leo
Been here a while! 
Team wtf is it?
Posts: 3,638
|
Post by leo on Sept 28, 2010 0:53:10 GMT
I don't believe that is tha actual impedance at such low internal impedances, but the flatness of the impedance vs. frequency. Think your right there Alex Either way I'll try out a few things first |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 0:55:39 GMT
I don't believe that is tha actual impedance at such low internal impedances, but the flatness of the impedance vs. frequency. Think your right there Alex Either way I'll try out a few things first Leo If the impedance of those batteries at HF is as low as claimed, then a parallel low ESR electro at the battery terminals shouldn't make any difference ? Alex |
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Sept 28, 2010 1:01:20 GMT
Leo, I would try the other approach first - remove the ceramic caps at the pins!
Alex, I think there is no consensus as to which are the important characteristics for PS supplie sin audio & it varies also depending on whether it's analogue or digital circuits that are being powered. I would imagine that low impedance is necessary & possibly a flat spectral impedance. Is this the case for the JLH & PH regs?
Anybody able to interpret that graph?
|
|
leo
Been here a while!
Team wtf is it?
Posts: 3,638
|
Post by leo on Sept 28, 2010 1:03:27 GMT
Think your right there Alex Either way I'll try out a few things first Leo If the impedance of those batteries at HF is as low as claimed, then a parallel low ESR electro at the battery terminals shouldn't make any difference ? Alex Alex, Probably not tbh, I can of course try it. nice thing with regs designed for these apps is that their good at both low and high frequencies .Maybe some things designed for HF aren't so good at LF and vice versa ? Leo |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 1:16:30 GMT
John
Attached is the original graph by JLH. I will leave you to check out the PH Reg specs.
Bear in mind though, that low ESR capacitors were not available back then, and our version uses 2 xSuntan 2,200uF low ESR electros in parallel.Our later versions often use 2 x 4,700uF, which should further improve both the LF impedance and the HF impedance.
10V 2,200uF low ESR = Impedance: max at 20°C 100kHz
** Ripple current measured at 105°C 100kHz
Size (Dia x Lmm): 12 x20mm
Impedance: 0.05
Ripple Current mA rms: 1900
10v 4,700uF low ESR = * Impedance: max at 20°C 100kHz
** Ripple current measured at 105°C 100kHz
Size (Dia x Lmm): 16x30
Impedance: 0.028
Ripple Current mA rms: 2552
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Sept 28, 2010 1:31:35 GMT
Checking out this graph a bit more - the clue is that it's a Nyqyuist plot so the high frequency impedance is read at the zero line & the plot shows that the impedance is 4mOhm at this frequency (100KHz?). So if I'm reading this correctly the impedance seems to stay very low & flat across a wide frequency range.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 1:36:34 GMT
John
That has not been my findings with the SC DAC. The +3.3V and +5V digital supplies surprisingly take on analogue characteristics,
where similar results are obtained using a JLH, or using split supplies via 2 separate JLHs for both Input PCB (DIR9001) and DAC PCB (DSD1796).Tonal balance DOES change. Of course, current thinking on digital seems to be that this should not happen.Other RG members have reported similarly.
Alex
P.S.
No point in further speculation here.
Let Leo have a play there tomorrow (time permitting), and report back his observations.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Sept 28, 2010 1:40:27 GMT
Well, Alex, as Leo said "Maybe some things designed for HF aren't so good at LF and vice versa ?"
