datasheets.com EBN.com EDN.com EETimes.com Embedded.com PlanetAnalog.com TechOnline.com  
Events
UBM Tech
UBM Tech

Design Article

Comment


Nic Cohen

7/27/2012 3:54 AM EDT

This is initially only going to be of benefit for the big boys again!! While the ...

More...



Mike Turner

9/7/2010 6:34 AM EDT

Hi Bill

Regarding your comment:

"It's also worth noting ...

More...

Audio amplifier power supply design - Part 1: Power supply types & transformer considerations

Douglas Self

7/21/2010 7:21 AM EDT

Design Considerations for Power Supplies
A typical unregulated power supply is shown in Figure 9.2. This is wholly conventional in concept, though for optimal hum performance the wiring topology and physical layout need close attention, and this point is rarely made.

Figure 9.2: A simple unregulated power supply, including rectifier-snubbing and X-capacitor

In a multichannel amplifier, the power supply will fall into one of three types. In order of increasing cost, and allegedly decreased interaction between channels, these are:

  1. The transformer, rectifiers, and reservoir capacitors are shared between channels.
  2. Each channel has its own transformer secondary, rectifiers, and reservoirs. There is a single transformer but only the core and primary are shared.
  3. Each channel has its own transformer, rectifiers, and reservoirs. Nothing except possibly the mains inlet and mains switch are shared.
In reality the only interaction experienced with (1) and (2) is a variation in maximum power output depending on how the other channels are loaded. With competent design signal crosstalk via the power supply should simply not happen.

For amplifiers of moderate power the total reservoir capacitance per rail usually ranges from 4700 to 20,000 µF, though some designs have much more. Ripple current ratings must be taken seriously, for excessive ripple current heats up the capacitors and reduces their lifetime. It is often claimed that large amounts of reservoir capacitance give 'firmer bass', presumably following the same sort of vague thinking that credits regulated power supplies with giving 'firmer bass', but it is untrue for all normal amplifier designs below clipping.

I do not propose to go through the details of designing a simple PSU at this point, because such information can be found in standard textbooks, but I instead offer below some hints and warnings that are either rarely published or are especially relevant to audio amplifier design.

Mains Transformers
The mains transformer will normally be either the traditional E-and-I frame type, or a toroid. The frame type is used where price is more important than compactness or external field, and vice versa. There are various other types of transformer, such as C-core or R-core, but they do not seem to be able to match the low external field of the toroid, while being significantly more expensive than the frame type.

The procurement of the mains transformer for a given voltage at a given current is simple in principle, but the field of audio power amplifiers always seems to involve a degree of trial and error. This is because when transformers are used in unregulated power supplies for audio power amplifiers, the on-load voltage has to be accurate; the power output in watts depends on the square of the rail voltage. Watts do not have a direct relation to subjective volume, but are psychologically an important part of the written spec.

An amplifier that on review does not quite meet its published power output gives a poor impression. The subjective difference between 199 and 200 W is utterly negligible but the two figures look quite different laying there on the paper. It is therefore normal practice to err on the side of higher rather than lower output power; this should not be taken too far as the amplifier will be running hotter than necessary.

The main reason for output power error is that the voltage actually developed on the reservoir capacitors depends on losses that are not easily predicted, and this is inherent in any rectifier circuit where the current flows only in short sharp peaks at the crest of the AC waveform.

Firstly the voltage developed depends on the transformer regulation, i.e. the amount the voltage drops as more current is drawn. (The word 'regulation' in this context has nothing to do with negative-feedback voltage control – unfortunate and confusing, but there it is.) Transformer manufacturers are usually reluctant to predict anything more than a very approximate figure for this.

Voltage losses also depend strongly on the peak amplitude of the charging pulses from the rectifier to the reservoir; these peaks cause voltage drops in the AC wiring, transformer winding resistances, and rectifiers that are rather larger than might be expected from just considering the mean DC current. Unfortunately the magnitude of the peak current is poorly defined, being affected by wiring resistance and transformer leakage reactance (a parameter that transformer manufacturers are even more reluctant to predict), and calculations of the extra peak losses are so rough that they are of doubtful value. There may also be uncertainties in the voltage efficiency of the amplifier itself, and there are so many variables that it is only realistic to expect to try two or even three transformer designs before the exact output power required is obtained. I have run projects where the transformer was exactly right the first time, but that was maybe 10% of cases, and I might as well be honest and put them down to good luck.

The power output of an amplifier depends on when it starts clipping – a common criterion is that the rated power is given when the THD due to clipping reaches 1%. Given the usual unregulated power supply, clipping is controlled by the troughs of the ripple waveform rather than its peaks, and the depth of these troughs is a function of the size of the total reservoir capacity. Since large electrolytics have relatively wide tolerances, this introduces another uncertainty into the calculations.

Secondly, the voltage losses in the power amplifier itself are not that easy to predict, some of the clipping mechanisms being quite complicated in detail. The inevitable conclusion is that the fastest way to reach a satisfactory transformer design is to make only approximate calculations, order a prototype as soon as possible, and fine-tune the required voltage from there.

