AD797 Phono Stage Build and Help Desk Thread

You're one of the few people I've ever seen mention this. I mentioned it on my website but subsequently had doubts about the magnitude of the effect because the cantilever's rubber mount should have a much greater damping effect, at least according to some calculations that someone else undertook. Still, I think you're right - the back EMF when a cartridge sees a lower resistance seems a plausible explanation for any change in sound.

What's the Geezer effect? :idea:
As you get older your ears progressively suck, especially at frequencies >10kHz...

MC or MM cartridges produce an output due to changes in the linked magnetic flux- the result of which is an output defined by Faraday's law of induction e=-dPHI/dt, where PHI is the linked flux, so the movement of the coil in the magnetic field produces a voltage across the coil (e) and the - sign is, essentially, Lenz's Law.
However, if, at the same time, this induced voltage causes a current to flow through the inductor the acceleration of the electrons creates a field in opposition to the movement, which effectively reduces the linked flux.
This "back EMF" exists as a consequence of conservation of momentum applied to electrons- i.e. electrons cannot change velocity instantaneously so an instantaneous change in linked flux must have an equal and opposite flux generated to oppose it- and it gives us v(backemf) =-Ldi/dt.
Thus, when a generator (cartridge) tries to induce an output voltage that causes a current to flow the flow is opposed.
It's easy to simulate and I include it in my cartridge/preamp models. Note that it's a function of di/dt, so lower load Rs and higher frequencies are what is important. In simulation interesting effects can be seen in the cartridge/preamp response to square waves when loading is altered due to the opposing effects of the electrical resonance and the back emf.
 
The reason that I don't believe that there is a noticeable mechanical response to the back emf is that the stylus tip/cantilever is held in place by the groove wall forces which are very large in comparison to the restoring force produced by the coil. You could probably construct an experiment to measure the change- but why bother?
It might cause worsened HF miss-tracking, but other than some anecdotal evidence from, I believe, Jonathan Carr of Lyra, I've not encountered data for this.
 
Whizzz! 90% of that went right over my head Wyn! :confused:
...In this case, very high load Rs with small load Cs generally create flat electrical responses up to 20kHz, but with sometimes 30dB peaking at high ultrasonic frequencies and very large overshoots on the square wave responses. Small load Rs, usually with larger Cs, eliminate these and can control the overshoot
I presume the R & C you're talking about are these?

RC net.jpg

Seeing that Ortofons own head amp has 75 ohm input, I'm planning to use 75 or 100 ohms as well (not 47k), and keeping the 220p, does that sound about right?

I tried to run the transient sims (finally got that partially figured out), but could not get consistent results from one run to next, so either the Mac version is flakey (likely), or I just don't know how to set it up right (even more likely), and I don't know what to look for anyway.:dunno:

I noticed you added 4 ohms series resistance to the 200p input cap properties. If I removed that, most of the sim runs went completely bonkers! Is that supposed to be needed?

Thanks!

ps, I'm a Geezer, tap out about 12 kHz now.
 
MC or MM cartridges produce an output due to changes in the linked magnetic flux- the result of which is an output defined by Faraday's law of induction e=-dPHI/dt, where PHI is the linked flux, so the movement of the coil in the magnetic field produces a voltage across the coil (e) and the - sign is, essentially, Lenz's Law...
This "back EMF" exists as a consequence of conservation of momentum applied to electrons- i.e. electrons cannot change velocity instantaneously so an instantaneous change in linked flux must have an equal and opposite flux generated to oppose it- and it gives us v(backemf) =-Ldi/dt...
If that was for the benefit of the OP and the general Audiolarma readership, fine. I do know what back EMF is ;)

I noticed you added 4 ohms series resistance to the 200p input cap properties.
The 4 ohm resistance shown on your diagram is the coil resistance of the cartridge. The signal generator is modelled as a pure voltage source and then the cartridge resistance is added to make the model more like the real thing. Ideally it should have the cartridge inductance added too, though it's probably very small and I don't think Ortofon publish a spec for it. The Audio Technica AT-OC9 has 25 microhenries and I suppose you could take that as a ballpark figure.
 
Whizzz! 90% of that went right over my head Wyn! :confused:

I presume the R & C you're talking about are these?

View attachment 1275777

Seeing that Ortofons own head amp has 75 ohm input, I'm planning to use 75 or 100 ohms as well (not 47k), and keeping the 220p, does that sound about right?

I tried to run the transient sims (finally got that partially figured out), but could not get consistent results from one run to next, so either the Mac version is flakey (likely), or I just don't know how to set it up right (even more likely), and I don't know what to look for anyway.:dunno:

I noticed you added 4 ohms series resistance to the 200p input cap properties. If I removed that, most of the sim runs went completely bonkers! Is that supposed to be needed?

