
Home  Forums  Rules  Articles  diyAudio Store  Gallery  Wiki  Blogs  Register  Donations  FAQ  Calendar  Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read  Search 
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 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
27th June 2008, 03:47 AM  #1 
diyAudio Member

Idea for linearizing a cascoded VAS
I have (and will) keep working on a class A ccsloaded Sziklai output stage, and doing so i found that the nonlinear capacitance of the gate worked in my favour as it modified the ammount of compensation, making it higher when the transconductance was higher and lowering it when the transconductance (and so OLG) was lower.
The idea i got from this, and that will seem grotesque to everybody not actually doing the maths, is that a cascoded vas could be made extraordinarily linear by using a varicap diode as compensation capacitor. It would work the following way: As the input current grows the transconductance of the VAS grows, so the amount of voltage increase needed at Cdom to produce a certain current increase becomes lower (i'm assuming that this happens after the pole and that the vas is working as an integrator). Assuming that the varicap behaves exponentially, the current needed to produce a voltage increase at the vas would go higher the same way the transconductance does, so the two effects would cancel and the whole system will be closer to a perfect integrator. As the terms appear in exponential form, a clever cascoding that made the voltage at the varicap change by the correct amount would allow to compensate for the effect squared, and this will fulminate also the distortion due to the exponential transconductance at the input stage, giving "megalinearity". Has anyone tryed something like this, or knows a technical reason that discourages it? Please avoid the Cdom must be linear because you want things linear because it's easy to prove on paper that the nonlinear cap makes the overall system more linear. 
27th June 2008, 10:22 AM  #2 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2005

Interresting enough.. I think my brain have to process this for a while then I'll go back and see .. hmm actually I got an idea while reading this as it do contain some good info.. :D thx..
(hmm but spontaneously I'd like to make the problem go away in some other way)
__________________
http://dsl.mine.nu (very enironmental friendly 5watt damn small linux server made from a compaq t1010 terminal).. 
27th June 2008, 11:48 AM  #3  
diyAudio Member

Quote:
Error cancelation is refered by Douglas Shelf as attacking the symptoms instead of the problem. While this is true up to a certain point, the transconductance of a bjt is exponential by nature and there is little to do about it. Biasing it high enough to make it look linear is trying to hide the problem, not solving it. Thanks for your interest and i'm happy my post has somehow been useful. 

27th June 2008, 03:02 PM  #4 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..

once you've chosen your amplifying device Dr Ed Cherry has spelled out several times 3 ways to linearize a gain stage:
Increase the bias to signal ratio  use less of the nonlinear gain curve Cancellation – really only useful with diff pair and pushpull emitter followers, and even order distortions Negative Feedback – local feedback as in degeneration, emitter/source followers or larger feedback loops including more gain stages what is being discussed here appears to be a form of cancellation by using a additional nonlinear device, cancellation includes "predistortion" as well as even order cancellations of diff pairs or complementary stages  and only works as well as the nonlinear parts are well known and fully predictable/stable over the operating range and with unmeasured environmental or loading changes using ideas from Cherry's list isn't cheating since as far as I know they encompass all the ways we know that work but please feel free to add new concepts to Cherry's list, it would be a considerable service to electronic engineering 
27th June 2008, 03:34 PM  #5  
Account disabled at member's request
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto

Quote:
I wouldn't build such an amp, though. 

27th June 2008, 04:23 PM  #6 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..

OK "emitter" is too specific for you?
we can add source followers to the list of distortion cancellation schemes  or even just "complementary" stages but complementary stages are more limited in that different carrier mobility and/or N vs P doped Si conductivity make it impossible to make completely complementary devices Cherry goes on to point out that distortion cancellation schemes usually see a practical limit of <30 dB cancellation while at audio frequencies feedback can achieve many more orders of magnitude improvement as an example jfet diff pairs with nominal "square law" gm should be the most linear SS stage  until you compare them to BJT diff pairs with emitter degeneration to give the same gm as the fets  then bipolar diff pairs are more linear 
27th June 2008, 05:12 PM  #7 
diyAudio Member

I don't know where this falls, but if you vary the tail current of an LTP in just the right relationship to the differential input you can generate a flat region around zero and preserve low noise, which is difficult with Schmook's offset diffpairs. We have a patent (AD8099). I suppose one could quibble but I don't really want to get into the "is it feedback" argument.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed allimportant." 
27th June 2008, 05:33 PM  #8 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Warsaw

So you want a reverse biased varicap diode? How about zener voltage of a typical varicap?
Regards Adam 
27th June 2008, 05:33 PM  #9 
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..

Scott,
I haven't see that ADI circuit but as a guess varying tail current modulates gm so this would constitute a form of "gain scheduling" which I would mostly classify as distortion cancellation in control theory I think gain scheduling is equivalent to a "predistortion"/cancellation scheme where you have prior knowledge of the nonlinear device's transfer function/distortion and create a fixed compensating gain schedule ( preferably a smooth curve)  where the gains are switched/varied by another measured variable I agree that sometimes the influence of the “scheduling” variable may seem to include some aspects of negative feedback, we would have to be very careful about using the same assumptions/definitions/semantics to draw sharp distinctions nor is there any need to draw such distinctions to have a useful circuit  a useful circuit may well include both predistortion/cancellation aspects and negative feedback 
27th June 2008, 08:44 PM  #10 
diyAudio Member

I havn't seen a single reason why this should interfere with negative feedback, the amp will still have nfb and stability should be equal or even better. Compensation has to be made for the worst case transconductance, so a more linear design will be also more stable and leave more margin for feedback.

Thread Tools  Search this Thread 


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
cascoded Boz  gionag  Pass Labs  3  19th March 2008 08:08 PM 
Cascoded mufollower  jnb  Tubes / Valves  5  9th September 2007 10:28 PM 
Cascoded 6N6P  croccodillo  Tubes / Valves  5  29th June 2007 10:35 AM 
Cascoded ZV7  Fuling  Pass Labs  17  6th December 2006 03:26 PM 
Linearizing diodes in amp circuits.  Acoustic Absorb  Solid State  12  20th August 2006 06:50 PM 
New To Site?  Need Help? 