Hello, newbie here without real electronics knowledge 😱
I was asked to reroute my question to this corner about my problem.
It is all about the PSU for the 1794 NOS DAC designed by Doede Douma.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...-nos-192-24-dac-pcm1794-waveio-usb-input.html
I bought myself a real lump of a trafo (500VA 2 x 19V 2 x 13,88 A) which i rewired to get the voltage required, 1 x 15 V + 1 x 9 V.
So both the secondaries are going to feed 2 separate PSU's.
And that gives me a problem because you normally feed each PSU with 2 secondaries to begin with......
Doede uses a MBR20200CT dual diode full wave rectifier as you can read on the schematic.
As quoted, i did lots of reading on the matter but i cannot get the right answer i'm looking for.
So, with the schematic at hand, who can help me in giving the right answer to my problem.
Can i build a full wave bridge rectifier to solve my problem?
If yes, which Schottky diodes will do the trick?
The stock rectifier used is rated at 10 A per leg, i would like to get the same value in return.
Bear in mind that these PSU's are to feed delicate digital audio equipment so audiograde Schottky's are prefered 😀
So, anyone who can help me out here?
Cheers Paul
I was asked to reroute my question to this corner about my problem.
My question now is: Did Doede design this rectifier on purpose, he probably did!
I did a lot of reading this past week and the full wave bridge rectifier comes out better then the full wave rectifier using 2 diodes but then i read this:
Advantages of Full wave rectifier
• Rectifier efficiency is 81.2%.
• Ripple frequency is two times the input frequency.
• Ripple factor of full wave is 0.48.
Disadvantages of Full wave Rectifier
• It is difficult to locate the centre tap on the secondary winding.
• The DC output is small as each diode utilizes only one half of the transformer's secondary Voltages.
• The diodes used have high peak inverse voltage.
BRIDGE RECTIFIERS
It contains four diodes D1, D2, D3 and D4 connected to form bridge . The AC supply to be rectified is applied to the diagonally opposite ends of the bridge through the transformer. Between other two ends of the bridge, the load resistance RL is connected.
Advantages of Bridge Rectifiers
• The need for center tapped transformer is eliminated.
• The output is twice that of the center-tap circuit for the same secondary voltage.
• The PIV is one half that of the center tap circuit.
Disadvantages of Bridge Rectifiers
• The only Disadvantage of using Bridge rectifiers is that it requires four Diodes .
I also did read both the items on Doede's website about the PSU's on design and how they work, but with my very limited knowledge on electronics i couldn't find any specific clues about this choice of rectification.
So, is doubling the ripple frequency important for the audio quality of the psu?
The other thing is that this type of rectification is used to setup a V+ and a V- but i cannot find the answer to that question also 😕
That leaves me with one question, is it safe for me to assume that i can build a full wave bridge rectifier out of 4 diodes and replace the RBM20200CT to get the same or even better quality in return?
And please elaborate, i want to learn from this
Cheers Paul
It is all about the PSU for the 1794 NOS DAC designed by Doede Douma.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...-nos-192-24-dac-pcm1794-waveio-usb-input.html
I bought myself a real lump of a trafo (500VA 2 x 19V 2 x 13,88 A) which i rewired to get the voltage required, 1 x 15 V + 1 x 9 V.
So both the secondaries are going to feed 2 separate PSU's.
And that gives me a problem because you normally feed each PSU with 2 secondaries to begin with......
Doede uses a MBR20200CT dual diode full wave rectifier as you can read on the schematic.
As quoted, i did lots of reading on the matter but i cannot get the right answer i'm looking for.
So, with the schematic at hand, who can help me in giving the right answer to my problem.
Can i build a full wave bridge rectifier to solve my problem?
If yes, which Schottky diodes will do the trick?
The stock rectifier used is rated at 10 A per leg, i would like to get the same value in return.
Bear in mind that these PSU's are to feed delicate digital audio equipment so audiograde Schottky's are prefered 😀
So, anyone who can help me out here?
Cheers Paul
Attachments
Last edited:
I don't understand what your problem is. Are you going to use the pcb's Doede supplies or are you going to make your own hardwired psu?
Hi there Bas,
Thanks for replying to this post and sorry if i was not clear enough.
In fact it's simple....
If you build a PSU for the DDDAC you normally use one trafo with 2 secondaries, but in my quest to do otherwise i made the wise decision 😱 to get one trafo and use both (rewired) secondaries to feed 2 separate PSU's.
