Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Class D Switching Power Amplifiers and Power D/A conversion

SystemD LiteAmp
SystemD LiteAmp
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24th April 2014, 10:26 PM   #11
astx is offline astx  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tyrol / Austria
SystemD LiteAmp
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoHolic View Post
Using IRFI4019 instead of 4012:
In order to avoid increased idle losses and worsened idle EMI you will need to readjust DT and live with slightly higher distortion (some more advanced options for additional adjustment of the gate drive in order to reoptimize distortion...)
Also you will have to accept the fact that the current capability of the IRFI4019 is not sufficient for reliable operation into 2R (or bridged into 4R) at high levels ==> shut down expected when pushing hard.
...
Think you mean IRFI4212 versus IRFI4019.
Yes - IRFI4019 has less ID but higher voltage. Current capability would be no problem if bridged into 8R. If distortion would be too high it is no problem for me to switch to IRFI4212...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoHolic View Post
...
Mostly pin through hole components:
Agreed. Some few SMD in key positions, but just few of them and nothing smaller than 0805.
IRS2092 is clearly planned to be DIP.
...
Very good for my old eyes and fingers. Using some SMD is OK. In my TDA8950j project I also used some SMD capacitors to be as close to chip pins as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoHolic View Post
...
An optional daughter board with a high end instrumentation amplifier gain stage (noninverting/inverting/symmetric) is part of the project. This daughter board also will give freedom to all DIYers for custom experiments with different OP amps or input caps or DC coupling.
A good idea to use opamp frontends for providing extra noisefree gain.
Mounting of daughter board: I have designed a discrete opamp and would like to be able to use them as they have very good distortion figure at high output levels. Of course these opamps need more space so it would be nice to know more of the connector sizes and mounting space/holes.

BR, Toni
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2014, 01:20 PM   #12
ChocoHolic is offline ChocoHolic  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Munich
Quote:
Originally Posted by astx View Post
Think you mean IRFI4212 versus IRFI4019.
Yes - IRFI4019 has less ID but higher voltage. Current capability would be no problem if bridged into 8R. If distortion would be too high it is no problem for me to switch to IRFI4212...
Right, thanks for correction.
Also true that for 8R bridged two paralleled IRFI4019 are easily strong enough, lots of current headroom in fact for 8R.
I am confident that we will find a reasonable adjustment to keep distortion
good also with IRFI4019.


Quote:
Originally Posted by astx View Post
I have designed a discrete opamp and would like to be able to use them as they have very good distortion figure at high output levels. Of course these opamps need more space so it would be nice to know more of the connector sizes and mounting space/holes.
The design of the daughter board is still in the status of a preliminary idea so far.
It should be easy to fit with your needs.

Attached some visualisations.
Vertical mounted. Dual sided PCB with GND plane. The pin row will have lots of GND in order to achieve sort of an extended GND plane.
Signals/supplies: +/-40V & -GainInput & + GainInput & GainOutput.
GainInputs and GainOutput close together, so that a jumper can be placed if the mainboard is used without the optional gain stage.
Note: The OP amp supplies have to be derived from +/-40V (or even +/-70V), so we might need a heat sink back plate (1.5mm aluminium) behind the soldering side, not shown in the pictures.
Size of the daughter board not yet freezed, i.e. 35mmx55mm.
What do you think?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DB1.jpg (152.4 KB, 2392 views)
File Type: jpg DB2.jpg (192.5 KB, 1915 views)
File Type: jpg DB3.jpg (256.2 KB, 1909 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2014, 01:58 PM   #13
astx is offline astx  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tyrol / Austria
SystemD LiteAmp
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoHolic View Post
Right, thanks for correction.
Also true that for 8R bridged two paralleled IRFI4019 are easily strong enough, lots of current headroom in fact for 8R.
I am confident that we will find a reasonable adjustment to keep distortion
good also with IRFI4019.
...
Very good!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoHolic View Post
...
The OP amp supplies have to be derived from +/-40V (or even +/-70V), so we might need a heat sink back plate (1.5mm aluminium) behind the soldering side, not shown in the pictures.
Size of the daughter board not yet freezed, i.e. 35mmx55mm.
What do you think?
The size of the daughter board seems to be OK and has enough space for the instrumentation preamp. To add a heat sink back plate is a cool idea as we get a hf-shield too. Using a 2 row connector would give more stability. What do you think?

