A new sontec. PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

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

The BB parts are pretty good but a tiny bit overpriced. I like the Analog devices parts too.

The I/O parts should be high speed, 200v/us to 600v/us however I couldn't find the exact quote about this even though I am sure I read it. This almost rules out VFB opamps unless you are using something nice like the Forssell stuff.
 
Cool,
I quoted the OPA604APC Burr Brown for $2.5 each. Minimum purchase of 20.
Does anyone want to go in on it with me?? I really only need 5 to 10.
 
[quote author="olafmatt"]There is one lengthy PSW thread about the 430 and the differences between the models. It seems that people there agree that the 430 series is the best one, or at least better than 250.
There are three main differences that are rather obvious:
1) addition of shelving filters using one more opamp
2) only 3 parametric bands instead of 5, thus less work for the last opamp[/quote]

Yeah, I've read it. You can go shelving on the 250 too, my version has shelving/peaking bands selectable on the lowest and highest band. Nice thing is the Q works on the shelfs too - I use it alot.

Thanks for the schematic. :thumb: Building another Sontec is not going to happen right now, but some day maybe. The 250 variant here is on a daily use and it does many things so well that I have never heard an EQ do that. Luv'it! :cool:
 
I like that schematic Olafmatt, I'm studying it right now. The interesting thing is the biased back to back caps between the shelving bands and the amp.. Is there a reason to have the caps and the servo too? The servo couldn't handle the DC?
 
[quote author="Svart"]The interesting thing is the biased back to back caps between the shelving bands and the amp.. Is there a reason to have the caps and the servo too? The servo couldn't handle the DC?[/quote]

The servo is there to have 0VDC at the output of the opamp. The back-to-back caps are there to keep DC away from the gain switch. All this seems quite clear to me, but then also the peaking (parametric) bands would need these caps.
One problem with the servos as I have them shown in my schemo is that they add the correcting voltage at the inverting input of the opamps, so we get a small DC voltage at one end of the gain switches. This voltage gets filtered out by the caps.
The original opamps had extra trim inputs, so the DC wasn't superimposed on one of the input terminals. But if that's the reason, then we would not need the caps in the shelving filters either (with the original opamps)...

Of course, the 250 also has shelving bands, but here we have sime RC or gyrator filters that sound different from t-notch filters being modified to be shelving. Since the peaking filters are more or less identical, a simple switch could be added there to get the 250-style shelfes as well.

Olaf
 
Thanks for the info, but one more question.. If you are using Jfet input devices, DC on the input doesn't seem to impart much DC at the output usually right? You mention gain switch but I see pots as the level controls between the NI and INV pins of the opamps with the INV being fed also by the servo. shouldn't this already nullify the DC on the outputs if the JFET opamp didn't already signifigantly cut the DC offset on it's output? I'm just wondering how necessesary those caps really are or if they are just for added protection.

:thumb:
 
[quote author="Svart"]Thanks for the info, but one more question.. If you are using Jfet input devices, DC on the input doesn't seem to impart much DC at the output usually right?[/quote]

I just used the general servo setup that Fred recommends for his opamps. :roll:

[quote author="Svart"]You mention gain switch but I see pots[/quote]

You're right, I'm sooo lazy (when drawing schematics, that is). There are pots shown there, but I am using switches.

[quote author="Svart"]pots as the level controls between the NI and INV pins of the opamps with the INV being fed also by the servo. shouldn't this already nullify the DC on the outputs if the JFET opamp didn't already signifigantly cut the DC offset on it's output? I'm just wondering how necessesary those caps really are or if they are just for added protection.[/quote]

As I said before, the DC servo puts it's corrective voltage on the inverting input, so we have a DC difference between (+) and (-) of the shelving opamp. This voltage would flow through the gain switch / pot if the caps weren't there.

Now the peaking amp: here the gain switches are connected between output and - through resistor R20 - (-) input. Since the shelving opamp has a servo we have 0VDC at the left side of R20 where the switch connects (at least in an ideal world it would be 0).
So here your assumption fits (and, in deed, there are no caps). However, we would need caps in the path labeled "feedback" where the third pole from the filters connects. Otherwise we might get switching noise when switching the filter in/out of the circuit.

I have to admit that I more or less just copied the original schematic and just replaced the opamp with something slightly more common. The Sontec opamps have these 'trim' pins, so the whole storry is completely different with the original opamps. The cap placement was chosen for the original opamps and might be less than perfect with the JFET990 amps.

Olaf
 
If the 4xx series sontec used 5534s again, then yeah they would have offset adjust pins which could counter the offset introduced by the previous stage.
 
[quote author="Svart"]If the 4xx series sontec used 5534s again[/quote]

It didn't. It used HS-2030 in the main signal path and HS-6000 in the filters.

Original schemo: http://gyraf.dk/schematics/audioboard432.gif

Olaf
 
[quote author="Kev"]Vactrols
4 of them ??[/quote]

For switching the filters out of the way: Two for the shelving filters, one for the peaking filters together. The fourth one is for switching the low shelf between 50 & 100Hz.

I read somewhere that in the 250 they paralleled the vactrols with relays in order to get rid of the not perfect 0 ohms on-resistance. But I also thought the 430 series was newer than the 250, so why did they stop doing this? And why not just use a relay?

Olaf
 
[quote author="cstella"]This came form a Dual Stereo Mastering version we got from Burgess in 1998.[/quote]

Seems they looked all more or less like this. Here is a naked one lifted from another forum:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/fa/3510/0/

Concerning the relay pops: well, if the off-resistance of the vactrol is intended to allow DC to flow away, then I could just add a 2M ohm resistor across my open relay contacts, more or less.
I'm building my version with relays, so let's see whether it really pops. So far it didn't, but I haven't finished all the peaking bands yet.

Olaf
 
It's not really a concern for the DIY community if it pops while switching, chances are that you aren't switching during mastering anyway. I think they just did it for the rest of the community who think those kinds of pops are a sign of low quality..

That and if the monitor amp is up too high when it pops..

Those mastering monitors aren't cheap!

And Olaf, there seems to be something missing in your link..
 

Latest posts

Back
Top