I didn't mean to offend. And, I found that resistance between wiper and diode (diode current) was the other adjustment that I was searching for. YAY!!!
No problem, but you have to understand that derating indiscriminately at every component of the amp can only bring trouble.
Derating makes sense for heavily stressed components, typically OP devices.
In the case of D7, the working current is 1.5mA, and Imax is 300mA: that's already a 200x derating factor.
The maximum reverse voltage is 0V, and the Vmax is 30V: for voltage the derating factor is 30/0=∞.
Improving on that is ludicrous and can only cause problems
Ohm's law: for 1.5mA current, R21=Vtot/1.5, expressed in kilohm.
The DC voltage is a little under 1.4 times the AC voltage, thus R21=Vac(1.35/1.5)~=Vac*0.9
All that is approximate, a current comprised between 1 and 2mA is fine.
Joule's law: U=1.5+√(2*P*R)
For 75W/8Ω, that's 1.5+√(2*75*8)=36V (absolute minimum)
No resistor risk overheating, even at total supplies in excess of 120V.
The 250mW rating remains adequate in all cases, though I would advise a larger rating for R17, in the interest of linearity.
I have tested the idea of darlington and CFP inputs.
Darlington doesn't look promising: there is a notable degradation, whatever the configuration.
CFP is much more attractive, but is also more demanding on compensation.
The amp was stable with a simple plug-in replacement, but it was marginal, and I doubt the physical circuit could be made to actually work.
I redesigned the compensations, at least the differential ones: as I took care not to interfere with the bias loop, it should remain more or less OK.
With the redesign, the stability margin is huge, even better than the original Circlophone, and now exceeds 110°.
The improved loop gain has had a very favorable impact on the linearity, and the THD is now under 10ppm, with a remarkable profile, almost pure 2nd and 3rd, and negligible higher order.
The bias current is now well under 100nA, meaning source resistances of up to 100K are no problem.
The increased loop gain also means very high closed loop gains are achievable without loss of quality.
It just needs to be physically tested to confirm the good auspices.....
Darlington doesn't look promising: there is a notable degradation, whatever the configuration.
CFP is much more attractive, but is also more demanding on compensation.
The amp was stable with a simple plug-in replacement, but it was marginal, and I doubt the physical circuit could be made to actually work.
I redesigned the compensations, at least the differential ones: as I took care not to interfere with the bias loop, it should remain more or less OK.
With the redesign, the stability margin is huge, even better than the original Circlophone, and now exceeds 110°.
The improved loop gain has had a very favorable impact on the linearity, and the THD is now under 10ppm, with a remarkable profile, almost pure 2nd and 3rd, and negligible higher order.
The bias current is now well under 100nA, meaning source resistances of up to 100K are no problem.
The increased loop gain also means very high closed loop gains are achievable without loss of quality.
It just needs to be physically tested to confirm the good auspices.....
Attachments
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Though I mentiond that it would increase open loop gain,
you had already declared that removing R1 was unstable.
All it would have taken to be CFP...
Input was already in CFP with Q5 Q6. You have now insert
new transistors that also Darlington with Q5 Q6. Drawing
them over by the input pair doesn't change this ambiguity.
CFDCFCFP with a sideways loop back to the beginning....
Add more stages toward infinite open loop gain, soon you
will have another fine oscillator to beat in stereo with mine.
I'm not saying it might not work, only that after you comp
the hell out of it, will it have improved anything?
you had already declared that removing R1 was unstable.
All it would have taken to be CFP...
Input was already in CFP with Q5 Q6. You have now insert
new transistors that also Darlington with Q5 Q6. Drawing
them over by the input pair doesn't change this ambiguity.
CFDCFCFP with a sideways loop back to the beginning....
Add more stages toward infinite open loop gain, soon you
will have another fine oscillator to beat in stereo with mine.
I'm not saying it might not work, only that after you comp
the hell out of it, will it have improved anything?
Last edited:
Not not really. It is actually a CFP in the input, not a darlington with Q5 Q6: this is because the collectors of Q7 and Q8 are tied to the LTP, not the collectors of Q5 Q6
Removing R1 has no benefit for the differential gain, but it increases hugely the common mode gain, which is problematic
Last edited:
Yes, I think you are not the first to propose the option:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/189599-my-little-cheap-circlophone-34.html#post2795144
OK why not, but what specific benefits could we expect in this case?
ok, how about input stage linearity, do you really need very high open loop gain?
This variant has been studied to meet the requests of Daniel: high output power on 8 ohm (~150W), with a high input sensitivity. This requires a closed loop gain of more than 200x. Without a sufficiently high open-loop gain, performances will be seriously degraded.
Now one could question the philosophy of it all.
What we see is that an increase in the input gain provides an equivalent improvement in linearity.