Maybe i need a bigger daughter board as my discrete opamps are huge but think would be no problem to design a daughter board using these 2520 sockets.

I have plenty of 15 and 22 ÁH inductors of type 1D23A-150M and 1D23A-220M (ice components / mouser). Are these inductors usable?

BR, Toni
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2014, 04:43 PM   #14
voltwide is offline voltwide  Ireland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by astx View Post
Very good!

I have plenty of 15 and 22 ÁH inductors of type 1D23A-150M and 1D23A-220M (ice components / mouser). Are these inductors usable?

BR, Toni
For me they look like a very good choice, similar to coilcraft class-d chokes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2014, 07:19 PM   #15
ChocoHolic is offline ChocoHolic  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Munich
Even if some relevant properties are not specified - these chokes are likely to be OK and I can put them as an option into the layout.

Inductance value:
Well, the design sweet spot for this amp is 12uH.
But the design is robust enough to work still fine with 15uH, even without any other change.
For blameless step response you will have to readjust one capacitor in the feedback network - can tell you the details with the BOM.
Some impact on distortion might also be there, but nothing catastrophic to be expected.
(When a classD amp is fine tuned to the point where all harmonics are in the sub -90db range, then every change will become visible in the distortion figures...)
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2014, 07:36 PM   #16
astx is offline astx  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tyrol / Austria
SystemD LiteAmp
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoHolic View Post
Even if some relevant properties are not specified - these chokes are likely to be OK and I can put them as an option into the layout.
...
Cool!
I have also T106-2, T130-2 and T157-2 (red cores) and different sorts of CuL wire on stock. Which one are you using in your design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoHolic View Post
...
Inductance value:
Well, the design sweet spot for this amp is 12uH.
But the design is robust enough to work still fine with 15uH, even without any other change.
For blameless step response you will have to readjust one capacitor in the feedback network - can tell you the details with the BOM.
Some impact on distortion might also be there, but nothing catastrophic to be expected.
(When a classD amp is fine tuned to the point where all harmonics are in the sub -90db range, then every change will become visible in the distortion figures...)
My VP7723D audio analyser has 2 different 20kHz filters so it would be possible for me to tune to best performance...
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2014, 09:07 PM   #17
ChocoHolic is offline ChocoHolic  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Munich
T106-2 with 30 turns of 1mm CuL solid wire is what I am using on breadboard in the moment.

VP7723D:
Fantastic! Somebody with proper equipment
On one hand my QA400 seems to be fine as well, but I am not sure if it is still reliable at such low distortion as the LiteAmps shows at 1W into 4R.
(Don't wonder about the rms values displayed, I have buffers and filters in front of the QA400 and always run the QA400 at levels which result in 700mVp, where it has its sweet spot.)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1W4R.JPG (59.2 KB, 1847 views)
File Type: jpg DualTone1W4R.JPG (60.2 KB, 1703 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2014, 09:58 PM   #18
ungie is offline ungie  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoHolic View Post
In fact what I see in reality more is that multiple self oscillating systems in close proximity have the strong tendency to auto sync. No matter if we are talking about SMPS or class D amps any other self oscillating power electronics.



Which specific properties do you see as main 'letdown' of the IRS2092?

Please be aware that in this particular thread I will be more reluctant in disclosing every detail. The combination of low complexity and high grade results is something which I would enjoy to see first on many benches of passionated DIY enthusiast before seeing it stolen and sold on ebay by the commercial copy cats.
The main issues I have with the IRS2092 are:

Far from state of the art residual noise levels. With a reasonable (typical) amount of gain the noise floor is sitting at -100dB. This can clearly be seen with the IR reference designs that have high-ish gain and low input impedance. In my own design I have done as you are proposing: lower the amplifier stage gain and drive it with a very low noise instrumentation amplifier. This does help, but the results are still far from "good" Class A/B.

