Questions about diode switching noise

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

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

Mendelt

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
221
Location
the Netherlands
I had a chance to peek inside a friends Mindprint Envoice and one of the things I noticed was that the bridge rectifier in the power supply had all the diodes bypassed with a 100nF ceramic cap.

I did some searching and found this was (probably) to get rid of switching noise from the diodes that's supposed to cause rf-ripple in the power supply.

I was kinda curious about this but can't find much information on this. What frequencies are we talking about? How much db? Do you really need 4 caps to filter this noise? Or is one capacitor to ground after the regulator (this is what i usually see) enough? Is it better to use ceramics (for real high frequency filtering)? cause in most designs i see film capacitors used for this..
 
bypassed to ground?

This sounds like it dips into audiophool territory along with changing to soft recovery diodes and the like. I would be weary of such strange circuitry because many well used and very reliable/stable designs utilize standard diodes in fairly standard ways without degraded performance. You don't know exactly why they did what they did, it *could* be a fix for something that appeared in later stages of development.

the design of the PSU really depends on it's intended useage. I don't know what this box is or does so I'm not going to be much help in that aspect. However, Film caps are more *ideal* than ceramics, polyester, polypro, polycarb, teflon being more and more ideal, but more and more expensive.
 
diodes bypassed with a 100nF ceramic cap

This is not rare, it's done often, and I think indeed for the reason you mentioned. Maybe it helps as well for lessening of sending the diode-generated trash back on the line.
Good one you brought this up, no doubt someone shows up here who has the definitive answer.
 
There was an article doing the rounds about choosing correct snubber capacitor values (though these were always used with series resistances). There was also a long thread on this at the other place (anyone got it?).
Given that these don't crop up everywhere in ordinary rectifier circuits for pro gear, plus the fact that I once made a supply noisier using snubber capacitors, it may be one of these things where a little theory (in this case from smps design) has been misappropriated.
 
Given that these don't crop up everywhere in ordinary rectifier circuits for pro gear, plus the fact that I once made a supply noisier using snubber capacitors, it may be one of these things where a little theory (in this case from smps design) has been misappropriated.

Don't know, I guess it also depends from which school of thought a designer/manufacturer is or has to be, read below.

These might be not the most perfect examples, but I hope they illustrate this a bit:

* Switching over from a Peavey bass-amp to SWR-gear times ago I was underwhelmed by seeing the SWR-circuitry. Obviously Peavey put more effort in to keep things healthy & protected, while SWR went for a more minimal approach (like the DC-coupled TL072's driving the XLR-out, or that power-amp without DC-protection ...) Peavey perhaps went a bit too far by letting the safety eat a bit of the sound away, but everyone knows its solid stuff.

* In old TV-sets (let's say before Philips' one-chip :wink: ) a lot of discrete components were to keep things OK, but were not required to realize the TV-function itself. Avoiding sending out disturbances, being disturbed itself, providing there won't be a fire when things go wrong, etc etc. Especially for TV-set schematics I recall those snubber-caps.

So things will often be just fine without those added components, but in other fields of the electronics-market they might be required (regulations etc). I figure a TV-set meets more stringent requirements than studio-boutique-gear (just to mention the biggest contrast).

Regards,

Peter
 
[quote author="Svart"]bypassed to ground?
This sounds like it dips into audiophool territory along with changing to soft recovery diodes and the like.[/quote]

Not bypassed to ground, just bypassed. Each diode in the rectifier was paralelled by a cap.
I saw some mention of this on audiophool sites too. That was one of the reasons I asked. I want to know how much of this is audiophoolery and how much is not.

[quote author="Svart"]However, Film caps are more *ideal* than ceramics, polyester, polypro, polycarb, teflon being more and more ideal, but more and more expensive.[/quote]

I remember reading somewhere that ceramics had lower inductance than film caps so they were more ideal for filtering really high freq's, for audio film caps are beter ( because of lower da or better linearity????dunno ). I could be wrong of course.. it's happened before :grin: That was why i asked about what frequencies the switching noise was. If it's really high freq (mHz range ???) i can imagine the need for ceramics. If its lower bypassing the elco's in the ps with film caps should be enough.

Another thing I can imagine being a problem here is that most regulators regulate less for higher frequencies. When you look at the the ripple-rejection chart on the NS LM78LXX datasheet you see ripple rejection is 60dB to 10kHz and then it drops off to around 40dB at 100kHz where the graph stops. 40dB is still a lot..but it all depends on how much noise is present at what frequencies.

Everyting depends on what the ps is feeding. I can imagine rf-noise from the power supply being a problem when you're feeding an op-amp that's close to oscillating in the same frequency range. But of course a good design should have no problems with this. Maybe i should just start making good designs :razz:
 
[quote author="Jonathan Hayward"]There was an article doing the rounds about choosing correct snubber capacitor values (though these were always used with series resistances). There was also a long thread on this at the other place (anyone got it?).
Given that these don't crop .[/quote]
This one?
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tlklKsP0JbUJ:www.recording.org/modules.php%3Fname%3DForums%26file%3Dviewtopic%26t%3D18715+site:recording.org+switching+noise+diodes&hl=en
 
I haven't checked out that thread yet, so apologies if some of this is redundant.

