Input stage idea - Page 3 - 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 28th July 2005, 09:44 PM   #21
Bricolo is offline Bricolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
Bricolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Grenoble, FR
Quote:
Originally posted by forr
By connecting two transistors by their emitter, you can make a differential pair.

If they are of the same polarity, and the emitters see a (preferably high) resistance or a constant current source, you've got a long tail pair : it's a parallel differential pair.

If the transistors are of opposite polarity, you've got a series differential pair. One gets rid of he constant current source. I think it's sometimes called a Rush amplifier. It is interesting because it has gain without inverting.

In his famous paper in Wireless World 1977, Taylor gives the following distorsion figures :
1% for each mV at the input of a single bipolar
and thirty times less for a parallel differential pair with a 5% current mismatch.

However an overlooked problem with a differentail pair is that its distorsion components, albeit low, are depending on its DC equilibrum which continuously change in an amlifier to correct the output offset.
Is that audible ?

The distorsion components of a single transistor probably behave in a more constant manner. And amplifiers using a single active device at the input have a more simple HF behaviour.

Some people think it would be a good idea to go back to the capacitively coupled output of input stage of amplifiers (as used in tube amps) to avoid its depedance of the DC condition of the whole amplifier.


~~~~~~~ Forr


I also saw this connection, called the rush cascode. I think there's one in a naim preamp or phono amp
__________________
Just remember: in theory there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice it usually is quite a bit difference... Bob Pease
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2005, 09:51 PM   #22
Bricolo is offline Bricolo  France
diyAudio Member
 
Bricolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Grenoble, FR
here's the debate
The sound of cascodes
__________________
Just remember: in theory there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice it usually is quite a bit difference... Bob Pease
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2005, 01:01 AM   #23
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
lumanauw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bandung
Send a message via Yahoo to lumanauw
Quote:
However an overlooked problem with a differentail pair is that its distorsion components, albeit low, are depending on its DC equilibrum which continuously change in an amlifier to correct the output offset.
I also think the same thing, the VBE value in the junction of LTP is not steady at all, it follows the mix of left and right transistor Ibias. This constant change maybe small, but audible. And in a differential (parrarel one), this VBE inhibits harmonic, I imagine it happens like in post #1.

Maybe we can know why "not-ordinary" topology, like the JLH classA or F2 sounds good
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2005, 04:49 AM   #24
PRR is offline PRR  United States
diyAudio Member
 
PRR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
> the best thing to do is to use self-linearising, distortion-cancelling circuits.

I used to think that.

You did notice, I hope, that there is only local feedback, and lots of local degeneration where a nonlinear node addects the gain function. Also the degeneration is in proportion to the user-set gain, or in other words the output linearity does not change with gain.

I think the quote attributed here to Bob Pease is on the point:

Just remember: in theory there's no difference between theory and practice.
But in practice it usually is quite a bit difference...


Getting all these complicated "cancellation" systems to actually cancel is not easy. Part of the problem is that identical devices never match exactly. A partial fix for that is Integrated Circuits, but they have such a bad reputation that we keep them isolated in their own forum section.

> here's the debate

I'm not going to read all that tonight; but it starts off about cascodes.

The basic plan I posted is not a cascode, as the word "cascode" is normally used.

The complicated version has aspects of cascoding but is really something else.

> if I'd like to have <0.1% THD

"THD" is NOT a useful criteria for speech/music amplifiers.

I followed the whole decline of the state of the art from 1% to past 0.01%. "Decline" in number and often a decline in sound quality. Unless you are comparing very similar amplifiers (which will IAC have roughly similar THD numbers), the "total" is meaningless. If you must have a single-number for a complicated mix, at least "weight" the partials according to masking potential and harmonicity.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2005, 10:46 AM   #25
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
lumanauw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bandung
Send a message via Yahoo to lumanauw
After looking here and there, it seems this topology is known since very long time ago.
Here is one
Attached Images
File Type: gif pwramp.gif (24.9 KB, 478 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2005, 10:47 AM   #26
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
lumanauw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bandung
Send a message via Yahoo to lumanauw
Here's another
Attached Images
File Type: jpg sca1c.jpg (47.1 KB, 353 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2005, 10:48 AM   #27
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
lumanauw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bandung
Send a message via Yahoo to lumanauw
NAD uses this too for phono stage
Attached Images
File Type: gif schema_3020_phono.gif (13.9 KB, 332 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2005, 10:50 AM   #28
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
lumanauw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bandung
Send a message via Yahoo to lumanauw
There even a patent for this

But all the examples seems to capacitor coupling the output, or it needs a servo in DC coupling mode
Attached Images
File Type: jpg arc.jpg (35.2 KB, 303 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2005, 10:52 AM   #29
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
lumanauw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bandung
Send a message via Yahoo to lumanauw
From all examples, only PRR's using R between 2 emitors. In my experiment, without this R, the whole thing will oscilate.

How come others can use no-R between 2 emitors? Wouldn't this making very huge gain?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2005, 02:20 PM   #30
forr is offline forr  France
diyAudio Member
 
forr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next door
>How come others can use no-R between 2 emitors?
>Wouldn't this making very huge gain?

It's used in the Nad preamp

The gm is the same as a parallel differential without resistors in the emitters.

~~~~~~ Forr

  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
Adding a third input to a differential input stage? maudio Solid State 15 11th October 2006 02:16 AM
current bias j-fet input 2sk170 ,2sj74 at input stage YUTK Solid State 11 2nd June 2005 03:34 AM
Input stage idea DarkOne Solid State 20 19th January 2004 07:11 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:50 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