Thanks!

ps, I'm a Geezer, tap out about 12 kHz now.
Yes, those are amongst the RCs that I'm referring to. The cable capacitance, board layout, cartridge winding caps etc. are also included. The order of these components is somewhat important but in general they can be lumped together. In my "extended" model I include quasi-transmission line elements and it really doesn't change things very much.
With a large load R value the input resonance has a very large Q. That can cause many simulation issues, not just in transient but even in AC analysis.
The extra R in the cap is a representation of some of the unmodeled losses and as you can see it helps a bit, but the real answer is to not deliberately design a circuit that is really close to being an accidental oscillator. As you can imagine small amounts of feedback to the input from the output of the amplifier stages due to pick up or ground connections can have unfortunate effects. And yet there are those who feel that this is the only way to go.
I too am a geezer. I still have a normal response/sensitivity from 20Hz up which is surprising, but it falls off a cliff at 12kHz also...
Oddly enough I have a very old friend who is a respected audio equipment/recordings reviewer and his response is just terrible and yet he hears, and reports, subtle distinctions in equipment.
We both went through a series of hearing tests- just as a comparison- and other then his inferior overall response- his hearing was better in pitch shift and fine amplitude sensitivity by a small amount. He doesn't always get it right- for example we compared an Otari MX50 series tape deck (mine) to a Studer A810 (his) and the "blind" results and the "uncloaked" results for him were different while I called it right in each case (by the way, I prefer the Otari and he has no preference at 250NW/m recording levels and he prefers the Otari at higher recording levels ) but there are times that I'm amazed by his ability to resolve small differences in sound.
 
If that was for the benefit of the OP and the general Audiolarma readership, fine. I do know what back EMF is ;)


The 4 ohm resistance shown on your diagram is the coil resistance of the cartridge. The signal generator is modelled as a pure voltage source and then the cartridge resistance is added to make the model more like the real thing. Ideally it should have the cartridge inductance added too, though it's probably very small and I don't think Ortofon publish a spec for it. The Audio Technica AT-OC9 has 25 microhenries and I suppose you could take that as a ballpark figure.
Yes, indeed it was a tutorial of a sort for the common benefit. It wasn't specifically intended for you as clearly you understand the concept, but it's clear that there are several people following this exchange that might enjoy some greater explanation. As you said, the effect is rarely mentioned and, to my knowledge, never included in any simulations/evaluations.
I thought that the 4 ohms that was mentioned was 4 ohms that I added as a parameter to the 200pf cap and not the drawn 4 ohms. I often add extra internal parameters to components to better reflect their real world behavior- sometimes a fixed R, sometimes a temperature/frequency dependent R etc. As I don't have access to the exact schematics that he is using I cannot be certain.
Below is one of the simpler behavioral models I have for my MC preamp using a 20:1 transformer. I use it as a quick sanity check for the frequency response of my phono path when I play with the cartridge loads. It's surprisingly accurate for the Miyajima Madake in my turntable.

MCmodel.PNG
Below is a simple back EMF model with parameterized cartridge etc. elements. I believe that this one works, but it's been a while and I was "playing" with it.
I don't use a full Laplace transfer function as in my experience it doesn't behave well in transient simulations due to the DSP approximation used.
backemf.PNG
 
Gents:

Almost ready to order parts & board but have one last question.

The full board provides line-level output, so are these 2 parts still appropriate for low-level output onto a phono input? Or would other values be more appropriate?

Output parts.jpg

Thanks for all your help!
 
Gents:

Almost ready to order parts & board but have one last question.

The full board provides line-level output, so are these 2 parts still appropriate for low-level output onto a phono input? Or would other values be more appropriate?

View attachment 1277327

Thanks for all your help!
Yes, I ran simulations with that load and output coupling network. It's actually a more benign load than the full two opamp circuit was designed to drive,
Best of luck. Don't be surprised if, as was suggested by Rothwellaudio, the preamp is too noisy. Unfortunately I don't have any recommendation for an alternative that would improve the performance other than to use, say, a 20dB SUT or ultra low noise discrete amp preceding the opamp There are quieter RF "opamps" (0.69 rather than 0.9nv/rtHz) that would give you c.3dB lower noise, but they're not really a drop in replacement- they come with a fresh set of potential problems.
 
Thanks Wyn!

One last question if I may? (forgot it yesterday)

The AD797 data sheet calls for tantalum/ceramic PS bypass caps, but HT uses electrolytic/film instead. Which is better?

Sean
 
You should stick with the non adi specified parts in this case. Theoretically it really shouldn't be an issue in the application, but the electrolytic/film combo is more linear and there is a perception amongst the audiophile community that it sounds better despite it being a supply decoupling role and I have no reason to dispute the assertion.
 
Thanks Wyn!

