f=1/(2*Pi*(L*C)**0.5) So L=273nH. So you had 273nH of parasitic/lead inductance? BULL****. Also, where in the **** would you need such a large cap in a speaker crossover? I never said you would. A 3,300µF cap would more likely be found in a power supply, or perhaps in series with Rin in a noninverting opamp circuit. IF DON'T WANT PERSONAL ATTACKS, DON'T MAKE STUPID **** UP!!! I am making nothing up; I'm simply reporting the result of aome tests I ran, no counter the assertion that inductance isn't an issue with electrolytic capacitors. But you still haven't addressed why you had such a high parasitic/lead inductance. Typical values are around 15nH for a leaded component.... ???? I can only report what I measured; I don't know why the caps measured that way. Incidentally, I also found, when I measured other values of cap: 100µF - 27.9kHz - 34kHz resonance 330µF - 16.2kHz - 17.8kHz " 1,000µF - 9.3kHz - 12.8kHz " 3,300µF - 5.3kHz - 8.6kHz " So there's a clear correlation -- resonance frequency goes down as capacitance value goes up, broadly speaking. Within a given capacitance value, however, there seemed to be no correlation between physical size and resonance frequency (I confess that I expected to find one, but didn't). This experiment was done as part of a power supply design project, so most of the capacitors I tested were ones you'd expect to find in power supplies. Exactly, and those resonances are hardly a problem at 50-120Hz. People do often worry about which caps they choose in the 100uF range for coupling purposes however. Trevor. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 17/02/2017 5:47 PM, PStamler wrote:
I offer the following results in rebuttal. All were obtained with the same test setup, including the samw test leads. From the resonaance figures I calculated the inductaance. These figures are for 3,300µF capacitors. Incidentally, the inductance of 1" of wire, if it's 22 AWG, is 0.022µH; if it's 12AWG the inductance is 0.0162µH. Capacitor Inductance 1 0.273µH 2 0.213µH 3 0.213µH 4 0.206µH 5 0.200µH 6 0.161µH 7 0.157µH 8 0.148µH 9 0.148µH 10 0.133µH 11 0.133µH 12 0.104µH I submit that a ratio of 2.05:1 in inductances suggests that I'm measuring something besides the test leads' inductances. According to your own figures, a foot of test lead (*2), will be in the same ball park as your readings, or more! Trevor. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:28:00 AM UTC-6, Trevor wrote:
On 17/02/2017 5:47 PM, PStamler wrote: I offer the following results in rebuttal. All were obtained with the same test setup, including the samw test leads. From the resonaance figures I calculated the inductaance. These figures are for 3,300µF capacitors. Incidentally, the inductance of 1" of wire, if it's 22 AWG, is 0.022µH; if it's 12AWG the inductance is 0.0162µH. Capacitor Inductance 1 0.273µH 2 0.213µH 3 0.213µH 4 0.206µH 5 0.200µH 6 0.161µH 7 0.157µH 8 0.148µH 9 0.148µH 10 0.133µH 11 0.133µH 12 0.104µH I submit that a ratio of 2.05:1 in inductances suggests that I'm measuring something besides the test leads' inductances. According to your own figures, a foot of test lead (*2), will be in the same ball park as your readings, or more! Actually just 1 foot; my clip leads were 6" long. But you make a good point. Peace, The Other Paul |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 2/17/2017 1:18 AM, PStamler wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:28:00 AM UTC-6, Trevor wrote: On 17/02/2017 5:47 PM, PStamler wrote: I offer the following results in rebuttal. All were obtained with the same test setup, including the samw test leads. From the resonaance figures I calculated the inductaance. These figures are for 3,300µF capacitors. Incidentally, the inductance of 1" of wire, if it's 22 AWG, is 0.022µH; if it's 12AWG the inductance is 0.0162µH. Capacitor Inductance 1 0.273µH 2 0.213µH 3 0.213µH 4 0.206µH 5 0.200µH 6 0.161µH 7 0.157µH 8 0.148µH 9 0.148µH 10 0.133µH 11 0.133µH 12 0.104µH I submit that a ratio of 2.05:1 in inductances suggests that I'm measuring something besides the test leads' inductances. According to your own figures, a foot of test lead (*2), will be in the same ball park as your readings, or more! Actually just 1 foot; my clip leads were 6" long. But you make a good point. Redo the test, without the test leads. The resonant frequency should go up... |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:25:18 -0700, Paul wrote:
