♫♪ My little cheap Circlophone© ♫♪ - Page 7 - 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 2nd June 2011, 12:45 PM   #61
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by odysseybmx414 View Post
Here ya go:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5430178/circ...th%20Drill.pdf

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5430178/circ...Silkscreen.pdf

Keep in mind I forgot the layer with the jumper wires. But you can look at wakabaki's posted thumbnail for those.

EDIT: Temporarily ignore those. I just noticed what I think is a big error.

Wakabaki, your thumbnail shows several traces that are not seperated at all from the groundplane that surrous them. In the gerber files, they do not show up at all. Am I missing something?
Nevermind, all is good.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 07:42 AM   #62
Elvee is offline Elvee  Belgium
diyAudio Member
 
Elvee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Here is the confirmation of what I said earlier, and also of the versatility of the Circlophone's topology:
I simply dropped two NMOS in place of the darlingtons, in the Ndarlington version, and it worked exactly as expected.

The only things that required adaptation are the G-S resistors that have been increased to 390ohm.

Also, the lower clipping value predicted on the positive side is observed: the clipping occurs ~5V below the positive rail.

If the input voltage is reduced to just under the clipping, the behavior becomes almost identical to that of the BJT version: the THD is a bit higher, probably because of the lower transconductance of the MOS compared to the bipolars.

The bias servo too works in an identical manner.

A reminder:
all this is simulation, and nothing has been built yet.

But I will come up with a version using the same trick as the CircloMOS, build it, and launch a dedicated thread when it's mature and working well enough.
Attached Images
File Type: gif MOScirclo1.GIF (55.6 KB, 1262 views)
File Type: gif MOScirclo2.GIF (67.2 KB, 1241 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 10:04 AM   #63
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Why are the later circuits, particulary the last one upside down ? A bit confusing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2011, 12:03 PM   #64
Elvee is offline Elvee  Belgium
diyAudio Member
 
Elvee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekko View Post
Why are the later circuits, particulary the last one upside down ? A bit confusing.
Because that's the view of the topology I am more familiar with.

But I understand it can be confusing to others.

Here is a more habitual presentation:
Attached Images
File Type: gif CircloUpright.GIF (21.3 KB, 1213 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2011, 05:48 AM   #65
Junm is offline Junm  Philippines
diyAudio Member
 
Junm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dau
Send a message via Yahoo to Junm
Hi elvee,

What is the main purpose of the 2 zeners in series (D3+D4 in last schema), in first schema value was 24v (12v+12v) but in darlington and MOS version it was reduced to 18.2 v (10v+8.2V)? Does the Threshold voltages differences comes to play here?
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2011, 12:38 PM   #66
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Today I will etch a board, and populate most of it. I will just have to get some 2N3019s and the schottky diodes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2011, 05:05 PM   #67
Elvee is offline Elvee  Belgium
diyAudio Member
 
Elvee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junm View Post
Hi elvee,

What is the main purpose of the 2 zeners in series (D3+D4 in last schema), in first schema value was 24v (12v+12v) but in darlington and MOS version it was reduced to 18.2 v (10v+8.2V)? Does the Threshold voltages differences comes to play here?
No, it mainly has to do with the power supply: without D3 and D4, Q5 would see an almost constant voltage equal to 2*Vsupply.

On the other hand, Q6 sees the full output swing, with an average equal to Vsupply.

This means that Q5 would dissipate on average twice as much power as Q6.

Adding ~Vsupply worth of zener decreases the dissipation of Q5 to the level of Q6.
This improves the static balance of the phase-splitter, and avoids the need of a heatsink for Q5.
The first schematic is shown with 25V supplies, whilst the other one uses 20V rails.

This balancing is purely static, and does nothing for the dynamic asymmetries caused by the Early effect.
It might be advantageous to replace the zeners by a resistor, but I haven't (yet) explored that option.

Quote:
Today I will etch a board, and populate most of it. I will just have to get some 2N3019s and the schottky diodes.
Many other TO5/TO39 and VAS-type transistors are also suitable, the 2N3019 is not at all critical

Last edited by Elvee; 6th June 2011 at 05:07 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2011, 05:08 PM   #68
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Watertown, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvee View Post
No, it mainly has to do with the power supply: without D3 and D4, Q5 would see an almost constant voltage equal to 2*Vsupply.

On the other hand, Q6 sees the full output swing, with an average equal to Vsupply.

This means that Q5 would dissipate on average twice as much power as Q6.

Adding ~Vsupply worth of zener decreases the dissipation of Q5 to the level of Q6.
This improves the static balance of the phase-splitter, and avoids the need of a heatsink for Q5.
The first schematic is shown with 25V supplies, whilst the other one uses 20V rails.

This balancing is purely static, and does nothing for the dynamic asymmetries caused by the Early effect.
It might be advantageous to replace the zeners by a resistor, but I haven't (yet) explored that option.


Many TO5/TO39 and VAS-type transistors are also suitable, the 2N3019 is not at all critical
Already ordered from Mouser. I needed other things as well, and decided I might as well use those.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th June 2011, 01:45 AM   #69
Junm is offline Junm  Philippines
diyAudio Member
 
Junm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dau
Send a message via Yahoo to Junm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvee View Post
No, it mainly has to do with the power supply: without D3 and D4, Q5 would see an almost constant voltage equal to 2*Vsupply.

On the other hand, Q6 sees the full output swing, with an average equal to Vsupply.

This means that Q5 would dissipate on average twice as much power as Q6.

Adding ~Vsupply worth of zener decreases the dissipation of Q5 to the level of Q6.
This improves the static balance of the phase-splitter, and avoids the need of a heatsink for Q5.
The first schematic is shown with 25V supplies, whilst the other one uses 20V rails.

This balancing is purely static, and does nothing for the dynamic asymmetries caused by the Early effect.
It might be advantageous to replace the zeners by a resistor, but I haven't (yet) explored that option.
Thanks for the explanation now i got it, so the values are dependent on the desired rail voltages and balance of the 2n3019's.
BTW, what is the maximum rail voltage allowed assuming output transistors are changed to higher Vce/Vds types. Let's say at +/- 50volts what components needs upgrading?
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th June 2011, 04:32 PM   #70
Elvee is offline Elvee  Belgium
diyAudio Member
 
Elvee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junm View Post
Thanks for the explanation now i got it, so the values are dependent on the desired rail voltages and balance of the 2n3019's.
BTW, what is the maximum rail voltage allowed assuming output transistors are changed to higher Vce/Vds types. Let's say at +/- 50volts what components needs upgrading?
You should find information about the components dimensioning in this post:
♫♪ My little cheap Circlophone© ♫♪

Going much higher than +/-50V would make little sense: even on 8 ohm, this would mean an output power in the region of ~150W, which is clearly unreasonable for a single pair of output transistors.
Even the most rugged types, like the 2N6259 would be pushed to their limits.

I don't recommend paralleling transistors on this design: emitter degeneration resistors would be needed, and they would interfere with the constant transconductance action provided by the bias servo.
This would create crossover artifacts similar to those of a standard class AB output stage.

The optimum range of power for this design is between ~10 to 100W.
  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
Need help with OB design - cheap, cheap, cheap djn Multi-Way 38 30th May 2010 06:26 AM
Scosche SPL meter: Cheap find with potential, or cheap junk? theAnonymous1 Everything Else 5 11th October 2006 03:40 AM
Alpine cda-9831 vs. 9833 vs. 9835 cbecker33 Car Audio 3 10th December 2004 12:47 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:09 PM.


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