This seems logical, but in fact it simply means that the gain supplement provided by the CFP is clean enough to be used "raw", for example to reduce the errors of other parts of the amplifier (here, the output stage with its clumsy 2N3055's).
So, why would you want to linearize something that is already better than the context it is going to be used in?
I think that's simply sensible resource management. Now, you have the right not to like high open loop gains for ideological or other reasons, but that's completely different.
As Renardson says: negative feedback works, it delivers the goods.
Note that just for the fun of it, I have designed amplifiers and output stages not relying on global NFB, but these are exercises in style: they prove you can completely dispense with NFB and yet achieve ppm level distortion:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/185501-unigabuf-follower-cut-out-leader.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/head...glinator-mos-based-tringlotron-amplifier.html
Last edited:
No, with 12pF there will be enough self-compensation, that should be OK.
If I can find some samples, I'll try it just to make sure.
No, I don't think so: as with many decent amplifiers, good reservoir capacitors are sufficient to ensure good quality.
The PSRR is not huge, and it could in principle benefit from a (very) good electronic filter (gyrator), but it would have to be really excellent to make a difference and not to degrade other aspects.
The output impedance in particular would need to be extremely low, even at high frequencies.
True .01% of the time, during tiny class A crossing only.
Rest of the time in near B? R1 degens open gain for sure.
Same thinking applies to comp, but you got at least one
voltage moving at all times, so the other has something
to comp against. (I had trouble comping complimentary
version, because both drive voltages fold on the rails)
B ain't exactly "differential" like an equal and opposite
that would cancel in R1.
-------
Noo, wait... maybe you are right? This is confusing...
-
Nope, I was right. In B, one emitter (Q5 or Q6) should
be stuck at constant current, not at constant voltage.
Voltage decided entirely by R1 and opposite emitter.
R1 would be degenerating "differential" gain, because
it is ping-pong single ended half cycle for all practical
purpose... Very little common mode about it.
Last edited:
If the input pair collectors were both pegged 1 drop
from the bottom rail, comp across those collectors
would have very little effect. It is only because R1
allows one or the other to move that it works at all.
This is more likely why removing R1 makes unstable.
A resistor in each collector circuit would provide the
same voltage swing across the comp, without degen.
Then maybe you don't need to CFP the input pair for
more open loop gain, you already have it.
from the bottom rail, comp across those collectors
would have very little effect. It is only because R1
allows one or the other to move that it works at all.
This is more likely why removing R1 makes unstable.
A resistor in each collector circuit would provide the
same voltage swing across the comp, without degen.
Then maybe you don't need to CFP the input pair for
more open loop gain, you already have it.
Last edited:
That's a bit like saying the brakes on a car are used 1% of the driving time, therefore caring about them is a waste of time.
I think you are too smart at analyzing the circuit: you "know" how it works, and you use that knowledge to draw conclusions, but that prior knowledge is preconception.
You have to play the game fairly, work the way a simulator does.
The dynamic inter-emitter resistance remains the same, with or without R1. Since the operating current in Q5 and Q6 is 13mA, that resistance is ~=2*26*13^(-0.9)~=5ohm
That resistance sets the transconductance of the stage in differential mode.
The common mode transconductance with R1 is a bit smaller than 1/R1 when present, and 1/1.25 when it is absent.
That's a big difference, and that's the only thing that matters for the circuit.
The common mode exists regardless of the circuits operating conditions, and it has to be made stable, and preferably independent of the differential loop.
Without R1, the mode mixing is maximal.
The initial purpose of the CFP was to decrease the bias current, increased loop gain is just a bonus. It could be thrown away with some degen, but why not use it constructively.
Maybe I don't need 200x? So, I have 22k feedback resistor on a 45w to 8R amplifier and for 75w to 8R, that doesn't need much more gain. So, is there a suitable way to do just a little bit more, like maybe some fine tuning or an especially suited device selection?
With 22k feedback, I did get two discrepancies:
55w effortlessly and much more on dynamic peaks.
Dramatic decrease in temperature--It is efficient and cool.
From this point of view, it seems that the people who are using fans might have too much watts to the heatsink instead of the speaker.
Last edited:
Together with common mode feedback, one emitter must be at constant current.
Simulation confirms this. Effective emitter resistance is, pluggin' numbers from
the graph into my calc. Taking out the tilt and going by the hump in the middle.
oh about 1.1K??? R1 clearly becomes significant to the differential by way of the
other emitter. The other one, not jammed to constant current by a logic threshold,
maybe a few ohms per your numbers.
Simulation confirms this. Effective emitter resistance is, pluggin' numbers from
the graph into my calc. Taking out the tilt and going by the hump in the middle.
oh about 1.1K??? R1 clearly becomes significant to the differential by way of the
other emitter. The other one, not jammed to constant current by a logic threshold,
maybe a few ohms per your numbers.
Attachments
Last edited: