Maker Pro
Maker Pro

lateral mosfets vs. bjts in audio amplifier design

E

Eeyore

John said:
---
Should an RFQ for something like that cross my desk I'd probably do the
design just to see whether I wanted to bid it or not.

But a 19" rack?

With the hole spacing still in inches too?

My, oh, my, will wonders never cease! ???

The inch is included in the metric system via a back door. I think 0.1" is called an 'e'
or somesuch. History has to be accepted.

482.6mm does for me though.

Graham
 
The crossover area is the critical one and indeed as you say is also the harmonic
element. If it gets nasty near full power, get a bigger amp !

Graham

For a single sine wave test, the amp getting mushy at the top and
bottom doesn't contribute to the THD as badly as the crossover since
the sinewave itself is flattening out at the top and bottom of the
wave. However, I assume though never examined two tone tests, where
the higher frequency sine wave might distort when riding along the
lower frequency near the crests.
 
E

Eeyore

Yes I absolutely was. Don't tell me what I'm thinking.The absence of a repsonse shows how litle you know about the subject.

Congratulations. I wouldn't employ you.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

John said:
---
You're either a liar or you have a short attention span or, more likely,
both.

You didn't "help" until you got beat into it.

Here's your "helpful" first response to his original first post:

"Stop mucking about with stuff you don't understand and simply buy a
modern
hi-fi amp. Power amps are a real speciality (especially if you want them
to be stable). It's no place for a beginner.

Do you understand stabilty criteria for example. What's a Bode plot ?
etc

Graham (designer of stable pro-audio power amps since 1980)"

It's damn practical answer. Like so many posters <sigh> he omitted his real reason
for doing what he wanted. If he'd included that, he'd have got a very different
repsonse.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

For a single sine wave test, the amp getting mushy at the top and
bottom doesn't contribute to the THD as badly as the crossover since
the sinewave itself is flattening out at the top and bottom of the
wave. However, I assume though never examined two tone tests, where
the higher frequency sine wave might distort when riding along the
lower frequency near the crests.

You shouldn't be pushing the amp that hard ideally. IMD will really show up sloppy slew
rates though.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

John said:
There's the catch: you can't let the fet current go to zero, or the
opamp will wind up in the gate-off direction, and recover badly.

Precisely. We're thinking exactly the same here. You could diode clamp it in the off
direction, but there'll still be a finite recovery time.

So you need a perfect phase splitter, one tht idles both the pullup and
pulldown fets, and whan signal comes along, ramps one up but leaves
the other idling at Iq.

You would not believe how many times I've tried to find a practical circuit to do that.
It's always eluded me. Actually I can thing of one way but it's drain or collector output
and that's more prone to load sensitivity wrt phase margin.

The classic ancient AB amp turns off one side as the other turns on,
but it's soft-off, soft-on so you get away with it.

Pretty much.

But fets vary enough in transfer curve, and are nonlinear enough, that
you really need to close a tight loop around each fet if you want to
balance the load and optimize the thermal situation.

So how do you propose to stop Iq going below say 10mA ?

Graham
 
K

Kevin Aylward

My take on this is more of what is the limits one can achieve in terms of
accuracy and speed, irrespective of anything audio. Extremely high
performance, obviously has no intrinsic value when applied to audio, but I
can think of a few things where the techniques might be applied elsewhere.

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
www.blonddee.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
 
K

Kevin Aylward

Eeyore said:
I'm a great believer in local feedback. Linearises stages nicely and
improves HF and phase response.

But it does have limited value if such local feedback is in an overall loop.
In which case, it may well make no practical difference at all. Its a
topological thing, and the free lunch issue. The above circuit with a dual
loop cannot be stabilised at the same BW as the one with no local loop. The
local loop does not improve UG phase response, it makes it worse.

For example. Consider inserting emitter resistors in the input differential
pair of a power amp. The argument goes that well, "linearises stages
nicely...", unfortunately, it usually doesn't achieve much.

Inserting the resisters, reduces the loop gain. That is, consider that the
other stages have been *optimally* designed, such that they produce all the
gain that is practically achievable for that topology. In this case,
irespective that the input satge might be deemed to have lower distortion,
due to the local feedback, the resisters reduce the overall loop gain. This
reduction in gain, is less gain to reduce distortion. I have performed
experiments on this, and simulations, and by and large, I have found that
the net distortion is always lower or the same, without the resisters, all
things being equal

Regarding, the "HF and phase response." bit, it often doesn't. If the local
BW improvement is being achieved by feedback, when you actually do the full
sums of stability, you get back to where you were. I have already given the
2 stage, loop within a loop example, and the same analysis usually applies
here.