|
|
|
|
Post by grottojones on Sept 28, 2010 1:45:02 GMT
Hi John. The sound is far from terrible , its very sweet but for me so far I'm missing the separation, width and depth I'm used to. Hmmm. In my system (PP 6P6 amp driving Altec Model 19s with TAD 2001 compression drivers) the qualities you describe as missing are exactly the qualities I hear in spades when the LiFePO4 batteries are connected. Mileage does indeed vary.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 1:51:03 GMT
Hi John. The sound is far from terrible , its very sweet but for me so far I'm missing the separation, width and depth I'm used to. Hmmm. In my system (PP 6P6 amp driving Altec Model 19s with TAD 2001 compression drivers) the qualities you describe as missing are exactly the qualities I hear in spades when the LiFePO4 batteries are connected. Mileage does indeed vary. Let's not diverge into a Valve vs. SS discussion here.  The 2 amps talked about are VERY different. |
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Sept 28, 2010 1:54:27 GMT
Yes Alex but grottojones is giving a comparative result of his amp with/without the batteries - he's not comparing SS to valve - it's the difference that the batteries make that he is pointing up, no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 2:04:27 GMT
Yes Alex but grottojones is giving a comparative result of his amp with/without the batteries - he's not comparing SS to valve - it's the difference that the batteries make that he is pointing up, no? John I repeat, let's see what Leo finds. No one is questioning that the batteries do give great results in most applications. Some things may be more noticeable with some amplifiers than others. It also comes down to what grottojones previous supply to that area was. It may very well be a major improvement over what he was using previously. There are just too many variable involved here. Sometimes you can over sauce the egg ? For erxample, using a JLH WITHOUT a current limiter gave worse results when powering my Class A preamp, but it sounds great with the CL in circuit. Alex. |
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Sept 28, 2010 2:08:24 GMT
Yes but it's not an SS Vs tubes thing - let's wait to hear Leo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 2:24:03 GMT
Yes but it's not an SS Vs tubes thing - let's wait to hear Leo! John I respectfully disagree.The improvement noticed will depend VERY much on the actual ancillary equipment in use, including the speakers.What is optimum for one may not be optimum for another. Let's leave it at that for now. I think you may be taking our comments too personally,when all we are trying to do is find out why 2 different people report very different results. You may even benefit from Leo's investigations ? Alex P.S. We could always take this discussion to PMs or emails if you feel that these discussions may be affecting your reputation, or harming your sales ? |
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Sept 28, 2010 2:40:11 GMT
Don't worry Alex, I too am looking for the truth about these batteries & I'm not taking it personally or worried about my sales being effected. I'm secure in the improvement that these batteries have had on the Hiface when powering the clocks!
You may have thought I was taking it personally when I acted as a foil to your dismissing of grottojones report about what he heard with his use of the batteries. I didn't ask Leo what his system is or how revealing it is - I took it that his report of how his system sounded with/without batteries was valid, just as I thought grottojones report was!
Sorry, if that didn't come across but I think both views are relevant & yes there are so many variables but this also applies to Leo's system not just grottojones's system!
I'm not going to get into a valve Vs SS debate either - I'm agnostic on this - I've heard some superb systems of either persuasion - so far I would give the lead to a valve based one!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 2:47:36 GMT
John I think you would be even more secure if we managed to come up with a good reason to use these batteries in the digital areas of many DACs. Unfortunately, their voltage is too high to try them with the DIR9001 in the SC DAC. I have already examined that possibility . Alex P.S. Shouldn't you be in bed ? |
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Sept 28, 2010 2:57:07 GMT
John I think you would be even more secure if we managed to come up with a good reason to use these batteries in the digital areas of many DACs. Unfortunately, their voltage is too high to try them with the DIR9001 in the SC DAC. I have already examined that possibility . Alex No, my security is not dependent on any exterior validation - I know what I hear & have analysed the waveforms from the hiface (I think you've seen them?). I have so far not been disappointed in my use of these batteries anywhere I've tried them so I'm happy. I only wondered why Leo didn't find the same & I'm interested in the reasons. The reason may be that there is something better than the batteries but they have already been compared against the PH regs by the person I quoted earlier & he found the batteries to be far superior in the exact same role that Leo is using them on the buffalo! So this fascinates me! I had one person tell me that he heard no difference when running his modified Hiface from these batteries compared to a benchsupply. I investigated the variables as much as I could, remotely but came to no resolution. A couple of months later he wrote to me saying that he tried the batteries again after he changed his IC & they were now clearly better. PS, yes, I'm off to the scratcher now - good night |
|
|
|
Post by grottojones on Sept 28, 2010 15:34:06 GMT
There are just too many variable involved here. Exactly. AND personal preferences (I like Chipolte Tabasco on my morning eggs).  Just to clarify, my tube amp does not run on batteries. Seems that the thread may have been implying that. My comments were in regard to replacing the stock regs on the Buffalo II with PH regs, and then lastly LiFePO4 batteries, listening to my system as a whole, and liking the difference the batteries make. I think they better the active devices. But there are too many variables here to interpet as absolutes. I welcome more input from Leo. Kudos for his trying this out. |
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Sept 28, 2010 18:30:16 GMT
............ I welcome more input from Leo. Kudos for his trying this out. Yes, absolutely! |
|
leo
Been here a while!
