
Home  Forums  Rules  Articles  The diyAudio Store  Gallery  Blogs  Register  Donations  FAQ  Calendar  Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read  Search 
Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, etc. 

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
1st February 2010, 10:03 PM  #1 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2007

matching jfets
I am designing a no feedback MC amplifier using low noise JFETs (2SJ74BL/2SK170BL). Simulations indicate that the circuits yield very low distortion (< 110 dB) if each device of a given polarity is Idss matched to within ~200 uA. My question is: about how many devices of each polarity would I need to purchase to get matched quads of each polarity.
__________________
JCM 
1st February 2010, 10:27 PM  #2 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2007

Is Idss the best FoM for matching JFETs
It occurred to me when simulating the Ids vs. Vgs curves that device matching involves more than just Idss. Vto is also involved with defining the curve. However, if one attempts to match both parameters, then the probability of getting matched devices drops quadratically, and matching may be unfeasible. Instead of matching Idss it would also be possible to match Vto. Does anyone have experience which parameter is the best for yielding minimum distortion is a zero feedback, complementary differential topology?
__________________
JCM 
1st February 2010, 10:54 PM  #3 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York State USA

Sure... you're not likely to get matches of IDSS at 200ua unless you buy a huge batch of jfets, so put that idea out of your head?
If you want to match dynamic curves andidss you've got a big problem since the curves are not likely to be identical between Pch and Nch devices. Which is why simulations and real world circuits are frequently somewhat different. But having said all that, there are a number of nice MC front ends (head amps) using jfets. I'd suggest you look into John Curl designs and Erno Borbely designs to start with... there are a number of other worthy ones as well. Curl is a frequent contributor in this forum.
__________________
__bear http://www.bearlabs.com  Btw, I don't actually know anything, FYI  [...2SJ74 Toshiba bogus asian parts  beware! ] 
1st February 2010, 11:07 PM  #4 
diyAudio Member

A simple trim can be added to almost any circuit to yield the same results.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed allimportant." 
2nd February 2010, 12:06 AM  #5 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2003

The next best thing to 2SK389 / 2SJ109 ?
The level of match that you want, in quads, and if you also want to match Yfs on top, I would advise that you buy at least 200 pieces of each type. Even stock 2SK389s / 2SJ109s are not perfect matches. You would need at least 50 pieces of each to find 2 pairs with closely matched Idss and Yfs amongst all 4 devices. I am not commenting though whether your application really requires that level of match. I presume you know better than I do. Patrick 
2nd February 2010, 03:08 AM  #6 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2007

Matching JFETs
The matching problem is not as bad is it may appear. For the topology I am considering (See my earlier posting on no feedback MC amplifier) the outputs of N and P channel stages are AC coupled together. This has several advantages. The first is that it effectively reduces noise since the signal of interest appears equally on both outputs, but the noise from the two outputs is uncorrelated. The second advantage is that the need for matching N and P devices is reduced. It is still necessary, however, to match devices of a given polarity.
A 200 uA Idss match is required to hold distortion below 110 dB for an input of 2 mVRMS, with a gain of 15. I chose the 2 mV number based on the nominal output of a typical MC cartridge (200 uVRMS) and then adding 20 dB of headroom. It is still possible to maintain distortion below 95 dB if the Idss mismatch is raised to 500 uA. My comment on matched quads assumes that two devices are paralleled to further reduce noise. Simulations yield an noise level of 0.33 nV/sqrt (Hz), although measurements will still be the final word.
__________________
JCM 
2nd February 2010, 06:05 AM  #7 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Willy, VIC

Here are some Idss figures for a batch of 12 2SK389 in the blue grade (5  10mA IDss IIRC). The three figures are the IDss for each half and the difference between them.
6.52 6.59 0.07 6.53 6.77 0.24 6.71 6.77 0.06 7.34 7.34 0 7.35 7.53 0.18 7.62 7.63 0.01 7.78 7.83 0.05 7.96 8.08 0.12 8.35 8.42 0.07 8.67 8.85 0.18 9.05 9.17 0.12 9.05 9.51 0.46 You can see that 10 of the 12 devices were matched within 200 uA. Within these ten devices, the first six form three pairs where the average is matched within 200 uA, but in two cases the difference between the lowest and highest "half" is greater than 200 uA. Assuming the same spread in 2SJ109s I think if you bought 12 of each you'd get fairly close to what you want. If you go with 170s / 74s I think 20 of each will get you close. Last edited by Mark Kelly; 2nd February 2010 at 06:09 AM. 
2nd February 2010, 10:31 PM  #8 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2007

Matching JFETS
A quick look at a JFET SPICE model shows that Ids depends on three device parameters: beta, lambda, and Vto according to the following equation:
Ids =beta(1 + lambda  Vds)  (Vgs  Vto)**2 To truely match devices would require that all 3 parameters be measured. I tried adjusting beta and Vto to yield the same Idss, but the results were not very good. I think that at least Vto and beta need to be matched. Vto is easy to measure, but beta is a bit more difficult. If lambda is small enough the above equation will simplify. I'll run some more sims to see if ignoring lambda is feasible.
__________________
JCM 
3rd February 2010, 12:04 AM  #9 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2007

Error in the Last Equation
The last equation was in error, since it failed to take into account the Rs term. Solving for Ids requires solving a quadratic equation in Ids. The expression can be simplified with the following substitutions:
A = vgs – vto B = 1 + lambda * vds C = (2A/rs + 1/(B * beta * rs**2) Then Ids can be expressed as follows: Ids = (C – sqrt(C**2 – (4*A**2/(rs**2))))/2 When I plot the simulated Ids vs the simulated Ids the two overlay nearly perfectly. The next step is to determine which of the above parameters: beta, lambda, vto, or rs need to be matched. It seems that lambda is fairly small and can be ignored. That leaves only three parameters.
__________________
JCM 
3rd February 2010, 12:44 AM  #10 
Account disabled at member's request
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto


Thread Tools  Search this Thread 


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Matching Jfets  NickC  Solid State  13  23rd December 2013 11:18 PM 
Matching Jfets  Sunsun22  Solid State  3  20th January 2010 02:08 PM 
SiC JFETS  revintage  Pass Labs  15  27th August 2009 02:43 PM 
jfets for preamp  kzeprf22  Solid State  14  21st November 2008 02:35 PM 
Matched JFETs  suzyj  Solid State  8  22nd August 2007 02:10 AM 
New To Site?  Need Help? 