Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 40 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 12:55:59 |
Calls: | 291 |
Files: | 910 |
Messages: | 76,493 |
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp,
which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit
more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion either. A few of
the ferrite beads have gone too.
On 12/17/2024 10:49 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp,
which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit
more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion either. A few
of the ferrite beads have gone too.
It seems to like to squeg for me (LTSpice 17.0.37)
<https://imgur.com/a/6uqsw1H>
On 18/12/2024 5:16 pm, bitrex wrote:
On 12/17/2024 10:49 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp,
which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit
more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion either. A few
of the ferrite beads have gone too.
It seems to like to squeg for me (LTSpice 17.0.37)
<https://imgur.com/a/6uqsw1H>
I've seen that happen, but only when the one of the connections has come unstuck. The route through WordPad to here and on to your own .asc file
can screw up the schematic.
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
But what's the point when the circuit below is comfortably 120dB down in simulation using less than half the number of components?
It requires only a single rail and if 60dB will meet your needs then a single 9V battery is fine.
All the components are doing what I want them to do and I know what they all do.
To attempt do any better in simulation I'd replace D1 with a precision rectifier at 0 and 180 degrees and maybe 90 and 270 too.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for:
R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
I wish LTSpice had a "Do you want to fix apparent line wraps Y/N". That shouldn't be hard.
Also is there any way in LTSpice to find a component?
What I mean is let's say you have a schematic like Bill's schematic and you know that R17 is there somewhere but you don't know
where.
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It rans at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
But what's the point when the circuit below is comfortably 120dB down in simulation using less than half the number of
components?
It requires only a single rail and if 60dB will meet your needs then a single 9V battery is fine.
All the components are doing what I want them to do and I know what they all do.
Or think you do. You explanations haven't been all that clear.
To attempt do any better in simulation I'd replace D1 with a precision rectifier at 0 and 180 degrees and maybe 90 and 270 too.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for:
R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
Why a ten turn trimmer?
Beckman ten-turn precision potentionmeters were designed to be used with turns-counting dials. 19mm trimmers ran around twenty
turns, but weren't all that precisely settable.
I wish LTSpice had a "Do you want to fix apparent line wraps Y/N". That shouldn't be hard.
First define a line wrap in terms that you can program. It's a carriage return and a line feed, but so is a real new line.
Also is there any way in LTSpice to find a component?
Inspection works fine for me. Professional circuit diagrams tend to get re-numbered before they are released to production so the
numbers run from left to right across the sheet in bands, then from top to bottom as you moved down from the top band to the
bottom band.
What I mean is let's say you have a schematic like Bill's schematic and you know that R17 is there somewhere but you don't know
where.
It's on the non-inverting input of U7.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk00um$2i900$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It rans at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
I used the circuit from your third post. One op amp had to be moved down a bit into position and then I hit simulate.
To be sure we're talking about the same circuit I've reposted it below.
I'm using LTSpice 24.0.12 with no new model updates available as of this post.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for:
R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
Why a ten turn trimmer?
Can be 100 turn if you want. The point is only that fine adjustment would be a good idea.
Beckman ten-turn precision potentionmeters were designed to be used with turns-counting dials. 19mm trimmers ran around twenty
turns, but weren't all that precisely settable.
I wish LTSpice had a "Do you want to fix apparent line wraps Y/N". That shouldn't be hard.
First define a line wrap in terms that you can program. It's a carriage return and a line feed, but so is a real new line.
There are reasons why Notepad++ has an EOL conversion option Bill but never mind.
Also is there any way in LTSpice to find a component?
Inspection works fine for me. Professional circuit diagrams tend to get re-numbered before they are released to production so the
numbers run from left to right across the sheet in bands, then from top to bottom as you moved down from the top band to the
bottom band.
What would you do when a change is required which requires an additional component such as an additional resistor or capacitor?
What I mean is let's say you have a schematic like Bill's schematic and you know that R17 is there somewhere but you don't know
where.
It's on the non-inverting input of U7.
And it was just an example.
On 19/12/2024 2:10 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk00um$2i900$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It rans at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
I used the circuit from your third post. One op amp had to be moved down a bit into position and then I hit simulate.
To be sure we're talking about the same circuit I've reposted it below.
I'm using LTSpice 24.0.12 with no new model updates available as of this post.