One last question if I may? (forgot it yesterday)

The AD797 data sheet calls for tantalum/ceramic PS bypass caps, but HT uses electrolytic/film instead. Which is better?

Sean
Oh, and if you are nor getting sufficient S/N ratio, I recommend using the Cinemag CM-1254 audio transformer together with a AD797 amp with a reduced gain. The transformer can be wired as a 10/20/40:1 and is the "production" version that was the basis of the one-off customized design that Cinemag made for me several years ago. I would suggest a 10:1 ratio with the AD797 gain reduced to 5x. by increasing the inverting input terminal to ground resistor to 68 ohms. The production transformers are pretty small- much smaller than my custom ones, but in the 10x configuration they're pretty good without the mods.
You'll need 2 for stereo...
 
Thanks Wyn!

I'm confused by the noise concerns. If there's too much noise as a stand-alone MC step-up, wouldn't that also apply as the MC input to the full RIAA LME49990 stage (which all seem to be quite happy with)? Or am I not understanding something?

The Cinemag CM-1254 is a non-starter at @$150+ x2. That 6x my budget. Cost estimate for the AD797 circuit is only $40-45.

I'll try it. If it doesn't work out, I've still got the working Leach to use, and might even try one of the other 3 variants he published.
 
The issue is the very low output of the ortofon. A typical low output mc cartridge will be 0.25mv under the standard conditions, your cartridge is c. 11dB lower than this and that means that the S/N ratio is that much worse. That might be enough to make a perfectly acceptable performance into an unacceptable one.
 
Ahh, got it!

The Leach is quiet. I've never actually "measured" it, but from my listening position, at my preferred volume, I can't hear anything from the speakers in-between tracks. If the AD797 can do the same with equal or better sound quality that's all I can ask for.

So I'll get started and report back when finished.

Thanks Wyn!
 
I hope I'm not intruding, but I'm from the digital side of the tracks. You guys are the experts on this Op Amp, could you answer a couple of questions ?
https://www.cimarrontechnology.com/browndog-020302-single-to-dual-op-amp-adapter

I'd like to try AD797 op amps in the MusicHall.

I'd use the single to dual adaptor linked above.

Can anyone tell me the difference between AD797A and the AD797B ?

Which would I need to use ?
And do you think this is a good choice for this application?

A designer from AD told me it would be great, IIRC.
 
I hope I'm not intruding, but I'm from the digital side of the tracks. You guys are the experts on this Op Amp, could you answer a couple of questions ?

And do you think this is a good choice for this application?

A designer from AD told me it would be great, IIRC.

See page 59 post #1180 in this thread where I addressed the A/B issue.
I know nothing about the music hall to make a call, so please enlighten me and I may be able to help.
By the way it's ADI not AD :)
 
Forgive me for asking, but why do you feel the need to go to the AD797BRs? The only difference between the A and B versions is the tightness of the trimmed offset - the A is about 2x higher than the B. Assuming the Chinese chips are actually AD797s and not something else, then all the parts are fabbed and trimmed in the same location in Wilmington MA and can be from the same wafer lot. I don't see how there can be any audible difference between them.
i understand your saying no audible difference between A and B.

Your saying the A would stand away from the adaptor (I have to use single to dual) farther ?
 
Ahh, got it!

The Leach is quiet. I've never actually "measured" it, but from my listening position, at my preferred volume, I can't hear anything from the speakers in-between tracks. If the AD797 can do the same with equal or better sound quality that's all I can ask for.

So I'll get started and report back when finished.

Thanks Wyn!
I'll give the S/N ratio a rough calculation based on a quick read of the 1977 Leach article.
The Marshall Leach preamp has an A weighted S/N ratio at 1kHz, 10mv, input of 84dB.
(It looks like I'll really have to get my act together and implement an A weighting network, either as a Laplace or as components, to answer accurately what the expected S/N ratio for the 0.07mv/AD797 case is)
It looks like the 1kHz NF of the Leach input transistor stage is c. 3dB with a 22k source resistance,- i.e. the input noise is about the same as the thermal noise associated with a 22k resistor- so we're talking about 19nv/rtHz compared to the 0.9nv/rtHz for the AD797- or about 26 dB better for the 797, but with a gain of 34dB, so I would expect the preamp combo to be about 8dB worse, just as a seat of the pants/back of an envelope calculation. This would give an A weighted S/N ratio of c. 76dB which should be OK if not ideal.
When I get time I'll do the sim with the actual circuit and the weighting and provide a "better" result.
 
i understand your saying no audible difference between A and B.

Your saying the A would stand away from the adaptor (I have to use single to dual) farther ?

No, you have to have an SOIC package to work with the adapter, whether it is an A or B device.
A part number for example would be the AD797ARZ or the AD797BRZ, both of which can be bought from Mouser.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom