Revisiting some "old" ideas from 1970's - IPS, OPS

vzaichenko · 2016-01-23 1:50 am

jwilhelm said:
I'm thinking of doing a layout with all outputs and drivers in a single row with the Vertical input integrated into it.

Jeff, this would be a very convenient option! I will send you my diptrace files.

jwilhelm · 2016-01-23 1:58 am

Thanks. I've noticed a bit of offset happening in the Slewmasters with the dual rows of outputs when running at higher rail voltage for a few hours. The top row runs hotter. Ostripper noticed it too. Feedback was able to correct it, but it's not ideal. This one would likely do the same.

vzaichenko · 2016-01-23 2:08 am

jwilhelm said:
Thanks. I've noticed a bit of offset happening in the Slewmasters with the dual rows of outputs when running at higher rail voltage for a few hours. The top row runs hotter. Ostripper noticed it too. Feedback was able to correct it, but it's not ideal. This one would likely do the same.

Yes, this is a good point - on a vertical heatsink, the higher - the hotter. So, for these 2-rows designs, the ideal heatsink orientation is the ribs-up, on the "roof" of the compartment.

jwilhelm · 2016-01-23 2:31 am

I'm building a pair of monoblock Slewmasters with the boards standing vertically with the outputs mounted close to the bottom of the heatsink. This seems to work well too. I'm using a Wolverine input on it. I've noticed quite a difference in high frequency detail difference from the Vertical.

still4given · 2016-01-23 2:54 am

vzaichenko said:
Hi Terry,

Actually, these are the "standard" heatsinks:
WAKEFIELD SOLUTIONS 637-20ABP Heat Sink, 34.9x50.8x, Square, Black Anodized, Wave-Solderable, TO-220, 9.17 °C/W, 50.8 mm, 34.9 mm

PCB is prepared exactly for them. Drivers run in pure class A, controlled by the constant current sources, so they are always pretty warm - this is one of the specialties of this design. Jeff uses the sinks with the same part number. However, simple aluminium plates will also work.

Last week, Marc (idefixes) has slightly re-designed the layout for the output devices NJW3281/1302, it also has 90 degrees drivers orientation, in one line, so that they can share the same aluminium plate - in this case, PCB length is only 220mm. So, for the future builders, this option is also available.

Cheers,
Valery

It must be an optical illusion. I used the heatsinks you linked. They just looked taller to me in your pictures. I haven't done anything with mine since I found I had fake transistors. I'm still trying to get myself to invest in more Sankens. I already drilled and tapped the heatsinks for those so I don't really want to change to TO3P devices if I don't have too.

Blessings, Terry

still4given · 2016-01-23 2:56 am

jwilhelm said:
I'm building a pair of monoblock Slewmasters with the boards standing vertically with the outputs mounted close to the bottom of the heatsink. This seems to work well too. I'm using a Wolverine input on it. I've noticed quite a difference in high frequency detail difference from the Vertical.

Did you use the Vertical with the same OPS as you are with the Wolverine?

jwilhelm · 2016-01-23 2:59 am

Newark has the Sankens in stock and on sale. There's a problem with their search engine though. 03C3670 and 03C3692. They still come with thermal pads from Newark. Digikey is shipping them without pads now.

jwilhelm · 2016-01-23 3:03 am

The Wolverine is on an integrated Slewmaster output board I put together for a subwoofer plate amp. I was really surprised how much different it sounded. I'm curious how it compares to the Kypton-ND now.

SMourareau · 2016-01-23 12:14 pm

Hi folks, this circuit sounds certainly very well.
But, I see nothing in DC2-Sch-01.pdf that could make OPS non switching.
Maybe I have missed nothing ?

Stéphane

bimo · 2016-01-23 12:45 pm

jwilhelm said:
I'm building a pair of monoblock Slewmasters with the boards standing vertically with the outputs mounted close to the bottom of the heatsink. This seems to work well too. I'm using a Wolverine input on it. I've noticed quite a difference in high frequency detail difference from the Vertical.

Which is better?

jwilhelm · 2016-01-23 1:02 pm

bimo said:
Which is better?

I like the Vertical with NS-OPS much better. I need to make some more comparisons with more of the Slewmaster and Valery's input and output combinations. I have a feeling the Vertical and the Kypton-ND are going to be very similar sounding.

thimios · 2016-01-23 1:50 pm

jwilhelm said:
I like the Vertical with NS-OPS much better. I need to make some more comparisons with more of the Slewmaster and Valery's input and output combinations. I have a feeling the Vertical and the Kypton-ND are going to be very similar sounding.

I lost again....what is the vertical?

vzaichenko · 2016-01-23 1:59 pm

SMourareau said:
Hi folks, this circuit sounds certainly very well.
But, I see nothing in DC2-Sch-01.pdf that could make OPS non switching.
Maybe I have missed nothing ?

Stéphane

Hi Stephane,

The one we discuss now is showed in the post #408:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...e-old-ideas-1970s-ips-ops-41.html#post4578177

The one in the 1-st post is an early prototype - I did not update it as yet

Cheers,
Valery

vzaichenko · 2016-01-23 2:01 pm

thimios said:
I lost again....what is the vertical?

Thimios, same thing - please see the post #408:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...e-old-ideas-1970s-ips-ops-41.html#post4578177

VERTICAL is my symmetric CFA front-end, utilizing the idea of the complimentary differential circuit, mentioned in the very beginning.

Cheers,
Valery

AndrewT · 2016-01-23 2:29 pm

The whole thing is called Double Complementary Differential Circuit - I call it DC2.

so why confuse me as well by changing the name from DC2 to Vertical?

vzaichenko · 2016-01-23 2:34 pm

AndrewT said:
so why confuse me as well by changing the name from DC2 to Vertical?

This is a different topology, comparing to the one in the first post, and its two complimentary (vertical) differential circuits form a really Vertical structure.

So VERTICAL is the name of particular front-end section, shown in the post #408.

jwilhelm · 2016-01-23 2:36 pm

AndrewT said:
so why confuse me as well by changing the name from DC2 to Vertical?

Isn't that normal in the audio world? Everything gets a confusing name.

vzaichenko · 2016-01-23 2:41 pm

I think, in the minds of many people, involved in audio engineering, the word "vertical" is very much related to the word "MOSFET"

Not in this case

Nothing to do with MOSFETs

For those, who'd like more structured presentation - see my website, following the link below (in my signature).

AndrewT · 2016-01-23 2:47 pm

vzaichenko said:
.................

VERTICAL is my symmetric CFA front-end, utilizing the idea of the complimentary differential circuit, mentioned in the very beginning.............

vzaichenko said:
This is a different topology, comparing to the one in the first post, and its two complimentary (vertical) differential circuits form a really Vertical structure.

So VERTICAL is the name of particular front-end section, shown in the post #408.

Then it was "in the very beginning" and now it's become "in the post #408"

still4given · 2016-01-23 3:40 pm

Good grief

Revisiting some "old" ideas from 1970's - IPS, OPS

R.I.P.

Member

R.I.P.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

R.I.P.

R.I.P.

R.I.P.

R.I.P.

Member

Attachments

R.I.P.

R.I.P.

Member