And I'm using LTSpice XVII(x64)(17.0.37.0) up-dated recently.
I finally got your version to work. As you say, U1 had to be moved into place, but I also had to change C10 on the output of U4.
I'd specified the capacitance as 3.3u. but the "u" symbol had vanished. When I specified the capacitance as 3300n everything
worked fine.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for:
R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
Why a ten turn trimmer?
Can be 100 turn if you want. The point is only that fine adjustment would be a good idea.
Lots of turns don't always equate to fine setability.
The screw will try to move the brush along the resistive element, but the brush tends to move in fits and starts. I once specified
a rather expensive Vishay trimmer which had a split brush that moved more smoothly, and we knocked about twenty minutes off the
setting up time for a rather cranky circuit which more than paid for the extra cost of the fancy Vishay trimmer,
Beckman ten-turn precision potentionmeters were designed to be used with turns-counting dials. 19mm trimmers ran around twenty
turns, but weren't all that precisely settable.
I wish LTSpice had a "Do you want to fix apparent line wraps Y/N". That shouldn't be hard.
First define a line wrap in terms that you can program. It's a carriage return and a line feed, but so is a real new line.
There are reasons why Notepad++ has an EOL conversion option Bill but never mind.
Word salad. Of course there are reasons, but you'd indicate what they are if you were trying to be helpful. LTspice does seem to
have a limited numbers of words that can be put at the start of a line, and it baulks if it finds anything else at the start of a
new line.
If it treated that condition as indicative of a line wrap and deleted the preceding new line character we might get somewhere but
the fact that it doesn't suggests that the situation might be more complicated than that.
Also is there any way in LTSpice to find a component?
Inspection works fine for me. Professional circuit diagrams tend to get re-numbered before they are released to production so
the
numbers run from left to right across the sheet in bands, then from top to bottom as you moved down from the top band to the
bottom band.
What would you do when a change is required which requires an additional component such as an additional resistor or capacitor?
I wasn't responsible for keeping production drawings up to date, and the people who were had a bunch of conflicting priorities to
reconcile.
The service engineer who travelled internationally to keep the machines working were forceful personalities who needed the
schematics to be rapidly intelligible. I got told off by them from time to time, and got congratulated once or twice.
What I mean is let's say you have a schematic like Bill's schematic and you know that R17 is there somewhere but you don't know
where.
It's on the non-inverting input of U7.
And it was just an example.
Of your capacity to make an unhelpful meal of a minor problem.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk0ehh$2o9dc$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 2:10 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk00um$2i900$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It rans at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
I used the circuit from your third post. One op amp had to be moved down a bit into position and then I hit simulate.
To be sure we're talking about the same circuit I've reposted it below.
I'm using LTSpice 24.0.12 with no new model updates available as of this post.
And I'm using LTSpice XVII(x64)(17.0.37.0) up-dated recently.
I finally got your version to work. As you say, U1 had to be moved into place, but I also had to change C10 on the output of U4.
I'd specified the capacitance as 3.3u. but the "u" symbol had vanished. When I specified the capacitance as 3300n everything
worked fine.
C10 is definitely 3.3u here. I tried changing it to 3300n but still less than 30us/s when I start the simulation.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for:
R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
Why a ten turn trimmer?
Can be 100 turn if you want. The point is only that fine adjustment would be a good idea.
Lots of turns don't always equate to fine setability.
Yes I agree. You might easily have the kinds of problems which were solved with anti backlash couplings in the days of drive cords
and tuning capacitors.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 09:53:03 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk0ehh$2o9dc$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 2:10 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk00um$2i900$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't
help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It rans at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
I used the circuit from your third post. One op amp had to be moved down a bit into position and then I hit simulate.
To be sure we're talking about the same circuit I've reposted it below. >>>> I'm using LTSpice 24.0.12 with no new model updates available as of this post.
And I'm using LTSpice XVII(x64)(17.0.37.0) up-dated recently.
I finally got your version to work. As you say, U1 had to be moved into place, but I also had to change C10 on the output of U4.
I'd specified the capacitance as 3.3u. but the "u" symbol had vanished. When I specified the capacitance as 3300n everything
worked fine.
C10 is definitely 3.3u here. I tried changing it to 3300n but still less than 30us/s when I start the simulation.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for: >>>>>> R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
Why a ten turn trimmer?
