PLAN B analog blog

Chris said:

On the SMS system we went completely overboard, by distributing a  
> roughly regulated +/- 18 V. and requiring each module to have its own  
> regulators. There was also a clean and a dirty ground distributed.
> 

Ouch.  Effective, but yes, probably overkill.

What I am thinking is:

1) Putting two sets of regulators on each bussboard, with one for
control modules and the other for audio modules. It would be up to the
user to adhere to this, but in the name of quiet operation it would be
in his/her best interests to do so.

2) The important part is that the six ground pins of each power
connector on the bussboard lead directly - on it's own trace - to it's
associated regulator's return (ground). 

3) The inputs to each bussboard would come from a common power module
- a 1 rack high rack mount job which would house the three tap
transformer, in which each of the three was terminated by the Bridge
Rectifier which would be available at three output connectors which
would lead to up to three bussboards. (three racks).  The front face
of the power module wold have mult on it, or something alng those lines.

I think this would be sufficient. 

- P

 



--- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir <cbm@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Romeo Fahl wrote:
> 
> > Sounds like Buchla's approach... at least with the 200 series. It  
> > amazes me that as expensive as some other systems are, how little  
> > thought was put into power distribution.
> >
> On the SMS system we went completely overboard, by distributing a  
> roughly regulated +/- 18 V. and requiring each module to have its own  
> regulators. There was also a clean and a dirty ground distributed.
> 
> http://www.xfade.com/gear/Salamander/
> 
> -C
>