What emitter resistors can buy you is slew rate, i.e some speed. This is,
by arguments I have already given, at the expense of accuracy.

An issue here, is that one has to make sure apples are being compared with
apples. Its all too easy to not actually do a proper AB examination of the
circuit topologies.

For no overal loop feedback, local feedback is great. e.g the input stage of
the earlier studiomaster mixers, and does what you say.
If you need to, you can make up some
lost overall gain with jellybean transistors (or ICs) at the front
end.

If you are *optimally* designing an amplifier. That is, it is as fast as
possible with the devices available, then you can't add any extra gain
without having a detrimental effect on stability. If you find that you can,
then you haven't designed the amp as best as could have been done in the
first place. Again, the issue with additional i.cs to make up the gain, is
that they have another fundamental roll off to deal with, and fundamentally,
the goal is to have at most, only two major poles at most. Another stage,
just moves the stability problem to another place, it don't away.

When one is designing an i.c amplifier, one is generally (often?), always
trying to get the maximum BW possible, ie at whatever the Ft limits of the
process will allow. This means that one is always running out of steam for
that process. There is therefore simply no way to add any extra gain,
without the phase penalty of that gain.

If you use an amp inside the loop of an amp, if it is not the main dominant
roll off, or have a BW exceding the UGB that the amp is being designed to
achive, it will just cause more stabilty grief.

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
 
K

Kevin Aylward

No it doesn't, not unless Larkin's taking about something completely
different other than what I am talking about.

What you have here is a simple amplifier driving mosfets. This is totally
standard, and not at issue in this discussion. It is not one amplifier
driving another amplifier, where the 2nd amp encloses the output devices and
forces a closed loop UG buffer, for example, like *my* circuit here.

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/circuits/VeryLowDistortionAmp2.jpg

Note, the zener diode fed, (single transistor) buffer-in-the-loop around the
output mosfets.

The point I am making is that this type of loop within a loop, does not
allow the overall speed of the complete amplifier to be made faster, if the
amplifier would otherwise already be optimumally designed for speed, despite
the allegation that it increases the net response of the output devices. It
doesn't, as a simple calculation will show. What it does buy is better LF
*accuracy* at the expense of speed.

Kevin Aylward
www.blonddee.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk -SuperSpice
 
E

Eeyore

Kevin said:
My take on this is more of what is the limits one can achieve in terms of
accuracy and speed, irrespective of anything audio. Extremely high
performance, obviously has no intrinsic value when applied to audio, but I
can think of a few things where the techniques might be applied elsewhere.

So, in terms of THD, s/n ratio and response flatness where would you draw the
line where it becomes overkill ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Kevin said:
But it does have limited value if such local feedback is in an overall loop.
In which case, it may well make no practical difference at all. Its a
topological thing, and the free lunch issue.

It still makes me feel more comfortable anmd maybe the was something to TIM
after all ?

The above circuit with a dual
loop cannot be stabilised at the same BW as the one with no local loop. The
local loop does not improve UG phase response, it makes it worse.

For example. Consider inserting emitter resistors in the input differential
pair of a power amp. The argument goes that well, "linearises stages
nicely...", unfortunately, it usually doesn't achieve much.

Inserting the resisters, reduces the loop gain. That is, consider that the
other stages have been *optimally* designed, such that they produce all the
gain that is practically achievable for that topology. In this case,
irespective that the input satge might be deemed to have lower distortion,
due to the local feedback, the resisters reduce the overall loop gain. This
reduction in gain, is less gain to reduce distortion. I have performed
experiments on this, and simulations, and by and large, I have found that
the net distortion is always lower or the same, without the resisters, all
things being equal

It's still a nice selling point.

Regarding, the "HF and phase response." bit, it often doesn't.

It did one my models by an arm and a leg. Exactly where I wanted it.

If the local
BW improvement is being achieved by feedback, when you actually do the full
sums of stability, you get back to where you were. I have already given the
2 stage, loop within a loop example, and the same analysis usually applies
here.

What emitter resistors can buy you is slew rate, i.e some speed. This is,
by arguments I have already given, at the expense of accuracy.

Speed is good.

An issue here, is that one has to make sure apples are being compared with
apples. Its all too easy to not actually do a proper AB examination of the
circuit topologies.

For no overal loop feedback, local feedback is great. e.g the input stage of
the earlier studiomaster mixers, and does what you say.


