Audio Power Amplifier Design book- Douglas Self wants your opinions - Page 65 - 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 17th April 2013, 07:59 PM   #641
jcx is online now jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...10.1.1.27.6813 - clik on the cached PDF icon
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2013, 08:31 PM   #642
diyAudio Member
 
DouglasSelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post
It says "resource not available". Do you have a copy?
__________________
Douglas Self
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2013, 08:44 PM   #643
Account disabled at member's request
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasSelf View Post
It says "resource not available". Do you have a copy?
A copy for you.

Cheers
Stein
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 10.1.1.27.6813.pdf (448.8 KB, 100 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2013, 08:57 PM   #644
diyAudio Member
 
DouglasSelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Thank you Stinius.

Most kind of you.
__________________
Douglas Self
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2013, 08:57 PM   #645
diyAudio Member
 
Edmond Stuart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Thx Stein
__________________
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht, zal meer dan lijf en
goed verliezen dan dooft het licht…(H.M. van Randwijk)
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2013, 10:36 PM   #646
Bonsai is offline Bonsai  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Bonsai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkiwanuka View Post
There is no such thing as MIC ("Miller Input compensation"). As I pointed out somewhere, it is really phase lead compensation with the output stage excluded; certainly, pole splitting does not occur with this arrangement, which explains why other supplimentary compensation is invariably required.

Simple SPICE simulation demonstrates these facts, so both D. Self and R. Cordell were wrong in calling it "input stage inclusive compensation". Moreover, it has nothing to do with Mr J. M. Miller, so it should never have been called "MIC".
While technicalities you describe may right, it Is MIC and that is what it will remain, as is the case with CFA.

You cannot go renaming things because you disagree with the their commonly understood terms.
__________________
bonsai
Amplifier Design and Construction for MUSIC! http://hifisonix.com/

Last edited by Bonsai; 17th April 2013 at 10:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2013, 07:28 AM   #647
wahab is offline wahab  Algeria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: algeria/france
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post
this means the "extra" loop gain is not available to improve the LTP characteristics, nor the VAS/TIS supply reference PSRR – except through a slight change in the available global outer loop single pole gain from the TMC bootstrapping increasing VAS/TIS loop gain
With TMC the VAS/TIS + OS local loop gain increase this stage
input impedance , hence reducing the amplitude of the TIS/VAS
input AC current and thus decreasing the loading of the input stage ,
as with a current mirror load the IPS gain is mainly modeled by
the TIS/VAS input impedance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2013, 11:48 AM   #648
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Chigwell, Essex
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsai View Post
While technicalities you describe may right, it Is MIC and that is what it will remain, as is the case with CFA.

You cannot go renaming things because you disagree with the their commonly understood terms.
Only Bob calls it MIC, and, no, if, as you concede, the "technicalities you describe may be right" why continue calling it MIC thereby misleading an entire host of budding engineers?

As for renaming "CFAs", these were always known as VFAs until the marketing men at the major IC manufacturers renamed them.

Last edited by michaelkiwanuka; 18th April 2013 at 11:54 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2013, 02:48 PM   #649
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkiwanuka View Post
Only Bob calls it MIC, and, no, if, as you concede, the "technicalities you describe may be right" why continue calling it MIC thereby misleading an entire host of budding engineers?

As for renaming "CFAs", these were always known as VFAs until the marketing men at the major IC manufacturers renamed them.
Hi Mike,

Yes, I am guilty as charged for naming it Miller Input Compensation, or MIC. I gave it a name simply because I had not seen the technique before nor seen a name for it. I used MIC in my MOSFET power amplifier back in 1983.

As explained in my book, MIC is just a form of input compensation. Passive lag input compensation has been used in the past to also achieve high slew rate. It has its own disadvantages. So my thinking in 1983 was to use input compensation to get the good slew rate, but to achieve it in a Miller feedback way so as to eliminate the shortcomings of passive lag input compensation.

As for the workings of MIC, we have been down this road before, and have to agree to disagree. It is certainly not lead compensation. Moreover, it is indeed a form of Miller compensation and does indeed posess the properties of pole splitting at the input and output of the integrating entity, in this case the combined input stage and VAS. If you look at the output impedance of the VAS with MIC, you can easily see that it is made low and has been pole-splitted.

Most importantly, Miller compensation, or perhaps more correctly a Miller integrator, is certainly not limited to a forward path gain element with only one stage, as is a conventional Miller-compensated VAS. The fact that some compensation is needed within that loop is completely irrelevant, and does not disqualify the arrangement as a Miller integrator. One need look no further than the multitude of Miller integrators built with an op amp encircled by a Miller integrating capacitor. The op amp so enclosed necessarily has compensation included within it.

Cheers,
Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2013, 03:25 PM   #650
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkiwanuka View Post
As for renaming "CFAs", these were always known as VFAs until the marketing men at the major IC manufacturers renamed them.
No, Carl Nelson called them that when he re-invented them in discrete form and no IC forms from any major existed.
__________________
Silence is so accurate.
  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
The design of active crossovers- Douglas Self wants your opinions DouglasSelf Analog Line Level 283 12th August 2014 11:01 AM
Comments on Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook by Douglas Self Samuel Groner Solid State 68 16th March 2013 10:26 PM
Douglas Self's Active Crossovers book forr Analog Line Level 8 31st December 2010 05:20 PM
New Douglas Self Book blmn Solid State 7 22nd July 2009 06:00 PM
book-audio power amplifier by Douglas Self mikee12345 Solid State 8 16th November 2003 01:16 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:39 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