Team wtf is it?
Posts: 3,638
|
Post by leo on Oct 1, 2010 23:26:21 GMT
Been busy but managed to squeeze in some faff about time with the dac. I've tried adding low ESR lytics tried low ESR in parallel with normal ESR , normal ESR, Used film caps , Mica caps, 0.1uf multicap RTX , ceramic, no caps and fudged about removing the smd ceramics which I would definitely NOT recommend  It was a real ball ache puttting them back on and cleaning the thing up. Its going to take more than caps to sort things out, the caps did have some effect but not enough to be either cause or solve things IMO. What I did try was feeding the shunts from the batteries (they was ran in series) , it gave to my ears quite interesting results , unfortunately the juice of the batts doesn't last long running shunt regs  A warning to anybody else wanting to experiment , if your wanting to keep things short as possible be very careful! the batteries are large (compared to BII) and pretty heavy especially if soldering short leads to a dacs SMD pads, if your ham fisted leave it well alone After each time I've tried something I clean any flux etc off with a cotton bud dipped in pcb cleaner , it keeps the dac module looking neat |
|
leo
Been here a while!
Team wtf is it?
Posts: 3,638
|
Post by leo on Oct 1, 2010 23:31:23 GMT
Just remember I've only tried them on the ES9018 AVCC L&R supplies which is analogue although the supplies here should be as good as you can use according to the guy behind the Sabre. I have not tried them with the digital supplies yet
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Oct 1, 2010 23:37:49 GMT
Leo,
As I said privately & it may be worth discussing some options publicly - the switch may well be interfering with the low impedance output (8 mOhm) of these batteries. This battery impedance is lower than a lot of caps. It is conceivable that the switch in the PS line is higher impedance to start with & can be detrimentally increasing the impedance at higher frequencies.
Edit: I don't think keeping lines short is of use if you then have a switch in the line. You could lengthen the wiring (& make things easier for yourself) if you keep it all low resistance.
Trying a chocolate block connector could be used as a proof of concept interim measure.
If it works then a Mosfet switch would probably be the best low impedance switch. Anybody experience of this?
PS what was the interesting result with the battery driving the shunts?
|
|
leo
Been here a while!
Team wtf is it?
Posts: 3,638
|
Post by leo on Oct 1, 2010 23:51:06 GMT
So how are you running your Acko dac John from the Batteries? what switch do you use? The interesting results running the shunts from the battery is that it sounded very good , to my ears anyway |
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Oct 1, 2010 23:54:31 GMT
My Acko is still in stasis & experimentation stage so I just use JST battery male/female connectors So how are you running your Acko dac John from the Batteries? what switch do you use? The interesting results running the shunts from the battery is that it sounded very good , to my ears anyway |
|
leo
Been here a while!
Team wtf is it?
Posts: 3,638
|
Post by leo on Oct 2, 2010 0:10:14 GMT
|
|
It was a real ball ache puttting them back on and cleaning the thing up. 