Input and output coupling caps

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

12dbLow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
63
Location
Hamburg, Germany
Hello friends,

I'm assembling general purpose balanced inputs and outputs for a project. I will mainly use these schematics, with a few things added: http://sound.whsites.net/project87.htm

I've read through this article on coupling capacitors: http://sound.whsites.net/articles/coupling-caps.htm
It reassured me not to oversize the input coupling caps.

But what about the outputs? How do the considerations differ here?
Why does the GSSL for example use 22u/35V on the inputs and 100u/25V on the outputs?
Do I always need input AND output coupling caps?

Please help me choose the right caps that sound transparent but aren't esotericly huge.

Thanks!

PS: I didn't post a lot of information about my actual circuit because i wanted the question to be really general about coupling caps.
 
12dbLow said:
Hello friends,

I'm assembling general purpose balanced inputs and outputs for a project. I will mainly use these schematics, with a few things added: http://sound.whsites.net/project87.htm

I've read through this article on coupling capacitors: http://sound.whsites.net/articles/coupling-caps.htm
It reassured me not to oversize the input coupling caps.

But what about the outputs? How do the considerations differ here?
Why does the GSSL for example use 22u/35V on the inputs and 100u/25V on the outputs?
Do I always need input AND output coupling caps?

Please help me choose the right caps that sound transparent but aren't esotericly huge.

Thanks!

PS: I didn't post a lot of information about my actual circuit because i wanted the question to be really general about coupling caps.

Have to recommend you also read Douglas Self's Small Signal ...book on this to get a better grip on the circuits themselves.
Coupling caps - well at the input you know what you are dealing with after it so for example if you are going into a High Impedance input you can reduce capacitor size to suit and, if small enough, avoid using polarised electrolytics.
If going electrolytic then you still know what impedances you are dealing with. And a larger cap' will, all else being equal, give less distortion (as there will be less voltage across it at a given frequency.)
For output coupling you don't know what impedance you might be plugging into so the bigger the better.

Bear in mind that electrolytics will likely be +/-20% tolerance so while you can get 'subsonic' protection on the input you shouldn't rely on them for precise frequency response tailoring.
And you need to think about which way around to put them  if not using non polarised caps, or use 'back to back' or use a bias scheme...Fun and Games  :)
 
12dbLow said:
Hello friends,

I'm assembling general purpose balanced inputs and outputs for a project. I will mainly use these schematics, with a few things added: http://sound.whsites.net/project87.htm

I've read through this article on coupling capacitors: http://sound.whsites.net/articles/coupling-caps.htm
It reassured me not to oversize the input coupling caps.
The size of individual coupling capacitors and input termination impedance determines -3dB HPF half power points. 

When using coupling capacitors in front of balanced inputs (like mic preamps) another factor is tolerance or matching. Electrolytic capacitors are generally wider tolerance than resistors. Mismatched value capacitors can degrade the common mode rejection.  One strategy to reduce the impact is to make the caps larger pushing the pole frequency and errors lower.  Of course there is no free lunch so using large coupling caps for blocking phantom power increases the energy they hold and discharge when inadvertently shorted to ground (like in a patch bay).

But what about the outputs? How do the considerations differ here?
yes, driving outputs are expected to anticipate all devices, and that can range as low as 600 ohm with some legacy gear.
Why does the GSSL for example use 22u/35V on the inputs and 100u/25V on the outputs?
perhaps for the obvious reasons mentioned.
Do I always need input AND output coupling caps?
no, but they can be insurance against failed gear elsewhere in your path. 

Some people take advantage of modern low offset op amps to eliminate coupling caps for some paths.

DC faults in audio paths can damage loudspeakers if not protected for.
Please help me choose the right caps that sound transparent but aren't esotericly huge.
"right" caps are surely a subjective decision. Right for me may not be right for you...
Thanks!