Can be 100 turn if you want. The point is only that fine adjustment would be a good idea.
Lots of turns don't always equate to fine setability.
Yes I agree. You might easily have the kinds of problems which were solved with anti backlash couplings in the days of drive cords
and tuning capacitors.
The long multi-turn trimpots are hard to adjust and expensive, and are
no better than single-turns for settability.
Single-turns have much lower HF parasitics too.
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:uoj8mj9t5vc84kl4mdr01n3spqtnra2u6v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 09:53:03 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk0ehh$2o9dc$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 2:10 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk00um$2i900$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't
help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It rans at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
I used the circuit from your third post. One op amp had to be moved down a bit into position and then I hit simulate.
To be sure we're talking about the same circuit I've reposted it below. >>>>> I'm using LTSpice 24.0.12 with no new model updates available as of this post.
And I'm using LTSpice XVII(x64)(17.0.37.0) up-dated recently.
I finally got your version to work. As you say, U1 had to be moved into place, but I also had to change C10 on the output of U4.
I'd specified the capacitance as 3.3u. but the "u" symbol had vanished. When I specified the capacitance as 3300n everything
worked fine.
C10 is definitely 3.3u here. I tried changing it to 3300n but still less than 30us/s when I start the simulation.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for: >>>>>>> R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
Why a ten turn trimmer?
Can be 100 turn if you want. The point is only that fine adjustment would be a good idea.
Lots of turns don't always equate to fine setability.
Yes I agree. You might easily have the kinds of problems which were solved with anti backlash couplings in the days of drive cords
and tuning capacitors.
The long multi-turn trimpots are hard to adjust and expensive, and are
no better than single-turns for settability.
Yes particularly if the resistive element is the same length, it may as well be single-turn.
Single-turn also has the advantage that you can see where it's set before you adjust it.
Multi-turn is usually enclosed so hard to know where it's set before adjustment.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=multi+turn+trimpots&udm=2
So I'd probably go for good quality open single-turn if I ever build the 120dB circuit.
Single-turns have much lower HF parasitics too.
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk0ehh$2o9dc$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 2:10 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk00um$2i900$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It ran at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
I used the circuit from your third post. One op amp had to be moved down a bit into position and then I hit simulate.
To be sure we're talking about the same circuit I've reposted it below.
I'm using LTSpice 24.0.12 with no new model updates available as of this post.
And I'm using LTSpice XVII(x64)(17.0.37.0) up-dated recently.
I finally got your version to work. As you say, U1 had to be moved into place, but I also had to change C10 on the output of U4.
I'd specified the capacitance as 3.3u. but the "u" symbol had vanished. When I specified the capacitance as 3300n everything
worked fine.
C10 is definitely 3.3u here. I tried changing it to 3300n but still less than 30us/s when I start the simulation.
Also is there any way in LTSpice to find a component?
Inspection works fine for me. Professional circuit diagrams tend to get re-numbered before they are released to production so
the numbers run from left to right across the sheet in bands, then from top to bottom as you moved down from the top band to the
bottom band.
What would you do when a change is required which requires an additional component such as an additional resistor or capacitor?
I wasn't responsible for keeping production drawings up to date, and the people who were had a bunch of conflicting priorities to
reconcile.
Ok - that's one way to avoid the question.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 09:53:03 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk0ehh$2o9dc$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 2:10 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk00um$2i900$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It rans at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
I used the circuit from your third post. One op amp had to be moved down a bit into position and then I hit simulate.
To be sure we're talking about the same circuit I've reposted it below. >>>> I'm using LTSpice 24.0.12 with no new model updates available as of this post.
And I'm using LTSpice XVII(x64)(17.0.37.0) up-dated recently.
I finally got your version to work. As you say, U1 had to be moved into place, but I also had to change C10 on the output of U4.
I'd specified the capacitance as 3.3u. but the "u" symbol had vanished. When I specified the capacitance as 3300n everything
worked fine.
C10 is definitely 3.3u here. I tried changing it to 3300n but still less than 30us/s when I start the simulation.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for: >>>>>> R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
Why a ten turn trimmer?
Can be 100 turn if you want. The point is only that fine adjustment would be a good idea.
Lots of turns don't always equate to fine setability.
Yes I agree. You might easily have the kinds of problems which were solved with anti backlash couplings in the days of drive cords
and tuning capacitors.