Since most amplifiers are intended to reproduce music and speech, with high peak-to-average power ratios, they will operate satisfactorily with transformers rated to supply only 70% of the current required for extended sine-wave operation, and in a competitive market the cost savings are significant. Trouble comes when the amplifiers are subjected to sine-wave testing, and a transformer so rated will probably fail from internal overheating, though it may take an hour or more for the temperatures to climb high enough. The usual symptom is breakdown of the winding insulation, the resultant shorted turns causing the primary mains fuse to blow. This process is usually undramatic, without visible transformer damage or the evolution of smoke, but it does of course ruin an expensive component.

To prevent such failures when a mains transformer is deliberately underrated, some form of thermal cut-out is essential. Self-resetting cut-outs based on snap-action bimetal disks are physically small enough to be buried in the outer winding layers and work very well. They are usually chosen to open the primary circuit at 100 or 110° C, as transformer materials are usually rated to 120° C unless special construction is required. Once-only thermal cut-outs can also be specified, but their operation renders the transformer almost as useless as shorted turns do – it is rarely economic to rewind transformers. The point is that they are required for safety reasons; the transformer will fail in a controlled fashion rather than relying on internal shorting and consequent fuse-blowing, and they are significantly cheaper than self-resetting cut-outs.

If the primary side of the mains transformer has multiple taps for multi-country operation, remember that some of the primary wiring will carry much greater currents at low-voltage tappings; the mains current drawn on 90 V input will be nearly three times that at 240 V, for the same power out.





Pierre_P

7/23/2010 10:01 AM EDT

While I agree that using a iron-core, 50/60 Hz transformer makes a lot of sense for audio amplifier design in the range of 10 -100W of output, I think that customers wish for smaller box, along with new requirements for standby power efficiency will push the use of switching power supplies more and more over time. These switching power supplies don't suffer the poor power factor of a bridge-rectified iron transformer with big filtering capacitor, plus they allow designer to use tricks like variable power rails to save power when the volume control position is low. These can also suppply the control voltage along with the power rail.

The initial investment in designing those may pay off for big manufacturers. This is obviously more difficult for a small shop to design and certify a line-level switching power supply for a power amp so there is a definite opportunity here for companies to design specialised off-the shelf unit for sale to the smaller audio components designers that can't afford to design them.

Pierre Proulx

Sign in to Reply



Guru of Grounding

7/26/2010 1:41 AM EDT

Although much is made of the "low" external magnetic field of toroids, they must be rigorously constructed to live up to that reputation. First, each winding must COMPLETELY cover the entire core. In most commercial units, the magnetic field emanates from the egress of wire leads, where core coverage has a gap. Second, virtually all power transformers are designed to be as cheap as possible. Less core and less copper are used in designs that operate very near magnetic saturation of the core. But the downside is that, as saturation is approached, radiated magnetic field drastically increases. It's also worth noting that secondary (load) current does NOT increase flux density. Only the primary voltage affects flux density for a given design. Therefore, a design on the verge of saturation at 115 VAC will likely be a problem at 130 VAC. To make any power transformer magnetically-friendly, simply operate it at reduced primary voltage (with reduced secondary voltages, of course). Another problem with toroids, because they don't have even the smallest air gaps in the magnetic path, is inrush current when they're first turned on. In large transformers, this can cause nuisance breaker tripping. I think the advantages of toroids are usually over-stated. -- Bill Whitlock, president & chief engineer, Jensen Transformers, Inc. www.jensen-transformers.com

Sign in to Reply



Mike Turner

9/7/2010 6:34 AM EDT

Hi Bill

Regarding your comment:

"It's also worth noting that secondary (load) current does NOT increase flux density. Only the primary voltage affects flux density for a given design."

It's very refreshing to hear someone with strong links to the audio community expressing this simple but so frequently misunderstood truth. Time and again I wearily see reviewers talking with great approval of (needlessly) huge power transformers with high current ratings, used in order "to avoid saturation".

The problem doesn't seem to be confined to the "hi-fi" community either: one close friend who's a seasoned amplifier designer of some repute was surprised when I put him right on this point at a recent AES convention. The ignorance of transformer basics seems so widespread that I'd actually thought of submitting an AES tutorial paper called "The Misunderstood Transformer" (or something like that). I've held back to-date not least because although I've designed plenty of power transformers (for low-frequency and HF switched-mode use) I've less experience of detailed design for high quality audio, and there are other luminaries such as your good self (and dare I mention Brian Sowter, Per Lundahl...) who have greater knowledge here. Still seems like a good idea though.

Perhaps we could get some T-shirts made bearing the slogan "The Volts Determine The Flux" !! :-)

Kind regards

Mike Turner

http://www.aes.org/aes/mike-turner

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/mike-turner/1/b8a/b7

Sign in to Reply



Nic Cohen

7/27/2012 3:54 AM EDT

This is initially only going to be of benefit for the big boys again!! While the smaller organisations will have to wait for an out the box equivalent.
The only difference is it has a multi-volt flux capacitor, apologies for the poor attempt to a bad joke!!

Nic
kdweb.co.uk

Sign in to Reply



Please sign in to post comment

Navigate to related information

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)