Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Eeyore wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. You don't realise just how true that is. I've tuned pcb layouts for THD just by moving that node. PCB layout guys look perplexed but thankfully usually do it. In fact there's loads of layout tricks the PCB guys are hopeless at, loops in particular. Yes indeed. This is exactly what happened on the 1st PCB prototype of the MOSFET 1000. Ian did the layout. When it came back, I was only getting 0.02% thd. Now..this is *exactly* how it happened. I looked at the routing, immediately noticed that the feedback point was picked up along a high current trace, took a piece of wire and jumpered across the offending trace, and thd dropped down to 0.002%. Like, simple putting a wire in || with another one (that had a tee in it) worked magic! Kevin Aylward www.blonddee.co.uk www.kevinaylward.co.uk |
#202
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day it happened Don Pearce wrote Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Ha, why did I never think of that... This will eliminate my massive gold feed rods to the woofer. You will need 2 sensing wires, and a diff amp. LOL ! See one of my other posts. Graham |
#203
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Eeyore wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Don Pearce wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Eeyore wrote: John Larkin wrote: Eeyore wrote: John Larkin wrote: Eeyore wrote: Learn something about LATERAL mosfets that were designed for audio. I've already given part number and links to data sheets. That doesn't really matter. The transfer function only needs to be continuous so that you can close a loop around it, and the fet needs to be able to stand the peak power dissipation. That can easily be done with vertical "switching" type fets. A modern FLOOD architecture [1] works great with most any kind of fet. Lots of things have changed in the last few decades. John [1] Of course you've never heard the term before. I just invented it. Fine. Can you elaborate some more on it ? Laterals have some truly lovely features for audio. The only downside being a slightly highish Ron. Not really a problem when (as I have) used as many as 6 in parallel (12 mosfets per channel / 24 per amp). They also match beautifully with no need for source balance resistors (so some of the Ron loss 'goes away'). An opamp per fet, closing a local loop, feedback from the fet source, makes each fet look like a perfect unity-gain, fast, zero-offset device. Interesting idea. I'll have to chew that one over. I can see possible problems fron op-amp output overshoot. I have a simple embodiment of that concept here, done a while ago, in virtual land;-) http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/cir...ortionAmp2.jpg Its a push/pull gain loop around the output devices, forcing them to be unity gain followers. You can get lower distortion, at the expense of speed, because you have to compensate earlier. Common mode feedback at the second stage, allows for enormous dc/lf gain. cascodes to allow the use of fast small transistors to do all the main work. Emitter follower buffer to reduce the current swing in the input pair, as per doug self. Spice says it should be in the 0.0001% , 20Khz range, maybe... Kevin Aylward Kevin - an interesting circuit, and I appreciate what you have done with the output stage, but I'm still wondering why you didn't include it within the global feedback loop - that could only have made it better, lower output impedance, more load insensitive etc etc etc. It is.!!! I think the schematic is not as clear as it should be.. I have a zero volt source near the output devices in the feedback circuit to calculate LG. The overall loop feedback passes through this source!!! Ah, is that what it was? I thought you were putting actual voltage sources in there that would be replaced by some small circuit in an actual design. I hope you are connecting the sensing point of the feedback resistor to the final summed speaker connection, not some random point in amongst the bunch of fets (teaching granny to suck eggs?) ;-) Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Better still, have differential sensing, to compensate for the volt drop in the groundy side wire too ! Graham I wrote an article for one of the Hi Fi mags a few years ago with exactly that idea - suggested easy ways to do it too. Only problem is when you accidentally connect the sense wires in wrong polarity - smoke ensues. d |
#204
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Sep 19, 8:01*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: MooseFET wrote: On Sep 19, 7:37 am, Eeyore wrote: MooseFET wrote: Bewa *Mosfets like the STW55NM60 have a decreasing threshold voltage for increasing temperature. *This means that biasing them to a low idle current isn't so easy. Indeed. You'll need lossy ballast resistors. Laterals are different that way. Yes, but once the STW55NM60 or equiv. is biased up, it makes a nice 200V at about 100KHz. Its not exactly audio but is sure isn't really RF either. * *Tell that to WWVB, who transmits at 60 kHz. Good point. I wasn't radiating, at least not on purpose. A lot of echo sounders work up at 500KHz so 100KHz wasn't really too high to be called sound too. |
#205
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
In article ,
Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:22:09 +0100) it happened Don Pearce wrote in : Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Ha, why did I never think of that... This will eliminate my massive gold feed rods to the woofer. You will need 2 sensing wires, and a diff amp. If you really think that's important (and I don't), why not just put the amplifiers near the speakers? That way, there won't be any nasty stability problems to deal with. Isaac |
#206
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
isw wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: it happened Don Pearce wrote Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Ha, why did I never think of that... This will eliminate my massive gold feed rods to the woofer. You will need 2 sensing wires, and a diff amp. If you really think that's important (and I don't), why not just put the amplifiers near the speakers? That way, there won't be any nasty stability problems to deal with. They're called active speakers and are widely used by many professionals. Graham |
#207
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Eeyore wrote:
isw wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: it happened Don Pearce wrote Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Ha, why did I never think of that... This will eliminate my massive gold feed rods to the woofer. You will need 2 sensing wires, and a diff amp. If you really think that's important (and I don't), why not just put the amplifiers near the speakers? That way, there won't be any nasty stability problems to deal with. They're called active speakers and are widely used by many professionals. Indeed. I don't actually like powered speakers though. They need *two* leads. Just more hassle in setting up for the gig. Kevin Aylward www.blonddee.co.uk www.anasoft.co.uk |
#208
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Eeyore wrote: isw wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: it happened Don Pearce wrote Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Ha, why did I never think of that... This will eliminate my massive gold feed rods to the woofer. You will need 2 sensing wires, and a diff amp. If you really think that's important (and I don't), why not just put the amplifiers near the speakers? That way, there won't be any nasty stability problems to deal with. They're called active speakers and are widely used by many professionals. Indeed. I don't actually like powered speakers though. They need *two* leads. Just more hassle in setting up for the gig. Wouldn't want them on a gig - very good for studio monitoring though. d |
#209
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Kevin Aylward wrote: Eeyore wrote: isw wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: it happened Don Pearce wrote Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Ha, why did I never think of that... This will eliminate my massive gold feed rods to the woofer. You will need 2 sensing wires, and a diff amp. If you really think that's important (and I don't), why not just put the amplifiers near the speakers? That way, there won't be any nasty stability problems to deal with. They're called active speakers and are widely used by many professionals. Indeed. I don't actually like powered speakers though. They need *two* leads. Just more hassle in setting up for the gig. I know exactly what you mean. Far too much hassle and just more leads getting in the way for live. When The Horn had an upgrade last year, all the PA amps, crossover (controller now actually) went into a back room in a dedicated amp rack with ventilation and speaker lines (in 4mm2) were run in trunking to the appropriate points. The monitors sit on a raised surface at the front of the stage and the runs to them terminate in connectors mounted in purpose made pressed metal panels mounted in the performer's side of the upright. This means you need only 1 or 2 m leads to wire them up. It's lovely. Graham |
#210
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Sep 21, 12:02 pm, isw wrote:
In article , Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:22:09 +0100) it happened Don Pearce wrote in : Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Ha, why did I never think of that... This will eliminate my massive gold feed rods to the woofer. You will need 2 sensing wires, and a diff amp. If you really think that's important (and I don't), why not just put the amplifiers near the speakers? That way, there won't be any nasty stability problems to deal with. You can do about as well if you characterize what a linear system does and then correct for it. If a system is nonlinear it is harder to do. If you want to go all the way to having feedback from the speaker, it seems to me that moving the feedback detection as close to the sound output as practical is the way to go. Sensing actual cone movement is better than sensing the driven voice coil's voltage. Some years back I saw a really nice design for a subwoofer that did this. Here is basically what the design did: There was no voice coil at all. The cone was moved by a fast servo motor with a metal belt drive that drove a rod on the cone center.. This allowed motions of several inches but didn't have a very flat frequency response. A position sensor on the rod on the cone center and a pressure transducer where combined to form the feedback signal. The position sensor couldn't know about the cone flex and the pressure sensor couldn't know the very low frequency components. The combined signal covered the entire range of interest. There was a really massive servo amplifier driving the motor giving the system the ability to work up to several Hz. It seems to me that this sort of thing could be done today and make it up into the 10s of Hz. |