PS: I didn't post a lot of information about my actual circuit because i wanted the question to be really general about coupling caps.
Details and practical considerations might be more informative and not require us guessing  about what is important to you.  ::)

JR
 
12dbLow said:
Why does the GSSL for example use 22u/35V on the inputs and 100u/25V on the outputs?
Typically because the input impedance is a known factor, since it's the designer's choice. OTOH, the load impedance is the choice of another designer. Both designers may not agree about what's right.
Very often a designer will use a higher value than strictly needed because it's a standard item that they hold in stock and buy in huge quantities.
A 100uF/25V Nichicon VZ costs 0,0809 € for 500 pieces; the same in 22uF costs 0,0922 € for 100 pces. Since electrolytic capacitors should not be used for frequency-dependant circuits (cause too high tolerance), this is an incentive for standardization.

Do I always need input AND output coupling caps?
There are cases where coupling caps are mandatory; that's when coupling circuits that have a large DC difference. Typically,, a unit that is powered with symetrical rails (e.g. +/- 15V) has very little DC; on the contrary, a unit powered with a single rail (e.g. vintage Neve) has large DC, typically half the rail voltage. Connecting them directly would impair the operation of both the sender and the receiver. Another example is phantom powered microphones, where the output carries a large DC voltage (9-52V).
There are also cases where coupling capacitors are not strictly mandatory, but even in the best designs, there is always some DC present. Connecting or switching stages generates clicks, that are generally benign, but still are very annoying, particularly right in the middle of a take or a mix.
 
Newmarket said:
Have to recommend you also read Douglas Self's Small Signal ...book on this to get a better grip on the circuits themselves.
I actually do have the book. I'm re-reading the pages about line inputs and caps right now.

JohnRoberts said:
Details and practical considerations might be more informative and not require us guessing  about what is important to you.  ::)
The reason wasn't that I don't want to share that information with you, but wanted to really aim this thread at learning how to approach this topic in general, but you're probably right. I will post more helpful information about my actual project tomorrow.

Thanks already for the quick and helpfull replies! :)
 
12dbLow said:
wanted to really aim this thread at learning how to approach this topic in general,
First, you have to grok how a circuit constituted of a generator (voltage) with a non-zero source resistance reacts with a receiver (load) constituted of a capacitor in series with a resistance. You need Ohm's law and Kirchoff's voltage law.
 
Hi,

A while ago I went through something of the same process, creating  general purpose balanced in and out boards.
I selected circuits using the SSM2141 and SSM2142  (or THAT equivalents).

I use these with no coupling capacitors.
 
So guys,

I was knocked out by a cold for a few days but here‘s what I was able to work out after that:

I‘ve read through „Handbook For Sound Engineers“ (Glen Ballou) and „Small Signal Audio Design“ (Douglas Self) very carefully and have the feeling I got a much better grasp on what this topic is about.

The Project
I am designing a monitoring controller based on Eurocards in a subrack. The cards (8-input card for example) are supposed to be quite universal, so I can use them in different projects in the future. My university is actually interested in a controller for their 3D audio dome, based on this project. Douglas Self talks about worst case output impedances of 2,5k (passive volume knob). This controller will only be interconnected with professional studio gear, so I‘m not quite sure which range of impedacnes to plan for at the moment.

Requirements

fairly flat frequency response and low noise
universal and stable


Inputs

I want to use this schematic now, explained in detail by Douglas self.
index.php

(Fig. 14.12)

In the following calculations, I have always added the typical capacitor deviation in the direction that makes matters worse.

With values of R7/R8 = 100R and C1/C2 = 100p (+ 10%), expecting a worst-case output impedance of 2,5k , I get a RF filter rolloff at 556 kHz.

--> Should I assume lower output impedances in the professional environment to be able to have a lower RF-Filter rolloff? I looked up some of our devices: They were all in the 50 – 100 Ohms range. I will probably never connect something like a passive volume controller.

With C3/C4 values of 100µ, the DC-blocking rolloff is at very low 0,02 Hz. What I learned from Small Signal Audio though is: The reactance of the caps is supposed to be a very small fraction of the total input impedance, so that tolerances don‘t affect symmetry and therefore CMRR. 100µ (-20% = 80µ) gives me an Xc of 1k @ 2Hz. Thats 1% of 100k (R5/R6).