Fairly high levels of THD when compared to some other Class D designs, such as those using drivers that allow for outboard, and much higher quality, OTA and comparator.

All IR reference designs use pre-filter feedback, and we are all well aware of the issues with that type on configuration. Post filter using the IRS2092 is of great interest to me, and I suspect to many here in the Class D forums. I'm really hoping that rather than lunging forward with the design specifics that we begin a discussion into self-oscillating feedback topologies. This is something not covered in any of the reference design material and I'm sure there are specific areas of feedback design that are of particular importance to Class D. If we discuss these things in detail as the design is fleshed out I believe there is less likelihood of the schematic copycats of sticking around!
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2014, 09:40 PM   #19
ChocoHolic is offline ChocoHolic  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Munich
Quote:
Originally Posted by ungie View Post
With a reasonable (typical) amount of gain the noise floor is sitting at -100dB.
You mean you see in your FFT a fuzzy -100db floor?!?!
CDA-224, which is a clone of the IRAUD7 is 20-30dB better, but still to noisy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ungie View Post
Fairly high levels of THD when compared to some other Class D designs
THD of the CDA-224 was IMHO OK. May be not perfect, but OK.
Have a look here in posting #42 (comparison of different dead times).
With the original dead time setting of 45ns the CDA-224 is not so bad and
close to the IR promises.
Can you show your measurements?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ungie View Post
Post filter.....
Well, the basics of loop control are like in the well known buck converter.
For fast regulation you either need an underlaying current mode regulation or a derivative portion in the global voltage loop gain structure.
In fact I have already disclosed in this forum a silly amount of post filter feedback informations for clocked and self oscilating designs as well.
The main difference between clocked and self oscilating is that for self oscilating we are using the same feedback loop to achieve the switching oscillation by any sort of phase shift delay oscilators, or hysteresis oscilators, or if you wish sigma delta....
In UcD the derivative portion is achieved by C_lead.
In my 2kW project I am feeding the derivative portion by two caps into an intermediate I/V conversion stage in order to avoid feeding the large HF amounts through the OP amp.
For an example of loop control see posting #375 here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class...design-38.html
The simulation file in said posting contains a modeling of the feedback structure using an averaged modelling of the switching stage.
==> Loop control structure without carrier generation.
It covers everything you need for experimental learning of the pit falls of the loop control. And you can also modify it and feed the derivative portions through the OP amp...
But of course this experiments cannot substitute all the ugly things one has to learn in school book control theory. In order to achieve proper adjustments you need to know the linear control theory and some more headache about non linear effects like clipping of various stages and integrators running into nirvana...
Structure in the lite amp is again slightly different. Given by the structure of the chip I have to run the derivative portion through the poor OTA. And I added some guts for carrier shaping, the errors of the IRS2092 demand for a non fully triangular carrier to achieve best THD.
Some hints on distortion caused by feedback (especially critical for postfilter) and how to avoid/control it by carrier shaping you can find in the early postings of my SystemD MD thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class...chocolate.html

IRS2092 is a pretty ambivalent beast, some features close to catastrophic, some others absolutely great...
I do not intend to publish all the specific things I learned (and I am still learning) about the IRS2092.
For sure not before we have pictures/feedback of the first ten DIY builds of the Lite Amp in this thread. May be then, partially. May be never.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st May 2014, 01:16 PM   #20
astx is offline astx  Austria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tyrol / Austria
SystemD LiteAmp
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocoHolic View Post
...
For sure not before we have pictures/feedback of the first ten DIY builds of the Lite Amp in this thread. May be then, partially. May be never.
Would need 4 bridged channels. This would be 8 modules ...

BR, Toni
  Reply With Quote

Reply


SystemD LiteAmpHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.79%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio
Wiki