Spice simulation - Page 15 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Design & Build > Software Tools

Software Tools SPICE, PCB CAD, speaker design and measurement software, calculators

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 1st June 2007, 06:40 PM   #141
Speakerholic
diyAudio Moderator
 
Cal Weldon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Near Vancouver
Default Re: Re: sophisticated amplifiers and simulation

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Cordell
Hi Edmund,
It's Edmond.
__________________
Next stop: Margaritaville
Some of Cal's stuff | Cal Weldon Consulting
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2007, 10:16 AM   #142
diyAudio Member
 
Edmond Stuart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Default Re: Re: sophisticated amplifiers and simulation

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Cordell
Hi Edmund,

First, no offense taken.

Second, I realize that when I say SPICE simulation results don't count, there are many caveats. You are pointing out situations where they DO count, and I agree with that. They especially count in moving one in the desired direction and giving perspective on what works better.



Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Cordell However, I just stop short of believing a bottom-line result on distortion in an absolute sense because there are so many factors that can influence that bottom line that may not be adequately modeled. SPICE is a great tool, and I love it, but most would agree that we recognize its limitations and don't depend on it exclusively. Those who throw it out completely because it doesn't do everything are no wiser than those who depend on it exclusively. I'm sure you agree that the middle ground is where it is at.

Cheers,
Bob


Cheers, Edmond.
__________________
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht, zal meer dan lijf en
goed verliezen dan dooft het licht…(H.M. van Randwijk)
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd June 2007, 05:47 PM   #143
diyAudio Member
 
Edmond Stuart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sophisticated amplifiers

Quote:
Originally posted by G.Kleinschmidt

Care to eleborate a bit? The non linearity of Vgs vs Id causes significant large signal distortion.

"The use of power FETs in output stages is often advocated. However, after much investigation, I have found the conclusion inescapable that FETs suffer not only from poor basic linearity, due to low gm, but also a crossover region that is inherently more jagged than BJTs. It is not possible to explore this in detail here, but see [7],[8] "............

7] Self, D "Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook." Newnes 1996, p231. ISBN 0-7506-2788-3 (poor FET linearity)
8] Self, D "FETs vs BJTs- the linearity competition." Electronics & Wireless World, May 1995 p387. (poor FET linearity)


Above from here:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/dipa/dipa.htm#R


Any charitable soul out there with a copy of ref #8 to send to Bob Cordell? He's a poor misguided FET user who needs educating.

Cheers,
Glen
Hi Glen,

This time and only this time, the honorable Douglas Self was talking through his hat.
His conclusions about MOSFET's were only base on stone aged SPICE models, which totally ignores the exponential gm of the so called weak inversion. Therefore his jagged graphs are quite misleading.
Besides, gm alone is not a good figure of merit, what counts is the product of gm and the effective impedance.
As these two parameters are quite different in nature, this also implies that you cannot blindly replace BJT's by MOSFET's, if the design is optimized for BJT's, and then complaining about the lesser performance. Designing a good MOSFET output stage demands a different approach.

Cheers, Edmond.

PS: I do have that article in EW+WW, but I don't send it to Bob, as it will certainly damage my reputation.
__________________
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht, zal meer dan lijf en
goed verliezen dan dooft het licht…(H.M. van Randwijk)
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2007, 05:38 AM   #144
GK is offline GK  Australia
Account disabled at member's request
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sophisticated amplifiers

Quote:
Originally posted by estuart


Hi Glen,

This time and only this time, the honorable Douglas Self was talking through his hat.
His conclusions about MOSFET's were only base on stone aged SPICE models, which totally ignores the exponential gm of the so called weak inversion. Therefore his jagged graphs are quite misleading.
Besides, gm alone is not a good figure of merit, what counts is the product of gm and the effective impedance.
As these two parameters are quite different in nature, this also implies that you cannot blindly replace BJT's by MOSFET's, if the design is optimized for BJT's, and then complaining about the lesser performance. Designing a good MOSFET output stage demands a different approach.

Cheers, Edmond.

PS: I do have that article in EW+WW, but I don't send it to Bob, as it will certainly damage my reputation.


Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Cordell



Self was at least partially full of baloney on this one. At the very least, he had blinders on and did not tell the whole story. MOSFETs have about 10 times less gm at a given operating current than bipolars. If you get past this, they are every bit as linear. As a very rough approximation, the dynamic source resistance (1/gm) of a MOSFET is about 250/Id in mA.

