Mixing 4 audio channels to 3?

If you want to do it with just resistors, you could make R16 and R17 somewhere around 4k7 each, and add a few uF of bypass capacitance around one or both resistors. 1k would give a stiffer reference if you don't mind the additional power consumption.

If you can spare an op-amp section, you can get a better (stiffer) ground reference than you'll get with just resistors, with lower power dissipation (I think). Use R16 and R17, and a small cap from the junction point, to create a Vcc/2 reference, but do not "ground" this directly to your internal reference point (the rectangular-looking ground symbol). Instead, feed this to the noninverting input of an op-amp section, feed the op-amp output back to the inverting input (i.e. create a unity-gain follower), and use the op amp's output as your ground reference. In this arrangement R16 and R17 can be high-value (100k?) as their junction point will be looking into a high-impedance op amp input.

Pretty much... each of the op amps' noninverting inputs, and the "bottom ends" of the potentiometers, as you have drawn them. *NOT* the V- input to the op amp(s), of course.

You might want to add "pop preventer" resistors at the inputs and outputs... say, 100k to DC ground, from the "outside" end of each of the DC-blocking capacitors.

--
Dave Platt                                    AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
  I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
     boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Reply to
Dave Platt
Loading thread data ...

One cautionary note with regards to this circuit, as drawn: be careful when you wire up R15. If you use a standard three-terminal potentiometer, make sure that you wire both the wiper, and one of the two ends to U3's inverting input. Don't just wire up the wiper!

The reason: pots occasionally go "open" due to dirt or wear. If you have only the wiper connected, and it goes open, you'll have no feedback path around U3, and it'll immediately and enthusiastically slam its output against one of the rails (or both in rapid succession if there's a signal present). This will let out a really unholy THWOMP from your subwoofer, and may pop the cone out of the cabinet or at last shove the voice coil out of the gap. Expensive damage.

With a three-terminal wire-up, the resistance in this part of the feedback loop will never be more than the bulk value of the pot (i.e. open wiper == wiper all the way at one end) and this will limit the maximum subwoofer volume. You can choose the maximum loudness by setting the value of the pot.

--
Dave Platt                                    AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
  I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
     boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Reply to
Dave Platt

Latest rev:

You do mean each of the op amps' *inverting* inputs, yes?

Is this what you mean (see link)?

Thanks.

Reply to
DaveC

I doubt that, positive feedback has no place in mixer circuits, try google? This is not new, nor is it rocket science.

Grant.

Reply to
omg

--
No.

Your drawing is wrong; signal goes to the inverting (-) inputs and the
Vcc/2 reference goes to the non-inverting (+) inputs.
Reply to
John Fields

Thanks guys. Fixed:

All else looks good?

Are cap values reasonable? I added C8 & C9 out of habit of seeing in other designs. Values for these?

Thanks.

Reply to
DaveC

You still have the signal go to the non-inverting input. The way the schematic is, U1-U3 will throw their output hard to a rail or oscillate with positive feedback from R13-R15.

I worry that the RC time constant would have the reference be not at the

1/2 way point while C8 charges on powerup. I don't see a C9. Might do something not so good to the subwoofer.
Reply to
Michael Moroney

The current version of the drawing has signal going to the inverting input

Suggestions?

That means you're not looking at the right version of the drawing. Copy & paste this into a browser:

Suggestions?

Thanks.

Reply to
DaveC

What does U4 do?

d
Reply to
Don Pearce

Agreed.

I'd eliminate C9. Some op amps aren't able to drive capacitive loads without exhibiting instability.

If you do want some noise reduction on your reference, I'd add a small decoupling resistor (say, 47R) between U4 and C9, and perhaps use another .1 uF for C9. If you're using a good low-noise op amp, you can probably just omit the filtering here and feed U4's output directly to your "common".

I'd also recommend decoupling your 16-volt power supply, with a .1 uF located as close as practical to the V+/V- pins of each op amp.

Remember to get the polarities of C1-C7 correct when you install them (+ to the op-amp side, - to the outside world).

--
Dave Platt                                    AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
  I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
     boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Reply to
Dave Platt

OK, done.

Sound like basic good advice. :-)

I presumed that such coupling caps should be non-polar. No?

Thanks.

Reply to
DaveC

Provides a Vcc/2 local "ground" so I can use these op amps with a single supply voltage.

Reply to
Bob E.

r

First you can replace C1-5 with 1uF each. Replace C8 with 220uF, and omit U4 & C9 entirely. You dont want to use a 50k pot followed by a 10k load (R5-12). I'd go with 10k pots and 100k for R5-12, adjusting the nfb Rs accordingly.

NT

Reply to
NT

Since the V- pin is already PS ground, I need decouple caps only on the V+ pins, yes?

Reply to
DaveC

Leave C5-7 as is?

Teach this man to fish: why don't I want to use 50K pot & 10K load combination?

"adjusting" means replace those with 100K's also?

Thanks.

Reply to
DaveC

More useful to let it oscillate as a square wave generator at 100kHz or so, and rectify the output into a negative 15V rail. That way you can run the op amps the way they are meant to be run.

d
Reply to
Don Pearce

KISS

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org
Reply to
Stuart

It's largely redundant anyway.

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org
Reply to
Stuart

Suggest a circuit...?

Thanks.

Reply to
DaveC

No need for that. You're going to have an 8-volt bias sitting on each cap (half of your supply voltage), and the audio signals that they see will only be a volt or two, peak-to-peak, so the caps will always be polarized in the direction I indicated.

It's entirely usual and standard practice to use polar electrolytics in this sort of situation. If you want to get fancy I'm sure you could find an exotic 'lytic (like one of the new solid-electrolyte types), but I see no need for that in this application.

You *could* use nonpolar 'litics if you have them around, but as they're usually more expensive I don't see the point.

--
Dave Platt                                    AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
  I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
     boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Reply to
Dave Platt

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.