#211
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
MooseFET wrote: If you want to go all the way to having feedback from the speaker, it seems to me that moving the feedback detection as close to the sound output as practical is the way to go. Sensing actual cone movement is better than sensing the driven voice coil's voltage. The idea of the feedback directly from the cone is no new. The main problem is economical: it is easier to make a reasonable conventional speaker rather then trying to make a good speaker from the bad one by the means of feedback and feedforward compensation. Some years back I saw a really nice design for a subwoofer that did this. Here is basically what the design did: There was no voice coil at all. The cone was moved by a fast servo motor with a metal belt drive that drove a rod on the cone center.. This allowed motions of several inches but didn't have a very flat frequency response. A position sensor on the rod on the cone center and a pressure transducer where combined to form the feedback signal. The position sensor couldn't know about the cone flex and the pressure sensor couldn't know the very low frequency components. The combined signal covered the entire range of interest. There was a really massive servo amplifier driving the motor giving the system the ability to work up to several Hz. It seems to me that this sort of thing could be done today and make it up into the 10s of Hz. In geophysics, they use the powerful hydraulic vibrators which operate at the frequencies up to 100Hz. It is interesting that the flat response and the linearity are important for geophysical application; so some sort of compensation is applied. This technology can be used for the woofers if we are after the power levels of 10kW or higher. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com |
#212
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Don Pearce wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Eeyore wrote: isw wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: it happened Don Pearce wrote Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Ha, why did I never think of that... This will eliminate my massive gold feed rods to the woofer. You will need 2 sensing wires, and a diff amp. If you really think that's important (and I don't), why not just put the amplifiers near the speakers? That way, there won't be any nasty stability problems to deal with. They're called active speakers and are widely used by many professionals. Indeed. I don't actually like powered speakers though. They need *two* leads. Just more hassle in setting up for the gig. Wouldn't want them on a gig - very good for studio monitoring though. Exactly. KRK have a very good name in that respect at the moment and I think they do actives. Graham |
#213
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
MooseFET wrote: isw wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: it happened Don Pearce wrote Actually the "right" place to connect the feedback sensing resistor is right out at the speaker itself, via a third sensing wire. Ha, why did I never think of that... This will eliminate my massive gold feed rods to the woofer. You will need 2 sensing wires, and a diff amp. If you really think that's important (and I don't), why not just put the amplifiers near the speakers? That way, there won't be any nasty stability problems to deal with. You can do about as well if you characterize what a linear system does and then correct for it. If a system is nonlinear it is harder to do. If you want to go all the way to having feedback from the speaker, it seems to me that moving the feedback detection as close to the sound output as practical is the way to go. Sensing actual cone movement is better than sensing the driven voice coil's voltage. Philips did that decades ago with a piezo transducer IIRC. No idea why it didn't take off other than Philips aren't exactly reknowned for hi-fi. Graham |
#214
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: MooseFET wrote: If you want to go all the way to having feedback from the speaker, it seems to me that moving the feedback detection as close to the sound output as practical is the way to go. Sensing actual cone movement is better than sensing the driven voice coil's voltage. The idea of the feedback directly from the cone is no new. The main problem is economical: it is easier to make a reasonable conventional speaker rather then trying to make a good speaker from the bad one by the means of feedback and feedforward compensation. The other problem is which part of the speaker cone do you sense ? They 'bend' and resonate etc etc in use. Graham |
#215
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:43:24 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in : I don't actually like powered speakers though. They need *two* leads. Just more hassle in setting up for the gig. Wouldn't want them on a gig - very good for studio monitoring though. Exactly. KRK have a very good name in that respect at the moment and I think they do actives. Graham I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. Each speaker would have its own IP address, or perhaps its own port on one IP, and from the [new] mixer only digital Ethernet to a wireless access point. No bandwidth problem I think. 56 Mbits / second, should be enough for a few channels. You will have power cables to the speaker, but not a lot of audio wiring. mmm maybe do the mikes too ;-) |
