how many ways to stablise? - 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 22nd May 2005, 08:40 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: earth
Default how many ways to stablise?

is it just....

cap around VAS collector -base

cap from output of VAS to ground

cap from output of VAS to -ve of input stage?

That's all I have really seen, but I have also seen stability caps around the output stage transistors, too!!

thanks
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2005, 09:22 AM   #2
AndrewT is offline AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
Hi,
Read Dr Cherry, for ideas on differentiated loops.
For good sound most designers avoid miller compensation (VAS cb)
Also JLH shows; LTP cap bypass on collector load, LTP c -c cap bypass, LTP e-e cap bypass, output Thiel network, VAS to -ve input CR //C
Many show a //cap across the global NFB resistor.
Leach & many others use a very small miller comp, I suspect to minimise its effect on sound and also to boost speed.
__________________
regards Andrew T.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 08:32 AM   #3
Jontie is offline Jontie  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nottingham, England
Hello.

A capacitor from the VAS collector to ground is not a good idea. It needs to be at least 10 nF, as opposed to the 50-200pF required when used collector-to-base (Miller compensation). The VAS and the LTP then need to run at a much higher current in order to drive this larger capacitance. The late Peter Baxandall said that this compensation scheme was "In all respects, sub-optimal"

John
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 11:49 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: earth
well people say miller comp. is sub optimal, so I suppose all methods are, what matters is how it sounds and I have heard a good amp using it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 08:30 PM   #5
AndrewT is offline AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
Hi,
and not just PJ Baxandall.
I believe the main reason that D. Self's designs are supposedly poor in the sound quality stakes is due to almost total reliance on Miller Comp. He for one and many in the "kit" market adopt Miller Comp because it is foolproof in achieving stability.
__________________
regards Andrew T.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2005, 01:46 AM   #6
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Earth
Couldn't have said it better myself, Andrew T!

Often, if you're stuck with a Vas pole (after all it's a high gain stage) it's reasonable to use a small Miller C to 'define' it ,say 10pF and then use feedback comp and/or other pole zero cancellation. A fully complementary Vas can drive a fairly large C to ground without significant distortion AND it doesn't degrade PSRR.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2005, 03:13 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Workhorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
We always implement a compensation cap from Collector of VAS to Base of Inverting input Transistor of differential pair, this give some what less phase shift at high frequencies and boosts the slew rate too.......
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2005, 03:24 AM   #8
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Earth
Yes kanwar, this is a reliable strategy with low impact on slewing rate and THD. I used this in my PA amp range of the '70's! The downside is that it bypasses the output stage so reduces loop NFB around this most distorting stage.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2005, 07:38 AM   #9
AndrewT is offline AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
Hi,
yes Amplifier guru, all the more reason to look to nested loops.

Any design details coming forward?
__________________
regards Andrew T.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2005, 07:54 AM   #10
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Earth
Hi Andrew T.

Yes certainly the nested approach is all about juggling poles and zeros - but, of course, we need them to be stable and defined and they in turn need to ensure their negative impact on their local block is minimal in terms of PSRR, THD, slewing rate, ....


Yes I would like to do that but I am also of the view that the forum's strength is it's mulling of ideas rather than offering up complete solutions. I'm still thinking this one out.

Cheers,
Greg
  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 New 2-ways. Spasticteapot Multi-Way 16 19th November 2006 01:39 AM
2 vs 2.5 vs 3 vs 3.5 vs 4 ways Sony Multi-Way 4 7th December 2004 04:27 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:59 AM.


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