The long multi-turn trimpots are hard to adjust and expensive, and are
no better than single-turns for settability.
Single-turns have much lower HF parasitics too.
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:uoj8mj9t5vc84kl4mdr01n3spqtnra2u6v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 09:53:03 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk0ehh$2o9dc$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 2:10 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk00um$2i900$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't
help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It rans at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
I used the circuit from your third post. One op amp had to be moved down a bit into position and then I hit simulate.
To be sure we're talking about the same circuit I've reposted it below. >>>>> I'm using LTSpice 24.0.12 with no new model updates available as of this post.
And I'm using LTSpice XVII(x64)(17.0.37.0) up-dated recently.
I finally got your version to work. As you say, U1 had to be moved into place, but I also had to change C10 on the output of U4.
I'd specified the capacitance as 3.3u. but the "u" symbol had vanished. When I specified the capacitance as 3300n everything
worked fine.
C10 is definitely 3.3u here. I tried changing it to 3300n but still less than 30us/s when I start the simulation.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for: >>>>>>> R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
Why a ten turn trimmer?
Can be 100 turn if you want. The point is only that fine adjustment would be a good idea.
Lots of turns don't always equate to fine setability.
Yes I agree. You might easily have the kinds of problems which were solved with anti backlash couplings in the days of drive cords
and tuning capacitors.
The long multi-turn trimpots are hard to adjust and expensive, and are
no better than single-turns for settability.
Yes particularly if the resistive element is the same length, it may as well be single-turn.
Single-turn also has the advantage that you can see where it's set before you adjust it.
Multi-turn is usually enclosed so hard to know where it's set before adjustment.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=multi+turn+trimpots&udm=2
So I'd probably go for good quality open single-turn if I ever build the 120dB circuit.
Single-turns have much lower HF parasitics too.
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 12:22:51 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:uoj8mj9t5vc84kl4mdr01n3spqtnra2u6v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 09:53:03 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk0ehh$2o9dc$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 2:10 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vk00um$2i900$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/12/2024 6:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vjtgnp$24ubg$1@dont-email.me...
I've been playing with the circuit, and have got rid of one op amp, which made the simulation run much faster, but didn't
help
the
distortion performance.
Swapping the LT1115 for the LME49710 speeded up the simulation a bit more, but didn't make any difference to the distortion
either. A few of the ferrite beads have gone too.
I got a simulation speed of about 30us/s so I didn't wait the nearly 4 days it would take to complete.
I did an FFT on the first few cycles and it does look 100dB down up to 1.5MHz.
It rans at 68msec/sec for me and takes a couple of minutes to run the full ten seconds.
I used the circuit from your third post. One op amp had to be moved down a bit into position and then I hit simulate.
To be sure we're talking about the same circuit I've reposted it below. >>>>>> I'm using LTSpice 24.0.12 with no new model updates available as of this post.
And I'm using LTSpice XVII(x64)(17.0.37.0) up-dated recently.
I finally got your version to work. As you say, U1 had to be moved into place, but I also had to change C10 on the output of U4.
I'd specified the capacitance as 3.3u. but the "u" symbol had vanished. When I specified the capacitance as 3300n everything
worked fine.
C10 is definitely 3.3u here. I tried changing it to 3300n but still less than 30us/s when I start the simulation.
If building this for real then ten turn trimmers would be used for: >>>>>>>> R14 2.2k
R3 68 ohm
R16 100k
And I'd also want R19 or part of it variable.
Why a ten turn trimmer?
Can be 100 turn if you want. The point is only that fine adjustment would be a good idea.
Lots of turns don't always equate to fine setability.
Yes I agree. You might easily have the kinds of problems which were solved with anti backlash couplings in the days of drive cords
and tuning capacitors.
The long multi-turn trimpots are hard to adjust and expensive, and are
no better than single-turns for settability.
Yes particularly if the resistive element is the same length, it may as well be single-turn.
Single-turn also has the advantage that you can see where it's set before you adjust it.
Multi-turn is usually enclosed so hard to know where it's set before adjustment.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=multi+turn+trimpots&udm=2
So I'd probably go for good quality open single-turn if I ever build the 120dB circuit.
Single-turns have much lower HF parasitics too.
The rectangular multi-turn trimpots have a lot of backlash. A good
single is actually more settable. A heap faster too.