|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Pass Labs This forum is dedicated to Pass Labs discussion. |
|
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 |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
|
I recently finished a pair of AJ monoblocks and find myself in audio heaven, but....I seem to be having trouble quitting there. I built these with a great deal of help from a friend and would now like to venture out on my own and build something all by my lonesome. Well, i have already failed because here i am asking for help. My next adventure is based on the F3, or more specifically, the LU Power Jfets. I would like to experiment with them first since they are cheaper than their SS counterparts. I have read the ZEN 8 and 9 articles, Vladimirk's power F3 thread, and EUVL's "another source follower thread". Based on what i have read, I would like to build a standard F3 and then increase power by paralleling devices. THis is where my question comes in. IN Vladimirks thread, he just paralleled more of the cascoded mosfets, but in EUVL's thread there is a passing comment about creating a power amp paralleling both Jfet and mosfet. What advantages are there to paralleling the jfets as well as the mosfets.
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
|
I have done some reading and perhaps found the answer. In paralleling devices, gain is multiplied, but capacitance is multiplied as well. THe LU Jfets already have high Crss (Miller Effect) and multiples would exxagerate this problem even more. Vladimirk added mosfets to handle heat and at the same time, avoided the capacitance multiplier. EUVL seems to suggest that his Taylor CS cuts the capacitance in half and this is how he would suggestdealing with the increased capacitance from paralleld devices. Hope i am close.
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tashkent
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
|
have you tried X-ing this amp or is this something you are not interested in? The preamp i have is based on the Borberly article about Jfets. It should be very capable of driving this amp.
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tashkent
|
Quote:
In this schematics, you could try experimenting with NFB resistors, output capacitors, another caps, also with disconnecting of the Aleph Current Source modulation. These are the most sensitive points of the schematics. |
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zemun
|
Quote:
Mosfet Output Stage Capacitance |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
|
Thanks Juma. That is very helpful, although I haven't quite got my head around it yet. It seems to suggest that while under certain conditions, capacitance is an issue when paralleling devices, when used in amplifiers where the gate sees higher voltages, the gM ofthe paralleled devices helps cancel out some of these issues. I will have to think on it more. Unfortunately I do not have the quality equipment needed to experiment first hand. I also am having trouble with the concept of capacitance and cascoded devices. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zemun
|
buzzforb,
the concept is quite simple - the more transconductance you have, the less Vgs voltage you need to open the Drain-Source chanels of the MOSFETs and with less voltage you'll need less current to charge the MOSFET's capacitances, so the net effect is that the capacitance seems lower. |
|
|
|
#9 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
|
So I have done some reading while traveling. Cascoding the fets not only protects the Jfet's from excess heat, it also helps in reducing capacitance. Capacitance is reduced further by adding a source resistor, taking advantage of degeneration, which throws away gain in exchange for more linear operation and also higher input impedance. From what I have read, the addition of the source resistor can lead to increase noise. Is this only at radio frequency and not a concern for amplifiers? Suggestion for keeping degeneration and reducing noise include the use of inductors or even transistors. If relevant to audio frequencies, could his be a place of potential improvement or is his just unecessary, added complexity? This is probably obvious to most, but I figure hashing it out not he forum might help other newbs gain some understanding. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Burlington, NC
|
Quote:
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| F3 amp | 5u4 | Swap Meet | 2 | 4th May 2009 03:07 PM |
| F3 | rinx | Multi-Way | 3 | 21st October 2007 09:43 AM |
| F3 anyone? | lafish | Pass Labs | 5 | 20th October 2007 11:42 PM |
| F3: is there nothing it can't do? | b-square | Pass Labs | 4 | 6th March 2006 01:45 AM |
| f3 of 66hz | sunil | Multi-Way | 6 | 30th May 2003 05:39 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.12214 seconds (80.15% PHP - 19.85% MySQL) with 11 queries |