On 2/17/2017 1:18 AM, PStamler wrote: On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:28:00 AM UTC-6, Trevor wrote: On 17/02/2017 5:47 PM, PStamler wrote: I offer the following results in rebuttal. All were obtained with the same test setup, including the samw test leads. From the resonaance figures I calculated the inductaance. These figures are for 3,300µF capacitors. Incidentally, the inductance of 1" of wire, if it's 22 AWG, is 0.022µH; if it's 12AWG the inductance is 0.0162µH. Capacitor Inductance 1 0.273µH 2 0.213µH 3 0.213µH 4 0.206µH 5 0.200µH 6 0.161µH 7 0.157µH 8 0.148µH 9 0.148µH 10 0.133µH 11 0.133µH 12 0.104µH I submit that a ratio of 2.05:1 in inductances suggests that I'm measuring something besides the test leads' inductances. According to your own figures, a foot of test lead (*2), will be in the same ball park as your readings, or more! Actually just 1 foot; my clip leads were 6" long. But you make a good point. Redo the test, without the test leads. The resonant frequency should go up... Easier way. Just calibrate by connecting the test leads together. Measure the inductance and subtract it from whatever is later measured. d --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 17/02/2017 7:47 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:31:35 PM UTC-6, Phil Allison wrote: ** All the resonance values are wrong because you included connection lead inductance in the tests. The inductance is the same as* 1 inch of wire * and you did not take that fact into account. I offer the following results in rebuttal. All were obtained with the same test setup, including the samw test leads. From the resonaance figures I calculated the inductaance. These figures are for 3,300µF capacitors. Incidentally, the inductance of 1" of wire, if it's 22 AWG, is 0.022µH; if it's 12AWG the inductance is 0.0162µH. Capacitor Inductance 1 0.273µH 2 0.213µH 3 0.213µH 4 0.206µH 5 0.200µH 6 0.161µH 7 0.157µH 8 0.148µH 9 0.148µH 10 0.133µH 11 0.133µH 12 0.104µH I submit that a ratio of 2.05:1 in inductances suggests that I'm measuring something besides the test leads' inductances. Peace, The Other Paul Why not actually test capacitors that are likely to be found in series in a signal path, rather than used in their designed application as reservoir capacitors in a power supply (and maybe in one model audiophool valve/tube power amp) ? And on input to my old KEF R105 crossovers (but I'm sure that was a designed-in factor) geoff |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 00:39:04 +1300, geoff
wrote: On 17/02/2017 7:47 PM, PStamler wrote: On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:31:35 PM UTC-6, Phil Allison wrote: ** All the resonance values are wrong because you included connection lead inductance in the tests. The inductance is the same as* 1 inch of wire * and you did not take that fact into account. I offer the following results in rebuttal. All were obtained with the same test setup, including the samw test leads. From the resonaance figures I calculated the inductaance. These figures are for 3,300µF capacitors. Incidentally, the inductance of 1" of wire, if it's 22 AWG, is 0.022µH; if it's 12AWG the inductance is 0.0162µH. Capacitor Inductance 1 0.273µH 2 0.213µH 3 0.213µH 4 0.206µH 5 0.200µH 6 0.161µH 7 0.157µH 8 0.148µH 9 0.148µH 10 0.133µH 11 0.133µH 12 0.104µH I submit that a ratio of 2.05:1 in inductances suggests that I'm measuring something besides the test leads' inductances. Peace, The Other Paul Why not actually test capacitors that are likely to be found in series in a signal path, rather than used in their designed application as reservoir capacitors in a power supply (and maybe in one model audiophool valve/tube power amp) ? And on input to my old KEF R105 crossovers (but I'm sure that was a designed-in factor) Hang on there. Power supply capacitors absolutely are in the signal path. The alternating speaker current flows through them as a series element. d --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
