half power
Another solution would be to go for another jfet input current feedback design like the Jean Hiraga class A Le Monstre...which uses a lower voltage rail supply...😀
udailey said:
Another solution would be to go for another jfet input current feedback design like the Jean Hiraga class A Le Monstre...which uses a lower voltage rail supply...😀
Re: Re: Re: Re: Half Power
Easy one...
😀
What do YOU think?😉
Is it better to reduce the bias or the rail voltage to be closer to same linearity of the original design...?😀
estman said:
Easy one...
😀
What do YOU think?😉
Is it better to reduce the bias or the rail voltage to be closer to same linearity of the original design...?😀
I didn't see an answer to my question so here goes again...
Should the PCB have decoupling caps for the power rails?
I do not see them in the schematic, nor on pictures of the F5.
...my board so far, could not go for NP's long, thin boards as my sinks are 20cm width, but I can get it in custom heights, I think about 35 to 40cm high should be high enough.
Should the PCB have decoupling caps for the power rails?
I do not see them in the schematic, nor on pictures of the F5.
...my board so far, could not go for NP's long, thin boards as my sinks are 20cm width, but I can get it in custom heights, I think about 35 to 40cm high should be high enough.
Attachments
Nordic said:
Not a bad idea, it does improve the square wave if your PS doesn't
have a low enough impedance up a 1 MHz or so.
2sk170, and I'll have to get its complementary off e-bay at the cost of an arm a leg and a toenail.
udailey said:
Yes, it is nice. I would make star for inp GND and then join it to the C1,J3,C2.
3 F5, 1 PS
Hello,
I'm planning to build 3 F5 for tri-amping, I have the parts for the amps (thx Jackinnj) and the heatsink.
Now for the PS, I would like to have just one feeding the 3 amps.
The design would be the one in attachment (from PSU2).
For the coil, the SuperQ 2mH, 14 gauge from Erse @ Zalytron and the transformer a 600Va from Antek
I've simulated the full load as the two secondary were in //.
Is it nonsense?
Thx,
Arnaud
Hello,
I'm planning to build 3 F5 for tri-amping, I have the parts for the amps (thx Jackinnj) and the heatsink.
Now for the PS, I would like to have just one feeding the 3 amps.
The design would be the one in attachment (from PSU2).
For the coil, the SuperQ 2mH, 14 gauge from Erse @ Zalytron and the transformer a 600Va from Antek
I've simulated the full load as the two secondary were in //.
Is it nonsense?
Thx,
Arnaud
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
EUVL said:
okay, time to end the speculations and ask Papa 🙂
Mr. Pass:
Can you comment on whether or not the Fairchild FQA19N20C / FQA12P20 devices are suitable for the F4 amplifier (stock, unmodified schematic), given the Patrick's findings? Is there a need to compensate the top and bottom of the schematic for the differing transconductance? Is there any benefit in using the Fairchld FQA19N20C / FQA12P20 over the IRF (Vishay) IRFP9240 / IRFP240 in the F4 schematic?
okay, there I've said it. 🙂
luvdunhill said:
Papa already sez few words about that ;
this thread have just 1581 posts , so it's pretty easy to find it 😉
luvdunhill said:
That's what I use. If you have a distortion analyzer you can put a
little better trim on the 1 KHz, 1 Watt numbers, but I find that most
channels do not need this. Generally, I play with the resistor values if
the THD exceeds .005% or so at this level.
The IRFP9240 has an issue with higher distortion than the Fairchild
or Harris parts. You can use them anyway and get what many
would consider acceptable performance. If you are using it as a
bass amplifier there is no difference to speak of, and there is no
problem with the IRFP240 and other N channel vertical parts that I
have seen.