[johnjen]

Good to know, thanks.

I'd venture a guess that if you did install them inside the 3+'s, you'd hear an additional improvement.
Mostly due to the proximity of the regulator to the load it is feeding.

This is a 'trick' used in many dacs and other 'tweako' audio devices, where they place regulators as close as possible to the load they feed.

Just a thought.

JJ

 

[Muziqboy]

I am now thinking of running another regulator in conjunction with the dual in-series configuration to see what effect that will bring. IOW, triple in-series config. (9v->7.1v->5v) or (7.1v->6v->5v) kinda like what I am running currently for the FMC’s.

Experimentation is so much fun specially if there is a positive outcome.

Any thoughts JJ?

 

[johnjen]

It certainly would be interesting to hear if there are any, and what they might be, as to the changes that adding a 3rd regulator would make.

But I think what I'd do is to mount your 2nd regulator internal to the load and then determine what that changes are, THEN add the 3rd regulator in the middle.
That way the effect of having the regulator as close to the load as possible is determined 1st, then the middle regulator's contribution can be somewhat isolated as to what it adds as a SQ change.

And as long as the voltage drop between the regulators is sufficient to supply enough voltage for the downstream regulator(s), you should be fine.
And the greater the voltage drop cross each voltage regulator the greater the heat generated by that regulator, but 1 to 2 volt drops, at the current being used by the circuits, means the wattage is very low to begin with.

JJ

 

[mourip]

I am wondering about experiences with electrolytic caps for use in association with regulators. I would like to tweak the 3045 regulator I added internally to replace the SMPS in my M3USB. Currently I have a somewhat old Panasonic 2200mf on the input to the regulator for local bypassing.I just received a bunch of new Panasonic 1000mf FC's and also discovered a stash of 2200mf Blackgates that I had never used. I am wondering which would be better. I know that the BG's are good for analog audio signal applications but perhaps the new FCs have lower ESR and would work better in a power supply.

I am also wondering if other have found audible improvement by putting small value high quality caps on the output of the regulator? I know that some regulators do not like extra capacitance on their output.

Any opinions?

 

[johnjen]

My 2¢.
I don't have any experience with any of those particular caps but adding a local 'reservoir' at the board (and in this case, to replace the SMPS and its function of being a local reservoir), along with some small value bypass caps has always been a mod I like to add to the gear I use, where I can. And the bypass caps tend to 'speed up' the delivery of current that the larger value caps aren't optimized for. So the effective response time (read frequency response) of the capacitor 'stack' can be improved, which in one way is related to ESR in that the ability to dump current when 'asked', is enhanced.

In my 3+ implementations, I used an 8µfd with a 0.01µfd bypass as the local 'reservoir' and I figure using a 2200µfd would mean using 3 caps instead of just 2 using the ≈100:1 ratio to get down to the 0.01µfd value (2200 - 20 - 0.01µfd). And in a digital circuit, in contrast to an analog circuit, I'm not sure if the much larger cap (2200µfd) would be of much benefit since there really isn't much low frequency current demand from these devices. But then it certainly wouldn't hurt either, and if they are already on hand and will fit, I'd add them, just because I could.

I hope this helps.

JJ

 

[mourip]

Thanks for the 2 cents! I am thinking that the capacitor that I already have in place is probably adequate and I might wait to put in a second regulator instead. I also might replace the Teradac LPS that is powering it.

Hope springs eternal...

 

[johnjen]

I'd still want to add a 0.01µfd bypass cap to help deal with the fast rise time, short duration spikes and other hi freq noise generated by the load of the digital circuit itself. Using just a large value electrolytic isn't the best choice for helping to dampen the sorts of noise that is generated by digital circuits.

Just another thought or 2.

JJ

 

[mourip]

Thanks for those thoughts JJ. Appreciated as always.

 

[johnjen]

JJ

 

[johnjen]

Listening duration vs SQ

So here’s a question to anyone who spends the time, as described, listening to their HP’s.

I have mentioned this subject before but have not fully explained this procedure.
And while I have seen, for myself, a pattern emerge, I’d like to see if anyone else notices any pattern(s) while listening during any ‘prolonged’ listening sessions.

This ‘test’ needs continuous uninterrupted listening time, like at least 2 albums, being played back to back.
Put another way at least 1.5 hrs of continual listening while keeping the HPS on your head for the entire time.
And of course if the listening session becomes engaging enough, the duration can be extended to several more hours of continuous listening.