This give me a challenge in how to make dc because the MBR20200CT needs 2 secondaries instead of the one i have now per PSU and btw i'm using the supplied pcb's.
You know Doede better then me, and he never designs something without specific benefits.
I'm scared that he intended this rectification with some kind of "audio" benefit.
Therefor, if i replace this rectifier and build me a full wave bridge rectifier would that do the trick without compromising Doedes design?
If yes, Schottky diodes would be prefered 'cause of the very low voltage drop and "ringing" noises if i'm informed correctly.
Then which "audiograde" Schottky diodes would be prefered, if i like the 10 A requirements just like the MBR10200CT to be met?
Thanks in advance, Paul
Thanks for replying to this post and sorry if i was not clear enough.
In fact it's simple....
If you build a PSU for the DDDAC you normally use one trafo with 2 secondaries, but in my quest to do otherwise i made the wise decision 😱 to get one trafo and use both (rewired) secondaries to feed 2 separate PSU's.
This give me a challenge in how to make dc because the MBR20200CT needs 2 secondaries instead of the one i have now per PSU and btw i'm using the supplied pcb's.
You know Doede better then me, and he never designs something without specific benefits.
I'm scared that he intended this rectification with some kind of "audio" benefit.
Therefor, if i replace this rectifier and build me a full wave bridge rectifier would that do the trick without compromising Doedes design?
If yes, Schottky diodes would be prefered 'cause of the very low voltage drop and "ringing" noises if i'm informed correctly.
Then which "audiograde" Schottky diodes would be prefered, if i like the 10 A requirements just like the MBR10200CT to be met?
Thanks in advance, Paul
The 'full wave' rectifier is, like the bridge rectifier, a full-wave rectifier; they both double the ripple frequency so no difference in that respect. The bridge rectifier makes better use of the transformer so is usually preferred; the 'full wave' rectifier was popular in the valve era because it is easy to make a vacuum rectifier with one cathode and two anodes. There is no audio difference between them; audio differences between PSUs are matters of detailed design, component values and grounding arrangements etc. Anyway, having bought a 500VA transformer where a 25VA transformer would suffice, you are obviously not worried about transformer efficiency.
You don't need a 10A diode to feed a DAC, but it won't do any harm apart from to your bank balance.
Don't assume that designers do things a particular way because they are best. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
You mention two secondaries; I can only see one secondary with CT for each PSU. I guess that makes two if you need both 5V and 12V supplies. As a general rule, you can't feed two different PSUs from one set of secondaries. You will need to show us exactly what you intend doing for us to comment, including how you "rewired" the secondaries. A description in words is not enough.
You don't need a 10A diode to feed a DAC, but it won't do any harm apart from to your bank balance.
Don't assume that designers do things a particular way because they are best. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
You mention two secondaries; I can only see one secondary with CT for each PSU. I guess that makes two if you need both 5V and 12V supplies. As a general rule, you can't feed two different PSUs from one set of secondaries. You will need to show us exactly what you intend doing for us to comment, including how you "rewired" the secondaries. A description in words is not enough.
Indeed. A drawing or picture of the transformer and a picture of doede's blank pcb's will help. (I have his pcb at home...but I'm lazy.)
Reread DF96. His advice is dead-straight on. Especially the part(s) regarding way-way-WAY over spec'ing the transformer VA and diode amperage. Specifically, it might help to understand that the power supply from Douma is regulating. That's where the “work to make it clean” is going on.
[1] Transformer efficiently and safely converts live wall voltage to something much closer to the output target. Those are the positives. The negatives are mass and cost. But the safety (of electrically isolating the primary and secondary) wins all. One MUST have a safe power supply. Period.
[2] Rectifiers convert sinusoidal A/C to 'pulsy' uni-polar current and voltage flow. This by itself is darn helpful, but hardly sufficient as a "power supply" for audio applications.
[3] The first capacitors suck in the pulses of power, “topping off” each time a pulse comes along. Nominally, they are also in the business of draining out to the rest of the power supply circuit “nearly DC”. There is ripple tho', as the DC drain drops their reservoir voltage, and the incoming pulses restore it back up again.
[3a] The frequency of the pulses is either 1× or 2× times the mains frequency, depending on whether the rectifier-transformer arrangement is 'half-wave' or 'full-wave' Generally, the higher the frequency, the lower the reservoir (capacitor) values needed to deliver a finite ripple.
