Well because open-loop gain decreases with frequency after the corner, the high-order harmonics are not corrected as much as the fundamental. To me this is a very good reason for open-loop BW to cover the audio range. Unless perhaps your feedback loop is so powerful that CMRR or something else dominates distortion.
Also, if you have a low open-loop BW, doesn't the amp turn into something of an integrator? It ends up making gradual adjustments for some mS after any signal. This is essentially stored energy dissipating, and if RF turns your nonlinear semiconductors into mixers, you can end up with a shifting operating point. This is one distinct advantage to high open-loop BW.
Also, if you have a low open-loop BW, doesn't the amp turn into something of an integrator? It ends up making gradual adjustments for some mS after any signal. This is essentially stored energy dissipating, and if RF turns your nonlinear semiconductors into mixers, you can end up with a shifting operating point. This is one distinct advantage to high open-loop BW.
The problem is that when you extend the OL BW, you will find that the OL gain that is available for FB does not increase. With a given amp, you can only extend the BW by lowering the low freq OL gain!
So you end up with the same FB correction factor at high frequencies as before, but now you've also lowered the lower freq FB correction to the high freq one. A big step backwards!
jan
Often you do not need so much feedback to gain reasonable distortion figures, and BW can be extended by using things other than plain old Miller compensation. Symasym is a good example!
If there is an amp where high OL gain won't cause the need for massive compensation, and therefore lots of intermodulation with RF signals, then I guess there is not much stopping you from maxing out OL gain. What concerns me is the loading of the input stage; too much will cause it to become an RF mixer. VAS Miller compensation is particularly bad at this.
If there is an amp where high OL gain won't cause the need for massive compensation, and therefore lots of intermodulation with RF signals, then I guess there is not much stopping you from maxing out OL gain. What concerns me is the loading of the input stage; too much will cause it to become an RF mixer. VAS Miller compensation is particularly bad at this.
I have to go back and re-read again and again. Each time something else sinks in.
Your assumption is based upon slugging the slowest pole
to make it dominant. If you instead speed up (neutralize
Miller of) other poles, until only one is left: The dominant
corner can be above audio, and stable, without reducing
the open loop audio gain plateau.
Neutralization actually doubles capacitance, collector to base.
Since you must add equal Miller cap to an opposite collector.
But the cap voltage divider eliminates moving effects, so is
not multiplied by voltage gain. Multiplication usually much
worse than double, can be avoided...
The corner frequency goes up and phase shift goes down.
What you would expect of a double unboosted capacitance.
Getting rid that boost is pure fired magic...
Reducing open phase shift does not require reducing gain.
Yes, the "gain bandwidth product" has thus been improved.
Last edited:
Sure, give it a try! If you can increase the OL gain at say 20kHz you make really progress.....
jan
I am getting about half of all this. Guess that's progress. Synasym does have some features that are interesting. ( cap in driver stage I have not seen before) At least two references I have suggest the poles on the output of the VAS to be not the best. I found ( was lead by the nose to) the big issue it caused in my DH-120 with highly asymmetric rise and fall. However my RB 951 uses the same method. Is this really a matter of sufficient current?
I will punch all this into spice so I can pay and see the direction changes make. I am getting a bit lost on the exact placement of parts for the canceling miller in the last few posts.
On " a number of different loads". Yup, good advice. What I have not seen is any set of suggested loads, easy to Apogee. I have been just using a 4 or 8 Ohm resistor and 1u cap. No idea what a ribbon transformer would do if I ever try some of them.
It would be quite a project but I guess I could take the plots from WT-2 for several of my speakers and see if I could come up with a network that has something like that. It would be limited to the pretty easy loads of my speakers. ( at least I try to build them so)
I take heed that my idea of just measuring phase across the input is not really valid. Experience with silicon fuses reinforces that. I am not completely sure why beyond the chicken and the egg problem.
With servo systems, one can make it unstable and force it into submission. That tends to make a very fast responding system. Or, one can make it as good as you can without the feedback and then just nudge it a bit. Failure modes differ for sure. Anyway, I see elements of both directions in amp feedback and compensation. Is there any relation with one or the other and sound? Preferences?
By "various loads", I mean different size capacitors, from 1nF up to 1uF. No need for a load resistor, just hang a capacitor on the output and see if it oscillates. That is as diverse a test as I have needed so far. Generally inductive and capacitive loads are not a problem, and if they are it will show up in the capacitor test anyway.
What are your objectives for compensation? Slew rate? Distortion? Bandwidth? EMI immunity? How do you really tell when one scheme is better than another?
