I Did draw the whole amp (with biggest gain and biggest boost for bass/treble/midrange) by spice (clean channel)
and i put input of 0.02 volts for (ac analysis)
(+15 -15)op amps feeding
and i got this curve,,, bUT ::::
it looks like there is not enough power in the bass and midrange and too much distorion at high frequencies (over 6khz) (output more than 15v)...
this is a clean channel so there should be no distortion and if we preserve that the gain at midrange and bass would be very little wich leads to low power...... that looks weird,,any body can explain?
First of all, it doesn't look all that weird when you use a logarithmic decibel scale instead of linear voltage scale. Secondly, it still will not look right so I suggest you check your circuit. There is an error somewhere. Especially make sure that the potentiometers in the tone control circuit are indeed in a proper orientation; this makes a huge difference. I simulated the preamp and got a very "healthy" looking response in both clean and OD channels and with tone controls in various settings. If that is indeed plot of the clean channel you seem to have way too much gain and a way too enhanced treble.
well i did check my circuit ,it has some caps values errors but it didnt change that plot much,,
its actually the tone control is cutting much of the midrange and bass gain (fender type)
and when this curve is getting amplified the treble area is goin way higher than the mid and bass.
i did change some values of the circuit. some caps and resistors untill i got this plot,,,look how HOT it is.
i killed that very high gain in the high freqs area and i gave some more gain to the bass area. keepin the midrange weak to maintain the properties of the fender tonecontrol.
the input here is 0.02v and again the circuit is workin with its highest gain with maximum bass/treble/mid boosting
,,i feel like the amp is very sensitive,,right? i mean when the input gets higher than 0.02 v there gonna start distortion...what do u think on this?
also im plotting it in the linear axe cuz i wanna know where exactly its gonna exceed 15 volts,,so i can modify to get rid of the distortion.
i tried to upload the spice file but i couldnt,, its not allowed
ill upload it as a picture but its not clear at all...
well anyone feel free to ask if any value is not clear
Ah, I see you simulated the output stage as well. However, do notice that a speaker load is not equal to a constant resistance and this will have a considerable effect to frequency response in circuits that employ current feedback.
I also believe that the factory schematic contains (yet another) error: C12 should be 10 uF instead of 1 uF. As you see from the graphs (which plot the response of the output stage only) the higher capacitance introduces a lower cutoff frequency and allows the speaker's resonance to be accentuated. With a constant 4-ohm load the response is dead flat - aside the hi-pass filtering.
As you see, the current feedback setup inherently introduces some low and high frequency boost; this is an effect, which should be considered when you tweak the tone control circuit.
In the plot the graphs are following:
constant_4r_1u: Constant 4-ohm load, 1 uF coupling in feedback
constant_4r_10u: Constant 4-ohm load, 10 uF coupling in feedback
1u: Simulation of a nominally 4-ohm speaker, 1 uF coupling in feedback
10u: Simulation of a nominally 4-ohm speaker, 10 uF coupling in feedback
The frequency response naturally varies according to speaker's/cabinet's electromechanical properties. I used a Thiele-Small-based model of Eminence Legend 875 speaker.
well i did simulate the power stage and i got the same results ,
and yea that c12 was one of the stuff i did modify,here are the values i changed
C2=15P >>> 100P
C3=33000P >>> 0.5u
R5=100K >>> 200K
VR1=1M >>> 330K +500K(POT)
C8=2200P >>> 2000P
R10=3.3K >>> 2.2K
VR4=10K >>> 5K
R15=470 >>> 800
i plotted the whole amp with only changin c12 from 1u to 10u
,,well, surely still there huge gain,so i did change the other values and i got that other plot in blue ,,the green plot is the voltage(before the output cap) reference to ground.
if my supply voltage is 15 i dont know how on earth the spice gives me voltages bigger than that ,,,!!!!!! so i did the whole modding to ensure that there is no voltage in the circuit is more than the supply voltage at maximum gains.thats why i did plot the voltage before the output cap(cuz its the biggest voltage in the circuit).
i guess i kept the characteristics of the tone and the amp in general .
also if you calculate the cutoffs at the first and second stage after the modding you see that they are (16hz) and (33000hz)
which i think is way better than (47hz) and (200000hz) days before.
im still afraide about boosting the bass that much that speakers blow,, is that possible,, maybe they did attenuate freqs below 50hz intentionally...
still dont get it why they designed an amp with such freq respons,,
anyways, where do u get speakers spice models from?
i would like to try that on the modified amp.
C11=15P >>> 100P
C12=1u >>> 10u
thats the response of the amp without any mods at all
the WHOLE amp with only c12 = 10uF
here is the all values modified plot ,,i made sure no voltage in the whole circuit goes over 15 volts..still dunno how spice plot such voltages....
the green is the node before the output cap reference to ground
the blue is the voltage across the 4ohm resistor
The assumption about that capacitor value is just that: An assumption. For the record, my little Crate practice amp uses the same power chip and therefore has nearly similar output circuit, only it uses a 22 uF capacitor and DC couples the output. There is a slight amount of HF rolloff put to the current feedback path and little bit more gain as well. Anyway, direct comparsion is still meaningful.
...Now the "funny" part, I simulated it and it turns out that the 1000 uF DC coupling in the output of K20X actually boosts up the lower bass. Anyway, the response is still "wimpy" if only 1 uF cap is used in the feedback. The input signals of all amps are matched to even the levels for comparison.
I think the only way to know for sure is if someone opens up his amp and checks out the value fitted in. I don't have much trust into the accuracy of the schematics.
The Thiele-Small-based model is explained here:
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/speaker_impedance.html
For example, the Eminence Legend 875 model uses:
Re: 7.49
Le: 0.56m
Cmes: 265.63ยต
Lces: 10.24m
Res: 110.34
so you think my mods should worth building?
or its better to go back to the original circuit?
im really confused. :duh
The only mods to stock values I would consider starting with are: C24 removed and C12 = 10 uF.
You can see their effect in comparison to circuit without mods from the attachment. All tone controls are set to halfway and gain/volume is full. Plots are from the clean channel.
The voltage output may look high but don't worry about it: Rolling the gain control of the clean channel to halfway drops the output voltage below 15V (also seen from the attachment). I assume you don't want to keep your amp at "10" all the time... At output levels "exceeding" the supply's limits you will be just overdriving the power amp or/and the preamp. It is perfectly normal to get some "breakup" from clean channels at higher volume settings.
So... I suggest you start with the initial values and when you have built the thing see if it needs any modifications. At least joecool85 already respects the tone of the "stock" circuit so I see no point in modding it. That, of course, assuming the schematic is correct in the first place, which is why I mentioned the 1uF vs 10uF cap issue. To my eye the 1uF looks too small and like I mentioned, similar amps tend to use higher values there. A higher value also allows the speaker's characteristic resonance to cut through. I believe this is a mistake in the schematic since it seems rather strange to employ current feedback scheme and then damp its most prominent effect. Anyway, unless someone who owns a K-20X opens up his amp and checks out the value of C12 this issue will remain unsolved.
well
1/ if you want to allow some distortion at high volume levels then u surely cant get rid of the output cap C24 as long as there gonna be some dc component in the distorted output signal (use forrier transforms),and actually it doesnt kill the beauty of the response so i would surely include it, you mentioned that it should be unique somehow, what kind of caps is good to implement as an output cap?
2/ill build the amp with only c12 modified then ill see if it needs another values to be changed.
well i wanna as joecool if any chance he comes here,is the amp introducing distortion at high level clean channel ?specially at high freqs?
3/here i did plot the quarter volume with half bass/treble/midrange boost (output cap is included,c12 is 10uF),above this we start to distort freqs. anyways it looks cool.
the only thing i hate about this response is the low frequencies phase shifts,,its big under 100 hz, hope it doesnt affect much.
maybe after i build this ill start change some values to get my tone ;)
As I've already had that amp open numerous times, I don't mind opening it up to check some values for you. As far as the clean sound goes, I'd have to check it out. Normally when I'm running it loud it is on the OD channel, or on the clean channel with an OD pedal lol.
I'll check this afternoon for you.
ill be very thankfull man,
,i would realy apreciate it if you can get the right schematic
thanks already
I can't get you a whole schematic other than the one on deanmarkley.com, but I can (hopefully) help you out correcting anything wrong on it by looking at my amp.
no problem ,the most important values to check is C12,C24.
C2 AND R4 also if you can locate em.
and how much voltage does the transformer outputs
by the way,,is it that higher freq signals are louder than others? do u notice somthin like that? or maybe distorted?
Nope, it seems to amplify low and high end equally. Also almost no distortion when loud on clean, I cranked it today and it was nice. A little crunchy when really loud, but not too much distortion, it sounds great.
I probably won't be taking it apart today if that's alright, but soon hopefully. Try to make a detailed list of what you want to know. I can check values and take pictures. I don't mind helping someone out, especially with the K-20X, I love this little amp :-)
thanks a lot for the information and the offer, i dont know how to thank you ... :)
taking pictures is just GREAT :tu:
the values i want to know are :
C12
C24
C2
R4
R10
R13
AND THE TRANSFORMER OUTPUT VOLTAGE
thats all for now,,lol
im realy gratefuLLLL
No problem, I'll try to do it tomorrow. I've had the amp apart before, it only takes like 2 minutes max to take apart.
waiting eagerly :)
I thought I'd let you know I won't be doing it today as I have a huge test to study for. I'll try to get to it as soon as possible. Sorry to keep you waiting.
nevermind man its ok...ill just hold on
hope you do fine in your test, go get em ,,,lol
Quote from: benzer on October 01, 2007, 02:14:45 PM
thanks a lot for the information and the offer, i dont know how to thank you ... :)
taking pictures is just GREAT :tu:
the values i want to know are :
C12
C24
C2
R4
R10
R13
AND THE TRANSFORMER OUTPUT VOLTAGE
thats all for now,,lol
im realy gratefuLLLL
C12 - 1uF/50v
C24 - 1000uF/25v
C2 - 150p
R4 - 47k
R10 - 3.3k
R13 - 68k
Transformer voltage = 13.94v + 13.94v (running on 122.8v AC)
Looks like the schematic was right afterall.
Also looks like the amp over voltages the TDA2030. It is suppose to get +/- 18v and its getting more like +/- 19.5v (13.94 x 1.4).
(http://www.thatraymond.com/imagehost/amp1.jpg)
(http://www.thatraymond.com/imagehost/amp2.jpg)
(http://www.thatraymond.com/imagehost/amp3.jpg)
thanks man, realy awesome shots
i just wonder how an amp would sound GREAT with such freq response.,,
ill try to build this one as it is , and then change with some values n see how does this affect the sound
thanks again for openin the amp :),,owe ya
Nice photos. Seems like K-30RX and K-20X share the same PC board and chassis. Have you considered building that reverb circuit?
Quote from: benzer on October 06, 2007, 03:32:15 PM
i just wonder how an amp would sound GREAT with such freq response.,,
It's really not that weird and a huge part in creating such a non-linear response is the tone control circuitry, which is similar to that of about 90 % of modern amps. I think the bass response is a bit lacking when compared to similar amps but then again, they might have compensated that with a speaker choice.
...And speaking about that: Typical guitar speakers are "mid-range" drivers and therefore introduce a very efficient low pass filter. That means they cut frequencies above 3 - 5 kHz
a lot. Consequently, the treble will not be as enhanced as it looks in the plots.
The inherent low pass filter is quite beneficial in "smoothing out" the harshness of a distorted guitar signal. This is one of the reasons why small speakers or setups including tweeters, horns etc. tend to sound horrible. They are beneficial in acoustic guitar amplification, though.The low pass filter is also the key element in every "cabinet simulator" circuit.
(http://home3.netcarrier.com/~lxh2/greenb.gif)
When it comes to excursion and frequency response, typical guitar speakers are extremely unlinear devices.
Quote from: teemuk on October 06, 2007, 04:07:20 PM
Nice photos. Seems like K-30RX and K-20X share the same PC board and chassis. Have you considered building that reverb circuit?
The K-30X is the exact same except with reverb, I noticed this about a year ago. I thought about adding the reverb circuit into mine, but I don't know if I'll bother. I don't remember it being that great anyway.
And Benzer, I think a good deal of the sound comes from the speaker choice as teemuk mentioned. The stock 8" Dean Markley sounds alright, but when I hooked it up to my Dean Markley 10" cab it rips, I love it. The biggest thing missing when running the 8" speaker is bass, but what do you expect from an 8" ?
Also keep in mind that everyone has a different idea of what "perfect" tone is.
well yea thats right the lowpass filter cuts up the high gain provided for high freqs but i actually did model a speaker when i did my simulation using spice, or is it the lowpass filter of the speaker should be modeled too?
QuoteAlso keep in mind that everyone has a different idea of what "perfect" tone is.
True but i just noticed that the bass area needs a little more gain,,
isnt it just hot when u play bass notes to amply em up? ;D
anyways thats just a taste.
and yea about the speaker stuff, do u guys have in mind a speaker that i can buy and would be good for this amp?
i actually dont have much info about guitar speakers and cabs
should i get a speaker in a cab?
or can i just have em seperatley?
and yeah adding that reverb stack can be very usefull to play country music solos,,
If you used the Thiele-Small model, then it simulates only the characteristic impedance of a speaker. It does not even try to simulate frequency response, which is a result of vast amount of complex parameters.
I've seen some cabinet design softwares that do model the frequency response of the lower end based on Thiele-Small parameters. I have been studying how to do it once in a while but that theory is strikingly difficult to learn - especially since I suck in math. Anyway, that response can be calculated rather correctly and this is likely the best application for Thiele-Small models.
However, a difficult task would be to model the higher end where the cone movement reaches its physical limit and starts to introduce distortion that extends the bandwidth (break up modes). As far as I know, no one has presented an universal theory (similar to Thiele-Small) of how this behaviour should be measured and modeled.
Then we also have the effect of deliberately limiting the maximum cone excursion, which adds a compressive effect. As far as I understand, this effect was quite pronounced in Vintage speakers and therefore created a false belief that AlNiCo magnets (that were used back then) compress the sound. Thiele-Small model does not provide a means to simulate this behaviour either.
Anyway, most speaker simulators do not try to model specific speakers they just:
- Introduce a steep high frequency roll off @ about 3 - 5 kHz
- Introduce some middle range notch
I can give some examples.
Here is a Marshall speaker simulator, which is sort of medium complexity:
http://www.diystompboxes.com/pedals/schems/msim.jpg
A "Condor Cab Sim" from runoffgroove.com is pretty similar
http://www.runoffgroove.com/condor.html
Anyway, those are not very accurate in modelling all the nuances so it is hard to justify the large amount of components. The best circuit in this respect I've seen so far is Gallien-Krueger's VCV (Vintage Cabinet Voicing), which does nearly the same thing as the above ones but uses only one opamp stage.
If you want to get meticulous these circuits get really sick, though. For example, take a look at:
http://home3.netcarrier.com/~lxh2/marsh.html
well thank u for the information i dont think i wanna get that deep i think its enough to know that there is a roll off @ 3 khz
now i understand maybe why the preamp enhance the treble area.
anyways they should provide some kind of catalog that has the freq response of the speaker when ya buy one
again, what cabs / speakers are good for this?
Quote from: benzer on October 07, 2007, 07:51:50 AM
True but i just noticed that the bass area needs a little more gain,,
isnt it just hot when u play bass notes to amply em up? ;D
anyways thats just a taste.
I like an ok amount of bass as well. I set my tone knobs like this:
treble: 3 o'clock
mid: 9 o'clock
bass: 3 o'clock
I hate mids.
Quote from: benzer on October 07, 2007, 11:20:02 AM
well thank u for the information i dont think i wanna get that deep i think its enough to know that there is a roll off @ 3 khz
now i understand maybe why the preamp enhance the treble area.
anyways they should provide some kind of catalog that has the freq response of the speaker when ya buy one
again, what cabs / speakers are good for this?
The cab design is important, but if you can build a box yourself it's not really that hard to do. For a speaker it just depends the sound you like. I would suggest possibly building this as a head and then trying out a few different cabs and buy the one you like. Or, go to a local music shop, play on a few different cabs (using their heads/or a combo) and decide what speakers/cabs you like. It probably is best to buy a cab w/speaker, but the problem is that it can be quite expensive.
I'm planning on making my K-20X a head and building a 4 x 8 box to go along with the 1 x 10 I already have. It won't be super loud pushing all 5 speakers, but the tone should be excellent.
QuoteI'm planning on making my K-20X a head and building a 4 x 8 box to go along with the 1 x 10 I already have. It won't be super loud pushing all 5 speakers, but the tone should be excellent.
nice idea, using a 10 inches speaker ill consider to buy one.
im not sure yet about the cab
ill just go to some shop n see if its not very expensive to buy one with a speaker
or build one to fit with a 10 inch speaker
about the amp ill consider making the circuit a PCB ,,isnt it better?
i thought of that just to avoid ground loops
guess the smaller the circuit the better it is
For those kind of amps a PCB is definitely the best option.
A compact layout is of course a virtue: Current flows in loops so you should keep the loop area small. Keeping trace/wire lenghts short also reduces their capacitance, inductance and resistance. A ground loop is basically a (ground return) current loop in a wrong place, which is therefore interfering with other loop currents. Thus, avoiding them has more to do with logical routing of return currents than the actual method of construction. I wrote an introduction about this and it's a permanent thread.
Yet, small size specifically is not always a virtue: Traces/wires carrying high currents should be wide enough to keep the resistance low. Similarly they require an adequate spacing between other traces/wires in order to minimize effects of capacitive/inductive coupling. You should keep high currents well away from the lower currents, especially those of the input stage. You don't want to stick electrolytic caps close to parts that heat up a lot neither. So, cramming all the stuff into small circuit board is not always the best practice.
Good and compact layout does not mean that the board should be small as possible. That is a virtue only if you wish to save manufacturing costs when making large production runs.
The preamp section will deal with so small currents and low frequencies that compactness has even less importance. Basically, you only need to consider the proper return current routing and adequate, close vicinity decoupling of the supply rails. If you make these right the layout can tolerate longer traces and sloppier component placement.
I suggest you make the preamp and power amp sections in different modules. This way you can recycle either one of them in future projects - or, for example: If you're happy with the power amp you can use the same PC board design to make another channel and run the output in stereo configuration. You can also multiply the preamp section with some minor mods etc. Modular structure is also easier to troubleshoot since you can work on with each module separately and disconnect the other while doing that.
The best practice to build the supply circuit is likely point-to construction since most of its components are chassis mounted anyway. Use an external fuse holder; PC board mounted mains fuses are a stupid invention. Put the mains switch to the rear panel: Since mains input and fuse holder are likely there as well you significantly decrease the lenght of mains wiring. Even better: Consider using a proper IEC chassis inlet: Best ones include an integrated mains swich, fuse holder and a mains line filter.
I'm pretty sure that you can PTP some sections of the tone control as well.
Another general suggestion: When you design the PCB make sure it can faciliate some special components that you might need later. Additional stability enhancers such as HF NFB feedback caps for opams or close vicinity supply decoupling caps are first that come in mind. It's really annoying to get the PC board ready just to find out that it oscillates and that you really should have left room for these components in the first place.
Equally important is to make sure the PC board can faciliate the vast amount of different components: Most components, like caps and trimmer pots - not to mention jacks, potentiometers and switches, tend to come in various shapes and sizes. Sometimes it seems that the best practice is to acquire all parts before even considering the PC board design - just to make sure the board really can faciliate them. So... You help yourself if the circuit board supports few of the most common pin spacings. Especially capacitors should have few alternative pad slots and plenty of spacing around them.
Also, think about the modicications you may wish to make in the future: You may wish to switch between different clipping diodes/LEDs, signal paths, capacitors or resistors. Future footswitching configuration may need that a FET-switch is inserted somewhere to break or make the signal path. Can the PC board design make them easier now... You can always omit that stuff or bypass it with jumpers if not needed. It's a lot more easier than designing a new board each time you wish to make some mods.
Just some food for thought...
yea true there are lots of points to give attention to
so i was thinking maybe using a testboard is the best shot at first
isnt it a heaven for such case?
1/its small enough to avoid ground loops
2/very easy to change stuff
although im not quite sure it can handle large currents,,
maybe after changing values and modding i can go to PCB the last design,,
have you ever used a test-board for such a thing?
i went today to a music shop to ask for some cabs with speakers
they said they can provide Marshall,Ibanez and Laney
the cabs were all large ,,somthin like 4x12"
and the price was just about a thousand bucks for a marshall cab, ::),
i kind of decided to build my own cab as long as the amp is little
i passed by this article and found it very useful
http://www.duncanamps.com/technical/speaker_cab.html
i would go for an MDF wood open back cab for a 1x10" speaker
just wanna keep it simple
i would go for a carpenter to do the cab, hope it doesnt cost much.
