Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.

"Tony Pearce" wrote:


"wß" wrote in message
...
As I recall, Sony, yech, was the first to market an integrated
amplifier, at least in the U.S., utilizing MOSFET outputs. It would
have been late 1975 or early 1976.

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's.
If you overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony
were the first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented
the VFET, the Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

I think these amps also had switching power supplies.

Not AFAIK, mine has a two voltage levels for each rail if that's what
you mean, but it's not switch mode.

TonyP.


Ah yes, you are correct the Sony used VFets. No, I thought they used
switching guess I was completely wrong there. Memory is a funny
thing....

"Tony Pearce" wrote:


"wß" wrote in message
...
As I recall, Sony, yech, was the first to market an integrated
amplifier, at least in the U.S., utilizing MOSFET outputs. It would
have been late 1975 or early 1976.

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's.
If you overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony
were the first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented
the VFET, the Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

I think these amps also had switching power supplies.

Not AFAIK, mine has a two voltage levels for each rail if that's what
you mean, but it's not switch mode.

TonyP.


Ah yes, you are correct the Sony used VFets. No, I thought they used
switching guess I was completely wrong there. Memory is a funny
thing....

"Tony Pearce" wrote:


"wß" wrote in message
...
As I recall, Sony, yech, was the first to market an integrated
amplifier, at least in the U.S., utilizing MOSFET outputs. It would
have been late 1975 or early 1976.

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's.
If you overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony
were the first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented
the VFET, the Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

I think these amps also had switching power supplies.

Not AFAIK, mine has a two voltage levels for each rail if that's what
you mean, but it's not switch mode.

TonyP.


Ah yes, you are correct the Sony used VFets. No, I thought they used
switching guess I was completely wrong there. Memory is a funny
thing....

"Tony Pearce" wrote:


"wß" wrote in message
...
As I recall, Sony, yech, was the first to market an integrated
amplifier, at least in the U.S., utilizing MOSFET outputs. It would
have been late 1975 or early 1976.

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's.
If you overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony
were the first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented
the VFET, the Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

I think these amps also had switching power supplies.

Not AFAIK, mine has a two voltage levels for each rail if that's what
you mean, but it's not switch mode.

TonyP.


Ah yes, you are correct the Sony used VFets. No, I thought they used
switching guess I was completely wrong there. Memory is a funny
thing....

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.

He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.

He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.

He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.

He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:



A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.


He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.

Thank you for accepting to be "Pinky Warrior". )

NB : If you prefer "Pinky Cow-boy" feel free to ask.

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:



A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.


He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.

Thank you for accepting to be "Pinky Warrior". )

NB : If you prefer "Pinky Cow-boy" feel free to ask.

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:



A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.


He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.

Thank you for accepting to be "Pinky Warrior". )

NB : If you prefer "Pinky Cow-boy" feel free to ask.

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:



A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.


He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.

Thank you for accepting to be "Pinky Warrior". )

NB : If you prefer "Pinky Cow-boy" feel free to ask.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:45:57 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:



A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.


He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.

Thank you for accepting to be "Pinky Warrior". )

NB : If you prefer "Pinky Cow-boy" feel free to ask.

No problem, Liarnel.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:45:57 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:



A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.


He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.

Thank you for accepting to be "Pinky Warrior". )

NB : If you prefer "Pinky Cow-boy" feel free to ask.

No problem, Liarnel.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:45:57 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:



A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.


He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.

Thank you for accepting to be "Pinky Warrior". )

NB : If you prefer "Pinky Cow-boy" feel free to ask.

No problem, Liarnel.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:45:57 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:33:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:35:45 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:



A happy 2004 to everyone, with best hopes for a safe earwax removal to Arny
and Stew.


Nice to see you clarifying why you are universally known as 'Moron'.

Hey, Pinky Warrior give him a chance.


He's had dozens, his feet must be riddled with bullet holes.

Thank you for accepting to be "Pinky Warrior". )

NB : If you prefer "Pinky Cow-boy" feel free to ask.

