Query about this pre-amp schema - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Solid State

Solid State Talk all about solid state amplification.

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 5th February 2003, 10:49 AM   #1
Helix is offline Helix  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Helix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Default Query about this pre-amp schema

I was just browsing and came across this pre-amp project:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/MaikHerzog/...eamp_text.html

I was wondering if anyone knew why this guy decided to:

A) Have the first stage as a buffer, then the second stage with gain. I thought if you have the first stage as gain, then the second stage as a buffer you will achieve a lower output noise. So why has he done it in this way?

B) In the first stage (buffer) he uses two separate current sinks and says that they must be matched very closely. Why not use a current mirror?

C) In the second (gain) stage, he ditches the idea of using two current sinks and just has a single one, with twice the current. What was wrong with two current sinks, and if a single one is better, why not do that to the first stage.

If anyone could explain. I would be most grateful!

Thanks

TED
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2003, 11:33 AM   #2
halojoy is offline halojoy  Sweden
On Hiatus
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Question maik - premamplifier

maik is a member here at forum
maik profile

Best would be if he could comment himself.
His latest post was 15 november.

halo - waits for maik
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2003, 11:38 AM   #3
Helix is offline Helix  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Helix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Ah i didn't know that! thanks HaloJoy
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2003, 04:44 PM   #4
Helix is offline Helix  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Helix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Jeez, i guess nobody has any (thoughts) on this
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2003, 07:44 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Default query

Well, I think many have thoughts about this, but it is quite polite to let the designer say his thing. Why didn't the poster ask him?

Its like asking, hey guys, tell me, why did Nelson use 120 Ohms for R6. Ask Nelson!

Jan Didden
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2003, 07:45 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
traderbam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
It isn't always easy to figure out why people have been inconsistent. It may be they have a theory and it may be they don't know why but are making a choice based on someone elses design.

A) Have the first stage as a buffer
No idea.

B)/C) Why not use a current mirror?
I would have used a common CCS, as is used in the 2nd stage. It may be that he finds it easier to trim the currents when there are separate sources. But this would be equally true for the 2nd stage. I don't know.

The psu design, using FET followers, does not add to my confidence that this designer is using a well informed methodology. Perhaps he can explain it and put me right.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2003, 08:56 PM   #7
Helix is offline Helix  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Helix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Default Re: query

Quote:
Originally posted by janneman
Well, I think many have thoughts about this, but it is quite polite to let the designer say his thing. Why didn't the poster ask him?

Its like asking, hey guys, tell me, why did Nelson use 120 Ohms for R6. Ask Nelson!

Jan Didden
Yes, I know that Jan, I just didn't realize that the author is a member of this forum; the sensible thing would be to put the authors name in the title, but it's too late for that now.


Quote:
Originally posted by traderbam
It isn't always easy to figure out why people have been inconsistent. It may be they have a theory and it may be they don't know why but are making a choice based on someone elses design.

A) Have the first stage as a buffer
No idea.

B)/C) Why not use a current mirror?
I would have used a common CCS, as is used in the 2nd stage. It may be that he finds it easier to trim the currents when there are separate sources. But this would be equally true for the 2nd stage. I don't know.

The psu design, using FET followers, does not add to my confidence that this designer is using a well informed methodology. Perhaps he can explain it and put me right.
Isn't the PSU design from Pass Aleph L pre-amp
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2003, 09:52 PM   #8
maik is offline maik  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Hi Helix,

let me try to anser your questions.

1) I used the first stage as buffer and the second for
the gain because in some experiments I found out,
that I like it more to get the gain from the power
MOS transistors and not from the dual-j-fet I use
in the first stage. Means, it just sounds better to
my ears to have it his way.


2) Using a current mirror in the first stage is possible
but make the stage more complicated. With this preamp
design I followed somehow the road of Nelson Pass to
make the gain stages as simple as possible. Have you
checked if the differential input stage will still provide a
matched balanced output from a single ended input if
you use a current mirror? That was also one goal of
the circuit design, to get a very well matched balanced
output from single ended inputs.

3) Again the decision for a single current source in the
second gain stage was taken by listening experiment.
I found that the configuration with a single current source
results in the same quality of sound compared to two
current sources but it is the more simple circuit (no matching...).

I really think, that this preamp sounds very good and the
volume control works great. Nevertheless I have some more
ideas to further improve the volume control but so less
time to do all the experiments and work
Please see the description on my homepage as a starting
point for your own ideas and let us know what you
work on.

Regards,

Maik
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2003, 11:04 AM   #9
Helix is offline Helix  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Helix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Maik,
Thank you very much for you reply, i now understand your choices.
It looks a very nice set-up.
  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
Sony CDP 670 - el.schema dejanm Digital Source 7 25th February 2009 08:59 AM
Schema for Yamaha cdx-810 Aperobik Digital Source 2 22nd August 2008 09:11 PM
My SMPS schema jake83 Power Supplies 11 4th March 2007 04:26 AM
Mc 275 CE schema spoke Tubes / Valves 5 29th October 2005 01:35 PM
Schema NAD 310 fantomas Solid State 4 13th September 2005 06:50 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23 AM.


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