Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Pass Labs This forum is dedicated to Pass Labs discussion.

mutual conductance?
mutual conductance?
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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31st March 2008, 11:16 AM   #1
sandstorm33 is offline sandstorm33  United States
diyAudio Member
 
sandstorm33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Default mutual conductance?

In trying to understand the effects of a mosfets transconductance which would be the better choice; gms of 6 or 16???
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 03:29 PM   #2
GRollins is offline GRollins  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Columbia, SC
Which is better, salt or sugar?
Depends on the context.

Grey
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 04:56 PM   #3
sandstorm33 is offline sandstorm33  United States
diyAudio Member
 
sandstorm33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally posted by GRollins
Which is better, salt or sugar?
Depends on the context.

Grey

Let's do sugar....In a single stage ZEN (like) amplifier with feedback should I prefer gms 6 0r 16????
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 06:58 PM   #4
MRupp is offline MRupp  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
MRupp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Frankfurt area
Lower transconductance parts have proportionally lower capacitances and a better high frequency response but conversely they have a weaker bass.

For a ZEN amp with only one single device a higher gm of 16 would be better and 6 is really on the low side. Too low and the ZEN amp may sound too bright, too high and it may sound dark and rolled off. This is off course subject to personal taste. In my ZEN V4, I am using a MOSFET with a gm of 32 (all at the much higher "rated" drain currents off course) and still find it pretty well balanced.
__________________
Martin Rupp
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 07:16 PM   #5
sandstorm33 is offline sandstorm33  United States
diyAudio Member
 
sandstorm33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally posted by MRupp
Lower transconductance parts have proportionally lower capacitances and a better high frequency response but conversely they have a weaker bass.

For a ZEN amp with only one single device a higher gm of 16 would be better and 6 is really on the low side.

Thank you for your reply. Oddly one of the more popular devices used by Nelson Pass is the IRFP240 which has a transconductance of 6.9.

While reading the various articles on the PASSdiy site He (NP) speaks of the right values but does'nt mention what they might be.

I have a choice of two devices for a MINI-A;an irf231 which is tagged with a value of 6. The other is the irf044 which springs to a value of 16.
As you, noted the device with the lower value has an input capacitance at 800pf. thje other is twice that value.

This is probably in the nit pickin' category but since I have a choice , I just thought to inquire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 08:10 PM   #6
MRupp is offline MRupp  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
MRupp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Frankfurt area
Quote:
Oddly one of the more popular devices used by Nelson Pass is the IRFP240 which has a transconductance of 6.9
I am quite happy to get corrected by Nelson Pass. However, if I understand this correctly, he uses IRFP240 in designs where he parrellels several devices, probably even more than he needs purely from, say, power dissipation considerations, to the point where the design is optimally "balanced"?

P.S. I stand by my recommendation of the "16"er for a ZEN amp. If you have several devices in parallel - and I don't know how many that would be in the Mini-A - you may consider the "6"er device.
__________________
Martin Rupp
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 08:17 PM   #7
sandstorm33 is offline sandstorm33  United States
diyAudio Member
 
sandstorm33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally posted by MRupp


I am quite happy to get corrected by Nelson Pass. However, if I understand this correctly, he uses IRFP240 in designs where he parrellels several devices, probably even more than he needs purely from, say, power dissipation considerations, to the point where the design is optimally "balanced"?

Well not quite so...The zv9 and zv4 are single ended designs ,the former accalimed, which both use single devices. It is interesting to note from your comment , that transconductance adds in parallel devices.

Again,this is probably not a BIG issue.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 08:25 PM   #8
MRupp is offline MRupp  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
MRupp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Frankfurt area
Quote:
It is interesting to note from your comment , that transconductance adds in parallel devices.
Man, you're quick. Yes, I think total transconductance increases with parallelled devices. The tranconductance curve is not linerar, it is pretty steep towards the lower current end where you are usually using those devices (they are rated in the tens of amps) and flattens out with increasing current. Consequently, 4 parrelleld devices running at 1 amp bias current each will have a higher combined transconductance than just one such device run at 4 amps.
__________________
Martin Rupp
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2008, 08:56 PM   #9
sandstorm33 is offline sandstorm33  United States
diyAudio Member
 
sandstorm33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally posted by MRupp


Man, you're quick. Yes, I think total transconductance increases with parallelled devices. The tranconductance curve is not linerar, it is pretty steep towards the lower current end where you are usually using those devices (they are rated in the tens of amps) and flattens out with increasing current. Consequently, 4 parrelleld devices running at 1 amp bias current each will have a higher combined transconductance than just one such device run at 4 amps.

The MINI -A is a scaled down Aleph which has been Nelson Pass' flagship design. It is a two stage setup with a special CCS and in most instances has paralleled devices. Unfortunately as drawn the MINI has a single device in the output. I chose the device with the 6 rating because of its low input capacitance and its TO-3 configuration(I happen to have some nice sinks drilled for TO-3s but they only carry two devices each,the number per channel for the MINI). One of the devices is for gain the other for the CCS. Therefore paralleling is out of the question.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


mutual conductance?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

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mutual coupling question dooper Subwoofers 118 18th October 2017 06:16 AM
Converting tube tester to Mutual Conductance ThSpeakerDude88 Equipment & Tools 13 28th December 2008 12:11 AM
Replacement conductance meter for Hickok 533A teocc_1308 Equipment & Tools 4 1st September 2006 03:33 AM
Mutual Inductance rider Analogue Source 1 19th July 2004 11:01 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 16.67%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2017 diyAudio
Wiki