Normal P-N junction diodes have a stored charge when conducting. When the polarity reverses this charge has to go somewhere before conduction stops and the diode blocks. The time it takes depends on the diode, current, circuit impedances, etc. It is usually quoted as a single number: the reverse-recovery time.

The way in which it dumps the charge can be very abrupt. Indeed, diodes are made specifically to maximize the high frequency energy in the event to generate harmonic energy---they are called step-recovery diodes.

There are diodes that recover quickly and uniformly to try for the best of both worlds, that is, fast efficient rectification but the lowest amount of harmonic energy consistent with that speed/efficiency. They are sometimes called soft-recovery diodes.

The problems come when (1) the energy radiates and conducts into neighboring circuits, (2) when the regulator and its capacitors don't reject/filter it enough. So, one common approach is to bypass the diodes with low-inductance caps---stacked films, multilayer ceramics, and so forth. But, what you are doing is mostly moving the resonant frequency of the local circuit down, and not so much dissipating the energy. You may even make things worse depending on how the lower frequency ringing couples into your system.

The usual case is when something ends up being inadvertently tuned to the emissions and has a nonlinear device like a bipolar base-emitter junction involved, which rectifies the r.f. bursts and gives rise to a buzz typically at the fundamental and harmonics of double the line frequency.

So to do a better job you can contrive a series r-c snubber, or even more elaborate networks. But you can also move the disturbance away, and minimize loop areas both for radiation and pickup. I had a case where 1N4003 diodes required series 47nF-30 ohms across each diode to keep the buzz out of another board a few inches away. It might have been fixed with a shield but the snubbers were simpler at the time.

The addition of the caps or snubbers has a disadvantage in that you are passing more line garbage on to the rest of the circuitry, so some people don't like them for this reason.

Schottky diodes have in principle no stored charge except due to the capacitances, but Pease points out that the structures of these usually have a little parasitic P-N action and associated stored charge. The new shining star among diodes is the silicon carbide schottky. At the moment they are only available as large geometry parts for switching power apps, especially power factor correction circuits. The are higher forward drop than metal-semi schottkies and normal P-N diodes, but they have unmeasureable reverse recovery time.
 
Bcarso, as instructional as always!

He brought up the basis for a few statements that I had made early in the post that I never elaborated on due to the lengthy nature but put them in an organized way that I feel I would have failed to do..



"The problems come when (1) the energy radiates and conducts into neighboring circuits, (2) when the regulator and its capacitors don't reject/filter it enough. So, one common approach is to bypass the diodes with low-inductance caps---stacked films, multilayer ceramics, and so forth. But, what you are doing is mostly moving the resonant frequency of the local circuit down, and not so much dissipating the energy. You may even make things worse depending on how the lower frequency ringing couples into your system. "

Exactly why I stated that "it *could* be a fix for something that appeared in later stages of development.

I've come across many of these *fixes* when companies get a great circuit working great on a bench and then get a case made for it, spending a LOT of money on the designs just to forget about a few key things. They get to the FCC range and the box FAILS miserably in the radiated RF testing. they don't have the time or money to redesign the boards for different/better parts or redesign the chassis to *fool* the test, so they trace it back to a part or group of parts and install quick fixes.

In the same respect, they could have gotten the board to work great on a bench and had a "finished" design until they get the chassis and put the board in it only to realize that now RF is bouncing all over the place creating terrible problems. As Bcarso mentions, the "fix" might just be to throw some caps at it to adjust the frequency or it's resonants to a point where it doesn't affect it so much.

(rant alert!!)

I've tried a few of the mentioned diode types for rectification and each has it's good and bad points, but for price and robustness, nothing beats a standard diode and PROPER product design. this includes all mechanical shielding. Too many engineers get a circuit working the way they want it and just let the Mech engineers deal with the other problems like shielding. You then just end up fighting back and forth and coming up with "fixes" that happen after the fact. I fought with this many times before the company brought in a design engineer to work with both the electronics and mechanical engineers and to make sure the designs will work together. This makes life much much easier..

Bcarso, I've heard about the Silicon Carbide Diodes, do you have a good source of info on those?
 
When someone
blows up
the thread
with a
long link,
you can
get around
it by typing
like this.
 
I had actually read somewhere once--and for the life of me I can't seem to find the information--
that bypassing the diodes with a resistor would help the situation by
presenting a high impedance load to the diode during the HF flash. Any truth to this?
 
To the extent that the R does any good it would be too small and pass a lot of a.c. You definitely want a C in series.

It's not really ALL that much energy, at least for other than great big power diodes...it's just hard to predict how fast it dumps and how it will affect things.

Having said that, I remember reading of a conventional big iron-diode-cap line frequency supply that was failing emissions because of the big sloppy rectifier diodes. So Murphy can strike even when one avoids switching supplies.
 
Back
Top