Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Building a class A audio amplifier - no audio out

Buy this. It's ANCIENT and refers to a lot of obsolete op-amps which with
intelligence you can substitute with better modern parts but it covers some good
ground like noise calculations for example. It helps you get the feel.

I have an original print copy of course. Finally it''s been reprinted.

http://www.amazon.com/National-Semiconductor-Audio-Radio-Handbook/dp/...

TI have some super and huge IC mainly handbooks too that you should have.I'll
need to recheck their filenames.

Graham


Ah, thanks. You know, the title sounds similar to some texts my dad
has. I'll have to examine his library.

Michael
 
J

Jon Kirwan

First you need to learn how discrete circuits work and how to measure / troubleshoot
them.

I agree. As you point out elsewhere, things have moved from learning
these details to using functional blocks created by others who know.
That's too bad in some ways. In others, it means more people can have
at it without having to spend so much time informing themselves well
and fully, I suppose.

I'm just a hobbyist and in no way do I imagine I understand all of the
important details. But I've cobbled together my own designs for a few
usably working audio amplifier circuits, when I was much younger. And
at least for me, learning things in discrete steps helped a lot. At
some point, it's time to figure out how to combine functions a bit.
But to start out, separating them seems to help. For me, it did.

Part of this will be learning about conditioning the input source
appropriately and well. Degenerative voltage amplifiers aren't that
hard to understand and design and may be a good place to actually
start. In that regard, the student manual for the Art of Electronics
is important -- the book doesn't cover the details well enough on its
own -- if that book is to be used. The student manual includes a
"compute this first, then that second, then..." approach. Very easy
to follow. (Then include bootstrapping of the input from the BJT
emitter as a 'next thing' to gather well.) As you also point out in
another post, emitter followers for output.

Although some of these functions can be combined in a given design, I
don't think I could have handled it when I was going through this. It
was the fact that they could be taken in steps that allowed me to
succeed, as much as I did. So I recommend taking this in parts.

I started out trying my hand at understanding the basic degenerative
BJT amplifier, then gaining a foothold on the bootstrap to stiffen the
input a bit. I used a well designed power supply, a well designed
signal generator, and a well designed oscilloscope as tools --
designed by professionals while learning about simply voltage
amplification. (It's remarkable to me how complicated it all seemed
at first and how so much simpler it seems in after-thought, looking in
hindsight.) It was after that when I began worrying about how to work
with various input sources worked; sometimes their own supplies and in
all cases some kind of matching to avoid distortion or avoidable loss
of signal. I actually built my own carbon granule microphone, in
fact. Most of my experience was with dynamic microphones, but later
this included electret. Then I worked on outputs (mostly just the
typical 4-8 ohm speaker, but also various kinds of headphones.) One
such I also built by hand, winding wire, using fixed magnets, and
using tiny metal plates as diaphrams.)

It was fun but took a lot of time. I made stuff that didn't work
well, too.
You'll have fun finding a book that'll teach that. My first came from 1969 (
Mullard ) followed by an RCA handbook and a full blown theory book my Dad
bought me and people were already well into ICs by the mid 70s.

I learned this stuff in the late '60s and early 70's, when I had the
time as a kid and young adult, too.

Jon
 
N

Nobody

Ah, good for you. I wasted my teen years teaching myself C
programming, assembly language programming, and modifying Michael
Abrash's VGA Mode X graphics routines. Then Windows 95 came out and
made my experience worthless. Eh. That's life.

C programming is still very useful. Apart from C itself, C++,
Objective-C, Java and C# are all heavily based upon it.

Assembler isn't so useful in application programming, but
it's still useful if you're programming microcontrollers, or writing
system code (OS kernels, compilers, interpreters), or performance-critical
applications (e.g. games). Although most of the above is written in C
or C++ rather than assembler, being able to mentally translate into
assembler will result in much better code than that written by someone who
only understands the language as a theoretical abstraction.
 
N

Nobody


That "bizarre" syntax is pretty much the industry standard nowadays. C++,
C#, Java, and JavaScript all look very similar. Any deviation from C
syntax (e.g. Python) is considered bizarre.

How could you be offered a job in C programming if you didn't know C
programming? (thoroughly confused) That would never fly over here.

In 1984, C was still a fairly uncommon language. It wouldn't be
unreasonable to prefer someone with a reasonable amount of overall
programming experience (particularly if it's experience in the relevant
domain) who would need to learn C over someone with less overall
experience (or less relevant experience) with some C. Learning a new
language is easier than learning programming.

Of course, that doesn't hold if hiring is done by HR types with no
knowledge of the field (and no willingness to consult). A classic example
was when Java took off, companies were advertising for programmers with 2
or 3 years' Java experience when Java's existence had been public
knowledge for less than a year.
 
That "bizarre" syntax is pretty much the industry standard nowadays. C++,
C#, Java, and JavaScript all look very similar. Any deviation from C
syntax (e.g. Python) is considered bizarre.



In 1984, C was still a fairly uncommon language. It wouldn't be
unreasonable to prefer someone with a reasonable amount of overall
programming experience (particularly if it's experience in the relevant
domain) who would need to learn C over someone with less overall
experience (or less relevant experience) with some C. Learning a new
language is easier than learning programming.

Of course, that doesn't hold if hiring is done by HR types with no
knowledge of the field (and no willingness to consult). A classic example
was when Java took off, companies were advertising for programmers with 2
or 3 years' Java experience when Java's existence had been public
knowledge for less than a year.


