The way I read it, the current above and below the output (95 in Fig. 4) must balance at zero signal input. With that in mind, the lower current source (101) must carry current sufficient to match the upper current source (97), plus a smaller amount for the cascode device (91).
Assuming that I've got all that right, 101 is the larger current source, but not necessarily by a whole lot.
There's still a net savings in dissipation, however, because the heavy current in the circuit above the output line (95) isn't covering the full rail voltage.
Asymmetrical rails, anyone? That could lead in a whole 'nother direction. Might be fun.
A low Z path (i.e. a light bulb) around the output MOSFET (87) would effectively short--or at least draw off a large portion of--the intended output.
Light bulbs in a Circlotron? How about as emitter/Source/cathode resistors?
Grey
Assuming that I've got all that right, 101 is the larger current source, but not necessarily by a whole lot.
There's still a net savings in dissipation, however, because the heavy current in the circuit above the output line (95) isn't covering the full rail voltage.
Asymmetrical rails, anyone? That could lead in a whole 'nother direction. Might be fun.
A low Z path (i.e. a light bulb) around the output MOSFET (87) would effectively short--or at least draw off a large portion of--the intended output.
Light bulbs in a Circlotron? How about as emitter/Source/cathode resistors?
Grey
Thank you both.
I had always (wrongly) assumed this patent was related to the Aleph 0.
Looking at Aleph 0 schematic:
Could the Aleph 0 be thought of like a power op amp with a big pull-down resistor? If so, I wonder if this would work with something like ZV5? Just pondering out loud. Thanks again.
Mike
I had always (wrongly) assumed this patent was related to the Aleph 0.
Looking at Aleph 0 schematic:
Could the Aleph 0 be thought of like a power op amp with a big pull-down resistor? If so, I wonder if this would work with something like ZV5? Just pondering out loud. Thanks again.
Mike
mrothacher said:
For resistor, read big constant current source, and you've got the
Aleph 0. Aleph 0s, also.
It will amuse you to know that the X150.5 amp uses that
approach to provide single-ended bias at lower wattages.
And yes, it will work with ZV5.
"Everything old is new again" (musical note icon)
/pass/: burns electricity, but recycles good ideas.
I forgot to mention, this has nothing to do with the title
of the thread, as 5,343,166 is something else altogether.
5,343,166 is a convolution of the Sano patent. Just as the
"Stasis" patent was created by taking the description of
cascode operation and replacing "current" with "voltage"
and vice versa in its description, , 5,343,166 takes the Sano
patent and again replaces "current" with voltage" and so on.
/pass/: Still waiting for HaloJoy to come back and still looking for
patents that use the words "voltage" and "current"
of the thread, as 5,343,166 is something else altogether.
5,343,166 is a convolution of the Sano patent. Just as the
"Stasis" patent was created by taking the description of
cascode operation and replacing "current" with "voltage"
and vice versa in its description, , 5,343,166 takes the Sano
patent and again replaces "current" with voltage" and so on.
/pass/: Still waiting for HaloJoy to come back and still looking for
patents that use the words "voltage" and "current"
Mr. Pass,
I see many attempts from you to built more efficient good sounding amps. This patent is one example, how you try to reduce energy burned out in ordinary classA power amp, while maintaining the sonics of classA. The "Cascode" patent also tries to make good sounding amp with less heat.
In many times in many threads, I found your're saying "raw bias is important". When I asked about the "Smart bias" patent, you said this one more time, that "raw bias" affect sonics more than any biasing scheme. I experimented and found this is true.
Is there really no way to make a good sounding "Cold Amp"?
I see many attempts from you to built more efficient good sounding amps. This patent is one example, how you try to reduce energy burned out in ordinary classA power amp, while maintaining the sonics of classA. The "Cascode" patent also tries to make good sounding amp with less heat.
In many times in many threads, I found your're saying "raw bias is important". When I asked about the "Smart bias" patent, you said this one more time, that "raw bias" affect sonics more than any biasing scheme. I experimented and found this is true.
Is there really no way to make a good sounding "Cold Amp"?
Hi, Mr. Pass,
Yes, the chip amp guys will tell that chip amps will compare to your Aleph
But that amp (for me) lack of that "heavy+smooth sound" characteristic, compared to quite biased discrete designs. I think that caused typically by crossover distortion. I've made chip amps, and I found that to make good sounding chipamp, the whole components have tobe expensive ones. This means "expensive cosmetics" are a must for making good sounding chipamp. It also mean the sonic is artificial from the chipamp itself. I think the good amps should be able to sound good even with standard component (that means the design itself is good).
I also think that chip amps have one fundamental shortness that cannot be changed. All components are made of semiconductor, including Resistor and Capacitor. I read that resistors and capacitors are not suitable to be made by semiconductor, and we cannot change that in chipamps.
I begin to wonder, if the transistor's operating temperature is the important thing to sonics. You said "touching the heatsink" is one way to adjust bias, (without knowing what current there is)
What is the cause of "hear-able effect" of transistor's operating temperature (that is not evident in theories)?
Yes, the chip amp guys will tell that chip amps will compare to your Aleph
But that amp (for me) lack of that "heavy+smooth sound" characteristic, compared to quite biased discrete designs. I think that caused typically by crossover distortion. I've made chip amps, and I found that to make good sounding chipamp, the whole components have tobe expensive ones. This means "expensive cosmetics" are a must for making good sounding chipamp. It also mean the sonic is artificial from the chipamp itself. I think the good amps should be able to sound good even with standard component (that means the design itself is good).
I also think that chip amps have one fundamental shortness that cannot be changed. All components are made of semiconductor, including Resistor and Capacitor. I read that resistors and capacitors are not suitable to be made by semiconductor, and we cannot change that in chipamps.
I begin to wonder, if the transistor's operating temperature is the important thing to sonics. You said "touching the heatsink" is one way to adjust bias, (without knowing what current there is)
What is the cause of "hear-able effect" of transistor's operating temperature (that is not evident in theories)?
Some people have "miss-known" Nelson Pass as an "electric bill" audio designer
I see him as trying to achieve the best sonics, and electric bill do not rank above sonics.
Look at his patents and patent dates. Can we say he has no concern with the dissipation of classA?. NP surely knows about efficiency (and really try to reduce not-producing-anything heat), but he don't comprimise in sonics
I see him as trying to achieve the best sonics, and electric bill do not rank above sonics.
Look at his patents and patent dates. Can we say he has no concern with the dissipation of classA?. NP surely knows about efficiency (and really try to reduce not-producing-anything heat), but he don't comprimise in sonics
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.