No problem, Liarnel.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:22:20 +0000, "=(8888)=" wrote:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

Is there such a thing as a "general consensus" on sound qualities of
amplifiers?? IMHO Mosfet amps can be among the best solid state amps.
Especially when done in a hybrid design such as my Moscode (NYAL) or similar
designs.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:22:20 +0000, "=(8888)=" wrote:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

Is there such a thing as a "general consensus" on sound qualities of
amplifiers?? IMHO Mosfet amps can be among the best solid state amps.
Especially when done in a hybrid design such as my Moscode (NYAL) or similar
designs.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:22:20 +0000, "=(8888)=" wrote:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

Is there such a thing as a "general consensus" on sound qualities of
amplifiers?? IMHO Mosfet amps can be among the best solid state amps.
Especially when done in a hybrid design such as my Moscode (NYAL) or similar
designs.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:22:20 +0000, "=(8888)=" wrote:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

Is there such a thing as a "general consensus" on sound qualities of
amplifiers?? IMHO Mosfet amps can be among the best solid state amps.
Especially when done in a hybrid design such as my Moscode (NYAL) or similar
designs.

"=(8888)=" said:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

The character rather depends on the circuitry.
Theoretically, (MOS)FETS are, like tubes, voltage driven instead of
power driven.
Unlike tubes, there's a big capacity at the gate/source junction, that
has to be charged and discharged. The value of this cap varies from
several hundred pFs to some nF, and is not constant over frequency and
driving range.
This requires some capacity of the driver stage to sink or deliver
current.

Also, it depends whether the sources or the drains are connected to
the load (in a complementary PP configuration).
In the latter case, the Rout is rather high (within limits) and
frequency-dependant.
This can be seen as an ideal voltage source with a certain Ri, causing
a lower DF than with BJTs.
This somewhat resembles a "tubey" sound, although there are more
parameters responsible for this characterization.

All of this without NFB, adding a decent amount of NFB will give a
cleaner sound.

A complementary PP configuration with the sources at the load will
usually have better technical specifications, and is somewhat simpler
to imply.
Otherwise, it's entirely possible to tweak the sound to your personal
wishes, as is the case with almost all amplifier topology.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"=(8888)=" said:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

The character rather depends on the circuitry.
Theoretically, (MOS)FETS are, like tubes, voltage driven instead of
power driven.
Unlike tubes, there's a big capacity at the gate/source junction, that
has to be charged and discharged. The value of this cap varies from
several hundred pFs to some nF, and is not constant over frequency and
driving range.
This requires some capacity of the driver stage to sink or deliver
current.

Also, it depends whether the sources or the drains are connected to
the load (in a complementary PP configuration).
In the latter case, the Rout is rather high (within limits) and
frequency-dependant.
This can be seen as an ideal voltage source with a certain Ri, causing
a lower DF than with BJTs.
This somewhat resembles a "tubey" sound, although there are more
parameters responsible for this characterization.

All of this without NFB, adding a decent amount of NFB will give a
cleaner sound.

A complementary PP configuration with the sources at the load will
usually have better technical specifications, and is somewhat simpler
to imply.
Otherwise, it's entirely possible to tweak the sound to your personal
wishes, as is the case with almost all amplifier topology.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"=(8888)=" said:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

The character rather depends on the circuitry.
Theoretically, (MOS)FETS are, like tubes, voltage driven instead of
power driven.
Unlike tubes, there's a big capacity at the gate/source junction, that
has to be charged and discharged. The value of this cap varies from
several hundred pFs to some nF, and is not constant over frequency and
driving range.
This requires some capacity of the driver stage to sink or deliver
current.

Also, it depends whether the sources or the drains are connected to
the load (in a complementary PP configuration).
In the latter case, the Rout is rather high (within limits) and
frequency-dependant.
This can be seen as an ideal voltage source with a certain Ri, causing
a lower DF than with BJTs.
This somewhat resembles a "tubey" sound, although there are more
parameters responsible for this characterization.

All of this without NFB, adding a decent amount of NFB will give a
cleaner sound.

A complementary PP configuration with the sources at the load will
usually have better technical specifications, and is somewhat simpler
to imply.
Otherwise, it's entirely possible to tweak the sound to your personal
wishes, as is the case with almost all amplifier topology.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"=(8888)=" said:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

The character rather depends on the circuitry.
Theoretically, (MOS)FETS are, like tubes, voltage driven instead of
power driven.
Unlike tubes, there's a big capacity at the gate/source junction, that
has to be charged and discharged. The value of this cap varies from
several hundred pFs to some nF, and is not constant over frequency and
driving range.
This requires some capacity of the driver stage to sink or deliver
current.

Also, it depends whether the sources or the drains are connected to
the load (in a complementary PP configuration).
In the latter case, the Rout is rather high (within limits) and
frequency-dependant.
This can be seen as an ideal voltage source with a certain Ri, causing
a lower DF than with BJTs.
This somewhat resembles a "tubey" sound, although there are more
parameters responsible for this characterization.