Let's build a 100 W Class A amplifier from MOSFETS. It must support 40V pk and 5A pk into an 8 ohm load. Lets give it 44V main rails. The Class A idle bias must be 2.5 A. Lets use 5 pairs of MOSFET output devices, each carrying 500 mA of idle bias and each dissipating 22W at idle. The dynamic source impedance of each MOSFET is about 250/500 = 0.5 ohms. The five upper devices in parallel will yield a net upper Rs of 0.5/5 = 0.1 ohms. The bottom five devices will do the same, bringing the total open-loop output impedance at idle to 0.05 ohms.

At a peak current of 5 A, each of the upper transistors is at 1 amp with an Rs of 0.25 ohms. We have five in parallel, so we get an effective net Rs of 0.05 ohms. To first order, this is the same as at idle bias. Of course, there will be wiggles in between, and this approximation is only that, but the point is that the output stage net transconductance, variations of which will cause distortion, will actually vary very little with signal in this Class-A arrangement.

In any case, the variation in net 1/gm is certainly less than 0.04 ohms over signal. This is less than 0.5% of the 8 ohm load, suggesting in very rough terms open loop distortion on the order of less than 0.5%. Now we put 40 dB of NFB around it and we are at 0.005%, and actually probably quite a bit less.

Cheers,
Bob

Yes, I know the D.Self treatise on MOSFET linearity wasn't as good as it could have been and raises many issues for debate(that's why I cited it in the cheeky manner I which I did ). However, I still think that his point that the intrinsic linearity of MOSFET's as source followers is generally worse than that of BJT's as emitter followers is valid.
0.5% THD is still quite high, especially @ 100W into an 8 ohm load with 5 parallel MOSFET pairs in class A.

Bob, your 50W MOSFET design, without the EC, I believe, produced a THD-20 of 0.02% with about 40dB NFB.
As a comparison, D. Self's EF output 'blameless' does about 0.01% THD-20 with less NFB (miller compensation), using a single pair of 2MHz fT BJT's in a 30W design.


Cheers,
Glen
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2007, 06:26 PM   #145
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sophisticated amplifiers

Quote:
Originally posted by estuart


Hi Bob,

I made a small mistake. 7ppm refers to a slightly different version of your amp, i.e. 2 pair of MOSFETs (they were superimposed on each other, so I overlooked it). Furthermore, the main power supply was +/- 40V in stead of 35V and Po was 85W in stead of 50W.

Here are more correct figures, although with 2SK1530/2SJ201 in stead of IRFxxx:
THD @ 20kHz and a measuring bandwidth of 200kHz
Po = 0.5W -> 1.45ppm
Po = 5W -> 4.16ppm
Po = 50W -> 6.24ppm
As you can see, my simulator is quite in his element when sniffing at your amp.

Cheers, Edmond

Nice simulation job! The changes you mentioned should not make a really big change in the behvior of the amplifier, so these simulations should be reasonably relevant.

Where did you get the SPICE models for the 2sk1530 and the 2sj201. If you can, please email me a copy of them at bob@cordellaudio.com.

Thanks,
Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2007, 01:54 AM   #146
lineup is offline lineup  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
lineup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the north
Arrow GOODWILL, Good Name, Flags - symbols of your Activity

Quote:
Originally posted by Nelson Pass

I only recall that the Harris and Fairchild had a flat transconductance
across the audio band - I failed to note the absolute values.
------------------
I conclude that we are probably looking at a drop off from spec.


Nelson & Bob ( what a team!work )

In this proposed HEXFET amp output Class A of Bob (5 parallel MOS complementary),
which actual devices are everybody using.
To produce these test records?

Nelson says IRF9xxx ... is this the usual IRF9610 ??
... I do not see any other actual transistors

... besides Bob asking to get SPICE of 2sk1530 and the 2sj201, in his private Email


Why not publish SPICE Model
for all members of www.diyaudio.com

I usually have put my models inside a
<Quote>
spice model
spice modle
</Quote>
this is what we other do on regular basis
what is the hook here - Me Lineup, see no hook ...

Hope to get a few answers to inform me better.

Thanks & Regards to Our masters, sharing their 'in dept discussion'
lineup - stands for, I hope, Good-Will & Frank-ness


- out with it, in the open
- the only thing the will hold, in the long run
- is to be as open as you can
- with what knowledge you have earned



------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX A.
Basic Lesson #1 of Marketing Symbols & Good will.

The Actual Bottomline here is
Good Public Relations - to all diy audio people of this world.
From Canada in west - to Shanghai, Tokyo & Dehli in the east.