[4] down-wind, the first bunch of very-low-value resistors (0.1 Ω) act as high frequency filters far (from an electrical point of view) from the further down-stream regulator/filter part. Distributing the fairly (but not hugely) large capacitors down that chain works well to highly suppress the very high harmonics 'of rectification'.
[5] Then comes the regulator, whose job it is to as completely suppress the primary reservoir ripple as possible, delivering an almost invariant silent, flat DC to the DAC or whatever else is being powered.
So note if you will: The value of the transformer has as critical value the voltage rating of the secondary (it has to be high enough) as well as the current output or overall power (VA) capacity. If the voltage is 'wrong', then the output will be 'wrong'. If the current rating is insufficient, then the transformer will overheat, or the output will droop in voltage under load. The combined voltage:current ("VA") rating can be anything equal-or-greater than the necessary VA. But if it is larger, it will not contribute to being a 'better' power supply, or 'less noisy' or 'more perfect'. It is just either a waste of a larger transformer, or an optimization based on opportunity. (e.g. "I had this rather big hulk sitting in my parts box… doing nothing…")
Again…
reread Mr. DF96. His advice is spot-on. And re-read the above to get a feel how not just to "read a circuit", but to understand that there is no magic in the parts selections. Every component has either a purpose, or a purported purpose. Know the difference.
GoatGuy
[1] Transformer efficiently and safely converts live wall voltage to something much closer to the output target. Those are the positives. The negatives are mass and cost. But the safety (of electrically isolating the primary and secondary) wins all. One MUST have a safe power supply. Period.
[2] Rectifiers convert sinusoidal A/C to 'pulsy' uni-polar current and voltage flow. This by itself is darn helpful, but hardly sufficient as a "power supply" for audio applications.
[3] The first capacitors suck in the pulses of power, “topping off” each time a pulse comes along. Nominally, they are also in the business of draining out to the rest of the power supply circuit “nearly DC”. There is ripple tho', as the DC drain drops their reservoir voltage, and the incoming pulses restore it back up again.
[3a] The frequency of the pulses is either 1× or 2× times the mains frequency, depending on whether the rectifier-transformer arrangement is 'half-wave' or 'full-wave' Generally, the higher the frequency, the lower the reservoir (capacitor) values needed to deliver a finite ripple.
[4] down-wind, the first bunch of very-low-value resistors (0.1 Ω) act as high frequency filters far (from an electrical point of view) from the further down-stream regulator/filter part. Distributing the fairly (but not hugely) large capacitors down that chain works well to highly suppress the very high harmonics 'of rectification'.
[5] Then comes the regulator, whose job it is to as completely suppress the primary reservoir ripple as possible, delivering an almost invariant silent, flat DC to the DAC or whatever else is being powered.
So note if you will: The value of the transformer has as critical value the voltage rating of the secondary (it has to be high enough) as well as the current output or overall power (VA) capacity. If the voltage is 'wrong', then the output will be 'wrong'. If the current rating is insufficient, then the transformer will overheat, or the output will droop in voltage under load. The combined voltage:current ("VA") rating can be anything equal-or-greater than the necessary VA. But if it is larger, it will not contribute to being a 'better' power supply, or 'less noisy' or 'more perfect'. It is just either a waste of a larger transformer, or an optimization based on opportunity. (e.g. "I had this rather big hulk sitting in my parts box… doing nothing…")
Again…
reread Mr. DF96. His advice is spot-on. And re-read the above to get a feel how not just to "read a circuit", but to understand that there is no magic in the parts selections. Every component has either a purpose, or a purported purpose. Know the difference.
GoatGuy
Since I can no longer edit the comment (30 minutes time limit), here's one last point
#6: the final bank of capacitors is an IMPEDANCE reducing measure; the regulator is nominally a variable impedance device (as all are). However, transient DEMAND can ask for far more current than the regulator either adaptively or nominally can deliver. So, a final bank of capacitors acts as a very-low impedance reducing component, quite capable of delivering whatever the downwind circuit needs in transient response.
NOTE that the designer - somewhat unsure of the concept - chose to use the same 0.1 Ω resistor "high frequency filter" between a pair of capacitors. This actually doesn't serve the purpose of impedance reduction as well as a simple larger capacity capacitor. But it is COMMON amongst designers to re-use design components for purposes where they actually do OK, but where the original purpose ("meaning") is lost. Such is Duoma's final bank of capacitors.
