Steve,
If you look at the schematics you don't see a comp. p and n channel (driver) as in typical quasi comp. designs. The outputs are of the same type and are driven by opposite phases of the second diff amplifier........maybe it is not a true quasi comp. but the goal is still the same.
Regards,
Jam
If you look at the schematics you don't see a comp. p and n channel (driver) as in typical quasi comp. designs. The outputs are of the same type and are driven by opposite phases of the second diff amplifier........maybe it is not a true quasi comp. but the goal is still the same.
Regards,
Jam
jam said:
Ah, ok. Yeah, they're being driven differentially. Not sure I'd call that quasi-complimentary. At least not in the sense that the phrase is typically understood to mean.
My point wasn't that you couldn't build an output stage using the same polarity device, but that in what's typically understood to be a quasi-complimentary output, you still have a complimentary device controlling one of the output halves. So even if both of your final output devices are N-type, one of them is still going to behave as the P-type that's driving it.
So no bubble burst. But I do have this nasty blister on my thumb you can have a crack at if you'd like.
se
Steve,
I know better than to get into a debate with you..........
But speaking of blisters here is your solution.....
http://www.utahmountainbiking.com/firstaid/blister.htm
Regards,
Jam
I know better than to get into a debate with you..........
But speaking of blisters here is your solution.....
http://www.utahmountainbiking.com/firstaid/blister.htm
Regards,
Jam
thylantyr said:Are Discretes Better Than Chip Amps?
Post a link for a chip amp rated for 500w rms @ 8 ohms,
1 ohm stable, then I will consider it.
Here you go: Apex PA-03
Oops. Sorry. That'll only get you to about 350 watts into 8 with its +/-75 volt rail limitation. However you could always bridge a pair.
se
Konnichiwa Capslock San,
Bear baiting, eyh?
Yes, I maintain that a Quasi complementary stage maintains better symmetry UNDER CERTAIN OPERATING CONDITIONS. For example, the slewing of the output stage will be symmetrical as will be the signal related beta drop, as all of these parameters are controlled by the power device.
Having had the chance to compare truely symmetrical N-Channel only Amplifiers against "complementary" ones in Pro Audio applications, plus also quasi complementary ones there is not the least doubt in my mind that the best solution is fully symmetrical (circlotron), followed by quasi complementary and then complementary. Of course, around 70% of the issue is still around implementation, not devices.... And of course, my experiences are 10 - 15 years out of date.
Sayonara
capslock said:
Bear baiting, eyh?
Yes, I maintain that a Quasi complementary stage maintains better symmetry UNDER CERTAIN OPERATING CONDITIONS. For example, the slewing of the output stage will be symmetrical as will be the signal related beta drop, as all of these parameters are controlled by the power device.
Having had the chance to compare truely symmetrical N-Channel only Amplifiers against "complementary" ones in Pro Audio applications, plus also quasi complementary ones there is not the least doubt in my mind that the best solution is fully symmetrical (circlotron), followed by quasi complementary and then complementary. Of course, around 70% of the issue is still around implementation, not devices.... And of course, my experiences are 10 - 15 years out of date.
Sayonara
My original intention in posting this question was to get as much and as many practical tips as possible. But, as it always happens, the discussion has turned very technical. It is no ones fault, but less experienced members like me feel left out.
There is an interesting article by Doug Self in one of the issues of that British Journal (Wireless ... something) in which he actually discusses quasi- and fully complementary topologies. I remember him saying that most fully complementary schematics are only complementary geometrically and not much is achieved over quasi-complementary designs.
The proof of the pie is in eating it. So, at the end of the day, what does it hear if you played a musical piece with the widest possible dynamic range?
There is an interesting article by Doug Self in one of the issues of that British Journal (Wireless ... something) in which he actually discusses quasi- and fully complementary topologies. I remember him saying that most fully complementary schematics are only complementary geometrically and not much is achieved over quasi-complementary designs.
The proof of the pie is in eating it. So, at the end of the day, what does it hear if you played a musical piece with the widest possible dynamic range?
I read "Tranducer/Audio to 1000 W" in the datasheet (at 2 ohms I suppose)Steve Eddy said:
Here you go: Apex PA-03
Oops. Sorry. That'll only get you to about 350 watts into 8 with its +/-75 volt rail limitation. However you could always bridge a pair.
se
peranders said:
What? Didn't you read? It says "Prices now discounted when purchasing through eStore!" It's only $492.19 for the regular version and $639.86 for the A version!
Oh, and thylantyr didn't say it had to be cheap. As for it being a hybrid, I'm still not sure just how literally "chip amp" is intended to be interpreted here. Does the chip need to be silicon or can it be ceramic? They're both integrated circuit power opamps. Just add a few external parts, a power supply and you're done.
Can we get a ruling on this from the judges?
se
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.