I have exact experience with it. When my amplifier power ON, one fuse at PSU amplifier blown. I'm confuse because I think my amplifier work good in simulation. But my relay in speaker protector is wrong. I blown several fuses. My amplifier is OK, thank to the fuse.
Concerning a wanted method of detecting a tendency to oscillation resp. ring ring - yet before it actually comes about I start this Thread:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-ring-in-audio-power-amplifier-stages.392385/
Maybe there are to find helpful hints here on diyaudio (maybe even in this thread) or anywhere on the web.
Thank you very much.
I built a so-called parasitic oscillation sniffer a long time ago. This addresses the fact that parasitic oscillations often appear as a burst on a high-amplitude sinewave signal, making them sometimes difficult to see, much less measure their frequency. The sniffer basically consists of a wideband amplifier with a few stages of fast emitter-follower-based second-order high-pass filters, leaving only the burst to see. Bandwidth was in the tens of MHz, so as to be able to catch the high-frequency local parasitic oscillations that Vertical MOSFETs were capable of. An amplitude detector would flash an LED and also provide a trigger source for the scope.
Cheers,
Bob
I did this a few yrs ago http://hifisonix.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Oscillation-Sniffer-by-Bonsai.pdf
You could just feed the output into a small 3.3V cell powered uController to flash an LED.
Fortunately, scopes with 100 MHz BW have come down in price - I think you can pick one up for $200-$300 on Amazon now placing them within reach of many more DIY'ers.
You could just feed the output into a small 3.3V cell powered uController to flash an LED.
Fortunately, scopes with 100 MHz BW have come down in price - I think you can pick one up for $200-$300 on Amazon now placing them within reach of many more DIY'ers.
Hi Bob,
Finally I bought the second edition, and reading it carefully and slowly.
I checked bias spreader on page 412 used for ThermalTrak OPS and found the same error as in first edition.
Here is the link where you confirmed the error.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...r-amplifier-book.171159/page-222#post-4083455
BR Damir
Finally I bought the second edition, and reading it carefully and slowly.
I checked bias spreader on page 412 used for ThermalTrak OPS and found the same error as in first edition.
Here is the link where you confirmed the error.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...r-amplifier-book.171159/page-222#post-4083455
BR Damir
Jan, I ordered it here. https://www.bookdepository.com/Designing-Audio-Power-Amplifiers-Bob-Cordell/9781138555440
Damir
Damir
Hi Damir,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I am sorry that it slipped through the cracks in the 2nd edition. I looked back at the post you linked to, and that was helpful. In looking at the 2nd edition and your previous post, I'm now not sure that some of what I said was wrong. Namely, IIRC, R1 and R3 are indeed the resistors that control the proportion of compensation from the temperature of Q1 and the temperature of the TT diodes. If you look at the extremes of the ratio, it can be seen. If R3 is open, the Vbe multiplier just looks like an ordinary Vbe multiplier controlled by the temperature of Q1, and just in series with TT1 and TT2. In this condition, the temperatures of TT1 and TT2 have no influence on the Vbe multiplier itself; they are not part of the Vbe multiplier action.
At the other extreme, if R1 is open, TT1 and TT2 are inside the Vbe multiplier and their voltage changes with temperature get multiplied, so have more effect. This is pretty much the same issue for Figure 17.19 a, b and c. However, some of the math errors you pointed out may actually be errors anyway. It's been a long time since I worked on that
.In any case, if my explanation above is correct, it is my fault for not explaining it better in the book.
Thanks again for your feedback.
Cheers,
Bob
First of all, thank you @Bob Cordell for an excellent book!
Has anybody built the MOSFET amplifier with error correction? I'm interested in somethin for my KEF LS50 Meta. It seems like a nice match. Should handle 4Ohm loads with ease.
Has anybody built the MOSFET amplifier with error correction? I'm interested in somethin for my KEF LS50 Meta. It seems like a nice match. Should handle 4Ohm loads with ease.
It crossed my mind at one time. Working with Bob, we have designed pcb's for DH-220C and BC-1. DH-220C is popular, but only 3 folks have signed up to build a BC-1, so I do wonder if designing more amplifiers is the best use of my time. So it comes down to who's intersted? For one person, not one of my top priorities. The mechanical design aspects need to be considered for any design. Its possible to use the 3Ux300mm Modushop chassis we used for the BC-1 design, since the infastructure is in place. Not like I need any more amplifiers however.
Bob:
This posting reminded me that I wanted to ask this earlier.
Have you thought about or played around with adding the error correction circuitry to a lateral MOSFET output stage?
Tanberg did many years ago. I think it was the model 3016.
Would be an interesting option to incorporate into the modified Hafler ...
If I would decide to build it, I would want to design the PCB myself. I finished a good course and I'm itching to put it into good use. I appreciate all the help, if you wish to get involved. Maybe it would be interesting idea to then drop the project into the diyaudiostore if Mr. Cordell and Mr. Donald agree.
Right now I'm refurbishing a Sony T-F770ES, besically rebuilding it from ground-up. That will take me another month I think, but then...
The PGP amp has an output stage with error correction. See: http://www.synaesthesia.ca/OP-stage.html
The front-end however is based on a variation of Edward Cherry's NDFL amp. See: https://www.data-odyssey.nl/PGP.html
Cheers, E.
1) The initial transient of a musical instrument may produce a infinite spectrum span. In other words, a infinite high frequency content that needs a infinite bandwith of the amplifier to reproduce the original signal correctly.
However... The amplifier never gets to see that original signal because every single stage in the recording chain and in the reproduction chain forms a low pass filter that limits the spectral content. Starting with the microphone... Game over.
2) I think we can look at feedback as a iterative process. Every time the signal has travelled through the amp stages and arrives at the base of the second transistor of the differential pair, the amplitude deviation from the original waveform at a point in time is corrected to some degree. Approximately, what matters, is how many times does the propagation period fit into the signal period, before phase errors noticeably start to falsify the process? Or, how many times does the time period of the amplifier bandwith fit into the time period of the test signal ?
Looking at a steady 1kHz sine for example, the delayed signal arriving at the feedback node is attenuated due to the phase shift, in effect the feedback depth is reduced more an more as signal frequeny rises.
Secondly, the correcting feedback signal arrives at the wrong time. The differential stage does see a wrong value, especially bad for classB spikes.
So imho Hafler did mean what he said: as broadband as possible, the introduced error starts immediately. Less bandwith = more error.
Transistors do not allow to built amplifiers with infinite bandwith, feedback can not work perfectly. It is what it is.
