|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.183.218.111
In Reply to: RE: Noise is bad-LT1083 100VA posted by Mercman on September 13, 2014 at 06:46:13
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the LT1083 regulator for the application it is being used in your setup.
Since Fred is so quick and frequent in his dismissal of components, designs, and products by others, I wonder what he considers to be the best regulator for your application.
Follow Ups:
Thanks Abe. It's just Fred's way of doing things.
I am jot going to respond to anyone who know little except buy Apple products. I am not referring to you. Lt 108xs are very old hat when it comes to regulation but it is cheap and easy.
Lt 108xs are very old hat when it comes to regulation but [are] cheap and easy.
The LT108x regulators are indeed cheap and easy but, as John Swenson has pointed out elsewhere, if you use well designed L-C filtering up front to take care of higher frequency noise, the likes of the LT108x are perfectly adequate.
This seems to be the case here: ". . . passive means are the only way to give good filtration and low output impedance." Designing such is not fiendish but it does need competent component selection and doesn't come cheap.
Having DIY'd several C-L-C PSUs to John's design, I can confirm they work very well indeed. I've even tried fancy regulators in place of the specified LT1084 but found they made little, if any, difference. I suspect these are good products.
Are they good value? Lucy is looking a little coy.
I would have not said anything to someone who doesn't pay thousands for a cable and other gadgets and yet not seek the best for a power supply.
A superregulator powered by an ultra isolation transformer will have much better bandwidth and isolation.
This business of R Core can be an old wife's tale. I know for a fact that some China sourced R cores are iffy to say the least. I'd much rather go for a high quality anything.
I almost forgot to include this:
"A "superregulator" only gives good noise rejection through the bandwidth of the control opamp. That isn't really very high in frequency in the overall scheme of things relative to computers. Any knowledgeable engineer knows this. Or, ask Walt Jung. You need passive filtering to complement whatever regulator you use. That's not an indictment of these regulators - what they do, they do very well for their intended purpose. BTW, their intended purpose is only partly to give noise rejection - the designers of these regulators usually are just as concerned with flat, low terminal impedance across the audio band. Maybe more."
This information came second hand to me. Lucy gave it to me after discussing the issue with a Doberman who lives on our street.
I suggest that do some research and compare them with your LT1063 spec sheet in terms of bandwidth, output noise, regulation, output impedance etc.
Mine comfortably does 5 uV noise wideband to 1 MHz +, beyond which I did not have the instrument to measure properly.
Second hand info needs to be scrutinised on the basis of context and accuracy.
My 2A 12V units cost me no more than $50 to make and I can churn them off repeatably.
I need a minimum of 4A for the GRAID drives.
But Steve,
You can always use an isolation transformer (proper one). ;-)
I wonder what brand and model would constitute a "proper one" for YOUR APPLICATION. It's easy to be vague.
A superregulator powered by an ultra isolation transformer will have much better bandwidth and isolation.
But it won't power your disk drives because the designs I've seen won't supply the necessary current. Besides, these 'superregulators' are designed for audio circuits, not for supplying the current demands of HDD motors.
Your HDPlex power supply is very well suited for YOUR APPLICATION, which some folks here can't seem to grasp.
Abe,
Fred's design puts out 2A. I need 4A. You obviously know what you are talking about.
Which specific 'superregulator' design (by whom) and what version is Fred suggesting? There are several out there that claim to be 'superregulators'.
Is there an online schematic of the specific design he is talking about?
not a problem, just uprate the power transistor.
But this was not my point. My point was that the LT 108x based PSs are at best slow and mediocre, with limited bandwidth, and that 2nd hand opinion needs to be processed and not just repeated in a discussion of any value.
I am sure that you must be aware of much better PSs if you visit Computeraudiophile.com
I have no doubt I could purchase far more expensive power supplies. Would there be beneficial sonic results? I really don't know. But I do have something coming that might shed some light on this.I do know that the HDPlex sounds better than the SMPS. But then again Fred, I NEVER stated that this was a state-of-the art solution.
Edits: 09/15/14
you have just said was what I set out to say. Really there was no need for this prolonged and defensive exchange.
.
Lucy feels they work well and appear to be very well built. Quite frankly, I was surprised at the quality of the case/heat sinks given the price. Some of these expensive DACs I review don't look and feel as nice.
It's this business of closing your mind because you own something and was told that it was 'good' again.
I would have thought that your recent 'conversion' on setting up your computer would have opened you up for input other than what you have bought.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: