F5 power amplifier

fab

Member
Joined 2004
Paid Member
PROFET Question

Nelson Pass said:


Much of the difference is due to the high degeneration of their
input JFETs, the lower transconductance of Laterals and their relatively
high output gain. This means a lot less feedback, as seen by the
output impedance and distortion specs.

For Common Source topologies, damping factor = feedback.

Since I do not have complementary vertical mosfet in hands but lateral mosfet, I have tried the "Profet" version and I can not make it work on the bench when loading with 8 ohms. When I connect the 8 ohms load, the signal amplitude drops to about 70%. The open loop gain is way too low. I even used lower degeneration resistors for the jfet and less close loop gain than the original profet. I used only one output pair as the Profet. And the THD is quite high. It seems that laterals 2SJ49/2SK134 (or 2SJ162/2sk1058) have about 10 times lower transconductance than IRF244 for example. Has someone successfully built and heard an F5 or Profer with lateral outputs? I know that jackinnj has described a lateral F5 adaptation in one post somewhere... he had 3 output laterals but even that is a lot less transconductance than 2 output verticals...

Thanks
 

fab

Member
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Profet like schematics

Here is the schematics for the previous post.

M1 and M4 are laterals.
Bias current is about 0.6A

J1 and J2 are SK170/J74

Thanks in advance for your comments
 

Attachments

  • profet_fab_rev_5d3.gif
    profet_fab_rev_5d3.gif
    8.3 KB · Views: 2,870
The one and only
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Re: PROFET Question

fab said:
Since I do not have complementary vertical mosfet in hands but lateral mosfet, I have tried the "Profet" version and I can not make it work on the bench when loading with 8 ohms. When I connect the 8 ohms load, the signal amplitude drops to about 70%. The open loop gain is way too low. I even used lower degeneration resistors for the jfet and less close loop gain than the original profet. I used only one output pair as the Profet. And the THD is quite high. It seems that laterals 2SJ49/2SK134 (or 2SJ162/2sk1058) have about 10 times lower transconductance than IRF244 for example.

That appears to be consistent with "Chuck" Hansen's review of the
Profet in AX magazine, in which he measured a 6.8 ohm output
impedance. That doesn't mean that the amp sounds bad, but it
tends to limit its application.
 
FQA12P20 ?

Dear Nelson,

I’m unclear.
Do you mean that we have better to use FQA12P20 instead of IRFP9240 in general? I mean in the F3 and F4 also?

How about replacing the IRF240 by FQA19P20?

Best regards.
Philippe (who, like many other here, is waiting for your “buffer “ paper because, today, he uses a complementary fet buffer to drive an *old* power amp that has an input impedance of 1.2 KOhm and 32 db of gain)
 
The one and only
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Re: FQA12P20 ?

plep said:
Do you mean that we have better to use FQA12P20 instead of IRFP9240 in general? I mean in the F3 and F4 also?

How about replacing the IRF240 by FQA19P20?

waiting for your “buffer “ paper


You can use the FQA12P20 as a general replacment for the
IRFP240, and it will usually work as well or better.

In unbalanced Common-Source applications, it makes a difference
using the IR made parts versus the alternatives (equivalent P
channel parts made by some else).

In Common-Drain or Common-Gate unbalanced applications it
makes less of a difference, but it is still an improvement to use
the non IR made parts.

In balanced applications, such as the PL X amplifiers, we find
virtually no difference, and we use them interchangeably,
although the Fairchild parts are cheaper. :)

There is no reason to worry about the N channel IR parts, such
as the IRFP240.

And I'm still working on the buffer article. I expect to be done in
a week, but I have to decide where to publish, as AX has a 2
month lead time.