a few questions about this schematic (auditronics 110 ime)

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

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

plumsolly

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
969
Location
Denver, Colorado
I am going to rack up a pair of these and I have a few basic (i think) questions about this schematic. The 2 gain stages will be replaced with 2520 style opamps. Here goes:
1a) Is C4's only purpose to block dc from getting on the fader?
b) I wont have a fader, so can i remove C4?
2a)Since i wont have a fader can i also remove the buffer stage that is IC2?
thanks, Ben
auditronics110imescematiccropped.jpg
 
You can move the fader input before the cap C4 but I would keep the capacitor in the solo output to prevent clicking and popping in the solo bus from DC offsets.

The IC 2 amp appears to be set for a gain of around X16. You could change it out for a more modern unit and keep it in the circuit.
 
> Is C4's only purpose to block dc from getting on the fader?

There may be up to 0.5V of DC at IC1 output. 709 offset near 5mV, gain runs up near 100, there is no DC-block cap on the gain network.

You gotta block that.

And because it shaves headroom, you may want a touch of gain after it. IC2's job.

I'd leave it alone, even to the point of putting a fader in and leaving it near -10dB. Removing one cap, or one under-worked op-amp, is not going to be any big "improvement". If you really wanna "improve" it, there's lots more to change.

But these are NOT bad modules. It IS 1973 all over again. Whoever designed this did a fine job.

> IC 2 amp ..You could change it out for a more modern unit

A de-compensated 301 is a very good audio amp. (The 741, internally compensated 301, gave chip-amps a bad rap, but the issue was the heavy compensation needed for idiot-proofing, not the basic amp.) A 301 is not the lowest noise amp, but at any practical fader setting the hi-gain 709's hiss will dominate. The 301 is not lowest THD in heavy loads, but here it is loaded gently.

The 318 is another lost hero. Not low noise, but that don't matter the way they use it here. FAST!!! It aint gonna slew-distort even with 13Vpk of pure cymbals.

Be real-real careful around that '709. They are not short-proof, and are now scarce. In-rack you probably can't kill it, but idle poinking at PCB points killed the first 709 I ever saw.

Huh. That's another reason you "need" C4. A dead-short on Q1 Q2 output, with a strong signal, is the next best thing to a dead short on the 709. With C4, a short at "To Fader" (stuff happens) will not allow sustained high current from the 709.
 
thanks for the replys! My plan is to change out the mic amp stage and the eq makeup amp stage with 2520's or similar. With 2520's it will look a lot like a 312 and a 553. I'll start with 1 channel so i can listen to the difference it makes. Would a 2520 in place of the 709 change any of your reccomendations ppr?
-Thanks, Ben
 
Thanks for the link burdij. yes - there was an upgrade kit provided by the factory and the later revisions shipped with 5534s. I have a 110 console and I replaced all the ics with 5534s and did a few channels and the mix amps with doas - (three channels with your smd 2520s in fact :grin: ).
-Ben
 
Back
Top