Output protection

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
R.G. said:
.........low voltage transformer. 240:10:10V should work nicely, and under 5VA would be dandy.

I would suggest 20V-25V secondarys......with the excess DC output dropped across a rudimentary zener-based regulator....

........to ensure minimum Rds(on) MOSFET should ideally be driven to 15V....

.........12V should be seen as an absolute minimum....
 
diyAudio Member
Joined 2004
mikeks said:


I would suggest 20V-25V secondarys......

........to ensure minimum Rds(on) MOSFET should ideally be driven to 15V....

.........12V should be seen as an absolute minimum....

Mike, who's the bird in your sig?

I'm sure I've seen her before, for some reason I keep thinking she was an athelete :xeye:

Sorry nothing to do with output protection but just trying to satisfy my curiosity.
 
Upupa Epops said:
To Mike : 25 V AC give cca 35 V DC - do you know any mosfet, which have breakdown voltage of Vgs over 20 V ? You don't need for this circuit regulated voltage, only rectifier + filtration :cool: .



Remember transformer regulation can be as bad as 30%...!!
:bigeyes: :eek: :bawling:

This has to be accomodated...

I would say minimum 18V rms secondarys...
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi mikeks,
I didn't say tough to build. Just more complexity since the detection circuits are the same. Anyhow, I'm positive it'll work as advertised.

Any though to leaving the front end energized to eliminate turn on and off thumps? Just an idea. Esp. if you have a regulated, separate supply for the front end. I would expect that from a design with this much forethought.

Build on McDuff!

-Chris
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
I will disagree on two points.

Firstly, there are no great current transients in the front end. Therefore no line sag and no lost in headroom.

Secondly, dynamic supply shifts can cause small operating point shifts. High frequency noise is another nasty we like to block. Before you start with current sources, I use them too and have made some mighty quiet preamps and front ends. Each of them improved with supply regulation and lead dress.

Please understand I'm not trying to be a critic. It's just my practical experience differs from yours apparently. With most of us chasing the last bit of performance on barely audible issues, I believe this qualifies.

Another point. You will not find a single piece of good electronic test equipment made without attention paid to the supply and it's regulators. Why should an audio amplifier deserve any less? Or should we just copy the analog stages of test equipment and call those superior to what we are building?

-Chris
 
anatech said:
I will disagree on two points.

Firstly, there are no great current transients in the front end. Therefore no line sag and no lost in headroom.

More to do with voltage transients...an unregulated supply can give vastly greater voltage swing,...on a transient basis, beyond its nominal voltage....than a regulated supply....

Hence the increase in dynamic headroom...

anatech said:

Secondly, dynamic supply shifts can cause small operating point shifts. High frequency noise is another nasty we like to block. Before you start with current sources, I use them too and have made some mighty quiet preamps and front ends. Each of them improved with supply regulation and lead dress.


On the contrary, current sources should never be entirely relied upon for good psrr...

This is because their effectiveness declines pro rata with frequency, due to their internal parasitic reactances...

The active loads must therefore be complemented with good old fashioned C-R filtering...
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.