GoatGuy
#6: the final bank of capacitors is an IMPEDANCE reducing measure; the regulator is nominally a variable impedance device (as all are). However, transient DEMAND can ask for far more current than the regulator either adaptively or nominally can deliver. So, a final bank of capacitors acts as a very-low impedance reducing component, quite capable of delivering whatever the downwind circuit needs in transient response.
NOTE that the designer - somewhat unsure of the concept - chose to use the same 0.1 Ω resistor "high frequency filter" between a pair of capacitors. This actually doesn't serve the purpose of impedance reduction as well as a simple larger capacity capacitor. But it is COMMON amongst designers to re-use design components for purposes where they actually do OK, but where the original purpose ("meaning") is lost. Such is Duoma's final bank of capacitors.
GoatGuy
First of all, @ GoatGuy: thank you very much for the explanation on how every step in this PSU works.
I would like to say i understand but my knowledge in electronics is very limited, Ohms law, that's it 😱
@ Bas & DF96; some extra clarification it is.
@ DF96; the transformer is unwinded to get the right voltage per secondary winding, it was 2 x 19,3V.
Now i have 1 x 15V (RED/BLACK) and 1 x 9V (PURPLE/WHITE)
I won't explain how it was but just how i would like it to be.
One big transformer with 2 secondary windings without a center tap.
2 PSU's (designed for audio use) without rectification.
I would like to use this big transformer to feed the 2 PSU's!
Now i need to rectify the ac from the transformer and i like to do this without destroying the audio qualities of this PSU.
I would like to build one full wave bridge rectifier per PSU and hook it up on R1 (+) and C1 (-).
Schottky diodes seem to be the components to do this with.
Which Schottky diodes do i need to handle 10A demand?
I hope you guys can help me out.
Cheers, Paul
I would like to say i understand but my knowledge in electronics is very limited, Ohms law, that's it 😱
@ Bas & DF96; some extra clarification it is.
@ DF96; the transformer is unwinded to get the right voltage per secondary winding, it was 2 x 19,3V.
Now i have 1 x 15V (RED/BLACK) and 1 x 9V (PURPLE/WHITE)
I won't explain how it was but just how i would like it to be.
One big transformer with 2 secondary windings without a center tap.
2 PSU's (designed for audio use) without rectification.
I would like to use this big transformer to feed the 2 PSU's!
Now i need to rectify the ac from the transformer and i like to do this without destroying the audio qualities of this PSU.
I would like to build one full wave bridge rectifier per PSU and hook it up on R1 (+) and C1 (-).
Schottky diodes seem to be the components to do this with.
Which Schottky diodes do i need to handle 10A demand?
I hope you guys can help me out.
Cheers, Paul
Attachments
Yes you can use bridge rectifiers. These will not affect whatever "audio qualities" the PSU has.
I don't know where this "10A demand" is coming from. Maybe you think that as the transformer can supply 10A that it must supply 10A? Current is not voltage.
I don't know where this "10A demand" is coming from. Maybe you think that as the transformer can supply 10A that it must supply 10A? Current is not voltage.
Thanks DF96!Overkill won't harm i guess 😀
Then i think this item will do the trick, see attachment.
It came highly recommended by TriodeDick.
I think i'll need some kind of cooling body to attach the diodes to, also isolation between diode and cooling body and ceramic paste for heat transfer.
Cheers Paul
I'm not certain why you have chosen a 1.2kV rectifier for a 12V supply. Do you usually overengineer in this way? A DAC will take just a few 10's of mA so further cooling for the rectifiers is unlikely to be needed. Each will dissipate only a few 10's of mW of heat. You can check this: do your own calculation.
Yes, i like to overengineer everything i can get my hands on 😀
BTW: the newly designed "Tent" dacboards in DDDAC are rated close to 250 mA per deck.
My goal is 4 decks, so about 1 A of steady current flow is needed.
If no extra cooling is necessary i'll screw them straight on the backplate of the PSU's housing with isolation of course.
When this powerhouse is ready i'll post pictures here so you all can laugh at me 😉
Cheers, Paul
BTW: the newly designed "Tent" dacboards in DDDAC are rated close to 250 mA per deck.
My goal is 4 decks, so about 1 A of steady current flow is needed.
If no extra cooling is necessary i'll screw them straight on the backplate of the PSU's housing with isolation of course.