All of this without NFB, adding a decent amount of NFB will give a
cleaner sound.

A complementary PP configuration with the sources at the load will
usually have better technical specifications, and is somewhat simpler
to imply.
Otherwise, it's entirely possible to tweak the sound to your personal
wishes, as is the case with almost all amplifier topology.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"Alan Peterman" wrote in message

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:22:20 +0000, "=(8888)="
wrote:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

Is there such a thing as a "general consensus" on sound qualities of
amplifiers??

Only in the minds of people who wish to assert such things.

IMHO Mosfet amps can be among the best solid state amps.

No argument from me there.

Especially when done in a hybrid design such as my Moscode (NYAL) or
similar designs.

Seems to me like a case of "bottling-up" the potential of MOSFETs for good
sound.

"Alan Peterman" wrote in message

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:22:20 +0000, "=(8888)="
wrote:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

Is there such a thing as a "general consensus" on sound qualities of
amplifiers??

Only in the minds of people who wish to assert such things.

IMHO Mosfet amps can be among the best solid state amps.

No argument from me there.

Especially when done in a hybrid design such as my Moscode (NYAL) or
similar designs.

Seems to me like a case of "bottling-up" the potential of MOSFETs for good
sound.

"Alan Peterman" wrote in message

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:22:20 +0000, "=(8888)="
wrote:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

Is there such a thing as a "general consensus" on sound qualities of
amplifiers??

Only in the minds of people who wish to assert such things.

IMHO Mosfet amps can be among the best solid state amps.

No argument from me there.

Especially when done in a hybrid design such as my Moscode (NYAL) or
similar designs.

Seems to me like a case of "bottling-up" the potential of MOSFETs for good
sound.

"Alan Peterman" wrote in message

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:22:20 +0000, "=(8888)="
wrote:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

Is there such a thing as a "general consensus" on sound qualities of
amplifiers??

Only in the minds of people who wish to assert such things.

IMHO Mosfet amps can be among the best solid state amps.

No argument from me there.

Especially when done in a hybrid design such as my Moscode (NYAL) or
similar designs.

Seems to me like a case of "bottling-up" the potential of MOSFETs for good
sound.

"=(8888)=" wrote:

"Sander deWaal" emitted :

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's.
If you overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony
were the first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented
the VFET, the Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

IIRC, Yamaha had an amp around that time (B1 or B2?) with 2SK77
MOSFETS. A giant beast, and those transistors looked like 2N3055s on
steroids (twice the size of a TO-3) . Cool!

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t


My Hafler was as neutral as anything I could afford. I A/B'd it with a
Mac MC2100 and with a little care in setup found no audible difference.
Nicer bass than the comparable 100 wpc Audionics amp, can't remember the
model.Nice tight bass, good imaging with the right speakers, and bullet
proof!
Can't speak for anything else though.

"=(8888)=" wrote:

"Sander deWaal" emitted :

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's.
If you overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony
were the first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented
the VFET, the Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

IIRC, Yamaha had an amp around that time (B1 or B2?) with 2SK77
MOSFETS. A giant beast, and those transistors looked like 2N3055s on
steroids (twice the size of a TO-3) . Cool!

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t


My Hafler was as neutral as anything I could afford. I A/B'd it with a
Mac MC2100 and with a little care in setup found no audible difference.
Nicer bass than the comparable 100 wpc Audionics amp, can't remember the
model.Nice tight bass, good imaging with the right speakers, and bullet
proof!
Can't speak for anything else though.

"=(8888)=" wrote:

"Sander deWaal" emitted :

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's.
If you overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony
were the first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented
the VFET, the Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

IIRC, Yamaha had an amp around that time (B1 or B2?) with 2SK77
MOSFETS. A giant beast, and those transistors looked like 2N3055s on
steroids (twice the size of a TO-3) . Cool!

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t


My Hafler was as neutral as anything I could afford. I A/B'd it with a
Mac MC2100 and with a little care in setup found no audible difference.
Nicer bass than the comparable 100 wpc Audionics amp, can't remember the
model.Nice tight bass, good imaging with the right speakers, and bullet
proof!
Can't speak for anything else though.

"=(8888)=" wrote:

"Sander deWaal" emitted :

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's.
If you overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony
were the first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented
the VFET, the Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

IIRC, Yamaha had an amp around that time (B1 or B2?) with 2SK77
MOSFETS. A giant beast, and those transistors looked like 2N3055s on
steroids (twice the size of a TO-3) . Cool!