Now some may not use their HP’s in this way, as in a long term continuous playing and listening to your favorite music session, and if not, this might just be something to try.
Also this mode of listening might just yield some unanticipated results and shifts in the actual perception of the performance.

For me it seems to shift in increments of approximately double the amount of time before the onset of another perceptual shift.
IOW if a shift happens at ≈1/2hr, another can happen at ≈1hr, but this is merely what I’ve observed, you may notice a different pattern.

And I suspect those systems where careful attention has been paid to what we would later call ‘rough edges’, will this test make noticing these kinds of changes ‘easy(er)’ to begin with.
IOW after we have tweaked portions of the system and reaped SQ rewards and so have noticed the changes that refined the SQ of the entire system, will these changes be more likely to be heard.

And these tests should be performed only after the system has reached thermal equilibrium and has fully stabilized.

And, I do have a theory about what happens and why, and it probably isn’t what you might expect.

So I’d invite any and all to dive into the deep end of this pool and see if there are any perceptual changes as a result of extended listening sessions.

Just another experiment to try.

JJ

 

[johnjen]

So my mini monitors have accrued sufficient time and the 'relationship' with my Rok has stabilized enough to begin evaluating them.

But I heard, on the speakers, the center image was shifted to the left, so I began playing with the digital balance control inside JRivers DSP Studio and found that it was off by 1.5 to 2dB (I'm still fussing with the specific amount of correction).

At first I thought it was the speakers but after further sleuthing it was also apparent in my 800's.
I found it interesting that it was MUCH easier to ferret out this channel imbalance using speakers in a nearfield setup.

I mention this because there is a direct correlation between the response of the extreme bottom end and how closely matched the L & R channels are.
IOW when the low bass (which is mono) is channel matched, the degree of punch and impact (some might say slam) along with resolution and focus, peaks.
I use this trait to dial in the channel balance, and can even hear differences in the mini monitors, even though they peter out really fast below 60Hz.
I have somewhat compensated for this using EQ, still, they only have a 4.5" 'woofer'.

I'm not sure where this discrepancy manifests (dac or amp) and I doubt it occurs in the digital front end, but it has been corrected which is sufficient, for now.
I have previously explored this relationship between the very bottom end and matching the L & R channels, and know that very small incremental changes (like 0.1dB) can be heard when everything is setup properly, which I have verified on my 800's and to a lessor degree can hear on my mini monitors as well.

This is an easy experiment to try, assuming you have a form of balance control (DSP or other means) just to hear if there are any noticeable differences.

JJ

 

[mourip]

Interesting topic. I have struggled with L/R balance for a long time. So much so that I finally realized two things: First is that I cannot really enjoy a speaker system that does not include a balance control. Second is that that the issue varies within a static system on different days and also that this pattern does not change with new equipment. I came to the conclusion that the imbalance had almost noting to do with my equipment or even my room, which had been my first suspect. As it turns out my hearing changes according to my sinus condition and probably also the weather (barometric pressure and humidity?).

Adjusting the balance helps a lot but then I do get into issues with speaker placement and room acoustics. I have taken to remediation for my sinus congestion as the best route for a good listening session. As you mentioned the issue is not so bad with headphones and so my HP system does not include a balance control.

Just a few more data points

BTW. Do you find that adjusting balance using DSP in JRMC affects sound quality?

 

[gefski]

For instant channel balance and phase checks (hugely obvious & easy), I use this whenever I tear down & reassemble. Have it ripped to iMac as well.

 

[johnjen]

Interesting topic. I have struggled with L/R balance for a long time.
snip

BTW. Do you find that adjusting balance using DSP in JRMC affects sound quality?

Not really. I use (with one exception) only small amounts, as in under 6dB of correction, and usually only about 3dB.

That seems to be the trick, to use only small amounts of correction.

JJ

 

[johnjen]

I found pink noise and pure tone files on line that I use to get close.
Then I play music with very low freq bass and fine tune the correction (like by 0.1dB) as I play these selected tracks.
I even have a playlist with nothing but thunderous bass with plenty of impact.

It can take days or weeks of time to finalize the settings, as it gets more and more subtle with such fine adjustments, as I fuss with the settings during specific portions of all of the tracks.

But I should see if I can get a copy of that CD just as a reference.

JJ

For instant channel balance and phase checks (hugely obvious & easy), I use this whenever I tear down & reassemble. Have it ripped to iMac as well.