What are your objectives for compensation? Slew rate? Distortion? Bandwidth? EMI immunity? How do you really tell when one scheme is better than another?
kean,
My objectives are mostly learning. If at some time it leads me to why my Rotels pass my wife's super critical hearing and almost nothing else does, all the better. I just got fascinated with amp design and have been getting a crash course ( much thanks to many forum members) in the basics. While repairing my baby Hafler, I went through quite a bit of effort to get it stable with the Exicons instead of the Hitachies. Among other things, I am learning LTSpice and how to use it to gauge as best we can reality.
As far as what is in my system I am listening to, I have a sufficient supply of old Rotels and Parasounds. I am tempted to pick up a Forte or Nak Pa5 just to hear the results of Mr. Pass's affordable efforts. Different approach than EB, JC, DS, BC and others.
Which parameter is most important? Well that does seem to be the big question. We have been having quite a conversation over in the lounge about it. I learned a bit over in the solid state forum about ccs's. I have some suspicions, but in no way am I going to second guess the likes of many members here who have made a living at it for 50 years.
I suspect: The problem my wife hears is actually in the tweeter. My guess in high order distortions exciting breakup and resonance issues in the tweeters. I judge the Rotels to have less detail, say compared to one of my Parasounds or Haflers. If you look at the profile of the distortion, the Rotels fall off where the others seem to remain level relative to the background noise. The fix is then best done with better tweeters. ( Excel or Revelator, not decided yet) Very aggressive notch filters in the tweeter could also be the correct answer. If I can quit playing with amps, I can get back to my speakers and find out.
I suspect: consistency/linearity to be more important than some absolutes, like in a ccs for the IPS. A fast JFTE is consistent across the AF band, where a cascode is stiffer, but rapidly changes impedance above 10K. I plan on testing this by ear. Resistor, Jfet, and JFET cascode.
I suspect: multiple outputs to be superior to single higher power ones.
I suspect: some of the extremes in IPS design are not audible in a system as the output is an order of magnitude worse.
I suspect: why I never liked the passive preamp I built was I was using a BJT input power amp and it was too load sensitive. Evidence from the teaching by Mr. Curl and others as well as my Hafler does sound better with the Nak CA5 I bought than a passive. Hard to point to, just "better" If you have ever judged vintage cars, sometimes one is just better. You can't point out why, can't point a flaw on others, just better.
I suspect: symmetry in the square wave to be far more important than the absolute slew rate.
I suspect: More local feedback to be better than more global feedback, IF the output stage is included somewhere and is better to start with. I am not at all adverse to feedback. I just have some sneaking suspicions about a day late and dollar short. Probably totally unfounded.
I suspect: we are not measuring the right things. We need measurements that are more about dynamics, graceful recovery, and tolerance. Not the steady state easy to print in adds numbers. Otherwise the .0000 something amps would always sound better. Not to my ears.
I suspect: the transistors themselves have a much bigger impact than is obvious. They are even more variable than a cap, and caps are a disaster.
I KNOW: Darn near every transistor I see or look up I can't get.
I have observed: a difference in how a driver starts from rest with a pure pulse of several cycles in how with some amps the cone lags the input more than others until it catches up in a couple of cycles. I can not correlate it to any amp spec; DF, power, BW. No match. I believe this to be important.
My objectives are mostly learning. If at some time it leads me to why my Rotels pass my wife's super critical hearing and almost nothing else does, all the better. I just got fascinated with amp design and have been getting a crash course ( much thanks to many forum members) in the basics. While repairing my baby Hafler, I went through quite a bit of effort to get it stable with the Exicons instead of the Hitachies. Among other things, I am learning LTSpice and how to use it to gauge as best we can reality.
As far as what is in my system I am listening to, I have a sufficient supply of old Rotels and Parasounds. I am tempted to pick up a Forte or Nak Pa5 just to hear the results of Mr. Pass's affordable efforts. Different approach than EB, JC, DS, BC and others.
Which parameter is most important? Well that does seem to be the big question. We have been having quite a conversation over in the lounge about it. I learned a bit over in the solid state forum about ccs's. I have some suspicions, but in no way am I going to second guess the likes of many members here who have made a living at it for 50 years.
I suspect: The problem my wife hears is actually in the tweeter. My guess in high order distortions exciting breakup and resonance issues in the tweeters. I judge the Rotels to have less detail, say compared to one of my Parasounds or Haflers. If you look at the profile of the distortion, the Rotels fall off where the others seem to remain level relative to the background noise. The fix is then best done with better tweeters. ( Excel or Revelator, not decided yet) Very aggressive notch filters in the tweeter could also be the correct answer. If I can quit playing with amps, I can get back to my speakers and find out.
I suspect: consistency/linearity to be more important than some absolutes, like in a ccs for the IPS. A fast JFTE is consistent across the AF band, where a cascode is stiffer, but rapidly changes impedance above 10K. I plan on testing this by ear. Resistor, Jfet, and JFET cascode.
I suspect: multiple outputs to be superior to single higher power ones.
I suspect: some of the extremes in IPS design are not audible in a system as the output is an order of magnitude worse.
I suspect: why I never liked the passive preamp I built was I was using a BJT input power amp and it was too load sensitive. Evidence from the teaching by Mr. Curl and others as well as my Hafler does sound better with the Nak CA5 I bought than a passive. Hard to point to, just "better" If you have ever judged vintage cars, sometimes one is just better. You can't point out why, can't point a flaw on others, just better.
I suspect: symmetry in the square wave to be far more important than the absolute slew rate.
I suspect: More local feedback to be better than more global feedback, IF the output stage is included somewhere and is better to start with. I am not at all adverse to feedback. I just have some sneaking suspicions about a day late and dollar short. Probably totally unfounded.
I suspect: we are not measuring the right things. We need measurements that are more about dynamics, graceful recovery, and tolerance. Not the steady state easy to print in adds numbers. Otherwise the .0000 something amps would always sound better. Not to my ears.
I suspect: the transistors themselves have a much bigger impact than is obvious. They are even more variable than a cap, and caps are a disaster.
I KNOW: Darn near every transistor I see or look up I can't get.
I have observed: a difference in how a driver starts from rest with a pure pulse of several cycles in how with some amps the cone lags the input more than others until it catches up in a couple of cycles. I can not correlate it to any amp spec; DF, power, BW. No match. I believe this to be important.
Active is an easy go, as I have saved up extra small Rotels. I do need to make a better crossover. I am still using a cheap Bheringer. When I remember AMT's it was a long time ago. It may be worth thinking about as they do work in a totally different manner. I have not been happy with any ribbon drivers I have heard. I'll look into them a bit. Sometimes though, the mainstream remains mainstream for a reason.
Calling all SPICE gurus! I am trying to build some models of some "sustained beta", high fT (for the voltage/current rating) transistors and I'm having issues getting hFE vs Ic and fT vs Ic to match SPICE vs reality. If you can, please see this thread, from post #47 onwards. Thanks in advance!
odd plotting tool for .measure data
takes tables of data from the output log, generated by .measure commands
in examples\Educational\FRA folder
inscrutable directions - but I got it to work
could be an approach to answer David's interest in Nichols plotting?
takes tables of data from the output log, generated by .measure commands
in examples\Educational\FRA folder
inscrutable directions - but I got it to work
could be an approach to answer David's interest in Nichols plotting?
Last edited:
Hi Harry,
I assume you are talking about BJT power transistors, perhaps like the ThermalTraks. When I did the models for my power transistors, this was the biggest problem. I suspect that the the ordinary SPICE models do not have enough parameters, or do not adequately accomodate, hfe and ft very well in the high current beta-droop region. I may have said something about that in the SPICE modeling chapter in my book.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob,
Thank you for your message. The models I was working on were for the 2SA1930 and 2SC5171 driver transistors, and the D44H11 and D45H11 low-voltage (60 V) driver/output transistors.
You can be forgiven for forgetting this, given how long is the thread about your book, but we have already discussed this (note that the post you quoted above was from almost one year ago). Please see post numbers 2434, 2435 and 2436 in your Power Amplifier Book thread.
Your book served as an excellent introduction to spice modelling and I wouldn't have got anywhere without it. I also learned a lot from Andy_C's posts. I believe using some advanced parameters a better fit could be achieved, but I ran out of time. As long as you keep the operating conditions of the transistors away from the problem areas, the models that I arrived at match data-sheet and other measured parameters very closely.
Do you have a document where you keep track of feedback on your book and ideas for the second edition? I had hoped that some of the discussion we had about transistor modelling would make its way into such a document assuming that it exists.
Hi Harry,
Yes, I do have a whole folder on feedback for the second edition and have watched many of the threads for good ideas, both in terms of what people would like to see added and expanded upon, and in terms of things I see discussed on the threads that should be covered. On top of all else, I greatly appreciate feedback from folks like you who discover errors in the book.
Cheers,
Bob
Mr. Cordell, if I may be permitted to remind you to search for your EKV MOSFET models ... Yours most humbly & respectfully .. grovel grovel
Hi kgrlee,
Sorry I have been slow on this. Just got back from vacation and catching up, with a very tight week ahead. I'll try to see if I can get them out next week. I looked for and found the models, but have gotten myself confused about how/whether they are properly/reasonably treating Cgs and Cgd. I have to go back and retrace some steps to check that out. To some extent, it may be a matter of me trying to figure out where I left them. I'm pretty sure the DC and detailed EKV model stuff is right, however. I'll try to get back to it next week and see what I can do. Guess I'll have to go back and re-read some of my book to catch back up
My apologies for the delay.Cheers,
Bob