LM4702 + SAP15 amplifier - new design

Since we have 2 rectifier bridges, was it not possible to build two independent power supply systems on a common transformer? Or at least if there is common filtration, then separate fuses for the right and left channel?

Wawrzo. wrote:

The LM4702 does not have a separate power supply for both channels

The US power supply is not a problem here, but what if one of the channels is defective? E.g. power level? We immediately lose the second channel (there is not even a division into fuses).

Wawrzo. wrote:

Two bridges are supposed to give the effect of faster charging of the capacitors, especially when loaded with bass.

A diode is not a resistor. Parallel connection of the same diodes gives a replacement diode with greater power, but still with a forward voltage similar to one diode. This way you simply break the heat down into two bridges, but does that noticeably improve efficiency as well as efficiency? A shottky bridge would be better.

Wawrzo. wrote:

A proven solution in a few other amplifiers.

I do not doubt. Proven because it works, but is it the best?

Wawrzo. wrote:

it will only cause unnecessary expansion of the system

This is probably the only argument that explains the way in which you realized the power supply to your circuit.

Wawrzo. wrote:

As for the parallel connection of the bridges, in this case the assumption was to reduce the dynamic resistance of such a tandem, which causes when the bridges connected in such a way are loaded with a short current pulse - of course below the maximum forward current - much faster recharging of the filter capacitors. But you can solder a single one.

I still do not understand how this dynamic should look like for two parallel loading bridges for a total filtration of 40 mF in relation to two independent loading bridges for independent filtrations of 20 mF? A very slight difference may be noticeable on the oscilloscope only with relatively unbalanced load on the outputs, the only question is will you hear it?
As long as you're clinging to such details, a better solution is to use a suitable shottky bridge, on which you will get a better effect than on two parallel conventional bridges.

Wawrzo. wrote:

and there are already other solutions - the circuit is monoblock type.

And it's good that they are different. And since they are different, you may be tempted to also work in the exit bridge, although for a typical set I do not know if such a solution is needed.

Wawrzo. wrote:

To me personally and subjectively, the bass on the two bridges seems warmer

My colleague knows, sometimes it is an auto-suggestion effect (this topic was once discussed on the forum as a constructor's impression or something). Only specific measurements can indicate something, especially since the difference resulting from one larger or two smaller parallel bridges is so minimal that it can be compared to the fluctuation of the mains voltage supplying the device, which is not always ideally 230 VAC.

You're getting into really difficult terminology.