If you are *optimally* designing an amplifier. That is, it is as fast as
possible with the devices available, then you can't add any extra gain
without having a detrimental effect on stability.

Who said it had to be in the same overall loop ?

If you find that you can,
then you haven't designed the amp as best as could have been done in the
first place. Again, the issue with additional i.cs to make up the gain, is
that they have another fundamental roll off to deal with, and fundamentally,
the goal is to have at most, only two major poles at most. Another stage,
just moves the stability problem to another place, it don't away.

When one is designing an i.c amplifier, one is generally (often?), always
trying to get the maximum BW possible, ie at whatever the Ft limits of the
process will allow. This means that one is always running out of steam for
that process. There is therefore simply no way to add any extra gain,
without the phase penalty of that gain.

If you use an amp inside the loop of an amp, if it is not the main dominant
roll off, or have a BW exceding the UGB that the amp is being designed to
achive, it will just cause more stabilty grief.

Well, I made a QSC-lokalike design perform far better by applying those
techniques of mine.

Including 2 stages of pole zero compensation.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Michael A. Terrell said:
That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. The 'crap' is
the low comments you make about everyone else on the group about their
abilites.

Not true. Have I ever seriously claimed anything bad about JL or JT's abilities for
example. I have very considerable regard for JL's circuit skills in fact. There are some
real dummies here too unfortunately.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Kevin said:
For me, 1 mm is absolutely gigantic. The current chip I am working on is
only about 1mm X 1mm. My last one was huge, about 9mm X 4mm.

How the heck do they separate them when they're 1 x 1 mm ? What's the wafer
thickness ? Is testing done at the die level ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Michael A. Terrell said:
You say you are, and so do thousands of others. Have you seen the
state of the art Harris broadcast audio consoles?

Probably only bought in the USA btw.

Digitize every input, do everything in the CPU,

'the' CPU ? LMAO !

and convert back to analog. Factory service of the boards only.

They're hardly the first. The Neve company I was with for 3 years as a project
leader over 20 years ago was the first and I worked on a couple of their
digital projects, one of only 2 of the conventional analogue team to be
'allowed' to. The digital team was mostly run almost as a separate company
within a company.

So, your 'state of the art' is a bit ancient for me.
http://www.ams-neve.com/Home/Home.aspx

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

As a matter of principle I don't lie. This has presented me with a conundrum that I'd hate ever to have to face if I ever get asked a certain
question by an old friend. Because the truth might hurt someone else and a relationship.

The proof lies in that you'd only ask me that if you thought my opinion
was important.

I wanted to hear your opinion. After several attempts to drag it out of you, I can only assume you don't have one.

Please don't bother replying.

Graham
 
J

Jamie

Eeyore said:
Jamie wrote:




You clearly haven't the tiniest clue about the economics of high-volume manufacturing.
Or the importance of pcb layout. Not to mention the cost savings of offshore
manufacturing too.

One product of mine (in its various channel sizes) sold over 100,000 units.

Graham
If you really had that much involvement in projects as you speak of,
I'll wager the majority of them are off of some one else's back.!

The only think I see you good at is BS>.

I know the out come of what I just posted will send you off on one
of your child kicking tangents.

So spread your putrid vile all over as you normally do on this
fine establishment, called the USE-NET!

Have a good day you crony..

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"
 
E

Eeyore

Kevin said:
No it doesn't, not unless Larkin's taking about something completely
different other than what I am talking about.

What you have here is a simple amplifier driving mosfets. This is totally
standard, and not at issue in this discussion. It is not one amplifier
driving another amplifier, where the 2nd amp encloses the output devices and
forces a closed loop UG buffer, for example, like *my* circuit here.

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/circuits/VeryLowDistortionAmp2.jpg

Note, the zener diode fed, (single transistor) buffer-in-the-loop around the
output mosfets.

The point I am making is that this type of loop within a loop, does not
allow the overall speed of the complete amplifier to be made faster, if the
amplifier would otherwise already be optimumally designed for speed, despite
the allegation that it increases the net response of the output devices. It
doesn't, as a simple calculation will show. What it does buy is better LF
*accuracy* at the expense of speed.

I don't disagree with you overall Kevin. I keep a little trick up my sleeve with
power amps that changes the game somewhat and eliminates any such 'expenses'.
However it's absurdly obvious (when you think about it) and consequently
couldn't be patented I'm sure and the moment the 'secret' gets out everyone will
be doing it. It's insanely simple too. You just have to have the wits to think
of it.

Graham
 
Top