Quick question,
Why would you need a soft / slow rise time on the anode cut off to reduce
switching noise when the cathodes are toggled repeatedly by the 74141?
Surely that introduces just the same switching noise that would be produced
with just a high side switching FET or BJT? Or does the
Ahh, of course. The whole topic being on multiplexing should really of been
the clue there. silly me...
On Sunday, 6 January 2013 14:58:32 UTC, jrehwin wrote:
Why would you need a soft / slow rise time on the anode cut off to
reduce switching noise when the cathodes are toggled repeatedly
On Friday, January 4, 2013 11:06:35 PM UTC, zapro wrote:
You CANNOT blank the nixies with the 74141's you need to use anode
transistor or disable the PSU.
Actually it depends on the nixie and the '74141'. My experience is that
IN-12 blank just fine using the K155ID1 Russian version of 74141.
Given this extra information, your multiplexed design makes sense. As long as
you keep the Nixies physically distant from the amp input signals and tubes,
and give yourself the option of steel shielding if needed, you should be OK
with the Tayloredge supply and multiplexing.
One of my
That is exactly what I have done with the design I am working on. It makes
allot of difference.
Tim
One of my favourite tricks for this is to use optocouplers for anode
switches - they switch slowly (radiating fewer harmonics), and the level
shifting is done for you by a light beam.
-
Hi,
Thank you for your reply David. My reason for multiplexing was due to not
having enough spare pins on the PIC, however having givin this considerable
thought I have the IO pins that were being used to switch the MSD and LSD
anode transistors and a third IO pin which was available to
Hi Tim,Not that I want to influence your design but it sounds a bit odd to have the nixies go from 0 to 63 in a valve (pre)amplifier. It is really related to something digital that IMHO doesn't really match a design of a valve amplifier. I think it is nicer if it would go from 0 to 99. If you use
Hi Michel,
This is a fare point, 0 - 99 would be allot nicer, I wonder if I should
just bite the bullet and use an IO port expander IC on the nixie display
PCB I dont think I have enough room spare on the PCB to implement the
latches unless I can do it with one IC (do you have any that come to
On 05/01/2013, at 00.03, Tim wrote:
This is a fare point, 0 - 99 would be allot nicer, I wonder if I should just
bite the bullet and use an IO port expander IC on the nixie display PCB I
dont think I have enough room spare on the PCB to implement the latches
unless I can do it with one
To: neonixie-l@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [neonixie-l] Multiplexing nixies in a tube preamplifier
Hi Tim,
Not that I want to influence your design but it sounds a bit odd to have the
nixies go from 0 to 63 in a valve (pre)amplifier. It is really
I would have thought that with 10 being the maximum loudness then having
one that goes to 11 for extra loudness would be marvellous !
For anyone who hasn't heard the joke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven
John K.
Excellent point John. Audiophools will eat that up.
Given this extra information, your multiplexed design makes sense. As long as
you keep the Nixies physically distant from the amp input signals and tubes,
and give yourself the option of steel shielding if needed, you should be OK
with the Tayloredge supply and multiplexing.
David Forbes
I am in the process of building an audio preamp using valves and I am using
nixie tubes to indicate the volume control position. I am using two nixie
tubes to indicate the volume and they are being multiplexed via a PIC and
74141.
My question to you fine folk is how should I provide power
On 1/2/13 3:01 PM, Tim wrote:
I am in the process of building an audio preamp using valves and I am
using nixie tubes to indicate the volume control position. I am using
two nixie tubes to indicate the volume and they are being multiplexed
via a PIC and 74141.
My question to you fine folk is
14 matches
Mail list logo