david gourley wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) said...news david gourley wrote: My Dynaco ST120 channels use that value for output coupling to the speaker. Is mentioning an ST120 like mentioning Hitler? Is this thread closed now? Wow, sorry didn't know it was THAT bad. I've used it for a guitar and bass amp. It has some interesting issues. It's slew-limited, which was typical of amps back then, but in part because of single supply rail and the non-complementary output stage, the slew limiting is asymmetric. On top of all that it has that huge blocking capacitor on the output which isn't helping anything... and then they wind the output choke around the blocking capacitor which is not exactly a linear core... that becomes a really remarkable source of distortion. Probably make a perfectly fine bass amp, though. Because of all that DC blocking and that huge choke on the output to move all the poles to the left, the thing is much more stable than many of the amps from that era. But, when I think about why solid state electronics had such a bad reputation for sound quality in the seventies, the ST120 is one of the first things I think about. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
In article , Paul wrote:
But you still haven't addressed why you had such a high parasitic/lead inductance. He hasn't, but that doesn't mean it's not there. And it's not the lead inductance at all, it's the inductance of the foil wrap. We're talking some hundreds of turns in many capacitors. If all this bothers you, use a stacked film cap and don't worry. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:26:38 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: But you still haven't addressed why you had such a high parasitic/lead inductance. He hasn't, but that doesn't mean it's not there. And it's not the lead inductance at all, it's the inductance of the foil wrap. We're talking some hundreds of turns in many capacitors. If all this bothers you, use a stacked film cap and don't worry. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." yes.... and regardless of what the cause of that inductance that the OP is seeing, the value of that inductance and the value of the Z at audio is sooo looow that it is of no concern. m |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 17 Feb 2017 09:26:36 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: But you still haven't addressed why you had such a high parasitic/lead inductance. He hasn't, but that doesn't mean it's not there. And it's not the lead inductance at all, it's the inductance of the foil wrap. We're talking some hundreds of turns in many capacitors. If all this bothers you, use a stacked film cap and don't worry. The capacity of some capacitors (especially multi layer ceramic) is dependent on the voltage across them; in some cases the value gets halved! You don't want such in an audio path if the audio voltage is a significant part of the blocking voltage (if any). See http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...oc_id=1330877& . Also http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/...n13/an1325.pdf has a nice table of different capacitor types and their trade-offs. Mat Nieuwenhoven |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
david gourley wrote:
Surely those Southwest Tiger amps fit in some place near the top ? g They have some stability issues, to say the least. But as far as exploding into flames go, they are no match for the Phase Linears. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 2/17/2017 7:26 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: But you still haven't addressed why you had such a high parasitic/lead inductance. He hasn't, but that doesn't mean it's not there. And it's not the lead inductance at all, it's the inductance of the foil wrap. We're talking some hundreds of turns in many capacitors. If all this bothers you, use a stacked film cap and don't worry. --scott So let's assume the leaded capacitor has about 15nH of self inductance. 270-15= 255 nH. And let's guesstimate 6nH of inductance per cm of lead length. 42.5 cm of added lead length??? THAT WOULD BE SLOPPY ENGINEERING!!!! :/ http://sound.whsites.net/articles/capacitors.htm |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
..