--> I picked 2Hz pretty randomly. Down to which frequency should this ratio be so low?

--> What about polarized caps? Self always explicitly mentions non-polarized caps but in commercial products I mostly find normal polarized ones. I have to say I find NP‘s a bit bulky and expensive. What difference does it really make?

--> Self states that early in a system (Though not by the DC blocking caps) the low-end frequency response should be defined. Should that also be done in a simple monitoring controller, i.e. should I add an RC highpass filter after this input circuit?


The book ommitts various parts of this schematic because they were discussed in erlier chapters. I added the feedback caps for HF stability for example. 100p (+10%) over 2,2k gives me a cutoff at 723 kHz.

--> Can I put feedback caps across both R2 and R4, or will that affect symmetry? Isn‘t the cold signal filtered twice, but the hot signal only through the second stage? I‘m not sure about that.


Outputs
This is an exact schematic from Small Signal Audio: (Despite the polarized caps)

index.php

(Fig. 15.3 c)

I looked into the datasheets of a few professional products and the lowest input impedance I found was 3,6k (Studer Vista). If I‘m aiming at a DC-blocking cutoff frequency of 2 Hz (As Self accepts in one unbalanced example), round the input impedance to 3k, I get a value of 26µ for C2. It has a reactance of 3k @ 2 Hz / 300 R @ 20 Hz. That‘s about the same as the input impedance for very low signals, so I suppose it shoud be 10 times lower.

--> At this point I‘m not completely sure at which output cap reactance to aim. Which are the lowest frequencies to concider when calculating the reactance?

--> Do I need output DC-blocking at all with my design that only consists of [input]-[routing / attenuation]-[output] ? How much DC can this circuit build up? The blocking cap would probably also protect following equipment from a latch-up state in my circuit, right?

--> When comparing this balanced output to the equivalent circuit from http://sound.whsites.net/project87.htm I notice that it has a 10k parallel and 1k series resistor on the input. Is this needed when feeding it from a low impedance source inside my system?



Please be forgiving, as I am just learning all of this stuff and hope I didn‘t make any major mistakes. If I did, correct me. I already learned a lot from verifying all of the calculations I read in Small Signal Audio myself. I hope you can clarify these questions that remained.

Best regards,
Adrian
 

Attachments

  • Balanced_Input_values.png
    Balanced_Input_values.png
    10.7 KB · Views: 247
12dbLow said:
Requirements
fairly flat frequency response and low noise
Since you mention it, you should define it. "Fairly" has no sense in engineering. You're dealing with line level audio signals, that means the frequency response should not deviate significantly from 20Hz to 20 kHz; it seems a consensus has defined "significantly" as being less than 0.1dB, which suggests a LF -3dB point at 3Hz and a HF -3dB point at 130kHz, when they are defined by 1st-order filters.

I want to use this schematic now, explained in detail by Douglas self.
One could question why you want to use this specific circuit. There are many options for balanced receivers (actually differential); they all have their pros and cons.
I would expect you have explored all alternatives.

With values of R7/R8 = 100R and C1/C2 = 100p (+ 10%), expecting a worst-case output impedance of 2,5k , I get a RF filter rolloff at 556 kHz.
More like 1 MHZ, actually; not that it matters much...

  Should I assume lower output impedances in the professional environment to be able to have a lower RF-Filter rolloff?
Yes.

  I looked up some of our devices: They were all in the 50 – 100 Ohms range.
Correct.

With C3/C4 values of 100µ, the DC-blocking rolloff is at very low 0,02 Hz. Hz pretty randomly. Down to which frequency should this ratio be so low?
Again, you're dealing with audio frequencies, so checking CMRR below 15Hz doesn't make much sense.

  What about polarized caps? Self always explicitly mentions non-polarized caps but in commercial products I mostly find normal polarized ones. I have to say I find NP‘s a bit bulky and expensive. What difference does it really make?
Loaded subject. Let's say the quality of polarized electrolytics has improved so much the difference is vanishing.