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t


My Hafler was as neutral as anything I could afford. I A/B'd it with a
Mac MC2100 and with a little care in setup found no audible difference.
Nicer bass than the comparable 100 wpc Audionics amp, can't remember the
model.Nice tight bass, good imaging with the right speakers, and bullet
proof!
Can't speak for anything else though.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"=(8888)=" said:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I
had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but
clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

I'm of the school that doesn't want an amp to have a sound of
it's own. That is, an amp should be neutral and add only gain.
This can be accomplished with MOSFETs or bipolar.

The character rather depends on the circuitry.
Theoretically, (MOS)FETS are, like tubes, voltage driven
instead of
power driven.

Bipolars are current driven, not power.

MOSFETs at DC are voltage driven but AC requires gate charge
current.

Unlike tubes, there's a big capacity at the gate/source
junction, that
has to be charged and discharged. The value of this cap varies
from
several hundred pFs to some nF, and is not constant over
frequency and
driving range.

Although commonly referred to as gate capacitance it's not a very
accurate description since the capacitance is non-linear. Gate
charge can be a better term.

This requires some capacity of the driver stage to sink or
deliver
current.

Depending upon design the gate current requirement can be higher
than bipolar. Small nitpick - the driver stage will always have
to sink AND source current.

Also, it depends whether the sources or the drains are
connected to
the load (in a complementary PP configuration).
In the latter case, the Rout is rather high (within limits) and
frequency-dependant.

Not necessarily, since it also depends on devices and control.

This can be seen as an ideal voltage source with a certain Ri,
causing
a lower DF than with BJTs.

Not necessarily, since it also depends on devices and control.

This somewhat resembles a "tubey" sound, although there are
more
parameters responsible for this characterization.

Not necessarily. The design can be made transparent with no
audible effects other than gain.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"=(8888)=" said:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I
had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but
clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

I'm of the school that doesn't want an amp to have a sound of
it's own. That is, an amp should be neutral and add only gain.
This can be accomplished with MOSFETs or bipolar.

The character rather depends on the circuitry.
Theoretically, (MOS)FETS are, like tubes, voltage driven
instead of
power driven.

Bipolars are current driven, not power.

MOSFETs at DC are voltage driven but AC requires gate charge
current.

Unlike tubes, there's a big capacity at the gate/source
junction, that
has to be charged and discharged. The value of this cap varies
from
several hundred pFs to some nF, and is not constant over
frequency and
driving range.

Although commonly referred to as gate capacitance it's not a very
accurate description since the capacitance is non-linear. Gate
charge can be a better term.

This requires some capacity of the driver stage to sink or
deliver
current.

Depending upon design the gate current requirement can be higher
than bipolar. Small nitpick - the driver stage will always have
to sink AND source current.

Also, it depends whether the sources or the drains are
connected to
the load (in a complementary PP configuration).
In the latter case, the Rout is rather high (within limits) and
frequency-dependant.

Not necessarily, since it also depends on devices and control.

This can be seen as an ideal voltage source with a certain Ri,
causing
a lower DF than with BJTs.

Not necessarily, since it also depends on devices and control.

This somewhat resembles a "tubey" sound, although there are
more
parameters responsible for this characterization.

Not necessarily. The design can be made transparent with no
audible effects other than gain.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"=(8888)=" said:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I
had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but
clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

I'm of the school that doesn't want an amp to have a sound of
it's own. That is, an amp should be neutral and add only gain.
This can be accomplished with MOSFETs or bipolar.

The character rather depends on the circuitry.
Theoretically, (MOS)FETS are, like tubes, voltage driven
instead of
power driven.

Bipolars are current driven, not power.

MOSFETs at DC are voltage driven but AC requires gate charge
current.

Unlike tubes, there's a big capacity at the gate/source
junction, that
has to be charged and discharged. The value of this cap varies
from
several hundred pFs to some nF, and is not constant over
frequency and
driving range.

Although commonly referred to as gate capacitance it's not a very
accurate description since the capacitance is non-linear. Gate
charge can be a better term.

This requires some capacity of the driver stage to sink or
deliver
current.

Depending upon design the gate current requirement can be higher
than bipolar. Small nitpick - the driver stage will always have
to sink AND source current.

Also, it depends whether the sources or the drains are
connected to
the load (in a complementary PP configuration).
In the latter case, the Rout is rather high (within limits) and
frequency-dependant.