When this powerhouse is ready i'll post pictures here so you all can laugh at me 😉
Cheers, Paul
The problem with over-engineering, “smart driver” is this: the desired specs can be "run off the charts" by the over-specified device.
I'll get back to diode/rectifiers after a different analogy. Motors.
If your margarita blender's motor goes out and you feel the urge to "fix it" yourself, would it make sense to find a beautiful, silent, 2 horsepower (1.8 kW) motor to install into it as a substitute? No? Why not?
Oh… because it won't fit is a good reason. And because the power controller on the blender would literally fission from overheating. And because it'd weigh 15 lbs more. And because synchronous operation (constant RPM) isn't what blenders need. And (again) because it wouldn't fit.
See? Wrong device for the job. Yet, it is definitely "over-speced".
Back to diodes and rectifiers. Do you know why Shottkey is preferred and specified in many more-modern power supply designs? Here it is… because of significantly lower Vforward during the conduction phase. Like all diode technologies, the higher the VPIV (peak inverse voltage), the higher the Vforward. This is a broad-brush assertion, and not necessarily borne out for all devices.
But, for a 1,200 volt peak blocking device, the thickness of the inversion layer (which does the blocking) must be thicker and deeper-implantation. This in turn increases Vforward. Net result? Whatever advantage a Shottkey would have had is lost.
NOW FOR REAL-WORLD…
I had a friend who was a total "parts spec fiend". We were building a really nice amp for his pair of cherry old-school "Strat" guitars. Being a parts fiend, having read endlessly about the supposedly sweet and awesome and mind-blowing advantages of Schottkey diodes over run-of-the-bin standard parts, he found some CREE silicon carbide Sh. full wave bridge rectifier modules. Insisted we use them.
Since the rest of the power supply was fairly conventional CRC filtering, I cautioned that the higher Vforward was going to add flyback recovery noise, and we'd have to then engineer in snubbers and so on. He vehemently disagreed, and produced all sorts of links to "magic effects" comments. Whatever…
When we implemented it, sure enough LOTS of noise. BUZZZZZZZZZ noise. So, we had to design in snubbers. And a little "buzz buster" stage between the rectifiers and the CLCRC (more c's and and additional L) filter stage. Finally it was tamed. My take-away? Follow science, not size of phallus arguments for choosing parts. ALWAYS.
I certainly hope you learn vicariously from the above story. It is true. Which in this case, would be to choose the RIGHT part, not the over-specified (to the point of DF96's why? point) thing far more suited for rectifying power for motor controllers. Just saying.
GoatGuy
I'll get back to diode/rectifiers after a different analogy. Motors.
If your margarita blender's motor goes out and you feel the urge to "fix it" yourself, would it make sense to find a beautiful, silent, 2 horsepower (1.8 kW) motor to install into it as a substitute? No? Why not?
Oh… because it won't fit is a good reason. And because the power controller on the blender would literally fission from overheating. And because it'd weigh 15 lbs more. And because synchronous operation (constant RPM) isn't what blenders need. And (again) because it wouldn't fit.
See? Wrong device for the job. Yet, it is definitely "over-speced".
Back to diodes and rectifiers. Do you know why Shottkey is preferred and specified in many more-modern power supply designs? Here it is… because of significantly lower Vforward during the conduction phase. Like all diode technologies, the higher the VPIV (peak inverse voltage), the higher the Vforward. This is a broad-brush assertion, and not necessarily borne out for all devices.
But, for a 1,200 volt peak blocking device, the thickness of the inversion layer (which does the blocking) must be thicker and deeper-implantation. This in turn increases Vforward. Net result? Whatever advantage a Shottkey would have had is lost.
NOW FOR REAL-WORLD…
I had a friend who was a total "parts spec fiend". We were building a really nice amp for his pair of cherry old-school "Strat" guitars. Being a parts fiend, having read endlessly about the supposedly sweet and awesome and mind-blowing advantages of Schottkey diodes over run-of-the-bin standard parts, he found some CREE silicon carbide Sh. full wave bridge rectifier modules. Insisted we use them.
Since the rest of the power supply was fairly conventional CRC filtering, I cautioned that the higher Vforward was going to add flyback recovery noise, and we'd have to then engineer in snubbers and so on. He vehemently disagreed, and produced all sorts of links to "magic effects" comments. Whatever…
When we implemented it, sure enough LOTS of noise. BUZZZZZZZZZ noise. So, we had to design in snubbers. And a little "buzz buster" stage between the rectifiers and the CLCRC (more c's and and additional L) filter stage. Finally it was tamed. My take-away? Follow science, not size of phallus arguments for choosing parts. ALWAYS.