The capacity of some capacitors (especially multi layer ceramic) is dependent on the voltage across them; in some cases the value gets halved! You don't want such in an audio path if the audio voltage is a significant part of the blocking voltage (if any). See http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...oc_id=1330877& . Also http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/...n13/an1325.pdf has a nice table of different capacitor types and their trade-offs. Mat Nieuwenhoven no it's not that bad if the cap "in the audio path" is a coupling cap then it's job is to have as little as possible audio voltage drop across it... and it will be sized accordingly. So then only at very high amplitude and very low frequency bass, i.e. below the - 3 dB point, will there be any significant voltage drop ACROSS the cap. In that special case, there may be added distortion. The other case is when the cap is used as part of a filter and there is large audio voltage ACROSS (not through) the cap. In most ordinary coupling cap applications, it is not a problem. m |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 17 Feb 2017 13:28:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
david gourley wrote: Surely those Southwest Tiger amps fit in some place near the top ? g They have some stability issues, to say the least. But as far as exploding into flames go, they are no match for the Phase Linears. --scott I came up with a mod for these that made them extremely stable. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 2/17/17 11:58 AM, Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:
On 17 Feb 2017 09:26:36 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: The capacity of some capacitors (especially multi layer ceramic) is dependent on the voltage across them; in some cases the value gets halved! You don't want such in an audio path if the audio voltage is a significant part of the blocking voltage (if any). See http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...oc_id=1330877& . Also http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/...n13/an1325.pdf has a nice table of different capacitor types and their trade-offs. Mat Nieuwenhoven Both of those references seem to discuss the shortcomings of the crappier ceramic capacitors, with just a passing reference to the premium ceramic capacitors known as the "COG" or "NP0" types. The COG/NP0 type deserves special consideration. If anyone is interested, page 8 of my 990 data package describes some of the differences between the three most common types of ceramic capacitors, the COG/NP0, X7R and Z5U. http://www.johnhardyco.com/pdf/990.pdf Thank you. John Hardy The John Hardy Co. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:
The capacity of some capacitors (especially multi layer ceramic) is dependent on the voltage across them; in some cases the value gets halved! You don't want such in an audio path if the audio voltage is a significant part of the blocking voltage (if any). See http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...oc_id=1330877& . Hey! I bet I could use that as a compressor! --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
In article , Paul wrote:
So let's assume the leaded capacitor has about 15nH of self inductance. 270-15= 255 nH. And let's guesstimate 6nH of inductance per cm of lead length. 42.5 cm of added lead length??? Sounds about right, since you have more than a meter of foil wrapped up inside that thing, and you have mutual coupling between winds. THAT WOULD BE SLOPPY ENGINEERING!!!! Don't like it? Use a stacked film type! --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
PStamler wrote:
Phil Allison wrote: ** All the resonance values are wrong because you included connection lead inductance in the tests. The inductance is the same as* 1 inch of wire * and you did not take that fact into account. I offer the following results in rebuttal. Incidentally, the inductance of 1" of wire, if it's 22 AWG, is 0.022µH; if it's 12AWG the inductance is 0.0162µH. ** Correct - so ****ing what? Consider that your fake results are CONTRADICTED by everyone else !! BTW: You snipped my info on electro ESR meters working at 100kHz. It alone PROVES you are wrong. You are one stubborn POS aren't you ? ..... Phil |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 7:44:12 PM UTC-6, Phil Allison wrote:
PStamler wrote: Phil Allison wrote: ** All the resonance values are wrong because you included connection lead inductance in the tests. The inductance is the same as* 1 inch of wire * and you did not take that fact into account. I offer the following results in rebuttal. Incidentally, the inductance of 1" of wire, if it's 22 AWG, is 0.022µH; if it's 12AWG the inductance is 0.0162µH. ** Correct - so ****ing what? Consider that your fake results are CONTRADICTED by everyone else !! They weren't fake, just wrong, which I freely acknowledge. BTW: You snipped my info on electro ESR meters working at 100kHz. It alone PROVES you are wrong. It's actually a side issue. You are one stubborn POS aren't you ? Yes -- it's a useful survival skill. Peace, The Other Paul .... Phil |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
PStamler wrote:
Consider that your fake results are CONTRADICTED by everyone else !! They weren't fake, just wrong, which I freely acknowledge. ** Really - when did that happen ?? BTW: You snipped my info on electro ESR meters working at 100kHz. It alone PROVES you are wrong. It's actually a side issue. ** No, it proves how naïve and stubborn you are. That electro ESR meters typically work at 100kHz *contradicts* all your mad assertions. It PROVES that ESL has no effect on impedance until well above that frequency. There are none so blind as those who will not see. You are one stubborn POS aren't you ? Yes -- it's a useful survival skill. ** No round here pal. ..... Phil |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 18/02/2017 2:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: So let's assume the leaded capacitor has about 15nH of self inductance. 270-15= 255 nH. And let's guesstimate 6nH of inductance per cm of lead length. 42.5 cm of added lead length??? Sounds about right, since you have more than a meter of foil wrapped up inside that thing, and you have mutual coupling between winds. THAT WOULD BE SLOPPY ENGINEERING!!!! Don't like it? Use a stacked film type! --scott Isn't a wonder that one can hear anything vaguely coherent at all out of nearly all audio gear .... geoff |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
geoff wrote:
Isn't a wonder that one can hear anything vaguely coherent at all out of nearly all audio gear .... Well, thats part of the problem with measurement. If you measure carefully enough, you'll find all kinds of weird stuff going on. Whether it actually matters or not is a different issue. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 2/17/2017 6:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote: So let's assume the leaded capacitor has about 15nH of self inductance. 270-15= 255 nH. And let's guesstimate 6nH of inductance per cm of lead length. 42.5 cm of added lead length??? Sounds about right, since you have more than a meter of foil wrapped up inside that thing, and you have mutual coupling between winds. Incorrect. 270nH would be a ridiculous amount of parasitic inductance. The Other Paul admitted his leads were 6", so he added about a foot of lead length! And look here again: http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slta055/slta055.pdf Check plots 4, 5, and 7. Calculate the ESL from the resonant frequencies. You'll see most are in the tens of nH. THAT WOULD BE SLOPPY ENGINEERING!!!! Don't like it? Use a stacked film type! --scott |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-6, Phil Allison wrote:
PStamler wrote: Consider that your fake results are CONTRADICTED by everyone else !! They weren't fake, just wrong, which I freely acknowledge. ** Really - when did that happen ?? Just now -- see above. Peace, The Other Paul |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:11:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:
.. The capacity of some capacitors (especially multi layer ceramic) is dependent on the voltage across them; in some cases the value gets halved! You don't want such in an audio path if the audio voltage is a significant part of the blocking voltage (if any). See http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...oc_id=1330877& . Also http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/...n13/an1325.pdf has a nice table of different capacitor types and their trade-offs. Mat Nieuwenhoven no it's not that bad if the cap "in the audio path" is a coupling cap then it's job is to have as little as possible audio voltage drop across it... and it will be sized accordingly. In general yes, but with non-pro equipment cost is an important issue and even coupling caps are likely to be as small as possible. Fortunately, they are unlike to be the multilayer ceramics. Electrolytics are much better in this respect. So then only at very high amplitude and very low frequency bass, i.e. below the - 3 dB point, will there be any significant voltage drop ACROSS the cap. In that special case, there may be added distortion. It's not just the voltage. If the cap is voltage dependent, then the current through it as result of an AC voltage will be distorted. See for instance http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/c...age_change.htm , a little bit down you see a plot of 922 Hz voltage / current over/through a Y5U type cap (about the worst case) . Even though it's not so real-life, I found this shocking. The same page also shows that electrolytic and tantalum caps are much better in this respect. The other case is when the cap is used as part of a filter and there is large audio voltage ACROSS (not through) the cap. In most ordinary coupling cap applications, it is not a problem. True. Most higher audio voltages, with apologies to our thermionic-loving friends :-) , will nowadays be found in internal passive loudspeaker filters, and there high-quality caps are typically used. Mat Nieuwenhoven |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On 17 Feb 2017 20:11:57 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote: The capacity of some capacitors (especially multi layer ceramic) is dependent on the voltage across them; in some cases the value gets halved! You don't want such in an audio path if the audio voltage is a significant part of the blocking voltage (if any). See http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...oc_id=1330877& . Hey! I bet I could use that as a compressor! :-) As a distortion thingy, more likely, albeit frequency and volume dependent. See http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/c...age_change.htm , where a sine voltage across the cap results in a more or less triangular current through it. The distortion would be more if the AC was higher. The graph show the tops more or less OK, but the flanks are distorted. I bet this would sound very different from top-limiting, such as in guitar amps or overdriven tubes. Mat Nieuwenhoven |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:24:55 -0600, John Hardy wrote:
On 2/17/17 11:58 AM, Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote: On 17 Feb 2017 09:26:36 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: The capacity of some capacitors (especially multi layer ceramic) is dependent on the voltage across them; in some cases the value gets halved! You don't want such in an audio path if the audio voltage is a significant part of the blocking voltage (if any). See http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...oc_id=1330877& . Also http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/...n13/an1325.pdf has a nice table of different capacitor types and their trade-offs. Mat Nieuwenhoven Both of those references seem to discuss the shortcomings of the crappier ceramic capacitors, with just a passing reference to the premium ceramic capacitors known as the "COG" or "NP0" types. The COG/NP0 type deserves special consideration. If anyone is interested, page 8 of my 990 data package describes some of the differences between the three most common types of ceramic capacitors, the COG/NP0, X7R and Z5U. http://www.johnhardyco.com/pdf/990.pdf Very interesting document, thanks. Indeed, the COG/NP0 caps are fine in this respect. Are transformer-based mic amps still used? I can see that a transformer-based gain is essentially noise-free, but aren't they sensitive to microphone impedance? One question about the MPC-1 mic pre-amp schematic, if I may. For the +/- 15V the 78L15/79L15 regulators are used. I thought that these were quite noisy? I've seen recommenations to use adjustable regulators ones instead. Mat Nieuwenhoven |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 20:45:19 GMT, Don Pearce wrote:
snip Both of those references seem to discuss the shortcomings of the crappier ceramic capacitors, with just a passing reference to the premium ceramic capacitors known as the "COG" or "NP0" types. The COG/NP0 type deserves special consideration. If anyone is interested, page 8 of my 990 data package describes some of the differences between the three most common types of ceramic capacitors, the COG/NP0, X7R and Z5U. http://www.johnhardyco.com/pdf/990.pdf Very interesting document, thanks. Indeed, the COG/NP0 caps are fine in this respect. Are transformer-based mic amps still used? I can see that a transformer-based gain is essentially noise-free, but aren't they sensitive to microphone impedance? One question about the MPC-1 mic pre-amp schematic, if I may. For the +/- 15V the 78L15/79L15 regulators are used. I thought that these were quite noisy? I've seen recommenations to use adjustable regulators ones instead. Mat Nieuwenhoven Transformer based gain? It isn't gain - it is just impedance transformation. Yes, but at the same time transforming voltage. And because the gain stages after that are only interested in voltage, not power, why wouldn't it be a noise-free voltage gain? And most transformers have a loss about 1dB, which equates to a 1dB added noise figure. The 990 opamp pdf lists a transformer gain of 5.6 dB. If you want a quiet preamp you do away with the transformer and design the front end to present a noise match to the mic. Understood, so such a preamp will have a recommended mic impedance? This will also provide the lowest distortion, which transformers won't manage at the low end. I didn't know transformers have more distortion at low levels. Do current top-of-the line mic preamps in mixers use discrete or integrated circruitry? As for regulator noise, if your preamp has even a half-way decent PSRR, it simply isn't a factor. Unless it's set to a high gain, which it isn't here. Mat Nieuwenhoven |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 20:36:32 +0100 (CET), "Mat Nieuwenhoven"
wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:24:55 -0600, John Hardy wrote: On 2/17/17 11:58 AM, Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote: On 17 Feb 2017 09:26:36 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: The capacity of some capacitors (especially multi layer ceramic) is dependent on the voltage across them; in some cases the value gets halved! You don't want such in an audio path if the audio voltage is a significant part of the blocking voltage (if any). See http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?se...oc_id=1330877& . Also http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/...n13/an1325.pdf has a nice table of different capacitor types and their trade-offs. Mat Nieuwenhoven Both of those references seem to discuss the shortcomings of the crappier ceramic capacitors, with just a passing reference to the premium ceramic capacitors known as the "COG" or "NP0" types. The COG/NP0 type deserves special consideration. If anyone is interested, page 8 of my 990 data package describes some of the differences between the three most common types of ceramic capacitors, the COG/NP0, X7R and Z5U. http://www.johnhardyco.com/pdf/990.pdf Very interesting document, thanks. Indeed, the COG/NP0 caps are fine in this respect. Are transformer-based mic amps still used? I can see that a transformer-based gain is essentially noise-free, but aren't they sensitive to microphone impedance? One question about the MPC-1 mic pre-amp schematic, if I may. For the +/- 15V the 78L15/79L15 regulators are used. I thought that these were quite noisy? I've seen recommenations to use adjustable regulators ones instead. Mat Nieuwenhoven Transformer based gain? It isn't gain - it is just impedance transformation. And most transformers have a loss about 1dB, which equates to a 1dB added noise figure. If you want a quiet preamp you do away with the transformer and design the front end to present a noise match to the mic. This will also provide the lowest distortion, which transformers won't manage at the low end. As for regulator noise, if your preamp has even a half-way decent PSRR, it simply isn't a factor. d --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:
:-) As a distortion thingy, more likely, albeit frequency and volume dependent. See http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/c...age_change.htm , where a sine voltage across the cap results in a more or less triangular current through it. The distortion would be more if the AC was higher. The graph show the tops more or less OK, but the flanks are distorted. I bet this would sound very different from top-limiting, such as in guitar amps or overdriven tubes. Sure, but more interestingly I could put a large DC bias voltage across them, and a small AC signal voltage. As I adjust the DC bias, the low frequency corner moves up and down. A little like the whole magnetic amplifier trick. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
APOLOGIES TO ALL: PIEZO TWEETERS DO SOUND LIKE ****!!!!
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:26:05 +0100 (CET), "Mat Nieuwenhoven"
wrote: On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 20:45:19 GMT, Don Pearce wrote: snip Both of those references seem to discuss the shortcomings of the crappier ceramic capacitors, with just a passing reference to the premium ceramic capacitors known as the "COG" or "NP0" types. The COG/NP0 type deserves special consideration. If anyone is interested, page 8 of my 990 data package describes some of the differences between the three most common types of ceramic capacitors, the COG/NP0, X7R and Z5U. http://www.johnhardyco.com/pdf/990.pdf Very interesting document, thanks. Indeed, the COG/NP0 caps are fine in this respect. Are transformer-based mic amps still used? I can see that a transformer-based gain is essentially noise-free, but aren't they sensitive to microphone impedance? One question about the MPC-1 mic pre-amp schematic, if I may. For the +/- 15V the 78L15/79L15 regulators are used. I thought that these were quite noisy? I've seen recommenations to use adjustable regulators ones instead. Mat Nieuwenhoven Transformer based gain? It isn't gain - it is just impedance transformation. Yes, but at the same time transforming voltage. And because the gain stages after that are only interested in voltage, not power, why wouldn't it be a noise-free voltage gain? No, not noise free. Transformers have a loss figure, which translates directly into noise. And most transformers have a loss about 1dB, which equates to a 1dB added noise figure. The 990 opamp pdf lists a transformer gain of 5.6 dB. That is the transformation ratio they recommend to bring the mic impedance up to the optimum noise match impedance. You still have to add the transformer loss though. If you want a quiet preamp you do away with the transformer and design the front end to present a noise match to the mic. Understood, so such a preamp will have a recommended mic impedance? Yes, although it is a fairly broad peak. This will also provide the lowest distortion, which transformers won't manage at the low end. I didn't know transformers have more distortion at low levels. Do current top-of-the line mic preamps in mixers use discrete or integrated circruitry? Not low levels, low frequencies. As for regulator noise, if your preamp has even a half-way decent PSRR, it simply isn't a factor. Unless it's set to a high gain, which it isn't here. The gain shouldn't change the PSRR, but it does imply a low signal level, so proportionately the effect will be greater. A resistor and a fat electrolytic will kill the noise. d --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: Piezo tweeters + bonus for the self build or replacement enthusiast | General | |||
FA: Piezo tweeters + bonus for the self build or replacement enthusiast | Marketplace | |||
FA: Motorola KSN1005A pair piezo tweeters | Pro Audio | |||
FA: Motorola KSN1005A piezo tweeters - one pair | Marketplace | |||
piezo tweeters | Pro Audio |