Yes, I remember when Java was new. Makes sense from that
perspective. But I'm surprised why a seasoned programmer would run
away screaming from C.

I liked C as a less verbose version of Pascal.

Procedure Execute;
Var i:array[1..10] of integer;
Begin
End;

becomes

void Execute()
{
int i[10];
}

What's not to like? :D

Michael
 
E

Eeyore

30 cents is unreasonable to you? Available at mouser.com


I bought a mixed bag of NPNs at the local Radio Shack, and they were
all plastic TO-92s, not metal cans.

BC337s are 6 cents at mouser... what TO-92 NPNs go for 2 cents?


Thanks for the warning.


Exactly. The "why" is what makes for slow going... else I'd just buy
an Onkyo or an LM3886, as I mentioned earlier.


Michael
 
E

Eeyore

30 cents is unreasonable to you? Available at mouser.com

I'm stunned, especially as it's a European device. They must have a customer who's been
using them for years and never changed. Most people moved to using TO-220 devices
instead of TO-126 like the TIPs.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Michael A. Terrell said:
Idiot! The PN2222 is the same die in a TO-92 package, and the
MMBT2222 is the same die in a SOT-23 package it isn't obsolete, just
repackaged for modern designs.

I know. Its parameters are still inferior to later similar devices though.

2N2222 is considered the generic name for the family, since it was first.

Do you have a problem with using the correct prefix ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Thanks a bunch!

The fact it's old and uses circuit techniques that are well-dated now means that you're more likely
to learn bad practice than good though.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

E

Eeyore

All of those tended to fry your speakers?

There's 101 ways to do it. Designing power amps isn't quite so simple
especially when you want 1600W @ 0.02% THD.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

How could you be offered a job in C programming if you didn't know C
programming? (thoroughly confused) That would never fly over here.

Back then, few people knew C. A lot was done in PL/M which was Intel's own development
language.

The job was offered on the basis of my programming skill on a 'BBC Micro' for computer
animation. I recall one Xmas party at the film company I was working at then and I was
explaining how it worked to some tech. He said "you can't do that". I responded "watch
this then". He didn't quite fall over backwards. The company was part of a group, word
got round that I knew how to program, hence the offer.

And to be honest, later I did a job in embedded Pascal ! How obscure is that ? I said I
wasn't familiar with Pascal and one of the Directors said he'd loan me his book. Shortly
after I was programming in Pascal. I ended up liking it because of its stong data types.

That's when I realised that if you can intuitively program, it doesn't really matter
what the language is. I've even done some DSP assembler for audio effects.

I still hate C's syntax though. All those (void) s drives me nuts.

On that note... I took a biochemistry lab class where I had to
calculate the A, C, G and T fractions from DNA analysis of a
bacterium. It involved *a lot* of punching numbers into a
calculator. I thought, "screw this" and wrote a Pascal program to do
it. I turned in the source code with my lab report. The grader wrote
"Mabey (sic) you're in the wrong major" on the top of my report.
Mabey he was right. ;D

Possibly so !

Nope. Will start there. Thanks.

That's the basic voltage gain stage. Then learn about emitter resistor degeneration ( a
form of feedback ) and how bypassing it with a cap removes the feedback but still helps
with DC stability.


No, start with the basic one. Then move on to Darlingtons ( and possibly triples ) and
only then the Sziklai pair and compare their differences.

I noticed that a lot of power amps use the Sziklai pair vs. the
Darlington. Is the Sziklai demonstrably superior?

I thought it might be but in practice I haven't seen any real advantage in an output
stage. It went through a phase of popularity but I ended up going back a quite different
design where the main output device(s) is actually OFF in quiescent mode and the output
comes from some beefy drivers. It's all to do with trying to make the mutual conductance
as linear as possible.

And don't let the load impedance reflect into the final gain stage or instability is
likely to result, i.e. use LOTS of current gain.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Nobody said:
That "bizarre" syntax is pretty much the industry standard nowadays. C++,
C#, Java, and JavaScript all look very similar. Any deviation from C
syntax (e.g. Python) is considered bizarre.

I consider my PL/M to be nearly as readable as English to anyone with a
programming mind especially with decent use of literals. I once 'converted'
someone from assembler to PL/M. At the end of the project he said he
understood why I'd insisted and he's quite a high flyer. Mind you he made
loads of silly mistakes but his code was so easy to read because it was PL/M,
it was easy to find the errors as they got reported. It ended up as V 2.4
though.

My later re-write for an enhanced version was issued as a 'beta' i.e V 0.9,
thinking *someone* MUST find a flaw. Then we forgot about it and a year later
the product was still shipping with V 0.9 software and it seemed pointless to
change ! ;~)

And also with PL/M you can drop in 'assembler like' lines to to set registers
directly. IMHO it combines the best of medium and low-level programming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL/M

In 1984, C was still a fairly uncommon language. It wouldn't be
unreasonable to prefer someone with a reasonable amount of overall
programming experience (particularly if it's experience in the relevant
domain) who would need to learn C over someone with less overall
experience (or less relevant experience) with some C. Learning a new
language is easier than learning programming.

Yes, I totally agree. I think they were quite upset I didn't take the bait.

Of course, that doesn't hold if hiring is done by HR types with no
knowledge of the field (and no willingness to consult). A classic example
was when Java took off, companies were advertising for programmers with 2
or 3 years' Java experience when Java's existence had been public
knowledge for less than a year.

Typical HR nonsense. Ask for the impossible. Then wonder why either (a) you
get no responses or (b) those who do respond haven't a clue.

Graham
 
Top