The 3 lucky ones will get their PCBs in an envelope to be posted some time this week. I have addresses for all 3. You will also get an assembly note per email.
In addition to reporting back in 2 months, I would ask you to perform your tests in an audio application, which is what it is all about. For measurement or other applications, opamps are much cheaper.
Happy SMD-soldering,
Patrick
In addition to reporting back in 2 months, I would ask you to perform your tests in an audio application, which is what it is all about. For measurement or other applications, opamps are much cheaper.
Happy SMD-soldering,
Patrick
Hello EUVL,
I am a beginner in the field of electronics and my question might sound strange.
Can your buffer be used as a replacement for BUF03-J or BUF634 in headphone amplifier output stage?
Are there any limitations where your buffer can be used? ( I also think about "Aunt Corey's Buffered Passive Preamplifier")
Thanks
I am a beginner in the field of electronics and my question might sound strange.
Can your buffer be used as a replacement for BUF03-J or BUF634 in headphone amplifier output stage?
Are there any limitations where your buffer can be used? ( I also think about "Aunt Corey's Buffered Passive Preamplifier")
Thanks
The BF862 can in theory deliver something like 20mA, though the distortion would be fairly high. So I think practical load would be not much less than 1k if you want good performance. But it operates in pure Class A.
The BUF634, on the other hand, can output a lot more current. I believe it also has a lower output impedance. So it all depends on what load you want to drive this with.
Patrick
The BUF634, on the other hand, can output a lot more current. I believe it also has a lower output impedance. So it all depends on what load you want to drive this with.
Patrick
Many reasons to use BF862 rather than LSK170 :
a) Double the transconductance and half the capacitance.
b) I trust the quality of Philips (NXP) than Linear Systems.
Philips has a looooooong history of making their own chips with own processes, rather than subcontracting.
c) If you trust the measurements of Scott Wurcer (Blowtorch Thread), the BF862 is on par in noise performance with 2SK170.
d) BF862 is widely available and costs a fraction of the price that Linear Systems is asking for LSK170.
e) LSK389 has the wrong pin assignment for this application, is too big (especially if you want 2 FETs in parallel as I do), and I have no control on how good the match is.
Need more convincing reasons ?
Patrick
a) Double the transconductance and half the capacitance.
b) I trust the quality of Philips (NXP) than Linear Systems.
Philips has a looooooong history of making their own chips with own processes, rather than subcontracting.
c) If you trust the measurements of Scott Wurcer (Blowtorch Thread), the BF862 is on par in noise performance with 2SK170.
d) BF862 is widely available and costs a fraction of the price that Linear Systems is asking for LSK170.
e) LSK389 has the wrong pin assignment for this application, is too big (especially if you want 2 FETs in parallel as I do), and I have no control on how good the match is.
Need more convincing reasons ?
Patrick
> is there another set of divices that could replace both 2sk74 and 2sk170 ?
2SJ108 / 2SK370.
And for those who wants to just take the word from someone in the semicon business, the current economic crisis is forcing companies to restructure their business and concentrate on revenue generating products; and they probably do NOT include discrete JFETs.
Also not all semicon companies will survive the next 3 years.
So buy the JFETs you want when you still can.
Patrick
2SJ108 / 2SK370.
And for those who wants to just take the word from someone in the semicon business, the current economic crisis is forcing companies to restructure their business and concentrate on revenue generating products; and they probably do NOT include discrete JFETs.
Also not all semicon companies will survive the next 3 years.
So buy the JFETs you want when you still can.
Patrick
