Slewmaster - CFA vs. VFA "Rumble"

"Proof" stage.

This one came out nice and easy :) ...

Look over PCB vs. schema.

I'll post toner transfer "package" tomorrow.

I think this one is a "work of art".

OS
 

Attachments

  • CFA-XH proof.JPG
    CFA-XH proof.JPG
    170.6 KB · Views: 548
  • CFA-XH-schema- final.jpg
    CFA-XH-schema- final.jpg
    107.7 KB · Views: 559
  • cfa-xhred.JPG
    cfa-xhred.JPG
    130.7 KB · Views: 544
At high power levels the FB resistors see the full output. Music at normal levels likely wouldn't need 2W but a high power sine during testing will.

This is something to note that I failed to mention with the 'grafted' VSSA front end as well. The FB resistors were sized for lower rails, you might need to squeeze in a bigger unit or just be careful when testing that you don't burn one or both 2K2 at R8 and R9.
 
Last edited:
Why are the feedback resistors 2W? Seems hard to get well matched units in the 2W range.

3W would also work !

I use lower current feedback than most other CFA amps. 2w is prudent
as this IPS might be called upon for "ungodly" output swing.

As you might know .... this topology derives it's input pair current right
from the output (OPS).

Calculating for 100V p-p in just DC watts (ac wattage would be slightly less -
power factor/vs freq.) , the 20ma feedback signal would dissipate
about 1 W across R7-10.


So ...2 or 3 watt devices are especially required for R8/9 (2.7k). R7/10 (100R)
will dissipate less (could use 1 watt here).
Some will want even greater slew - R 8/9 can be 1.5K and 7/10 @ 68R.
Here you would be at 1-2W for all 4 resistors with 30+ma.

PS - you also could use 2 paralleled 6.8K-1w'ers for each 2.7K :) .
OS