Not necessarily, since it also depends on devices and control.

This can be seen as an ideal voltage source with a certain Ri,
causing
a lower DF than with BJTs.

Not necessarily, since it also depends on devices and control.

This somewhat resembles a "tubey" sound, although there are
more
parameters responsible for this characterization.

Not necessarily. The design can be made transparent with no
audible effects other than gain.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"=(8888)=" said:

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I
had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but
clinical
sounding vs tube amps.

I'm of the school that doesn't want an amp to have a sound of
it's own. That is, an amp should be neutral and add only gain.
This can be accomplished with MOSFETs or bipolar.

The character rather depends on the circuitry.
Theoretically, (MOS)FETS are, like tubes, voltage driven
instead of
power driven.

Bipolars are current driven, not power.

MOSFETs at DC are voltage driven but AC requires gate charge
current.

Unlike tubes, there's a big capacity at the gate/source
junction, that
has to be charged and discharged. The value of this cap varies
from
several hundred pFs to some nF, and is not constant over
frequency and
driving range.

Although commonly referred to as gate capacitance it's not a very
accurate description since the capacitance is non-linear. Gate
charge can be a better term.

This requires some capacity of the driver stage to sink or
deliver
current.

Depending upon design the gate current requirement can be higher
than bipolar. Small nitpick - the driver stage will always have
to sink AND source current.

Also, it depends whether the sources or the drains are
connected to
the load (in a complementary PP configuration).
In the latter case, the Rout is rather high (within limits) and
frequency-dependant.

Not necessarily, since it also depends on devices and control.

This can be seen as an ideal voltage source with a certain Ri,
causing
a lower DF than with BJTs.

Not necessarily, since it also depends on devices and control.

This somewhat resembles a "tubey" sound, although there are
more
parameters responsible for this characterization.

Not necessarily. The design can be made transparent with no
audible effects other than gain.

"=(8888)=" wrote in message
...
"Sander deWaal" emitted :

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's. If
you
overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony were the
first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented the VFET,
the
Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

IIRC, Yamaha had an amp around that time (B1 or B2?) with 2SK77
MOSFETS. A giant beast, and those transistors looked like 2N3055s on
steroids (twice the size of a TO-3) . Cool!

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.


Like home hi fi amps guitar amps made with tubes generate Euphonic
distortion, that is distortion that pleases the ear, or at least the person
playing a guitar through one.

Tube amps are preferred by many if not most guitar players because they
distort in a way that allows them another way to create.

MOSFET's don't distort audibly unless over driven (or badly designed or
broken). For other instruments MOSFET would be the more likely choice.

--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

"=(8888)=" wrote in message
...
"Sander deWaal" emitted :

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's. If
you
overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony were the
first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented the VFET,
the
Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

IIRC, Yamaha had an amp around that time (B1 or B2?) with 2SK77
MOSFETS. A giant beast, and those transistors looked like 2N3055s on
steroids (twice the size of a TO-3) . Cool!

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.


Like home hi fi amps guitar amps made with tubes generate Euphonic
distortion, that is distortion that pleases the ear, or at least the person
playing a guitar through one.

Tube amps are preferred by many if not most guitar players because they
distort in a way that allows them another way to create.

MOSFET's don't distort audibly unless over driven (or badly designed or
broken). For other instruments MOSFET would be the more likely choice.

--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

"=(8888)=" wrote in message
...
"Sander deWaal" emitted :

I still have a Sony amp from 1975, but they used VFETS, not MOSFET's. If
you
overlook the device construction difference, then I think Sony were the
first to use high power FET's in a power amp. Sony invented the VFET,
the
Hitachi power MosFET's came later.

IIRC, Yamaha had an amp around that time (B1 or B2?) with 2SK77
MOSFETS. A giant beast, and those transistors looked like 2N3055s on
steroids (twice the size of a TO-3) . Cool!

What is the general consensus for the sound of MOSFET amps? I had a
Session guitar amp that employed MOSFETs, was very clean but clinical
sounding vs tube amps.


Like home hi fi amps guitar amps made with tubes generate Euphonic
distortion, that is distortion that pleases the ear, or at least the person
playing a guitar through one.

Tube amps are preferred by many if not most guitar players because they
distort in a way that allows them another way to create.

MOSFET's don't distort audibly unless over driven (or badly designed or
broken). For other instruments MOSFET would be the more likely choice.

--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t