Self states that early in a system (Though not by the DC blocking caps) the low-end frequency response should be defined. Should that also be done in a simple monitoring controller, i.e. should I add an RC highpass filter after this input circuit?[/i]
For the sake of doing things right, you should. As well as an RC lowpass.

Can I put feedback caps across both R2 and R4, or will that affect symmetry? Isn‘t the cold signal filtered twice, but the hot signal only through the second stage? I‘m not sure about that.[/i]
That is correct, that's why you should make sure the input filter should be tuned lower than the feedback filter.

Do I need output DC-blocking at all with my design that only consists of [input]-[routing / attenuation]-[output] ?
DC blocking caps (or servo output) are a necessary evil, since very low offset voltages can create annoying clicks when switching.
 
abbey road d enfer said:
it seems a consensus has defined "significantly" as being less than 0.1dB, which suggests a LF -3dB point at 3Hz and a HF -3dB point at 130kHz, when they are defined by 1st-order filters.

I knew you would tear my "fairly" apart :) That "definition" was one bit of information that I was looking for. If this is agreed on to be good performance, then I would like to aim for that.

One could question why you want to use this specific circuit. There are many options for balanced receivers (actually differential); they all have their pros and cons.
I would expect you have explored all alternatives.

I had chosen this circuit because high impedance inputs were being described to have very good CMRR. I must confess, after reading a lot about impedance bridging, I had the notion that inputs should better have as high impedance as possible. Now that you're questioning this, I have actuall re-read the chapter about the "practical balanced input" (one op-amp). I'm asking myself now if I should use this one instead.

More like 1 MHZ, actually; not that it matters much...

I don't get that.
f = 1/(2 pi R C)
f = 1/(2 * pi * (2500 + 100) * 10^-10) = 612134 Hz

This is one of the worst options for a system output. It's been commonly known as the "Tascam problem". Better use impedance-balanced output (simpler-better-cheaper) or THAT 1646

Thanks a lot for pointing this out! After searching on this board I found other answers from you describing this problem a bit more. I'm surprised that Douglas Self doesn't mention this problem in any way in his book.
I was lead to think this circuit was superior because it was described as the only "true" balanced output.

The impedance-balanced output seems a bit "too simple to be true", but if you recommend it! Does the "ground cancelling" output have any advantages over the impedance-balanced, when connected to a balanced input?

 
12dbLow said:
I don't get that.
f = 1/(2 pi R C)
f = 1/(2 * pi * (2500 + 100) * 10^-10) = 612134 Hz
AC-wise, the caps are in series =>50 pF

Does the "ground cancelling" output have any advantages over the impedance-balanced, when connected to a balanced input?
No, only when connected to unbalanced inputs.
 
Okay then I have another important question, as this was explained differently between various books and cases:

When talking about impedance in a balanced connection, are we always talking about the impedance we see between the hot and cold input/output? My logic tells me so, but I wasn't sure after reading about this, especially after Douglas Self's chapter on different input impedances seen on the hot/cold legs of a standard one-op-amp balanced input.

The standard equivalent I am always thinking of is a transformer balanced input, where it is very clear that the hot and cold input are connected by a transformer winding and form a closed circuit.
 
Another thing to keep in mind, in many cases the single RC pole being set is not the only pole in a complete audio path. The roll off from multiple poles in series is cumulative.  So even multiple -0.1dB hits can combine to a major fraction of a dB.

Over the decades I have used truckloads of DC coupling caps because even customers of value (read cheap) gear, won't tolerate scratchy pots and clicky switches. I generally set poles crazy low to be transparent to the entire path response.

JR 
 
12dbLow said:
When talking about impedance in a balanced connection, are we always talking about the impedance we see between the hot and cold input/output?
Yes.
... but I wasn't sure after reading about this, especially after Douglas Self's chapter on different input impedances seen on the hot/cold legs of a standard one-op-amp balanced input.
That isn't balanced input anymore, IMO.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top