I certainly hope you learn vicariously from the above story. It is true. Which in this case, would be to choose the RIGHT part, not the over-specified (to the point of DF96's why? point) thing far more suited for rectifying power for motor controllers. Just saying.
GoatGuy
Last edited:
I never realised that a DAC can draw 250mA - I guess that is overengineered too. Note that, as GoatGuy says, 'overengineering' can sometimes turn out to be significant underengineering. In either case, poor engineering.
If you are drawing 1A DC via the diodes then they will need some cooling, although not a lot.
If you are drawing 1A DC via the diodes then they will need some cooling, although not a lot.
Must agree with df96 and goatguy. Those diodes may in fact preform badly at 12 volt and 250ma . cheap diodes with a zobel circuit will preform far better than expensive diodes with out the zobel curcuit . Search site for diode snubbers that will enlighten you on the zobel circuit. SET 1 thread has alot there.
Another disadvantage of bridge rectification is you need more AC current.
DC Current = AC current x .64.
This means that a transformer rated at 200mA AC will yield 128mA DC. Whereas a 2 diode "full wave", 200mA AC can deliver 200mA DC.
I don't think the transformer size will increase as much with a bridge vs. FWCT
Here is the link- http://www.hammondmfg.com/pdf/5c007.pdf
I would love to know if I'm incorrect about this... it would mean more power from a transformer...which is good IMHO.
DC Current = AC current x .64.
This means that a transformer rated at 200mA AC will yield 128mA DC. Whereas a 2 diode "full wave", 200mA AC can deliver 200mA DC.
I don't think the transformer size will increase as much with a bridge vs. FWCT
Here is the link- http://www.hammondmfg.com/pdf/5c007.pdf
I would love to know if I'm incorrect about this... it would mean more power from a transformer...which is good IMHO.
The Hammond company's assertions are correct. However, if you note, there are also tradeoffs of another sort… the output voltage relative to the windings A/C ratings.
In the end, the "problem" with all rectification that doesn't have INDUCTOR loading is that the peaking of ampere (current) flow for capacitor input filtering sections is very peaky. If we recall “P = I²R”, then when all the necessary current-flow (to top up the capacitors) is concentrated in the smallest width pulses (which in turn depends heavily on the size of the capacitors), then the current flow can be quite high, thus ohmic heating of the transformer windings is exacerbated relative to impedance loaded filtering sections.
This… along with the prima faciae error in Hammond's assessment of the Vaverage versus Vpeak for the half-wave and full wave inductive-input filtering systems.
… under low loading, they can be much closer (or even indistinguishable) from V-peak as expressed as output of the transformer. Just have to have a low enough L (inductance).
Just saying.
GoatGuy
Other things being equal, a bridge rectifier will make better use of a transformer than a 'full-wave' rectifier. This is because the 'full-wave' version needs twice as many secondary turns, so they need to have half the area per turn in order to fit in the same space so they have twice the resistance so you get only about 70% of the VA rating.
'Full-waves' were used with valve rectifiers for good reasons. Those reasons do not apply to semiconductor rectifiers, so the bridge is better. This is why the bridge is commonly used.
'Full-waves' were used with valve rectifiers for good reasons. Those reasons do not apply to semiconductor rectifiers, so the bridge is better. This is why the bridge is commonly used.
Now to finally end this thread;
With no thanks to you guys i build the full wave bridge rectifier with earlier recommended diodes, the C4D02120A.
It works like a charm!
This PSU sounds a lot more quiet, more relaxed so to speak then the stock version so i'm very pleased with the result.
Over-engineered, probably!
But to make a final point here, what is the problem with it if it sounds good?
When i told you lot that the dac took 250 mA per deck it was over engineered, so what again?
This is an audioforum, the only thing we need to achieve is that everything we make or create sounds good!
With no thanks to you guys i build the full wave bridge rectifier with earlier recommended diodes, the C4D02120A.
It works like a charm!
This PSU sounds a lot more quiet, more relaxed so to speak then the stock version so i'm very pleased with the result.
Over-engineered, probably!
But to make a final point here, what is the problem with it if it sounds good?
When i told you lot that the dac took 250 mA per deck it was over engineered, so what again?
This is an audioforum, the only thing we need to achieve is that everything we make or create sounds good!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.