Lumba Ogir said:
Not very. The list is rather pointless anyway as wingnuts on a mission keep replying to your posts anyway; usually with the added satisfaction of posting accusatory fantasies in the knowledge that they’re not going to be rebutted.
There is a much better option. I’m leaving this thread now. You can let this thread live by expounding the evils of two-pole compensation along with comrade Stuart if you wish.
It is a current mirror with a beta enhancer which will mirror within a few nanoamps, my friend.
Page 7 , here .... http://kaflatooni.yasna.com/current_mirror_ref.pdf
OS
Hi
The schematic in post 33 is very simplified (ment for simulation only), so you should have a look at some of the other schematics to understand the circuit.
Q5 is a so called "helper" transistor. BTW: it should have been a resistor from the emitter of Q5 to Vcc, I guess Glen just forgot to put it there.
D3 and D4 are clamping diodes, forget about V6 and V7, they are just meant for simulation (see the other schematics in this thread)
Hope it helped
Cheers
The schematic in post 33 is very simplified (ment for simulation only), so you should have a look at some of the other schematics to understand the circuit.
Q5 is a so called "helper" transistor. BTW: it should have been a resistor from the emitter of Q5 to Vcc, I guess Glen just forgot to put it there.
D3 and D4 are clamping diodes, forget about V6 and V7, they are just meant for simulation (see the other schematics in this thread)
Hope it helped
Cheers
Thanks ostripper,
Simulations suggest that it clamps just as well without Q5 (replaced with a piece of wire), although D1 is now reverse biased typically 0.5V, depending upon the value of R5. Have you any reason to sugggest the circuit would not work as well without Q5?
Thanks stinius,
Simulations suggest that the current through Q5 looks ok without any additional resistor (presumably you meant in the collector, not the emitter?).
Simulations suggest that it clamps just as well without Q5 (replaced with a piece of wire), although D1 is now reverse biased typically 0.5V, depending upon the value of R5. Have you any reason to sugggest the circuit would not work as well without Q5?
Thanks stinius,
Simulations suggest that the current through Q5 looks ok without any additional resistor (presumably you meant in the collector, not the emitter?).
Almost as well. Q5 just improves the mirror a bit, hopefully improving DC offset a little, maybe reducing distortion a little...
The resistor Stinius suggested is to get some extra current flowing through Q5 to improve it's performance e.g. current gain and speed.
btw: D1 and D2 are to limit the voltage swing at the base of Q6.
biased Q5 gives the potential for some modest distortion cancellation by matching Q5, Q6 devices, operating points - any time you go with the current mirror you've already bought into compensating a 2nd order system so I'm not sure there is a problematic stability cost to Q5 inclusion
but there is some 20 dB of audio frequency V gain still "left on the table" by the circuit shown - with or without Q5
but there is some 20 dB of audio frequency V gain still "left on the table" by the circuit shown - with or without Q5
I don't know , but when I used the beta enhancer on the CM of my balanced VAS (symasym type VA) It nearly broke out in oscillation.
Upon investigation in the simulator the VAS as a whole achieved 6db more OLG.
and it's unity gain point advanced by a couple hundred Khz. Upon removing the 3' rd tranny and resistor , all was stable. ???
OS
you know... the symasym VAS (VA) , with its current mirror at the bottom. Standard stuff.
Ok.. picture..(below)
OS
Attachments
Please, come on!you know... the symasym VAS (VA) , with its current mirror at the bottom. Standard stuff.
Ok.. picture..(below)
OS
You were just describing something weird, that makes no sense at all. As I'm curious why it went wrong, in particular when it is not obvious (we all can learn from that), I need to know all the details, that is, a complete schematic.BTW, "standard stuff" don't oscillate with a slightly improved current mirror.
Weird indeed, but...
I'd expect the performance of the mirror in post 117 to be dismal without a cascode on Q11.
DC voltage on the collectors of Q10 and Q11 is badly mismatched and Q11 has full output voltage swing on it's collector. (Consider Early effect, Miller effect etc)
The 6dB increase in overall gain at HF is probably just the result of bringing the mirror from near death back to normal operation.
e.g. Having the helper transistor drive Q11's Miller capacitance is a big step forward.
I'd expect the performance of the mirror in post 117 to be dismal without a cascode on Q11.
DC voltage on the collectors of Q10 and Q11 is badly mismatched and Q11 has full output voltage swing on it's collector. (Consider Early effect, Miller effect etc)
The 6dB increase in overall gain at HF is probably just the result of bringing the mirror from near death back to normal operation.
e.g. Having the helper transistor drive Q11's Miller capacitance is a big step forward.
speculation?
I don't think that a (gross) Vce mismatch could explain a difference of 6dB in gain. But that 6dB itself makes me also suspicious.
>The 6dB increase in overall gain at HF is probably just the result of bringing the mirror from near death back to normal operation.
Exactly! This is precisely what you would expect if one of the branches of the VAS (Q7 respectively Q11) wakes up from an inactive state (i.e. behaves like CCS or so) to an active state.
I don't think that a (gross) Vce mismatch could explain a difference of 6dB in gain. But that 6dB itself makes me also suspicious.
>The 6dB increase in overall gain at HF is probably just the result of bringing the mirror from near death back to normal operation.
Exactly! This is precisely what you would expect if one of the branches of the VAS (Q7 respectively Q11) wakes up from an inactive state (i.e. behaves like CCS or so) to an active state.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.