A good NAME, Your good will shown = GOODWILL, is better than money.
A bad name ( BadWill, will not give good money, in the long run.


You may have heard about the value of Brand, Trademark & Logos
.. and what they can represent.


Name, your LABEL, It is the Flag of your Activity ...
'lineup' it stands for something, represents a whole bunch of matters,
like Union Jack & Star's & Stripes & The NaziFlag
... it can for people be something positive / negative

... But !!!
This is NOT a static Value !!!!!!!

... it changes dependent on What the people using this Trademark
are up to and are actually doing/saying.

It is the same with symbols like World trade Center & Statue Of Liberty.
They can represent different values and these values
as seen from a perspective of The total world's populations
can change, rather quickly, at times.

The Naziflag was actually first a symbol of success.
It was admired by many, not only Germans,
until things began to unfold.
----------------------

Nelson Pass Labs - this makes people associate.
Today, it represents HIGH Quality, Craftsmanship and great Positives to most all DiyAudio Community.
And I forsee no change at all in this specific case

----------------------

It is like with Money.
There can be an Inflation or Reflation of value.
If Nelson would start massproduction of cheap and low quality audio amps,
you should soon, as a few years passed by, see a change in people minds.

.... You better believe me.
I tell no lies & I do no unnecessary sweet talk here.
__________________
lineup
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2007, 08:44 AM   #147
diyAudio Member
 
Edmond Stuart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sophisticated amplifiers

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Cordell
Nice simulation job! The changes you mentioned should not make a really big change in the behvior of the amplifier, so these simulations should be reasonably relevant.

Where did you get the SPICE models for the 2sk1530 and the 2sj201. If you can, please email me a copy of them at bob@cordellaudio.com.

Thanks,
Bob
Thanks Bob.

The models are home brew and running only under Micro-Cap V8. They are partly based on the BSIM3 model (level 8) and partly on a couple of diodes representing Cgd and Cds.
Which simulator you are using? If it's LT-Spice for example, I'm afraid my models are of no use to you.
Please, let me know.


Cheers, Edmond.
__________________
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht, zal meer dan lijf en
goed verliezen dan dooft het licht…(H.M. van Randwijk)
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th June 2007, 12:24 PM   #148
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sophisticated amplifiers

Quote:
Originally posted by estuart


Thanks Bob.

The models are home brew and running only under Micro-Cap V8. They are partly based on the BSIM3 model (level 8) and partly on a couple of diodes representing Cgd and Cds.
Which simulator you are using? If it's LT-Spice for example, I'm afraid my models are of no use to you.
Please, let me know.


Cheers, Edmond.

Hi Edmond,

Thanks. Yes, I use LTSPICE. Oh, well...

Cheers,
Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 09:38 PM   #149
andy_c is offline andy_c  United States
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: sophisticated amplifiers

Quote:
Originally posted by estuart
The models are home brew and running only under Micro-Cap V8. They are partly based on the BSIM3 model (level 8) and partly on a couple of diodes representing Cgd and Cds.
Which simulator you are using? If it's LT-Spice for example, I'm afraid my models are of no use to you.
Hi Edmond,

LTSpice supports BSIM3 level 8. If your model is just a subcircuit containing a BSIM3 model combined with two diodes as you say, it should be able to be adapted to LTSpice quite easily. All that's needed are text files with the BSIM3 and diode parameters and of course, knowing which diode is which.

If you have these, I could hook them up to an LTSpice symbol file (.asy) so the symbol representing the device would be draggable onto the schematic and use the appropriate subcircuit automatically.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th June 2007, 08:24 AM   #150
diyAudio Member
 
Edmond Stuart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Quote:
Originally posted by andy_c
[snip]
In an email, Edmond mentioned that the Cgs values appeared to be low. I had a cursory look at them and this does appear to be the case.
[snip]
Hi Andy,

Meanwhile, I had a closer look at some (old) test circuits and the CGS cap between node 3 and 5 is NOT the real input capacitance, rather a correction term to make Ciss at Vds=30V exactly equal to the value in the data sheet. The bulk of Ciss is (apparently) derived from the geometric parameters of the BSIM3 model.
Anyhow, I think it's wise to make some LT-Spice test circuits too, and check if the capacitances are in accordance with the data sheet.

Cheers, Edmond
__________________
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht, zal meer dan lijf en
goed verliezen dan dooft het licht…(H.M. van Randwijk)
  Reply With Quote

Reply


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
Need help with Spice simulation overmind Everything Else 4 23rd December 2002 05:58 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:36 PM.


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