Hi all,
All those posts about X-Aleph Aleph-X and so on.
I´m missing the X-principle in your circuits
Uli 😉
All those posts about X-Aleph Aleph-X and so on.
I´m missing the X-principle in your circuits
Uli 😉
UrSv said:
OK,
2 independant amplifiers with identical data(->Supersymmetry)
driven thru the inverting input and loosely coupled with a
defined resistor between the noninverting inputs.
What you call Aleph-X is just a differential pair with both
outputs used!
Uli
PS:www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99
wrong name
I´m sure it sounds nice, but it´s no X!
1) X has no feedback from one amp to the other
2) X uses inverting stages
3) X has just one gainstage and a sourcefollower
4) X is easier to control the offset because of loose coupling
Uli
I´m sure it sounds nice, but it´s no X!
1) X has no feedback from one amp to the other
2) X uses inverting stages
3) X has just one gainstage and a sourcefollower
4) X is easier to control the offset because of loose coupling
Uli
Re: wrong name
I am no whiz at the X thing obviously but to my knowledge:
1) That is the fundamental of the X topology AFAIK. Without it there is no X.
2) At least one needs to be AFAIK since you want to feed the "error" signal back in opposite phase. The inv. stage has nothing to do with the X as such.
3) Maybe, maybe not. This has nothing to do with the X as such AFAIK.
4) Maybe, maybe not. See 2) and 3).
All of the above replies could naturally be incorrect (although I hope not) but I am sure that some of the X-men (and X-girls) will chip in their 2 cents.
uli said:I´m sure it sounds nice, but it´s no X!
1) X has no feedback from one amp to the other
2) X uses inverting stages
3) X has just one gainstage and a sourcefollower
4) X is easier to control the offset because of loose coupling
Uli
I am no whiz at the X thing obviously but to my knowledge:
1) That is the fundamental of the X topology AFAIK. Without it there is no X.
2) At least one needs to be AFAIK since you want to feed the "error" signal back in opposite phase. The inv. stage has nothing to do with the X as such.
3) Maybe, maybe not. This has nothing to do with the X as such AFAIK.
4) Maybe, maybe not. See 2) and 3).
All of the above replies could naturally be incorrect (although I hope not) but I am sure that some of the X-men (and X-girls) will chip in their 2 cents.
The confusion revolves around the op-amp analogy.
What appear to be positive inputs are low impedance
connections, thus they can insert current into each other.
At the - inputs, which are high impedance, you theoretically
only see the error signal, and this appears at the + inputs
by virtue of them being the Source/Emitter where the -
input is the Gate/Base, so they follow, and form a low
impedance load.
In this way, the "+ inputs" communicate current to each
other representing the error signal of each side, causing
the circuit to reproduce the errors of each side in phase.
I know it's confusing.....
pass/ - not seeking confusion except among his
economic competitors.
What appear to be positive inputs are low impedance
connections, thus they can insert current into each other.
At the - inputs, which are high impedance, you theoretically
only see the error signal, and this appears at the + inputs
by virtue of them being the Source/Emitter where the -
input is the Gate/Base, so they follow, and form a low
impedance load.
In this way, the "+ inputs" communicate current to each
other representing the error signal of each side, causing
the circuit to reproduce the errors of each side in phase.
I know it's confusing.....
pass/ - not seeking confusion except among his
economic competitors.
Re: Re: Re: wrong name
It is already there....
uli said:
I´m waiting for NP´s statement, please don´t kill me
Uli
It is already there....
Nelson Pass said:
A little bit...
This is what I ment when talking +inputs (source).
theres no feedback from one side to the other
exept this (47R) resistor!
When looking at SOZ its a VERY simple kind of X
but NOT those circuits called Aleph X.
I´m sorry confusing anybody.
PS: XSOZ = swapping all those 8R power resistors to CCS´s
putting some feedback from the drains to the particular
gates, adding input resistors swap the 1R to 47R and from the 2
sources to ground a 300R each. Add a DC-path from the inputs
to ground.
I´ll post a drawing ASAP.
Uli /-not being any kind of competitor neither economic nor
knowhow wise 🙂 🙂 🙂
uli said:
PS: XSOZ = swapping all those 8R power resistors to CCS´s
putting some feedback from the drains to the particular
gates, adding input resistors swap the 1R to 47R and from the 2
sources to ground a 300R each. Add a DC-path from the inputs
to ground.
I´ll post a drawing ASAP.
Here you are...