#216
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. How would you synchronize the different channels? Each speaker would have its own IP address, or perhaps its own port on one IP, and from the [new] mixer only digital Ethernet to a wireless access point. No bandwidth problem I think. 56 Mbits / second, should be enough for a few channels. The real 802.11G throughput is 2.8MB/s at the best. An uncompressed audio channel takes roughly 100KB/s. You will have power cables to the speaker, but not a lot of audio wiring. mmm maybe do the mikes too ;-) The big problem with WiFi for audio is the synchronization between the different WiFi units while maintaining the reasonable delay. This is hard (if possible at all) to attain with the WiFi equipment. AFAIK the solutions for audio via Ethernet (CobraNet and such) used the special protocol stacks and were not fully compatible with the standard networking stuff. In the general, Ethernet is not good as the network for the multimedia; it was not designed for that purpose. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com |
#217
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:41:43 -0500) it happened Vladimir
Vassilevsky wrote in : Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. How would you synchronize the different channels? Yes, good point, timestamp would be one way, but that does not solve the delay. the delay would be fatal in a live application. Each speaker would have its own IP address, or perhaps its own port on one IP, and from the [new] mixer only digital Ethernet to a wireless access point. No bandwidth problem I think. 56 Mbits / second, should be enough for a few channels. The real 802.11G throughput is 2.8MB/s at the best. An uncompressed audio channel takes roughly 100KB/s. There is no reason not to use a compressed format, mp2 or AC3 would be cool. You will have power cables to the speaker, but not a lot of audio wiring. mmm maybe do the mikes too ;-) The big problem with WiFi for audio is the synchronization between the different WiFi units while maintaining the reasonable delay. This is hard (if possible at all) to attain with the WiFi equipment. See above. AFAIK the solutions for audio via Ethernet (CobraNet and such) used the special protocol stacks and were not fully compatible with the standard networking stuff. In the general, Ethernet is not good as the network for the multimedia; it was not designed for that purpose. OK, it looks like we have to scrap this idea, in its current form, but the basic principle could work. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com Good observation! |
#218
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
|
#219
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. How would you synchronize the different channels? Each speaker would have its own IP address, or perhaps its own port on one IP, and from the [new] mixer only digital Ethernet to a wireless access point. No bandwidth problem I think. 56 Mbits / second, should be enough for a few channels. The real 802.11G throughput is 2.8MB/s at the best. An uncompressed audio channel takes roughly 100KB/s. You will have power cables to the speaker, but not a lot of audio wiring. mmm maybe do the mikes too ;-) The big problem with WiFi for audio is the synchronization between the different WiFi units while maintaining the reasonable delay. This is hard (if possible at all) to attain with the WiFi equipment. i.e. latency. All the specialist solutions to this issue have addressed this problem specifically. AFAIK the solutions for audio via Ethernet (CobraNet and such) used the special protocol stacks and were not fully compatible with the standard networking stuff. In the general, Ethernet is not good as the network for the multimedia; it was not designed for that purpose. Cobranet causes trouble does it ? I know they have some kind of 'sync' signal. Graham |
#220
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jan Panteltje wrote: There is no reason not to use a compressed format, mp2 or AC3 would be cool. You vile vermin ! Graham |
#221
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
krw wrote: You're going to have to justify that number. 100MB/s? He said kBps. I can see 20KB, *maybe*. 44.1k samples / sec x 2 bytes each = 88.2kBps. Allow overhead for collisions etc. Actually if you transmit the full AES/EBU SPDIF data it's THREE bytes. 100kBps sounds about right for one mono channel. Or 150 kBps with flags etc. Graham |
#222
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:18:50 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in : Jan Panteltje wrote: There is no reason not to use a compressed format, mp2 or AC3 would be cool. You vile vermin ! Graham mm actually, I had the intention to use separate amps in the speakers for woofer, midrange, and tweeter, and do the filtering _in the mixer_, so then you could compensate per speaker so to speak :-) Anyways, for people with supernatural hearing, like some animals, that would perhaps not give full satisfaction. Most people are satisfied with AC3 though. |
#223
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Don't you at least agree there are many similarities between 1/f noise and offset? Actually, I do. By and large, they amount to the same thing. Its all low frequency variations. For example, if one designs a chopper amp to get low offset, it also kills/corrects for 1/f noise as well. If one has 1/f problems in an system, one immediately thinks about using a chopper..well I do any way... Yes, that's exactly what I meant. |
#224
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
MooseFET wrote:
If you look for an op-amp with an extremely low offset voltage, you will find that it uses MOSFETs to obtain that extreme low offset. Quite right. In hindsight, I could've been more clear about this not being relevant here, I just didn't want any "You're wrong because MOSFETs have lower offset"-type responses, so that's why I mentioned it... |
#225
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
MooseFET wrote:
Radiation hardness Boundary condition. Safe operating area Boundary condition. Bandwidth AFAIK, BJTs still hold the world record for cutoff frequency. |
#226
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:25:39 -0000, "Jorden Verwer"
wrote: RichD wrote: Who do MOSFET sound better than bipolar, as an audio amp output driver? The device properties of BJTs are superior to those of MOSFETs in all respects, except for offset - there MOSFETs have the advantage. Whether you will actually hear this depends on many more factors. Offset? Two BJTs of the same part number will have delta-Vbe well below a tenth of a volt. A similar pair of mosfets will have Vgs-th and transfer curves that can differ by a volt or more. And the mosfet thresholds will change with time a lot more then the bjt's. Mosfets have zero storage/desaturation time, far better SOAR specs, and are easier to drive. John |
#227
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jan Panteltje wrote:
I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. Yuck, wireless... |
#228
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jorden Verwer wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. Yuck, wireless... Around the house these days Homeplug is far better than WiFi. d |
#229
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:24:20 -0000) it happened "Jorden Verwer"
wrote in et: Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. Yuck, wireless... You mean you do not watch TV and listen to radio? And have no cellphone too? |
#230
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jan Panteltje write:
You mean you do not watch TV and listen to radio? And have no cellphone too? I mean I try to avoid wireless whenever possible. So when I'm at home, I watch cable TV and listen cable radio and use my landline phone... |
#231
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:25:33 +0100) it happened Don Pearce
wrote in : Jorden Verwer wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. Yuck, wireless... Around the house these days Homeplug is far better than WiFi. d I have looked a bit at homeplug, because the new TVs seem to support it, but really, I am a step ahead, I use the laptop as portable TV monitor to watch satellite TV, and any file on the server I like. Using WiFi ! so wireless. This is an old blog entry, have added much cool stuff since: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/blog/index.html Playing nice slide shows now too. http://panteltje.com/panteltje/jpg_to_mjpegtools_yuv/ It is in this that it shows, and is proof of, that WiFi is not in any way a real bandwidth problem This is all Linux soft of course, so highly efficient. The worlds is just spitting out one marketing term after the other, now it is 'home plug'. Really, as far as network is concerned, ssh, netcat, scp, transport stream, etc... rules it all. They (Philips, others), want to sell you an 'internet radio', a 'digital picture frame', a this, a that, while any laptop running Linux with a 5 line script does it all. With more possibilities and more flexible, and future proof, and wireless too. Often for less money. |
#232
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:44:55 -0000) it happened "Jorden Verwer"
wrote in et: Jan Panteltje write: You mean you do not watch TV and listen to radio? And have no cellphone too? I mean I try to avoid wireless whenever possible. So when I'm at home, I watch cable TV and listen cable radio and use my landline phone... OK, whatever you like best. See also my other posting. |
#233
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"RichD" wrote in message ... Who do MOSFET sound better than bipolar, as an audio amp output driver? A lot of bits have been spilled on this thread so far, but I think it is the same question as "Why do tubes sound better than transistors?" or "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" First of all, it implies a truth that may not objectively be the case. But tubes, BJTs and MOSFETs all have very different characteristics and engineering trade-offs. I think it has been reasonably well established that it is possible to make excellent sounding amplifiers with any of those technologies. In the end, I think it boils down to the experience and skill of the engineer in working with a given technology, and how that impacts the economics of producing the end product using said technology. For example, I think we no longer use vacuum tubes for mainstream audio power amplifiers because they: 1. Require an additional power supply and heat to operate. 2. Are bulky compared to their solid-state alternatives. 3. Are not available in complimentary pairs (e.g., P-channel/N-channel) 4. Have output impedance that usually requires an output transformer. None of these are insurmountable obstacles, but they do increase the size, cost, power consumption and heat load for a given output power. Similar, but less obvious considerations affect the choice of BJTs and MOSFETs. They have different characteristics, and the skilled engineer will exploit them for optimal effect -- sonic quality, economy, reliability and so on. The marketing department will define the requirements for the product based on the target market, and the engineer will attempt to design a product that fits within those constraints. In all that I have read here, I have not seen anything that would consistently make me select MOSFETs over BJTs. But I might have a preference based on a *given set* of product requirements. |
#234
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:41:43 -0500) it happened Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote in : Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. How would you synchronize the different channels? Yes, good point, timestamp would be one way, but that does not solve the delay. the delay would be fatal in a live application. Here is the idea: using the power frequency as the common timing reference. In the local WiFi network, the ping time would be at the order of 1ms, so all channels could be PLLed to the same half period of the AC power without an ambiguity. With the sufficient amount of buffering, that should allow streaming multiple synchronized channels. Sooo simple... I bet somebody already got a patent on that. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com |
#235
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:46:27 -0500) it happened Vladimir
Vassilevsky wrote in : Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:41:43 -0500) it happened Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote in : Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. How would you synchronize the different channels? Yes, good point, timestamp would be one way, but that does not solve the delay. the delay would be fatal in a live application. Here is the idea: using the power frequency as the common timing reference. In the local WiFi network, the ping time would be at the order of 1ms, so all channels could be PLLed to the same half period of the AC power without an ambiguity. With the sufficient amount of buffering, that should allow streaming multiple synchronized channels. Sooo simple... I bet somebody already got a patent on that. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com Clever! How about this: we give each speaker a GPS. It will also send back its position, and the 'mixer' will then calculate the optimum sound pattern for 5.1. GPS also has a very precise clock. |
#236
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jan Panteltje wrote: Most people are satisfied with AC3 though. Dumbing down wins again. Graham |
#237
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jorden Verwer wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Don't you at least agree there are many similarities between 1/f noise and offset? Actually, I do. By and large, they amount to the same thing. Its all low frequency variations. For example, if one designs a chopper amp to get low offset, it also kills/corrects for 1/f noise as well. If one has 1/f problems in an system, one immediately thinks about using a chopper..well I do any way... Yes, that's exactly what I meant. And a chopper amp has exactly WHAT to do with ultra high quality audio ? Graham |
#238
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Jorden Verwer wrote: MooseFET wrote: Radiation hardness Boundary condition. Safe operating area Boundary condition. Bandwidth AFAIK, BJTs still hold the world record for cutoff frequency. In devices suitable for audio amps ? You are totally incapable of staying on-topic. Graham |
#239
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
John Larkin wrote: "Jorden Verwer" wrote: RichD wrote: Who do MOSFET sound better than bipolar, as an audio amp output driver? The device properties of BJTs are superior to those of MOSFETs in all respects, except for offset - there MOSFETs have the advantage. Whether you will actually hear this depends on many more factors. Offset? Two BJTs of the same part number will have delta-Vbe well below a tenth of a volt. IME typically within a 10mV range. That saved a trimpot and the line time to adjust it on more than one occasion. A similar pair of mosfets will have Vgs-th and transfer curves that can differ by a volt or more. For vertical types, yes. Not for laterals. And the mosfet thresholds will change with time a lot more then the bjt's. No comment. Never known it be a problem with laterals. Mosfets have zero storage/desaturation time, Well, 60ns on the data sheet was good enough for me. far better SOAR specs, and are easier to drive. True. Graham |
#240
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Chronic Philharmonic wrote: "RichD" wrote Who do MOSFET sound better than bipolar, as an audio amp output driver? A lot of bits have been spilled on this thread so far, but I think it is the same question as "Why do tubes sound better than transistors?" or "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" First of all, it implies a truth that may not objectively be the case. But tubes, BJTs and MOSFETs all have very different characteristics and engineering trade-offs. Actually, certain mosfets are not at all unlike triodes. More to the point is whether you are anti-science and despise negative feedback. And / or LIKE your music deliberately distorted as some seem to do. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Simple SE output stage | Vacuum Tubes | |||
PP Output stage bias balance | Vacuum Tubes | |||
WTB: used DAC with tube output stage. | Marketplace | |||
300b output stage | Vacuum Tubes | |||
211 Ultra Linear PP output stage?? | Vacuum Tubes |