Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Chip Amps

Chip Amps Amplifiers based on integrated circuits

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
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th January 2013, 12:23 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Default Opamp challenge

Taking Scheme A with its magnitude and phase versus frequency as shown in Figure B (blue curve), I make an invitation to the community to achieve similar frequency response (magnitude and phase), as shown in Figure B (red curve). To accomplish this, one has to use the same components shown in Scheme A (referring to quantity, type and value). Not allowed to remove or add components as those shown in Scheme A (you must use the same components, to achieve the objective of this challenge). The input signal must remain AC coupled. The high frequency response must remain similar (over 10 KHz). The voltage gain in the passband should remain similar (3.92). The input impedance in the passband should remain similar as well. The output is applied over the 10K resistor. This 10K resistor must continue to fulfill the function as output load in the new proposal. Another thing is that is not allowed in the attempt to generate offset problems at the same stage.

The answer to this challenge's available to me, since I am the mentor of this exciting discovery.

With this new interconnection between components, we can achieve these and many other improvements.

Everything is in the process of being patented. That is why the new scheme can not be shown yet. It can be applied to the field of audio, among other applications.

As soon as I get the title of the invention, I'm going to explain in detail.

regards

Scheme A:

Click the image to open in full size.

Figure B:

Click the image to open in full size.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Scheme A.jpg (31.8 KB, 690 views)
File Type: jpg Figure B - Magnitude - Phase.jpg (73.3 KB, 678 views)

Last edited by diegomj1973; 14th January 2013 at 01:15 PM.
 
Old 14th January 2013, 12:28 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Not sure I fully understand.
Are you asking for a different way to connect the same parts for the same results? If yes, what's the advantage of it, apart from the intellectual challenge? If the same parts give the same results, whats the improvements you mention?
I assume that there is some advantage that is the subject of the patent?

Why do you attenuate the input signal?

Did you apply already for the patent? This can take several years easily.

jan
__________________
Never explain - your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway - E. Hubbart
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7
!
 
Old 14th January 2013, 12:47 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan.didden View Post
Are you asking for a different way to connect the same parts for the same results?jan
No. Different way to connect the same parts for better results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jan.didden View Post
I assume that there is some advantage that is the subject of the patent?jan
Yes. Improvement ratio between lower cutoff frequencies is proportional to the ratio of C2 to C1 and inversely proportional to the gain of the system (+1 in this case). It's what I can say for now.

I dimmed the entrance to the circuit simply because it is an example for the challenge, although it could have been a simple non-inverting configuration.

The patent is in process. Yes, it will take some time to emerge definitively.

I have concrete evidence that this is working very well. Even now I have it implemented in a pure class A amplifier.

This new connection may give characteristics next to the directly coupled systems, but with the advantages of AC coupled systems.

Regards

Last edited by diegomj1973; 14th January 2013 at 01:06 PM.
 
Old 14th January 2013, 02:56 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by diegomj1973 View Post
No. Different way to connect the same parts for better results.
[snip]Regards
Better in what way? You ask for the same (similar) passband and phase curve. If you want the same performance with the same parts it is not much of a challenge. If it really is a challenge, in what way must it be better?

jan
__________________
Never explain - your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway - E. Hubbart
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7
!
 
Old 14th January 2013, 05:08 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan.didden View Post
Better in what way? You ask for the same (similar) passband and phase curve. If you want the same performance with the same parts it is not much of a challenge. If it really is a challenge, in what way must it be better?

jan
Let's see ... What you have to get are the red curves (the main objective, in the example given).

I give an example: if, in your attempt, you exchange C1 to C2, and vice versa, leaving all other components in the original position, obviously you can not get the red curve given. The lower cutoff frequency (-3 dB) of this change is around 1.26 KHz (far from around 6.67 Hz, corresponding to the red curve).

In a similar way to the example given I suggest trying to get to the red curves.

Am I clear?

PD: One advantage is a significant increase in bandwidth (to the side of low frequencies, using for this small capacitors). There are many other advantages.

Regards
 
Old 14th January 2013, 05:28 PM   #6
sreten is offline sreten  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brighton UK
Hi,

This is an exercise in tedium. There is nothing you can have "discovered"
about such a simple circuit that hasn't been done before and I expect
whatever you think you've "discovered" is fundamentally flawed.

I'm not excited. I'm bored. You can't do what you say. There is
no right answer because what you think it is, is simply wrong.

The challenge is to guess what you've got wrong.
My guess in no DC path for an input.

rgds, sreten.
__________________
There is nothing so practical as a really good theory - Ludwig Boltzmann
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - Abraham Maslow

Last edited by sreten; 14th January 2013 at 05:49 PM.
 
Old 14th January 2013, 05:31 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Ahh now I think what you want.
I probably would want to use some form of bootstrapping.
Looking forward to see your idea!

jan
__________________
Never explain - your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway - E. Hubbart
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7
!
 
Old 14th January 2013, 05:46 PM   #8
Mooly is offline Mooly  United Kingdom
diyAudio Moderator
 
Mooly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Does the "new" version have to be stable if the input is left open circuit ?
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
A simulation free zone. Design it, build it, test it.
 
Old 14th January 2013, 05:46 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by sreten View Post
Hi,

This is an exercise in tedium. There is nothing you can have "discovered"
about such a simple circuit that hasn't been done before and I expect
whatever you think you've "discovered" is fundamentally flawed.

I'm not excited. I'm bored. You can't do what you say. There is
no right answer because what you think it is, is simply wrong.

The challenge is to guess what you've got wrong.

rgds, sreten.
This is not an exercise. In fact is laboratory tested. I have also implemented a pure class A amplifier, as I said.

And the proposal is not tricky!. Believe me that's how I say it.

This does not go against the laws of physics.

The improvement ratio of the lower cutoff frequency for this example is about 40.68 times.

Just as the circuit is so simple, I invite you to get similar results, without doubt your abilities.

regards
 
Old 14th January 2013, 06:04 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
GoatGuy:

Is everything okay with the analysis you've done, but this analysis corresponds to the example presented (which is deductible, for its simplicity)

Again, the question is what is the configuration that achieves the red curves?. Obviously, using all the components given (in another connection).

regards
 

Closed Thread


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Here's a challenge.... Meshuganah Solid State 42 16th November 2011 01:59 AM
Here is a Challenge latala Solid State 41 12th May 2011 01:13 AM
Single supply opamp - unequal rail voltage and opamp selection Hans L Parts 8 19th February 2006 02:15 PM
a challenge --or I need help lawrence99 Car Audio 0 9th March 2005 04:44 AM
The challenge ! thylantyr Solid State 51 24th July 2003 08:41 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2