PS: not a working circuit! just an idea
Remove the single ended to balanced convertor and take a look at this:
http://home.kimo.com.tw/skychutw/Circuits/Hadley622.pdf
http://home.kimo.com.tw/skychutw/Circuits/Hadley622.pdf
differential pair = no X
Hi,
looks very similar but is a differential amplifier formed by
Q2 and Q3 with a CCS (Q4) driving 2 quasi-complementary
outputstages.
Its very similar to the "Aleph-X" by Grey (same inputstage)
but instead of Aleph output its a quasicomplementary Emitter
follower outputstage.
Fault is to believe that a symmetrical output from a differential pair (folded cascode or not!) is X-principle!
Otherwise the government would not have granted NP a
patent on this.
Uli
Hi,
looks very similar but is a differential amplifier formed by
Q2 and Q3 with a CCS (Q4) driving 2 quasi-complementary
outputstages.
Its very similar to the "Aleph-X" by Grey (same inputstage)
but instead of Aleph output its a quasicomplementary Emitter
follower outputstage.
Fault is to believe that a symmetrical output from a differential pair (folded cascode or not!) is X-principle!
Otherwise the government would not have granted NP a
patent on this.
Uli
Re: differential pair = no X
I wouldn't necessarly base my argument on that assumption 😉
uli said:
I wouldn't necessarly base my argument on that assumption 😉
argument
You´re right, it would be a weak basement.
But NP himself stated that its possible to X a differential pair
if its a simple (one stage) circuit. ->
I understand that X is different from differential pair!
You just have to read the patent (which is available to the
public as every patent is) carefully!
Spend 3 USD for the complete patent 😉
www.delphion.com
Uli
PS: In AUSTRIA we don´t have cangaroos!
You´re right, it would be a weak basement.
But NP himself stated that its possible to X a differential pair
if its a simple (one stage) circuit. ->
I understand that X is different from differential pair!
You just have to read the patent (which is available to the
public as every patent is) carefully!
Spend 3 USD for the complete patent 😉
www.delphion.com
Uli
PS: In AUSTRIA we don´t have cangaroos!
uli,
The biggest problem understanding the X circuit generally comes from the schematics shown in the patent. Fact is, the circuit can be made ALOT simpler than it is shown in the patent. If you take a step back and draw functional blocks of each part shown in the patent schematic, you'll see that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
The biggest problem understanding the X circuit generally comes from the schematics shown in the patent. Fact is, the circuit can be made ALOT simpler than it is shown in the patent. If you take a step back and draw functional blocks of each part shown in the patent schematic, you'll see that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
difference
ok, in my understanding is the main difference as follows:
The sources of a diff.pair share one CCS
The sources of an X pair have 2 INDEPENDENT but identical
CCS´s loosely coupled by the X-resistor.
With this the errorsignal of one side wich can be seen at the gate
(and nothing else!) is fed from the source into the other source
and therefore both outputs carry the SAME errorsignal IN PHASE
thus the load don´t see any errorsignal anymore
The principle to use both outputs of a diff.pair is as old as active devices!
If I´m wrong, where is the reason for patenting this circuit?
Uli
PS: I love cats, please don´t skin them
ok, in my understanding is the main difference as follows:
The sources of a diff.pair share one CCS
The sources of an X pair have 2 INDEPENDENT but identical
CCS´s loosely coupled by the X-resistor.
With this the errorsignal of one side wich can be seen at the gate
(and nothing else!) is fed from the source into the other source
and therefore both outputs carry the SAME errorsignal IN PHASE
thus the load don´t see any errorsignal anymore
The principle to use both outputs of a diff.pair is as old as active devices!
If I´m wrong, where is the reason for patenting this circuit?
Uli
PS: I love cats, please don´t skin them
Re: difference
It's all in how the feedback is applied. If you look at the attachment in post #1 of 'The Aleph-X' thread, you'll see that the feedback crosses over from one side of the circuit to the other ... this indeed does get the X effect.
uli said:The principle to use both outputs of a diff.pair is as old as active devices!
If I´m wrong, where is the reason for patenting this circuit?
Uli
PS: I love cats, please don´t skin them
It's all in how the feedback is applied. If you look at the attachment in post #1 of 'The Aleph-X' thread, you'll see that the feedback crosses over from one side of the circuit to the other ... this indeed does get the X effect.
The use of X-resistor and resistors to ground for the loose coupled CCS´s is only needed in the more complex circiuts (more than two gainstages) preventing the "hall of mirrors effect" by damping the signal in the ongoing feedback repetition. In simple circiuts like Aleph X or XSOZ you simply don´t need them, I think you are better off without them, using just one CCS.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.