bluebird

Op Amp Bypassing
« on: June 27, 2020, 01:04:42 AM »
Talking about NE5532's lately, reminded me that Douglas Self recommends connecting the V+ with V- via a 0.1uF cap rather than using two caps from V+ to GND and V- to GND.

Something about powering up the circuit, I can't remember. Have I been wasting one 0.1uF cap for years? Anyone know whats up with this?


Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2020, 02:24:43 AM »
to me using a single cap from V- to V+ is being cheap, its been long recognized that a 100nF cap in each rail is the way recommended by most manufacturers, some opamps need another cap in parallel to become stable. The only benefit I see from using a cap from V+ to V- is that you are not dumping dirty current to ground.

Rogy

Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2020, 03:02:42 AM »

ruairioflaherty

Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2020, 03:10:08 AM »
https://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=37307.0

Grtz Rogy

Came here to post the same link!  It's a good thread.


squarewave

Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2020, 10:01:58 AM »
Talking about NE5532's lately, reminded me that Douglas Self recommends connecting the V+ with V- via a 0.1uF cap rather than using two caps from V+ to GND and V- to GND.
NE5532 is not a high speed op amp and so bypass caps are not as critical. If your ground is low impedance and quiet and the amp is not sourcing / sinking a lot of current, you actually don't need any bypass caps at all with most older amps. But adding one cap between the rails could be an effective compromise to add a little stability.

Note that at vaguely high frequencies (like > 4kHz), ground currents follow the supply currents where possible. This is counter intuitive. You might think that return currents would simply follow the shortest path to the supply bypass cap ground. If they did, no bypass caps at the OA would be necessary. But high frequency AC currents actually reduce the impedance of the ground plane directly underneath the supply trace. And because current always follows the path-of-least-resistance, high frequency ground currents will return directly underneath the supply traces. This slight increase in AC impedance in ground can cause instability in high speed op amps. That is why becomes necessary to add local bypass capacitors. If you used only one cap between supply lines, it would not have the same effect because it would have no impact on the impedance of local ground.

fazer

Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2020, 10:49:45 AM »
There is an old article from 90s in wireless world about the 1 cap solution.  That article suggested the noise is injected into ground needlessly when 2 caps to ground is used .   1 cap across v+  and v- creates less noise in the amp and accomplished better results. 

boji

Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2020, 12:01:19 PM »
Quote
Note that at vaguely high frequencies (like > 4kHz), ground currents follow the supply currents where possible. This is counter intuitive. You might think that return currents would simply follow the shortest path to the supply bypass cap ground. If they did, no bypass caps at the OA would be necessary. But high frequency AC currents actually reduce the impedance of the ground plane directly underneath the supply trace.

Interesting, thank you.  Do they have cad software that during layout, return paths of A/C can be simulated?
Curious what the shift looks like around 4kHz.  Assuming a circuit made for audio, how best should signals 'shift' between path of least resistance / drain follows source? Is it desired that the change be a narrow-banded one, dependant on layout?  Can one mitigate/optimise such things???  I realise this is a bit off the subject, my bad BB/SW.

Edit: btw I get there are techniques such as no greater angles trace cornering than 45deg. But you've got me imagining there's some kind of no-man's-land where overall parts placement and the shape of floods become critical.   

« Last Edit: June 27, 2020, 09:06:51 PM by boji »

squarewave

Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2020, 01:39:46 PM »
Not that I'm aware of. At low frequencies the return path is just the shortest path. Higher than ~4kHz return currents travel directly under supply lines. So you could make a point of not breaking the ground plane under the trace because that would force the return current to go around and possibly pollute some other part of the circuit. But if you use local bypass capacitors it probably wouldn't be a problem regardless. There's a great video on youtube about it but I have no idea as to how to go about finding it now. I'm not familiar with any issues regarding traces with angles >45deg.

ruairioflaherty

Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2020, 03:52:15 PM »
Not that I'm aware of. At low frequencies the return path is just the shortest path. Higher than ~4kHz return currents travel directly under supply lines. So you could make a point of not breaking the ground plane under the trace because that would force the return current to go around and possibly pollute some other part of the circuit. But if you use local bypass capacitors it probably wouldn't be a problem regardless. There's a great video on youtube about it but I have no idea as to how to go about finding it now.

Not audio specific but this is likely the video you are thinking of - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1880&v=1xicZF9glH0&feature=emb_logo

30 mins but well worth watching.


squarewave

Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2020, 04:19:05 PM »
That's actually not the one. He's using a 1M crystal. The one I'm referring to used like a PWM chip to make a relatively low frequency pulse into a 50 ohm load. But the board layout with the signal going around the edge is the same. Very similar but not the same.


boji

Re: Op Amp Bypassing
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2020, 09:31:13 PM »
Nice!  Thanks gents, enjoyed the example.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3220 Views
Last post July 09, 2004, 07:31:52 AM
by clintrubber
18 Replies
7046 Views
Last post June 22, 2005, 01:24:54 PM
by CJ
5 Replies
3989 Views
Last post October 19, 2008, 01:19:54 PM
by tommypiper
5 Replies
2426 Views
Last post January 10, 2011, 04:38:36 PM
by zebra50