john curl said:
Hi John,
I'm really enjoying this thread having done a lot on servos myself.
I have a question related to implementing a 'gain reduction' or
some kind of attenuator at the OP of the servo, as you have
suggested, to reduce any possible servo induced artifacts.
Let's say we have an open loop circuit with a load (OP) R of 1k
with a servo OP fed into a virtual gnd or fairly low impedance
current IP point.
Essentially the servo is inputting a correction current that will
manifest at the OP R as a voltage. The ratio of the OP R on the
servo opamp to the circuit load R (1K) will determine the servo
swing for a given circuit OP swing.
So is there any advantage in implementing a gain reduction
network, say, referenced to ground at the servo output over just
increasing the resistor size on the OP of the servo to result in the
same correction ratio.
At the end of the day is there not just a ration of servo swing
compared to circuit OP swing and the optimum is to make this
ratio as high as possible to attenuate servo artifacts.
Cheers,
Terry
Terry, I can't judge specifically which circuits will work from your description, but I will say this: It is important to ACTUALLY attenuate the servo output so that the servo must work many times more in voltage for the correction it is trying to implement. For example, a 20mV input offset might take 2V of swing on the servo, and the servo will sit at 2V out most of the time. This way, the servo is not adding itself to the input signal in any significant way. This is because the servo IC's and caps are usually inferior to the actual circuit in their transfer function, so you don't desire that the IC servo's sound is added to the audio passing through.
I completely understand that some of you, like Elso, have had bad experiences with servos. I would not use servos either, if they were not necessary in my designs. Please remember that I make components for others, who are sometimes very sensitive to a click or pop to the point of neurosis. I just can't afford to allow my absolute polarity switch to click or pop just because I felt that 10 mV of offset was OK.
I completely understand that some of you, like Elso, have had bad experiences with servos. I would not use servos either, if they were not necessary in my designs. Please remember that I make components for others, who are sometimes very sensitive to a click or pop to the point of neurosis. I just can't afford to allow my absolute polarity switch to click or pop just because I felt that 10 mV of offset was OK.
john curl said:
Very clear indeed.
Forget one moment the dc servo. and consider simply the virtual ground for the input stage (gate and source reference) is it better because we avoid ground currents as the op amp is very close to the audio input stage and the current at the virtual ground op amp is negligible.
Justcallmedad said:
Hi Guys,
At first it is clear... but is it? You need to think this through.
I will clarify a few points;
- Assume the servo feeds *current* into a part of the cirdcuit.
It does not matter where, at this point, only the fact that the servo
is injecting a correction current into the circuit.
- Assume load R (at OP) of the circuit is 1k.
- Assume the servo has a 100k resistor at it's OP.
- The servo will swing 2V to effect a 20mV offset at the circuit OP
- Let us introduce a 10:1 attenuation at the servo OP. Say 10k
series, 1k to fround.
- To get the same 2V servo swing for 20mV audio OP correction we
then will need a 10k feed R *after* the 10:1 servo attenuator.
Have we actually achieved any thing with the servo OP attenuator of 10:1 if the servo OP swing to audio circuit correction swing is
the same (in this example 100:1)?
I have also implemented attenuator circuits at sservo OP's to
supposedly minimise their effect. But after careful circuit analysis
I have had to ask myself -exactly what was acheived?-
It depends on how you look at it.
Cheers,
Terry
1) My question only concerned the virtual ground properties, and my question is more to know if technically speaking it’s a must but I don’t think, or it’s just to avoid the ground currents and ground loops in a real PCB implantation.
2) The purpose of the DC servo is to compensate the output offset, so whatever you do (a resistor or an attenuator) after the DC Servo you always will get the same current or voltage at the offset compensation point (we suppose that op amp swing is not limited )
The purpose of the resistor is to "move away", isolate, the op amp and the capacitor from the audio circuit.
In short it is what I understood of John’s lesson.
2) The purpose of the DC servo is to compensate the output offset, so whatever you do (a resistor or an attenuator) after the DC Servo you always will get the same current or voltage at the offset compensation point (we suppose that op amp swing is not limited )
The purpose of the resistor is to "move away", isolate, the op amp and the capacitor from the audio circuit.
In short it is what I understood of John’s lesson.
Hi, JustCallMeDad
Answer : why NOT spend money on a good part ??? Same with discrete parts would have been NOT better and more costly, so....
But there are much other parts behind the series regulation... Mosfets to be precise... Internatiional Rectifier industrial range (eh ! Carl Thompsson who works for numerous computers motherboards was in the game, no ?... Just seek for them ! !!! Enough said !!!).
Jbaudiopphile
Answer : why NOT spend money on a good part ??? Same with discrete parts would have been NOT better and more costly, so....
But there are much other parts behind the series regulation... Mosfets to be precise... Internatiional Rectifier industrial range (eh ! Carl Thompsson who works for numerous computers motherboards was in the game, no ?... Just seek for them ! !!! Enough said !!!).
Jbaudiopphile
No, but in principle, the 337 as a current source could be OK in many applications. However, consider this: This active current source will be noisy, spit transients, and probably not be a current source as you approach 1MHz or so. This is because this current source is created by an op amp that is made of the cheapest parts possible.
JB AUDIOPHILE
---I am now much more interested in a GOOD harmonics placement rather than an absolute best performance---
Very good symetrical designs, either by polarity (N and P) or using differential circuits, should generate almost no distorsion except when approaching rails limits (saturation), where third harmonics will start to appear. The only way to get your so called "good harmonics placement" is to alter the symetry of the circuit to make some even harmonics to appear. This means a sacrifice to linearity and creates a very ambiguous situation from an audio-philosophical point of view because it adds something which is not pesent at the input.
~~~~~~ Forr
§§§
---I am now much more interested in a GOOD harmonics placement rather than an absolute best performance---
Very good symetrical designs, either by polarity (N and P) or using differential circuits, should generate almost no distorsion except when approaching rails limits (saturation), where third harmonics will start to appear. The only way to get your so called "good harmonics placement" is to alter the symetry of the circuit to make some even harmonics to appear. This means a sacrifice to linearity and creates a very ambiguous situation from an audio-philosophical point of view because it adds something which is not pesent at the input.
~~~~~~ Forr
§§§
Since nobody here answer to the questions about low Rbb' devices (recent), how to choose BJT's in consequence knowing that this parameter doesn’t appear on datasheets (or exceptionally) and even the semiconductors headquarters are not informed at least in France?
In other words, can some people here please, share some small signal devices references like 2SA1349/2SC3381 I think, and for medium power (drivers) or medium power output BJT’s.
In other words, can some people here please, share some small signal devices references like 2SA1349/2SC3381 I think, and for medium power (drivers) or medium power output BJT’s.
Hi,
Forr,
As an evidence for me, you are still on an academic point of view...
Just dig some more... Ways ahead or abroad waht you LEARNT.. Jurst ask you th only good question : is that possible ? And if the answer is "YES" then, WHY ?
Then, return to your books and see again what the question was,, and HOW was asked for ... Works for me !!!
Still not an audio guru, but between academic theory understanding and my on experiments..... Not so easy, IMOn;, to understand 25 years old theories,and admit some... But they have changed some data... You were on Perrot's theory, as it seems to me... Me too, for a while... But NOPE in my own measurements.. Still a theory for me...
Burt in the converse way, I was targeting distortion and harmoniwc placement first.... Little theory on that ! I have mmy own, but won't discuss the point with risky academic bashing guys. Sorry for ! I am JUST AN AMATEUR, and spent a while on this questions... With no help ! NOT a word for 4 years ! So the point is seen by me
Forr,
As an evidence for me, you are still on an academic point of view...
Just dig some more... Ways ahead or abroad waht you LEARNT.. Jurst ask you th only good question : is that possible ? And if the answer is "YES" then, WHY ?
Then, return to your books and see again what the question was,, and HOW was asked for ... Works for me !!!
Still not an audio guru, but between academic theory understanding and my on experiments..... Not so easy, IMOn;, to understand 25 years old theories,and admit some... But they have changed some data... You were on Perrot's theory, as it seems to me... Me too, for a while... But NOPE in my own measurements.. Still a theory for me...
Burt in the converse way, I was targeting distortion and harmoniwc placement first.... Little theory on that ! I have mmy own, but won't discuss the point with risky academic bashing guys. Sorry for ! I am JUST AN AMATEUR, and spent a while on this questions... With no help ! NOT a word for 4 years ! So the point is seen by me
- Status
- Not open for further replies.