Parallel output with/without matched devices
 User Name Stay logged in? Password
 Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki 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
panson_hk
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Aug 2005
Parallel output with/without matched devices

I am running simulation to evaluate distortion structure of a push-pull emitter follower stage. It has four-pair devices in parallel. In order to simulate unmatched pairs, I have one circuit having different NPN devices: NJL3281, MJL21194, MJE340 and 2N2055. All PNP are NJL1302. Simulation results show that perfectly matched output THD is slightly higher than that of unmatched output. On the other hand, unmatched output has more energy locating at higher order harmonics.

Vbe of different NPN is slightly difference. Hence, we have cross-over distortion of each NPN/PNP arm difference slightly. Will it lead to some sort of cancellation?

Real circuit shows similar results?

Figures: LTspice schematic and FFT of V(out1) matched, V(out2) unmatched.
Attached Images
 match vs unmatch output.JPG (182.1 KB, 375 views) match vs unmatch output FFT.JPG (111.9 KB, 360 views)

 8th June 2010, 09:15 AM #2 AndrewT   R.I.P.   Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Scottish Borders interesting. I will be following you and the ensuing discussion. __________________ regards Andrew T.
panson_hk
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Aug 2005
This simulation compares single-pair output to four-pair output. There are two cases for the four-pair output: all identical NPN and unmatched NPN as in the previous example.

Single-pair THD = 0.133%
Four-pair (matched) THD = 0.115%
Four-pair (unmatched) THD = 0.0264%

Does the result make sense?

Spice schematic is shown in the picture. FFT shows single-pair and unmatched four-pair output.
Attached Images
 output EF single vs multiple.JPG (162.7 KB, 292 views) match vs unmatch output FFT.JPG (111.9 KB, 276 views)

panson_hk
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Aug 2005
Base stopper resistors are added to the above circuit. One simulation is for all base resistors equal to 10 R. One simulation is for different stopper values for the four NPNs. All NPN/PNP are identical (perfectly matched).

single-pair, 10 R stopper: THD (4R) = 0.66 %, THD (8R) = 0.262 %
four-pair, 10 R stopper: THD (4R) = 0.236 %, THD (8R) = 0.131 %
four-pair, 10R, 15R, 20R, 12R stopper for NPNs: THD (4R) = 0.2033%, THD (8R) = 0.118 %

Different stopper value cause each NPN passing different bias current.

Is it a valid method to simulate unmatched pairs? Does the simulation make sense? Does matching not improve but degrade overall linearity?!!!
Attached Images
 output EF single vs multiple with stopper.JPG (156.3 KB, 245 views)

AndrewT
R.I.P.

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
Quote:
 Originally Posted by panson_hk Different stopper value cause each NPN passing different bias current.
Yes, and different output current sharing.

The stopper subtracts Vrs from Vbe multiplier and the remainder is applied as output Vbe. a very small change in output Vbe will give rise to very different current sharing.
I match base stoppers and match emitter resistors as well as match output devices. Other wise there would be no point in doing any matching.

That's why I want to see discussion of your sim predictions.
__________________
regards Andrew T.

 9th June 2010, 12:01 PM #6 panson_hk   diyAudio Member     Join Date: Aug 2005 How tight you match the stopper and Re? Do you think a curve trace helpful in transistor matching? Last edited by panson_hk; 9th June 2010 at 12:05 PM.
 9th June 2010, 12:26 PM #7 AndrewT   R.I.P.   Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Scottish Borders base stopper, if fitted, and Re <=0.5% I clamp the two outputs together with a strip of aluminium between. join the bases and apply a Vbe until Ic matches the operational current. This only sets the Vbe to Ic match. You also need an hFE match at operating Ic. This time you add a pair of base stoppers and apply the V through them to turn on the output devices. Compare voltage across the base stoppers to find hFE matches. You can do these tests in either order after rough sorting into similar parameter groups. I tend to do the base stopper resistor measurements first. When I have pairs that look as likely matches I short out the stoppers and adjust the Ic back down to operating IC. Using a 317 as CCS set to 2times operating current does this adjustment automatically. The next stage would be to alter the 317 CCS current and see if your selected pair match over a range of operating currents. This would be equivalent to using a curve tracer. I do not do this Ic sweep with output devices. I reserve this level of matching to LTPs only. __________________ regards Andrew T. Last edited by AndrewT; 9th June 2010 at 12:33 PM.
 9th June 2010, 03:09 PM #8 panson_hk   diyAudio Member     Join Date: Aug 2005 Thank you Andrew. Beside current sharing, have you seen any performance gain by matching these components? Last edited by panson_hk; 9th June 2010 at 03:31 PM.
 9th June 2010, 06:04 PM #9 h_a   diyAudio Member     Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Graz, Austria Honestly, I think your findings do not make much sense. There is no distortion cancellation mechanism at work that somehow does not work for matched pairs. It's a pity I can't have a closer look at this right now to help you find the cause. Matching in output pairs is only done to ensure all devices reliably turn on and as VBE variations are tiny compared to VGS of mosfets, it's commonly done only for mosfets. For current sharing, the usual degeneration does the job. All the best, Hannes
 9th June 2010, 10:34 PM #10 nigelwright7557   diyAudio Member     Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Carlisle, England I suspect a lot of the nastys associated with unmatched transistors expected are got rid of by feedback and emitter/source resistors. I have built numerous amps and never bothered matching MOSFET's and they have all worked and sounded fine. __________________ PCBCAD51 pcb design software. 2018 version out now with lower prices >> http://www.murtonpikesystems.co.uk

 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 Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Site     Site Announcements     Forum Problems Amplifiers     Solid State     Pass Labs     Tubes / Valves     Chip Amps     Class D     Power Supplies     Headphone Systems Source & Line     Analogue Source     Analog Line Level     Digital Source     Digital Line Level     PC Based Loudspeakers     Multi-Way     Full Range     Subwoofers     Planars & Exotics Live Sound     PA Systems     Instruments and Amps Design & Build     Parts     Equipment & Tools     Construction Tips     Software Tools General Interest     Car Audio     diyAudio.com Articles     Music     Everything Else Member Areas     Introductions     The Lounge     Clubs & Events     In Memoriam The Moving Image Commercial Sector     Swap Meet     Group Buys     The diyAudio Store     Vendor Forums         Vendor's Bazaar         Sonic Craft         Apex Jr         Audio Sector         Acoustic Fun         Chipamp         DIY HiFi Supply         Elekit         Elektor         Mains Cables R Us         Parts Connexion         Planet 10 hifi         Quanghao Audio Design         Siliconray Online Electronics Store         Tubelab     Manufacturers         AKSA         Audio Poutine         Musicaltech         Holton Precision Audio         CSS         Dx Classic Amplifiers         exaDevices         Feastrex         GedLee         Head 'n' HiFi - Walter         Heatsink USA         miniDSP         SITO Audio         Twin Audio         Twisted Pear         Wild Burro Audio

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post cloud Pass Labs 11 10th November 2008 11:37 PM Mr Evil Class D 42 12th January 2005 02:18 PM Cephas Pass Labs 4 10th May 2002 03:25 AM yasalam Pass Labs 2 27th March 2002 03:34 AM FBJ Pass Labs 14 19th March 2002 06:18 AM

 New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 AM.