the speaker should be anythin that provides good sound
You may find this page useful as well:
http://colomar.com/Shavano/construction.html
yea good link too
it has intensive info about building cabs, i guess ill leave this as a last stage of making the amp
ill just use my testboard as a first stage and make the amp on it and hack a speaker ,, hope it speakes
about the grounding , idid read the stuff u wrote (teemuk) and you mentioned about the 2 rails transformer (this amp) that the common point should be taken right after the capacitor to avoid hum
do u mean the point between the c17 c18 ?
and what about the guitar ground terminal, also connect it directly to this point?
i would try to take away the high current loops from the input signal loops , i mean make 2 wires come to the final common point
that should fix the noise stuff ,right?
then afterall when i would want to make a pcb i would also consider the same style of grounding, but with shortest circuit possible ,making the high current track a little wider could be more helpfull
No.
The main filter caps are C15 and C16 (the rectifiers feed these, not C17 & C18). Basically the interconnecting node of these capacitors should serve as the common point for the whole amplifier.
Think of the loops involved:
1st Loop: Rectifier feeds the capacitors C15 & C16 which terminate to center tap. (This is actually two individual loops - as is also the case with other loops listed henceforth). This current loop is extremely noisy as its infested by "diode hash" and "charge current turbulence".
2nd loop: The amp draws current from capacitors C15 and C16. The loop terminates at the interconnecting node of these capacitors. This is the main loop defining the main ground return point.
The greatest contributor to loop current here is the output stage, especially the speaker branch of it. The input stage of the power amp has minimal current draw; that current must return separated from the current return of the speaker.
3rd loop: C17 & C18, are charged with current flowing through the drop resistors. Loop naturally terminates to main ground point.
4th loop: Opamps, and the whole preamp to be exact, draws current from C17 & C18. However, this is mostly "supply current draw", which can be noisy; you need to keep it away from signal ground return currents.
etc.
Is this starting to make sense?
so i understand that th preamp stage ground should go for the node between c17 n c18
the power amp (high current) ground should be connected to the node between c15 and c16 directly
so it can go to the center tap directly without annoying the little sigal current
and the guitar ground should also go for the node between c17 c18.
is thaT it?
This would likely work but I would rather return the signal currents directly to interconnect of C15 and C16, since that is the main ground point ("common point"). Ground return currents from (supply filters) C17 and C16 still return to the common point point, so, if you connect the signal grounds to their interconnecting node they will share the same return path. Not good.
I drawed a suggestion, mainly because I find it clearer way to express myself than trying to write everything. Sorry for extremely bad quality. Some points are numbered because they deserve some explaining:
1. The input and feedback share the same reference. The sharing is enhanced by sharing the return current path.
2. High current path for the load. Zobel is part of the load and must be included to its return. All high currents return through the current sensing resistor R16. The current return to common point individually, thus not interfering with other currents. Phone jack return can be (and must be) bundled since it substitutes the speaker load.
3. Main "ground" point. Preferably, "common point". Not exactly "star" configuration but pretty close. All currents return here. Do not use center tap as common point since the path between it and caps is noisy due to charging currents.
4. Preamp "supply ground" point. Supply filter currents return here first since they are mostly originating from the two caps in question. All currents still return to common point but signal currents do not share their path.
5. This is close vicinity decoupling that is located close to opamp supply pins. In case of sudden current demand these caps supply current faster than the "larger" capacitors', which can be located a bit further away from the supply pins. The power opamp needs similar caps as well but they are not depicted due to lack of space. These would logically return to common point 3.
6. Safety GROUND/EARTH. This is a real GROUND, which should not be confused with "common" that is mistakenly and confusingly referred to as ground. (I do this mistake myself as well). This does not need to connect common point but can do it (sometimes with aid of "loop breaker" circuit, sometimes without). This point must connect the metal chassis close to place where you take mains in.
7. One bundled "ground bus" return for the signal currents of the input stage. Notice that input jack is isolated so that it cannot connect the chassis and use it as a parallel ground return path.
8. Second bundled ground bus for the following stage. Tone control may also return individually or it can be bundled to point 1. You can experiment with this configuration a lot but it likely will not make a big difference since the currents in question are very small. Possibly point 7. may also connect point 8. etc. Main idea is just to keep the supply, high current (speaker load) and low current (signal) returns separated. I bet you can identify these now.
This is of course just a sketch and open for serious debate.
thanks man for the drawing,, its not low quality at all, great work
yea its kind of the star configuration which i guess i told you before that i prefer,,
thank u